Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been dominating headlines ever since their highly publicized departure from the royal family. And while much of their actions depict a couple who have cast themselves as the victims in their story — the public doesn’t seem to be buying it.

In fact, they appear to despise Prince Harry’s choice in wife.

Journalist Jessica Reed Kraus of House Inhabit, who has intensely covered their evolving story, believes the public is right in their assessment.

“I think it’s justified, because I do watch them so closely, I watched how it happened, and I saw mistake after mistake being made on their end,” Kraus tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“There’s a lack of self awareness there,” she continues, noting that to “publicly drag the family into that whole drama of the racism claims” was just “really messy.”

Markle became the center of tabloid drama across the world after sitting down with Oprah Winfrey for an interview and telling her that a member of the royal family expressed “concerns” to Harry about the color of her unborn child’s skin.

Winfrey responded with an astonished, “What?”

“I think that sort of set a really bad tone, where it’s like they were trying to break free, but they looked miserable while they were doing it. Like you want privacy, but then you actually want documentaries and podcasts and all these things, so I think nothing about them seems genuine, and when you don’t seem genuine at all, people don’t take you seriously,” Kraus says.

Markle also went viral recently for a video taken of her dancing in the hospital room while pregnant, where many viewers pointed out that her baby bump didn’t look natural, speculating that it could be fake.

“I don’t mind the criticism of her, but sometimes I’m like, OK, people are just looking for things to come up with,” Stuckey tells Kraus.

“Not all these conspiracies I like. I don’t like the fake pregnancy stuff, that was definitely her pregnant in the hospital to me, I thought it was sort of cringey,” Kraus says, adding, “because again, they made such a big deal about privacy, but now you’re releasing your most private home videos for the internet to see.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Camera phone, Video phone, Free, Sharing, Video, Upload, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze originals, Meghan markle, Prince harry, Meghan markle pregnancy, Meghan markle conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Racism accusation, Royal family 

On May 26, 2023, pro-life advocates Mark Crosby, then 73 years old, and Dick Schaefer, then 84 years old, were praying, holding pro-life signs, and offering pro-life materials to people entering a Baltimore Planned Parenthood, Catholic Review said.

Outside the abortion facility, a male by the name of Patrick Brice reportedly was arguing with Schaefer about abortion.

‘I was shocked.’

Brice — a decades-younger male whom Crosby estimates stands well over 6 feet tall and weighed 250 pounds — then is seen on surveillance video actually charging at Schaefer and tackling the 84-year-old backward into a large flower pot.

Image source: Baltimore Police

Image source: Baltimore Police

Image source: Baltimore Police

According to WBAL-TV, a witness said Schaefer was out cold “for several minutes.”

As you might expect, Crosby — dressed in a blue and white “pro-life” T-shirt — comes over to help his friend.

RELATED: Elderly pro-lifer beaten to a pulp in vicious attack outside Planned Parenthood; another elderly pro-lifer knocked out cold in same attack, witness says

Image source: Baltimore Police

But Brice is in Crosby’s path.

Image source: Baltimore Police

And Brice easily knocks the 73-year-old down to the sidewalk.

Image source: Baltimore Police

Image source: Baltimore Police

One might be inclined to assume Brice by this point would make his exit — but alas, no. Instead he proceeds to pulverize his next victim.

First he punches Crosby in the head.

RELATED: Cops release surveillance images of man believed to be in his 20s who brutally punched, kicked face of elderly pro-lifer outside Planned Parenthood

Image source: Baltimore Police

Image source: Baltimore Police

Then Brice rears back his right foot and kicks Crosby in the face before finally walking away.

RELATED: Blaze News original: ‘Barbaric’ attacker destroys elderly pro-lifer’s face outside Planned Parenthood. Victim awaits justice.

Image source: Baltimore Police

Image source: Baltimore Police

Image source: Baltimore Police

It should be noted that YouTube age-restricted the Baltimore Police video of the attack on Schaefer and Crosby, so you can only view it there.

Here’s a local video report, though.

RELATED: Blaze News original: Elderly pro-lifer energized over new trial for thug who pulverized his face outside Planned Parenthood

Local pro-life advocate John Roswell told LifeSiteNews at the time of the attack that Crosby’s “plate bone in his upper right cheek is completely fractured” and that he “is bleeding from some unidentified area behind his eye, and the bone eye orbit is completely shattered and will have to be replaced with metal” as a result of the brutal beatdown.

Crosby told Blaze News that he was blind in his right eye “for nine days” after the attack, that he spent three days at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center, that he was “spitting blood,” and that a piece of his iris is missing.

RELATED: Leftist state lawmaker — an ex-football lineman — posts video of himself harassing ‘old white lady’ saying rosary by Planned Parenthood

Image source: John Roswell/American Center for Law and Justice (left); Mark Crosby (right), both used by permission

He also told Blaze News he still experiences foreign body sensation, which is a “feeling that something’s in your eye and you can’t get it out. But I can live with that. Babies are being murdered. I give it up for them.”

A few weeks after the attack, police released surveillance images of the culprit. However, for the next year, nothing but crickets.

Brice arrested

Police finally arrested Brice on July 1, 2024, and he was indicted on charges of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and assault on an elderly person 65 and over, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. He was released on his own recognizance, Catholic Review said.

The criminal trial for Brice took place in early February 2025 in Baltimore Circuit Court. The Baltimore Banner reported that Brice, 28, exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and did not testify.

But Brice’s attorney — Assistant Public Defender Matthew Connell — argued that his client didn’t intend to cause serious physical injury, which is needed to support a conviction for first-degree assault, the Banner said.

Connell also called Schaefer and Crosby “old white men” who say “the most vile things” to women and see themselves as “religious martyrs,” Catholic Review reported.

“Somebody snapped on them,” Connell argued, according to the Banner.

The attacker’s attorney added that his client “didn’t mean to hurt them that bad” and “made a mistake,” the Banner reported.

Crosby told Blaze News that video of Brice’s beatdown of him and Schaefer was shown in court and that one juror was “crying,” while “others were looking away” from the violence onscreen.

Assistant State’s Attorney Ashley Sudberry in her opening remarks called Brice’s attack “brazen, callous, barbaric behavior,” Catholic Review said. She concluded that “Mr. Brice is a grown man. He’s not a child. He knew what he was doing,” the Banner said.

RELATED: HS official screams at teen pro-life activists: ‘I don’t give a f*** what you think Jesus tells me’

Patrick Brice. Image source: Mark Crosby, used by permission

Hung jury on most serious charge for attack on Crosby

The jury deliberated for about two hours and convicted Brice on two counts of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment for his attacks on Schaefer and Crosby, the Banner said.

However, jurors acquitted Brice on one count of first-degree assault against Schaefer, the paper said.

As for the first-degree assault charge against Brice for attacking Crosby — knocking him to the ground, punching him in his head, and kicking him in his face while he was on his back on the sidewalk — the Banner said the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Crosby was then left waiting for justice.

Attorney Terrell Roberts — retained by the Thomas More Society to assist Crosby amid deliberations — told Blaze News that Brice’s misdemeanor convictions for second-degree assault and reckless endangerment don’t include jail time in sentencing guidelines. The Banner also reported that Brice had no previous criminal record.

Roberts told Blaze News that while Brice’s attack on Crosby was a “pretty egregious act,” there’s a “good chance” a judge might not sentence Brice to any jail time.

But soon there was some good news for Crosby. The Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office in March said it would retry Brice on the first-degree assault charge, the Baltimore Banner reported.

Roberts told Blaze News that part of getting a first-degree assault conviction on Brice — which could result in a jail sentence of 25 years — would be showing how badly impaired Crosby’s vision became after his attack. Roberts said the damage to Crosby’s right eye — specifically the iris — is “permanent” and Crosby suffers from “extreme photosensitivity,” meaning that he essentially has the use of only one eye, which is a “serious disability.”

He also told Blaze News that the prosecution would be able to present other documentation, such as the CT scan of Crosby’s head, which showed that the “floor of the orbital bone was fractured so badly” that fat actually was seeping through it.

“We have to win this,” Crosby told Blaze News in the aftermath of the new trial announcement, adding that he believes Brice has “got to go to jail, or the pro-aborts will think they can get away with this.”

New trial, old story

Circuit Judge Yvette M. Bryant — who presided over February’s jury trial for Brice — also presided over Wednesday’s retrial of Brice’s first-degree assault charge, the Baltimore Banner reported.

At the conclusion of the bench trial — there was no jury this time — Bryant acquitted Brice of first-degree assault, the Banner said.

Her reason? The paper said the judge concluded that it was all about Crosby’s intent. Does video of the attack show him rushing over to help his friend? Or does it show 73-year-old Crosby running over to fight Brice — a bigger, taller 20-something who just knocked Schaefer out cold?

The Banner said Bryant agreed that Brice’s attack against Crosby was unjustified — but disagreed with the prosecution’s contention that it was unprovoked.

Gavel down. Case closed. Brice is scheduled for an Aug. 7 sentencing, the paper said, adding that he’s free on his own recognizance. Roberts noted to Blaze News that Brice’s acquittal means he can’t be tried again on the same charge.

‘This decision is one for the ages’

A flabbergasted Roberts in the aftermath of Bryant’s decision told Blaze News that “this decision is one for the ages,” adding that it was a “miscarriage of justice.”

“I was shocked,” he noted to Blaze News.

“The judge misapplied Maryland law,” Roberts added to Blaze News. “She regarded Crosby’s conduct as a provocation which lessened Brice’s culpability. But it’s clear from the evidence that Crosby’s conduct was not a legal provocation. Crosby had a right to come and aid his friend, who had just been knocked unconscious. That cannot in any way legally be a provocation.”

He added to Blaze News that it was the “most ridiculous decision I’ve seen in a long while.”

“How can you claim a 73-year-old man provoked a man who just knocked out an 84-year-old man? It’s legally absurd,” Roberts remarked to Blaze News, adding that “any judge would have to find him guilty based on the video.”

The Banner also reported that the judge read portions of Crosby’s medical records in court, saying that he ignored directives from nurses and other hospital staff. In the end, Bryant deemed Crosby’s testimony unreliable, the paper added.

Roberts told Blaze News he found it odd that Bryant focused so much of her attention on Crosby’s interactions with nurses and hospital staff, as recorded in his medical records, instead of “what really mattered” in those records — namely, the severity of his injuries due to Brice’s actions.

What’s more, Crosby told Blaze News that Bryant stated in court that he could have “gone around Brice to help Dick Schaefer” rather than taking a path directly to his friend to give him aid. “So she’s blaming me. … I’m the bad guy.”

A frustrated Crosby added to Blaze News that “now the pro-abort movement will know this, and violence will continue against us.”

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

​Crime, Planned parenthood, Pro-life, Baltimore, Patrick brice, Mark crosby, Dick schaefer, Physical attack, Arrest, Assault charges, 1st-degree assault, Judge, Court hearing, Circuit judge yvette m. bryant, Bench trial, Violence against pro-life activists, Politics 

A couple I know well has a Millennial daughter. I’ll call her “Marsha.” For years, she claimed to suffer from a severe case of self-diagnosed gluten intolerance. That fad eventually passed, though Celiac disease is real, and it appears to be on the rise. Nevertheless, Marsha recovered and went back to eating pasta and bread without any problems.

But she and her children have since fallen into a far more dangerous trend.

The transgender fad will fade away. But unlike the gluten fad, innocents are being disfigured for life and denied the pleasures of a normal adulthood — all in service to a runaway social experiment.

Her tween daughter now lives as a trans-identifying boy. And Marsha regularly dresses her preschool-aged son in little girls’ clothes.

These aren’t isolated choices. Marsha has once again been swept up in a social contagion — a phenomenon especially common among her age group. The gluten craze ended with little more than inconvenience. But the transgender trend leads to lasting harm. It encourages confusion, medicalization, and, in many cases, the sterilization of children.

At the height of her gluten obsession, Marsha treated every meal as a kind of dietary emergency. At restaurants, she would lecture the waitstaff about keeping all traces of bread and pasta away from her plate. If a dinner roll appeared by mistake, she wouldn’t just set it aside — she’d demand a completely new entrée, claiming the first had been “contaminated.”

She spoke and acted as if gluten carried radioactive properties. Today, her delusions have grown worse.

Marsha now believes her daughter is her son — and more tragically, she has convinced the child of the same. This is not just a personal fixation. It’s a mind virus, and it’s spreading. And it’s doing real, irreversible damage.

Legitimizing a ‘mind virus’

Elite academic and scientific institutions, now fully aligned with the political left, refuse to entertain any discussion of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” or its potential as a social contagion. Scientific American openly celebrates efforts to silence dissent. The American Psychological Association, joined by 61 other organizations, condemned any researcher who dares suggest that rapid onset transgender identification is real or that it’s affecting children.

When studies present data showing that “transitioning” may harm children’s health, the scientific establishment doesn’t engage with the findings. It demands retractions.

Compare this to the response a few decades ago, when anorexia and bulimia surged among young women. At the time, scholars rightly identified the trend as a social contagion. No sane person would have suggested that someone could be “assigned anorexic at birth.” And no ethical observer would have urged friends or family to support anorexic behavior by celebrating starvation as self-expression. That would have been seen not as compassion but as cruelty — and possibly a sign of mental illness in its own right.

Marsha’s pattern — first falling for the gluten fad, then embracing transgender ideology — shows why this trend deserves the same scrutiny. The signs point to another social contagion. Only this time, the cost is higher.

RELATED: Matt Walsh’s crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation

Photo by Jason Davis via Getty Images

Marsha’s parents seek to maintain a presence in their grandchildren’s lives. They want to help those children keep a foothold in reality while monitoring that no permanent damage is being done to their grandchildren. Puberty blockers and sex-change operations on minors are illegal in the state where Marsha and her children live. Many people are praying that Marsha’s current obsession won’t result in irreversible, lifetime bodily harm to her children.

Victimhood carries cachet

Many describe the transgender craze as a “woke mind virus” for good reason. It targets people like Marsha — white, straight, and desperate for meaning in a culture that elevates victimhood.

In an era where claiming oppression earns social status, Marsha fits nowhere. So she compensates. Over the years, she has loudly backed every progressive cause that allows a straight, white savior to feel virtuous: gay rights, Black Lives Matter, and whatever comes next.

But the need to feel oppressed is powerful. During the 2020 race riots, Marsha took to social media to tell her followers she felt “shaken” and “scared.” She claimed someone had stolen a BLM flag from her front porch in the dead of night. According to Marsha, her home security camera caught the grainy image of a figure — white, male, roughly 6′, wearing a mask and baseball cap. By sheer coincidence, her compliant husband also happens to be white, male, roughly 6′, and never puts up a fuss.

Now, with a “transgender” child, Marsha has finally secured what eluded her: a place near the top of the victimhood hierarchy. She eventually recognized that rainbow-flag-waving white allies had become punchlines in the very activist circles they tried to impress. But a trans child? That’s a ticket to credibility — admittance to the club, with VIP status.

Unlike gluten hysteria, the transgender fad won’t end with harmless dietary quirks. It leaves children scarred, sterilized, and denied the ordinary joys of adulthood. Marsha may see herself as a kind of brave victim. But she’s a willing carrier of a destructive social contagion — and her children will suffer the lasting damage.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Culture war, Culture wars, Woke, Woke culture, Wokeness, Woke mind virus, Transgenderism, Transgender, Lgbtq, Lgbtq+, Lgbtq agenda, Transgender agenda 

The same Democrats who crushed American freedoms with tyrannical COVID lockdowns are now latching on to the “dictator” narrative against President Donald Trump as they fight to shield illegal aliens, including those who committed additional crimes in the U.S., from the administration’s immigration enforcement measures.

On June 14, No Kings held thousands of protests nationwide, highlighting the left’s baseless portrayal of Trump as an authoritarian dictator with unchecked power. The demonstrations were primarily provoked by disapproval of the administration’s deportation push.

‘We need #ShutdownNYC now.’

Just weeks earlier, a riot broke out in Los Angeles over Trump’s immigration crackdown, where protesters flooded the streets waving Mexican flags and some individuals even set vehicles ablaze.

Meanwhile, the left accused Trump of overstepping his authority by deploying National Guard troops to California to prevent further destruction and violence as Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrat Mayor Karen Bass sat on their hands.

Newsom claimed that Trump’s deployment of troops was an “authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens.”

“Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” the governor declared.

RELATED: Judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE says she didn’t think ‘avoid ICE’ meant anything illegal

Photo by RINGO CHIU/AFP via Getty Images

Amid the ongoing tension, more Democrats have leaned into the claims that Trump is acting like a king, vilifying the administration for delivering on the president’s campaign promise to solve the nation’s illegal immigration crisis.

Earlier this month, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) attempted to ambush Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s press conference after previously claiming the L.A. riots were “largely peaceful.”

Federal agents briefly detained Padilla for trying to bypass officers to approach Noem during her speech. The senator claimed he “ended up in handcuffs” for asking a question.

“If this is how the Trump administration treats a U.S. Senator in broad daylight, imagine what they’re doing to immigrants behind closed doors,” Padilla wrote in a post on X. “We cannot stay silent. We will not back down.”

Many Democratic politicians, including Newsom, ran to Padilla’s defense, seizing the opportunity to accuse Trump of authoritarian actions.

Newsom stated, “This is outrageous, dictatorial, and shameful. Trump and his shock troops are out of control. This must end now.”

Padilla’s disruptive stunt followed an incident involving Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) the previous month.

McIver was slapped with federal charges after she was accused of assaulting an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at a Newark, New Jersey, detention facility where Democrats had demanded access.

The congresswoman called the indictment “political intimidation,” claiming that she was at Delaney Hall “to do my job.”

McIver also stood up for New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who was arrested for allegedly interfering with ICE operations when he locked arms with a man as federal agents approached them outside the courtroom.

McIver stated, “This administration will stop at nothing to intimidate those who dare to stand against their hateful agenda. This is a horrifying state of affairs for our country.”

Lander accused Trump of using “authoritarian tactics.”

Critics viewed Lander’s move as a publicity stunt during his mayoral campaign. Lander conceded to Zohran Mamdani after he failed to convince more than roughly 11% of NYC Democrats to support him.

RELATED: California Gov. Newsom issues lockdown order over coronavirus spike; one sheriff from a large county has already refused to enforce it

Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Flashback to the COVID era

Democratic leaders seem unified in their messaging against Trump, portraying him as a significant threat to freedom.

However, conservatives accused those same politicians of acting like kings just a few years ago, promoting oppressive lockdowns that harmed the economy and caused irreparable damage to mental health.

Newsom imposed some of the strictest lockdown measures in the nation, preventing Americans from gathering, forcing them to close their businesses, and using police to ticket and arrest citizens for trespassing on closed beaches. During the same period, he celebrated a birthday party at a Michelin-starred restaurant in Napa Valley.

During the COVID era, Padilla backed Newsom’s leadership, applauding the governor’s “statewide face mask mandate” as an “important and timely effort to reduce the spread.”

“Let’s commit to wearing masks, getting the vaccine, and staying home and social distancing as much as possible,” he stated in January 2021.

Padilla repeatedly accused Republicans of spreading “COVID-19 disinformation” that he described as “nearly as dangerous as the disease itself.” He claimed conservatives were “anti-mask, anti-science zealots” for criticizing Newsom’s leadership.

While insisting Americans should mask up and stay home, he advocated for illegal immigrants to receive a “pathway to citizenship,” claiming that “undocumented essential workers braved harsh conditions.”

RELATED: The untold story of LA’s underground COVID-era speakeasies

Photo by Jae C. Hong-Pool/Getty Images

Meanwhile, the lockdown situation in New York was similar to that in Los Angeles.

In March 2020, Lander encouraged then-Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) and then-Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) to “close schools, non-essential businesses incl. restaurants & bars, [and] implement aggressive social distancing.” He also advocated for closing places of worship.

Lander noted that social distancing would not work “until officially mandated.”

“We need #ShutdownNYC now,” Lander wrote.

During the COVID era, Democratic politicians enforced and supported strict lockdown measures, including business closures and vaccine mandates that trampled over American freedoms. Now, just a few years later, those same leaders are criticizing Trump’s immigration enforcement as authoritarian as the left continues to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens.

BlazeTV host Steve Deace stated, “To be fair, these COVID tyrants are subject matter experts on what it means to be an authoritarian. Snark aside, it’s impossible to be an authoritarian against invaders by the very definition of the term. We elected the Trump administration to exercise its authority to enact mass deportations, which are needed now more than ever.”

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

​News, Covid, Covid-era, Covid-19, Gavin newsom, Donald trump, Trump, No kings, Trump administration, Illegal immigration crisis, Illegal immigration, Immigration crisis, Immigration, Deportations, Immigration and customs enforcement, Ice, Alex padilla, California, Los angeles, Lamonica mciver, New york, New york city, Brad lander, Politics 

It’s quasi consumer fraud on a global scale.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s electric vehicle mileage ratings are misleading millions, inflating EV efficiency and hiding the true energy cost of driving green. And it all comes down to one little number.

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

It’s time to pull back the curtain on the EPA’s Miles Per Gallon equivalent figure, a metric that’s been covering the truth about EVs for years. This flawed foundation overstates efficiency while shortchanging hybrids and traditional cars. This isn’t just a technical glitch; it’s a distortion that could sway your next car purchase and sabotage the resale of your electric car.

Stick with me as we dig into the numbers, uncover the truth, and explore why this scam happened. And make sure to share this with anyone who’s ever wondered if EVs are really as green as they’re made out to be.

MPGe: A flawed metric

The Obama administration EPA introduced MPGe to help consumers compare the efficiency of electric vehicles to traditional gas-powered cars. It’s supposed to represent how far an EV can travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.

On paper, it’s a tidy way to level the playing field. For example, the EPA rated the 2011 Nissan Leaf at 99 MPGe, suggesting it’s nearly three times as efficient as a typical gas car getting 35 MPG. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: The EPA’s calculation assumes a perfect world, where gasoline is converted to electricity with no energy loss.

That’s not just optimistic — it’s physically impossible.

The EPA’s methodology takes the energy content of a gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTUs) and divides it by the energy in a kilowatt-hour of electricity (3,412 BTUs), arriving at a conversion factor of 33.7 kWh per gallon. Using this, it calculates how far an EV travels per kWh and converts it to MPGe.

The problem? This assumes 100% efficiency in turning fossil fuels into electricity at power plants, ignoring the messy reality of energy production. According to the EPA’s own data from October 2024, the average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. is just 36%. That means 64% of the energy is lost as heat, friction, and other forms of energy waste before it ever reaches your EV’s battery.

RELATED: 10 reasons not to buy an electric car

Getty Images/Xinhua News Agency

The Department of Energy’s reality check

Contrast this with the Department of Energy’s approach, which accounts for real-world power plant efficiencies and the fuel mix used to generate electricity. The DOE also factors in the energy required to refine and transport gasoline for traditional cars, creating a fairer comparison.

When you apply the DOE’s methodology, the numbers tell a different story. That 99 MPGe Nissan Leaf? It drops to a much humbler 36 MPGe — still respectable but far less impressive. This is roughly equivalent to a good hybrid like the Toyota Prius or even some efficient gas cars like the Honda CR-V. Suddenly, EVs don’t look like the runaway efficiency champions they’re made out to be.

So why does this discrepancy matter? The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures create a false impression that EVs are seven times more efficient than gas-powered cars, which can mislead consumers and policymakers. It’s not just about bragging rights; these numbers influence fuel economy standards, tax incentives, and even what cars automakers prioritize. If you’re shopping for a car, you deserve the truth about what you’re getting — not a rosy picture that glosses over real-world energy costs.

A violation of physics

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

Power plants, whether coal, natural gas, or oil-fired, lose significant energy as heat during electricity generation. Transmission lines and battery charging add further losses. By ignoring these, the EPA’s MPGe paints an unrealistically efficient picture of EVs.

Meanwhile, gas-powered cars and hybrids are judged strictly on their tailpipe efficiency, with no such generous assumptions. This double standard tilts the playing field, making EVs appear far superior when the reality is different.

The Biden administration’s push for EVs, including stringent emissions standards aiming for 67% of new car sales to be electric by 2032, amplifies the issue. These policies rely on MPGe to justify EV mandates, but the DOE’s more realistic calculations suggest hybrids and efficient gas vehicles could achieve similar reductions in fossil fuel use without forcing a wholesale shift to EVs. The DOE’s method shows that EVs, while efficient in their own right (using 87%-91% of battery energy for propulsion compared to 16%-25% for gas cars) don’t deliver the massive efficiency leaps MPGe suggests when you account for the full energy cycle.

‘Lightning’ in a bottle?

The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures aren’t just a technical oversight — they have real-world consequences. Federal fuel economy standards, like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, use MPGe to determine compliance. High MPGe ratings allow automakers to offset less efficient gas-powered vehicles with fewer EVs, which sounds good but can mask the true environmental impact.

For instance, the Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup was credited with 237.7 MPGe under old rules, but a more realistic DOE estimate drops it to 67.1 MPGe — still efficient but not a miracle worker. This inflates automakers’ fleet averages without necessarily reducing fossil fuel use as much as claimed.

Consumers feel the pinch, too. EVs are often marketed as the ultimate green choice, but the EPA’s numbers obscure the fact that most U.S. electricity (about 60% in 2024) comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In regions heavy in coal production, like parts of the Midwest, charging an EV can produce as much greenhouse gas as a gas-powered hybrid. The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator, developed with the DOE, lets you check emissions by zip code, revealing how your local grid affects an EV’s true environmental impact. This is critical information the MPGe figure conveniently ignores.

Hybrids, which combine gas and electric power, often get shortchanged in this narrative. A hybrid like the Toyota Prius can achieve 50 MPG or more in real-world driving, rivaling the DOE’s adjusted MPGe for many EVs without relying on a charging infrastructure that’s still spotty in rural areas. Yet, the EPA’s MPGe metric makes hybrids look less impressive, potentially steering buyers away from a practical, cost-effective option.

Policy or politics?

The Biden administration’s aggressive EV agenda, including the 2024 emissions standards aiming for a 50% reduction in light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, leaned heavily on MPGe to justify its goals. These rules projected that EVs could account for 35%-56% of new vehicle sales by 2030, a target that shrunk after pushback from automakers and unions worried about job losses and consumer choice. The administration also adjusted DOE’s EV mileage ratings in 2024, gradually reducing them by 65% through 2030 to better reflect real-world efficiencies, but the EPA’s MPGe figures still dominate public perception.

RELATED: Paul Brian, 1951-2024

Lauren Fix

Critics argue this focus on EVs, propped up by inflated MPGe, prioritizes political goals over practical solutions. The Trump administration’s EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has since moved to reconsider these rules, citing overreach and costs exceeding $700 billion. It argues that mandating EVs limits consumer choice and raises costs for all vehicles, as automakers offset EV losses with higher prices on gas-powered models. Recently, President Trump signed into law the removal of the EV mandate, and this is a win for consumer choice.

Transparency and choice

So is the EPA’s MPGe a deliberate scam? Not exactly, but it’s a misleading metric that overpromises EV benefits while undervaluing alternatives. And it’s been tricking almost everyone for years!

The EPA’s methodology needs to be corrected. The honest numbers would let consumers compare EVs, hybrids, and gas cars on equal terms. The Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator is a step in the right direction, showing how local grids affect EV emissions, but it’s underutilized compared to the flashy MPGe sticker on new cars.

You deserve to know the true energy cost of your vehicle — whether it’s plugged in, filled up, or both. The EPA’s MPGe has skewed perceptions, making EVs seem like a silver bullet when hybrids and efficient gas cars often deliver comparable benefits without the infrastructure headaches. With the Trump administration now removing EV mandates and reducing CAFE standards, there’s a chance to reset the conversation. Policies should prioritize innovation and consumer choice, not inflated metrics that favor one technology over another.

This isn’t just about car shopping; it’s about the future of transportation and energy. It’s better to tell consumers the truth and not inflate MPGe figures that can mislead you into purchasing a vehicle that doesn’t go the promised distance. Hybrids, efficient gas cars, and EVs all have a role to play, but only if we judge them fairly.

Share this article with friends who are car shopping or curious about the EV hype — it could save them thousands and spark a conversation. The EPA must ditch MPGe and give drivers the unfiltered truth about vehicle efficiency.

​Evs, Fuel efficiency, Auto industry, Barack obama, Epa, Gas-powered cars, Consumer choice, Align cars 

On September 11, 2001, nearly 2,500 Americans were killed when two planes hijacked by Muslim terrorists struck New York City’s Twin Towers. It’s been less than 24 years, and now that same city has elected Zohran Mamdani — a “communist,” “Muslim radical,” and “jihadist apologist” — as its Democratic mayoral candidate.

Mamdani is a 33-year-old Democratic socialist backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). He openly supports the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, refuses to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” and proposes rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage, and a Department of Community Safety to reduce reliance on police.

All it took was 24 years for NYC to go “completely insane,” says Glenn Beck.

Mamdani was endorsed and funded to the tune of $100,000 by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has been accused by multiple U.S. government officials, including federal prosecutors and FBI agents as well as several conservative advocacy groups, as being a Hamas front group and a terrorist organization.

He also received campaign donations from multiple faculty members from Columbia University, where several pro-Palestinian protests, many involving violent incidents, have erupted since 2023. Some of these donors even signed a letter defending Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks.

In a 2024 Facebook post, Mamdani’s campaign political director, Julian Gerson, wrote that he was “looking forward to driving down Mangione Avenue a few decades from now.” The post was seen as expressing direct support for Luigi Mangione – the man charged with the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

“Sounds like supporting killing people in the streets,” says Glenn.

On June 17, Mamdani appeared on “The Bulwark Podcast” hosted by Tim Miller and equated the phrase “globalize the intifada” to “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,” arguing that the word “intifada” means “struggle” or “uprising” in Arabic. He even suggested that the term was used by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Arabic to describe the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis — a sentiment the museum condemned as “outrageous and especially offensive to survivors.”

Glenn makes an excellent point: If “intifada” describes the Jewish uprising at Warsaw, “then [globalize the intifada] is not just a harmless kind of slogan about human rights; it is a call for violence on the streets,” as the Warsaw uprising was a bloody affair marked by fierce urban combat and executions.

Mamdani’s father, a current professor at Columbia University, has denied that terror and violence are an inherent part of Islam. His book, “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror,” argues that terrorism is a modern political phenomenon, not a product of Islamic culture, and is often rooted in historical encounters with Western power.

“I’ve read the Quran and much of the Hadith, and I’m pretty sure the violence is a part of that,” says Glenn, noting that the Americans supporting the pro-Palestine movement and people like Zohran Mamdani, condemning any opposition as “Islamophobia,” are ironically the first people who will be in the crosshairs if an Islamic takeover happens.

“The progressive left — the champions of feminism, LGBTQ rights, and secularism — they’re going to stand with the people who want to kill them first,” he says.

But right now, that isn’t a concern for the left. They’re amped about Mamdani’s plans to “tax the rich” so he can provide “free buses” and “city-run grocery stores.”

“I’m old enough to remember those city-run grocery stores in Moscow. They were great; the shelves were empty, but that’s just Moscow. I mean it worked out completely different in Venezuela where … oh, no, it didn’t. … They were eating the zoo animals,” mocks Glenn. This is communist dogma at work, he says, and it’s responsible for the “deaths of 100 million people.”

“Get the hell out of New York City. This is about survival,” he warns.

To hear more about New York’s new Democrat mayoral candidate, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, New york, New york city, Communism, Socialism, Globalize the intifada, Jihadist, Hamas, Pro palestine, Free palestine movement, Columbia university, Zohran mamdani 

Donald Trump had publicly toyed with the idea of running for president many times before 2015. In fact, he even entered the Reform Party’s presidential primaries for the 2000 election. But the timing was never quite right — until it finally was.

Of the many actions and twists of fate that created the opening for Trump’s presidential candidacy, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 is an underappreciated one. Hailed by the conservative legal establishment as a win for free speech (on the merits, I would agree), in practice, it unleashed a flood of money into the American political system, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of campaigns and how they were conducted.

The man who had descended that golden escalator years earlier was still there, still fighting, still determined to strive and seek and find, and not to yield.

Suddenly, the candidates themselves mattered much less, along with political parties. What mattered now were the new players who emerged from the wreckage of campaign finance law.

Super PACs could raise unlimited funds from corporations and billionaires. Dark money nonprofits kept their donors’ identities secret while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on attack ads. Labor unions could now spend unlimited treasury funds on elections. A new class of mega-donors wielded influence that dwarfed anything seen in American politics since the Gilded Age.

Courting donors over voters

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman could pour millions into Democratic super PACs and dark money groups. The Service Employees International Union could spend tens of millions mobilizing voters and running ads. George Soros could funnel tens of millions through a network of left-liberal nonprofits to influence elections at every level of government.

Candidates became supplicants in this new ecosystem, spending their days not connecting with voters but courting billionaires at private fundraisers, their policy positions increasingly shaped by the preferences of their financial benefactors rather than their constituents.

Voters noticed. They saw their television screens dominated by attack ads funded by shadowy groups with names like “American Bridge” and “Democracy for America” — names that were meant to sound generically patriotic and like they might belong to a real civic organization. But hearing them triggered something of an uncanny valley effect.

These changes to the political landscape occurred against the backdrop of a recession that continued to drag on and revelations that the NSA was engaged in widespread domestic surveillance. The combination was toxic: a political system that felt increasingly bought and paid for by wealthy interests, an economy that wasn’t working for ordinary people, and a government that was spying on its own citizens.

RELATED: Soros and McCain: The unholy alliance hidden in plain sight

Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images

By early 2015, the presidential race appeared to be the ultimate expression of this corrupted system. On the Republican side, 16 candidates were scrambling for the affections of mega-donors, with Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC raising over $100 million before he even officially announced his candidacy.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was cementing her position as the Democratic front-runner by giving $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs and collecting millions from Wall Street firms through the Clinton Foundation. She embodied everything that had gone wrong with American politics: a former public official who had leveraged her government positions into vast personal wealth, maintaining close ties to the very financial interests that Americans blamed for the 2008 crash.

The prospect of a Clinton-Bush general election felt like the ultimate expression of a rigged system — two political dynasties, both thoroughly embedded in the donor class, offering voters a choice between different flavors of establishment corruption.

Social media-sanitized speech

Beyond the obvious problems of corruption, the influx of cash and new types of political players were merging with another phenomenon that was reshaping American politics: the rise of social media and its democratization of political destruction.

The 2006 “macaca moment,” when Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen’s use of an obscure North African racial slur (his mother was raised in Tunisia) was captured on video and uploaded to YouTube, had served as an early warning of how a single unguarded moment could end a political career. By 2015, politicians had learned to navigate this new landscape with extreme caution, delivering focus-grouped sound bites and staying rigidly on message to avoid giving their opponents — or the online mob — ammunition.

This created a feedback loop with the post-Citizens United donor class: Candidates became even more scripted and poll-tested because they couldn’t afford to alienate their financial backers with an off-the-cuff remark that might go viral.

Corporate donors and wealthy superfunders demanded message discipline and political correctness from their chosen candidates, adding another layer of constraint to an already sanitized political discourse. The result was that American politics had become unbearably dull, with American politicians speaking an entirely different language from the American people.

Enter Donald Trump

Into that world stepped Donald Trump. His ride down the golden escalator marked the beginning of a journey that would shatter the suffocating façade of American politics. That escalator ride was itself emblematic, the first of a decade-long series of glittering images that dazzled and dizzied the American public.

Trump’s political staff had tried to keep him from riding the escalator, arguing it would look “amateurish and not remotely presidential.” He overrode them, as he would continue to do at key junctures. Just as the political establishment fundamentally underestimated and misunderstood the man and his appeal, so did many of those who worked closely with him. Few have ever really understood Trump, as evidenced by the failure of so many Republicans who tried to imitate what they thought were his key points of appeal.

Trump did not just break the system — he made the system break itself.

Within minutes of announcing his presidential run, he had violated every norm of politics, calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers while his rivals cowered behind carefully vetted talking points. Just weeks later, he attacked John McCain’s war record, declaring, “I like people who weren’t captured.” Any other candidate would have been finished before he started — donors would have fled, consultants would have resigned, and the media would have declared the campaign dead on arrival. But Trump had no donors to placate and no handlers to satisfy.

While his 16 Republican opponents were trapped in a system that demanded they speak in euphemisms and focus-grouped boilerplate, Trump could say exactly what millions of Americans felt but had been told was unspeakable in polite political society.

Though the media declared his campaign was toast, they couldn’t turn away from the spectacle. No one could.

Trump did not just break the system — he made the system break itself. The more outrageous his statements, the more coverage he received. Cable news couldn’t resist the ratings bonanza. Every controversial tweet became breaking news, every rally a must-watch live event. The media, who had long served as enforcers of political correctness and donor-approved messaging, found themselves amplifying the very voice that was destroying their gatekeeping power.

Trump’s Republican opponents remained paralyzed, unable to adapt or even understand what was happening under their feet. So completely did Trump dominate every news cycle that even Jeb Bush’s $100 million super PAC couldn’t muster a fraction of the attention for its candidate that Trump could with a single tweet — and for free. Trump also had help from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which deliberately boosted him during the Republican primary because, in one of the biggest political misjudgments in American history, campaign operatives thought he would be the easiest opponent to defeat in the general election.

The comeback

Trump’s first term came and went. I saw him at a low point, just ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. He was doing a rally in Mesa, Arizona, for the Republican ticket. Only the faithful were still showing up. He was characteristically running late. The desert sun was brutal, even in October. The only bottled water inside the security perimeter had been sitting in the sun all day and was boiling hot. During the wait, I had helped with several incidents of heat exhaustion. Those of us who remained were in a practically hallucinatory state by the time Trump came onstage.

He was obviously tired. Not just in a physical sense, but a deeper kind of tiredness. It was just two months after the FBI had raided his home, the latest in a long series of serious attacks by his political enemies. But he went on through the full act. The setting sun had painted the desert horizon a crimson red.

As the speech wound into its finale, I was reminded of Lord Tennyson’s “Ulysses,” a poem about an aging king gathering his faithful mariners for one more voyage, one more adventure into the unknown.

“Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are, one equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield,” the poet wrote.

Trump may have seemed diminished, but he was not defeated. The man who had descended that golden escalator seven years earlier was still there, still fighting, still determined to strive and seek and find, and not to yield.

And so he did not yield.

Two years later, Trump would return to the presidency in what would be one of the most remarkable political comebacks in American history. The faithful who endured the brutal heat that October day had witnessed not an ending, but an intermission. The assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, became the ultimate test of his political resilience. Rising with blood on his face and fist raised, shouting “Fight! Fight! Fight!” he transformed what could have been his final moment into his resurrection, emerging from that brush with mortality — not diminished but reborn, rejuvenated, and more powerful than ever.

What Trump has given to America is not what we wanted — we didn’t even know what to want — but what we needed: a vision of greatness.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Trump, Trump administration, Trump election, Trump election battle, Trump 2016 election, Trump 2020, Trump 2024, Trump 2024 campaign 

Deputies from the Scott County Sheriff’s Office in Missouri responded to a reported home invasion and shooting on County Highway 244, Sheriff Derick Wheetley of the Scott County Sheriff’s Office said.

The sheriff’s office confirmed to Blaze News on Friday evening that the incident occurred late Thursday night.

‘You should never enter another person’s home without permission or invitation.’

Preliminary reports suggest that the homeowner was alerted to the intrusion and acted in self-protection, officials said.

The homeowner fired four shots, all of which struck the suspect, officials said, adding that the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.

“Based on initial findings, the homeowner’s actions appear to have been justified in defense of themselves and their household,” officials said.

“The safety and protection of one’s home is a fundamental right,” the sheriff’s office added.

The incident remains under active investigation, officials said, adding that identities of all parties involved are being withheld at this time.

No charges have been filed against the homeowner, the sheriff’s office said, and the Scott County prosecutor will review the incident.

How are people reacting?

A number of commenters on the Facebook post from the sheriff’s office had something to say about the incident:

“It is tragic,” one commenter acknowledged. “However, you should never enter another person’s home without permission or invitation.””Exactly as it should be!” another commenter declared. “The lock on my door is there for the intruders [sic] protection, not mine!””Don’t break into peoples [sic] houses, and you won’t get shot,” another user said. “Seems pretty freakin’ simple to me.””That would [have] been the greeting at my house also,” another commenter wrote.”Same thing will happen if anybody invades my home,” another user stated.”Thank goodness for those rights to defend ourselves,” another commenter offered, adding that “home invasion is one of the worst crimes. This is where we are supposed to feel safe.”

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

​Crime thwarted, Self-defense, Fatal shooting, Home invasion, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, Missouri, Crime 

In the background of the Supreme Court ruling that has given states the power to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics is President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which could hit the clinics even harder.

The bill includes language that would ban insurance plans offered under the Affordable Care Act from covering abortion care in certain states.

“I’m still optimistic that this will remain in the bill. There’s too much political support behind it, primarily from the American people, by the way,” Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, tells BlazeTV host Jill Savage and Blaze media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford on “Blaze News: The Mandate.”

“Over 60% of Americans do not want tax dollars going towards funding abortion procedures,” he explains, adding, “I think Donald Trump has shown Republicans how to fight back in the culture war and how to win.”

“There’s been some good progress. We are cutting back taxpayer funding in the red states for abortions, we are restricting it, we are passing common-sense laws like in Texas and in Florida. Texas has a great law; it’s a heartbeat law, and they’ve essentially eliminated all of abortions,” he continues.

However, after the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, abortions have gone up by 10% across America.

“What’s causing that is the blue states have passed what’s known as shield laws that allow them to recruit and advertise for abortion services in the red states and the border states,” Schilling explains. “It also allows their pharmaceutical companies and their doctors to mail out abortion drugs to the red states.”

“I do hope that in the future, we will bring more attention to the fact that these blue states have weaponized their laws to make sure that we’re aborting more babies,” he adds.

Want more from ‘Blaze News: The Mandate’?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Sharing, Video phone, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Blaze news the mandate, Christopher bedford, Jill savage, Terry schilling, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Abortion rights, Abortion access, Big beautiful bill, Donald trump, Supreme court abortion ruling 

Andrew Cuomo is from the New York ruling family of Democrats, and yet that wasn’t enough to stop socialist Zohran Mamdani from winning the Democratic primary for mayor in New York City.

“Zohran Mamdani won by a lot. It wasn’t even close,” BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler says on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“It’s not because he’s charismatic. It’s not because he gets the problems of New Yorkers. It’s not because he ran some phenomenal campaign. It’s none of that,” she explains.

“It’s because of the demographic of voters who voted for him,” she adds.

Of the registered voters in New York City, 65% of them are Democrat, while only 11% are Republican, and 21.1% are Independent. And of the 5.1 million registered voters in New York City, the average age is 49, which is the tail end of the Millennial generation.

Between 750,000 and 850,000 of those 5.1 million are Gen Z, which is between the ages of 18 and 29 years old. Between 1.6 and 1.8 million of the 5.1 million are between the ages of 30 and 49.

“That means that 2.5 million of New York City’s registered voters … are what I call ‘indoctrinated kids,’” Wheeler explains. “If you look at the breakdown of who voted for Zohran Mamdani, you will find that it was white college-educated liberals who voted for Zohran Mamdani, versus the working class, who voted for Andrew Cuomo.”

“What happened is they exported the radical leftist ideology in which they were indoctrinated into the real world; they brought it with them. And so when I say ‘indoctrinated kids,’ I’m talking about the Millennial generation,” she continues.

“Now, when we’re talking about Gen Z, the problem has only been exacerbated. It is exponentially worse now on college campuses. It’s not just discrimination against conservatives. It’s not just, ‘Oh, you’re going to be a liberal by the time you leave.’ It is outright hatred of America,” she explains.

“It’s embracing socialism and Marxism and communism, rejecting God, rejecting family, rejecting natural law. Children who are sent to college now have a high likelihood of coming out of it revolutionary. And so when I use this phrase ‘indoctrinated kids,’” she adds, “they are voting for what they were taught is right.”

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Video phone, Sharing, Upload, Free, Video, Youtube.com, The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze media, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Zohran mamdani, Gen z, Millennials, Socialism, Marxism, Marxist, New york city, Mayoral election nyc, Andrew cuomo, Andrew cuomo loss 

The WNBA continued its efforts to push away conservative fans last week, rejecting a simple statement over the idea that it could be misconstrued as conservative.

Between the constant dragging of star Caitlin Clark and the relentless woke activism that included a George Floyd tribute this May, the league not only basks in liberalism, but it outright rejects patriotism at the same time.

This trend continued when WNBA commentator Rebecca Lobo uttered a phrase last weekend that could be considered supportive of the president or even too conservative for the league.

Lobo was doing play-by-play alongside Pam Ward for a game between the Las Vegas Aces and the Indiana Fever on Sunday, a huge game for women’s basketball fans. As is often the case with the WNBA, the final score was not the most talked about aspect of the game, but rather it was antics on the part of the announcers.

While discussing a foul call, Lobo was at odds with the referees’ decision as Ward jokingly pointed out the disagreement.

‘Differences of opinion are perfectly fine.’

Fans posted a recording of the exchange in which Ward asked Lobo, “So they disagree with you?”

Lobo responded, “They do, and I disagree with them, and that’s fine. That’s what makes America great, right, Pam Ward?”

Lobo’s seemingly harmless statement sucked the gravity away from the broadcast table, resulting in dead silence over the microphones for about eight seconds.

“I should rephrase that,” Lobo eventually said, breaking the silence. Her apology would come soon after.

RELATED: In honor of George Floyd, WNBA player gets on microphone and lectures entire crowd about racism

Lobo’s suggestion of correcting herself was met with a whispered “yes” from Ward, who then offered a different version of the remark.

“Differences of opinion are perfectly fine,” Ward asserted.

Lobo of course gave in and apologized.

“Yes, that’s a better way to say it. Sorry about that,” she conceded.

Fans responded to the footage with confusion, with many saying Lobo should have stood her ground.

“No reason to take back. [She] said the fact we disagree makes America great!” a Caitlin Clark fan wrote on X.

A Florida fan replied to the X post, saying, “So they hate America? Or like America? They literally live in the land of conundrum.”

RELATED: ‘The real controllers’: Who’s REALLY behind race-baiting in the WNBA

1996: Rebecca Lobo and teammates celebrate their Olympic victory over Ukraine, 98-65. BOB DAEMMRICH/AFP via Getty Images)

Governing bodies in sports all exert control over their athletes, former gymnast Jennifer Sey told Blaze News.

The athlete explained that in her sport, “for decades you couldn’t talk about abusive coaches. And I guess in the WNBA you can’t say anything that might be construed as conservative.”

Sey added, “There’s no way all the players agree and have the same views, but the WNBA makes it clear what the organization’s politics are, and they must send a clear message to the players to fall in line or else.”

The national champion called it “patently ridiculous” to interpret Lobo’s comments as political simply because Donald Trump is the president.

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

​Fearless, Trump, Wnba, Women’s sports, Basketball, Make america great again, Maga, Sports