Category: blaze media

Over the weekend, ESPN got to see exactly how things would play out if it aired completely partisan right-wing commentary.

Unfortunately, host Pat McAfee was the unwilling victim of an experiment that came out of a viral online post.

‘What a f**king sellout.’

Saturday’s game between the University of Tennessee Volunteers and the Texas Longhorns got a ton of fanfare. Whether it was McAfee doling out $1 million to a college student, “Jackass” star Johnny Knoxville trying to hand a referee $20, or the sitting president attending the game, the stakes were high between the two powerhouse schools.

About an hour before kickoff though, a post attributing a quote to McAfee made the rounds, resulting in the former NFL punter getting death threats.

“Pat McAfee picks President Donald Trump to win the Texas vs. Tennessee matchup on College GameDay,” a post from X account @ShaneTuttleNCAA read.

“I only root for one team, and that team is TEAM USA,” the post claimed McAfee said. Attached was a photo of McAfee with President Trump as his prediction for the winner of the game.

Although the picture was altered and the X account labels itself as “satire,” plenty of viewers took the post seriously and went on a rampage against the ESPN host.

“What a f**king sellout,” one reader said.

“Nobody likes ESPN commentators sharing political opinions,” another wrote.

On Sunday, McAfee revealed screenshots of more alleged egregious responses:

“Yea he really does need to get kirked,” one user apparently wrote in response, likely referring to the assassination of political commentator Charlie Kirk.

That account has seemingly been deleted.

Another X user apparently called McAfee a “worthless piece of s**t,” prompting the host to wonder if enough people had seen that the original fabricated post had been hit with a community note from X.

RELATED: Peyton Manning’s nephew learns what the liberal media is all about — and it may change him forever

“All of these folks that were very excited to believe this DEFINITELY got a follow up about this being fake right?” McAfee asked openly.

“If it gets Community Noted much later on, is X forcing it back into folks [sic] feeds?” he continued. “I’m sure they all know it’s not real. The community note probably cleared it all up for the 1,000,000+ folks that saw this,” McAfee added.

X does notify users of a community note being added to a post if a user interacts with it by commenting, liking, or sharing, but not if a user simply sees it.

McAfee also called out the user who posted the image by name, while also singling out OutKick writer Jon Root for an article written the week prior.

McAfee said Root was “completely lying” about what he said, thereby “dropping” McAfee “into something with potential real life repercussions.”

The article in question cited McAfee’s comments during a military flyover, where he said, “We certainly appreciate the hell out of the American military. And if you’re not the United States of America and you hear that sound, your ass better run.”

According to OutKick, a previous version of the story “indicated Pat McAfee may have been referring to illegal immigration but in fact he seems to be referring to America’s military against its enemies.”

RELATED: Pat McAfee refused to fold, and ESPN paid up. There’s a lesson there for young men.

To his credit, Root chimed in on McAfee’s post and condemned any threats made against the former NFL player and apologized.

“I apologize for taking that statement last week about the National Guard as a illegal immigration joke. I corrected it in the thread soon after posting, but probably should have just deleted it,” Root wrote.

As for McAfee, he attempted to make light of the disturbing comments made about him. “That’s fun,” he wrote. “That’s the good stuff.”

McAfee concluded, “And if I do get ‘kirked,’ please know that I love my kin and I love ball. Now … Let’s have a phenomenal NFL Sunday.”

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

​Football, Ncaa, Pat mcafee, Charlie kirk, Donald trump, Sports, Espn 

Millions know him as Clavicular, the controversial influencer who helped popularize “looksmaxxing” — an online subculture obsessed with maximizing physical attractiveness by any means necessary.

But as BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau explain, the story surrounding the internet celebrity has become far more disturbing than viral videos about jawlines and self-improvement.

“We’re in this weird society where people can be massively famous, and you’ve never heard of them,” Stu says. “That’s kind of where I am with Clavicular until I did some deep research today preparing for this show.”

“He is a ‘looksmaxxing’ influencer,” he adds.

“This is a man who chiseled his face with a hammer,” Dave comments, explaining that it’s called “bone smashing.”

“The point of this is basically hitting yourself literally in the face with a hammer. Breaking the bones slightly, causing fractures, and then the bone was supposed to grow back to make you look more handsome,” Stu says.

“By the way, you should know this, this does not at all seem to be accurate about how the human body works,” he adds.

“It’s causing a lot of issues for a lot of people,” Dave agrees.

Clavicular has also been charged with allegedly raping a teenage girl, who claims that he lured her to his family’s $3 million Cape Cod mansion before exploiting her months later.

“He films everything that he does,” Dave comments. “Did he happen to turn off his backpack camera when this happened?”

“Well, apparently not,” Stu says, “when he was giving an underage girl alcohol and apparently injecting her face with some sort of serum.”

But those aren’t the only legal troubles Clavicular has faced. In February 2026, he was reportedly booted from a “fashion bash” and “attacked on a night out in New York,” before being arrested in March 2026 on a battery warrant.

The influencer was also charged with a misdemeanor after a viral video revealed an alligator being shot “repeatedly.”

“I know PETA won’t agree with me,” Dave says, “but they’re nasty lizard creatures, and I think they’re what’s remaining of the dinosaurs, and we don’t need them.”

Want more from Stu and Dave?

To enjoy more of Stu and Dave’s lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Clavicular, Dave landau, Stu burguiere, Bone smashing, Looksmaxxing, Allegations, Blazetv show 

Fans called New York Giants quarterback Jameis Winston everything from crazy to a troll on Sunday, and they really couldn’t figure out what he was trying to say.

Winston is known for being incredibly eloquent with his thoughts, but this time, he wasn’t sharing his own words, and his comments seemingly went right over everyone’s head.

‘It’s us doing, being doers, not speakers.’

Before the Week 3 game against the Tennessee Titans, droves of fans were already reacting to yet another head-scratching interview from the Giants’ new starting quarterback, something they’ve already become accustomed to.

CBS reporter AJ Ross was the one tasked with asking Winston about his game prep and his ability to carry the team as he stepped in for injured QB Jaxson Dart; but there is no way she expected the answer Winston gave.

“One thing that I do is forgetting those that is behind and reaching forward to what’s ahead,” Winston replied.

Fans were confused. The video was seen over 5 million times, but almost no one understood what the QB was trying to say.

One post called Winston’s words “utter incoherence,” while another said he was saying “insane things.”

No, Winston wasn’t trying and failing to sound “eloquent,” as another fan put it. He was actually quoting Scripture.

Winston was relaying the message of Philippians 3:13, about Paul the apostle admitting he has not yet achieved perfection.

RELATED: NFL fines player for ‘beer’ chug celebration — but what happened right after proves the league’s hypocrisy

Not everyone was pessimistic about Winston’s pregame words though. Popular podcast “Bussin’ with the Boys” labeled the Alabama native a “poet,” while sports website OutKick called him a “national treasure.”

Podcaster Keith Malinak was one of the few who understood the message, relaying the passage to more readers.

Winston’s unrelenting positivity has a way of resulting in some of the most entertaining — as well as some of the most confusing — interview segments, and he can often catch reporters off guard.

For example, when a CBS reporter asked him about how the weather might affect the game, Winston didn’t give the most clear response.

“The circumstances, conditions, and facts, they don’t matter,” the 32-year-old replied. “It’s us doing, being doers, not speakers.”

With answers like that, it’s not hard to see why fans have a difficult time determining when Winston is delivering biblical quotes or his own personal wisdom.

RELATED: ‘You’re like the most genuine dude’: Comic Bert Kreischer gives hilarious, loving speech to Jameis Winston during Super Bowl

Elsa/Getty Images

Following the 12-7 win over the Titans, Winston began his postgame interview by telling reporters he was “elated” to see his team close out the game.

“Praise God,” Winston added.

Consistent questions followed about whether he feels replaceable, but Winston continuously made it clear to reporters how grateful he is to be in his position.

The truth is, most analysts are not confident in Winston’s capabilities as a starting quarterback. With no touchdowns and just 229 passing yards in his first two games, criticisms have come quickly and in abundance.

As ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith stated, there is a certain expectation of an eventual big mistake when Winston is in the game.

“Jameis Winston is more entertaining and more interesting in the pregame chatter about football than he is once he’s behind center. That’s the reality of the situation,” he said.

The Giants play the Arizona Cardinals in Week 4 in what should be another winnable game. The Giants have many such games before the end of the calendar year.

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

​New york giants, Football, Nfl, Jameis winston, Bible, Scripture, Sports 

The U.S. Catholic bishops have formed a task force on artificial intelligence, with Bishop Oscar Cantú of San Jose as its chairman. The September 16 announcement followed a meeting between the bishops’ Administrative Committee and representatives of technology companies.

Cantú told Religion News Service that about seven technology experts from four companies spoke with roughly 30 bishops for two and a half hours. He said the discussion took place under Chatham House rules, which allowed the participants to speak candidly but limits what he can disclose about who said what.

John Paul II described technology as an ally of work that can become an enemy.

Afterward, more than a dozen bishops went to Capitol Hill and met with members of Congress. The bishops’ conference says they urged lawmakers to adopt AI safeguards and legislation to protect children online.

Cantú described the task force’s work to RNS: continue talking with AI developers, advocate for legislation, teach bishops and dioceses how the technology works, and report to the Vatican’s AI commission. He gave no timetable for that work.

What the bishops have already asked for

Pope Leo XIV’s May encyclical, “Magnifica humanitas,” prompted the bishops’ response. Blaze’s Joseph MacKinnon covered its warnings, including the pope’s concerns about automated killings and the extraction of personal data. The new story is what U.S. bishops will do with those principles.

They aren’t starting from zero. In a 2025 letter to congressional leaders, the bishops asked for human oversight of employment decisions and weapons systems, protections for children online, and public accountability for government AI use. They also warned about the water and power demands of data centers. The task force can press those positions with lawmakers while examining how the Church uses AI in its own institutions.

RELATED: DEI is trying to take over AI. These universities are leading the charge.

Alexey Yaremenko/Getty Images

The letter gives the task force something to measure itself against. It says AI should supplement human work and judgment. In education, health care and public services, the bishops warn that automated decisions can carry biases into consequential choices. What human oversight means in each setting still needs spelling out.

Is it appropriate for the job?

Economist E.F. Schumacher helped popularize the idea of appropriate technology in his 1973 book “Small Is Beautiful.” A later U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report described it as fitting the scale and complexity of a tool to the job, while considering the needs and resources of the people who will use it.

The bishops have not used that label for their AI work, but it gives their call for human oversight a practical edge. Take hiring, which their 2025 letter specifically addresses. An AI system might help sort applications. If a manager cannot explain why it rejected a qualified applicant, however, putting that manager’s name on the decision does not make the process accountable. The task force could spell out what a human reviewer must be able to see, correct, and explain.

Catholic teaching has its own language for this concern. In his 1981 encyclical “Laborem exercens,” John Paul II described technology as an ally of work that can become an enemy when it strips workers of responsibility or replaces them.

That is now the question that the Catholic Church and all humanity are wrestling with. AI is here and unlikely to go away. How do we direct it into being a pro-human technology and not one that is ultimately destructive?

​Tech, Humanity, Ai, Catholic church, Congress 

Popular support for homosexual “marriage” is plummeting — and liberals are beginning to panic.

James Kirchick, a gay liberal contributor to the Atlantic, suggested on Friday’s episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher” that this waning popularity is in response to years of LGBT extremism.

‘Gay men purchasing babies didn’t help.’

A lesbian bar in Massachusetts recently made headlines after it became a target of local LGBT leftist hatred after operators announced on Aug. 31 that they were waiving the establishment’s mask requirement just one night a week.

Maher highlighted the LGBT attacks on Greenfield’s Last Ditch lesbian bar as yet another example of leftist intolerance. Kirchick said the story also illustrated the “growing divide between gay and lesbian people, and queer people.”

“To be gay or lesbian is a sexual orientation. That’s it,” continued Kirchick. “To be ‘queer’ is to embrace a whole political orientation. There are straight people who identify as queer. It’s about deconstructing gender, which is how you get in that [bar] story a lesbian who uses ‘he/him’ pronouns.”

The Atlantic writer provided an example of the political and conformist nature of those in the “queer” camp, referencing California Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener’s apparent excommunication over his lukewarm support for Israel.

When he tried to join the Trans March in June, Wiener — a radical homosexual activist who previously claimed that “the word groomer is categorically an anti-LGBTQ hate word,” advanced a law that made California a sanctuary state for child sex-change mutilations, and advocated for exempting some adults who had sex with minors from automatically registering as sex offenders — was told, “You stopped being queer the moment you started supporting Israel,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

RELATED: ‘There is no mama’: How a viral video accidentally exposed the true cost of gay adoption

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

“There was a poll done two years ago, and it was a poll of the LGBT community — who identifies as what within the LGBT community,” Kirchick told Maher. “About 15% identify as lesbians. About 21% identify as gay. Fifty-six percent identify as bisexual. … 0.5% of LGBT people identify as queer.”

Kirchick unironically asked, “Why are we allowing this 0.5% of the community to speak for all of us?”

“All this queer, trans extremism is having a real impact,” he continued. “I mean, support for gay marriage has started going down.”

According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, support for homosexual “marriage” is down six percentage points from the peak in 2022 and 2023.

The percentage of U.S. adults who said that same-sex “marriages” should be valid rose from 27% in 1996 to 71% in 2022, where it remained for another year. In 2024, however, the percentage dropped to 69%, and it has been declining in the years since.

The percentage of U.S. adults who say that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable has similarly begun to decline, dropping from 71% in 2022 to 62% this year.

The decline has largely been driven by changing attitudes among Republicans. Whereas 55% of Republicans said that they favored homosexual “marriage” in 2021 and 2022, the number is now 37%.

The liberal writer speculated that this decline in support is a “backlash to this queer extremism. And as a gay man, it’s something I really worry about, frankly.”

Katy Faust, founder and president of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, said in response to Kirchick’s observation, “Queer definitely poisoned the well. But gay men purchasing babies didn’t help.”

Kirchick is hardly the only liberal concerned about declining support for homosexual “marriage.”

Andrew Sullivan, an LGBT activist who has written for the New York Times, wrote in a July blog post, “On all questions gay and trans, the Dems are now entirely controlled by trans and ‘queer’ extremists.”

Referencing the recent Gallup data, Sullivan added, “As someone who played a part in bringing those Republicans and moderates around to gay marriage, it’s distressing to see what the queer overreach has done — especially in red states.”

Last month, Log Cabin Republicans dropped the “T” from its LGBT advocacy, recognizing the reputational damage that trans-radicals have done to the cause of their fellow non-straight activists.

Ross Hemminger, the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, argued that support for homosexual “marriage” is waning because many voters’ “view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth.”

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

​Homosexual, Lgbt, Marriage, Scott wiener, Bill maher, Extremism, Politics 

The mainstream media outlets are in shambles after President Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House access, with some claiming the move goes against their constitutional right to cover him.

But BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales explains they’re framing it all wrong.

“I regret to inform you that the fake news media has a new thing that they are clutching their pearls about. You know, they just love to be the victims. They actually really enjoy any time that they can paint themselves as some little precious little victims,” Gonzales says.

“For years, they have been allowed to just run rampant and say whatever the hell they want about President Trump and defame him. And you know what? He’s finally said, ‘You know, I’ve just kind of had enough with this,’” she continues.

However, she points out, they’re still allowed to cover Trump — just from a distance.

“We have a First Amendment right, freedom of the press. You are allowed to criticize the president whenever you want. It can be factual. It can be not factual unless it rises to the level of defamatory. But you are allowed to talk about the president all day long if you want,” Gonzales explains.

“You just don’t get the special privilege of being allowed in the White House,” she adds, before playing a clip of CNN’s Kaitlan Collins complaining about the president’s ban.

In a video posted to social media, Collins said, “One of the biggest questions that we’ve gotten asked and that we’ve asked our sources ever since the president announced that he was banning CNN, MS Now, and Politico from covering his administration on Friday was ‘Why now?’”

“The president has complained about negative coverage for decades, long before he was in political office. So why is he taking this step to block outlets whose coverage he doesn’t like from covering him?” she added.

“You are literally covering him right now in this moment that you speak into a microphone about President Trump’s decision. No one is blocking you from covering him. You are not allowed in the White House. That’s it,” Gonzales responds.

“Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that it is your constitutional right to have unlimited access … to the presidential residence, to the White House, to any of the White House grounds,” she continues.

“It doesn’t say any of that. They just can’t prevent you from criticizing them,” she adds.

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.

​Cnn, Donald trump, First amendment, Kaitlan collins, Ms now, Sara gonzales, Blazetv show 

A Vietnam veteran said he’s grateful but shaken up after an altercation he had with an alleged home intruder at his San Francisco residence over the weekend.

The man spoke to KPIX-TV about the incident the following day but asked to remain anonymous. He said he was jolted awake by noises below his third floor bedroom at about 5 a.m. Saturday.

‘I shot him because physically I felt really threatened. He had already made a deep intrusion into my home.’

He said he grabbed his handgun and went downstairs to investigate. That’s when he found himself face to face with an intruder wearing all black with a face mask — and a dog was with him as well.

“He had a large dog, maybe a 60-pound husky, with him. And I encountered [the burglar] face to face. He kind of grabbed me, and I fell to my hands and knees,” he said.

When the man attacked him, he said he fired his gun once at the alleged intruder.

“I shot him because physically I felt really threatened. He had already made a deep intrusion into my home,” the homeowner added.

The victim said he suffered minor scrapes to his hands and knees from the altercation.

“I believe I hit him somewhere here, somewhere in the buttocks,” he added.

The suspect ran off toward Golden Gate Park and left blood-stained shoe prints as he fled the scene.

Soon after, police said they detained a man suffering from non-life-threatening injuries three miles away near Geary Boulevard and 47th Avenue.

Paramedics rushed the man to San Francisco General Hospital, and police told the station if they confirm he’s the suspect who attacked the 73-year-old military veteran, they will take him into custody.

RELATED: Veteran journalist hammered for denying Biden’s decline despite damning new reports

A neighbor who knows the veteran well said it’s completely within his character to defend himself.

“Our neighbor is really something special. I’m glad that he was able to do this. But it doesn’t surprise me,” the neighbor told the station. “He’s definitely got a heroic side to him. He’s a real, true vet.”

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

​Home intruder, San francisco, 2nd amendment, Guns, Gun rights, Self-defense, Vietnam veteran, Shooting, Crime 

An English farmer may have foiled an anti-American terror plot over the weekend, and according to President Donald Trump, the suspects involved have been on the United States’ radar for some time.

Early Sunday morning, a farmer reported spotting three abandoned white vans blocking a country road nearby Royal Air Force Fairford — a U.S. Air Force-operated military installation in Gloucestershire, England, that is home to the 501st Combat Support Wing and 420th Air Base Squadron.

‘Thank God we spotted them.’

The farmer told the Telegraph that she circled back for another look, then “saw a group of Middle Eastern-looking young guys running off through the trees. Some of them had masks or balaclavas on, and they all scattered ahead of us as we drove back past.”

Just minutes after the farmer called police, armed officers swooped in and captured five alleged would-be bombers, arresting them on suspicion of committing offenses under the U.K.’s Explosives Act and of preparation of a terrorist act.

Britain’s Counter Terrorism Policing confirmed that it is investigating the incident and that the “three suspicious vehicles” appeared to have been traveling toward the military base.

“A 400m cordon has been put in place around the vehicles while the Army’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit conduct examinations,” Vicki Evans, the deputy assistant commissioner of CTP, said in a statement. “As a precaution, around 85 households have been evacuated whilst these examinations take place.”

RELATED: Diversity is our strength? Britain has to remind migrants: Don’t rape kids

Leon Neal/Getty Images

The Gloucestershire Constabulary noted that the suspects remain in custody.

U.S. European Command said in a statement obtained by the New York Times that it “remains vigilant and will take appropriate actions to ensure the safety and security of our U.S. service members, civilians, contractors, and their families across the European theater.”

Following the arrests, the U.S. Embassy in London issued an alert encouraging American citizens to “exercise caution and be mindful of personal security,” adding that “U.K. authorities rate the threat of terrorism in the U.K. as severe.”

“We got them,” President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday, adding that the suspects had long been “under view.”

“The arrest in the U.K. was fantastic,” said Trump. “Working with Britain, it was an amazing job. We had them under investigation. They were looking to do big damage to our fort.”

British government sources told the Telegraph that the arrests were not the result of a pre-planned operation or intelligence.

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham tweeted, “I know today’s incident near RAF Fairford will be deeply concerning for local residents and for many people following developments across the country.”

After thanking police, Burnham urged the public to avoid speculating about the incident.

RAF Fairford is a key forward operating location for U.S. Air Strike Global Command and one of only a few bases in and around Europe capable of operating the American heavy bombers that have been hammering Iranian military sites in recent months.

Critics of the U.S.-Iran conflict and American forces’ presence at RAF Fairford — including climate alarmists — rallied outside the base last month, calling on Burnham to “end the use of British bases in illegal war on Iran.”

The farmer who alerted authorities about the possible terror plot said, “Thinking about it now, and what could have happened if they had tried to stop me from driving away, I am quite lucky.”

“It is pretty incredible, realizing you had a brush with potential terrorists face to face and may have foiled a terrorist plot,” she continued. “It was clear they had just got there. Thank God we spotted them.”

According to the Telegraph, one of the vans apparently had a fake company name — “Fuel 2You” — and incomplete phone number emblazoned on its side.

The company Fuel2U said in a statement on its website, “Fuel2U is aware of reports and images circulating in connection with today’s serious incident near RAF Fairford, in which a vehicle appears to display Fuel2U.”

“We want to make it absolutely clear that neither the vehicle nor any of the individuals involved has any connection whatsoever with Fuel2U, its directors, employees, or current business operations,” continued the company. “We are extremely concerned that our company’s name have [sic] been used without our knowledge or permission. We are cooperating fully with the relevant authorities and will assist them with any enquiries.”

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

​Terrorism, Iran, Donald trump, Royal air force, Us air force, Military, Andy burnham, Politics 

In 11 years, Apple Watch evolved from a fancy timepiece to a robust health-tracking platform that also fields notifications, takes calls, and handles menial tasks on your wrist. This year, Apple aimed to revamp the Watch’s health capabilities and transform it into an AI-powered hub for the new Siri. Did it succeed? Let’s find out.

At first glance, the brand-new Apple Watch Series 12 looks a lot like the models before it. It maintains the same square design that has become a familiar staple of the brand, and it keeps the larger displays first adopted in the Series 10. In fact, if anything, the appearance of Series 12 actually reverted a bit, as the physical case (body of the watch) and bezels (black border around the display) are now slightly bigger than recent models, but most folks won’t notice that from day to day.

Series 12 is the first exciting Apple Watch in years.

The new larger case is said to account for a completely redesigned health-tracking system embedded within the watch. The existing sensor array to monitor heart rate, steps, oxygen saturation, and other vital metrics has been reworked and improved. Now dubbed the Health Sensing System, it provides continuous heart rate tracking with samples collected every five seconds instead of every five minutes and heart rate variability measurements every five minutes instead of two hours. This, of course, is a huge improvement, as the new rates provide a more rounded look at heart health and overall fitness.

Apple Watch Series 12 Heart Rate Sensor/Apple

In addition to continuous heart rate tracking, Apple also conducted a study comparing Apple Watch Series 12’s heart measurement accuracy against several other wearables, including Pixel Watch, Samsung Galaxy Watch, Garmin, and Oura Ring, with a Polar chest strap used as the most accurate control option. According to Apple, Watch Series 12 most closely mirrored the chest strap, proving it to be the most accurate wearable, at least for heart rate metrics.

The new continuous heart rate sensor enables several new powerful features exclusive to Series 12. The Readiness app uses HRV, sleeping vitals, and overall fitness to estimate your body’s strain levels and indicate when you can push during your next workout or to hold back so as not to cause injury or fatigue. For the first time ever, Apple Watch also gets live step counts; in the past, the displayed number could lag behind, so this is a much-appreciated change. Finally, Series 12 is getting an AI-powered upgrade with Audio Intelligence, though we’ll talk about that more below.

RELATED: Someone else’s Apple Watch might start spying on your conversations

bombuscreative/Getty Images

My impressions so far

I’ve had an Apple Watch on my wrist since 2015, starting with Series 0. I’m an early adopter and a longtime user, so I have witnessed the Watch’s evolution from a piece of expensive jewelry to a robust health-tracking platform.

Even before Apple execs fully understood what the Apple Watch could be, fitness always seemed like the logical route. It had a display for showing data, it had a built-in gyroscope and pedometer to track movement, and it had a heart rate sensor, though back then, it was even less useful, with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Meanwhile, Fitbit and, later, Pixel Watch — after Google acquired the company — had similar devices with continuous heart rate tracking that put Apple Watch to shame.

I’ve wanted Apple Watch to add this feature for 11 years, and as the device improved with every iteration, I was sure Apple would never actually do it. The battery trade-offs were too great, or maybe the company didn’t think the data was useful enough. Who knows the reason? So when Series 12 finally shipped the feature I’ve clamored for, I had to have it.

To be honest, though, it’s not like Apple had a choice. It has been stuck in a health feature drought for years. The last meaningful innovations Apple brought to the Watch were sleep apnea notifications and the Vitals app in 2024. Before that, it was sleep tracking and blood oxygen levels for Series 6 in 2020. Other than those, Apple Watch has treaded water to the point that sales have dipped.

Apple Watch Series 12 Readiness App/Apple

While Google brought interesting features like Loss of Pulse Detection and upcoming blood pressure trends to Pixel Watch, it was becoming clear that a lack of continuous heart rate data was part of Apple Watch’s fitness stagnation.

Not any more! So far, Series 12’s heart rate measurements have been reliable and accurate, as far as I can tell. I haven’t had a chance to test the Readiness app yet, since it requires a full week of fresh data before it activates, so I’m still waiting for that. But I can already tell that this is part of the missing link in Apple’s health tracking endeavors that could open up new innovations in the future.

Another set of features oddly missing from Series 12 is Audio Intelligence. This is an entire set of attributes that use AI and Siri to listen to the environment around you to detect songs, identify certain sirens and alarms, and even take transcripts from the conversations you have in real life. Creepy, right? Maybe, but I need to test it out before I know for sure. Those are expected to arrive in beta later this year.

RELATED: This super-popular wearable is new, improved — and flawed

metamorworks/Getty Images

A final note, to my chagrin: An early batch of Series 12 Apple Watches are suffering from crashes via a kernel panic, which usually indicates a hardware failure somewhere inside the device, but it could be software too. My own Watch has force-restarted itself twice so far — the first time occurred while sitting at my desk, and the second incident happened when I tried to end a workout.

Apple hasn’t issued a statement on the suspected cause yet, but there is a chance it is just a bad glitch that can be fixed with a future update. That is what I’m hoping, at least; otherwise, my Watch is destined for a warranty replacement.

Odd bugs aside, Series 12 is the first exciting Apple Watch in years. Its new health features will redefine Apple’s position in the fitness category as it takes on Google, Whoop, and whoever else plans to challenge its dominance, and that is great for competition. It is also good for us, as the Big Tech giants try to build the best health platforms to help all of us stay healthier longer in the age of MAHA.

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

​Apple watch, Fitness, Maha, Smartwatch, Wearable tech, Tech 

Christians need not wait for Washington to settle the immigration debate before sharing the gospel with the people who have already arrived.

Whatever happens next — tighter restrictions or a return to the influxes Democrats encouraged — Hindus and Muslims have made their homes here and established temples and mosques. They are our neighbors. Christians have a duty to evangelize them.

The religions of the world have come to our neighborhoods. We have the honor of sharing Christ with the people who practice them. We should get to work.

We should debate whether a society without a shared foundation can hold together through the modern left’s thin materialistic secularism or resurgent occultism. Obviously, it cannot. We should also challenge what the left proposes to put in place of the Christianity that helped form this country.

But those arguments do not suspend the Christian obligation to share Christ. Hindu and Muslim immigrants have come to a country with a long Christian heritage. They should expect to encounter Christianity here, just as a Christian moving to India would encounter Hinduism or one moving to Saudi Arabia would encounter Islam.

Hindu statues and Islamic calls to prayer now confront Americans with religions they may once have known only from books. What a great opportunity to share Christ!

Evangelism can begin in a conversation at work or school. Christians can visit religious centers, get to know their neighbors, and preach publicly. Whatever the setting, we must understand what the other person believes and explain where Christianity differs.

Hindu traditions include worship of many deities, although Hindu schools understand those deities differently. For some American Christians, a Hindu temple may provide their first encounter with statues used in religious worship rather than displayed in a museum.

We have learned the commandment against making and worshipping idols. Yet our sermons often emphasize spiritual idolatry because bowing before a physical image seems so remote from our lives. Our Hindu neighbors may give us occasion to discuss that commandment in its most literal application.

Some influential Hindu philosophical traditions teach monism: that reality is ultimately one. Advaita Vedanta identifies the true self, Atman, with Brahman, the ultimate reality. The formulation “This Self is Brahman” appears in the Mandukya Upanishad.

Yoga and meditation are practices aimed at realizing the self is God. Reincarnation teaches that our soul has existed from eternity and is on a journey to be freed from the body and reach enlightenment as God.

RELATED: ‘I think they’re demons’: Why JD Vance refuses to downplay supernatural evil

Kent Nishimura-Pool/Getty Images

The Christian answer to identifying the self with God is direct: God created us. We are not God. Creation had a beginning; only God has existed from eternity. The temptation in Genesis 3:5 promised, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The distinction between Creator and creation also explains Christianity’s rejection of idols. Paul condemns those who “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” in Romans 1:23.

Idolatry calls for repentance. Salvation from that sin comes only through Christ.

Islam presents a different challenge. It has a violent history with Hinduism. It also strongly condemns idolatry. It arose after the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and claims continuity with earlier revelation. Yet it rejects the atonement at the center of the Christian gospel.

Biblical revelation teaches the need for vicarious atonement — a sacrifice on behalf of sinners. In the books of Moses, the Day of Atonement gives this teaching a central place. Passover likewise involves the death of a lamb and the application of its blood so that a household escapes judgment. Christians understand these as signs pointing to Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Islam rejects Christ’s sacrificial death as the means of salvation. The Quran states in 6:164 that no bearer of burdens will bear another’s burden. Muslims emphasize obedience, repentance, and God’s mercy; Islamic teaching also denies that deeds alone secure entry into paradise. The Christian disagreement concerns how God reconciles sinners to himself: through the atoning death of Christ.

The biblical response is that none of our works can ever save us. Even if we became perfectly obedient today — and most of us can admit we cannot — we would still owe a debt for our past sins. Thinking future obedience can erase those sins is like thinking cutting up your credit cards pays off the balance.

God’s perfect justice and perfect mercy must both hold. Simply overlooking sin would leave justice unsatisfied. At the cross, Christ bears the penalty for sin and offers salvation to sinners who cannot save themselves. God remains just while showing mercy.

RELATED: A Christian guide to trolling without sinning

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Christianity explains our problem and provides the solution God has given. We need reconciliation with our Creator, and we receive it through Jesus Christ.

Our Hindu and Muslim neighbors may know Christianity chiefly through what their own religious traditions say about it. They may never have read the Bible or heard the gospel explained clearly from Scripture. American Christians can open the Bible with them and make that introduction.

We must prepare for those conversations. Evangelists on social media can make the work look easy, but years of study and practice may stand behind a short video. Read Scripture, understand its teaching, and learn to speak kindly with people who disagree.

Pray for the people you hope to reach. Our duty to share the gospel should lead us to prayer, with fasting when appropriate.

Live the Christian life yourself. You are introducing someone to the true and living God, who offers reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Know that salvation yourself before presuming to explain it to someone else.

Finally, ask questions and listen to the answers. You are speaking with a person. Learn what he believes, what he doubts, and what he understands about Christianity. A religious label cannot tell you all of that.

The religions of the world have come to our neighborhoods. We have the honor of sharing Christ with the people who practice them. We should get to work.

​Americans, Bible, Christianity, Christians, Creation, Evangelists, Gospel, Immigration, Islam, Jesus christ, Meditation, Mosques, Muslims, Quran, Sinners, Social media, Society, Worship, Opinion & analysis 

Nikole Hannah-Jones is a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Magazine journalist best known for creating the 1619 Project — a New York Times Magazine initiative that aims to reframe U.S. history by treating 1619 (the year the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia) as the genesis of the American story and arguing that slavery’s legacy still shapes American institutions.

But it appears the principles that undergird Hannah-Jones’ initiative backfired in her personal life. Earlier this week, she published an essay expressing regret that she sent her daughter to struggling, predominantly black Brooklyn public schools as a political statement.

“[Hannah-Jones] said that white kids and rich kids went to the same school because it’s much better, and that left behind other kids at the bad school,” says Glenn Beck, “so even though she could afford to send her child to the best school, she didn’t, and everybody on the left praised her for that.”

But payment for this political stunt eventually came due. Now Hannah-Jones’ daughter — 16-year-old Najya — is complaining she’s been academically cheated.

“She has missed major years of education. She’s so far behind in math now, and it’s her favorite subject, she can barely catch up even with a tutor,” says Glenn.

He imagines what Najya is saying to her mother right now: “Mom, you put your ideology ahead of me. You were making all of this money, and you were so against privilege that you wouldn’t use that money from supposedly your hard work to put me in a better school. You left me behind to make a point. You’ll fight for all the kids, but you won’t fight for me.”

Glenn, calling the story “terrible” and “devastating,” frames Najya’s undeserved fate as an example of what happens when parents “sacrifice their kids for the god of their ideology.”

By the time Nikole Hannah-Jones figured out that’s what she’d done to her daughter, “it was too late,” he says. “The damage was done; she had harmed her own child.”

Even still, Glenn doesn’t judge her.

“I don’t know if I’m any different than she is because … I sacrificed my time with my children, and I’m paying a heavy price,” he acknowledges. “All that praise that Nikole got from strangers, it didn’t mean anything. Any of the praise I get from the audience, it doesn’t mean anything.”

“The life of our children is the only thing that has meaning in the world — more meaning than any ideology,” he continues.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where ideology often ranks above the well-being of children.

“We have a generation of parents that is wrapped so tightly in the collective, they can barely see out,” says Glenn.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​1619 project, Glenn beck, New york times, Racial justice, Blazetv show, Nikole hannah-jones 

How do you feel about the dentist? Do you look forward to your appointments? Do you enjoy the cost of cleanings and whatever work needs to be done? Do you enjoy the shaming the hygienist thrusts upon you when you tell her you have been flossing twice a day and she looks at you like you are lying?

I think I know your answers without even knowing you.

In the middle of the procedure this past summer, as my tooth was being hollowed out with vibrating steel, my dentist said he loves doing this kind of work the most.

We all basically feel the same about the dentist. We begrudgingly go because we have to. The consequences of not going are more frightening than lying on your back with your mouth open for 45 minutes while someone picks away at your teeth with little metal tines. A toothache is worse than an hour in the chair numbed up, and a bad smile is worse than a couple hundred bucks a year for regular cleanings.

But still, we all kind of hate the dentist.

Tooth hurty

Though I have to say that lately I have been coming around to the guy behind the mask who comes in for five minutes at the end of the appointment just to tap on a couple of teeth before telling me what I need fixed next. I suppose it’s because over the past few years I have been giving more thought to the benefits and blessings of modern medicine.

When I was younger, I kind of thought they were exaggerating at the dentist’s office about what needed to be done or how crucial it was to fix something. And while I still think there are probably dentists out there who recommend more than is necessary and very much enjoy clients willing to pay for whatever they suggest, I trust dentists more than I have at any other time in my life.

It might sound crazy, but I actually look forward to going to the dentist these days.

I had a crown done this past summer. I ate a lot of candy when I was a kid and never brushed quite as much as I should have. I guess I thought my teeth would last forever. (Narrator: They don’t.) So over the years I had fillings where I had munched on Gobstoppers, Skittles, Shock Tarts, M&Ms, Laffy Taffy, and Now and Laters a little too enthusiastically. Then those fillings cracked and I had them replaced. Finally, this past summer, one of those fillings reached the end of the road, and a crown was necessary.

Crowning achievement

You might not believe me when I tell you I was excited to get that crown done, but I was. I had a crown done by the same dentist for the same reasons a few years earlier, and it went great. He numbed my mouth, went to work, and I left with a beautiful white tooth a few hours later.

The same thing happened this past summer. He numbed me, drilled out the remainder of the filling, had the crown made in their on-site lab, and then fastened it on top before sending me on my way with another beautiful tooth.

Lying there with my mouth open, with vibrating drills rattling my teeth, I thought about how amazing the technology is that makes this kind of operation possible and painless. The assistant used some sort of laser technology to scan my mouth after everything was cleared out, and the crown was finished less than 90 minutes later.

Imagine telling our ancestors that.

I shudder to think about what it was like sitting with a toothache 200 years ago. I don’t need a degree in dental history to imagine it was rather unpleasant, to put it mildly. And so, as much as I naturally want to hate the dentist and his menacing tools, the more I think about the world before the modern DDS, the more I realize I quite like him in 2026.

RELATED: The future belongs to people who believe in one

Cheng Xin/Getty Images

Drill, baby, drill

In the middle of the procedure this past summer, as my tooth was being hollowed out with vibrating steel, my dentist said he loves doing this kind of work the most. As a naturally inquisitive person, I asked him why.

He told me he loves the transformation. He loves carving out all the decay and old filling and making it better than it was before. It was the most excited I’ve ever seen him.

Being at the dentist is an intimate experience. We lie there and let a couple of people we don’t know very well hunch over us and get really close to our faces while they dig around in our mouths, and we are helpless the entire time. It can be kind of embarrassing.

“Oh God, they are looking in my mouth with magnifying glasses. Did I brush enough this morning?”

In some way, needing a crown feels like a failure. I didn’t brush well enough, and now I need my tooth fixed. It’s almost like you want to apologize to the dentist.

But hearing my dentist talk about how much he loves doing this kind of work was enlightening. It humanized the man behind the mask.

He’s not a psychopath, despite his love for drilling into teeth all day long. There’s a beating heart inside the DDS. He wants to help. It took me a long time to realize it, but I think I might like the dentist more than any other doctor I see.

Sure, he bears bad news. But he can fix almost all of the problems he diagnoses. That’s more than most doctors can say.

Thirteen-year-old me wouldn’t believe it, but 39-year-old me actually likes the dentist.

​Men’s style, Lifestyle, Health, Dentist, Crowns, The root of the matter 

Donald Trump is considering a small handful of candidates for “AI czar” — notionally, a Cabinet-level role overseeing the industry, the technology, and something the president is calling, perhaps in the spirit of Space Force, the “AI Force.”

Trump has not specified much beyond that. Nobody rumored to be under consideration seems especially eager for the job.

Perhaps we don’t need someone with the power of a czar to rule AI. Perhaps we need someone with the authority of a saint to counsel us about it.

Plenty of reasons suggest themselves.

Not quite everything is computer. Many crucial components of America’s good working order still require special and undivided attention of their own. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is no longer being considered because of the importance of his current role. The logic is arguably the same for White House science and technology adviser Michael Kratsios and other potential candidates.

And, as the untimely demise of Czar Nicholas II and his family at the hands of the communists reminds us, a czar invested with enough power and authority can swiftly become a scapegoat or blood sacrifice of the highest order.

Which brings us to the momentous possibilities unsealed simply by creating a high office called AI czar.

Polls show most Americans think democracy is doing poorly. For a growing share across the political spectrum, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Two in three respondents say a democratically elected government is highly important to our national identity, a staggering drop from 80% just five years ago. Just shy of half of Americans under 30 say democracy is either not that important to our national identity or not important at all.

Many Americans, of course, remain firmly committed to democracy. That includes plenty who regard it, in Churchill’s famous formulation, as the worst form of government except for all the others.

Abandoning it would also appear to require scrapping the Constitution and repudiating the Declaration of Independence.

However far we have strayed in 250 years from those founding documents, the right to vote and the core freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights still command strong majority support. Plenty of younger Americans are open to rewriting the Constitution, but a national convention for that purpose remains broadly unpopular.

RELATED: ‘Don’t be evil’ may be dead, but ‘don’t be Frankenstein’ is alive

Bay Area News Group/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Then comes the practical problem: Americans cannot remotely agree on who ought to rule them, much less what a formally post-democratic America should look like.

Many people ready to walk away from democracy, or convinced that it is unsalvageable, stop short of demanding regime change when they contemplate the obvious alternative: another, still more horrible civil war.

Now add AI.

Its arrival and incorporation into the highest levels of government under a czar of its own throw our fundamental regime questions into unusually sharp relief.

Many Americans feel viscerally that AI is moving too fast. Many also regard the staggering decline and decay of the past decade-plus as an unacceptable alternative to moving fast.

Yet the people trying to pump the brakes or reverse course command nothing like a popular majority.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have proposed banning artificial superintelligence, pausing some advanced AI development until a new federal regulator writes safety rules, and imposing penalties of up to 20 years in prison for certain violations.

Whatever one thinks of the underlying risks, that approach is likely to feed a post-democratic counterreaction against efforts to place technological development under increasingly centralized political control.

Meanwhile, much of the AI-safety world gives normal Americans the ick for reasons of its own: the prevalence of nerd-orgy ethics, for one, and the baffling insistence in some quarters that rational thought requires assigning the existence of future shrimp, bugs, or cyborgs moral weight comparable to — or greater than — your own life and the lives of everyone now drawing breath.

For reasons like these, some on the right daydream about an actual Caesar who could, as a last resort, clean America’s house and put it back into fighting trim.

Others imagine something less deliberate: The system collapses under the weight of its dysfunction, a process of elimination begins, and a Caesar-ish figure emerges from the gong show to take control at a stroke.

That “-ish” is important.

RELATED: Now they’re saying the AIs built ‘secret civilizations’ — the truth is far worse

Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

Our circumstances and our talent pool differ so radically from those of the late Roman Republic that betting everything on the miraculous appearance of a Julius or Augustus seems far-fetched.

Even grown in a lab, Czarborg would be only a simulation of the genuine article — more Frankenstein than Constantine.

Speaking of Constantine, the record of Roman caesars, Russian czars, and German kaisers should cure anyone of the idea that concentrated power reliably produces competent or benevolent rule. Plenty of mighty rulers did far more damage to their countries and their people than good.

But Constantine, like Nicholas II, also points toward another category entirely: Caesars and czars can become saints.

Some will object that sainthood is itself a dubious title, especially when bestowed on rulers.

The more interesting difficulty is that genuinely saintly rulers, like genuinely saintly people, are not measured by their ability to deliver merely mortal justice or merely worldly happiness.

Divine justice and divine happiness are different things. Christ’s reception and punishment in Jerusalem should permanently unsettle anyone looking to godly leaders for uncomplicated worldly deliverance.

Which leaves us with the most counterintuitive possibility raised by something as powerful as AI.

Perhaps we do not need someone with the power of a czar to rule it. Perhaps we need someone with the authority of a saint to counsel us about it.

​Ai czar, Ai force, Artificial superintelligence, Bernie sanders, Caesar, Constitution, Democracy, Donald trump, Greg casar, Opinion & analysis, Technology 

Los Angeles voters appear ready to fire Mayor Karen Bass (D). They just aren’t replacing her with Spencer Pratt. That’s California for you!

A new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll for the Los Angeles Times has City Councilwoman Nithya Raman (D, DSA) leading Bass 39% to 28%, with fully one-third of likely voters still undecided.

California is not secretly conservative. Los Angeles is not secretly Republican. And voters who reject Karen Bass are under no obligation to replace her with someone to her right.

The mayor’s numbers are dreadful. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters view her unfavorably. Bass has spent much of the year absorbing blame for homelessness, housing costs, and her response to the Palisades fire.

So much for the idea that Los Angeles voters are content with failure. They aren’t. They may simply have a very different idea of what should come next.

Raman is not offering Los Angeles a conservative correction. Far from it. She comes from the activist left and has the backing of the Democratic Socialists of America. She polls especially well among younger voters.

Bass has a strong left-wing pedigree of her own, but she has been around long enough to become establishment: Sacramento, Congress, City Hall.

Raman represents something newer.

A Democrat electorate can decide that a Democrat mayor has failed without becoming Republican. This should not be difficult to understand. Somehow, it remains difficult.

I have been making versions of this argument for a long time.

In 2014, after another statewide Republican drubbing, I wrote a column for the Sacramento Bee asking, “Hypothetically Speaking, How Can California Republicans Win Again?” (Sadly, not online — turns out the internet is not forever.)

My answer was not: Move left. My answer was: Move.

Move into neighborhoods. Into schools. Into communities Republicans had largely stopped contesting. Talk to voters in English and Spanish. Focus on local problems.

“For a minority party to become a majority,” I wrote then, “it cannot merely oppose. It must propose.”

I also warned against fatalism.

RELATED: Iowa is flashing a giant red warning light for November

Lurii Garmash/Getty Images

Of course Republicans were out-funded and out-organized. Of course much of the press disliked them. So what?

Two years later, after Donald Trump won the presidency while California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, I wrote another column called “Take California, Please.”

California had just legalized recreational marijuana, elected Kamala Harris to the Senate, extended high income-tax rates, tightened gun laws, raised cigarette taxes, and approved more borrowing.

In short, California voted like California. It still does.

Today, Democrats constitute nearly 45% of California’s registered voters. Republicans are just under 25%. No Party Preference voters make up nearly 23%.

Los Angeles is cerulean blue.

Even Richard Riordan, the lone Republican mayor during the city’s long Democrat era, was no conservative in the contemporary sense. The dude was a Catholic who called himself “pro-choice.” Come on.

The mystery is not why Democrats keep winning. The mystery is why conservatives keep acting surprised.

Spencer Pratt, to his credit, seems to understand part of this better than some of his loudest supporters. After losing the June primary, Pratt recently told followers that Los Angeles “had its chance for a candidate of change.”

Then he blamed them.

“A lot of you just stayed home,” Pratt wrote. Others voted for another candidate. “I told you to get ten of your friends to vote, and you didn’t do it.”

Notice what he did not say. He did not say the election was stolen.

Some of his supporters have been happy to say that for him. Pratt’s explanation was less comforting: His supporters did not turn out enough voters.

Now 63% of Pratt’s June voters remain undecided between Bass and Raman.

The revolt against Bass is real. It is not a conservative revolt.

RELATED: The socialists want a new Constitution. Believe them.

Selcuk Acar/Anadolu/Getty Images

Pratt has another message for Californians: “Vote for governor, you still have a shot.” Yes, but it’s a long one.

Karen Bass has a rather different view.

In a recent interview, Bass declared the race effectively finished. “Our governor’s name is Xavier Becerra,” she said. “You don’t need an election on November 3. A Republican cannot win in this state.”

The gall of the woman! Of course California needs an election.

But forget the swagger for a moment and look at the arithmetic behind it. The latest PPIC poll has Becerra leading Republican Steve Hilton 60% to 38% among likely voters.

Those numbers should look familiar. Gavin Newsom beat Republican John Cox by nearly 24 points in 2018. Four years later, Newsom beat Brian Dahle by more than 18.

Those elections did not require cheating. Those are landslides.

I don’t like that any more than most Blaze News readers do. But I am not going to tell you California is secretly Republican because I wish it were. It isn’t.

California is a mostly blue state with vast swaths of red and millions of conservative residents.

Pratt’s response to Bass was revealing in another way. One-party dominance, he argued, teaches politicians that they do not have to earn votes. Give them a loss occasionally, he said, and perhaps they will try harder next time.

There is an old political truth in there. Competition disciplines parties. Long periods of dominance can breed complacency.

But California conservatives have their own problem. Sorry, friends. We are a despised minority.

Democrats have spent decades cultivating unions, ethnic communities, neighborhood groups, renters, homeowners, public employees, donors, activists, and candidates. The democratic socialist left understands this perfectly well. The DSA does not merely post about Nithya Raman. Its volunteers knock on doors.

Online enthusiasm is something else. X is not a precinct operation. A viral post is not a voter file. Ten thousand furious replies are not 10,000 ballots. As Spencer Pratt learned the hard way.

The work of politics isn’t easy. It’s tedious. It’s local. It requires endless hours nobody applauds and conversations with people who may dislike you before you open your mouth.

California is not secretly conservative. Los Angeles is not secretly Republican. And voters who reject Karen Bass are under no obligation to replace her with someone to her right.

You are not required to like California as it is. I sure don’t.

But before anyone can explain its politics, much less change them, there is one unavoidable requirement: See the place clearly.

​Activists, California, California politics, Competition, Democratic socialists, Democrats, Donors, Gavin newsom, Homeowners, Housing costs, Karen bass, Los angeles, Nithya raman, Palisades fire, Republicans, Spencer pratt, Dsa, Opinion & analysis 

In a day where TikTok theology is wracking up millions of views, it’s more important than ever for Christians to know what the Bible actually says.

On this episode of “Live Free,” Josh Howerton’s co-hosts and fellow pastors Paul Cunningham and Carlos Erazo address a viral TikTok video, in which the creator claims the Bible has several contradictions.

“The Bible says that God is all-knowing. Psalm 147:5 says that His understanding is infinite. First John 3:20 says that God knows all things. Matthew 10:30 says that He knows the number of hairs on our heads,” the video creator began.

“But in Genesis 18, God says He’s going to go down to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to know how sinful they’re being. An all-knowing God would know that. He wouldn’t have to go down there. Also, an all-present God would already be there,” he argued.

In his second claim, he argued that the empty story was inconsistent across the gospels: “In the books of Matthew and Luke in the Resurrection story, it says that the women who discovered the empty tomb ran off and told everyone that the tomb was empty. But in the book of Mark, it says that the women were afraid and didn’t tell anyone.”

The creator’s final claim aimed to debunk the Bible’s definition of love: “And then of course there’s the whole God is love, but then it also says that love is patient and kind, never jealous or boast. But then it says that God is a jealous God. So how could God be love if love isn’t jealous?”

Cunningham begins by addressing the TikTok creator’s claim about love and jealousy, pointing to the semantics of the word “jealous.”

“The same word can be used in certain ways in certain contexts that would be appropriate and in other ways that would be inappropriate,” he says.

He gives the example of a husband being jealous regarding his wife. “I should not be jealous if my wife were simply to say hello to a male co-worker, but I actually should be jealous if my wife slept with that male co-worker,” he explains.

“The reason I give that analogy is that usually when it says God is jealous in the Bible, it’s in relationship to His people, Israel, and it talks about in context that they are His bride and they are giving love to a different god or a different thing that only belongs to Him,” he adds.

Erazo then dives into the creator’s claim that an all-knowing God would not have to visit Sodom and Gomorrah to find out what the people were up to.

He gives the analogy of playing hide-and-seek with his 4-year-old son. “I’ll say, ‘Where are you? I don’t see you.’ I know where he is because I’m his father,” he says. “And so when God seems to be asking questions and when He seems to not know one thing, He knows.”

“A fancy phrase for that is called anthropomorphic language,” adds Cunningham. “God has to use language we can understand to help us understand a God we can’t completely understand.”

Above all, Cunningham and Erazo want believers to not allow “seeming contradictions” to shake their faith.

“When you see videos like this, don’t freak out if they bring up something you’ve never thought about because someone else has thought about it and probably given a really good answer for it,” says Cunningham.

To hear the duo’s full response to the video and other kinds of TikTok theology, watch the episode above.

Join BlazeTV+ and start watching Josh today at blazetv.com/JOSH. Use promo code JOSH to get $20 off your subscription.

​Josh howerton, Tiktok, Theology, Blazetv show 

Actress Tatiana Maslany recently called Tom Selleck and Michael Jordan “cowardly” for keeping politics out of much of their work.

Some readers may ask: Who?

If all art is political, as Maslany says, then let the art speak. Give us a performance powerful enough to make us listen.

Maslany won an Emmy for “Orphan Black” and starred in Marvel’s “She-Hulk: Attorney at Law.” That is a career many actors would envy. Selleck and Jordan, however, are household names whose audiences have stayed with them for decades.

I wonder whether Maslany has thought much about why.

On Mehdi Hasan’s show, Maslany argued that all entertainment is political. Selleck had explained that he saw little sense in alienating half the country when his job was to entertain it. Jordan’s famous line about Republicans buying sneakers made much the same point. Maslany called that kind of restraint cowardly.

Fame and money can make anyone feel invulnerable. At the height of their fame, Selleck and Jordan could have told audiences what to think at every opportunity. Instead, they showed enough judgment to consider what they might lose by doing so — and whether politics was necessary to the work in the first place.

They built careers that lasted longer than the moment when everybody wanted an autograph.

I have seen this kind of signaling on a much smaller and more personal level. At one teaching hospital where my wife received extensive treatment, some young residents wore pronouns on their badges. None of the attending surgeons who treated Gracie did. I could choose the attending surgeon; the residents came with the package.

Let me be blunt. If you make pronouns part of your professional presentation, I notice. To me, putting them front and center signals concerns I do not want inserted into a relationship built on competence and trust. I could not choose the residents assigned to Gracie’s care. When the choice is mine, however, I make it.

Were the attending surgeons cowards for leaving pronouns off their badges? I have no idea what each of them believed. I know that when Gracie faced another surgery, their personal lives and politics never entered the room or gave me reason to question their judgment.

That becomes rather important when you are standing at an operating room door.

RELATED: The fourth bus of the Apocalypse

Cem Genco/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

An entertainer’s public choices work much the same way. Maslany can impugn Selleck and Jordan. She can say whatever she pleases. And I can decline to spend a dime or a minute on her work.

I cannot watch a Robert De Niro movie now without hearing his political rants instead of his character. When football players began kneeling during the national anthem, I stopped watching. Nearly a decade later, I still have not returned. The NFL went on without me, and I went on without it.

Gillette lost me the same way. When the company aired its commercial about “toxic masculinity,” I stopped buying its products. I never announced a boycott. I simply bought another razor. My eyebrows went up when I later heard Dana Perino say on “The Five” that her husband, Peter, had done the same.

How many other customers quietly made that decision?

Nobody has to organize a boycott. People can simply find another razor, another movie, or something else to do on Sunday afternoon. The business may never learn why the customer disappeared.

RELATED: What Montana taught this Southern storyteller about shutting up

Karla Ann Cote/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Maslany recently turned 41. She is no newcomer waiting for her first break. She knows how much talent and luck it takes to land a role people remember, and she cannot know how many more will come.

Perhaps she will gain admirers for what she said. Perhaps she will never miss a role or a paycheck. Or perhaps some people she hopes will watch her next performance will quietly walk away. Others whose livelihoods depend on her work may absorb some of the cost.

That is the part of celebrity political speech people often miss. The audience does not owe the performer its continued attention.

If all art is political, as Maslany says, then let the art speak. Give us a performance powerful enough to make us listen. Calling two men cowards is easier than producing work people will still want to see decades from now.

Selleck and Jordan understood something about fame while they had plenty of it: An audience does not belong to you.

Maslany is free to speak her mind. The rest of us are just as free to decide whether we want to hear any more.

​Entertainment industry, Michael jordan, Freedom of speech, Hollywood, Tatiana maslany, She-hulk, Tom selleck, Robert de niro, Boycotts, Actors, Audiences, Opinion & analysis 

During a discussion of the controversial Lindsay Clancy case, “The View” co-host Sunny Hostin made a terrifying admission.

Not only did Hostin recount serving on the 1991 jury that found a man not criminally responsible by reason of insanity after he killed, dismembered, and cooked a woman — she claimed she was the reason he got off.

“I cannot believe that she thought it would be a good idea to admit this in public on her show that is national,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments, before playing the clip of Hostin.

“The reason I feel so strongly about this holdout juror is because I was a holdout juror in a case, in the Daniel Rakowitz case. I don’t know if people remember it,” Hostin began.

“Apparently several jurors questioned afterwards said one holdout juror was principally responsible for preventing them from returning a guilty verdict. That was me. And it was because I saw clearly that he was psychotic,” she continued.

“He was in a psychosis. He did not mean to kill her. And once he killed her, he panicked. He chopped up her body parts. Yes, boiled her body parts. Tried to commit the perfect crime,” she added.

“You got this guy off?” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin asked, shocked.

“That’s how much I believe in the insanity defense,” Hostin replied, adding, “And he fed her body parts to the unhoused.”

“One juror threw a chair at me. They were so angry with me. But one by one, I picked them off and said, ‘What about this? What about that?’ And we ended up … unanimously voting that he was not criminally responsible by reason of insanity,” she added.

“That’s because they just wanted to go home,” Gonzales comments. “That’s because they couldn’t stand being in the same room with you anymore.”

“Let’s just be clear here. Sunny Hostin bullied an entire jury into siding with a murderer who killed and ate someone,” she adds.

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.

​Lindsay clancy, Sunny hostin, Daniel rakowitz, The view, Sara gonzales, Blazetv show 

Massachusetts, birthplace of the American Revolution, is considering a new experiment in identity politics. Companion bills in the Massachusetts House and Senate — H.3351 and S.2134 — would establish a permanent commission dedicated to the interests of Muslims in the state. Among its duties would be to “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions.” Muslims make up a small percentage of the state’s population of roughly 7 million.

The legislation suits Massachusetts’ identity-politics obsession. It slides effortlessly alongside previous steps to protect the rights of Jews, gays, Asians, and blacks. Except now, lawmakers are proposing to put the state’s imprimatur on one of the world’s most rapacious and cruel belief systems.

The history of Muslim-majority societies offers ample material for examining the relationship among Islam, religious freedom, political authority, and the treatment of minorities.

The proposal should alarm Americans even more than the election of Zohran Mamdani or the proposed development of the Meadow, a mosque-centered, all-Muslim enclave in allegedly red Texas.

Block and tackle

On August 11, former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville, a sitting U.S. senator and Republican candidate for governor of Alabama, clapped back at the Massachusetts proposal. He posted on X that no such legislation would ever emerge on his watch in the Yellowhammer State.

Coach Tuberville should do more than post platitudes. If elected, he should seek legislation making Alabama the first state in the nation to formally declare Islamic teaching inimical to the history and tradition of Alabamans and force a constitutional debate over how far a state may go in protecting its religious heritage. And he should be willing to block and tackle for this policy all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Declaration of Independence does not define religious belief alongside its four mentions of a Creator. The Constitution likewise offers no comprehensive definition of religion. American courts have generally avoided establishing a single definition that would determine which faiths count as religions and which do not.

The “history and tradition” approach used by the Supreme Court in other constitutional contexts — most famously in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion on gun rights in Heller (2008) — offers Tuberville a provocative model for the argument we propose. Heller did not concern religious liberty, and its test does not govern the First Amendment’s religion clauses. But history and tradition are hardly irrelevant to constitutional interpretation.

The Alabama way

And the history and tradition of America is deeply Christian. More directly, much of it is Protestant Christian. That is especially true in Alabama, which became a state in 1819 after settlement largely by migrants from other Southern states who brought with them overwhelmingly Protestant religious traditions. Earlier Spanish and French settlement left a Catholic inheritance, particularly around Mobile.

Recent Alabama history gives Tuberville two bright lights to follow. The first is former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Moore was removed from office in 2003 after refusing a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. He was suspended from judicial office again in 2016 over an order concerning same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The latter position, by the way, was broadly consistent with the view Barack Obama publicly professed before 2012. As the nation’s biblical foundation crumbles, courts are reconsidering some disputes over Ten Commandments displays, while polling suggests support for some gay-rights positions has plateaued or declined from its peak. Whatever one thinks of Moore himself, arguments once treated as beyond the pale have not disappeared.

The second beacon is Hoover, Alabama, where the Planning and Zoning Commission last December unanimously recommended denial of a rezoning request that would have allowed the Islamic Academy of Alabama and a Muslim prayer center to relocate to Meadowbrook Corporate Park. City planning staff cited concerns including compatibility with the comprehensive plan, traffic, and occupancy projections. The academy subsequently withdrew its application before the Hoover City Council could make the final decision.

The issue should resonate with Tuberville because his erstwhile hometown, Auburn, will soon face its own debate. Tuberville should make clear what role, if any, he believes the state should play when Alabama localities confront such controversies.

Coach Tuberville’s playbook

In Montgomery, Tuberville could begin by forcing a debate over a history lesson the late Charlie Kirk gave in 2024: America’s founding political culture was overwhelmingly Christian and, more particularly, Protestant. Religious tests existed in a number of states during the founding era. Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence; Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania were the only Catholic signers of the Constitution.

Second, Tuberville and his legal team should explicitly ask a question existing constitutional law does not answer in the way we would like: How much authority does a state retain to defend its particular religious and cultural inheritance against an ideology it regards as hostile to that inheritance?

Current First Amendment doctrine places formidable limits on what Alabama could do. That is precisely why such legislation would constitute a constitutional challenge rather than an ordinary exercise of existing state authority. The bill could state Alabama’s historical relationship with Christianity and argue that the people of Alabama possess a legitimate interest in preserving that inheritance. Doing so would provoke a major confrontation over the First, 10th, and 14th Amendments and the Supremacy Clause — and force Americans to debate whether existing constitutional doctrine adequately equips states facing potentially existential cultural change.

Third, Alabama could explore the constitutional limits of legislation preventing state courts from substituting foreign or religious law for state and federal law. Any such statute would have to be carefully written: Religious principles can arise in contracts, wills, arbitration, and other private arrangements protected by existing law. The objective should be to establish unequivocally that Alabama courts are governed by Alabama and federal law, not to pretend that current First Amendment doctrine permits the state simply to outlaw references to Sharia.

Finally, Alabama should require serious academic instruction in the Bible’s influence on Western civilization and American history in its public schools, consistent with constitutional limits on devotional instruction. The state cannot do better than to examine the curriculum developed by Hillsdale College.

RELATED: ‘I think they’re demons’: Why JD Vance refuses to downplay supernatural evil

Silver Screen Collection/Kent Nishimura-Pool/Getty Images

Verse of the sword

The larger argument concerns Islam itself. Islamic scripture and jurisprudence contain teachings concerning nonbelievers, warfare, conversion, tribute, and political authority that deserve far more scrutiny than contemporary American discourse generally gives them.

Quran 9:5 and 9:29 are among the passages at the center of centuries of argument over jihad and the treatment of non-Muslims. Islamic scholars themselves have long debated naskh, or abrogation — the doctrine that some Quranic revelations supersede others — including the relationship between earlier passages associated with Muhammad’s period in Mecca and later revelations from Medina.

Muslims disagree sharply about what those passages require today. That disagreement should be acknowledged rather than used as an excuse not to examine the texts at all.

What Alabama cannot plausibly do under existing First Amendment law is simply declare Islam “fighting words” and suppress it on that basis. The Supreme Court’s fighting-words doctrine is far narrower than that. But Tuberville could force the more difficult political and constitutional question underneath the phrase: What happens when Americans believe a religious ideology contains not merely private theological claims but a political program fundamentally at odds with the constitutional order?

That is the debate Alabama should provoke.

From X to executive

The history of Muslim-majority societies offers ample material for examining the relationship among Islam, religious freedom, political authority, and the treatment of minorities. Tuberville need not pretend that current constitutional doctrine already gives him the answer. His opportunity would be to ask the question aggressively enough that courts, lawmakers, and voters have to confront it.

Tuberville’s response to Massachusetts was what you do on X. But it was a quip for no gain compared with what a laser-focused, fearless, conservative Christian governor could attempt in office. In Matthew 21:42, Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22 and affirms that He is the cornerstone of the faith.

Make Alabama the cornerstone of America’s anti-caliphate wall.

How Governor Tuberville acts, if voters give him the job, will reveal whether the SEC’s famed Riverboat Gambler has the team and the guts to play smash-mouth legal football.

​Tommy tuberville, Islam, Caliphate, Alabama, Christianity, Jihad, Identity politics, Law, Faith, Massachusetts 

When the United States military disables ad trackers on troop smartphones because Iranian agents might use them to inflict harm, you know a technology has outgrown its original sales pitch.

The same surveillance system tracking American soldiers is tracking ordinary Americans too. The difference is that the military has finally decided that it’s too dangerous to ignore.

Stopping the insanity requires cutting off the flow at its source.

An ad tracker is a small piece of software code placed inside apps, websites, and operating systems. Its official job is simple. It monitors what you click and what you buy. It tracks where you scroll so companies can serve you personalized ads for running shoes, air fryers, lawnmowers — or just about anything else you might buy. To make this work, your phone generates a unique string of numbers called a Mobile Advertising ID. Think of it as a digital name tag stuck to your lapel. Every time you check the weather or browse a dating app, your phone broadcasts this ID along with your location, network data, and browsing habits to hundreds of middleman companies in milliseconds.

This brings us to the absurd reality of the modern web. You are forking out hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of dollars for a handheld surveillance device that sells your habits to anyone with a corporate credit card.

Horror stories

The immediate danger for most people is financial exploitation. In 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received tens of thousands of complaints from Americans who clicked social media ads offering $6,400 gift cards for groceries, only to find their actual health insurance plans canceled or swapped without their consent. Everyday shoppers thought they were signing up for relief money. Instead, aggressive lead-generation companies took their data and enrolled them in alternative plans to collect broker commissions. People showed up to pharmacies only to discover their life-saving insulin was no longer covered because an algorithm flagged them as easy targets for a predatory Facebook ad.

Medical privacy vanishes just as quickly. Consider the Meta Pixel, a piece of tracking code embedded directly into hospital websites and patient portals. Novant Health and Duly Health and Care both faced major legal actions after tracking pixels on their patient platforms routed sensitive personal health data directly to social media servers. Duly Health settled its lawsuit for $1.88 million after allegations that the code transmitted details about patient appointments, diagnoses, and treatments to advertising networks. If you look up an uncommon medical condition on a hospital portal, your phone’s advertising ID instantly links that health status to your social profile, resulting in targeted ads for treatments popping up alongside photos of your nephew’s birthday party.

RELATED: In this big Texas city, garbage trucks have joined the surveillance state

shaunl/Getty Images

The system tracks physical locations just as efficiently as web traffic. Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions against data brokers like Gravy Analytics and Mobilewalla revealed a rather robust market for precise geographical data harvested directly from cell phones. Commercial tools like Babel Street’s Locate X take these mobile advertising IDs and map them onto real-world coordinates. In one documented test, investigators used commercial advertising records to trace an individual device from a private residence in Alabama to a local hardware store, a church, and finally an abortion clinic in Florida. In modern-day America, you don’t need a warrant, a badge, or a court order to track someone across state lines. With an ad-tech subscription and a corporate login, you’re good to go.

How to take back your privacy

Every American with a smartphone should care. The reason is straightforward. By default, they’re enrolled in a passive location-tracking network. Apps like MyFitnessPal, Tinder, and run-of-the-mill mobile games collect spatial coordinates and transmit them into open ad auctions billions of times every day. That data is aggregated and packaged, then sold to third parties who build permanent location profiles on millions of citizens. Your phone tracks each visit to a counselor, a house of worship, a divorce lawyer, or a hospital, turning your daily routines and commutes into an open book for commercial entities.

Stopping the insanity requires cutting off the flow at its source.

On iPhone, open Settings, go to Privacy & Security, select Tracking, and toggle off Allow Apps to Request to Track. Then go to Apple Advertising at the bottom of the Privacy menu and disable Personalized Ads.

On Android, open Settings, select Privacy, tap Ads, and choose Delete advertising ID. Deleting this ID wipes your existing profile tag and forces apps to stop sharing your location with advertising brokers.

The steps are simple, but the principle is even simpler. If the Pentagon doesn’t trust strangers to know where its people are, you probably shouldn’t want strangers knowing where you are either.

​Tech, Smartphone, Security, Privacy, Ad tracker 

Remember when the gasoline engine was living on borrowed time?

Automakers were announcing ambitious electric-vehicle plans, governments were setting targets and deadlines, and consumers were repeatedly told that the future of the automobile had already been decided. The only real question seemed to be how quickly we would get there.

Gasoline vehicles weren’t merely going to lose market share. At some brands, they were supposed to disappear.

Cadillac was among the most aggressive. The company said it planned to become an all-electric brand by the end of this decade. Its own website still declares that every new Cadillac model introduced in the United States by the end of the decade will be electric.

Something interesting happened on the way to that all-electric future: People kept buying gasoline-powered cars.

So many, in fact, that Cadillac is preparing a whole new generation of them.

Revving up

GM CEO Mary Barra confirmed this summer that Cadillac’s next generation of internal-combustion vehicles will begin arriving in 2027. The lineup is expected to include a new CT5 sedan and new versions of the XT5 and XT6 crossovers. The XT6 is particularly interesting because Cadillac discontinued it after the 2025 model year. Now it’s coming back with a gasoline engine.

The XT5 got a reprieve too. Cadillac had been expected to kill the gasoline-powered crossover but instead extended production of the current model and approved a new generation for the U.S. market. Cadillac said it was making “necessary adjustments” to its portfolio to meet customer demand.

There’s that word again: demand.

Because while automakers have been adjusting their product plans, American EV sales have been sending a message of their own.

Money talks

Look at August. Despite a record increase in hybrid sales, Kia sold just 712 EV6s, down 60% from August 2025. Hyundai sold 28 Ioniq 6 sedans — yes, 28 — a 97% decline. Its much more popular Ioniq 5 fell 51%.

Ford’s numbers were even more dramatic. Mustang Mach-E sales fell 72.5% to 1,989 vehicles. Ford sold only 148 F-150 Lightnings, down 95% from the same month last year.

Honda sold 1,788 Prologues, down about 81% from August 2025. Honda has already confirmed that Prologue production will end after the 2026 model year.

Subaru’s Solterra dropped almost 87%, although that one comes with a major caveat: Subaru’s newer Trailseeker and Uncharted EVs helped push the company’s total EV sales up for the month, and limited Solterra inventory may have contributed to its collapse.

That’s why I wouldn’t judge the EV market by one model or even one month’s sales. Some of these vehicles are being discontinued. Others are being replaced. And August 2025 is an unusually difficult comparison because buyers were rushing to take advantage of the federal EV tax credit before it disappeared.

Market correction

But zoom out and the picture is still striking. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, battery-electric vehicles accounted for 10.1% of new-vehicle sales in August 2025. One year later, their share had fallen to 6.2%. Overall new-vehicle sales weren’t collapsing either. August sales were actually up 1.5% from the previous year on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis.

So Americans didn’t suddenly stop buying cars. They became less interested in buying EVs.

That doesn’t mean the electric car is dead. Far from it. Cadillac currently offers five EVs, and manufacturers continue to spend billions developing electric vehicles. Some individual EVs are selling well, and Subaru’s August numbers show exactly why you have to be careful about declaring an entire technology a failure because one nameplate plunges.

But that’s very different from what consumers were being told just a few years ago.

The industry’s transition to EVs was often presented as inevitable and, more importantly, imminent. Gasoline vehicles weren’t merely going to lose market share. At some brands, they were supposed to disappear.

RELATED: Is charging your EV really cheaper than buying gas?

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sales force

Cadillac is a wonderful example. It didn’t merely say it wanted to sell more EVs. It said it planned to be all-electric by the end of the decade. Now the company is developing another generation of gasoline-powered Cadillacs that will arrive with only a few years left on that clock.

Why? Because car companies eventually have to sell cars.

Consumers don’t buy corporate transition plans. They buy vehicles that fit their lives, budgets, and driving habits. For some people, that’s an EV. For others, it’s a hybrid. And plenty still want an ordinary gasoline-powered car or truck. Manufacturers are finally acknowledging that reality.

I don’t have a problem with electric vehicles. Build good ones. Make them affordable. Improve the charging network. Give consumers enough range and enough choices, and let them decide whether an EV works for them.

What I object to is deciding the answer first and expecting the customer to fall in line afterward. The auto industry spent years telling us where the market was going. Now the market is talking back. And judging by the gasoline-powered Cadillacs headed our way, somebody in Detroit is finally listening.

​Auto industry, Electric car, Electric vehicles, Ev market, Gasoline engine, Ev tax credit, Cadillac, Mary barra, Hyundai, Kia, Ford, Lifestyle, Automotive