A recent Gallup poll has revealed that alcohol consumption in the United States has reached a record low in nearly a century, with only 54% of the country reporting that they drink.

The data is consistent with other research, including Monitoring the Future’s national substance abuse poll that found a drastically reduced interest in alcohol among students from 1975 to 2025.

The subcategories of the Gallup poll revealed several bits of interesting information:

Women were more likely to quit drinking than men, with an 11% drop in drinking rates since 2023, compared to a 5% drop in men.White adults were more likely to quit drinking than adults of color, with an 11% drop in drinking rates since 2023, compared to a 2% drop in people of color. From 2023 to 2025, the largest declines in drinking rates were among people earning less than $40,000 per year, with a 14% drop, and those earning $100,000 or more per year, with a 13% drop. In contrast, drinking rates among those earning between $40,000 and $99,999 fell by only 4%Younger generations were more likely to quit drinking than older generations, with a 9% drop in adults ages 18-34 and a 10% drop in adults ages 35-54, compared to a 5% drop in adults 55 and older. From 2023 to 2025, Republicans had a 19% drop in drinking rates, compared to a 6% drop among Independents and a 3% drop among Democrats.

It’s this latter statistic that Stu Burguiere, BlazeTV host of “Stu Does America,” is most fascinated by.

His theory is that conservatives’ massive drop in drinking rates has a lot to do with the pressure to take the experimental COVID-19 vaccine. The anti-vaccine resistance largely fueled MAHA and ignited a movement of distrust in health institutions. Couple that with the new studies coming out that challenge the outdated advice that moderate drinking is safe, maybe even healthy, and perhaps that’s why Republicans are ditching the bottle in droves.

Stu’s theory seems to be consistent with the subcategory of the Gallup poll that assessed people’s perception of alcohol’s impact on health. All three categories showed a rising trend in the percentage of people who believe alcohol is harmful to health. From 2001 to 2025, people who said alcohol makes no difference on health decreased from 46% to a record low of 37%; people who said alcohol is good for health decreased from 22% to a record low of 6%; and people who said alcohol is bad for health increased from 27% to a record high of 53%.

It was also found that young people ages 18-34 were more likely to view alcohol negatively, with 66% reporting it’s bad for health, compared to 50% of adults ages 35-54 and 48% of adults ages 55 and up.

The poll also found that drinkers are consuming less alcohol. The report found that the average number of drinks per week has fallen to 2.8 — the lowest rate since 1996.

Stu is encouraged by these statistics. Not only is this good news for public health, it’s also good news for the culture when it comes to things like graduation rates, unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence, and reduced DUIs and accidents.

“The fact that kids and young adults are choosing to drink less, having fewer drinks, is a real positive thing,” he says.

To hear more about the Gallup poll’s findings and more of Stu’s analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Stu?

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

​Stu does america, Stu burguiere, Blazetv, Blaze media, Gallup poll, Alcohol, Alcohol rates 

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

RELATED: Listen: Glenn explains the history of Labor Day – and why it matters for our future

Photo by Photo by Kean Collection/Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Labor day, Labor day weekend, Labor day history, Labor unions, Pullman strike, Marxism, Peter j mcguire, Afl-cio, Big labor 

A stand-up comedian who worked for Ellen DeGeneres said success caused turmoil between DeGeneres and her staff.

Comedian Greg Fitzsimmons said he worked on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” in its first two years. The daytime talk show ran for 19 seasons from 2003 to 2022.

Fitzsimmons was hired as a writer and said he and other staff worked for about a month without DeGeneres before the show launched to figure out the upcoming format. Describing the feeling with the host as “good energy” with pranks and a ping-pong table, Fitzsimmons said that feeling changed when DeGeneres joined the production.

‘She’s a control freak.’

“She was rough. She was the ‘C-word,'” Fitzsimmons said on the “We Might Be Drunk” podcast.

Wave bye-bye

Fitzsimmons said he took on the role of audience “warm-up guy” because DeGeneres selected him, and he agreed because he is already a stand-up comedian and enjoyed the extra pay on top of his writer’s salary.

While Fitzsimmons told podcast hosts Mark Normand and Sam Morril he felt like a hack for doing cheesy material to warm up the crowd of “closeted Midwestern housewives,” the very first day he came out before DeGeneres, he set her off.

Fitzsimmons recalled telling the crowd, “I go, ‘All right, let’s do the wave.’ I said, ‘When I say banana, you guys just do the wave.'”

“So I say ‘banana,’ and they do the wave, and we all laugh. … Then [Ellen] comes out to do the monologue, and what I had forgotten was that the word ‘banana’ was in the monologue. And now she hasn’t seen the warm-up,” Fitzsimmons recalled.

“Oh no,” Normand reacted.

RELATED: Marc Maron, king of the ‘fascist’-fighting hacks

Victoria Sirakova/Rick Kern/Ulstein Bild Dtl./Getty Images

‘Control freak’

After DeGeneres attempted the monologue multiple times, with the crowd reacting to “banana” with the wave, Fitzsimmons said he finally went onto the stage to tell her what happened. This was the beginning of the end.

“She’s a control freak. So this is like the worst thing that could ever happen,” the comedian said about DeGeneres.

After he told her the reason the crowd was doing the wave, Fitzsimmons said DeGeneres “was f**king seething.”

“I thought, ‘All right, I’m getting fired for that.’ But I didn’t.”

Fitzsimmons said from that point on, “everything got weird,” and DeGeneres progressively got worse the more successful the show became.

“We started winning Emmys,” the 59-year-old said, noting that he won four of his own. However, it was those accolades that made DeGeneres “start to be mean.”

“She was back on top,” he explained.

Pitching fits

Host Morril asked for further examples of DeGeneres having an issue with her staff, and Fitzsimmons put it simply: If joke pitches were not in her wheelhouse, DeGeneres “looked at you like you had just f**king stabbed her puppy.”

RELATED: ‘You’re fired!’ Kimmel claims Trump is behind Colbert canning

Greg Fitzsimmons. Photo by Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for Comedy Central

Normand, an edgy comedian who has a rational fear of backlash, asked Fitzsimmons if he has been scared to talk about DeGeneres because of possible retaliation. Fitzsimmons said he really didn’t care.

The remarks come at a time when DeGeneres is facing years-old allegations about her treatment of staff.

The former host has not responded to the claims and is reportedly living in the United Kingdom after selling off her Santa Barbara home for a staggering $96 million.

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

​Ellen, Television, Align, Woke, Tv show, Talk show, Hollywood, Entertainment 

When Baylor University returned a $1.65 million LGBTQ+ grant last month — one tied to DEI efforts and LGBTQ initiatives — it sent a ripple through the Christian world.

On the surface, it looked like a victory: a Christian institution backing down in the face of public pressure from believers. But as Allie Beth Stuckey and others rightly pointed out, this wasn’t a win born from spiritual conviction. It was a calculated retreat, one that exposed a much deeper problem than any single grant.

God’s word doesn’t change. His standards don’t evolve with the culture.

It exposed the growing danger of progressive Christianity.

This movement isn’t just a theological shift. It’s a spiritual counterfeit — one that keeps the language of Christianity but trades the authority of scripture for the approval of culture. And in my heart, I believe it’s more dangerous than atheism. At least an atheist is clear about what he believes. Progressive Christianity, on the other hand, deceives from the inside. It misleads under the banner of Jesus, offering a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:5).

And it’s costing people their salvation.

What is progressive Christianity, really?

Progressive Christianity isn’t just a more “open-minded” version of the faith — it’s a total redefinition of it.

At its core, progressive theology tends to:

Reject the authority and inerrancy of the Bible.Reinterpret sin through the lens of human experience.Emphasize love and inclusion over holiness and repentance.Downplay the exclusivity of Christ for salvation.

It often affirms the cultural moment over the eternal word. In this view, truth is flexible. God’s commands are negotiable. And Jesus becomes more of a moral teacher than a Savior who calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23).

That’s not Christianity. That’s deception.

For anyone unfamiliar with this movement, here’s a biblical breakdown of progressive Christianity that explains how it departs from the true gospel.

Why progressive Christianity is more dangerous than atheism

It might sound extreme, but I truly believe this: Progressive Christianity is a greater threat to the gospel than atheism ever was.

Here’s why: Atheists make no pretense about their disbelief. You know where they stand. But progressive Christians use Christian language, scripture, and emotion to validate teachings that directly contradict the Bible. They redefine sin, affirm lifestyles that scripture calls us to repent from, and reduce salvation to a vague message of self-love.

In doing so, they lead others down a path that feels spiritual — but is ultimately separated from Christ.

RELATED: How JD Vance exposed the convenient theology of progressive Christians

PaoloGaetano/Getty Images Plus

Jesus warned about this kind of deception: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

Progressive Christianity often wears that sheep’s clothing well. But it leaves people spiritually lost, thinking they’re saved while embracing a gospel that has no power to save.

Baylor is a symptom — not the disease

The Baylor grant controversy is just one example of a larger pattern. Christian institutions across America are slowly conforming to culture while keeping the appearance of faith.

Many churches and universities want the brand of Christianity without the cost of obedience.

Whether it’s “The Chosen” seemingly partnering with people that affirm sin, or seminaries quietly shifting their theological standards, the same compromise is at work: Affirming the feelings of man over the commands of God.

This isn’t about one issue. It’s about all of them. Whether it’s sexuality, gender, marriage, abortion, or even the exclusivity of the gospel, progressive Christianity molds faith to fit culture, rather than calling culture to repent and follow Christ.

A personal word on compassion and conviction

Let me say something from the heart: I have many friends who consider themselves Christians and also identify as gay. Some are even politically conservative. They love Jesus — or at least they think they do. But they’ve been taught, as I once believed, that God affirms their same-sex relationships as long as they’re “loving” and “monogamous.”

I understand the desire to reconcile faith and desire. I lived in that space for years, trying to convince myself that God was OK with what I wanted, as long as I was sincere.

But sincerity doesn’t save us. Jesus does. And He doesn’t just meet us where we are — He calls us to repentance, to holiness, to transformation. That’s not cruelty. That’s grace.

God always preserves a remnant. But it’s time to wake up.

So while I’m deeply compassionate toward those who are still working through these things, I cannot affirm a version of Christianity that leaves people where they are instead of leading them to the cross.

That’s what progressive Christianity does — and it’s why it’s so dangerous.

What the Bible really calls us to

True Christianity isn’t comfortable. It never has been.

Jesus said: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matthew 7:13).

The road of progressive Christianity is wide. It’s attractive. It’s affirming. But it does not save.

God’s word doesn’t change. His standards don’t evolve with the culture. The call to repentance, faith, and obedience is still the same today as it was 2,000 years ago. And anything less than that isn’t good news at all — it’s a lie with eternal consequences.

A call to courage

If you’re a believer who sees what’s happening in the church and feels discouraged — don’t be. God always preserves a remnant. But it’s time to wake up.

We cannot keep pretending that agreement equals love or that silence equals peace. True love tells the truth. And true peace only comes through Christ — not cultural affirmation.

The danger of progressive Christianity is that it speaks peace where there is no peace. It offers comfort without conviction and affirmation without transformation. That is not the gospel.

And it’s time we say so — with boldness, clarity, and compassion.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Arch Kennedy’s blog.

​Christianity, Christians, Jesus, Bible, Jesus christ, God, Progressivism, Progressive christianity, Faith 

Testicle tanning.

If you remember anything from Tucker Carlson’s 2022 documentary “The End of Men” — apart from my captivating monologue about the evils of “soy globalism” and why weak men make hard times — it must be the scene where an anonymous right-wing bodybuilder stands atop a rock in the desert, his arms and legs spread in the famous “Vitruvian Man” pose, a red-light machine both illuminating and obscuring his modesty.

If broscience is about anything, it’s experimenting for yourself and trusting what your body tells you.

It was a striking image, for sure, and the producers of the documentary wanted it to stand as the weirdest and most wonderful of all the weird and wonderful things we “broscientists” are doing to reclaim our masculinity and enhance our health. They also wanted to trigger libs.

And trigger libs they did.

Big D energy

The usual suspects — Joy Behar, Stephen Colbert, VICE magazine, George Takei, Cenk Uygur of “The Young Turks” — all lined up to bash Tucker and everyone else in the documentary for believing that shining red light on your testicles can make them produce more testosterone. How absurd, they cried. What nonsense!

But their hate only made us stronger. The infamous pose went mainstream: Even this year’s hit reboot of “The Naked Gun” got in a few pointed sight gags at its — and our — expense.

Yes, it all probably does seem absurd and nonsensical. But the truth is that it’s anything but.

First of all, we know light stimulates and governs important processes in the body. This is an established fact. Indubitable. The formation of vitamin D, for example, depends on the interaction of sunlight and cholesterol in the skin. People who don’t go out in the sun and don’t eat enough vitamin D in their diets get rickets, or, in less extreme cases, experience depressive symptoms and hormonal imbalances, including reduced testosterone.

Blue states

Exposure to light and darkness governs the body’s circadian rhythms — aka the body clock — which are responsible for regulating, among other things, the secretion of hormones and processes of growth and recovery. We evolved as diurnal beings, following the natural cycles of the day and night, for 200,000 years before electric lighting and screens came along.

This is why constant exposure to blue light, which tricks the body into thinking it’s experiencing perpetual day, is so incredibly bad for you. Rat studies suggest chronic blue-light exposure could even cause early puberty, which is another reason for parents out there to limit their children’s phone, computer, and TV use.

RELATED: All-natural tallow: Everything your skin needs — without the hormone disruptors

North Idaho Tallow Company

Boost below

A key study for the benefits of testicular exposure to light dates from 1939, when researchers found that exposure of the testes to UV light could increase urinary concentrations of a testosterone metabolite by “nearly 200%.” That’s no small boost.

Sadly, the early promise of this study was not seized upon. The science of testicular light exposure was stillborn, strangled in the crib — choose your metaphor.

Chick magnet

In the intervening decades, it was left to industrial farmers to pick up the torch. Industrial farmers are always looking for diabolical new ways to increase the growth of the animals they’re torturing. At some point, they decided to start experimenting with exposure to different frequencies of light, and they found some very interesting results. Chickens reared under constant blue light had higher testosterone levels, and birds reared under constant green light were significantly heavier with more muscle.

Of course, these are chicken and not human studies. Nevertheless, they illustrate an important principle: Different kinds of light can have different physiological effects.

In the red

Red light is now being treated as a serious object of study for its potential health benefits, although there aren’t any studies, as yet, of its effects on testosterone production, at least that I know of.

It’s being used to promote skin rejuvenation and anti-aging, for example. One study showed significantly improved skin complexion and texture, and reduced wrinkles, after 30-60 treatments. Red light appears to increase the body’s production of important skin proteins, including collagen, elastin, and hyaluronic acid. Red-light therapy also markedly reduces acne symptoms and accelerates wound-healing.

Red light also stimulates the growth of hair follicles and increases hair thickness and growth. Red-light combs and hats have already been approved for use by the FDA.

There’s even clinical evidence that red light shined on the brain improves cognitive function for dementia sufferers and people who have suffered mild traumatic brain injuries.

Don’t knock it

So consider this one a bit of a punt. I think there’s every reason to believe red-light therapy increases testosterone, especially when the light is directed at the testes.

I’ve got a red-light machine. I point it at my testes. It makes me feel good. I’m inclined to trust that feeling. If broscience is about anything, it’s experimenting for yourself and trusting what your body tells you.

There are a variety of red-light machines on the market, ranging from the reasonable to the very expensive. Top of the line are the JOOVV models, which cost up to thousands of dollars. (There are plenty of Chinese alternatives on Amazon at much lower prices, but I can’t vouch for their quality.)

One thing you can do, if you want to experiment, is pick up a red 250-watt chicken brooder bulb for less than $20 and put it in a lamp. Et voilà: You have a red-light machine. It won’t necessarily be set to the precise wavelengths being used in red-light therapy (630-660 nm for red light and 810-850 nm for near-infrared light), but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of doing this.

Just don’t get the lamp too close. Trust me: There’s a fine line between tanning and toasting.

​Provisisions, Red light therapy, Testosterone, Hormones, Maha, Health, Men’s health, Make american healthy again