My younger brother, Hamraz, was arrested in Iran at 16. Two years later, the Islamic regime executed him. His death filled me with anger and a desire for revenge. But as I studied the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenged me to love my enemies and pray for those who persecute me.

God transformed my hatred into love. Rather than seek revenge against Muslims, I devoted my life to sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with them.

Love your Muslim neighbors. Befriend them, serve them, pray for them, and share with them the good news of Jesus Christ.

I love Muslims. And I love America. That is precisely why I am sounding the alarm.

I came to this country from Iran and discovered freedoms that religious tyranny denies. I know what it means to lose those freedoms. Americans who have never lived under such a regime should not assume their liberties will always be secure.

My purpose is to warn, not to stir hatred or violence. I want Americans to recognize the danger of political movements that seek to replace constitutional government with religious rule — and to confront that danger with truth, courage, and love.

Many Americans think of Islam exclusively as a religion. Historically, it has also supplied models for political authority and law. Muhammad was a religious prophet, a political leader, and a military commander. His followers in Mecca initially had little political power. In Medina, beginning in the 7th century, he governed a community and led military campaigns. His successors extended Islamic rule across vast territories.

For 1,400 years, movements seeking Islamic government have drawn upon that history: organize believers, build influence, gain power, and govern according to their interpretation of Islamic law.

Not all Muslims take the Quran’s commands and Muhammad’s example equally seriously. Many nominal Muslims love freedom and reject extremism. But I believe those who follow those teachings most closely see the extension of Islamic political rule as a religious duty. That is the ambition I mean when I warn of world domination.

The danger is not confined to terrorism. A movement can pursue religious authoritarianism through political institutions as well as violence. Its leaders may use freedoms of speech, worship, and political participation while seeking power to deny those freedoms to others.

RELATED: Marco Rubio’s spicy Greece speech left out the most crucial ingredient

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

I watched a version of that tragedy unfold in Iran. Before the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini promised liberty and justice. Many Iranians believed him. After the revolution, his regime imposed religious law, crushed dissent, persecuted minorities, and executed political opponents. My brother was among the dead.

Judge a political movement by more than its promises before it gains power. Examine its history, its stated aims, and what it intends to do after winning.

Europe offers warnings of its own. Across Europe, Islamist movements have sought greater political and cultural influence. In some communities, disputes over religious arbitration, women’s rights, freedom of expression, and the application of Islamic law have raised serious concerns.

America must learn from these experiences.

Political influence is not always pursued through violence. It can also develop gradually through organized, long-term efforts to influence schools, local governments, public institutions, and, ultimately, national policy.

Some Islamist movements seek to use the freedoms of democracy — free speech, religious liberty, and political participation — to gain influence while advocating systems that would deny those same freedoms to others.

Participating in civic life is every American’s constitutional right, including the right of Muslim Americans. But when any movement seeks political power for the purpose of imposing religious law on others, Americans must recognize the threat.

We must never confuse religious freedom with permission to undermine the freedoms of others.

America’s openness, tolerance, and goodwill are tremendous strengths. But without knowledge and vigilance, these virtues can be exploited by movements that do not share our commitment to liberty.

RELATED: Read dangerously — but please, just read

Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu/Getty Images

I often say that I worry more about America’s future than Iran’s. Millions of Iranians know firsthand what religious authoritarianism can do. Too many Americans know it only as a distant subject in a history book.

That concern led me and other Iranian-Americans to produce “The Great American Conflict,” a documentary examining political Islam and what its ambitions could mean for this country.

My appeal is simple: Wake up. Study the history. Look closely at organizations seeking power in your community. Attend meetings, participate in elections, serve on school boards and city councils, and hold elected officials to the Constitution. Defend religious liberty, free speech, and equal rights for everyone.

Above all, act from conviction and love, never hatred or fear.

Love your Muslim neighbors. Befriend them, serve them, pray for them, and share with them the good news of Jesus Christ. I sometimes call myself Islamophilic rather than Islamophobic. I do not embrace Islamic teachings. I love Muslim people.

My brother’s execution taught me the terrible cost of religious tyranny. Jesus taught me that hatred cannot answer hatred. We can love Muslims wholeheartedly and defend America’s constitutional freedoms courageously.

The time to do both is now, while we still have the freedom to do so.

​Opinion & analysis, Iran, Islam, Islamophobia, Christianity, Ayatollah, Love, Muslims, Europe, America, Warning 

Hours before trial was set to begin last month, the Federal Trade Commission and five state attorneys general settled their antitrust case against Zillow and Redfin. While this was a major success, and the FTC should be proud, there is still more to be done.

More than 30% of American households rent. For most of them, the search begins and often ends inside one company’s ecosystem, which is a major violation of antitrust principles and laws.

The solution does not actually touch the cost of rent for average people.

To be clear, the government was able to achieve much. In a $100 million deal, Zillow had paid Redfin to shut down its multifamily rental-advertising business, transfer its customers and salesforce, and stay out of the market for as long as nine years. That deal is now dead. Instead, Redfin will have to restart its former business within six months and display Zillow’s listings under a partnership that will continue through at least 2030.

This remedy is superior to potential alternatives, such as a fine, which often does not actually solve the problem. Gigantic monopolies can usually absorb these fines and continue to violate antitrust law. Requiring actual change goes a long way toward solving the problem.

This was, to be clear, a rather easy antitrust case. The Zillow-Redfin deal was a blatant violation of the core principles of antitrust. The companies literally signed an agreement not to compete, with a nine-figure bribe thrown in.

The FTC was also not alone in its demands against Zillow and Redfin. Virginia, Connecticut, New York, Washington, and Arizona all joined in. After securing the required changes, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson hailed the result as a critical part of the Trump administration’s housing agenda.

This last framing, however, is a problematic framing for supporters of antitrust. The issue only dealt with property managers as it concerned postings for renting. The solution does not actually touch the cost of rent for average people. Essentially, a housing-advertising case is being sold as a housing-affordability case.

Consider what the settlement leaves standing.

Zillow still operates Zillow Rentals, Trulia, and HotPads. Restoring Redfin is a major success, but eliminating the deal does not solve the issue because there is so much more to do.

Even worse, Zillow’s dominance extends beyond rental listings into the homebuying transaction itself through alleged “tying” tactics. In ongoing class action antitrust litigation against Zillow, plaintiffs allege that Zillow leverages its monopoly over buyer leads to force real estate agents into steering clients toward Zillow Home Loans. By tying access to critical consumer leads to whether an agent pressures clients to use Zillow’s lending arm, the platform squeezes independent lenders out of the market and deprives buyers of competitive mortgage rates.

RELATED: The GOP can’t blame Biden forever for pain at the pump

Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images

Then there is Redfin itself, which is owned by Rocket Companies. Rocket Companies also owns Mr. Cooper, one of the country’s largest mortgage servicers, another potential antitrust violation. This sketchy alliance has already raised the ire of some in Congress.

This is not to say that the FTC was wrong to make this settlement. It’s only to say that the job is not yet finished.

Because yes, renters may eventually pay a little less than they do now, as the trickle-down effect occurs. But that would take a long time and is the most indirect way possible to lower rent or limit increases.

There are three ways the federal government can build on its success.

First, use its 6(b) (of the FTC Act) authority to study the rental listing market as a whole: the pricing, exclusivity arrangements, syndication terms, and leverage, including illegal tying mechanisms between lead generation and home financing.

Second, the agency should make clear that trading preferential access for exclusivity should not be automatically safe simply because no money changed hands. What Zillow and Redfin did would have been illegal even if Zillow had not bribed Redfin.

Finally, Congress and state regulators should pay attention to what unfolds, particularly as 2030 gets closer. Zillow and Redfin are going to use the next four years to figure out how they can legally reconstruct their partnership; it is up to elected officials and regulators to keep them from being successful.

The FTC started off strong, but still has a long way to go. Over the next few years, it is critical that the agency turn its sights toward anti-competitive tying and finish the fight for housing affordability.

​Class action, Federal government, Housing affordability, Ftc, Zillow, Redfin, Renting, Housing market, Virginia, New york, Trulia, Hotpads, Monopoly, Mr cooper, Rocket companies, Congress, 2030, Opinion & analysis 

Florida police investigating a mass shooting threat online determined that a teenage girl had tried to frame her ex-boyfriend to get him in trouble.

Officials at Riverview High School were alerted to the mass shooting threat via an email on Wednesday that included a screenshot of an Instagram post, according to police.

‘It doesn’t matter if it’s a joke, it doesn’t matter if it’s from AI, it doesn’t matter if you’re mad, and it doesn’t matter if you’re trying to pin it on someone else. You’re going to face the consequences.’

Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputies responded and found that the post appeared to come from a male student who attended the school.

After police interviewed the male student, they determined the post did not come from him but was actually created by his ex-girlfriend.

The 15-year-old was a former student at the high school and had made the hoax image with the use of artificial intelligence, according to police.

When they interviewed her, she admitted to sending the false screenshot to the school administrators.

The girl was charged with written or electronic threat to conduct a mass shooting or act of terrorism and two other charges related to the threat.

RELATED: Family says Alabama woman was kidnapped after being ‘lured’ by toddler on side of a highway, but skeptics are crying hoax

“Threatening a school is a felony in Hillsborough County. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a joke, it doesn’t matter if it’s from AI, it doesn’t matter if you’re mad, and it doesn’t matter if you’re trying to pin it on someone else. You’re going to face the consequences,” said Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office chief communications officer Amanda Granit.

Retired Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Rich Kolko said people falsely believe they won’t get prosecuted for online behavior.

“People sit at home, they’re sitting at their desk, and they feel they have this keyboard anonymity,” Kolko said to WFLA-TV.

“They think nobody can find them or nobody’s going to bother them. They’re just playing on their computer; it’s no big deal. Well, as this young lady learned and as too many other people have learned, it is a big deal,” he added.

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

​Artificial intelligence, Federal bureau of investigation, Mass shooting, Crime 

If you drive at night, you know the problem. An SUV approaches from the opposite direction, and suddenly its headlights hit you like a spotlight. You squint, look toward the edge of the road, and hope you can still see your lane. If a lifted pickup is riding behind you, your mirrors can become another source of blinding glare.

When you cannot see clearly behind the wheel, that is more than an annoyance. It is a safety concern.

Are American drivers benefiting from available lighting technology, or are regulatory differences making it harder and more expensive to bring that technology to market?

Now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is preparing to modernize federal vehicle lighting standards after years of complaints about headlight glare. Announced October 6, the rulemaking effort will examine LED lighting, automatic high beams, headlamp height and aim, and other visibility issues affecting drivers.

If headlight technology has advanced so dramatically, why are the rules governing it still struggling to keep up?

Glaring problem

America’s minimum and maximum headlight brightness standards have not changed since 1997. Since then, vehicles have gained advanced safety systems, cameras, and increasingly sophisticated lighting technology. Yet the federal rules governing headlights have struggled to keep pace.

Not every LED headlight is dangerous, and not every complaint proves a vehicle violates federal standards. But headlight design, vehicle height, and improper aim can affect how much light reaches another driver’s eyes. The growing popularity of taller trucks and SUVs makes the problem especially noticeable to people driving lower vehicles.

Drivers should not have to choose between seeing the road and being able to look at it without being blinded. Automakers have spent years promoting smarter vehicle technology. It is reasonable to ask why headlights cannot do a better job of illuminating the road without compromising visibility for everyone else.

Blind spot

In 2022, the NHTSA authorized adaptive driving beam headlights, technology designed to adjust portions of the high-beam pattern to reduce glare for other drivers while maintaining illumination elsewhere on the road.

The concept is straightforward. Instead of simply switching between high and low beams, the system can modify where the light shines around other vehicles. That can help drivers see more of the road without directing the full beam into someone else’s eyes.

But authorization did not lead to widespread adoption. U.S. requirements differed from those used in other markets, and systems available overseas did not automatically qualify for American roads. Those differences have slowed the introduction of adaptive headlights, which have been common in Europe for more than a decade.

Are American drivers benefiting from available lighting technology, or are regulatory differences making it harder and more expensive to bring that technology to market?

Safety standards matter, but regulations should solve problems, not create unnecessary obstacles to practical solutions. NHTSA needs to explain what it learned from the 2022 decision and how its new rules will avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Safety first

Blindingly bright headlights are certainly annoying, but are they dangerous?

A 2025 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggests that the danger may be overstated. Examining crash reports from 11 states between 2015 and 2023, researchers found that glare was cited as a contributing factor in just one or two out of every 1,000 nighttime crashes. That rate remained essentially unchanged over the nine-year period.

In fact, headlights have become considerably safer by several measures. In 2016, just one of more than 80 headlight systems tested by IIHS earned a good rating. By 2025, roughly half did. And the share producing excessive glare fell from 21% in 2017 to just 3% in 2025.

Better illumination has also been associated with fewer crashes. An earlier IIHS study found that vehicles with good-rated headlights had 19% fewer nighttime single-vehicle crashes and 23% fewer nighttime pedestrian crashes than vehicles with poorly rated headlights.

But IIHS acknowledges that crash reports cannot capture every instance of dangerous glare. The vehicles producing it often aren’t involved in the resulting accidents, making it difficult to determine exactly what caused the problem.

Whatever the crash statistics show, drivers clearly aren’t happy. A 2026 AAA survey of 1,092 American adults found that 60% considered headlight glare a problem, while 73% of those affected believed it had gotten worse over the previous decade.

Those responses are not proof that glare is causing more crashes, but they demonstrate that the concern is widespread.

Both sets of findings belong in the discussion. Regulators should measure real-world safety outcomes while investigating why so many drivers report the same problem. Dismissing those complaints is no more responsible than claiming every bright headlight is unsafe.

RELATED: Volkswagen bet big on EVs. Now it’s making room for gas-powered SUVs.

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Bright future?

NHTSA’s review should focus on measurable results. Can headlights illuminate the road effectively without creating excessive glare? Are lamps properly aimed? Do vehicle height and lighting design create predictable problems for other drivers? Can adaptive systems be tested consistently and approved without unnecessary barriers?

Automakers, safety researchers, lighting experts, and drivers should have a voice in developing standards that manufacturers can meet and regulators can enforce.

Drivers can help, too. Dirty windshields, damaged lamps, improper headlight aim, and unsuitable aftermarket lighting can make visibility worse. But consumers cannot fix outdated federal standards on their own.

The goal should not be to make headlights weaker. It should be to make them smarter, more effective, and less likely to blind other road users.

Washington now has another opportunity to modernize rules that have fallen behind automotive technology. The question is whether regulators will deliver sensible standards that improve visibility or create another complicated process that leaves drivers facing the same problem.

What do you think? Are today’s headlights dangerously bright, or is the problem being overstated? And should automakers be required to adopt smarter lighting technology when it can reduce glare without sacrificing visibility?

​Adaptive headlights, Headlight glare, Led technology, Safety systems, Smart lighting technology, High beams, Driving, Auto industry, Highway safety, Lifestyle, Automotive 

On October 10 at Share the Arrows — Allie Beth Stuckey’s annual Christian women’s conference — the BlazeTV host and soon-to-be mother of four announced a project she and her husband have been working on since early last year: Ana Kate, a pro-life cycle, pregnancy, and postpartum tracking app.

But this project isn’t just about creating a conservative Christian alternative to the plethora of cycle and pregnancy tracking apps out there. It’s also about countering the evil perpetuated by those secular apps.

On a recent episode of “Relatable,” Allie shared the why behind Ana Kate by exposing how most popular cycle and pregnancy tracking apps boldly support abortion.

Allie begins by sharing a story from one of her friends who used the cycle tracking app called Natural Cycles. When she noted in the app that her last pregnancy was “unexpected,” she was suddenly inundated with “ads for abortion centers on Snapchat.”

“I do not know if Natural Cycles is selling that kind of data to those entities that are then selling that data to places like Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics to send you advertisements. … I do know, based on what Natural Cycles does say on their app, that they are pro-abortion,” says Allie.

“They have articles promoting abortion, directing its users to Planned Parenthood for abortions, and linking directly to their site.”

Another popular cycle and pregnancy tracking app is Flo. Allie notes that according to the app site, “being able to access a safe abortion is a crucial part of health care.”

“Abortion is not health care because it is killing the life of a child,” she says.

Ovia is another cycle/pregnancy tracker used by millions of women.

“Ovia has an entire abortion section in its reproductive health library. Current articles include ‘What is a medical abortion and how to access one’ and ‘Preparing for pregnancy in states with abortion bans and restrictions,’” says Allie.

“Its post-abortion guide tells readers what emotions to expect after an abortion. It can also include, they say, immense relief,” she adds.

While the Euki cycle tracking app does include a pregnancy tracker, it nonetheless has information about abortion.

“They have a built-in abortion provider search,” says Allie, comparing the app to Ana Kate, which has “a pro-life practitioner directory search.”

Clue is yet another cycle tracking app that supports abortion.

“Clue was very against the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They said, ‘At Clue, we strongly believe that the very personal decision to end a pregnancy should be made in the context of legal, regulated healthcare, with shame or fear of prosecution,”’ says Allie.

She explains that Flo also responded to the Dobbs decision by “launching an Anonymous Mode,” allowing users to use the app without linking their names, emails, IP addresses, or other identifiers to their health data.

“So they’re trying to protect you from the big bad government, who wants to protect these babies inside the womb,” Allie says.

“Now, this is all opposed to Ana Kate,” she explains.

“Our tagline is ‘For women. For life.’ … We are for women in that we are for women. We exist for women. And we are for life. We are for the life of a woman, but we are also advocates for [life],” Allie shares.

“We believe that all babies, no matter the circumstances surrounding their conception, no matter their age, no matter their size, are fully made in God’s image and should be protected fully … and we are not ashamed of that.”

To hear more about Ana Kate, check out the episode above.

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.

​Allie beth stuckey, Planned parenthood, Abortion, Blazetv show