A Long Island mayor is standing firm despite calls for his resignation after he ridiculed a local activist online.

The Sag Harbor Board of Trustees voted unanimously on Tuesday to formally request that Tom Gardella resign as mayor of his Long Island village. Gardella said he would participate in social media and anti-harassment training but that he wouldn’t think of resigning.

‘Church man. He’s a Christian.’

“I will not resign from the office of mayor,” said Gardella, reported the Sag Harbor Express. “That is not going to happen. You have me confused with somebody else. I’m not the guy that runs from a crisis. I’m the guy that runs into it.”

While the board members provided other justifications for Gardella’s ouster, their ire centers on a comment the mayor left on an Instagram post last month.

Animal rights activist Rebecca Chavez shared a video on March 6 in which she grooves to a song with a dog in her lap while her masculine lesbian lover dances in the background.

Gardella — a Sag Harbor resident for over 30 years who runs a plumbing company, served as chief of the local fire department, and served in military intelligence during the Cold War — reportedly commented, “What’s that thing in the background? A guy? A girl? Some creature?”

RELATED: Woke Boise mayor tears up after city is forced to take down Pride flag on ‘Transgender Day of Visibility’

ENGIN GUNEYSU/AFP/Getty Images

Chavez wasted no time tracking down Gardella and making a stink, noting in a video, “Church man. He’s a Christian. And a mayor?!”

Chavez’s characterization of Gardella as a “church man” may be the result of her superficial reading of an event posting advertising a talk the mayor gave at “The Church,” a creative center on Long Island.

The Texas-based lesbian, committed to giving a “Master Class in pettiness and accountability,” stated, “I would expect an elected official and Christian man like yourself to behave better.”

Chavez then directed her followers to “send him a few emails to remind him that his behavior is unbecoming of a public servant.”

Deputy Mayor Edward Haye noted during a village board meeting last month, “We were made aware on March 9, yesterday, of a social media comment attributed to Mayor Gardella that disparaged members of the LGBT community.”

“Sag Harbor has long prided itself being a welcoming and a tolerant village, and those values deeply matter to us both as members of the village board and as residents,” continued Haye. “While the comment appears to have been made on a personal social media account, it has understandably caused concern and hurt within our community.”

Gardella apologized, but that evidently wasn’t enough for the activist.

“They always make an apology after the fact. So for me, his apology is not genuine,” Chavez told News 12 Westchester, revealing an apparent confusion about how apologies work.

The mayor’s thin-skinned peers had the village launch an investigation into his comment.

The investigation culminated in a report that accused the mayor of violating the village government’s social media policy and anti-harassment policy and claimed that his 12-word comment was “disruptive to operations, negatively impacted members of the community, and created the false impression that village leadership does not support or tolerate diversity,” reported the Express.

On the basis of the report, the board voted to censure the mayor.

“I’m not going to resign as mayor of this village,” Gardella, who was first elected in 2023, reiterated on Tuesday. “I would also say that I never sought to be mayor of this village. The residents of this village came to me and asked me to lead them. And I hope I can lead us out of this mess and at some point be able to work together with the board.”

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

​Sag harbor, Tom gardella, New york, Cultural imperialism, Censorship, Lgbt, Homosexual, Lesbian, Lesbians, Gender bender, Shapeshifter, Long island, Politics 

The former chair of the Oklahoma Democratic Party has now dropped his re-election campaign after a misstep involving an AI-generated kissing image. Yet for some members of his party, he still has not done enough.

On Monday, Oklahoma state Rep. John Waldron, 57, confirmed that he will no longer seek another term even though he just filed for re-election earlier this month. In a Facebook post, Waldron called the decision “the right thing to do” for his constituents and his efforts “to be a better person.”

‘I absolutely think Rep. Waldron should resign, and I am disappointed he has not done it already.’

The Facebook post also made vague references to having done “something which was wrong and hurt someone” and that “shouldn’t have happened.” The post did not divulge the details of the incident, but Waldron has admitted that his resignation as state party chair in December related to a fake image of him kissing a woman.

According to NonDoc, Waldron met with a female prospective political candidate last fall and then had AI generate a GIF of the two of them “making out.” Between Waldron’s statements and details from someone who has seen the GIF, NonDoc, which has not seen the GIF, believes that “an AI tool morphed multiple selfies into a video of Waldron and the woman kissing, replete with smooching and sighing sound effects.”

Waldron then sent the GIF to the woman, whose identity has not been revealed.

RELATED: Eric Swalwell reaps what he sowed during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation

– YouTube

“I was under enormous personal stress. I made a mistake, which I instantly regretted. I’ve accepted every consequence that was asked of me, and I’ve done a lot of personal work. I’m still deeply regretful for making that decision,” Waldron said Thursday, when his re-election campaign was still alive.

Waldron repeated those expressions of remorse in his Facebook post. “In an instant, I sacrificed my integrity,” he wrote. “… I full-heartedly respect and understand what I did was wrong.”

“Some have said it was because I was caught, but it sincerely is because I know what I did was wrong and I have let many of you down.”

Waldron also stated multiple times that he has sought professional help to improve himself. “I have been going and will continue to go to counseling and therapy sessions, and I am implementing the lessons I glean from every session into my life every day to become a better person,” he said.

“Stepping aside is the right thing to do for the people of District 77 and for me to continue my personal therapy to be a better person.”

Despite the extensive apologies, many female members of the Oklahoma Democratic Party are still not satisfied. In fact, state Reps. Amanda Clinton, Michelle McCane, Cyndi Munson, and Suzanne Schreiber have all demanded that he resign his seat immediately.

“I absolutely think Rep. Waldron should resign, and I am disappointed he has not done it already,” Schreiber said Monday.

“While I appreciate him ending his campaign, I still believe he should resign, as not sexually harassing someone should be the bare minimum we can expect from our elected officials,” said McCane.

Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairwoman Erin Brewer called Waldron’s behavior “unforgivable.”

According to NonDoc, Waldron’s withdrawal means that in November, Democrat candidate Kristina Gabriel will almost assuredly win the District 77 seat representing parts of Tulsa. Waldron, a former high school history teacher, has held the seat since 2018.

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

​Oklahoma, Democratic party, John waldron, Amanda clinton, Michelle mccane, Cyndi munson, Suzanne schreiber, Kristina gabriel, Politics 

The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, has announced that the country will legalize 500,000 migrants, creating a massive political and demographic shake-up inside the country. Spain fought the Reconquista for hundreds of years to recapture its lands from North African Muslims. In the 20th century, the country fought a civil war and was ruled by Francisco Franco for decades to ward off communism. Despite all these efforts, Spain is ultimately racing toward the progressive open-borders suicide that so many other Western nations have pursued.

So the question everyone is left asking is: If liberalism ultimately makes nations fragile, how did it come to dominate the most powerful countries in the Western world?

Most people are lazy, selfish, and impulsive. Successful civilizations are created by accumulating low-time-preference behaviors that collectively enable them to overcome the negative aspects of human nature. Those lessons are costly to relearn with each generation, so these prosocial behaviors are encoded in the traditions, folkways, and institutions of civilization. The systems that allow society to function work their way into language, religion, literature, song, and art until they are almost invisible to the people who live inside them. The people could not imagine living any other way.

This thick network of embedded folkways and traditions does a great job of cultivating virtue in the citizenry and perpetuating the society that gave birth to them, but it makes cooperation with other nations difficult. In many cases, even the inhabitants of the society cannot really articulate what the behaviors are or what makes them work because they have become second nature. The very thing that makes them work for the host nation makes them very difficult to explain or implement in other cultural contexts.

As civilizations shifted their priorities, they started to lose the traditions, folkways, and even religions that defined them.

A small, tight-knit society is great for a time, but eventually it gets outcompeted by larger civilizations. The advantages of scale are too great, and to compete, the small, successful nation must learn to expand through cooperation. The civilization with more troops, more crops, more trading partners, and more allies will eventually crush smaller societies, no matter how virtuous those societies might be. This is where liberalism enters the equation.

Liberalism, in the classical sense, not the modern Democratic Party, was a project that allowed civilizations to scale. Specifics of religion, custom, tradition, and even financial transactions had been too deeply territorialized in particular civilizations to allow cooperation or commerce between different peoples. In many cases, the differences were so severe as to spark wars. To enable cooperation and scale, the scaffolding that allowed cooperation at the local level needed to be removed from these divisive, conflicting cultural contexts and reterritorialized into a neutral space where different peoples could access it.

By identifying and extracting the behaviors that enabled social cooperation from their cultural contexts, liberalism created a framework that enabled different nations to engage in commerce and other forms of exchange. A minimum viable morality was reached among nations, allowing them to sign business contracts, diplomatic treaties, and trade agreements that each side understood and could adhere to. Rather than go to war, people with very different ways of life could buy, sell, and even ally with each other productively. Capitalism was born, and with it came vast gains in wealth and standard of living.

The benefits of this explosion in cooperation are obvious, but in life, there are no solutions — only trade-offs. Eventually, the costs of liberalism began to rear their heads. As nations began to liberalize and scale, they still maintained deeply rooted cultural identities and ways of life while experiencing an influx of wealth. The ruling class would need to manage these new relationships of trade and diplomacy, so they increasingly interacted with the ruling classes of other nations within the new liberal framework rather than through their own native cultural networks.

The ability to operate in the liberal global framework brought wealth and status, and soon societies were selecting for this ability rather than focusing on the territorialized traditions and virtues that had previously defined them. The incentives in these societies began to shift away from maintaining their own cultures and toward profitably engaging with the liberal world order.

As civilizations shifted their priorities, they started to lose the traditions, folkways, and even religions that defined them. They were vastly superior, both militarily and economically, to nations that had not learned to cooperate at this scale, but they were trading away something crucial with this advantage. The minimum viable morality may have been sufficient to trade tea or silk, but it was not sufficient for maintaining the social cohesion of particular societies. It turns out that the bare-bones morality extracted from their cultural and religious contexts is not enough for humans to survive in the long term.

This loss of identity and social duty started to have serious consequences. Ruling elites no longer saw the citizens of their country as family to which a duty is owed but as interchangeable economic units that could be rearranged to maximize productivity and profit. One warm body that generated labor and consumed goods was just as valuable as the next and could be swapped out at will. That is why Spain and many other Western nations have adopted this suicidal policy toward immigration — no human is Spanish; they all exist under the same liberal globalist moral architecture.

Liberalism seemed like a miracle when it allowed for scale and the massive advantages in wealth and productivity that come with it. But as the old identities and traditions fell away, the same force that allowed civilizations to grow beyond their wildest expectations also made them fragile and vulnerable. The trends we are watching play out across the Western liberal order are the slow but inevitable consequences of the radical shift we embraced in human organization, and they will not be corrected without paying a cost.

​Auron macintyre, Civil war spain, Immigration policy, Opinion, Ruling class, Ruling elites, Social cohesion, Opinion & analysis 

Life is not only unfair in the new “Malcolm in the Middle,” but it is also very oppressive.

The beloved 2000s series that went for seven seasons received a four-episode reboot on Disney+ recently, aptly titled “Malcolm in the Middle: Life’s Still Unfair.”

However, it was likely the viewer who felt most mistreated.

‘I was like, 5, when I started feeling wrong.’

The series went live April 10 with all four episodes available simultaneously. It was the finale though that got the most traction, but for the wrong reasons.

‘They’ live

In this iteration of the show, Frankie Muniz — now a race car driver — returns as adult Malcolm and has since become a father to a teenage girl. Unfortunately, the mother abandoned her family just three days after the child’s birth, according to the show’s Wiki page. The mother’s name is Dreamer.

Nonetheless, Malcolm has a new girlfriend, Tristan, who accompanies him through a reconciliation with his family and eventually to the 40th anniversary party of his parents, Hal and Lois. This is where the real woke magic happens.

The finale takes viewers on a whirlwind tour of progressive gender and sexuality obsessions. What garnered the most attention online was a speech by the family’s sixth child (still in utero at the time the original series ended), Kelly, a new “nonbinary” character referred to as “they.”

Ok, Boomer

Played by actress Vaughan Murrae — who purports to be nonbinary herself — Kelly is included in a video tribute to Hal where each sibling says what they love about their father. Kelly’s portion instead explains her gender epiphany, saying, “I was like, 5, when I started feeling wrong. I thought I was great at hiding it, because you guys never said anything.”

“I knew that he knew and had always known,” she said about Hal, lovingly pointing out his acceptance.

Executive producer Tracy Katsky revealed in an interview with Deadline that the character was very much intentional in its messaging.

“It’s a really important thing to us. Three out of four of our kids are queer,” Katsky claimed. Her husband, Linwood Boomer, is the creator of the show. “Without making it a thing and without making an issue, I think it’s really nice to have a character that, that’s just a facet of their personality as opposed to the entire story. So we’re really happy.”

RELATED: ‘Wtf’: Still-living Michael J. Fox reacts to CNN ‘in memoriam’ video

– YouTube

Didn’t ask, don’t tell

Several other characters in the show are inexplicably gay as well. For example, Stevie, Malcolm’s best friend with one lung, is now gay and has since adopted a baby with his husband, Glen.

Malcolm’s trio of nerdy, male friends have a child together made possible by some sort of scientific experiment, but the show fails to provide specifics. When Malcolm asks if it happened through surrogacy, the men trail off. They do take a shot at the Department of Defense though, saying they got contracts before they graduated college and are doing a lot of “crazy s**t.”

The child later makes an appearance as his three fathers are dancing (embarrassingly so), and one asks the boy to come dance with “dada, dada, and dada,” referring to all three fathers.

To add in a creepiness factor, Malcolm’s daughter, Leah, purported to be around 14 or 15 years old, sends a photo of herself from the event to her crush. She then gets a response that reads, “Show me your boobs.”

The teen tells the camera, “What a creep! My first crush is a creep.”

The attempted lesson at phone decorum still comes across as unnecessary, given that an adult wrote the scene.

RELATED: Sabrina Carpenter CLEARED of ‘Islamophobia’ after viral ululation confrontation

Theo Wargo/Getty Images

Reboot rebut

For good measure, the show also takes a gratuitous swipe at Christianity: Francis, the eldest brother, finds out during the anniversary party that his nitwit friends accidentally sawed off the head of a Jesus statue outside of a church. They are later arrested.

TV critic Christian Toto told Blaze News he felt “the reboot was either written several years ago or comes from a creative team eager to relive the woke era.”

“Fans crave reboots for the nostalgia factor. The original show’s edge came from its humor and singular take on family, not for any culture war broadsides,” he continued.

The writer added, “The new ‘changes’ reflect a modern viewpoint that doesn’t align with anything legitimately subversive or fresh. If anything, it’s the most predictable way to take a reboot.”

While some critics welcomed the reboot’s manic energy, most noticed an emptiness beneath its progressive “updates” — even if they didn’t name them as such.

Screenrant said the show “underwhelms by wasting too much time to fully bring the family back together.”

The New York Times said the reboot “never has a chance to develop.”

The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and New York Magazine all scored the show a 4/10, while the Telegraph provided possibly the most simple yet accurate takeaway:

“It is, sadly, a disappointing reunion.”

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

​Align, Department of defense, Disney, Gender ideology, Gender politics, Malcolm in the middle, Modern gender politics, News, Nonbinary character, Reboot, Surrogacy, Television, Woke, Entertainment 

On March 18, abortion law in the United Kingdom underwent a profound — and, to some, deeply troubling — change. At the center of the controversy is Clause 208 of the Crime and Policing Bill.

Introduced by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, the clause passed in the House of Commons on June 17, 2025 and was supported by the House of Lords on March 18 of this year.

India — the largest country of origin for migrants to the United Kingdom — accounts for roughly half of the world’s ‘missing females’ at birth.

While presented as a compassionate update to Victorian-era laws, the clause effectively creates a legal disparity that anyone concerned with the sanctity of life may find objectionable.

Exempting women

To understand the scale of the change, American readers need context. The Abortion Act of 1967 did not legalize abortion outright. Instead, it established exemptions. Termination was permitted only if two doctors agreed that the pregnancy posed a risk to the physical or mental health of the mother or her existing children. Outside those conditions, abortion remained a criminal offense under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. Today, the general legal limit for abortion in the U.K. is 24 weeks.

Clause 208 fundamentally alters that framework. It removes women entirely from the scope of the 1861 Act. In practical terms, a woman can no longer be prosecuted for ending her own pregnancy at any stage — including up to birth. Medical professionals, however, remain bound by the 1967 Act. A doctor who performs an abortion past the 24-week limit without specific medical justification still faces potential prosecution, including life imprisonment.

The result is an asymmetry: The individual is exempt from criminal liability, while the practitioner is not. By removing legal risk from the woman — particularly in an era of pills by post and self-managed abortion — the law effectively permits abortion on request, even if formal restrictions on providers remain.

Unprecedented levels

This comes at a time when abortion rates have reached unprecedented levels. In January, the government released the 2023 abortion figures for England and Wales. The numbers showed there were 277,970 abortions — the highest recorded since the 1967 Act was introduced. If current trends continue, the U.K. is projected to surpass 300,000 annual terminations when the next figures are released.

Nearly one-third of pregnancies in England and Wales now end in abortion. In 2023, approximately 32% of all conceptions resulted in termination. Much of this increase is attributed to the “pills by post” scheme introduced during COVID-19 and made permanent in 2022. By allowing women to access abortifacients without an in-person consultation, the policy has lowered practical barriers to abortion and accelerated its normalization.

Critics of Clause 208 also point to the absence of a clear public mandate. Despite the scope of the change — effectively eliminating the prospect of prosecution for late-term self-abortion — there was no referendum or broad public consultation.

Polling from Savanta ComRes suggests that while most Britons support access to abortion, only a small minority — around 1% — support access up to birth. The same polling found that 70% of women believe the current 24-week limit should be reduced. On this reading, the law moves in the opposite direction of public sentiment.

RELATED: No more stiff upper lip: My fellow Brits are fed up with ‘diversity’

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Sex-selective abortion

Concerns extend beyond process to potential consequences. Baroness Rosa Monckton, a life peer in the U.K.’s House of Lords, warned that the removal of legal liability could encourage sex-selective abortion. The NHS typically discloses fetal sex at the 20-week scan. Without legal deterrence, critics argue, there is little to prevent termination based on sex.

Globally, sex-selective abortion has been documented for decades, particularly in countries such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, where cultural and economic pressures — especially the dowry system — have historically incentivized a preference for sons. India — the largest country of origin for migrants to the United Kingdom — accounts for roughly half of the world’s “missing females” at birth.

Inevitably, some long-standing cultural traditions have persisted within these communities.

Some institutions dispute that risk. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has described sex-selective abortion as a myth, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated that statistical evidence remains inconclusive.

Imported misogyny

Yet recent data challenges these claims. Analysis from the Department of Health and Social Care found that while sex ratios among first and second births to women of Indian origin align with the national average, third births show a marked imbalance — 118 boys for every 100 girls.

The same analysis estimates that approximately 400 sex-selective abortions of female fetuses of Indian heritage occurred between 2017 and 2021, describing this as the first measurable evidence of the phenomenon in official statistics.

This raises a broader concern that legal changes intended to expand autonomy may also make it easier for society and the state to overlook grave issues such as infanticide, coercion, or sex-selective abortion. In prioritizing rights and compassion for the mother, the law now raises serious questions about the status and protection of the most vulnerable.

Liberal shibboleths

The rise of sex-selective abortion in the U.K. results from the convergence of several misguided liberal shibboleths: that “multiculturalism” permits minority groups to practice antiquated cultural customs in Britain without scrutiny; that rights of citizenship do not require corresponding responsibilities; and that any restrictions on the actions of adult women are automatically sexist and patriarchal.

The implications extend beyond individual cases. At a time when Britain faces rapid demographic change and fewer young people are choosing to start families, abortion is increasingly becoming a question of national survival. If the 300,000 pregnancies ended by abortion each year had gone to term, the U.K. population could have grown by nearly a million over just three years. Instead we rely on immigration to support our aging population, all in service of the “economic growth” idolized by elites.

Britain now faces a choice. Clause 208 is not merely a technical adjustment to outdated law. It marks a turning point — one that forces the country to confront fundamental questions about life, responsibility, and the limits of autonomy.

​Abortion act 1967, Abortion law, Demographic change, Fetal femicide, House of lords, Immigration, Lateterm abortion, Sexselective abortion, Letter from the uk, Culture