Category: blaze media

Music originates in heaven. Scripture tells us that angels sing and play instruments. Life in heaven centers around eternal worship. Revelation foretells a time when, after Satan’s ultimate defeat, joyous songs of victory and triumph will resound in heaven, celebrating God’s glory.

It’s inarguable that music is a good gift from God that serves a purpose in His kingdom. But like all good gifts, it can be corrupted by Satan — and it has been. Today, a staggering amount of music, especially popular music, contains demonic messaging.

But it goes even deeper than profane, debaucherous lyrics and sin-promoting artists.

“Behind a lot of musical success are demon-possessed people,” says Rick Burgess, BlazeTV host of “Strange Encounters,” a podcast that explores spiritual warfare.

The pervasive darkness in the entertainment industry has fueled a widespread conspiracy theory about the illuminati — a secretive, occult group believed to control the music industry, manipulating culture through artists, lyrics, and symbolism to advance a satanic agenda.

But is it really a conspiracy theory?

Rick plays a recent viral clip of an emerging American rapper and producer from Atlanta, Georgia, named Lil Tony, whose full name is Tekai Elijah Key. On evangelist and street preacher Bryce Crawford’s podcast, the artist shared the terrifying experience that convinced him that the illuminati, God, and Satan are all real.

“I got booked for a photoshoot. They took me all the way up this mountain. I was on top of the mountain. We finished the photo shoot. They have OD cars. They got a three-seater McLaren. They got a Ferrari. And I’m asking them, like, ‘How y’all get all this money?’ They like, ‘We do demonic rituals,”’ Key recounted.

When he pressed the crew on how they really obtained such wealth, believing their original answer was a joke, they doubled down. “The illuminati never talk to you?” they asked him, claiming that Leonardo DiCaprio conducts the initiation ceremonies, which involve sexual acts.

Weirded out, Lil Tony tried to call an Uber to pick him up, but because he was in the mountains, he had no cell service. He was forced to drive back with another person who was part of the photoshoot. On the way down, this driver suddenly took a different route.

“His face changed,” said Key, comparing the scene to how Spider Man’s face morphs into the sinister visage of Venom. “It threw me all the way off.”

Right as his creepy driver was backing into somebody’s driveway, his saving grace came in the form of a mailman.

“I start running up to him like, ‘Hey bro, let me get in the back of your truck,’” Key recounted, admitting that he resorted to practically begging the mailman to help him get off the mountain.

“It was God. He took me down to the bottom. … The people on camera, you ain’t gotta believe me. I don’t care. I’m not lying. I really saw this. That’s what made me know that the devil and God was real,” he told Crawford.

“I don’t know whether that is true or not true. … Now, do I know that these things are out there? I feel very strong about that,” says Rick.

To hear Rick’s in-depth analysis of the darkness in the music industry, as well as other topics, like spiritual house cleaning, watch the full 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, Rick burgess, Demons, Demonic, Blazetv, Blaze media, Blaze, Lil tony, Illuminati, Spiritual warfare, Hollywood elites, Leonardo dicaprio 

Big news: California’s iron grip on the automotive market could finally be over!

The Stop CARB Act, introduced in the U.S. Senate as part of larger legislative efforts to address vehicle regulations, is generating a lot of buzz for its aim to curb the influence of the California Air Resources Board on national auto standards.

Whether you’re a truck enthusiast, a daily commuter, or an auto industry worker, this bill touches your life.

This bill seeks to limit CARB’s ability to set stringent emission rules that impact not just California but 17 other states. As debates over vehicle costs, consumer choice, and environmental regulations heat up, the Stop CARB Act could reshape how cars are built and sold across America.

What is the Stop CARB Act?

The Stop CARB Act is a proposed piece of legislation focused on restricting the California Air Resources Board’s authority to enforce its own vehicle emission standards, particularly those stricter than federal regulations.

While the bill is often discussed in connection with the Transportation Freedom Act (S.711), introduced on February 25, 2025, by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), the Stop CARB Act specifically targets CARB’s waivers under the Clean Air Act. The bill aims to eliminate these waivers, preventing California from dictating emission policies beyond its borders and blocking other states from following its lead.

Currently, S.711, which includes provisions aligned with the Stop CARB Act’s goals, is pending in the Senate Committee on Finance, with no floor vote scheduled as of September 3, 2025.

Sponsored by Sens. Moreno, Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), and Jim Justice (R-W.V.), the broader Transportation Freedom Act also seeks to repeal federal emission standards, such as the EPA’s Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 2027 and later model years and Phase 3 heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas rules, while offering tax deductions for auto manufacturing wages. The Stop CARB Act’s focus on CARB makes it a key component of this larger deregulation effort.

Why do we need it?

CARB’s influence stems from a unique provision in the Clean Air Act, which allows California to request waivers to set stricter emission standards than the federal government. Since the 1970s, CARB has used this authority to implement rules like the Advanced Clean Cars II program, which mandates zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

Seventeen other states, representing over 40% of the U.S. population, have adopted CARB’s standards, effectively giving California outsized influence over national auto markets — even though it arguably violates the Constitution.

The Stop CARB Act argues aims to remedy this in a few key ways:

Reducing costs for consumers: CARB’s strict standards require automakers to invest heavily in technologies like electric vehicles or advanced combustion engines. These costs often raise vehicle prices, with estimates suggesting compliance could add thousands to the sticker price of new cars. By limiting CARB’s waivers, the bill aims to lower these costs, making vehicles more affordable for everyday Americans.

Streamlining regulations: The patchwork of federal, California, and state-adopted CARB standards creates complexity for automakers. Companies must design vehicles to meet multiple requirements, increasing production costs and delaying innovation. The Stop CARB Act seeks to establish uniform federal standards, simplifying compliance and fostering a more predictable market.

Preserving consumer choice: CARB’s push for zero-emission vehicles by 2035 limits the availability of gas-powered cars, trucks, and SUVs, which many drivers prefer for their affordability, range, or utility. The bill aims to protect consumer choice by preventing California’s mandates from dominating national markets.

Supporting U.S. manufacturing: Companies like General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota — as well as the National Automobile Dealers Association — argue that CARB’s rules strain manufacturers, particularly smaller suppliers. By curbing CARB’s influence, the bill could reduce compliance costs, boost domestic production, and create jobs.

RELATED: Ride or die: How Ford, Honda, VW, and 3 more got stuck with California’s strict emission standards

Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

CARB counting

The bill’s progress is uncertain, given the polarized views on environmental policy and state rights. If scheduled and it passes the Senate, it must clear the House and gain presidential approval. Legal challenges from California or environmental groups could also delay implementation if the bill becomes law. The next goal is to get this bill on the floor to vote on it.

Whether you’re a truck enthusiast, a daily commuter, or an auto industry worker, this bill touches your life. Will it lower vehicle costs and preserve your choice of gas-powered cars? Or will California continue to tell you what to drive? It’s time to reach out to your senators and representatives to tell them to get this bill to the floor.

​Ev mandate, California, Donald trump, Zev, Carb, Transportation freedom act, Align cars 

If you are reading this, you should not be.

Because you are reading this on LED light. This is an abbreviation for Luciferian emission devices.

Knowing this, then … so what? Sew buttons on your underwear. This is what my mother would tell me. She is wonderful. Is your mother wonderful? Do you love her? Do you honor her?

Do you do her honor when you are on your iPhone? Or have you forsaken your mother in favor of an image of yourself curated by an algorithm?

This is why everyone who stays online for long enough goes insane, one way or another.

Surely, you know that this is being done to you every time you look at an LED device. But are you in control of your device? Or is your device in control of you? Either way — how would you know? You could know if you noticed. But noticing is hard. Have you, for example, ever noticed how hideous LED lights are? The harsh, bright white light. It is unnatural.

Here’s a trick question: When is the last time you did drugs? Here’s the trick: You are doing a drug right now.

A drug, according to one Joe Rogan podcast guest — or rather, a guest who was quoting a cynical but realistic professor of medicine — is a substance that when put into your body produces a measurable effect.

Light, then, is a drug.

Light comes not only into your eyes, but also bathes your skin. Sunbathing is fun. Have you ever bathed naked in a white room of LED light? It would be less fun and is not recommended. And yet, as doctors know, tanning salons can be healthy. It is all a question of Vitamin D. This is a hormone, actually, produced mostly endogenously — although it can be taken orally.

If you watch a sunset on a beach, you will sleep well that night. This is science. And you believe in science, do you not — anon?

If you believe in science, you should know that being in an LED-lit room and then just turning off the light, bathing your face in an LED-lit machine glow, reading articles, and looking at images will not help you sleep.

And if you believe in science, you should know that sleeping well is good, actually. So then why — pray tell — were incandescent lights banned by Obama? For the environment? Did anyone actually believe that?

RELATED: Sun’s out, guns out: Finally, therapy even men can enjoy

Photo by Luke Hales / Contributor via Getty Images

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn’t there — it has been said.

Obama was the first president to tweet. His reign lasted eight years. Then the world caught on fire. The fire was orange. Everyone got deranged. Well, not everyone. But everyone who hated the color orange so much that their entire lives became consumed by a pathetic fiery pathos, summarized in three words: Orange Man Bad.

But Heraclitus said that the world is fire. And only fire.

Earth? Wind? Water? You do not feel these elements when you are inside, bathed in LED light. You do not feel these elements when you are outside, staring at your iPhone. Or Samsung. What are you, an Android? If so, do you even dream of electric sheep?

Every time you submit to the LED-lit algorithm, you trigger yourself. This is true. Because the algorithm is designed to trigger you. This is how the “apps” make money off of you. This is why everyone who stays online for long enough goes insane, one way or another. And usually in a bad way if they don’t log off and love someone or something real.

What does Hillary Clinton really love? Her adulterous husband? Her email server? The United States of America? At this point, what difference would it make?

She wrote her college thesis on a man who wrote a book that started with an epigraph honoring Lucifer in his own words. That man’s name was Saul Alinsky. She deeply disappointed him. He was right. She proved him right by being the biggest loser in American politics of the past half-century.

But her emails! Her emails were not good for her. She would have been better off if she stuck with incandescent light bulbs. But the world did not stay that way. She was defeated by a half-black man, who was cooler than she was because he mastered the LED light show. And then she was defeated by an Orange Man, so that you could log off and go outside and enjoy being in America once again.

Throw away your LED lights. Buy incandescent. It is more like fire and less Satanic.

​Digital superstitions 

Bill Maher urged the left to stop equating President Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler, arguing that “makes it a lot easier to justify things like assassination.”

‘I’m no fan of this guy but he is right, and people on the Left like him need to call for this as well.’

Maher made the comments on a Friday episode of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” His remarks followed the tragic assassination earlier this week of Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk.

Maher mentioned Trump’s recent dinner at Joe’s Seafood, Prime Steak & Stone Crab in Washington, D.C., where left-wing protesters confronted him.

“Trump is the Hitler of our time! Free D.C., free Palestine!” the protesters chanted.

As they were escorted out of the building, they told diners, “You should all be ashamed that [Trump] was welcomed here. He’s terrorizing communities in D.C. He’s terrorizing communities all over the world, from Puerto Rico to the Philippines, to Palestine, to Venezuela.”

RELATED: Filmmaker David Mamet tells Bill Maher that Democrats have destroyed the family — and he agrees

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Maher told his audience, “This s*** has to stop, too. [Trump] went out to dinner — I wouldn’t have done that — in Washington, D.C., okay. And people started to gather around him, and they were chanting, ‘You’re the Hitler of our time.'”

“First of all, assholes, he’s not Hitler. An insult to everybody in the Holocaust, to begin with,” Maher continued. “Second of all, calling somebody Hitler makes it a lot easier to justify things like assassination. Let’s put a s***load of that away, shall we?”

RELATED: Bill Maher shocks with humble admission about Trump: ‘I gotta own it’

Photo by BEN STANSALL/AFP via Getty Images

X users reacted to Maher’s comments.

“Gotta give credit to Bill Maher for being basically the only person in his party to acknowledge the damage Democrats have done by calling everyone they don’t like Hitler,” Outkick writer Ian Miller stated.

Shawn Farash wrote, “Bill Maher believes people should STOP calling Trump ‘Hitler’ because it leads to the justification for assassination. I’m no fan of this guy but he is right, and people on the Left like him need to call for this as well.”

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

​News, Washington d.c., Washington dc, Dc, D.c., Donald trump, Trump, Bill maher, Politics 

Less than 20 minutes after Taylor Swift posted photos celebrating her engagement to Travis Kelce to Instagram, the comments section filled with young fans warning her to get a prenup or to resist taking Travis’ last name.

For the fanbase, this engagement was an exciting personal achievement, but one that was not meant to be overshadowed by her individual professional achievements. They didn’t want to lose sight of the brand Swift has meticulously crafted over the past two decades.

Their engagement is touted as the ideal American relationship — but it’s not.

Swift is something of a marketing genius, constantly altering her image and music to adapt to what is culturally relevant. This skill for promotion reached its peak when she began dating Kelce, a relationship that was exhaustingly promoted by everyone from TMZ to the NFL.

Perfect illusion

Seeing the couple take the next step in their relationship is, generally, a good thing. Many conservatives rushed to defend the couple against those who were weary after the endless, inescapable coverage of their romance.

Their defense was correct: It is good for young people to see examples of healthy relationships ending in marriage. Swift, one of the most profitable musicians of all time, has become a cultural icon who many young women look up to. Seeing her mature into marriage is an encouraging illustration for her loyal fanbase.

But it’s also a kind of illusion.

Swift and Kelce, both 35 years old, are millionaires several times over. They each have achieved international stardom, forging lives, careers, and fame long before they began building a life together. Their combined net worth is a number that would make most Americans laugh as they fret over the price of eggs, gas, and college.

Their engagement is touted as the ideal American relationship — but it’s not. Their engagement came only after they first pursued individual personal success. They waited until their mid-30s to begin the marital process, instead expending their younger years focusing on worldly success above all else.

They will likely never have to worry about mortgages or grocery bills, their children will probably never have to save money for college, and their age of retirement will not be based on financial necessity. Their coming marriage is entirely different from the typical American marriage.

Broken blueprint

But why is that a bad thing?

In a recent poll of Gen Z Americans, 34% of men who voted for President Donald Trump said that having children is the most important part of their personal definition of success. Of that same group, 29% defined their personal success by being married. On the other hand, 51% women who voted for Kamala Harris said the most important definition of personal success is having a fulfilling job or career. Shockingly, only 6% of those women believe that having children or being married are definitions of success. Even women who voted for Trump ranked their financial independence and career success above familial obligations.

It’s no secret that our culture is divided. But this polling reveals where the line is drawn and how deeply it’s splitting society apart. Young women, who make up a large portion of Swift’s audience, are focused on fiscal obligations. Young conservative men, who are seeking family life above all else, are the outliers.

Gen Z sees marriage as something that can only come after they have achieved financial independence and professional success. Wherein marriage was once the foundation of a healthy, thriving society, it’s now the capstone on a fully established life.

Need more proof? Shortly after World War II, the median age for marriage was between 20 and 22. Today, that number is much closer to 30. Meanwhile, between 1900 and 2022, the U.S. marriage rate dropped by almost 60%.

Twisted priorities

Pundits use a plethora of excuses for these changes. They blame financial insecurity, inflation rates, crime statistics, souring housing prices, and societal disasters, like 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic. But wars, famines, and periods of uncertainty have always been a part of the human experience.

The real problem is rooted in how young people are now taught to view marriage.

RELATED: Misogyny? Please: Our real problem is female entitlement

David Eulitt/Getty Images

Zoomers are taught that personal identity and financial success are life’s greatest achievements. Public schools relentlessly promote college education as the predominant adolescent accomplishment and cite university degrees as distinguished identities. A secure bank account and a high-yield stock portfolio are championed above building families.

The feminist movement has clearly made this problem much more severe for young women. As seen in the polling, women are subjected to this financial enslavement regardless of political affiliation. And as feminism wormed its way into every aspect of our culture, it removed the value of being a loving wife and mother. From an early age, young girls are told that they have been freed from the “oppression” of familial duties. Instead, they are encouraged to build corporate, highly marketable identities.

It’s good to see Swift and Kelce take on the responsibility of marriage. But the idea that marriage is the capstone of an economically viable partnership is a rejection of the natural order.

Fans who want to see Swift sign a prenup and refuse to change her name are the manifestation of a confused generation. They have been taught to think that it’s better to isolate the individual for their valuable branding rather than find peace in the glory of marriage.

​Taylor swift, Travis kelce, Taylor swift engaged, Marriage, Gen z 

Jenny Lynne Boelter, the wife of political assassination suspect Vance Luther Boelter, has filed for divorce in Sibley County, Minnesota.

According to Minnesota court records, Jenny Boelter, 51, of Green Isle, Minn., filed suit for divorce on Aug. 29. She is represented by family law attorney Maury Beaulier. Vance Boelter is listed on the case docket as a self-represented litigant.

Beaulier told Blaze News that Jenny Boelter “will not be making a further statement.”

‘We are appalled and horrified by what occurred.’

Both of the Boelters filed a motion and stipulation to seal all of the case records. Sibley County District Court Judge Amber Donley issued an order to that effect on Sept. 2.

The suit is listed as “dissolution with children.” The Boelters have five children, four of whom have reached adulthood.

Vance Boelter, 58, faces a slew of federal and state murder-related charges from the June 14 assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park), her husband, Mark Hortman, and their golden retriever, Gilbert.

He also faces attempted murder charges for the shooting and grievous wounding of state Sen. John Hoffman (DFL-Champlin) and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, and the attempted shooting of their daughter, Hope Hoffman.

RELATED: Assassination suspect Vance Boelter tells STUNNING inside story about shooting

Vance and Jennifer (Doskocil) Boelter were married on Oct. 4, 1997. They have five children.Jenny Boelter/Facebook

A Minnesota grand jury on Aug. 14 indicted Vance Boelter on eight criminal counts, including first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree murder, impersonating a police officer, and felony cruelty to an animal.

He earlier pleaded not guilty to six federal grand jury charges that include stalking, murder, attempted murder, and firearms offenses related to the other felonies. Boelter could face the death penalty for the federal murder charge. He will be in federal court in November for a status conference.

Vance Boelter is being held for trial at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minn. Hennepin County set his bail at $5 million on the state charges. He won’t face state prosecution until the federal charges are resolved.

The Boelters were married in October 1997. The family moved around quite a bit with Vance Boelter’s numerous jobs in the food-processing industry. They lived in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, according to property records.

The Boelters were partners in nonprofit charitable and religious ventures, including Revoformation Ministries Inc. and You Give Them Something to Eat Inc. They were also part of a partnership that owned Red Lion Group, a company dedicated to increasing locally grown food supplies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The other partners are the Rev. Mcnay Nkashama and his wife, Nathalie, according to documents obtained by Blaze News.

The Boelters attempted to establish a security company in 1999 and again in 2018. The more recent business, Praetorian Guard Security Services LLC, invested in equipment, including decommissioned police vehicles, but the business never got off the ground. Jenny Boelter was listed on the company website as president and CEO of Praetorian Guard, and Vance Boelter was named as director of security patrols.

One of the Praetorian Guard vehicles, a 2015 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor, was allegedly used to shuttle Vance Boelter to the homes of four Democratic Minnesota state legislators on June 14. Prosecutors said Boelter’s plan was to murder the lawmakers. Boelter has said he planned only to make citizen arrests but that plan went horribly wrong. The vehicle was originally owned by the Osceola Police Department in Polk County, Wis., according to title records.

RELATED: How did a religious, small-town Minnesota boy morph into an alleged political assassin?

The stuff of nightmares: Vance Luther Boelter allegedly sought to kill 4 Minnesota lawmakers in the overnight hours on June 14, 2025. Photos by FBI and Liz Collin/Alpha News

The suspect’s first stop just after 2 a.m. on June 14 was the Hoffman home in Champlin. According to Hennepin County prosecutors, the senator and his wife were able to push Vance Boelter out of the front entry of the home and close the door. He then allegedly fired at least nine shots through the door, striking the senator nine times and causing eight bullet wounds to Yvette Hoffman.

In an interview with Blaze News from behind bars, Boelter claimed he opened fire on the Hoffmans only because they placed hands on him and he feared losing control of his weapon. Boelter said he had no intention of shooting anyone on June 14.

‘There’s gonna be some people coming to the house armed and trigger-happy.’

After finding his second alleged target in Maple Grove was not at home and being scared off from his third target by a New Hope Police Department squad car, Boelter allegedly drove to Brooklyn Park and the home of the Hortmans, the FBI said.

He was at the front door speaking to Mark Hortman when Brooklyn Park police drove up about 3:30 a.m., prosecutors said. Boelter then shot Mark Hortman, forced his way inside the home, and gunned down Melissa Hortman and the family dog, prosecutors said.

Boelter allegedly texted his wife and children about three hours after the murders and said, “Dad went to war last night.” In a separate text to Jenny Boelter, Vance Boelter apologized for creating the mayhem the family was about to face, police said.

“Words are not gonna explain how sorry I am for this situation,” Boelter wrote, according to the FBI. “… There’s gonna be some people coming to the house armed and trigger-happy and I don’t want you guys around.”

The FBI said Jenny Boelter took the children and fled the family home at her husband’s suggestion. Police were tracking her vehicle. Reached by phone, Jenny Boelter agreed to pull over and wait for law enforcement near Onamia, Minn.

She gave police permission to search the family vehicle and her cell phone. In the vehicle, police found two handguns, ammunition, passports, and about $10,000 in cash. She was not detained and has not been charged in the case.

Jenny Boelter retained the Halberg Criminal Defense law firm. On June 26, she released a statement saying she was “absolutely shocked, heartbroken, and completely blindsided” by the shooting rampage.

“It is a betrayal of everything we hold true as tenets of our Christian faith. We are appalled and horrified by what occurred and our hearts are incredibly heavy for the victims of this unfathomable tragedy.”

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

​Politics 

One of the challenges of being a teacher is having to deal with how different young people are not only from yourself but also from whom you had been at the same age.

We expect political opinions, musical taste, and career aspirations to shift from one generation to the next, but with the passing of decades, it becomes harder to pinpoint the forces driving these changes.

It seemed to mean little to my students that modern people were now free to marry or not marry, or to have short-term liaisons or long-term relationships.

Take Generation Z. Most were born after 9-11 and have no real memory of the catastrophic event that brought terrorism and then war to the forefront of public attention. Moreover, Zoomers grew into their teen years shaped less by fears of terrorism and worries about war than by an increasing social liberalism.

By the time the oldest Zoomers, those born in the late 1990s, reached high school, media and educational institutions had discarded any pretense of maintaining neutrality about fundamental ethical and cultural questions in favor of actively promoting progressive stances on issues of race, sexuality, and gender.

Past progressive

Because they came of age in a climate where anything connected to religion, tradition, and middle-class norms could be condemned as backward and oppressive, Gen Z, I have found, has developed a very different relation to the values of liberal progressivism than have previous generations.

Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials tend to integrate gay marriage, gender transition, and identity politics into a broader narrative having to do with the continual expansion of freedom. Even when they criticize the excesses of social experimentation, they tend to emphasize the harm caused by excessive personal freedom to the health and well-being of the community.

In other words, regardless of whether one thinks this is a positive development or not, the idea that the U.S., and the rest of the world along with it, has been set on a course of increasing personal choice and expanding individual self-determination has been taken for granted by nearly all.

Vexed by sex

But this past semester, a conversation with the undergraduates in my upper-level seminar hinted that Zoomers are prepared to see these matters quite differently.

I teach at a university in South Korea with a large population of international students. Many of the Korean students have attended international schools which follow an Americanized curriculum and have grown up watching Disney and Pixar films, as well as engaging with social media that also brings them into contact with progressive ideas.

In discussing topics like sexual equality and changes in sexual mores, there was surprisingly little readiness among the students to view the right of women to have careers or the freedom to have sex outside of marriage as the result of an emancipatory political struggle.

Older liberals, of course, believe that these gains were won by fighting against a staid, conformist, and conservative establishment that was dead set against change. The basic liberal narrative divides the bad old days of unquestioning conformity from a present or a future marked by tolerance, openness, and experimentation.

While such a conception of history has been overused in contemporary society, I was shocked to discover how foreign such a way of thinking was to my students.

Freedom rot

When I brought up how much freer individuals are today in comparison to the 19th century, when an adulterous affair could lead to irrevocable banishment from respectable society, the students were hesitant to describe modern sexual mores as liberating. It seemed to mean little to them that modern people were now free to marry or not marry, or to have short-term liaisons or long-term relationships. Instead, they preferred to describe the conditions of their lives in terms that called to mind a “prison.”

What weighs on them is the predicament of living at a time when competition keeps growing ever more intense for the emblems and markers of middle-class affluence that are shrinking in supply. The idea of viewing gay marriage and even gender equality in the manner of the older generation of progressives — as a reassuring sign that the world is becoming more just, free, and equal — seems to offer little in the way of reassurance against the daunting economic realities they feel are bearing down on them.

Who’s the boss?

But it is not only the rising cost of living and the disappearance of economic opportunity that accounts for this change in mindset. What is perhaps just as decisive is the fact that Zoomers are the first generation for whom social justice and identity politics had become entrenched as the governing ideology, in which expressing the wrong views about race, gender, and sexuality could have severe consequences for one’s future.

As much as Zoomers may be convinced that the U.S. and the West committed grave moral wrongs in having colonized or dominated the world, it does not escape their attention that members of victim groups for whom previous generations had extended much sympathy have now become authority figures possessing the power to punish those who deviate from the ideological line.

Thus, Gen Z is much less likely to regard woke progressivism as an emancipatory force that will ultimately improve the lives of all. Rather, they are prone to regard it as a weighty burden that they must bear in order to demonstrate that they are good and moral people.

As with other forms of deontological ethics, it is necessary to uphold political correctness for its own sake, and not because one derives a concrete benefit or advantage from doing so. The psychological burden of carefully controlling one’s speech is the price of living in a diverse and open society, which they feel they have no choice but to accept.

That they feel they have no choice is the consequence of a progressive education, which distorts and effaces the past.

RELATED: The first disembodied generation

AFP/Getty Images

Use your illusion

Zoomers might be under far fewer illusions than Millennials about how political correctness actually functions in society, but ask them how diversity and tolerance came to be the most important values, and you are likely to get bewildered looks. Being free of the spell of the emancipatory narrative of liberalism seems to come at the price of not being able to know the story of how one arrived at the grim destination of woke liberal hegemony.

Zoomers are shrewd enough to recognize that the system which seeks to control them is a hodgepodge of prohibitions and freedoms, a mess of license and licenses, and a motley of opiates and superstitions. The insidious aim of their education appears to have been to fill them with so much confusion and uncertainty as to leave them immobilized and at a loss as to how to proceed.

This education has had the effect of making them reticent. Yet, at the same time, Zoomers can show an intense curiosity about the things their education has not taught them or sought to discourage them from learning in the first place.

Described as a cautious group, brought up in a time of ideological conformity that seeks to root out rebellion and independence, Zoomers, especially when approached in a gentle and humble spirit, are likely to embrace as helpful advice the lessons that current-year liberalism wants everyone to forget.

​Gen z, Zoomers, Wokeness, South korea, College, Education, The youth 

America’s colleges and universities ought to advance the public interest by serving as bastions of old-fashioned liberalism. If they did, they would champion free speech. They would establish communities of scholarship, teaching, and learning grounded in civility, toleration, and equality under law. And they would transmit knowledge about the sciences, social sciences, and humanities while cultivating students’ capacity to ask questions, listen attentively, examine evidence, formulate their opinions, and persuasively convey their views.

Instead, America’s colleges and universities purvey illiberalism by punishing dissent from campus orthodoxy, rewarding intolerance, treating individuals unequally under the law, and politicizing the curriculum.

The recovery of liberal education in America depends not least on liberals’ recovery of liberalism.

For decades liberals have dominated higher education in America. Why did they transform, or fail to prevent the transformation of, the nation’s colleges and universities into institutions advancing illiberal education?

Several hypotheses spring to mind.

A progressive revolution

One possibility is that liberals subordinated education to the promotion of progressive priorities. Convinced that they discovered the guiding principles for politics, the formulas for generating fair and effective public policy, and the mechanisms for implementing it, liberals demoted rigorous study of America, the West, and the world.

They marginalized messy and time-consuming debates about competing principles and rival preferences. They disseminated what they regarded as the final word about political norms, practices, and institutions. Instead of assisting students to gain appreciation for their civilizational inheritance, they concentrated on equipping them to change the world in accordance with progressive theories of justice and jurisprudence.

Another possibility is that liberals suffered from a ruinous mix of conformism, complacency, and cowardice. Formally committed to a diversity of perspectives — while identifying diversity with an openness to the varieties of progressivism — liberal professors in the 1970s welcomed a new generation of graduate students to campus who espoused a variety of left-wing doctrines. These students viewed scholarship and teaching as politics by other means.

In the 1980s, liberal faculty tenured the post-1960s generation of scholars. In the 1990s, liberals stood idly by as the recently tenured professors institutionalized political correctness by promulgating speech codes, truncating due process for students accused of sexual misconduct, and exploiting the curriculum to inculcate progressive doctrine.

In the 2000s, with the students of the post-’60s generation professors entering the professoriate, faculty discovered new weapons to enforce uniformity of opinion, including trigger warnings, microaggressions, and bias-response teams. Few were the liberals who challenged these illiberal measures or contested the illiberal slogan, “Speech is violence,” that justified them. Most campus liberals held their tongues for fear of that dreaded censure: “conservative.”

RELATED: Harvard’s hypocrisy hits the courtroom

Photo by Cassandra Klos/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In the 2010s and 2020s, with critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs ripening into full-blown progressive wokeism, conventional campus wisdom proclaimed that “silence is violence.” Liberals evaded accusations of complicity with violence by openly embracing the fashionable theories according, which concluded that America is racist to its core, necessitating that government and private-sector organizations give decisive weight to race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender in allocating rights, responsibilities, and benefits.

A third possibility is that liberals confused sophistication in moral reasoning with sound ethics. Under liberal supervision, college courses on moral reasoning proliferated. These typically provide students with fanciful moral dilemmas, like whether you should pull a switch to divert a runaway trolley from striking five people tied to the track onto another, which would kill one immobilized baby. Or students were served divisive public policy questions about abortion, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage.

Professors invite students to apply a variety of theoretical perspectives — from which professors typically exclude traditional conservative considerations — to resolve the moral dilemmas or settle the public-policy debates. Such courses in moral reasoning foster the delusion that the moral life consists of clever reasoning in support of progressive ends rather than in the exercise of courage, self-restraint, integrity, generosity of spirit, friendship, and the other moral virtues. Moreover, they reinforce the prejudice among professors that only those who equate progressive moral reasoning with moral excellence deserve faculty appointments, administration positions, and a respectful hearing in the public square.

Liberals reclaiming liberal education

It would be useful for liberals to examine these hypotheses — and others — that endeavor to explain one of the great failures of liberalism over the last 75 years: the demise on liberals’ watch of liberal education in America.

Cass Sunstein appears well-suited to the task. A longtime Harvard Law School professor, Sunstein is a distinguished and remarkably prolific scholar, by far the most cited in legal academia. He has written widely and influentially on law, politics, and economics. He possesses substantial government experience, having served from Sept. 2009 to Aug. 2012 as the Obama administration’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And he is the author of a short and lucid new book, “On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom,” that restates liberalism’s core convictions and maintains that it deserves the allegiance of Americans of diverse viewpoints and persuasions.

Explaining where liberals went wrong in governing American universities is inextricably connected to understanding liberalism and defending freedom. Yet the closest Sunstein comes to even acknowledging the problem is the anodyne remark that liberals “do not like the idea of orthodoxy, including on university campuses.” That, however, is like saying that corporate executives who bankrupt their companies don’t like losing money. The issue is how those in charge contribute to their organization’s downfall.

“Liberals,” Sunstein states, “prize two things above all: freedom and pluralism.” Liberal freedom means in the first place that “people are allowed and encouraged to establish their own path, to take it if they like, and to reverse course if they want to do that.” Pluralism follows because people, possessing different backgrounds, skills, and interests, will choose different paths or alter course by their own lights. Liberalism so understood forms an enduring part of the American creed.

America’s colleges and universities purvey illiberalism by punishing dissent from campus orthodoxy, rewarding intolerance, treating individuals unequally under the law, and politicizing the curriculum.

However, Sunstein writes, “More than at any time since World War II, liberalism is under pressure — even siege.” New right critics “hold it responsible for the collapse of the family and traditional values, rampant criminality, disrespect for authority, and widespread immorality.” Intellectuals on the left decry liberalism’s inability “to handle the problems posed by entrenched inequalities, racism, sexism, corporate power, and environmental degradation.”

Sunstein’s book responds to the “urgent need for a clear understanding of liberalism — of its core commitments, of its breadth, of its internal debates, of its evolving character, of its promise, of what it is and what it can be.”

Liberalism, he observes, has roots in the premodern virtue of liberality, which encompasses generosity, openness, and public-spiritedness. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the thinking and practices that acquired the name liberalism in the 19th century came to be associated with religious toleration and limited government.

In 20th- and 21st-century politics, some liberals emphasized negative rights, or freedom from coercion particularly by government; others stressed positive rights, or entitlements to government assistance — in housing, education, and health care. In academic political theory, John Rawls developed the leading account, which views liberalism as centrally concerned with basic political principles to which all reasonable citizens should agree; other academic liberals hold that liberalism consists in promoting autonomy as the highest human ideal.

Sunstein celebrates liberalism as a big tent and fighting faith while preferring a progressive liberalism that revolves around John Stuart Mill’s “experiments of living.” Believing that the state should assist citizens to experiment adequately, Sunstein favors a government that, under limited circumstances, counters citizens’ expressed preferences to enhance their deliberations and make their choices more reasonable. He considers measures that extend from government information campaigns, accurate labeling, and mandatory seatbelt laws to tax incentives, cap-and-trade systems, and fuel-economy mandates.

Sunstein’s sophisticated yet accessible discussions of the rule of law, free speech, markets, regulation, and government’s role in ensuring the material and moral bases of security and opportunity provide a welcome corrective to the proliferating misunderstandings of the liberal tradition along with its many faces and supple sensibilities.

Missing the mark

His brief for freedom also reinforces liberal narrow-mindedness and smugness.

First, Sunstein mischaracterizes liberalism’s core. It is not, as he asserts, experiments of living, but rather, as John Locke and America’s founders affirmed, the conviction that human beings are by nature free and equal. This conviction sustains liberalism’s big tent, which hosts, among others, those like Sunstein who are drawn to experiments of living.

Second, Sunstein dismisses and deflects liberalism’s critics, right and left, rather than learning from them. This is costly because liberalism’s critics have much to teach about liberalism’s tendency, like all schools of political thought and all regimes, to carry its principles to an extreme.

RELATED: Students are trapped in mandatory DEI disguised as coursework

Photo by filo via Getty Image

Liberalism’s vices include the dissoluteness bound up in the tempting belief that opposition to coercion entails overcoming the imperatives of morality. It also fosters the complacency that stems from overreliance on formal procedures to mete out justice. And it is steeped in the arrogance that assumes liberals have refuted faith and supplanted rather than supplemented classical teachings on ethics and politics. Brushing off critics, Sunstein fails to explore the extent to which liberalism finds itself “under pressure, even siege” because of its own shortcomings.

Third, Sunstein idealizes liberal character. He depicts liberals as secular saints neither deficient in certain virtues nor prone to specific vices. Yet to take one telling example, liberals, as Mill argues in “On Liberty” and elsewhere, tend to disregard the wisdom stored up in traditional writings, inherited beliefs, and established institutions.

Sunstein’s disregard of essential wisdom stored up in the modern tradition of freedom — particularly its early appreciation of freedom’s dependence on biblical faith and classical political philosophy — converges with the biases of many of his left-liberal friends and colleagues. This disregard begins to explain his and their failure to connect liberal education’s demise to liberals’ departures from the liberal tradition in its richness and fullness.

The recovery of liberal education in America depends not least on liberals’ recovery of liberalism.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Woke, Woke college students, Woke college, Liberalism, Liberals, Cass sunstein, John rawls, John stuart mill, Liberty, Colleges and universities, Diversity equity inclusion, Conservatives, Leftists 

On August 22, Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was fatally stabbed in an unprovoked attack while riding a public transit train in Charlotte, North Carolina. The suspect, 34-year-old Decarlos Brown Jr., who had a long history of criminal activity and mental health issues, was charged with first-degree murder and faces a federal charge that could carry the death penalty.

It’s as clear cut of a case as there ever was — and yet, here comes the left furious, not at Zarutska’s preventable death, but at conservatives for pointing out the soft-on-crime Democrat policies that made the homicide possible.

Except conservatives are spot on. If it wasn’t for Charlotte’s no-carry law for all public transit, perhaps knowing that firearms could be present would have prevented Brown from acting, or perhaps someone could have stopped him.

“Law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves wherever the hell they are, especially if my tax dollars pay for it … because what ends up happening every single freaking time in a gun-free zone?” asks Sara Gonzales, BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“You have someone who doesn’t give a s**t about the laws, and they bring a weapon, and they kill people.”

Other progressive policies to blame are lenient or cashless bail, sentencing reductions, early release and parole expansions, decriminalization of certain offenses, and restorative justice initiatives, among others. Brown was arrested and released at least 14 times, showing he likely benefited from some of these Democrat-backed crime policies.

“This man, 14 prior arrests — felony larceny, robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault, shoplifting, making threats, diagnosed with schizophrenia — why was he on the streets? Democrat policies,” says Sara.

“If that guy were in prison, he would not have harmed this woman. So it’s really that simple.”

But it’s not just soft liberal crime policies that paved the way for the suspect’s heinous act. It seems the Democrat-spawned race war also played a key role.

Surveillance footage from the train not only captured the horrific attack but also Brown’s comments immediately after. In the video, he can be heard saying, “I got that white girl,” as he waited to exit the Charlotte light rail train.

And yet, CNN’s Van Jones dismissed the idea that Zarutska’s murder was racially motivated, claiming the suggestion was nothing more than “race mongering” and “hate mongering.” He declared there was “no evidence” of a racial motive and then displayed sympathy for the suspect, saying, “We don’t know how to deal with people who were hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people hurt people.”

Sara ponders what would have happened if the situation were reversed and a white man killed an innocent black woman, stating, “I got that black girl.” Almost certainly there would be zero sympathy for the mental health issues of the white person.

“We would see riots in the streets right now in every major city in the country,” says Sara.

“If anyone dares say anything about the black community, about the crime in the black community, about black people killing each other in Chicago every single weekend in record amounts, about black fatherlessness, about violent crime in black people,” they’re condemned as racists, says Sara. “The statistics are there, but you’re not allowed to say it. … You’re only allowed to talk about race when it’s against white people.”

“Hurt people hurt people?” she scoffs. “Have you ever heard Van Jones say that when a killer or an aggressor or anyone who is not the victim is white?”

To hear more of Sara’s commentary, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Van jones, Cnn, Leftist rhetoric, Iryna zarutska 

Over 100,000 demonstrators packed the streets of London on Saturday afternoon for a “Unite the Kingdom” march led by British independent journalist Tommy Robinson.

The march, featuring people holding the English flag aloft, comes as local councils across the United Kingdom are taking down English flags flown by Britons. Some politicians are calling the mere flying of the English flag a rallying point for “hate.”

‘You either fight back, or you die.’

Robinson live-streamed his festival on X, which opened with a prayer and featured musical performances, as well as speeches from actor Laurence Fox, Rebel News journalist Ezra Levant, and activist Sammy Woodhouse. His supporters packed the blocks around Whitehall, waving the Union flag of Britain and the red and white St. George’s Cross of England. Some in the audience around the stage held photographs of Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated earlier this week.

“This is the biggest demonstration in Britain’s history!” Robinson told the crowd. “This is your community. These are your brothers and your sisters. We today are united. Today is the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain.”

“They’ve managed to silence us for 20 years with labels: racist, Islamophobe, far-right. They don’t work anymore,” Robinson declared. “The silent majority will be silent no longer.”

He slammed the “globalist revolution” for attacking the family, Christianity, and opening the borders.

Robinson connected Elon Musk to speak to the attendees via video chat. He thanked the billionaire for supporting freedom of speech by purchasing X.

RELATED: ‘Christ is king!’ chants break out at large memorial for Charlie Kirk in London

Laurence Fox, Kate Hopkins, and Tommy Robinson attend the Unite The Kingdom rally on September 13, 2025 in London, England. Photo by Ben Montgomery/Getty Images

“What I see happening is a destruction of Britain,” Musk stated. “The government has failed in its duty to protect its citizens, which is a fundamental duty of government.”

Musk had a message for those in the “reasonable center,” who “ordinarily wouldn’t get involved in politics.”

“Look carefully around and say, ‘If this continues, what world will you be living in?'” he said. “If this continues, that violence is going to come to you. You will have no choice.”

“You either fight back, or you die,” Muck concluded.

RELATED: Why the English flag now terrifies the regime

Photo by Guy Smallman/Getty Images

A counterprotest, “March Against Fascism,” formed nearby, organized by the Stand Up To Racism group. Those demonstrators held up signs reading, “Oppose Tommy Robinson. Stop fascists & the far right.”

Left-wing media outlets labeled Robinson’s march as an anti-immigration protest.

Metropolitan Police claimed that the crowd was “too big to fit into Whitehall.”

The deparment further added, “We have deployed additional officers with protective equipment in multiple locations, supported by police horses, to deal with the disorder,” via a social media post.

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

​News, Elon musk, Tommy robinson, U.k., United kingdom, Britain, Great britain, Sammy woodhouse, Ezra levant, Laurence fox, Unite the kingdom, Politics 

It was supposed to be a normal Wednesday.

I arrived at work like I usually do. It’s taping day. I need to put in the ads. I need to post some Facebook clips. I have the “4 Minute Buzz” to produce. What stories am I going to discuss? It’s been the same stories for the past couple of days. Maybe I can find something else to discuss. I need to. I wish something would drop. Nothing major, but maybe a Trump executive order announcement. Something interesting.

I also need to run prompter for Glenn Beck’s special. I’m nervous about the delay due to Glenn being remote at his ranch. I know it’s annoying when I’m not fast enough. I need to be better. Man, I wish I didn’t have to run this prompter right now. That was my thought.

You did not destroy his legacy; you ensured that it will never die. Charlie Kirk and his impact will live forever.

And at that moment, I learned. Just as we all did. Charlie Kirk was shot, and it didn’t look good.

And the conservative movement was forever changed. We lost a courageous leader, somebody who spoke the truth and didn’t care. Somebody who used his platform, first and foremost, to share the good news of Jesus Christ. To spread the Great Commission. Somebody who portrayed Christ in every video.

If you examine my writing over the years, you’ll see I’ve been struggling in my faith walk. To be honest, the first legitimate prayers I’ve prayed in years were praying to God that Charlie would pull through. I needed him to make it through this. I’m not sure where I’m at now that those prayers were answered in the way I dreaded.

Because Charlie is me. I saw a post on X that took my breath away. It read:

Charlie was my age. He was a father just like me. He was a Christian just like me. He had no beliefs more extreme than I hold. I can only assume this means they want me dead as well.

Charlie and I were the exact same age. I went home to my son at the end of that horrific day. Charlie didn’t. I held my son, and I cried. I put him to bed, and I wondered: Will I get to see him wake up tomorrow? I may not be the Christian I once was, but I still hold strong to the core beliefs. What Charlie preached, I agree with. He was murdered because of his beliefs.

Who’s next? Is another conservative commentator next? Am I spared because I’m not as commonly known as Charlie Kirk? If they knew me, if they knew I believe everything Charlie believed, would they kill me too?

Looking back, the stress that I had going into the day, everything within me wishes I had dealt with only that. I wish I struggled with what stories to discuss. I wish I had to run prompter. The minor inconveniences of my job, what I dreaded going into the day, I would trade the world to have experienced them. Anything to avoid what happened. I’ll always hate that day.

This loss will resonate forever with the right. This truly is a turning point in American politics and discourse. I pray that Charlie’s atrocious and horrific assassination will only cement Charlie’s legacy forever.

RELATED: ‘Do not go gentle into that good night’: Remembering Charlie Kirk

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

To the coward who took Charlie’s life, who took a woman’s true love and robbed two innocent children of their father: You failed. You did not remove his voice; you amplified it. You did not destroy his legacy; you ensured that it will never die. Charlie Kirk and his impact will live forever.

I’m telling myself this now, and I urge readers: Go to church. Get healthy. Start a family, or continue your family. Charlie stood on principle, and the least we could do is to ensure that his passion lives on for generations.

We owe that to him. His legacy must continue. This will be a turning point. Let’s make it a good one.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assassination attempt, Charlie kirk assassination 

You’ve never seen a resume quite like Kaizen Asiedu’s. He’s a Harvard philosophy graduate with an Emmy-winning career at Riot Games, who’s been publicly endorsed by Elon Musk as a “clear thinker.” After years in the e-sports industry, Asiedu left his impressive role as an architect at League of Legends to pursue life coaching.

And then quite by accident, he transitioned into the political arena when he spoke out on July 13, 2024, about President Trump’s near assassination. Even though Asiedu was a centrist who usually voted liberal or just avoided politics altogether, watching Trump narrowly avoid death was “a spiritual experience,” he tells BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan.

“When I saw him get shot and get up and put his fist up, it was like the center of my chest just jumped out of me,” he says.

“I just thought if humanity has gotten to the point where people, regardless of who shot him and why … are trying to kill one another over politics, we’ve gone too far and I need to say something.”

He made a video responding to the horrific act of violence — a “message of basic humanity,” he calls it — and it instantly went viral. Without really meaning to, Asiedu launched himself into the political sphere, where he’s since become well known for his nonpartisan approach to teaching people how to engage with politics and social issues in a way that bridges the fiery chasm that’s formed between the right and the left.

On a recent episode of “Back to the People,” Asiedu shared some of his philosophy.

“There’s just so much media manipulation and confusion and division that it’s causing people to actually celebrate violence,” he tells Nicole.

“So many of us have checked out of politics or have tried to check out … because [we] felt like there’s no humanity in it anymore. It’s just a bunch of political machinations and games and name calling, and it’s just so distasteful because politics is really supposed to just be the software upon which civilization operates. It’s not supposed to be this all-consuming thing,” he explains.

There’s a huge population in the country, he says, that doesn’t want any part of the political warring, smoke and mirrors, pandering, or media bias that’s come to define modern politics. Instead, they crave unfiltered truth and respectful discourse among people with opposing views.

“People still underestimate how many of us want that. It’s just buried under layers of extremity and the loudest voices dominating the room,” says Asiedu.

“I want realness. I want authenticity. I want people who say what they believe, even if I don’t like it because that’s how we actually can get to the point where we battle these ideas out in the public square and we come up with the best solutions,” he adds.

The other thing we need to do is “treat the truth as an inherent virtue.”

“We’re afraid that saying the truth makes us come across as judgmental. It’s like if we say, ‘Hey, a homeless person shouldn’t be able to just live on the street or be in a public park or harass people,’ then that means we’re not compassionate. It’s like, no, actually, we can be compassionate and still want boundaries,” says Asiedu.

He explains that even though much of the social media censorship that barred Americans from speaking freely during the pandemic has lightened, “There’s still a cultural suppression of having conversations about narratives that run counter to the idea that America is awful.”

For example, one of the topics Asiedu has been recently covering is slavery. In his videos, he’s been debunking the idea that slavery is a white invention, explaining that it’s “a collective evil that all humans share.”

“The common theme throughout history is not that white people [enslaved] black people … but that people with power abused people who didn’t have power,” he says.

Many have praised him for being brave enough to speak out about the false narrative around slavery, but Asiedu says “pointing out historical facts” shouldn’t have to require bravery.

But sadly, in today’s culture where even facts are considered offensive, it does take guts to speak the truth. “The reason it’s scary is because you get projected upon when you say these things. And then people will call me a race trader or say that I’m tap dancing for white people or whatever. And it’s like, look, actually the reason I’m saying it is because I think the truth is helpful for everyone,” he says.

“It’s cultural software; it’s programming. … There’s American cultural software, there’s black cultural software, there’s white cultural software, and everything in between. The problem is when we become so attached to that software, we can’t actually see people as individuals.”

He explains that for a long time black people were viewed as intellectually inferior, but today, that prejudice is aimed mostly at white people, especially white men, because progressives view them as “morally inferior.”

But this mindset is not only racist, it keeps us entrenched in the past and unable to move in a positive direction. “The only thing you can do is perpetuate the past or you can focus on the future,” says Asiedu.

If we continue to be obsessed with past sins, we will continue cultivating a culture of hatred. And “hatred hurts both the hater and the hated. So when you engage in any form of hatred, it always comes back around on you,” he warns, explaining that racism begets racism. Black resentment from slavery has transferred to white people who are decades removed from it, and that in turn is causing some white people to become racist toward black people again.

“If you keep swinging the pendulum from left to right, everyone gets damaged because hatred just keeps on getting transferred instead of getting healed,” he says.

His solution? We need a common enemy to unite us.

But that enemy “needs to be hatred and division itself,” he says.

To hear more of Asiedu’s insightful commentary, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole’s compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Back to the people, Blazetv, Blaze media, Nicole shanahan, Kaizen asiedu, Left vs. right, Political divide, Political division, Trump near assassination 

The United States has been in a civic crisis for decades. It’s not “just about manners,” but the lack of mannerly behavior is a widespread indicator of this problem. And manners are no small thing.

All societies have rules for how we engage with other people in a variety of settings, both formal and informal. Japan has “manners,” just as we do, even though the specific actions the Japanese take to signal good will to other people are different from the specific actions Americans take.

About seven seconds later, he finally offered verbal confirmation that he was aware of my existence: a monotone ‘’Sup.’

In the U.S., especially in Democrat/blue areas, manners are nearly extinct. The death of courtesy is a marker of a much deeper problem:

We no longer prize quality workmanship, functional products, or value for money. We only care about making the cheapest item or importing it from China.Young people (roughly, those under 40) do not believe they owe work in exchange for their salary. They do not believe they owe even eye contact or vocal responses to customers.Companies no longer care about customer service or fulfilling orders correctly because they do not have to care.Americans have no “union,” if you will, of “ordinary consumers” who can exert pressure on big telecom companies or big-box chains. These companies have power because they make things we need, and they know we need them. Because consumers are not organized in a way that can exert leverage, companies do not experience much market punishment or market correction except in outlier cases like the recent kerfuffle over Cracker Barrel’s rebranding.

Best intentions

The story I’m about to tell you is typical and common where I live. This is the normal, everyday, standard experience. Those of you living in heavily blue/Democrat/woke/progressive areas have similar experiences; that’s where the social rot has set in most deeply.

I make a podcast/”TV show” every week. Both high-powered computers that process and transmit video in my home studio were zapped by a power surge. So I had to run to the big-box store to spend north of $2,000 for another computer so my business partner and I can make our show. My business partner ordered and paid online. I went to pick the equipment up. The order included a $2,100 computer and $200 in additional small merchandise like webcams and data cables.

The customer service desk at my local Best Buy had one employee serving another customer. When that customer left, the employee just stood there staring down at his computer. I waited quietly with my hands clasped in front of me. Nothing. He didn’t look up; he didn’t signal that he knew I was there. (I assure you, he did know.)

Gen Z stare

Why did I wait a full minute? Because experience has taught me that most requests for service from an employee are met with bemused detachment or hostility. I thought, “Better to just tolerate this and wait for him to acknowledge me than risk that angry glare because I spoke before I was spoken to.” No customer should have to make these calculations, but today we do.

Still nothing. So I walked a few steps closer. “Noah” (not his real name) looked up at me and gave me the “Gen Z stare,” vacantly gazing at me from behind black chunky glasses that covered half his face. No expression. No change in posture. No greeting. It started to feel uncomfortable.

Noah presented himself in the way that an astonishing number of young staff do today. Noah is the kind of person whose odd and slovenly appearance would have kept him from being employed at all when I was his age (about 20).

He was morbidly obese, as so many people are, but it wasn’t just that — I’m not making fun of fat people. It’s that he wore a skintight shirt that accentuated every curve, including — I’m sorry to write this — his breasts. I’m carrying 30 extra pounds myself, and I don’t walk around in Lycra stretch fabric inviting people to partake visually of every detail of my anatomy. But this is the “new normal” in public for employees today.

First contact

About seven seconds later, he finally offered verbal confirmation that he was aware of my existence: a monotone “’Sup.”

I saw my opening and took it. “Hi, there. I’m here to pick up an order that my friend placed online and paid for. I’m having a little trouble pulling up the receipt on my phone, so would you like me —”

“Bar code,” he interrupted me.

That’s what he said. Just the two-word phrase “bar code.” Was it a question? A command? A password challenge for access to a secret, actually helpful, customer service counter?

“I’m not sure what you mean by bar code,” I responded. “But if that’s something included in the email, again, I’m having trouble pulling it up. Can I give you some other kind of information that would help?”

Smooth customer

I am polite when I do business in public. I maintain a warm tone of voice. A dozen years as a waiter and bartender, a few years in retail, plus two decades counseling grieving people by phone trained me in how to smoothly communicate with anyone, including people who are upset. I know how rude customers can be, so I take care to be friendly and approachable when I’m a customer.

All that to say, I was actively nice to this young man. I’m polite to every staff member of a business I patronize. Far too often, I get nothing back at all, or I get hostility, as I did last night.

“What’s your name?” Noah demanded. I told him.

Staring down at his iPad, he walked into the back room. He emerged carrying two small boxes containing the cables and the webcam. He did not have the computer. He placed the boxes on the counter and continued to look at his iPad without speaking to me or looking at me.

I waited about five seconds before saying, “I think there is more merchandise to this order.”

Notice that I did not say, “You forgot my computer.” I used a gentle, roundabout way to say it because I’ve learned that if you signal that a staffer has made a mistake, they will sometimes melt down.

Noah did not glance up at me. He kept staring at the iPad as he went back to the stock room. He brought out the computer and put all three boxes in my hand. Then, after a few words (I think I heard him say good night in a perfunctory way) he went back behind his counter.

He did not give me a receipt; he did not stamp the boxes to indicate that I had paid for the merchandise. I wondered about this, as the store has a lectern at the exit to stop shoplifters by checking receipts.

Trust fail

Here’s what I didn’t tell you until now: Noah never asked me for a driver’s license or a credit card to prove that I was the Josh Slocum who paid for these items. He made no effort to determine that I was the paying customer, not a thief. What if he had handed it to someone else, and when I arrived, the store told me, “Yes, you did pick these up already because our system says you did”?

At this point, I needed to leave the store to keep my temper. So I just walked out with my merchandise (paid for, but how did they know?). None of the three employees at the shoplifting/receipt-checking lectern at the front glanced at me as I walked by. Two were talking to each other, and the third was running his thumbs over his phone.

This is why we have so much shoplifting. There are no consequences to naked, caught-on-camera thievery.

RELATED: Strange but true tales from a communist childhood

Gilbert Uzan/Getty Images

Punching out

There are certainly no consequences to employees who are incompetent, rude, and who allow expensive merchandise to simply disappear. They do not get fired. Why would they? Do you think a manager in this Best Buy can’t see how these employees fail to do their jobs? She sees what I see. It’s either that she doesn’t care, or those above her don’t care, so she’s just stopped putting in any effort.

What are we going to do? Is there anything we can do? We don’t have market power as consumers, so that’s out. Government regulation usually brings more problems than it solves, so that doesn’t seem like a good way to go. But this cannot go on.

Well, it can, actually. We can become like former Soviet states; hell, we’re already three-quarters of the way there. When I tell stories like these to older people who immigrated from communist countries, they get a pained look and say, “This is what it was like for us, and it’s happening here. But no one will listen to us.”

If you see a way out that I do not see, please share it in the comments.

​Lifestyle, Customer service, Manners, Etiquette, Gen z, Best buy, Soviet union, Retail, Intervention 

The nation changed on September 10, 2025. An assassin’s bullet cut short the life of Charlie Kirk while he was speaking on a Utah college campus.

The coward who pulled the trigger chose political violence over debate. Reports indicate the weapon and its ammunition carried “anti-fascist” slogans — a chilling reminder that ideology now drives some Americans to kill.

Do what Charlie did. Do what Christ commands. Love your neighbor. Show grace. Demand justice — but refuse to become the thing you despise.

Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die. The founder of Turning Point USA was murdered for defending what he believed, walking into academia’s den of hostility, and calling students and faculty back to truth. He embodied both the American spirit and, more importantly, Christian faith. Kirk welcomed argument, offered the gospel, and lived it in an age when many Americans are turning away from Christ.

His wife should not be left without her husband, and his children should not be left fatherless. They certainly should not have to endure online mobs mocking and defaming their murdered husband and father. Yet, they do. Teachers, federal employees, even military personnel — people sworn to serve the public — joined in the sick celebration.

An active-duty Army captain called Kirk “a monstrous ghoul.” A Navy petty officer wrote “better luck next time friend.” An Army sergeant piled on. A Fort Bragg elementary school teacher employed by the Department of War branded him “a garbage human.” Most grotesque of all, a War Department supervisor posted that Kirk “got what he deserved,” sneering, “rest in pieces,” and warning that more killings could come for “those who choose to spread hate and division.”

This is not fringe behavior. It is radicalization in plain sight, coming from people in positions of trust. And it has metastasized. On the left-wing social platform BlueSky, users are openly fantasizing about assassinations of Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andy Ngo, President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Matt Walsh, J.K. Rowling, and more. When hate this brazen circulates unchecked, another attack is not hard to imagine.

Regardless of your opinion of Charlie Kirk — his politics, his faith, or his legacy — the American way of life rests on peaceful discourse and on the Judeo-Christian command to love our neighbor. That foundation is under assault.

But not all the signs are dark: Younger Americans are turning to Christ in increasing numbers. If anything can pull us back from the abyss of political murder, it is the renewal of faith.

Ephesians 4:26-27 admonishes, “In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.” Anger over this atrocity is justified. What we do with that anger will determine whether America chooses vengeance or redemption.

RELATED: Why Charlie Kirk’s assassination will change us in ways this generation has never seen

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

Kirk wanted to be remembered as a man courageous in faith. To honor that, we must follow Christ’s example. Forgive those who dance on his grave. Forgive those who cheer for the next act of political bloodshed. Forgive even the soldiers, sailors, and public servants who lent legitimacy to his assassination with their words.

Forgiveness does not mean forgetting. It does not mean impunity. Without accountability, this poison spreads and more violence follows. But accountability can be Christ-like: firm, just, and free of vengeance.

So to those who read the online bile and feel tempted to answer hate with hate: Turn to prayer. Do what Charlie did. Do what Christ commands. Love your neighbor. Show grace. Demand justice — but refuse to become the thing you despise.

That is how we ensure the assassin’s bullet does not win.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk dead, Charlie kirk assassination, Justice, Forgiveness, Religion, Christianity, J.k. rowling, Donald trump, Jd vance, Ben shapiro, Andy ngo, Robert f. kennedy jr., Matt walsh, Michael knowles, Leftists, Freedom of speech 

Every summer, the shadowy Bohemian Club — a private gentlemen’s society based in San Francisco — hosts a clandestine retreat called “Bohemian Grove” in Monte Rio, California, where highly influential men in politics, business, media, culture, and entertainment gather for two weeks on a secluded 2,700-acre private property deep in the redwood forests.

The event is shrouded in mystery — no paparazzi, no women, no entry without an invitation, and lots of whispers of strange rituals and elite networking.

Twenty-five years ago, Infowars founder Alex Jones snuck in and secretly recorded one of Bohemian Grove’s most cherished rituals: the “Cremation of Care.”

On a podcast with Glenn Beck, Jones shared the wild tale of his Bohemian Grove infiltration.

The Cremation of Care is a theatrical ceremony, where attendees burn an effigy before a large owl statue to symbolically banish worldly concerns for the duration of the retreat. It’s similar to how Burning Man attendees set fire to the “Temple” on the final day of the festival to represent letting go of personal burdens.

“It’s occultic, and there’s vibes of that everywhere,” says Jones of the event. He explains that Mark Twain founded Bohemian Grove in the late 1800s, but it was later taken over by the Republican establishment and Skull and Bones (a secret society at Yale University), which is what gives the gathering its secretive, Germanic, druidic, and Masonic character.

After sneaking in with Jon Ronson, a British journalist and documentary filmmaker, who gained access via an insider, Jones, having narrowly escaped inquisitive Secretive Service guards, hid under the deck of one of the cabins.

“I got into the woods, got to the first camp and nobody was there, and I climbed up underneath the log cabin deck, and there were like literally centipedes and spiders. It was like ‘Indiana Jones Temple of Doom,’” he laughs.

At nightfall, he emerged from his hiding place and stealthily joined a large crowd walking toward the lake.

And then he beheld it: the infamous stone owl.

Jones paints a chilling scene straight from a thriller’s darkest frame — “big crowds of men coming in hundreds and hundreds,” descending a shadowy hill, dwarfed by towering redwoods so colossal their trunks could swallow cars whole. “Bats and frogs” stir the murky air with restless flutters and croaks, their eerie chorus blending with a live symphony’s foreboding rendition of “In the Hall of the Mountain King.”

Jones, trying to fly under the radar, then climbed into a redwood tree and recorded the “dramatic footage” of the burning ritual.

“They mixed in Babylonian, druidic, Canaanite, faustian stuff in the hour. They bring out a hearse that’s horse drawn with the effigy of a child. They then call on the goddess to come and they call these other gods to come,” Jones recounts. “So it’s kind of an amalgamation like the Bible says of all these religions.”

In retrospect, especially after receiving Bohemian Grove annals years later, Jones says he realized that famous people, including American broadcaster Walter Cronkite, played the voice of the owl. These voice actors were stationed inside the statue where they controlled sounds, such as amplified voices or eerie effects, to enhance the theatrical atmosphere.

“I’m not saying they’re all devil worshipers … it’s more of a crazy art festival, but there is an occultic thing to it,” he tells Glenn.

The duo speculate that the majority of attendees are there just to have a good time, but the inner ring of people who control the event are indeed hosting legitimate pagan rituals, even if their guests aren’t aware.

Jones says the masterminds orchestrating the retreat use these two weeks to assess who among their guests might be of use to them. Jones recalls how most of the Bohemian Grove crowd was just having fun, but there were some, especially the official Bohemian Club members, who clearly took the ritual seriously. One man — “some billionaire,” he says — practically growled “this is a very important ritual” when Jones suggested it was a “neat” spectacle.

The members “were trying to transmute their problems onto this ritual” in hopes that “Karma” or some other vengeful deity would “pass over them,” he explains, calling the burning “very hardcore.”

“It was very sophisticated, very dark, [and] beyond black magic,” he says, explaining that the burning, like many ancient pagan rituals, aimed at casting one’s sins into an “interdimensional cauldron” before “[sending] it to another plane.” In other words, it’s the satanic version of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice that atoned for the sins of man.

To hear Jones’ full recount, watch the interview 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.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Alex jones, Infowars, Infowars founder alex jones, Blazetv, Blaze media, Bohemian grove, Paganism, Pagan rituals, Effigy, Elite ritual, The glenn beck podcast 

A Connecticut man who raped and impregnated a girl in his care agreed to take a plea deal and could only serve five years in prison.

Roger Barriault, 65, of Bristol raped the girl thousands of times beginning when she was 9 years old and impregnated her when she was 12 years old, according to police records. A DNA test of the girl’s daughter proved that he was the father.

‘She feels proud that she was able to stand up to this guy that she was abused by for so long, and she feels hopeful.’

Despite the horrific nature of the accusations, Barriault was given a plea deal for first-degree sexual assault. The charge carries a sentence of 25 years that can be suspended after 10 years. He must serve a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison with 20 years of probation.

Barriault was arrested after the victim, who is now an adult, went to police in 2023. She said that the Connecticut Department of Children and Families had put her in the care of a person who introduced her to Barriault. She ended up in his care and faced daily sexual assault.

Nate Baber, the victim’s attorney, said the victim was under the legal guardianship of Barriault. Law enforcement officials estimated that he had raped her between 3,800 and 4,000 times.

Barriault’s wife was also arrested and will face a charge of risk of injury to a minor.

Baber said the victim had received some sense of justice in court.

“She feels proud that she was able to stand up to this guy that she was abused by for so long, and she feels hopeful. This is the first time in a very long time she feels hopeful. That what she did was the right thing, and people are listening.”

The victim is now 30 years old and has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. She accuses them of ignoring the abuse she endured.

RELATED: Woman attacked her 10-year-old son with a machete while they were in the shower, police say

A statement from the department said they were legally limited from making statements about the case.

“However, statutes do allow us to correct misinformation made public about the Department’s role in how the victim arrived in the home of the person who harmed her,” the statement reads.

“To that end, it has been reported that DCF ‘lost track’ of the victim and a prior legal guardian in 2005. To clarify, the Department had no involvement with the child or any of the involved families between 2003-2006,” the statement continues. “Also, Mr. Barriault and his wife were never licensed foster parents for the Department and the now adult victim was not placed into the home of Roger Barriault by the Department. The family received guardianship of the victim via the Probate Court as a child.”

The police warrant said there had been as many as 12 children living in Barriault’s home at one time.

Barriault will be sentenced Nov. 2025.

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

​Roger barriault arrest, Foster girl raped, Thousands of rapes, Plea deal for rapist, Crime 

California is once again at the center of the nation’s automotive and energy policy debate. With federal electric vehicle tax credits set to expire this September, the state is considering whether to create its own replacement program.

This would not only affect car buyers but could also reshape the national conversation on emissions rules, vehicle affordability, and the balance of power between state and federal regulators.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a report on August 19 recommending that the state consider “backfilling” the federal credits with its own point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other incentives to keep EV sales moving.

The details remain vague, but the intention is clear: California wants to keep its aggressive zero-emission vehicle goals on track, even as Washington scales back related programs.

Emissions mission

But California has been here before. This is not the first time the state has clashed with the federal government over vehicle regulations — and it likely won’t be the last.

California has a unique history when it comes to vehicle emissions. Decades before the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency, California was already regulating air quality in response to its smog problem.

When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, California was granted a waiver that allowed it to set its own stricter emissions standards. Other states were given the option to adopt California’s rules, and some states have done so. Today, 11 states follow California’s lead.

This waiver authority has made California an outsize force in shaping vehicle propulsion. Automakers cannot ignore a market of this size, which means California’s rules often become de facto national standards.

Better red than fed

California’s regulatory independence has not always sat well with Washington. Under different administrations, the federal government has either supported or resisted the state’s authority. During the Obama years, California partnered with the federal government to create a unified fuel economy and emissions program, giving automakers a single set of national rules.

Under the Trump administration, the EPA rolled back certain emissions standards, sparking legal battles with California, which insisted on enforcing its own tougher rules. The state formed alliances with other states and even some automakers to defend its position.

Today, with federal EV tax credits expiring at the end of September and policy focus shifting, California is again stepping into the driver’s seat by proposing its own financial incentives. These ongoing disputes highlight a deeper question: Should environmental and automotive policy be driven by national uniformity or by one state acting as the policy leader?

Forever ZEV?

The discussion over tax credits cannot be separated from California’s ZEV mandate. Under CARB’s plan, automakers must steadily increase the percentage of EVs they sell, with the ultimate goal of phasing out new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035.

This is one of the most ambitious policies in the country, and automakers are scrambling to meet the targets. Some states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have pledged to follow California’s lead, while others remain skeptical. For consumers, this means that vehicle availability will increasingly be shaped by government mandates and not by market demand. Even if gas-powered cars remain popular, automakers will need to balance that demand with regulatory compliance.

Different strokes

The CARB report suggests that any new program would differ from the federal credits in key ways. Instead of tax credits, buyers could receive point-of-sale rebates, allowing them to benefit immediately rather than waiting until tax season.

Incentives may also vary depending on income level, vehicle type, or price, so luxury EVs could receive lower rebates while affordable models get more support.

Additionally, any new program would be tied to yearly funding availability, meaning that if budgets tighten, rebates could shrink or disappear. This approach could make the system more flexible, but it also introduces uncertainty for buyers trying to plan their purchases. In the past, the state of California and other states have run out of money in the EV fund and left buyers with nothing.

RELATED: Little Deuce Prius?! California’s shocking plan to ban classic cars

Justin Sullivan/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Electric slide

The promise of continued incentives may be welcome news for some California drivers, but the reality is more complicated. EVs still come with challenges beyond sticker price. Even with rebates, EVs are often thousands of dollars more expensive than comparable gasoline cars.

California has built more chargers than any other state, yet many regions remain underserved, and home charging is not always an option, particularly for renters.

EVs also tend to depreciate faster than gas vehicles due to rapid advances in technology and concerns about battery life. Insurance rates are higher on electric vehicles as well.

And let’s not forget a major expense: Electricity rates are rising at double the rate of inflation.

One of the key criticisms of EV subsidies is that they often benefit wealthier households. Data from federal programs has shown that a large percentage of credits went to buyers in higher income brackets because these households are more likely to purchase new cars, and EVs remain disproportionately concentrated in the premium market segment.

California may attempt to address this with scaled incentives, but questions remain about whether the system can truly deliver benefits to everyone. Meanwhile, working-class families who rely on affordable used cars may find themselves subsidizing programs that they cannot realistically take advantage of.

Bowing to the bear

For automakers, California’s decisions carry immense weight. The state accounts for nearly 12% of U.S. auto sales, and when you include the other states that follow its rules, the market share becomes impossible to ignore.

Manufacturers that fail to meet California’s requirements face penalties, while those that comply can earn credits to sell or trade. This system has created an uneven playing field, favoring companies with strong EV lineups.

Tesla, for instance, has profited significantly from selling ZEV credits to competitors in the past. If California establishes a robust new rebate system, it could further tilt the market toward EVs, encouraging automakers to prioritize them even more, take greater losses on each vehicle.

Off the market

At its core, this debate is about whether government policy should drive technology adoption or whether the market should dictate the pace.

California argues that aggressive incentives and mandates are necessary to address climate goals and push the auto industry forward. Critics counter that these policies distort the market, forcing automakers and taxpayers to shoulder costs that may not align with consumer demand. They also warn of unintended consequences, such as reduced affordability, lack of charging stations, and strained electrical infrastructure.

California’s proposal to replace expiring federal EV tax credits with state-funded incentives is the latest chapter in a decades-long story of the state asserting its role as the nation’s automotive regulator.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

For some wealthier car buyers, this could mean continued financial support when purchasing an EV, but it also raises questions about long-term effectiveness. For taxpayers, it means another debate about where funds should be directed and increased taxes for residents. For the auto industry, it underscores more losses on vehicles that are designed by one state’s demands.

As history shows, when California moves, the rest of the country often feels the impact. The next few months will reveal whether the state can successfully design a program that keeps EV sales going without overburdening its citizens with more increased taxes. But one thing is certain: California still has significant power over the U.S. auto industry.

​California, Lifestyle, Auto industry, Ev mandate, Tesla, Align cars 

Erika Kirk, the widow of slain political activist Charlie Kirk, issued her first remarks since his death and spoke about the legacy he left behind and how Americans can continue to support his cause.

Standing behind a podium with the message, “May Charlie be received into the merciful arms of Jesus, our loving Savior,” she spoke about her fallen husband.

‘My husband laid down his life for me, for our nation, for our children. … I will never, ever have the words to describe the loss that I feel in my heart.’

“Good evening. My name is Erika Kirk. Charlie Kirk is my husband,” she began.

She thanked all of the law enforcement officials who worked to hunt the suspect who allegedly shot and killed Kirk. She also thanked Turning Point USA as well as the first responders who tried to revive her husband.

“I want to thank President Trump and his incredible family. … Mr. President, my husband loved you. And he knew that you loved him too. He did. Your friendship was amazing. You supported him so well,” she said.

“Two days ago, my husband, Charlie, went to see the face of his Savior and his God,” she added.

“And one of the final conversations that he had on this earth, my husband witnessed for his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Now and for all eternity, he will stand at his Savior’s side, wearing the glorious crown of the martyr.”

She went on to say that her husband’s mission will continue and strengthen in his absence.

“My husband laid down his life for me, for our nation, for our children. … I will never, ever have the words to describe the loss that I feel in my heart. I honestly have no idea what any of this means. I know that God does, but I don’t,” Kirk said.

She also encouraged young people to find a local chapter of Turning Point USA and continue the mission he started.

“Most important of all, if you aren’t a member of a church, I beg you to join one, a Bible-believing church,” she added.

RELATED: ‘Shame on you!’ Stephen A. Smith tears into people celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk

Vice President JD Vance accompanied Kirk’s family and friends on Air Force Two to bring the casket with Charlie Kirk’s remains from Utah to Phoenix, Arizona.

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that a suspect had turned himself in to law enforcement authorities at the urging of his family. He was identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson and later arrested. He faces charges that include aggravated murder and felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury.

Robinson could face the death penalty if convicted.

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

​Erika kirk, Charlie kirk assassination, Turning point usa, Charlie kirk’s christianity, Politics 

The National Football League chose to honor the memory of Charlie Kirk ahead of its Thursday Night Football game between the Green Bay Packers and the Washington Commanders, but many were offended by the decision.

Video of the announcement at the famed Lambeau Field stadium was also broadcast to the viewers of the game on Amazon Prime after an intro from host Charissa Thompson.

‘I’m sorry but what the f**k are y’all doing?’

“The National Football League asks that you please join us in a moment of silent reflection following the murder of Charlie Kirk,” the announcer said. “The NFL condemns all violence in our communities. It will take all of us to stop hate. Thank you.”

While many appreciated the moment to honor the activist, some on the left spewed their rancor on social media.

“Not for 9/11. Not for children murdered at school. But for a regular guy (not even military) that spewed nothing but hate shielded behind the bible. I thought politics weren’t allowed in this sport?” reads one popular response with 1.1K likes.

“I’m sorry but what the f**k are y’all doing? Didn’t that trout mouth b***h, Laura Ingraham tell Lebron to shut up and dribble?????” another reply reads.

“Racist sympathize with other racist. And the majority of white people in this country are racist,” another detractor wrote.

“But don’t kneel,” one user responded.

The NFL explained in a statement to PFL the reasoning behind the moment of silence.

“Last night’s moment was the league’s decision. It’s up to the clubs for this Sunday’s games,” the statement reads in part. “There have been a variety of moments of silence and tributes in-stadium and on-air in all games or a game immediately following events that rise to a national level. Clubs also often hold moments following a tragic event that affects their community.”

RELATED: ‘Shame on you!’ Stephen A. Smith tears into people celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk

The manhunt for a suspect in the assassination ended Thursday evening when 22-year-old Tyler Robinson turned himself into law enforcement authorities.

His family members realized he matched the appearance of photographs of the suspect that had been released, and he allegedly admitted to the shooting, according to Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. He was arrested without incident that night and could face the death penalty if convicted.

The Packers went on to beat the Commanders by a score of 27 to 18 and remain undefeated through week two of the NFL season.

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

​Thursday night football, Packers vs commanders, Charlie kirk assassination, Moment of silence, Politics 

Conservatives are well aware that Charlie Kirk was as good as they come — honest, kind, hardworking, a family man, a truth seeker, a speaker — and they’ve been mourning his loss accordingly.

But the left has used the 31-year-old’s tragic assassination as an excuse to spread hate, and their horrific messages are everywhere on social media.

It has gotten so bad that even high-level Democrats who have spread vile rhetoric themselves are asking their voters to tone it down.

“This is a time that all Americans should come together and feel and mourn what happened. Violence, which affects so many different people of so many different political persuasions, is an affliction of America, and coming together is what we ought to be doing, not pointing fingers of blame,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

Schumer was joined by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said, “This moment requires leadership that brings the American people together as opposed to trying to further divide us. Political violence in any form against any American is unacceptable, should be denounced by everyone, and moving forward, we have to figure out a better way to come together.”

“Not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans,” Jeffries added.

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t buying it.

“I mean, isn’t that so convenient? Isn’t that so convenient for Hakeem and for Chucky to go over there and tell people now’s the time to come together? You guys are the ones who’ve been calling us this for 10 years,” she says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“It’s gaslighting,” BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden chimes in. “What this is, it’s not just gaslighting, right? It’s mental abuse. That’s what it is. It’s real mental abuse. And the other thing is, not only did people go out and celebrate, but they made it about something else.”

“They pivoted to gun control,” he continues, noting that shortly after bringing gun control into it, they started saying Republicans have been more violent and targeted more people.

“Every lie that the mainstream media puts out, it is cited by other people,” he adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Camera phone, Upload, Sharing, Video, Video phone, Free, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Charlie kirk assassination, Charlie kirk, Leftism, Chuck schumer, Hakeem jeffries