Category: blaze media

For more than two decades, California’s electric vehicle drivers enjoyed a privilege that millions of traditional commuters envied: the ability to glide into the carpool lane while driving solo.

That perk, created under the state’s Clean Air Vehicle program, was meant to reward early adopters of electric cars and hybrids while encouraging the broader public to embrace cleaner transportation. But after September 30, that advantage comes to an end.

When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed it stopped accepting new applications for Clean Air Vehicle decals on August 29, and existing decals will no longer be valid beginning October 1.

Fuel me once

That means a Tesla, Chevy Bolt, or Toyota Prius Prime with a single driver will be treated the same as a gas-powered sedan in traffic. Use the high-occupancy vehicle lane alone, and you risk a ticket of up to $490.

The reason behind this abrupt shift is not state policy but federal law. The Clean Air Vehicle program was last authorized through the 2015 federal transportation law, which included a sunset clause requiring Congress to extend it. That extension never happened. Without Washington’s approval, California cannot legally continue granting carpool lane access to EV drivers.

This has sparked frustration among both state officials and drivers who had come to view the privilege as a key reason to purchase an electric vehicle. Since the program’s inception in 2001, California has issued more than 1.2 million decals, with about 512,000 still valid this summer. The scale of adoption made California a national model for incentivizing EV use. For many, skipping bumper-to-bumper traffic was just as important as lower fuel costs or environmental benefits.

Grumblin’ Gavin

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sharply criticized the lapse, blaming congressional inaction. His office warned that revoking EV access to HOV lanes will worsen traffic congestion and increase air pollution.

California already struggles with air quality, hosting five of the nation’s 10 smoggiest cities, according to the American Lung Association. State officials argue that taking incentives away from EVs could discourage adoption at a time when they want more drivers behind the wheel of battery-powered cars.

But the politics of EV incentives have shifted dramatically in recent years. Bipartisan support has fractured, and federal priorities have moved away from programs like California’s Clean Air Vehicle initiative. Under President Donald Trump, environmental waivers that California used to set its own strict emissions standards were revoked.

He also signed an executive order halting federal EV incentives, such as the $7,500 tax credit, and moved to eliminate the state’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate. More recently, his administration backed several resolutions overturning California’s regulations, including its 2035 ban on new gas-powered cars.

RELATED: Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?

Kevin Carter/Yana Paskova/Getty Images

EV does it

California, for its part, has doubled down on electrification. Electric vehicles accounted for 25% of new car sales in 2024, the highest in the nation. The state now has more EV chargers than gas stations, and its climate policies require automakers to meet aggressive EV sales quotas if they want to continue selling gasoline-powered models. To bridge the gap, state lawmakers passed legislation in 2024 to extend the Clean Air Vehicle program until 2027. But because federal approval was necessary, that effort has now hit a wall.

The loss of carpool lane access raises serious questions about the balance between incentives and mandates. Many Californians purchased EVs with the expectation of long-term access to HOV lanes, and for commuters in areas like Los Angeles or the Bay Area, the time savings are significant. Taking that away could undermine consumer confidence in state-backed incentives. If benefits can vanish overnight, will drivers think twice before making the leap to an electric car, especially with prices still higher than many gasoline vehicles?

There’s also the issue of traffic itself. With over half a million cars losing carpool access at once, HOV lanes may open up — but the general flow of traffic could get worse. California has long promoted these lanes as a way to reduce congestion and emissions. Yet now, drivers who purchased EVs expecting relief from gridlock will be back in the same stop-and-go conditions as everyone else.

Fair fare

Some critics argue that carpool incentives were always meant to be temporary. When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers. EV sales are now far higher than expected when the program began, and some transportation analysts suggest that the incentives have already served their purpose. In their view, it’s time to reassess whether carpool perks are fair, especially as EVs become mainstream.

Still, the political framing remains contentious. California officials see the lapse as part of a broader pattern of federal resistance to their climate policies. They argue that while EVs have become more popular, the fight against pollution requires every possible tool, including access incentives. Without federal cooperation, the state faces limits on how far it can go.

Tolled off

Drivers, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. A Tesla owner who counted on the decal as part of their daily commute could soon be facing hundreds of dollars in fines. Discounts on toll programs, such as those tied to FasTrak Clean Air Vehicle tags, will also vanish unless drivers meet normal occupancy rules.

This moment highlights a broader tension in the transition to electric vehicles: the clash between ambitious state-level initiatives and shifting federal policy. California wants to lead the nation in electrification, but it cannot do so entirely on its own.

As EV adoption accelerates, the question becomes whether incentives should keep pace — or whether it’s time for the market to stand on its own.

For now, the result is clear. Starting in October, California’s EV drivers will no longer be able to rely on their clean-air decals to speed through traffic. Instead, they’ll have to join the same lanes as everyone else, while the larger policy debates play out in Washington and Sacramento.

What happens next will depend on how lawmakers balance environmental goals, commuter realities, and political priorities. But one thing is certain: The end of California’s Clean Air Vehicle program marks a turning point in how America incentivizes electric cars. For drivers, it’s a reminder that government programs can change overnight — and the road ahead may be more complicated than expected.

​Gavin newsom, Clean air vehicle, Hov lanes, Ev carpool, Ev mandate, California, Tesla, Auto industry, Lifestyle, Align cars 

On a recent special episode of “The Steve Deace Show,” Steve, a devout evangelical, interviewed former Protestant pastor turned Catholic apologist Keith Nester about his decision to convert to Catholicism.

In this fascinating and educational interview, Steve and Keith dive headfirst into the turbulent waters of the core issues that separate Catholics and Protestants with openness and sincerity.

The son of a United Methodist pastor, Keith gave his heart to Jesus at church camp when he was just 11 years old. Catholicism wasn’t even something on his radar until his young adulthood, when he got the opportunity to serve as a youth pastor at a small church in Iowa. The youth program started with just 12 children, but two years later, it had grown to 250. Many of these children’s parents then began coming to the church, and the congregation exploded.

Most of these new congregants, however, were Catholics. “They were coming over to our church going, ‘This is the greatest thing ever. I’ve never seen anything like it before. We’re learning about Jesus here,”’ says Keith.

This engrained the idea that Catholics “don’t know anything about the Bible” into his mind as he began his ministry as a Protestant pastor.

But this mindset started to unravel soon after he met a graphic designer who was an on-fire-for-Jesus Catholic. The two quickly began trying to convert each other. Keith, who at the time was in seminary school, consulted his Bible professor to give him the information he needed to “defeat this Catholic.”

“She just said to me, ‘Well, we believe that because we’re Protestants,”’ says Keith, who was forced to go on his own “wild goose chase” looking for the “silver bullet” that would prove his Catholic friend wrong.

But after years and years of searching, he never found it. It wasn’t long before he felt the Lord calling him to convert to Catholicism, but he was resistant — not because he didn’t fully believe in Catholic doctrine but because he had built a life as a Protestant youth pastor. His wife, who converted from Catholicism to Protestantism, and his children were devoted to the Protestant church.

For years, Keith dodged the calling he felt God had put on his heart. “Life got pretty dark. Things went kind of crazy for me,” he admits.

In 2015 the Methodist Church, which Keith had been part of since his childhood, began unraveling. Heated debates over same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ+ people started to fray the edges of the denomination. Keith, committed to scripture, found himself in heated arguments with other Methodists, who contended that scripture could be interpreted in different ways.

“I started to think, okay, well, if I can’t argue from scripture alone, from tradition, then I have to argue from authority, right?” he recalls.

“That got turned back on me pretty hardcore. I even had someone say to me, ‘Well, if you believe in all this church authority stuff, why aren’t you a Catholic?”’

This sent Keith back to the dusty Catholic apologetics books his old friend had given him years prior. “Through a series of just deep dives into things and … semi-mystical experiences, where I just had things that happened to me experientially around things related to the Catholic faith, I became convinced that the Catholic Church was what it claimed to be: the one true church … the church that Jesus Christ started,” he tells Steve.

But there was still the issue of his family and established career as a Protestant minister. One night Keith cried out to Jesus: “If you want me to become Catholic, I will do it. But you’ve got to make a way.”

“And I’m not kidding around, Steve, from the crucifix, He spoke to me and He said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. You don’t need me to make a way, you just need me.’ And I realized in that moment that there He was in the Eucharist and that there He was with me, and He was calling me to lay it all on the line for Him,” he recounts. “I had never felt something more strongly when it comes to my faith in all my life.”

He went home that night and told his wife, and the next day he told the senior pastor at his church. “It was tough … but I knew in my heart that this is what it meant for me to follow the Lord,” Keith admits.

In the second half of the interview, Keith and Steve dive into the individual issues that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism: the authority of the Catholic Church versus sola scriptura, the role of Scripture and tradition, the veneration of Mary and saints, and the nature of church unity and historical continuity.

To hear their compelling and heartfelt discussion on the core differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, tune in to the full interview above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace show, Steve deace, Protestantism, Catholocism, Catholic church, Catholic vs protestant, Keith nester, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Nearly 6,500 women from across the country gathered in Allen, Texas, Saturday for Allie Beth Stuckey’s second annual Share the Arrows conference — a powerful event uniting faith, encouragement, and sisterhood to empower women to stand boldly in the truth of the gospel.

Worship and opening

The event began with a soul-stirring worship session led by Francesca Battistelli, who performed moving renditions of “In Christ Alone” and “Is He Worthy?” Following worship, a lineup of dynamic speakers took the stage to address critical topics impacting women: motherhood, marriage, health, and navigating today’s toxic cultural landscape armed with God’s word.

Alisa Childers: Discernment in a deceptive age

Christian author, speaker, and apologist Alisa Childers opened with a compelling message on discernment amid widespread deception, particularly from “progressive Christianity,” which she said often cloaks demonic ideologies in modernized faith.

Using the analogy of Queen Anne’s lace and poison hemlock – two plants nearly identical in appearance but vastly different in nature – she urged women to distinguish God’s truth from Satan’s lies, which echo the age-old question, “Did God really say that?”

Whether addressing gender, sexuality, abortion, or marriage, Childers emphasized testing all things against Scripture – not fleeting emotions. “Discernment is when you employ knowledge and wisdom to test all things against the Word of God,” she said.0

But in order to live out that discernment, we must first conquer our fear of man. “Give me one woman who fears God more than anything else, and you will find an unstoppable force for Christ,” Childers encouraged.

Abbie Halberstadt and Hillary Morgan Ferrer: The calling of motherhood

In the second session, Allie sat down for a candid conversation with Christian author and homeschooling mother of 10 Abbie Halberstadt and Mama Bear Apologetics founder Hillary Morgan Ferrer about motherhood’s multifaceted challenges, including discipleship, gender, sexuality, technology, and relationships.

Halberstadt drew from her extensive parenting experience, while Ferrer, whose health-related infertility prevents her from having children, shared insights from her research on equipping parents to counter cultural lies with biblical truth.

The panel emphasized that all women – regardless of age, marital status, or fertility – are called to be mothers in some capacity. “All of us are called to a form of motherhood,” Allie encouraged. Whether that’s through having biological children, adoption, or mentorship, the panel urged women of all walks of life to reject the culture’s lies that being a mother is burdensome, and instead to embrace their God-given maternal calling.

Katy Faust: Championing children’s rights

Katy Faust, founder of Them Before Us, then delivered a fiery speech on protecting children from a culture that places their wellbeing on the altar of adult desire.

Addressing issues like divorce, same-sex marriage, and reproductive technologies that create motherless or fatherless environments, Faust highlighted the statistical truth that children thrive best with their married biological parents. “It is very difficult for children to answer the question ‘who am I?’ if they can’t answer ‘whose am I?’” she said.

Faust called for personal sacrifice – forgoing practices like surrogacy or egg/sperm donation – and relentless advocacy for policies that protect children, a fight she believes could “save our nation.”

Shawna Holman and Taylor Dukes: Stewarding health as a temple

Allie was joined on stage next by Shawna Holman, founder of the blog A Little Less Toxic, and Taylor Dukes, a medicine nurse practitioner, for a raw discussion on holistic health. Both women, having overcome severe health challenges – Holman’s chronic illnesses and Dukes’ brain tumor – shared how their journeys led them to advocate for non-toxic living.

They emphasized that Christians must steward their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit through mindful nutrition, exercise, sleep, and hormone balance. Holman advised, “Do what you can with what you’re able and as it makes sense for you,” while Dukes encouraged returning to “how God created us to live” in a fast-paced digital age.

Jinger Vuolo: Forging a personal faith

Jinger Vuolo shared her story of breaking free from the people-pleasing tendencies rooted in her upbringing on TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting, which chronicled her Christian fundamentalist family in Arkansas. In her 2023 memoir, “Becoming Free Indeed: My Story of Disentangling Faith from Fear,” she describes moving beyond the “cult-like” and fear-based beliefs of her childhood.

With grace and compassion, Jinger has skillfully threaded the needle, forging a personal faith distinct from the one she was raised in, while still honoring her parents as scripture encourages. She warned that seeking human approval “often stops us from having genuine relationships,” inspiring women to pursue authentic faith and connections.

A unified call to action

The Share the Arrows conference wove together a tapestry of faith, resilience, and truth, empowering women to stand firm in their God-given roles. From Childers’ call to discernment and Faust’s advocacy for children to Halberstadt and Ferrer’s redefinition of motherhood, Holman and Dukes’ focus on holistic health, and Vuolo’s journey to authentic faith, the event equipped attendees to confront cultural lies with Biblical wisdom. As these women united in Texas, they left inspired to live boldly for Christ, embracing their callings as mothers, stewards, and warriors for truth in a world that desperately needs their light.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

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

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Share the arrows, Blazetv, Blaze media 

A New York man made a bone-chilling on-air television confession to killing his parents and burying them in their backyard.

Last month, 53-year-old Lorenz Kraus reportedly emailed a two-page statement to news outlets regarding a shocking admission.

‘After he died, my mother put her head on his chest — and she was there for a few hours, then I finished her.’

Stone Grissom, WRGB-TV’s news director, told the Times-Union that he promised Kraus to publish his statement on WRGB’s news site if he came to the station for an interview.

“I called him to verify who he was,” Grissom said. “On the phone, he told me he buried his parents in his yard. When I asked if he killed them, he said, ‘I plead the Fifth.'”

Kraus reportedly arrived at the news station within an hour.

Grissom admitted there were major concerns of “inviting someone suspected of a double murder into our station.”

Grissom noted that he personally frisked Kraus upon his arrival and that a plainclothes police officer was in the news station’s secured front lobby.

Greg Floyd — a broadcaster since 1979 — had only 10 minutes to prepare for the eyebrow-raising interview.

During the jarring 31-minute sit-down, Kraus described the deaths of his aging parents as mercy killings to stop their suffering from multiple maladies.

Floyd asked Kraus, “So did you kill your parents as a mercy killing to put them out of their misery?”

Kraus avoided the question.

‘What was I supposed to do with this money?’

After Floyd pressed Kraus about what he did to his parents, Kraus responded, “I buried them in their property.”

Kraus said his parents died around August 2017.

Floyd asked Kraus if his parents asked him to take their lives, and Kraus responded, “Implicitly, but not explicitly.”

Kraus added during the interview, “I did my duty to my parents. My concern for their misery was paramount.”

Kraus did not mention if his parents had terminal illnesses.

In the stunning on-camera confession, Floyd pushed Kraus on whether he murdered his parents — 92-year-old Franz Kraus and 83-year-old Theresia Kraus.

Floyd — a six-time Emmy award-winning broadcaster — asked Kraus, “They knew that this was it for them, that they were perishing at your hand?”

Kraus replied, “Yes. And it was so quick.”

Kraus said he was “shocked” at how his father “died surprisingly quickly.”

Kraus confessed he strangled his parents to death. He admitted that he killed his father first by strangling him with his hands.

“After he died, my mother put her head on his chest — and she was there for a few hours, then I finished her,” Kraus stated.

Kraus confessed that he killed his mother by strangling her with a rope.

When asked what was going through his head as he killed his parents, Kraus said, “Not thoughts — action, make sure it’s done, not fool around, not make a mistake. But you know, the police would say what an incompetent idiot I am.”

Kraus said it took him two or three days to decide to bury his parents in the backyard of their property in Albany.

RELATED: How a butt-dialed voicemail may have exposed chilling cover-up of missing flight attendant’s murder

Kraus also is accused of stealing his parents’ Social Security payments after they died.

Floyd asked Kraus if he knew there were financial benefits to killing his parents.

Kraus claimed the “government is pissed because I took the Social Security money and gave it to people in the Philippines.”

Kraus said his parents’ murders were “not a kill-for-money case.”

Floyd fired back, “Some would call that blood money.”

Kraus responded, “What was I supposed to do with this money?”

Video posted online by WRGB shows police arresting Kraus in the station’s parking lot on Sept. 25, just moments after he left the television studio.

Albany County District Attorney Lee C. Kindlon on Monday announced that Kraus has been charged with murder in the first degree, two counts of murder in the second degree, two counts of concealment of a human corpse, grand larceny in the second degree, and identity theft in the first degree.

‘Cadaver dogs picked up on a scent, and a subsequent excavation in the backyard turned up the couple’s bodies.’

A public defender entered a not guilty plea during a Monday court appearance.

Kraus is being detained without bail at the Albany County Correctional Facility.

Floyd interviewed Kraus a second time from jail. However, Kraus’ public defender allegedly shut down the interview.

According to Floyd, after six or seven questions, the public defender said, “That’s it, you’re walking out of here right now.”

The Associated Press reported that Albany County Assistant Public Defender Rebekah Sokol — who represented Kraus at a hearing last Friday — said she would be investigating how the interview came about because “if the media was essentially an agent of police in this matter, that could raise questions about whether (Kraus’) comments in the interview would be legally admissible at trial.”

Kraus’ parents were never reported missing, and soon “federal agents started investigating suspicious Social Security payments in their names,” WJLA-TV reported.

The indictment accused Kraus of assuming the identity of his father and stealing funds from the family’s estate “in excess of $50,000” sometime between Aug. 30, 2017, and May 27, 2025.

On Sept. 23, 2025, “Cadaver dogs picked up on a scent, and a subsequent excavation in the backyard turned up the couple’s bodies,” Albany authorities stated.

Kraus is scheduled to return to court Oct. 28, WRGB reported.

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

​Murder, True crime, Lorenz kraus, Lorenz kraus confession, On air confession, Lorenz kraus video, New york crime, Crime, Son accused of killing parents, Blood money, Son and parents 

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, urgent questions arise about the role Christianity should play in public life.

In recent months, the unapologetic, personal Christian witness of public officials — and their open collaboration with pastors, priests, and other faith leaders — has drawn new attention. For me, these moments have been deeply moving and inspiring.

The founders were clear: Free institutions depend on moral citizens, and morality is nurtured by religion.

For many in the mainstream media, however, this has been profoundly unsettling, prompting warnings that the nation is sliding toward a form of “Christian nationalism.”

Are they right?

The question may be something of a red herring, but it’s worth addressing. Faith has always shaped American life. The founders never intended to build a secular vacuum; they expected religion to cultivate the virtues that a free people need. At the same time, they knew that belief cannot be imposed. True liberty demands space for religion to flourish — and restraint against coercion.

Living authentically as believers in public life is not the same as enforcing religion on others. The former honors conscience and its freedom while allowing faith to enrich society; the latter distorts faith and undermines pluralism.

Charlie Kirk’s memorial service last month highlighted the power of Christian witness in public life. His widow, Erika, speaking through grief, declared, “I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do.” Her words reminded a nation mired in resentment that Christianity’s strength lies in free, authentic witness. Much has been made of President Trump’s off-message remark, “I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”

But rather than dwell on it, we should note that he later suggested Erika’s example might move him toward forgiveness — a sign of the quiet influence of authentic faith.

Other public officials like Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary Marco Rubio spoke from the heart and leaned on their Christian faith.

It’s here that we must remain careful: If religious witness is perceived as a partisan tool, its power is weakened. The church’s mission is not political victory but the salvation of souls, offered freely to hearts and minds.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk’s legacy exposes a corrosive lie — and now it’s time to choose

WoodyUpstate/Getty Images Plus

Christianity’s very public witness in our nation extends beyond Charlie’s memorial. The members of the presidential Religious Liberty Commission include influential evangelical and Catholic leaders as well as a prominent Jewish rabbi. They have spoken openly about their beliefs and their conviction that faith will heal many of our nation’s divisions.

At the Commission’s third hearing held last week, testimony highlighted ongoing pressures faced by people of faith working to educate our nation’s youth. Catholic Fr. Robert Sirico described relentless targeting by state officials of Sacred Heart Academy, a private, Catholic parochial school in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Sirico deftly clarified the line between faith and power during Q&A: “I’m not advocating the creation of a theocracy. I’m very happy to have a cultural competition of ideas.”

Sirico’s words remind us that resisting coercion is not the same as desiring the control of the public square; it is the defense of the right to live one’s faith fully and contribute accordingly.

Contrast this with the temptation of adherents of Christian nationalism to weaponize the faith for worldly power and control. Such ideologies blur the necessary distinction between the spiritual and temporal, collapsing them into one.

When that happens, both church and state are diminished. Christ himself made this clear when He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Professor Russell Hittinger, executive director of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, has observed that Jesus’ words set apart the heavenly and temporal orders. To confuse them, Hittinger warned, not only misrepresents the mission of the church but also humiliates it because the gospel cannot be reduced to the ambitions of civil power.

Rejecting such ideologies, of course, does not mean ignoring hostility toward Christianity. Believers today are often dismissed as intolerant or branded as bigots.

Yet, the founders were clear: Free institutions depend on moral citizens, and morality is nurtured by religion.

George Washington called religion and morality “indispensable supports” of political prosperity. John Adams warned that the Constitution was made for a “moral and religious people” and is inadequate for any other. At the same time, they recognized that belief must never be forced.

This is why religious pluralism and freedom matter so deeply. The Catholic Church affirmed this in “Dignitatis Humanae,” the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious liberty. It teaches that safeguarding religious freedom benefits both individuals and the Church, while respecting the God-given free will of every person.

America’s constitutional commitment to religious liberty reflects this wisdom, ensuring that Christianity and other faiths can flourish.

The divisions before us are real — but not irreparable. As the nation looks to its semiquincentennial, Christians should reflect on how faith has shaped civic life and be confident that it can help us confront today’s challenges. At the same time, we must resist the temptation to wield political power to impose Christianity.

We are called instead to live our faith visibly, guide others toward justice and mercy, and bear witness to truth through example, persuasion, and love — not through coercion or abuse of authority.

​Catholic, Christianity, Founding fathers, Christian nationalism, First amendment, Religious freedom, Faith 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.

The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?

A strong signal from the court

The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings.

Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):

An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.

That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.

When pressed, Colorado’s attorney stumbled badly. Alito then asked whether “medical consensus” has ever been wrong. She hesitated, and he reminded her of Buck v. Bell, the notorious 1927 decision that upheld forced sterilization based on “progressive” science. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the common progressive opinion at the time: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In closing, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell, who represents therapist Kaley Chiles, delivered the knockout line:

The state of Colorado allows a 12-year-old girl to seek counseling to affirm her so-called gender identity as a boy without parental consent — but forbids her, even with her parents, from seeking help to accept herself as female.

That’s blatant viewpoint discrimination. On this point, the justices seemed receptive.

Junk science and the ‘born this way’ myth

The state also claimed that no one has ever changed their sexual attractions — a claim as false as it is arrogant. One counterexample disproves it, and there are thousands. Our amicus brief cites studies and testimonies from men and women who experienced real change, often through talk therapy.

Colorado’s attorney dug herself in deeper, asserting that all theories linking abuse or family dynamics to sexual identity have been “debunked.” They haven’t. The research she relies on doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, licensed and unlicensed therapists, or talk therapy and coercive “aversion” practices.

That’s ideology, not science. And the justices noticed.

RELATED: Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court

Photo by Sakorn Sukkasemsakorn via Getty Images

The state’s lawyer also leaned on the claim that being gay is innate and immutable. She presented no evidence for that assertion, only the assumption that it must be true. But twin and genetic studies contradict it. Many people once identified as LGBT and no longer do. They exist, they matter, and they expose the lie behind the “born this way” narrative.

What comes next

The court offered no hints about how it will rule on the immutability question. But the justices heard enough to know that Colorado’s law enforces one approved orthodoxy and punishes dissent. That’s unconstitutional — and morally indefensible.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

Here at the Ruth Institute, we’ll keep pressing the truth: “Must Stay Gay” is not OK.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Lgbtq, Conversion therapy, Supreme court, Scotus, Stay gay, Must stay gay, Christian therapists, Christian counselors, First amendment, Freedom of speech 

When considering the issues of low birth rates and population decline, it’s essential to differentiate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-natalist.

While both have concluded that people around the world should have more children, their reasoning is almost diametrically opposed to each other.

Defining terms

Pro-lifers, often informed by Christian morality, believe in the dignity and value of each human life. They value the virtues of the nuclear family, believing it brings out the best in parents and their children. Their commitment to life and family means they vigorously oppose all forms of abortion and, by extension, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, and divorce.

In the pro-life view, lower birth rates are largely the result of cultural and moral decadence, which can be reversed only through a full reformation of social values and institutions.

By contrast, pro-natalists tend to be strict utilitarians, arguing for more children for primarily economic and political reasons. They worry about the public pensions going unsupported, schools emptying, and whole political systems collapsing due to depopulation. They fear a technological regression, a contraction in the markets, and even a revival of provincialism (or de-globalization) in a world with fewer people.

Unlike pro-lifers, they have no problems with employing artificial means of reproduction, legalizing abortion, and allowing any adult, regardless of background, to adopt and raise children for whatever reasons. In the minds of most pro-natalists, depopulation can be averted through twisting the right dials of social policy and letting go of the traditional expectations around parenting.

‘No future is more likely than that people worldwide choose to have too few children to replace their own generation.’

Put more crudely, pro-lifers tend to be conservative and pro-natalists tend to be non-conservatives (which would include libertarians and moderates in addition to progressives).

Then, of course, there are the anti-natalists (usually on the political and cultural left), who believe overpopulation is a problem and oppose having more children. They believe a lower population will improve the environment and the quality of the life for those lucky enough to be alive.

‘After the Spike’

Understanding these distinctions is key to understanding the latest best-selling book on depopulation, “After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People” by economists Dean Spears and Michael Geruso. This is a book by pro-natalists written explicitly for anti-natalists.

As such, the two writers end up spending more time on what they are not arguing (i.e., pro-life claims about morality and culture) than what they are actually arguing (i.e., the pro-natalist concerns about depopulation).

Not only does this approach shut out a large group of potentially sympathetic readers wanting to know more about the issue, but it also fatally undermines their main argument for stabilizing the population. Even though they use the language of anti-natalists and speak to their concerns, it’s doubtful they would even persuade the target audience since their claims are so qualified and open.

However, this is not necessarily the fault Spears and Geruso, but the presuppositions of utilitarianism itself, which prove to be wholly inadequate for addressing the challenge of depopulation.

Math over meaning

These problems begin early in the book. As the book’s title suggests, the writers mainly frame depopulation as a simple math problem. They explain how the world population will peak or “spike” in the coming decades and then swiftly drop over the course of a few generations right afterward.

Their “big claim” in the first two chapters is expressed in clinical terms: “No future is more likely than that people worldwide choose to have too few children to replace their own generation. Over the long run, this would cause population decline.”

Somehow proving this “big claim” takes up nearly a fifth of the whole book. Perhaps they do not want to be confused with Bible-thumping pro-lifers who lack their credentials and supposedly rarely bother with hard numbers. That said, pro-lifers would not deny the claim that depopulation is imminent — birth rates are below replacement, so yes, deaths will outnumber births and result in depopulation — but the anti-natalist crowd evidently struggles to accept this basic fact.

If so, this popular denial might be an interesting potential factor in depopulation to explore further, but the writers never go there. Instead, they review the usual anti-natalist arguments made in favor of depopulation: It’s better for the planet; it’s better for women; and it’s better for conserving resources.

In most cases, debunking these claims is as simple as looking at available social science data. It turns out that the world is cleaner, more equitable, and in less danger of running out of natural resources now with a larger population than it was in the recent past with a smaller population.

RELATED: Trump’s baby bonus won’t work — but we already know the real solution

Kukurund/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Again, this point is fairly easy to grasp, but not if a person casts human beings as irredeemable parasites. Spears and Geruso thus spend much of their time showing that human beings can generate new ideas and do useful things. Yes, a person represents another mouth to feed, but he or she also represents another set of hands who can produce food or anything else.

This means that humanity can clean up their messes, come up with systems that better support women and minorities, and find better ways to extract and use natural resources.

It follows that without these extra people, many innovations would never materialize, social progress would likely stagnate or go backward, and there would be too few workers to support today’s high standard of living. To illustrate how bad conditions could become, the writers bring up the fact that “small towns hardly ever have a great Ethiopian place and a great Indian place and a great Korean place. But big cities often do.”

If the prospect of ghost towns, lonely elderly people dying in squalor, and a full-scale devolution into a pre-industrial age fails to raise any alarms, then maybe the loss of one’s favorite greasy spoon will do it.

Values without roots

Although Dean and Geruso carefully avoid moral questions throughout the book — it’s taken for granted that abortion is good, modern feminism has zero downsides, and human-caused climate change is a critical matter — they make their one moral claim in favor of having children in the most generic tautology they can muster: “More good is better.”

In other words, a bigger overall population means a bigger number of worthwhile lives. But what makes a life worthwhile? True to utilitarian philosophy, it’s all about material comforts and basic necessities.

For those who argue that this makes an insufficient distinction about the moral worth (or worthlessness) of each life and the surrounding context in which a life is lived, they will have to settle for the writers’ quantifications and graphs.

Once Spears and Geruso establish that people are good and that depopulation is bad, they move on to possible solutions. Unfortunately, nothing seems to work. Compelling people to have children (as Romania did under Nicolae Ceausescu) or offering money and additional maternity leave (as the Swedish government has done) have done little to fix the sliding birth rates.

The main problem seems to be that women will have fewer children if the opportunity costs of parenting are too high. As the writers declare in their inimitable prosaic style, “Spending time on parenting means giving up something. Because the world has improved around us, that ‘something’ is better than it used to be.” When men and women find fulfillment in their careers and self-indulgence, they have less interest in sacrificing this for the sake of having children.

While this assertion aligns with their value-neutral utilitarian premises, Spears and Caruso are completely uninterested in countries that still have high birth rates, like those in sub-Saharan Africa.

‘Change needs vision and values and commitments before detailed plans matter at all.’

Would it offend their readers to suggest that these countries have high birth rates because there are relatively few opportunity costs that exist because these countries are less developed? Is there something to be said about traditional gender roles and the high regard given to parenthood and children in these cultures? What about the religious practices of these places?

For unspecified reasons, these obvious questions about population trends are scrupulously ignored.

Where science fails

Instead, the writers insist that there is no solution to the depopulation bomb set to go off after the spike: “No one has such a solution. The challenge is still too new.” For the time being, people need to be made aware of the difficulties that await them and consider ways they can organize and effect change.

In other words, it’s a weak ending to a weak argument in favor of a weak position. But even this could be forgiven if the book overall were interesting, but it isn’t. By avoiding moral questions, ignoring cultural factors, and rejecting all speculation, “After the Spike” is boring, basic, and dry.

Still, Spears and Geruso perform an important service by demonstrating the limits of pro-natalism. While it’s perfectly reasonable to be worried about the global birth dearth and to try to use the scientific method to fix this problem, the formation of families and communities is a fundamentally human matter that largely transcends the scope of the sciences.

Although graphs can illustrate the superficial reality of declining populations, it will take the humanities disciplines to understand and effectively address this reality on a deeper level. Moreover, it will require letting go of progressive priorities and returning to certain beliefs and practices that made parenthood in the past more appealing than it is now.

This may be hard pill for pro-natalists to swallow, but as Spears and Geruso themselves conclude, “Change needs vision and values and commitments before detailed plans matter at all.”

This “vision and values” just happen to be pro-life — not pro-natalist.

​Pro-life, Pro-natalism, Family, Birth rate, Birth rate decline 

President Donald Trump is implementing a temporary solution to minimize the pain inflicted on American servicemen during the Democrat-induced government shutdown.

Trump announced Saturday that he has identified funds for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to use to ensure American troops don’t miss a paycheck on Oct. 15. This action comes after the Senate reached a stalemate, sending lawmakers home until votes resume Tuesday.

‘I will not allow the Democrats to hold our Military, and the entire Security of our Nation, HOSTAGE.’

With no end to the shutdown in sight, Trump decided to take matters into his own hands.

“Chuck Schumer recently said, ‘Every day gets better’ during their Radical Left Shutdown,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Saturday. “I DISAGREE! If nothing is done, because of ‘Leader’ Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, our Brave Troops will miss the paychecks they are rightfully due on October 15th.”

RELATED: White House deploys nuclear option amid Democrat-induced shutdown stalemate

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“That is why I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our Troops PAID on October 15th,” Trump added. “We have identified funds to do this, and Secretary Hegseth will use them to PAY OUR TROOPS.”

Democrats allowed government funding to lapse past the Sept. 30 deadline, refusing to pass the Republican-led continuing resolution. Although spending fights have turned partisan in the past, Republicans simply proposed a clean 90-page CR that kept funding levels at the same rates that Democrats voted for in the past. Their bill had no partisan line items, with the only anomaly being a bipartisan boost in security funding for politicians following Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

On the other hand, Democrats proposed a $1.5 trillion funding bill that is chock-full of ideological provisions aimed at reversing the legislative accomplishments Republicans secured with the One Big Beautiful Bill. Democrats have also attempted to make the spending fight about renegotiating Obama-era health care subsidies, although they don’t expire until the end of the year.

RELATED: White House dares Democrats with nuclear response to looming shutdown

Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

“I will not allow the Democrats to hold our Military, and the entire Security of our Nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous Government Shutdown,” Trump said. “The Radical Left Democrats should OPEN THE GOVERNMENT, and then we can work together to address Healthcare, and many other things that they want to destroy. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

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

​Donald trump, Truth social, Pete hegseth, Military, American military, Us servicemen, Department of war, Secretary of war, Commander in chief, Government shutdown, Schumer shutdown, Chuck schumer, Hakeem jeffries, Continuing resolution, Senate democrats, Senate republicans, Congress, Aca subsidies, Politics 

With Beijing preparing to seize Taiwan and Washington bleeding resources in Ukraine, Americans are asking the question no one in the Pentagon wants to answer: Is the U.S. military ready for World War III? The truth is worse than most people realize.

We’re not even close.

America deserves a military led by warriors, not bureaucrats. The time for excuses is over.

Under the last three Democratic presidents, the armed forces have been systematically weakened. Bill Clinton lowered physical fitness standards to shoehorn women into combat roles. Barack Obama elevated Marxist generals who smuggled diversity, equity, and inclusion into the ranks under the banner of “modernization.” Joe Biden went further, purging the unvaccinated, fixating on gender ideology and climate change, and leaving supply chains dangerously dependent on foreign — often Chinese — manufacturers.

The result is a hollowed-out military that struggles to meet recruitment goals, maintain readiness, or inspire confidence. War Secretary Pete Hegseth has begun the long process of repair — firing the worst woke officers, reinstating real fitness standards, and banning DEI.

But the rot runs deeper. Unless we reform the institutions that produce our officers, we’ll fail at the most important mission of all: restoring the warrior spirit.

Academies in decline

As a West Point graduate, I know the academies’ first duty is to forge warrior-leaders. Everything else is secondary. Yet West Point Superintendent Steven Gilland has traded that mission for racial quotas and “whiteness” seminars that divide cadets and undermine cohesion. The dean even tried to install Biden’s “disinformation czar” as “distinguished chair” of the Social Studies Department — until the Trump administration intervened.

The rot extends across all five service academies. At the Merchant Marine Academy, former Superintendent Joanna Nunan persecuted Christians and promoted transgender ideology until Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy fired her in June.

Civilian faculty have made matters worse. At the Air Force Academy alone, nearly 200 professors push progressive politics in uniform. One mocked her students as “White Boy 1, 2, 3.” Another championed critical race theory and insisted America was “racist from the beginning.” This isn’t military education. It’s Berkeley activism in uniform. And it’s driving away the next generation of patriots.

The Marxist march through the ranks

ROTC programs, which produce most of the Army’s officers, have followed the same Marxist path. Cadets can now major in grievance studies at universities like Wisconsin-Madison, then enter the officer corps unprepared for actual war-fighting. That’s not how you beat China.

Postgraduate institutions such as the Naval and Army War Colleges, Air University, and the National Defense University have become bureaucratic echo chambers for climate activism and social justice rhetoric. Their accrediting agencies enforce DEI mandates and even filed briefs opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based admissions. Civilian faculty dominate the classrooms, feeding officers a steady diet of leftist ideology and contempt for the commander in chief.

RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: Our military’s problem isn’t only fitness. It’s bad education.

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

This didn’t happen overnight. It’s the product of cultural Marxism’s “long march through the institutions,” a decades-long campaign to hollow out American strength from within. From boot camp to the War College, officers now absorb ideology instead of discipline. The price of that indoctrination will be paid in blood if war comes.

Reclaiming the warrior ethos

The tide is beginning to turn. For the first time in decades, the left is on defense. President Trump has given the military a mandate to purge Marxism and restore its fighting spirit. Patriots across the country are watching — and acting.

Through RestoreTheMilitary.com, we’ve outlined a blueprint to rebuild the force: Fire ideological officers, overhaul the National Defense Authorization Act, remove civilian faculty from service academies, ban DEI, reward war-fighters who risk their lives, and end our dependence on foreign supply chains.

The message to Congress couldn’t be clearer: Do your duty — or step aside. America deserves a military led by warriors, not bureaucrats. The time for excuses is over.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, West point, Woke west point, Dei, Dein in military, Military, Woke agenda, Diversity equity inclusion, Pete hegseth, National defense university, National defense, Deep state, Cultural marxism, Long march, Sean duffy, Joanna nunan, Steven gilland, Rotc, Bill clinton, Barack obama, Joe biden, Department of war, National defense authorization act 

The American trucking industry is facing numerous underreported challenges that directly impact national security, supply chain integrity, and road safety, among other critical issues that were exacerbated by the Biden administration’s open-border crisis.

While the Trump administration’s Department of Transportation, under the leadership of Secretary Sean Duffy, has already moved to address some of the many challenges related to the issuance of commercial driver’s licenses, often referred to as CDLs, the American public remains largely unaware of the extent of those looming dangers from years of insufficient oversight in this area.

‘One third of the fleet hauling our freight in this country is not controlled by American citizens.’

The non-domiciled driver takeover

Bill Skinner, the president of Skinner Transfer Corp., a mid-size carrier that has been operating for 93 years, shed light on a portion of that reality in a September 22 X post, where he described a recent collision involving Werner Enterprises, a major American trucking company.

Skinner claimed that a Werner driver with a non-domiciled CDL ran into one of his trucks on the I-80 in Ohio.

“[The] Werner driver decided to change lanes, did it too early,” Skinner told Blaze News. “Luckily, minor damage to our truck.”

Skinner’s driver claimed that the Werner driver required a translator app to communicate, in violation of the English language proficiency requirement for commercial operators. However, the Ohio State Highway Patrol claimed the driver “was able to effectively communicate.”

“On September 17, 2025, the Ohio State Highway Patrol investigated a non-injury crash involving a licensed commercial driver, who stated he attempted to make a lane change due to signage while approaching a construction zone,” the Highway Patrol told Blaze News. “The driver was able to effectively communicate in English with troopers during the investigation and was cited for an improper lane change after striking the mirror of another commercial vehicle. Following the investigation, the driver was released and allowed to continue operating his vehicle.”

“The Patrol remains committed to ensuring safety on Ohio’s roadways through thorough crash investigations and enforcement of traffic laws,” the Highway Patrol added.

When asked for clarification about whether the driver needed a translator app, the Highway Patrol replied, “No translator was used during our interaction with the driver.”

Werner Enterprises declined Blaze News’ request for comment for this story.

RELATED: Hidden phones, earpieces: Five non-English speakers arrested for alleged CDL cheating scheme

Image source: Bill Skinner

‘Ghost’ companies dodge consequences

Skinner stated that the accident involving the Werner driver represents only a fraction of a much larger issue facing smaller and mid-size American trucking companies like his own.

Skinner explained that he has “multiple” ongoing insurance claims from other trucking companies whose drivers have caused accidents. He noted that many of the claims involve “ghost” trucking companies that are “set up in America from people overseas.” The majority of incidents occur on private property, such as truck stops or shipper and receiver loading docks, which often means law enforcement does not respond to mediate the situation.

‘Foreign nationals, especially from India, Uzbekistan, Moldova, they run at rates that are far less than what an American man would drive a truck for.’

When asked about what recourse his company can take to recoup damages by ghost companies, Skinner responded, “Just document what we have and hope and pray somebody has integrity.” However, he noted that “very rarely” occurs.

“We end up just eating the cost,” Skinner said of accidents involving ghost companies, which he noticed began popping up around 2016 and exploded in 2022. “They’re outside of their insurance range. … You can’t track any of these people down, and you never get a payment from the insurance company.”

Skinner stated that he has seen instances where a carrier that claimed up to 50 or 60 trucks listed its address as a strip mall gas station located at the edge of Los Angeles. Similarly, ghost trucking companies have reportedly taken over many truck stops, using them as terminals for their operations. Skinner found one instance where nearly 40 trucking companies were registered at the same address.

RELATED: American trucking at a crossroads: Deadly crash involving illegal alien exposes true cost of Biden’s border invasion

Photo by GEORGE FREY/AFP via Getty Images

Those ghost companies typically exclusively pay their drivers on a 1099 model instead of a W-2, allowing employees to evade state and federal income taxes more easily, Skinner said. He stated that one refugee who attended his truck driving school refused to work for his carrier company because it is a W-2 employer.

Skinner told the refugee that he was still required by law to pay taxes on his income even as a 1099 worker.

“The gentleman looked right at me and says, ‘We know the program. We do not pay income taxes to state or federal governments anywhere. We’ll pay sales tax, but no income tax.’ I said, ‘What happens when they catch up to you?’ [He responded,] ‘The governments take four to six years to catch up to us, and by then, we’re either gone or we’ve changed our identity. … This is the program we’ve used for the last 20 years,'” Skinner told Blaze News, recounting his conversation with the refugee. “This whole non-domiciled CDL thing, it’s tax evasion; it’s insurance fraud. Freight theft is huge with all this, double [and] triple brokering, supply chain issues. This thing has got so many tentacles.”

The saturation of non-domiciled CDLs is just one of the many issues facing the American trucking industry. Skinner noted that the September accident was not the first time a non-domiciled driver had struck one of his trucks.

Non-domiciled CDLs are licenses issued by a state to a driver who is not a resident of that state. These licenses are intended for American citizens and foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the U.S. However, varying state requirements and inadequate oversight have created opportunities for the exploitation of regulatory gaps and widespread fraud, especially during the open-border crisis.

‘I stumbled upon 500 or so non-domiciled CDLs, and 10% of them probably are “no name given.”’

Smaller American trucking companies are struggling to meet the competitive rates of larger carriers that are hiring “very inexpensive” noncitizen labor, Skinner said. He noted that it is an “unfair playing field” for smaller companies.

Skinner told Blaze News that he wants Americans to know that “one third of the fleet hauling our freight in this country is not controlled by American citizens.”

“This is a national security risk and a safety risk,” he declared, adding that he “firmly believe[s] that India and China are trying to disrupt our freight network.”

Nameless drivers and regulatory loopholes

Danielle Chaffin, a trucking professional, uncovered further concerning issues with CDL issuance, finding that numerous states have provided licenses to drivers who failed to provide their full legal names.

Chaffin discovered CDLs that, instead of displaying the drivers’ legal names, read, “NO NAME GIVEN,” or various acronyms indicating a similar lack of information, including “FNU” for “first name unknown,” “LNU” for “last name unknown,” “NGN” for “no given name,” and “UNK” for “unknown.”

In some situations, these generic placeholders are added when a foreign national’s name does not conform to U.S. naming conventions. However, Chaffin argued that within the trucking industry, these placeholders amount to deliberate fraud, noting that there were examples of licenses belonging to individuals who did have a full legal name, but it was not used. Most of the licenses she discovered were issued in California.

“I stumbled upon 500 or so non-domiciled CDLs, and 10% of them probably are ‘no name given,'” Chaffin, who has been tracking the situation since June, told Blaze News.

RELATED: ‘Imminent hazard’: Trump administration shuts licensing loophole after illegal alien trucker allegedly causes fatal crash

Image source: Danielle Chaffin

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) verified Chaffin’s findings last month when he shared an image of a CDL issued by New York that read, “NO NAME GIVEN.”

Even more concerning, the omitted names went beyond just commercial drivers. Chaffin also uncovered 91 instances since January in which a USDOT number, which companies are required to obtain to operate commercial vehicles involved in interstate commerce, was issued to individuals with no given name.

“They will file the trucking companies with that name, ‘no name given,’ but then as soon as it’s approved, they’ll go back in and update the contact to the full legal name,” Chaffin said.

When asked why carriers would do this, she speculated that the companies might be trying to skirt the matching rules within the DOT’s technology, exploiting a potential loophole in the department’s system.

‘We truly have a broken system.’

Chaffin explained that ghost, also known as chameleon or reincarnating, carriers will register for multiple USDOT numbers. Then, when the company receives penalties, faces high insurance premiums, is subject to a pending investigation or lawsuit, or earns a negative safety score, it switches to a different USDOT number to continue its operations and avoid any consequences.

“When they file for the new [trucking company], they use ‘no name given’ because it doesn’t match with the previous company,” Chaffin said.

“They’ll switch the numbers out on the truck,” she continued. “Same trucking company, just a new name and number.”

— (@)

The high cost

These issues only begin to highlight the extent of the system’s faults, raising concerns about road safety for everyday Americans and posing a significant national security threat.

“All of the non-domiciled CDLs are foreign nationals,” Chaffin told Blaze News. “The greatest threat in what we’re seeing now is taking the jobs and pay away from the American worker. Foreign nationals, especially from India, Uzbekistan, Moldova, they run at rates that are far less than what an American man would drive a truck for.”

She stated that legacy, family-owned American trucking companies that have been around for decades have been forced into bankruptcy.

Chaffin highlighted another issue with the increase in foreign-operated trucking companies.

“The rings of trucking companies and the technology that they use, most of it is based overseas,” she said. “They have their technology, their data centers — none of that happens in the U.S. And so, they have all of our logistics data, trucks, where they are, what’s on the trucks, what the driver’s doing, all of the infrastructure, where things are going, at what time, when it’s being picked up, when it’s being delivered.”

“We truly have a broken system,” she added.

Chaffin credited Duffy for listening to the concerns of those within America’s trucking industry.

The DOT secretary announced emergency action in September to drastically limit the eligibility requirement for non-domiciled CDLs. The DOT found numerous instances where non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued, including to foreign nationals with expired work authorization.

“Truckers keep America running. While the country sleeps, truckers grind through the night to help keep shelves stocked, families fed, and businesses humming. It’s a job that requires grit and dedication. But for too long Washington, D.C., has made work harder for truckers. That ends today. Thanks to President Trump, we’re getting Washington out of your trucks and your business,” Duffy stated.

Blaze News reached out to the state-level DOTs in California, Utah, and New York regarding the no-name CDLs. The Utah DOT did not respond, and the New York and California DOTs deferred comment to their respective Department of Motor Vehicles.

The New York DMV stated that the license shared by the Oklahoma governor was “issued in accordance with all proper procedures, including verification of the individual’s identity through federally issued documentation.”

“The individual has lawful status in the United States through a federal employment authorization and was issued a license consistent with federal guidelines,” the DMV’s statement continued. “This document was not issued under the Green Light Law. It is not uncommon for individuals from other countries to have only one name. Procedures for that are clearly spelled out in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual, and it is important to note that federal documents also include a ‘no name given’ notation.”

The California DMV did not respond to a request for comment.

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

​News, American trucking industry, American trucking, Trucking, Trucking industry, Department of transportation, Dot, Sean duffy, Bill skinner, Skinner transfer corp, Werner enterprises, Werner, California, New york, Danielle chaffin, Cdls, Cdl, Commercial driver’s licenses, Commercial driver’s license, Usdot number, Usdot, Kevin stitt, Ghost companies, Ghost carriers, Ghost trucking companies, Chameleon carriers, Chameleon trucking companies, Politics 

A “gigantic mental health catastrophe” began in 2012, and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes that overprotecting children in the real world — by not letting them out to play and develop independence — and under-protecting them online is to blame.

Especially now that around every corner is an app fighting for your child’s attention.

“We have all kinds of documents, leaks, docu reports that came out in lawsuits where we hear them talking about all the harm they’re causing and all the things they’re doing to cause addiction. These platforms are designed to grab our kids’ attention and never let go because if they let go, it’s going to go to their competitor,” Haidt tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Podcast.”

“So I think now that the case is pretty much closed, the argument that ‘Oh well, we just don’t know, we need to gather more information,’ you know, that was the tobacco industry playbook decades ago,” he explains.

Haidt calls it an “evil industry,” with TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat “harming children at an industrial scale.”

“We’re not just talking like a few hundred kids. We’re talking literally tens of millions are harmed and thousands are dead. So I do think that this is having a very pernicious effect on society, on children,” he says.

And it’s not only affecting their attention spans.

“They need to make lots of mistakes and learn from them. And then especially during puberty … when the brain is changing very, very fast. It’s rewiring from the child to the adult form. And so if in puberty, kids are not out there having adventures and flirting and getting embarrassed and getting in arguments … if they’re not out there having real world experience, it’s going to prevent the neurons from wiring up in a healthy adult way,” Haidt explains.

“In terms of what they’re going to be like in 30 years, here’s what we can say with some confidence just because these are the way the trends are. They’re going to be more anxious and more fragile,” he continues.

“We never let them grow thick skin. We never let them have those toughening experiences,” he adds.

But that’s not the biggest issue these children will face.

“The biggest one I think is the destruction of the human capacity to pay attention. Young people, they find it very difficult to pay attention to anything for more than 10 or 15 minutes. They find it difficult to watch movies,” Haidt says.

“They find it difficult to read a book, and they’re reading much, much less. Can you imagine Western civilization if we lose books? If it’s all just TikTok?” he asks, noting that while attention span might be the most common, it will also affect demographics.

“The frequency of sex and marriage was already falling with the Millennials. It’s falling much faster with Gen Z. Boys raised on porn who have very poor social skills and play a lot of video games and don’t have really much practice flirting,” Haidt tells Glenn.

“And that’s just on the boy side. The girls especially are more anxious and fragile, which is also a bad sign for marriage,” he adds.

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.

​Video, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video phone, Camera phone, Youtube.com, The glenn beck podcast, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze originals, Blaze online, Jonathan haidt, Tiktok, Mental health, Gen z, Marriage trends, Snapchat, Children attention span, Attention spans, Social media, Dangers of social media 

While history suggests that religious zeal often follows and quickly fades after events like the assassination of Charlie Kirk, prophetic visions from more than 400 years ago shine a light on our current situation and offer hope for a sustained faith revival.

Through an Ecuadorian nun, Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, the Virgin Mary — under the title “Our Lady of Good Success” — reputedly foretold with staggering precision the ominous religious landscape of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, an immense loss of faith and practice — a mass apostasy — would be followed by a religious restoration.

Mother Mariana’s tale offers wisdom: God has an eternal devotion to us. He is always working, especially when the times are bleakest, and He will triumph.

Born to a Spanish noble family in 1563, Mother Mariana accompanied her religious aunt, Maria, to Quito, Ecuador, at a young age. At 15 years old, Mariana made her vows and joined the Conceptionist Order, of which she would later serve as abbess. Throughout her pious life, she had visions of our Lord, the Virgin Mary, angels, and various saints.

One evening in 1582, while praying before the Blessed Sacrament, Mother Mariana reportedly witnessed a crucified Christ bearing inscriptions related to God’s punishments for the late 20th century due to heresy, blasphemy, and impurity. During the encounter, the Blessed Mother asked the nun — who had been “judged blameless” — whether she would “sacrifice” herself for those sinners, which the nun accepted.

Mother Mariana’s mystic visions spanned decades, and they “tortured” her because of a predicted loss of innocence and modesty by children and women in the decades we are now living in. In these visions, the Virgin Mary consistently expressed her deep sorrow for the “children of these times” — because Satan “will reign” and faith would decay.

She prophesied that heresy would flourish in our times; vocations would be lacking, accompanied by rampant “sexual impropriety”; priests would scandalize the faithful; and the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, marriage, and extreme unction, would be attacked, robbed of meaning, or forgotten. Many “frivolous souls” would be lost in the mayhem.

Despite the numerous grave warnings, the Blessed Mother also offered consolation and encouragement, telling Mother Mariana about the “merciful love of my Son” for the faithful during this period, prophesying the “happy beginning of the complete restoration.”

To spread devotion, Our Lady of Good Success instructed Mother Mariana to commission a statue, which had been “miraculously completed” by the archangels in January 1611, according to legend.

Mother Mariana died at the age of 72 on January 16, 1635. In the ensuing years, the local diocese approved and promoted the apparitions — which are now a worldwide devotion after awareness accelerated due to the accuracy of the predictions. In 1790, Father Manuel Sousa Pereira catalogued the religious nun’s life in “The Admirable Life of Madre Mariana de Jesus Torres,” and in 1986, the Archdiocese of Quito officially opened her cause for canonization.

The accuracy of the prophecies was borne out by the sexual revolution and anti-traditional posture of the 1960s, millions of children dying from abortion, and the clerical sexual abuse scandal, to name a few. From these spewed a myriad of social pathologies that have plagued not only the Catholic Church’s standing as a moral stalwart, but civilization at large. The proof has been, sadly, evident.

Vocations did collapse — as well as widespread religious practice and prayer. Marriage has declined, along with baptisms and the other sacraments. There has been a glaring lack of knowledge about the Eucharist — the source and summit of Christian life. When the basic tenets of faith are misunderstood or ignored entirely, a mass apostasy is inevitable and has taken place in the West, which has affected all Christian denominations.

Consequences beyond the Church

The decline in American religiosity raises even broader concerns for everyone. Religiously unaffiliated residents are less civically engaged than those active in their faith lives and less charitable in terms of monetary donations. As apostasy spreads, civic associations have likewise closed, providing fewer opportunities for neighbors to commune and engage in society.

It is no coincidence, then, that a bevy of social ills are emerging from the lack of social cohesion since the early 2000s, which Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam recognized in his book, “Bowling Alone.” Since then, Americans have experienced a precipitous rise in anxiety and depression, particularly among younger demographics, leading to a pervasive “happiness crisis.” It is no wonder that people are generally despondent or searching for answers.

Increasingly, we are isolated from God, our neighbors, and ourselves.

A ‘Great Awakening’

But in Christ’s parable of the prodigal son, the titular son returned to his father after hitting rock bottom. After the strife of the 20th and early 21st centuries, is a renewal — or “restoration” as Our Lady of Good Success allegedly proclaimed — a possibility? And did we collectively have to hit our lowest point to come back to our senses and God?

The seeds for a 21st-century “Great Awakening” are not entirely improbable. Within the past year, members of Gen Z have flocked to religion more than previous generations, and the rise in religious “nones” — or the unaffiliated — has slowed. U.S. politicians have urged a “spiritual reawakening” and have expressed a desire to “bring God back” into the public square. The Trump administration established the Religious Liberty Commission to reacquaint Americans with “our Nation’s superb experiment in religious freedom in order to preserve it against emerging threats.”

While challenges remain and thousands of churches are set to close, Kirk’s death could be a spark for a surge in religious practice in a nation that has, for the past few decades, jettisoned faith. After all, an overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God, so there may be a willing audience.

For the faithful, we not only have encouraging signs of a revival, but promises in Scripture. Christ promises to the apostles, and us, that the “gates of the netherworld shall not prevail” against the church. Ultimately, heaven will win — and hell will lose. In the end, God will restore creation, wiping every tear from our eyes, and establish a new heaven and new earth.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk sparks viral Christian revival: ‘I’m going to go take his seat for him’

Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images

Although the apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success have so far proven true, Mother Mariana’s tale offers wisdom: God has an eternal devotion to us. He is always working, especially when the times are bleakest, and He will triumph.

With the recent increase in religious attendance, clamor for God, and discussion of a spiritual renewal in the weeks following Kirk’s death, perhaps a potential “restoration” of sorts — even if short-lived — may be looming on the near horizon. The data and cultural shift should fill us with hope and strengthen our hearts to welcome the influx of weary and inflamed souls longing for peace, meaning, and God.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Prophecy, Prophecy fulfilled, Sexual revolution, Revivial, Mary, Mother mary, Catholic, Catholicism, Quito, Equador, Charlie kirk assassination, Mariana de jesus torres, Nun, Scandal, Priests, Abuse, Miracles, Canonization, Sainthood, Marriage and family, Faith 

For decades, the government’s dietary guidelines have dictated what Americans eat, and surprise, surprise — we’re sicker than ever.

Today, 60% of the American population have at least one chronic disease, and roughly 85% of the nation’s $5.3 trillion annual health care spending goes toward treating chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, heart disease, and cancer.

We know that the number-one factor in chronic disease is poor diet, and yet the government has long pushed the very highly processed foods that make us sick, while promoting pharmaceutical drugs as the magic answer.

For example, it’s not uncommon to hear the government debate how to lower insulin prices.

“You can just eliminate the need for insulin by just getting people off the one macronutrient that causes blood sugar to spike, and that is carbohydrate,” investigative science journalist Nina Teicholz told BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan on a recent episode of “Back to the People.”

“The current thinking is: Don’t restrain yourself — eat the cake, eat the bread, but then you have to cover it with insulin. How about just don’t eat the bread, don’t eat the cake, and reverse your condition?” she asks.

Nina expresses frustration that such a simple fix — one that would save us “almost a billion dollars a day” and “reverse other chronic conditions” — has been so impossible to push in the public square.

“Nobody discusses this. It’s like a taboo subject,” she laments.

Nicole agrees. “No, we have a president [Joe Biden] and a senator, Bernie Sanders, standing together hugging one another, talking about reducing the cost of drugs. … There’s not a single politician out there that is charting a path for people to get off of drug reliance.”

The duo reflect back on the disappointing White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health hosted by the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, which Nicole helped raise funding for.

Sugar — perhaps the biggest contributor to chronic diseases — wasn’t even mentioned.

“What came out of that [conference] was a huge amount of investment in the fake-food sector. It was fake protein, fake seafood, more fake meats, fake dairy, fake eggs. Those are ultra-processed foods that replace natural whole foods,” says Nina.

The other result of the conference was “a total doubling down on the dietary guidelines, which have been shown to not work.”

Nicole was hopeful that the 2018 Farm Bill, which governs agricultural and food programs, including farm subsidies, crop insurance, nutrition assistance (like SNAP), and rural development, would “[support] farmers who are producing really great, clean food,” but sadly, the Farm Bill has “made virtually no progress” when it comes to health.

“If anything … it’s added protections to the agrochemical businesses,” she laments.

Further, “SNAP has grown so enormously and without any restrictions or caps on how SNAP is spent. Soda remains the largest single item that consumers purchase with their SNAP benefits.”

Why is the government so resistant to moving toward the simple adjustments that would reverse chronic diseases? As Nicole and Nina see it, it’s obvious: “Pretty much every member of Congress is supported by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“They make profits when people are unhealthy, not healthy,” Nina says frankly.

To hear more of the conversation, 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, Nicole shanahan, Nina teicholz, Dietary guidelines, Diet, Chronic disease, Chronic disease epidemic, Big pharma, Congress, Blazetv, Blaze media, Farm bill 

I was stunned when it happened. Since the day we married, I had been his verbal punching bag — insults about my faith, my body, my job, and everything in between were constant. But this was the first time my husband put his hands on me.

My crime? After enduring a month of the silent treatment, I finally found the courage to ask, “Do you love me?” He snapped, and all 6’4”, 260 pounds of him charged toward me, pushing me so hard that I stumbled backward and out of our family room. When I regained my footing, I looked up at him — a head taller and a hundred pounds heavier — and said I was done being silent about his abuse.

I said, ‘This is the worst day of my life. I need you.’ He looked at me and said, ‘No, the worst day of your life was marrying me.’

In hindsight, it wasn’t a safe move, because it enraged him. He grabbed my phone, and when I tried to leave, he planted himself in front of the door to the garage, my exit, refusing to let me get by. Terrified, I ran to our bedroom and locked the door. Later that evening, when I heard him walking on the floor above me, I bolted. It felt like I was moving in slow motion as I raced to the car, but I hit the gas just as he reached the doorway yelling, “You’re ruining everything!”

The mask of abuse

In a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, the researchers found that roughly one in four women and about one in seven men experience physical violence from a partner. Rates of emotional abuse are higher. Like most victims, I never imagined that this would be part of my marriage or my life. Few knowingly say “I do” to abuse. And — perhaps arrogantly — I didn’t think it could happen to me.

At 41, I owned a successful Washington, D.C., public relations firm, was a regular guest on cable news, and coached members of Congress on their on-camera presence. Surely someone who reads body language for a living would recognize the signs.

But abuse is insidious, and it starts with a mask.

Our story began like a pandemic romance. It was the fall of 2020, the first year of COVID. I had just moved from Washington, D.C., and he from Nashville — both of us to South Carolina, where we had family.

After a friend’s suggestion to try the dating apps in a new city, I begrudgingly created a profile. Over the years, I’d ended an engagement, had boyfriends who didn’t work out, and tried online dating, which felt like day trading. But finding a man who shared my faith and values, and who also offered mutual love and respect, had proved nearly impossible.

Before long, I connected with the person who would become my husband. We messaged back and forth, and then he asked, “Would you like to FaceTime?” When we met virtually, we both laughed and said, “You actually look like you!” — a rarity in the world of online dating photos.

That conversation turned into an hours-long first date, followed by a second where I met his family and a third where he met mine. I hadn’t lived near family in two decades, so having both families involved from the start felt safe.

Answered prayers

We seemed aligned in all the big ways: faith, politics, and family, including trying for kids at our ripe old age of 41 — I was exactly four days older. I still remember the night he met my cousin with Down syndrome. He spoke to him like the man he was — not someone with a disability — and knew all his favorite Disney songs. Later, he joined my family in singing hymns, knowing every word.

We shared many of the same passions: the arts, sports, travel, dogs. My English bulldog loved him for many reasons, but especially because he’d get on the ground, rope in hand, to play tug-of-war — the only sport my dog excelled in and one I didn’t. I’d sit back and laugh, heart filled.

As the months went by, we shared our lives — going to church, gathering with family, working on projects around my house, watching sports, and meeting the people closest to us. I believed he was an answer to my prayers, and he told others that I was his. For the first time, I truly felt I had found the person I wanted to build my life with and that waiting so long to marry someone compatible had been worth it.

Ten months after we met, we married under an arbor he built representing the Trinity, surrounded by family and friends. I wore the ring my grandfather gave my grandmother when he returned from WWII, and he wore his father’s wedding band — his dad had tragically died just a month before we met.

Warning signs

Even before the wedding, there were moments that gave me pause. He sometimes grew emotionally distant, held rigid opinions, helped less than he once did, and, at times, was short with me. When I brought it up, he’d apologize and explain that he was still grieving his father’s death and struggling. I believed him. People talk about “red flags.” What I saw felt more like yellow flags — concerning but not alarming enough to call it off.

I shared my concerns with one of his relatives, my dad, and our premarital counselor, and each of them encouraged me to move forward. I thought to myself, We agree on the big things — faith and family — and with those at the center, we’re solid. I also knew I wasn’t perfect, and I loved him, so I walked down the aisle and said, “I do.”

A month into our marriage, I knew something was deeply wrong. I was writing a work email when he suddenly burst into the room, yelling, “I’m never going to church with you again!” The tirade, which included a list of other grievances, lasted so long that by the end I was curled into the fetal position on the bed, sobbing, as he stood over me berating me. It was the first of many times that I was scared of him.

He apologized the next day, dismissing it as “anger issues” in a flippant tone. But the outburst came out of nowhere, and his words didn’t match what he had said he believed. That was the moment I started walking on eggshells, gradually realizing, day by day, that the man I married didn’t exist.

A deliberate pattern

As the mask wore off, things that mattered to me were bound to be ruined — even simple joys like the holidays. If it wasn’t picking a fight before my family arrived — declaring, “I didn’t get you a Christmas present, and I’m not going to!” — it was deliberately stalling, making us arrive hours late to family gatherings. One holiday, he started a movie when we were supposed to leave, then burst into our bedroom angrily accusing me of not wanting to go because I had napped while waiting for him.

Then there were the bigger moments, like my grandmother’s funeral. He ruined that significant day — by complaining all morning about attending and how he felt fat in his suit. I spoke at her memorial service, crying not only for the grief of losing her, but also because of my husband’s cold disregard for what her death meant to me. We left early, simply because he was uncomfortable in his pants.

At first, I brushed things off, thinking — he just has poor time management, or he’s just having a rough day. But as his actions began to affect my day-to-day life, I recognized the pattern: Each act was deliberate, meant to create confusion and keep me under his control.

A constant target

My work — our main source of income — became a constant battlefield. Simply waking up at a normal time disrupted his desire to sleep, often until three in the afternoon after staying up all night. He worked mostly from home and admitted to lying to his employer about his hours, insisting it wasn’t his fault that he finished tasks faster than expected. If I made too much noise while juggling clients and household responsibilities, he’d yell at me. Sometimes the punishment came in the middle of the night — I’d jolt awake as he poked and pushed my face, intent only on depriving me of sleep.

My body was also a target. If he wasn’t tickling me so hard it hurt — despite my protests — it was relentless body-shaming. My weight, what I ate, what I wore — nothing was off-limits. Once, he sneered, “How can I be attracted to you when your stomach looks like a man’s?” Eventually, I went to a doctor, humiliated by some of the things he had convinced me were wrong with me. The doctor, both puzzled and concerned, assured me I was perfectly healthy. I broke down as I told my husband the results, confessing that I didn’t know how I could forgive him for pushing me that far. He sat there eating, offering no apology and showing no remorse.

As someone regularly on TV, I tried to mask the pain, but looking back at old clips, I can see the sadness in my eyes growing more visible over time. Once, he made me cry right before I went live, accusing me of putting my job above our family. Another time, after he’d worked on my car, the battery was dead. I begged him for a ride to the airport, but he refused, telling me to call an Uber — a long wait in our small town. I barely made my flight to speak to the largest crowd of my career, having to hold back tears when it should have been a joyful milestone.

Why did I stay?

I was also experiencing physical reactions to his abuse. I started grinding my teeth at night, leaving the insides of my cheeks raw and torn. My breathing grew labored, and at times, it felt impossible to catch my breath. And for the first time in my life, I developed anxiety — constantly fixated on making sure everything was perfect so he wouldn’t find a reason to criticize me.

For those who haven’t experienced abuse, it can be hard to understand why someone stays, but abuse is confusing because it is cyclical. The lows are punctuated by highs, and in between, there were moments when the man I thought I had married seemed to return, complete with apologies for what he had done. In one handwritten letter, he wrote, “I have projected fears and undue criticism upon you. The things which I have done were wrong and inexcusable.” Repeatedly, I heard “I’m sorry,” pledges of changing, and plans to fix our problems, typically with lots of spiritual language. I wanted to believe him — I needed to believe him — because I didn’t believe in divorce.

I spent countless hours reading anything I could get my hands on, but the typical marital advice I kept seeing didn’t apply to what I was living. My marriage wasn’t hard because my husband didn’t pick up his socks or because I expected him to read my mind. No — my marriage was hard because it seemed to make him happy to hurt me.

Turning point

The day I read the book “The Emotionally Destructive Marriage” was a turning point for me. It included a questionnaire, and after answering all 31 questions, my result was clear: I was in a destructive marriage. The author wrote, “I don’t want to scare you … but trust me: Ignoring destruction doesn’t ever make it better or even neutral. The damage only grows.” And the danger was increasing.

The car itself became something he used as a weapon. He drove erratically no matter how much I begged him to slow down and stop recklessly passing cars. I’d sit there with eyes closed, praying. Eventually, I refused to get into a car with him unless I was driving. As punishment, I wasn’t allowed to listen to podcasts or music, and we rode in silence. Even reaching to adjust the air or sound system could earn me a very hard slap to my hand, like I was a child touching a hot stove.

I started noticing things getting broken. A bed frame I had slept in growing up — over 100 years old, one my sister and I had shared as children — sat in the guest room. He hated it, even though he never used it, purely because it mattered to me. One day, I found all the spindles kicked out. At the end of our relationship, when he moved his things out, an outside camera caught him throwing a personal item and leaving what was left of it beside the lawnmower — the single yard item I had specifically asked to keep. Later, I discovered the wires had been cut.

Conditioned to silence

Looking back, I’ve had to ask myself why I never confronted him when things were broken. If I believed he was responsible, why didn’t I speak up? That’s the nature of abuse — you’re conditioned to stay silent. Speaking out rarely fixes anything and usually makes things worse. Whether yelling, belittlement, silence, or countless other forms of punishment, I couldn’t risk triggering his rage — especially if I was leaving town for work and he was alone with my dog.

He knew I adored my sweet pup, which made him a primary target. Once, in a fit of anger, he aimed a leaf blower at him at full force while I begged him to stop. My dog, terrified, tried to fight back — snapping at the machine until his back legs gave out, leaving him unable to walk afterward. Another time, on a road trip, my dog panicked from my husband’s rage, gasping for air in the car. Instead of helping, he coldly shouted, “IF HE DIES, HE DIES.” I drove as fast as I could, frantically pleading for him to assist, but he refused. By the time we reached the Airbnb, my bulldog’s tongue was blue and he was barely breathing.

Even though my husband had physically abused me, the emotional abuse — including his lack of concern for my well-being or even my dog’s — was far more damaging. I’ve often heard women who have experienced emotional abuse say, “I wish he’d just hit me.” Part of that is because others don’t take abuse seriously unless there’s physical harm, but it’s also because emotional abuse can be more damaging. It often is subtle, creeping in slowly over time, yet studies show emotional abuse can have lasting consequences — including depression and anxiety — that endure long after the relationship ends.

Clinging to hope

What kept me going during this time was community. Even after he moved me out to the country — a move I later realized was meant to isolate me — I wasn’t alone. I had friends, a church family who walked with me (I eventually joined that church while finalizing my divorce), and my family, who supported me in every way imaginable. While I learned that marriage counseling is better suited for marital issues than abuse, three different men worked with my husband and me during this period. Traveling to D.C. for work also helped me reclaim a sense of self; I realized that people liked me and wanted to engage with me — something my husband had stopped doing.

Yet through it all, I clung to the hope that if he truly wanted to change, as he claimed, I would walk that path with him. I had already mourned the man I thought he was and worked to find joy in life despite my home circumstances, and I loved him — and valued our marriage — enough to stay, as long as it remained safe. I kept reading that some people can’t change, yet my faith told me transformation is always possible. I now know that change must begin with a genuine desire — a desire he never had.

Painful clarity

When I got pregnant, everything became clear.

I was stunned when I saw the plus sign. At 42, I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to get pregnant, but after several tests to make sure it wasn’t a false positive, and with the changes to my body, I knew it was real. I was overjoyed but also anxious about how I was going to handle pregnancy at my age and with my difficult husband.

During our first year of marriage, we went to a fertility clinic to undergo testing. We were both fine! Yes, my eggs were old and chances were low, but we were capable of conceiving on paper. But we stopped pursuing that route as marriage became hard. He’d say, “If God gives us children, he gives us children.”

A few days after finding out I was pregnant, I started bleeding, and I knew something was terribly wrong. My husband found me in the kitchen crying. When I told him I thought I was losing the baby, he first hugged me — but then released me, looked me in the eye, and said I wasn’t allowed to be sad. Stunned, I told him that of course I was going to be sad about losing our child. He then yelled, “Now you’re just going to be sad all that time, aren’t you?” and stormed out of the room.

In our relationship, it was common for me not to be allowed to feel sad. Whether life was difficult or I was responding to his abuse, my emotions weren’t permitted. When a fight shifts from the behavior that caused harm to how you react to it, that’s a red flag. Truthfully, I didn’t always handle his treatment well. Sometimes I yelled back — something that wasn’t part of my personality before marriage. And whenever and however I responded, like a dog reacting to abuse, it was held against me.

This time was no different. As I endured physical pain and had to rush to the bathroom repeatedly, he would yell at me. I wasn’t allowed to disrupt his plans for the day. As this continued, a terrifying thought struck me: Would he take me to the hospital if I needed to go? My doctor had instructed me to come in the next morning, but to go to the ER if my bleeding worsened. Realizing I couldn’t rely on him, I made a plan B — I decided I would ask one of the contractors working on our house to take me if necessary. It was sobering to recognize that I trusted someone working at my home with my child’s and my own well-being more than I trusted my husband.

‘The worst day of my life’

The next day, I went to the doctor with my mom. He refused to come, claiming he had to go into the office. With her by my side, I had an ultrasound and learned that the baby wasn’t there. I called him after. He knew what time my appointment was, but he wouldn’t answer his phone. He finally called me on his way home later in the day, claiming his phone had stopped working — something I didn’t believe.

As he walked into the house, he complained of a stomachache. Normally, I would have catered to him, but this time I told him it wasn’t about him: We had lost our child, and my body was dealing with the effects of that. I said, “This is the worst day of my life. I need you.” He looked at me and said, “No, the worst day of your life was marrying me.” He then stood up and yelled, “I don’t want to be a father, and you always knew that!” He went on to accuse me of many things, including trying to make up for everything I didn’t do when I was young by getting pregnant now.

There are no words for the pain his words caused — but they, along with his actions, revealed that he did not care about our child or me. I eventually left the house to stay with my parents. Four days later, my uncle and brother-in-law joined me as I confronted him: “I will no longer be your verbal punching bag. The marriage as we know it is over. You can either get help and stop abusing me, or you can divorce me.” I knew I couldn’t change him, but I could determine what I would and would not accept. That day, he moved out.

Revising history

I agreed to meet him four months later to see if he had worked on himself. He claimed he had changed, but it quickly became clear that his priority was rewriting the story of him pushing me a year earlier. He insisted he “never laid hands on me,” saying he only pushed with his torso, like a chest bump. I refused to go along with this revisionist history, which led to a voicemail begging me to change my story — acknowledging that he had hurt me but complaining that I could put him in jail.

During this time, we saw our final counselor to see if the marriage could be salvaged. I gave it everything I had, even though my family and friends urged me to leave, fearful for my safety. There were some good moments, but before long, his mask slipped. My husband, who was pressuring me to be intimate during this period — using Bible passages to shame me to the point that our counselor had to intervene — finally got his way. When he did, he ghosted me. His own words from the past rang true: “I guess I only want you when I can’t have you.” Intimacy in our marriage had always revolved around control and ultimately revealed what I meant to him — nothing more than someone to be used and discarded.

Knowing my husband hadn’t changed and didn’t want to change, I faced one devastating choice: Live with abuse — exposing any future children to it — or leave. His final blow was giving me no real choice at all, forcing me to end our marriage so he could play the victim.

Deciding to leave

When you love someone, it’s tempting to believe that forgiveness and support are the best way to help him. But real change requires his willingness, sustained effort, and consistent action. The most loving thing I could do for my husband was let him live the life he wanted, not rescuing him from the consequences of his actions. Excusing harm may feel like compassion, but without accountability, abuse only deepens — damaging both the one causing it and the one enduring it.

Staying is hard, but the real journey begins when you decide to leave. Statistically, it takes women an average of seven attempts before leaving becomes permanent, reflecting the many complex factors at play. I was one of the “lucky” ones — I had financial independence, no living children, a strong support system, and a few extra years of life experience. Even so, it was still the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

With divorce imminent, his vilification of me had reached its peak. Looking back, I see that the smear campaign began the moment I separated from him the year before, when he pushed me — to craft his victim narrative. Some chose to believe his lies, but those who truly knew and loved me — and asked questions — recognized them for the farce they were. He labeled me as controlling, manipulative, pious, even an addict — but these accusations were merely reflections of himself. At their core, an abuser’s projections are confessions.

I was also forced to fight to protect what I had built in life. During our last attempt at reconciliation, he shifted in an instant from kind to cold — as he often did — and said, “I can take you for half.” I had to fight. The logistics alone were overwhelming, and I can’t imagine how much harder it must be when children are involved. Thankfully, the divorce was smoother than our marriage, but the relationship still cost me tens of thousands of dollars. Yet it was nothing compared to the personal cost.

Alone in loss

That first summer without him, I grieved deeply, trying to heal — not only from my broken marriage but also from the loss of our child. Just weeks after my ultrasound, I learned I had had an ectopic pregnancy when searing pain sent me rushing to the hospital. The injections that followed took a heavy toll. Nurses in hazmat suits administered them, warning me not to share a bathroom because my urine was toxic and to avoid unprotected sex for four months since it could harm a future pregnancy — not that it mattered, being estranged from my husband. My body became a cocktail of cancer-level drugs and lingering pregnancy hormones. My arms ached for weeks without explanation, and my hair began falling out.

Yet I had to keep working because my husband refused to help with any bills. Each time I met with a client, I silently prayed that the client wouldn’t ask how I was doing, because holding myself together felt nearly impossible. More than once, I broke down — once even in front of a full room I was training. When you are carrying death inside you, your body feels like a grave, and you can’t always control the emotions that come with it.

The day I passed the baby lodged in my tube was the hardest — exactly three weeks after the injections. No doctor told me what to expect; I had assumed it would dissolve slowly. Instead, the cramping hit suddenly, and when I stood up from the toilet and looked down, I knew. Shocked and horrified, I fell to the ground sobbing while my faithful dog stayed by my side. At the time, it felt as if I had killed my baby. Logically, I knew the baby could not have survived in my body, and I could have died without medical intervention — but being forced to choose how he or she would die, through injection or surgery, and then witnessing the outcome felt like an added nail in the coffin. No mother should have to flush, especially alone.

A season of grief

At first, I couldn’t face celebrations. I skipped the baby shower for my first great-niece, afraid I’d cry the whole way through. But after a few months, I pushed myself to show up for the people I loved, determined not to let my husband steal any more from me. Over the next year, I hosted bridal showers and holidays and walked beside my niece, who had moved in with me. She was planning her wedding while I was finalizing my divorce — mine official just one month before hers.

I’m thankful for the beauty of life that surrounded me, even as mine was falling apart. It gave me hope. At times, putting on a brave face was exhausting, and I’d cry behind closed doors. But with the support of people who cared about me, I found the strength to keep walking through the pain. There are no shortcuts to healing — the only way through is straight into it.

I can’t pinpoint when it started to get easier. Grief comes in waves, with stops and starts, until it all blurs together. What I do know is that it took time to let go of every loss — the man I loved who never existed, my marriage, our child, the possibility of future children, the family I married into and loved, and the future I thought I had. All of it … gone. And beyond that, I had to heal from the abuse. Climbing out was messy and sometimes still is.

But day by day, I built a new normal. In the beginning, I cried whenever I spoke about what happened. Sometimes tears still creep in, but now I mostly share my story in a matter-of-fact way, as if it happened to someone else. With time, the pain softens, the fog lifts, and you begin to find yourself again — changed, but still you.

The grace of forgiveness

It took time, but I’ve forgiven him for what he has done. I’ve been forgiven for much, and I am called to extend that same grace. Still, I am saddened by the life he’s trapped in — a prison of his own making — and I pray he finds healing. However, the hardest part has been forgiving myself. I’ve carried the weight of marrying an abuser and the tremendous pain he caused those closest to me.

My parents, especially, but plenty of family and friends have spent countless hours helping me and praying for me, their hearts breaking alongside mine. When I told my cousin with Down syndrome about the divorce, he groaned in confusion and pain. My aunt pointed him to 1 Corinthians 13, the scripture passage he read at our wedding, and showed him how my husband, his friend, had failed to live out those words of love and did the opposite. My cousin had to come to terms with the truth, as I did, that my husband wasn’t who he said he was.

A protector’s goodbye

I’ve blamed myself for what my beloved dog endured — some days my husband treated him kindly, but too often he didn’t. Through it all, my furry sidekick was a constant, showing me unconditional love as everything around us crumbled. One morning, not many days after he was diagnosed with heart failure and a year after I left my husband, I cupped his wrinkly, slobbery face and told him I was finally strong enough to let him go if he was ready. I hugged him tight, kissing his soft head, and left for work. Understanding that his job of protecting me was complete, he took his last nap, his face facing the sun.

I’ve blamed myself for my child not being wanted by his father — for choosing a man who didn’t want his own. But I’m thankful for the mama-bear instinct that came, forcing me to face a hard truth: If my home wasn’t safe for my child, it wasn’t safe for me. I’ve wondered if God sent that baby so I could see clearly that marriage doesn’t matter more than the safety of the people in it. I have peace knowing that my little one is now with the greatest Father of all — in heaven, safe, loved, and waiting for me.

Finally, I’ve blamed myself for falling in love with a man who harmed me. He took something sacred — marriage — and turned it into a weapon. I’ve had to grieve both the man I thought I was marrying — the one I loved who never truly existed — and the man he really was. Had he chosen to change, I would have walked beside him through it all. Facing the truth saved me, but it also forced me to confront the layers of betrayal that nearly crushed me.

On the days I struggle, I remind myself that my ex-husband wants me to carry the blame for his abuse and the divorce that followed. It’s part of his control that lingers. So instead, I focus on what I know to be true: I meant my vows — he didn’t. I loved him — he didn’t love me. I sought healing — he sought harm. And ultimately, after chance after chance, he chose himself.

Into the light

A strange blessing has come from all of this: I’ve discovered an underground community of women — and men — who have walked the same road. Many remain silent for good reasons: to protect their children, because of legal constraints, or out of fear of retaliation. I’m in the rare position of facing only the latter. But I refuse to live in fear of the man I married any longer.

I’m bringing the brokenness into the light, no matter what he may do, because I want others to know it’s not their fault. Just as I didn’t choose abuse, neither did they. We were deceived, believing the person we loved and who claimed to love us. There is no shame in that.

Abuse doesn’t define me. It is a chapter in my life, not the whole story. I’ve found healing, I have joy, and I now carry a deep empathy for the abused that I didn’t have before. What a strange, awful, beautiful gift to be able to look someone in the eyes and sincerely say, “You’re not alone, and there is hope.” I know with certainty that life after abuse can be meaningful — because I’m living proof that what man meant for evil, God can use for good.

This essay originally appeared in the Beverly Hallberg Substack.

​Essay, Lifestyle, Domestic abuse, Emotional abuse, The emotionally destructive marriage, Marriage, Men and women, Health, First person 

Sex-specific education is essential to preserve America’s self-governing republic. Though many are only now rediscovering single-sex public schooling, there is still space for it to exist within the framework established by the Supreme Court’s 1996 United States v. Virginia decision, as I argue in a just-released “Provocation” for the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. In that decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled for the 7-1 majority that the Virginia Military Institute, a public school, must admit women.

The Bush administration sued VMI in the early 1990s, alleging that Virginia’s single-sex military school violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Clinton administration continued the case, and Virginia had to tailor its defense to the reigning civil rights framework. Since VMI’s discriminatory practices faced “intermediate scrutiny” from the courts, Virginia had to prove that its admissions policies supported practices that served important but gender-neutral educational goals.

VMI’s once-famous standards have been eroded, its core values replaced with bureaucratic boilerplate, and its culture hobbled by the artificial imposition of modern sensitivities.

Virginia asserted that men especially benefit from and are attracted to VMI’s distinctives, including its Marine-style, in-your-face “adversative” training methods, its lack of privacy, its egalitarian grooming and uniform standards, and its rigorous, stoical honor code.

After proving that its admissions policy matched its practices, Virginia had to prove that the purposes served by the adversative method were legitimate. Under our reigning civil rights ideology, however, VMI had to fight with its strongest hand tied behind its back.

VMI’s defenders could discuss only gender-neutral goals, such as increasing test scores, educational excellence, or maintaining institutional diversity. They could not mention the real reason VMI existed: to point men to a special destiny grounded in manly honor, martial valor, and public-spirited ambition.

Still, VMI prevailed in the lower courts, as the school fostered the diversity of educational offerings in Virginia and elevated the test scores of the men who attended. VMI would, as lower courts held, be “significantly different upon the admission of women,” and the school “would eventually find it necessary to drop the adversative system altogether.”

The Clinton administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court and won.

Ginsburg’s decision, from which only Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself, as his son was enrolled at VMI at the time), now sets the boundaries for sex discrimination cases generally and for single-sex schooling in particular. According to Ginsburg, keeping women away from VMI’s distinctive education could be justified only by outmoded stereotypes about how women are demure, uncompetitive, and domestic.

The notion that admission of women would … destroy the adversative system and, with it, even the school, is a judgment hardly proved, a prediction hardly different from other ‘self-fulfilling prophec[ies]’ once routinely used to deny rights or opportunities. … Women’s successful entry into the military academies, their participation in the Nation’s military forces, indicate that Virginia’s fears for the future of VMI may not be solidly grounded.

All the expert testimony in the world would not shake Ginsburg’s belief that sex differences were culturally contrived, so policies based on claims about sex differences are, on this view, simply stereotypes. Surely American women would adopt the fierce attitudes of Viking shield-maidens (as they appear on television, at least) if given the chance.

“Virginia’s fears for the future of VMI” were indeed very well grounded. Using only publicly available information, my report charts how VMI is no longer what it once was. The school’s once-famous standards have been eroded, its core values replaced with bureaucratic boilerplate, its connections to tradition and the past broken, and its culture hobbled by the artificial imposition of modern sensitivities.

Excellence over equity

In principle, the Virginia Military Institute could keep the same admission standards and adversative training methods while admitting only women — perhaps just a few each year — who can meet them.

Josiah Bunting III, VMI’s president during U.S. v. Virginia, said, “Female cadets will be treated precisely as we treat male cadets. I believe fully qualified women would themselves feel demeaned by any relaxation in the standards the VMI system imposes on young men.”

Every cadet would get the same buzz cut. Every cadet would have to meet the same mile time. Every cadet would be treated the same — like dirt.

In reality, though, the logic of civil rights law would never allow VMI to admit only a tiny minority of women. Instead, future litigation would likely take low female admission rates as evidence that the standards themselves were forms of covert discrimination.

Predictably, VMI changed to pre-empt future legal action.

By the early 2000s, standards had been relaxed across the board to make physical benchmarks more accessible for women to achieve. Male cadets now must perform a minimum of five pull-ups, while one is sufficient for females. Male cadets must run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes, 30 seconds, while females get almost an additional two minutes. In 2001, female cadets were allowed to eschew buzz cuts for more feminine hairstyles. Current hair standards permit females to wear their hair down to their shoulder blades.

VMI’s experience after integration raises a deeper question: Is separation of the sexes healthy only when sanitized, or can it serve the natural differences between men and women?

Most illuminating is the change in VMI’s “Code of a Gentleman,” which was replaced by the “Code of a Cadet” in the early 2000s. In 2022, the school implemented an even more “inclusive” code.

The old code was stoical, demanded silence on private matters (finances, girlfriends), taught sturdy independence within a hierarchy (a gentleman “does not lick the books of those above” nor “kick the face of those below him”), and instilled self-control in matters relating to drink, gambling, and other vices.

VMI contributed to a military tradition dating back centuries, eschewing fads and embracing the Western and Christian traditions. A VMI gentleman was “the descendant of the knight, the crusader … the defender of the defenseless and the champion of justice.”

In contrast, under the new code, a cadet aspired to be a social worker, standing “against intolerance, prejudice, discrimination, hate, and oppression.” Nothing situates the cadet in the Western tradition, nor is anything said about justice or any intimation of self-sacrifice or courage. Instead, the new code ends with vague platitudes about ill-defined trendy terms.

A VMI cadet is a well-mannered, respectful, and properly presented individual who holds themself and others accountable for their actions and words as a valued member of the Corps. VMI standards are high for a meaningful purpose — to produce leaders of character. A cadet wears the VMI uniform with pride, always remembering and demonstrating what it means to be a VMI cadet.

The old ethos was republican. The new one is managerial. Students wrote the old code and handed it down by tradition, but it was not formalized or blessed by the administration. Officially, no one had to memorize it. Peers enforced the rules through mentoring and discipline.

Meanwhile, the Code of the Cadet is formal (written by the administration), and cadets must memorize it. The commandant’s office oversees training in the code and punishes violations in consultation with the school’s Diversity and Inclusion Office.

What was once in the hands of the cadets is now in the hands of the administration and managers. Informal oversight has disappeared in favor of formal, legalistic, and administrative demands since the student culture, allegedly a product of racism and sexism, cannot be trusted to take the lead. The diversity, equity, and inclusion revolution of the past 15 years, along with the post-George Floyd fever, has brought further changes.

Even a cursory survey of VMI’s history after U.S. v. Virginia puts the lie to Justice Ginsburg’s blithe insistence that the institution could remain substantially unchanged after the admission of women.

RELATED: Feminism weakened our military — now it’s time to fix the damage

Photo by Daniel Grill via Getty Images

Seizing the opportunity

Ginsburg left escape hatches for single-sex education, which she thought must not be based on outmoded stereotypes about how men and women are different or their various social destinies. Single-sex must be completely voluntary. The institutions must also be genuinely equal, yet sex-specific.

The experience of VMI after sexual integration raises a deeper question that is obscured by our reigning civil rights ideology: Is the separation of the sexes healthy only when it serves some inoffensive gender-neutral purpose? Or can it be wholesome per se, serving the innate differences between men and women and their somewhat different social destinies?

In order to test U.S. v. Virginia and force the courts to answer this question, a state should establish a VMI-type academy. Under those circumstances, the case against U.S. v. Virginia should not only reassert the record of sex differences since the original case was decided, but also show how the idea of manly honor has been deconstructed at VMI since its sexual integration, defend the public utility of manly honor specifically, and argue (within reason) for distinct sex roles as a positive good.

In its heyday, the Virginia Military Institute stood within a broader social order of single-sex schools and clubs that trained young men and women for distinct but complementary roles. As public approval for such differences waned and policy flattened them into sameness, the institutions that once shaped boys into men and girls into women faded away.

That private system once thrived — and it served the nation’s men and women well. It could do so again.

Today, it would be a radical departure from our co-ed present to create a voluntary track within the public school system for serious sex-specific education. School choice movements make such an option possible, and the declining state of boys and the immiseration of American girls make it more and more necessary.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Women in military, Vmi, Virginia military institute, Women soldiers, Dei, Diversity equity inclusion, Military readiness, Feminism, Supreme court, Constitution, Ruth bader ginsburg, United states v. virginia, 14th amendment, Discrimination, Equality, Equity, Men 

A church in Alabama was vandalized with a spray-painted message calling a Turning Point USA speaker the “Antichrist” ahead of the organization’s event at the church.

A spokesperson for the Madison County Sheriff’s Office said that Movement Church was vandalized between 5 p.m. Tuesday and 8 a.m. Wednesday.

‘Unfortunately, we have seen growing hostility toward those who stand firm in their convictions. Our hope and prayer is that this moment reminds us all that disagreement does not have to lead to destruction.’

A TPUSA event was scheduled at the church for Thursday evening.

The church’s senior pastors — Seth Adgate and his wife, Lori — told WAFF-TV that they were shocked by the vandalism but were not surprised.

“It doesn’t even really make sense to me what the messages are,” Lori Adgate said. “I honestly wish they would’ve just contacted us because I would love to hear the heart behind what they’re saying.”

The graffiti referenced Bryan Dawson, who is the keynote speaker at the event.

“Bryan Dawson serves the Antichrist” read one message, while the other read, “Beware his falsehoods.”

The couple said Erich Nelson, the owner of a local pressure-washing company, called to help remove the vandalism. Nelson is also a member of the church.

“To attack with hatred on a place of love — it’s really not going to do anything but … galvanize the love here and the mission to serve our community,” he said.

The Adgates said the vandalism was not caught on their cameras. They’re increasing the security for the event on Thursday.

“Unfortunately, we have seen growing hostility toward those who stand firm in their convictions,” Lori Adgate said. “Our hope and prayer is that this moment reminds us all that disagreement does not have to lead to destruction.”

RELATED: Church’s pro-life sign vandalized in Maine with ‘queer love’ and pro-abortion messages

Sheriff Kevin Turner released a statement about the incident.

“Acts of vandalism and intimidation have no place in our community. Every person, regardless of their beliefs or affiliations, deserves to feel safe where they worship, work, or gather,” Turner wrote.

“We will not tolerate this type of behavior in Madison County,” he added. “Our detectives are working diligently to identify those responsible and ensure they are held accountable. To the citizens of Madison County, please know that this kind of conduct is unacceptable, and we will use every available resource to bring those responsible to justice. This is not who we are as a community.”

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

​Turning point usa, Church vandalism, Anti charlie kirk vandalism, Alabama church, Politics 

On Friday, October 3, at midnight, global pop icon Taylor Swift released her twelfth studio album, “The Life of a Showgirl.”

Like virtually all Swift albums, the 12-track disc went mega-viral immediately.

But not everyone is thrilled. Some can’t help but notice how far Swift has fallen since her 2006 debut as a fresh-faced, home-grown country singer. Today, the 35-year old is a global superstar known for weaving provocative themes and left-wing political posturing into her music and public persona. This latest album, with eight of its twelve tracks labeled “explicit” due to swear words, sexual innuendos, and references to drugs and other adult content, is proof that the curly-haired, sundress-clad teenager who moved to Nashville with a dream in the early 2000s is no more than a distant memory.

When Rick Burgess’ brother, Greg Burgess, listened to the album, he couldn’t help but reflect back on the day when his daughter, just 14 years old at the time, took a picture with Taylor Swift in a school gymnasium following a low-key performance. At the time, Swift had just one song out: “Tim McGraw” — the track that would soon launch her into stardom.

“The latest [album] — when I read the lyrics the other day that she wrote to her boyfriend — wow,” says Greg, disappointedly.

Rick isn’t surprised that this album is Swift’s most explicit to date. Like Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears, Taylor has taken the beaten path of marketing herself as a wholesome, family-friendly artist only to begin bending toward promiscuity and profanity as her fame grew.

It’s ironic that as these female pop stars mature from girls into women, their behavior becomes more childlike, says Rick.

Adler, producer of “The Rick Burgess Show,” who’s long been a Swift fan, can’t help but agree. “It’s like she’s a kid that just learned how to cuss. And it just feels weird and forced and odd,” he says, theorizing that Swift’s transition stems from wanting to break away from the kind of “high school breakup songs” that made her famous.

But “instead of going more mature and viewing her relationships in a more mature way, unfortunately, she’s taken a step in another direction,” he laments. “It’s a choice, and I am sad about it.”

Adler hoped that Swift’s latest album would reflect the maturity we’ve seen in her personal life with her engagement to NFL tight end Travis Kelce — a commitment we’ve never seen from the singer, whose entire musical career is fueled by her breakups with fellow celebrities.

While Rick understands an aging artist wanting to sing about more adult themes, he doesn’t think that requires being “nasty.” Whether it’s wanting a committed relationship or the highs and lows of fame, there is plenty of adult material Swift could sing about.

But her decision to succumb to profanity and sexually explicit themes is perhaps proof she’s not the creative genius she’s been made out to be.

To hear more of the panel’s discussion, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

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

​The rick burgess show, Rick burgess, Taylor swift, Taylor swift album, The life of a showgirl, Blazetv, Blaze media, Music industry, Music, Travis kelce 

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department has issued a bulletin with a request from the public for alleged victims of an Israeli OnlyFans model to come forward.

The bulletin said Adva Lavie is suspected to be involved in a “series of residential burglaries” of the homes of older men in Los Angeles County.

‘I think when you probably hang out with someone really powerful and someone really connected, if you piss them off, it’s problematic because they can really f**k you over.’

She allegedly posed as a girlfriend or companion on social media apps and platforms, according to the bulletin posted on Facebook.

“They’re invited into the home, and then this person ends up burglarizing their home by stealing their personal belongings, and so that would kind of be the scenario we’re looking at,” Captain Dustin Carr said to KTTV-TV.

The sheriff’s department said Lavie had been arrested previously for a similar crime in a different jurisdiction but had been released from custody.

“We want to make sure that all victims are identified, they come forward and help prosecute this case,” Carr added. “We have some information that there may be other victims as well.”

Police said there may be as many as 10 victims in the alleged scheme.

However, when Lavie spoke to the Daily Mail via telephone about the allegations, she said she was the victim of a conspiracy before she hung up the phone.

“I think when you probably hang out with someone really powerful and someone really connected, if you piss them off, it’s problematic because they can really f**k you over,” she said.

RELATED: Squatters take over multimillion-dollar mansion in Hollywood Hills and rent it out to OnlyFans model, realtors say

Others working in the adult entertainment industry accused her of robbing them as well.

“She decided to pretty much rob basically every person in that group, essentially anything marked with a designer label,” said Cody Steele, who accused her of stealing items from his Airbnb.

Lavie was described as a female adult with a height of 5’7″, a weight of 104 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes. She is known to drive a black Porsche SUV and a white Mercedes-Benz sedan.

Police said she also goes by the name Mia Ventura, Shoshana, or Shana.

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

​Israeli onlyfans model, Onlyfans model crime, Adva lavie, Onlyfans conspiracy, Crime 

Hi, I’m Lauren Fix, longtime automotive journalist and a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Welcome back to “Quick Fix,” where I answer car-related questions you submit to me.

Today’s question comes from Paul in Pennsylvania.

Hi Lauren:

What is the deal with flood-damaged cars?

Should I take a chance? The deals sound great, but am I buying a nightmare?

Great question, Paul, and I think this is something a lot of people get confused about.

Remember Hurricanes Rita and Katrina? Combined, they resulted in some 500,000 flood-damaged cars, many of which ended up on the used market.

I’ll say now the same thing I said then: Don’t buy a car with flood damage. It’s not worth the risk.

Why?

Number one, there is no warranty. I don’t care if the car is brand new, you lose your warranty right out of the box. No manufacturer is going to stand behind it. And they can tell if the car is flood-damaged; even if it’s not obvious upon inspection, the insurance companies will report it.

Secondly, water can do unseen damage to a car’s passive safety features. This includes airbags, forward collision warning, even seat belts.

If the water got into the base of the car, like where your feet go onto the carpet, that could rot out everything underneath — including the various computerized sensors that keep these safety features working.

Even worse, corrosion from water could actually cause an airbag not to deploy or deploy with no reason. Not good.

The third thing that people often fail to consider is the health hazards a flood-damaged car can present. If its in the ductwork, you’re breathing it: anything from mold to mildew to E. coli.

Think about it: You don’t know where the car was. It was underwater, yes, but was it salt water? Sewer water?

Now — if you suspect a car you’re looking at is flood-damaged, the best thing to do is take it to an ASE-certified technician. If he confirms the damage, walk away. No matter how good the deal may seem, you do not want that car.

Even without a mechanic, there are a few tell-tale signs to look for.

Excessive air freshener: If they’ve doused the car with perfume in the interior … yeah, that’s a clue they’re covering something up. Rust in weird places: Rust is never good, of course, but in some places on a car it’s understandable. In other places — on the hood hinges, for example — it’s a very bad sign. Moisture in the fuse box: If you see any signs that water’s gotten under that plastic cover, that means it’s been in a flood.

Finally, watch out for “washed” titles. Unscrupulous sellers will move a title from state to state to try to hide flood damage or a car’s totaled status. Don’t rely on the title alone; companies like Carfax can help protect.

Ultimately, its better to trust your gut than to snap up a too-good-to-be-true deal. Flood-damaged cars are nothing to play around with, and they can be very dangerous.

Got a car-related question? Email me at getquickfix@pm.me.

​Align cars, Quick fix, Lauren fix, Lifestyle, How to, Cars, Used cars, Flood damage, Hurricane katrina, Hurricane rita, Title washing 

California Democrat gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter made a huge mistake when she threw a fit on air with a local reporter who was asking her simple questions — because it’s not the first time Porter has acted out.

And those wronged by her are taking the opportunity to pile onto her worsening PR crisis.

Now, footage from 2021 has resurfaced of an interview Porter did with Politico.

“Politico is like, ‘We’ve been waiting. We’ve been waiting to release this. Now is our moment,’” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says, before playing a clip of Porter screaming at one of her staffers during the interview for getting in her shot.

“Get out of my f**king shot,” she yells at the staffer, who can be seen wearing a mask in the background of the virtual meeting with Politico.

Her staffer then pulled down her mask and said she wanted to tell Porter that what she was talking about was “actually incorrect.”

“Okay. You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my shot,” Porter responded.

“So, this was not the first time, by the way,” Gonzales comments, laughing.

“We’ve got another clip of her bullying staffers, and I want you to pay very close attention, because … you can see the anger bubbling within her. And then there’s a moment where she turns off her camera, and I just, I’m really worried about her staffers in that moment,” she continues.

When Porter resurfaces, one of her staffers can be seen running to get out of the shot in the background.

“I just feel like we need to check on those staffers and make sure that they didn’t end up mysteriously missing because if so, I think I know who killed them,” Gonzales says.

Even worse, texts from 2022 have resurfaced where Porter berates and lets go of a staffer for failing to take a COVID-19 test, despite exhibiting no signs of illness. The staffer explained to Porter that after her friend was murdered, she was going through a difficult time and slacked off a little — but Porter wouldn’t hear it.

“I cannot allow you back in the office, given your failure to follow office policies,” Porter wrote via text to her staffer, Sasha.

“I understand. Thank you for the last two years and all that I have learned. I hate to have disappointed you in the manner, as I know it isn’t an excuse I had found out my friend from the navy had been murdered and my head was not in the best place. Not an excuse, but the reasoning for the lack of forethought. I appreciate everything this office has done for me,” the employee wrote.

“Well, you gave me Covid. In 25 months, it took you not following the rules to get me sick. My children have nobody to care for them,” Porter responded coldly.

“I think your children owe Sasha a thank-you, because any moment that they don’t have to spend with your miserable ass is probably greatly cherished,” Gonzales says. “They should write her a thank-you card and send her a bouquet, Sasha, for getting you sick.”

However, that’s not even the worst of it.

According to divorce records, Porter also “frequently abused” her ex-husband “verbally” and threw “toys, books, and other objects” at him during their marriage. She once even poured scalding-hot mashed potatoes on his head during a fight.

“This is who wants to be in charge of the state of California,” Gonzales says. “Guys, they are not sending their best.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Upload, Free, Video phone, Sharing, Video, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Katie porter, Katie porter abuses staffers, Katie porter abortions, California governor, Gavin newsom, California, California democrats