Even the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of “Reefer Madness” hysteria, is sounding the alarm.

In a recent op-ed, former nurse Monica Romano described how heavy cannabis use beginning at age 13 led to years of addiction and anxiety. Romano acknowledges what an increasing body of research now suggests: Today’s high-potency cannabis is linked to impaired memory, disrupted adolescent brain development, depression, and a heightened risk of psychosis. She thought marijuana would solve her problems. It didn’t. If anything, it made them many times worse.

On average, cannabis use appeared in medical records roughly two years before psychiatric treatment became necessary.

That should give America pause. Instead, the country seems to be moving in precisely the opposite direction.

Spaced

And Romano’s story may become increasingly familiar as more young Americans are exposed to these products at an early age.

Eight percent of eighth-graders are already using cannabis. By tenth grade, that number doubles to 16%. By the time high school seniors are clearing out their lockers and preparing to disappoint their parents in the real world, roughly one in four have experimented with marijuana. Cannabis is now a mainstream feature of modern adolescence, right up there with slamming doors and threatening to run away from home.

Not your grandmother’s ganja

What today’s kids are consuming bears little resemblance to the weak, dirt-flavored twigs that hippies smoked while strumming out-of-tune guitars at Woodstock. Modern cannabis is a different beast entirely. It’s stronger, meaner, and vastly more potent. If earlier generations were playing with matches, the kids of 2026 are playing with blowtorches.

A massive study published in JAMA Health Forum tracked almost half a million teenagers ages 13 to 17, following them into their mid-20s. Adolescents who reported cannabis use were significantly more likely to require psychiatric hospitalization later in life. The risk of psychotic disorders and bipolar disorder roughly doubled. The consequences can be devastating and lifelong.

The data came directly from pediatric health care records collected between 2016 and 2023. On average, cannabis use appeared in medical records roughly two years before psychiatric treatment became necessary. First comes the smoke, then comes the psychological fire. It is a grim progression that makes it increasingly difficult to dismiss these outcomes as nothing more than pre-existing vulnerabilities.

RELATED: 4 marijuana facts the pro-pot lobby doesn’t want you to know

Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Kid stuff

Regulators have allowed an increasingly potent drug to be packaged in brightly colored gummies, chocolates, and candies while permitting advertising features that researchers say make cannabis more appealing to adolescents. Recent research has found that flavor references, colorful illustrations, and other youth-oriented marketing cues significantly increase teenagers’ interest in cannabis products, even in regulated markets.

It is a remarkably effective business model, assuming your future customers are also your future psychiatric patients. When a brain-altering substance becomes easier to buy, easier to market, and easier to normalize, the line between consumer product and public health problem begins to disappear.

Psychosis involves a profound break from reality. When a young person loses the ability to distinguish internal thoughts from the outside world, the foundations of an ordinary life begin to crumble. Individuals with chronic psychotic disorders face a suicide risk roughly 12 times higher than the general population. Beyond that lies the daily reality: maintaining relationships, holding a job, or living independently become dramatically more difficult.

The data spikes across the board, affecting more than just the hardcore stoners who wake up and immediately rip a bong before breakfast. The JAMA Health Forum study examined self-reported use in the past year. A casual, weekend puff at a party was enough to increase the odds of future madness. You don’t need to be Snoop Dogg to shatter your mind; a little bit of casual experimentation will do the trick nicely.

Of course, not every kid who takes a hit will end up conversing with the toaster. Risk isn’t destiny. But when you double the chances of permanent psychiatric damage, playing Russian roulette with a few extra chambers loaded starts to look like a terrible bet.

Super-high me

To understand why the kids are losing it, you have to look at the chemistry. A few decades ago, cannabis had a single-digit percentage of THC. Today, California flower routinely clears 20%, and the concentrates — the vapes and dabs — climb north of 95% pure, unadulterated psychoactive gasoline. America is handing industrial-strength chemical weapons to teenagers and acting shocked when their lives begin to fall apart.

A teenager’s brain is still under construction. The neural circuits responsible for judgment, emotional regulation, and impulse control are being built in real time. Flooding those unfinished systems with extraordinarily potent psychoactive chemicals risks altering that development in ways that may not fully reverse. The consequences will echo well beyond adolescence: more impaired workers, more struggling students, greater mental illness, and a generation less prepared for the ordinary responsibilities of adult life.

The country spent decades arguing over whether marijuana should be legalized. That argument is largely over. The question now is whether America is prepared to live with the consequences of normalizing a drug dramatically stronger than anything previous generations consumed. Judging by the evidence, those consequences have already begun to arrive.

​Bipolar, Cannabis industry, Health, Legal marijuana, Marijuana, Psychiatric hospitalization, Pyschosis, Reefer madness, Teen psychosis, Teenagers, Lifestyle 

Republicans are breaking fundraising records with just months left before the midterms.

The National Republican Congressional Committee announced Monday that it raised $17.6 million in June alone. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ended June with more cash on hand than Republicans in the four previous election cycles.

‘Democrats are still holding clown show socialist auditions for who gets to lose in November.’

The NRCC is enjoying its best fundraising pace ever in an election year with $82.6 million raised in 2026 so far. With the DCCC trailing $13.7 million behind, it’s the largest Republican cash-on-hand lead by June for any election year on record.

The DCCC did not respond to a request for comment.

It also marks the first time since 2016 that the NRCC has more cash on hand than the DCCC at this point in the election cycle. Having more cash on hand at this point in the cycle allows Republicans to secure television advertising space and pump more money into competitive districts in the final stretch.

“Republicans are building a campaign machine to win, while Democrats are still holding clown show socialist auditions for who gets to lose in November,” NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement to Blaze News. “We have deeper pockets, a more favorable map, stronger candidates, and the better message to grow the House majority.”

RELATED: These Republicans want to make Trump’s border policy permanent

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

It’s not just the NRCC that’s setting records. The entire Republican ecosystem is finding fundraising success headed into November.

The Republican National Committee ended June with $128.5 million in its war chest. That’s the largest end-of-month stockpile since the RNC’s inception.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) broke GOP leader records, raking in $135 million in this election cycle. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) further contributed $55 million to GOP fundraising efforts, the Washington Examiner reported. Scalise raised $9 million between April and June.

“While Democrats lunge further into disarray and to the far left, House Republicans are united, well-funded, and on offense to win the midterms,” Johnson said in a press release announcing his numbers. “With less than four months to go, we continue to expose the contrast for America before voters this fall — a choice between Republicans’ common sense and Democrats’ embrace of crazy and communism.”

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

​Midterms, Speaker mike johnson, Republican national committee, Steve scalise, Republican party, Politics 

Lionel Messi may have lost on the field, but BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock believes he won something far more important afterward. Following Sunday’s World Cup match, the soccer legend publicly praised Spain and celebrated the emergence of young phenom Lamine Yamal — the same player who helped end Messi’s championship hopes.

“Now, here’s what turns this from a soccer result into a sermon,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock says on “Fearless.” “Nineteen years ago, a 23-year-old Messi posed with a baby for a charity calendar in the Barcelona locker room. He bathed that baby. That baby is Lamine Yamal, the kid who just dethroned him.”

Just before the match, Messi said of the young star, “His success will be Barcelona’s success. He is one of the best in the world.”

“That’s Messi publicly blessing the young man. And then in the same breath, he said, ‘We’ll give it our all to make sure he doesn’t become a champion this time.’ Catch that. Messi honored Yamal, and he competed to beat him,” Whitlock says.

“That’s not weakness. That’s a secure man. That’s a man who understands he’s part of a story bigger than his own name. You can want the crown and want the next man to be great. Messi lost the match, and somehow he looked bigger than the trophy,” he adds.

And while Whitlock likens Messi’s attitude to Michael Jordan’s in that he’s willing to fade, he points out that Jordan never took interest in the younger generation.

“Michael Jordan has never embraced LeBron James, never mentored him, never passed him a thing,” he says, pointing out that American athletes “guard their GOAT status like it’s the last piece of bread on earth.”

“It’s a scarcity mindset. There can only be one. If you rise, I fall,” he adds.

However, while Jordan didn’t mentor, he did go silent — which Tom Brady has not done. In fact, he’s only gotten louder.

Whitlock plays a clip of Tom Brady in a “little slap fight” with Logan Paul for Fanatics Fest.

“I didn’t see greatness in that clip. I saw a 48-year-old man who won seven Super Bowls reduced to a warm-up act for a YouTuber,” he says. “And it made me ask a question nobody in sports media really has the courage to ask.”

“What happens to a champion when the applause stops? Because there are two answers to that question. There’s the Michael Jordan answer and there’s the Tom Brady answer. And the difference between them tells you everything about what we’ve become,” he explains.

“Michael Jordan understood something. Tom Brady doesn’t. Absence creates myth. After basketball, MJ didn’t chase relevance. He withheld it,” he continues.

“Greatness isn’t just what you build, it’s what you refuse to sell. Jordan knew where that line was. Brady keeps stepping over it for a check and a viral clip. Michael Jordan built an empire,” he says, adding, “Tom Brady is building a highlight reel for other people’s content.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Lebron james, Lionel messi, Michael jordan, Spain, Tom brady, World cup, Fearless with jason whitlock 

As the general election draws nearer by the day, Arizona Republican voters have given a resounding answer for their gubernatorial pick this week.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) emerged victorious in Tuesday’s Republican primary for Arizona governor, defeating fellow U.S. Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.).

‘No matter what your political party is or your background, you deserve a better leader than Katie Hobbs.’

With 84% of the vote counted, Biggs secured a commanding 73.4% of the share, while Schweikert trailed with 14.7%.

In a statement posted to X, Biggs wrote that he was “deeply honored” by the nomination.

“This campaign has been driven by our grassroots supporters from the day we launched in January 2025 with a clear mission of Restoring the American Dream in our great state,” he said.

“Our goal has always been to unite the Republican Party and we’ve done that as much as any nominee in recent memory,” he continued.

Turning his attention to the general election, Biggs took aim at his opponent, incumbent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

RELATED: We need America First governors to restore state sovereignty

“As we advance to the General Election, I want to make sure every Arizonan knows this: No matter what your political party is or your background, you deserve a better leader than Katie Hobbs,” he said.

The Republican Governors Association congratulated Biggs on his nomination, writing, “While Katie Hobbs has delivered higher costs and fewer opportunities, Andy Biggs is ready to cut taxes, grow the economy, secure the border, and get Arizona back on track.”

According to the candidates’ most recent campaign finance reports, Hobbs holds a cash-on-hand advantage, with nearly $2 million compared to Biggs’ roughly $1.3 million.

Hobbs ran uncontested in the Democratic primary. In the 2022 gubernatorial election, she narrowly defeated Republican Kari Lake by less than one percentage point.

President Donald Trump endorsed Biggs for governor in April 2025, a backing the congressman leaned heavily into throughout his primary campaign, focusing on border security and lowering taxes.

Biggs also positioned himself as someone who can work across the political aisle, telling USA Today, “I may be conservative, but I’ve also shown that even when you’re conservative, if you look to collaborate, you can find points and ways to collaborate with even people who fundamentally disagree with you on other things.”

More than a third of Arizona voters are not registered with either major party.

Before his passing, the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was a public supporter of Biggs, saying at the end of May 2025 during a Turning Point Action rally, “We need to lock down Arizona, and doing that starts with taking down Katie Hobbs and winning back the governor’s mansion. And nobody is better equipped to do that than Rep. Andy Biggs.”

Trump carried Arizona by 5.5 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election, the largest margin among the seven swing states. Still, Democrats have continued to perform well statewide, holding both U.S. Senate seats as well as the offices of attorney general and secretary of state.

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

​Andy biggs, David schweikert, Republican party, Republican primary, Charlie kirk, Politics 

Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) have both spoken critically about the “Epstein class,” yet they have proven more than willing not only to take money for their respective Senate campaigns from that supposed class but from one of the dead pedophile’s deep-pocketed allies.

Talarico — a part-time Presbyterian seminarian who has attempted to use Scripture to justify abortion and fought to keep the Bible out of schools — stated last month, “The Epstein class has no place in Texas.”

‘Jeffrey has exquisite taste in people.’

The champion of keeping male athletes in women’s sports evidently figures this is a clever line given he has repeatedly used it in interviews.

Ossoff, who is running for re-election this year, has flapped his gums about the “Epstein class” on multiple occasions as well.

While criticizing MAGA and the Trump administration at an Atlanta rally in February, Ossoff said, “This is the Epstein class ruling our country. They are the elites they pretend to hate.”

Ossoff expounded on the meaning of the line in conversation with former late-night propagandist Stephen Colbert, stating, “This whole Epstein saga has exposed the lie at the very core of Donald Trump’s political project.”

RELATED: Yet another bewildering anti-Christian statement from James Talarico has been unearthed

F. Carter Smith/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Ossoff, the Senate’s youngest incumbent member, proceeded to complain that there is a “class of elites who pour billions into political campaigns, who are unaccountable, and who have captured our political system.”

One of the many ultra-wealthy elites who has donated to both Ossoff’s and Talarico’s political campaigns is LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, a big-time Biden donor and anti-Trump activist who not only funded one of E. Jean Carroll’s civil lawsuits against President Donald Trump but was involved with Jeffrey Epstein years after the pedophile’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from minor girls.

Hoffman stated in February, “I only knew Jeffrey Epstein because of a fundraising relationship with MIT, which I very much regret. In 2019 I told Axios the last meeting I had with him was in 2015 but I was mistaken, as according to calendar entries I have become aware there were additional fundraising meetings in 2016 and 2018.”

Hoffman, a billionaire who also confirmed that he had visited Epstein’s island, wrote in a separate X post that month, “Interacting with Epstein post-conviction is something I deeply regret.”

While Hoffman characterized his relationship with Epstein as limited to “fundraising,” Bloomberg highlighted documents among those published by the Justice Department indicating that Hoffman actually had a “longer and more personal relationship” with the sex offender.

The documents revealed that the Democrat mega-donor not only exchanged gifts with Epstein but stayed at his townhouse in New York’s Upper East Side; hosted the pedophile at a dinner with Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg; and advised Epstein on matters besides fundraising, including meetings with foreign officials and luxury purchases.

Hoffman also expressed some admiration for the convicted sex offender, apparently writing in a September 2014 email, “Jeffrey has exquisite taste in people (myself excepted).”

Hoffman has not been accused of wrongdoing with regard to his involvement with Epstein.

Federal Election Committee records show that on June 30, Hoffman donated $10 million to Lone Star Rising, the primary super PAC supporting Talarico, who is running against Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton for the U.S. Senate. Hoffman previously donated $1 million to the PAC on Feb. 23, and $500,000 to the PAC on Jan. 27.

JT Ennis, a spokesman for Talarico, told the Texas Tribune that the Democrat’s campaign “has no control over contributions to any super PAC.”

“The only way to get Big Money out of our politics is to reject politicians like Ken Paxton who want corporations and billionaires to decide our elections, not Texans,” continued Ennis. “James will remain the only candidate in this race fighting to ban super PACs, ban corporate PACs, ban congressional stock trading, and tax billionaires so we can fix this broken, corrupt political system.”

Hoffman is also one of the many out-of-state billionaires — a list that includes the transvestite formerly known as James Pritzker; his cousin Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker; leftist activist George Soros; heiress Amy Goldman Fowler; and personal injury law firm founder John Morgan — who have backed Ossoff’s re-election campaign in Georgia, reported the Washington Free Beacon.

Ossoff, who whined in September 2025 about the “vast sums of corporate and billionaire money in our political system,” received $7,000 — the legal maximum — in the 2025-2026 election cycle from Hoffman, FEC records show.

The Talarico and Ossoff campaigns did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Jon ossoff, James talarico, Reid hoffman, Jeffrey epstein, Senate, Politics 

A WNBA player is standing up for a woman’s right not to have to share a locker room with a man.

Sophie Cunningham, a player for the Indiana Fever and Caitlin Clark’s teammate, has been a popular figure lately, and her streak doesn’t seem to be coming to an end.

‘I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans.’

Cunningham broke the internet late last month following an on-court spat with opponents in which she literally pointed a finger at another player for more than 30 seconds, immediately becoming a viral meme.

Cunningham parlayed that incident into being a UFC ring girl on July 11 for one of the biggest fights of the year.

Now, the Missouri native is busting out of the leftist bubble that surrounds WNBA players by standing up for young women and girls who are forced to compete against males in sports.

In an interview with ESPN published Tuesday, Cunningham directly addressed the issue of how to “protect women’s sports,” telling the outlet that she is qualified to speak about the topic.

“I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I’m like, ‘I never once said that,'” she began. “I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest.”

Then Cunningham dropped a line that will no doubt be controversial in the progressive women’s league: “I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

RELATED: WNBA star says black women are ‘amazing’ and deserve equality in strange, race-riddled rant

Christian Petersen/Getty Images

At the same time, Cunningham stated that she’s politically “very much in the middle.”

“I agree with things on both sides, disagree with things on both sides. And that’s all I’ve ever said about my political beliefs. But people love to assume,” Cunningham added.

The basketball player said the accusation that she is a “MAGA Barbie” is a projection from others because of how she looks and where she comes from. She also made it clear that her position on men in women’s sports is not a window into her true beliefs, either.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Title IX, allowing states to protect biologically female athletes against males who claim they are women, Cunningham’s statement is now basically the law of the land.

“Sophie didn’t say anything hateful. She said something true,” Jennifer Sey, women’s sports advocate and former national gymnastics champion, told Blaze News. “She is the Sydney Sweeney of women’s sports. Hot. Funny. Politics that confuse people.”

RELATED: Europe bans ‘sexualization’ of female athletes on camera, but viewers are stating the obvious

Christian Petersen/Getty Images

Fellow advocate for women in sports and former NCAA athlete Riley Gaines reacted to Cunningham’s comments on X on Tuesday night, simply saying, “It’s nothing more than the truth to say men aren’t women. It’s not hateful, it’s just honest.”

“This is big,” Gaines reinforced. “We’ve waited YEARS for a current pro female athlete to take a stance on this issue.”

Cunningham’s rise to stardom has also come as she is viewed as an enforcer for star player Clark, with the viral pointing moment coming after her teammate took a fist to the throat.

Cunningham rejected the title in her recent interview, though, saying, “I am not a bodyguard. I am just going to do whatever the team needs. And if my teammates need me to stick up for them, I will do that.”

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

​Wnba, Transgenderism, Sophie cunningham, Caitlin clark, Women’s sports, Sports 

When Olive Garden revived its Never-Ending Pasta Pass promotion, allowing a limited number of patrons to purchase 13 weeks of unlimited pasta bowls for just $100, the nationwide chain known for breadsticks and gargantuan proportions didn’t expect it to become political fodder for the GOP.

But that’s exactly what happened.

The pasta pass, which is personalized and non-transferable, requires the pass-holder to show a valid ID at the time of ordering — making a pasta transaction technically more secure than many state elections thanks to no-ID voting policies.

When news of the promotion spread, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Indiana AG Todd Rokita, among other Republicans, jumped at the chance to dunk on Democrats’ opposition to the SAVE America Act, which would mandate voter IDs.

BlazeTV host Pat Gray was shocked when he got wind of Olive Garden’s Pasta Pass stipulation.

“So voter ID got a little boost, as far as I’m concerned, over the weekend, when we found out that Olive Garden’s endless Pasta Pass has stronger security than voting in an election in the United States of America!” he exclaims.

“Don’t they know women couldn’t enter that? Don’t they know blacks can’t enter that?” Pat asks sarcastically, highlighting the debunked Democrat claim that voter IDs somehow bar women and minorities from the ballot box.

But purchasing Olive Garden’s Pasta Pass is just one on a long list of activities that also require ID. From driving or renting a car or boarding a flight to purchasing a transit ticket or opening a bank account, IDs are required all the time.

“If you go to the bank and you want to set up a checking account or an account of any kind, they’re going to ask you to show ID. How hateful is that? I guess mothers can’t go to banks,” Pat jokes.

“Cashing a check requires ID. Applying for credit, sending money transfers, checking into a hotel, signing a residential lease, setting up public utilities,” he continues.

“You want to have electricity? You want to have lights in your house? You’re gonna need an ID. That’s why no black people have electricity or a home,” he jokes.

Pat goes on to list more activities that require an ID check: purchasing tobacco or alcohol, entering venues with age restrictions (i.e. nightclubs, bars, R-rated movies), buying certain medications, starting a new job, applying for public assistance, picking up your mail, joining a gym, and even adopting a pet.

“I mean the list is almost endless,” he says, highlighting the absurdity of Democrats’ opposition to the SAVE America Act, which has strong bipartisan support.

“84% of Americans are in favor of this. 71% of Democrats are in favor of it. How are they winning this battle?” he asks.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Pat gray, Olive garden, Voter id, Save act, Save america act, Pat gray unleashed 

“When white settlers come into a country, the Indians have to move on. The government is going to move these Indians farther west any time now. That’s why we’re here, Laura.”

Modern readers may grimace when Charles “Pa” Ingalls explains to his young daughter Laura their family’s plans to settle in the “free land” of the Osage Indian-dominated Kansas prairie. But their indignation (justified as it may be) doesn’t change the fact that it was the dominant settler perspective regarding Native American territory in the days of Laura Ingalls Wilder, whose timeless series “Little House on the Prairie” is the fictionalized retelling of her real-life experiences as a pioneer girl.

Books apparently need their patina scrubbed off — especially if they are to reach the masses via cinema.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Netflix — the same streamer behind “Bridgerton,” where they butchered a Regency England period drama with race-swapping and modern gender politics — couldn’t help but tamper with Wilder’s beloved classics.

It is still deeply irritating though.

Julia Quinn’s early 2000s “Bridgerton” octology is humorously classified as historical smut, so if you must “wokeify” something, I suppose this would be the series to do it. But Wilder’s “Little House on the Prairie” remains not only one of our best windows into 19th-century pioneer life, but also a deeply cherished saga that for many readers was, and still is, a pillar in childhood (not to mention in American literature itself).

Trashing treasures

Why is it that every time Hollywood takes on what should be the very delicate task of visiting the literary canon, it feels the need to sanitize and polish and tinker — as if classics were dusty attic relics in need of a little TLC?

Any antique dealer knows you don’t remove patina from metal. And why would you want to? It’s this multi-colored, time-kissed surfacing that infuses a bygone treasure with wonder. The oxidation that clouds old mirrors with silvery deterioration and turns copper roofs vibrant verdigris carries the soul of the object’s story.

But for some reason, Hollywood can’t accept that literature, too, undergoes an aging process, although it’s alchemical rather than chemical. What happens when a new literary tour de force bursts into the cosmos is something bibliophiles equate with magic. When a book is deemed so resonant it becomes immortal and joins the constellation of other magnum opuses in the literary firmament, the expectation is that it is left alone, as virtually all other worldly treasures are.

Imagine darkening the skin of Jesus and the apostles in Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper.” It may be accurate since these men were from the Middle East, but it would be unthinkable. Imagine chopping down a tree in a national forest because a man was unjustly hanged from its branches 100-plus years ago, or adding Barack Obama to Mount Rushmore to satisfy modern demands for “representation.”

Whatever the reasoning, these modifications are inconceivable because tampering with an original masterpiece, potential flaws and all, is dishonest at best and blasphemous at worst.

Tragically, historical accuracy, author’s intent, and sentimentality are treated as unimportant when it comes to literature. Books apparently need their patina scrubbed off — especially if they are to reach the masses via cinema.

Of course, book-to-film is a suboptimal path. It’s impossible to translate the entirety of a novel to the screen, but it is possible to respect the author’s original work by not injecting your own characters, dramatic subplots, themes, and moral messaging.

Why we protect the past

NBC/Getty

But Netflix, obviously, didn’t do that, hence the fiery outrage of Wilder fans.

The author’s slow pace, slice-of-life tales of pioneer living, stereotypical portrayals of the Osage tribe, and limited black characters simply wouldn’t do for showrunner Rebecca Sonnenshine.

Like virtually all Hollywood decision-makers, she had the hubris to make history more palatable for our chronically offended, progressive culture that apparently has such delicate sensibilities and short attention spans it must be spoon-fed a nicer, more thrilling version of 1800s prairie life.

Netflix’s adaptation of “Little House on the Prairie,” which debuted on July 9, breaks in more ways than not from Wilder’s originals. I will share them with you here without spoiling too much.

Osage overhaul

In the books, Native Americans are viewed as strange and potentially savage obstacles that must be removed to make room for white settlers. The Ingallses are suspicious and curious about their Native neighbors whose land they intend to possess, but this culminates in some trading and occasional interactions.

The family never seriously grapples with the Osage perspective, seeks meaningful friendships with tribe members, or questions their own assumption that the land will eventually become available for white settlement. Their worldview largely reflects the prevailing 19th-century ethos of manifest destiny.

Not so in Sonnenshine’s version.

Just moments into episode one, it becomes clear that the Osages will take front and center stage in this season, which covers book three. Not only do they inhabit several main character roles, but the entire season hinges on whether they will sell their land to the American government.

The book treats this as an inevitability; the show portrays it as a deeply complicated moral dilemma.

In Wilder’s accounts, the Osage removal is a straightforward event for the Ingallses, with little emotional weight beyond relief at securing the land. But on Sonnenshine’s prairie, some of the settlers, including the Ingalls family, question and even grieve the circumstances of the Osages’ departure. A few friendships later and the assumptions of manifest destiny they arrived with quickly give way to a crisis of conscience.

At one point in the show when the land treaty is still hanging in the balance, Pa, who has befriended an Osage and come to sympathize with the tribe’s predicament, declares, “This is their home. They have the right to decide whether or not they stay or go.”

The real Pa Ingalls wouldn’t recognize his cinematic doppelganger.

By the end of season one, viewers, especially those who read Wilder’s series, feel browbeaten with the only acceptable message when it comes to colonization: white settlers bad, indigenous victims good.

Forced DEI

Black characters, who are almost nonexistent in the books, are expanded heavily in Netflix’s “Little House on the Prairie.” Dr. George Tann, the local black doctor who appears a handful of times in Wilder’s series, plays a much more robust role, complete with his own complicated past, a romantic subplot, and a hero narrative.

Other black characters are invented entirely, including a local shopkeeper named Miss Emily Henderson, who seems to be included in the series primarily to remind viewers that white settlers weren’t just racist toward Native Americans but black people too.

Caroline “Ma” Ingalls, who has little interaction with black people in the books and holds the typical settler era’s distant but polite perspective, is so outraged by Miss Henderson’s exclusion from Independence’s “Women’s Society” that she becomes an outspoken advocate against racial exclusion.

It’s a really nice sentiment — truly! — if it weren’t completely fabricated and estranged from the real Ma Ingalls.

Feminism in, faith out

NBC/Getty

Another woke element worth noting is the addition of a female character named Lacey Aubert, a French-Canadian widow who runs a saloon on the outskirts of town. As a sexually liberated, trouser-wearing, pistol-wielding lone wolf who scares off thieves and rejects a life with the man she loves because marriage is “for other people,” she reads far more like today’s ideal woman than one drawn from the 1870s prairie.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. What’s a Netflix production without feminist undertones? One can almost feel Wilder, who even describes herself as a headstrong tomboy, rolling in her grave.

But I bet she gives an extra agitated toss for the fact that her family’s faith is significantly downplayed in the show.

Even though the real-life Ingallses were Bible-reading, faithful Christians, Netflix’s on-screen versions have a far more ambiguous spiritual life. Sure, hymns are sung, a church building is erected, and a generic “hope” lifts the Ingallses’ troubled spirits, but by no means is their life saturated in the traditional Christianity Wilder’s real family was devoted to.

In fact, their faith is so understated in the show that during a Christmas scene, the Ingalls women remind each other that the day isn’t just about presents — it’s about food too. No mention of Christ’s birth other than a flash scene of a roughly hewn nativity set Laura plays with.

Instead, the show disturbingly focuses on the Osage Great Spirit Wah-Kon-Tah, with multiple mentions of his guidance and wisdom.

Not Wilder’s story

That about sums up the wokeness in Netflix’s “Little House on the Prairie,” but it only scratches the longer list of complaints rolling in about this season.

Many Wilder fans have expressed significant dissatisfaction with the additional plot lines added for sheer drama, essentially rendering the originals lacking or boring.

Netflix’s Pa is haunted by his past; Ma wrestles with fidelity, wondering if life would have been better if she’d married another man; Mary gets her own coming-of-age romantic subplot; Laura, who practically symbolizes modern progressive empathy, befriends an Osage girl named Good Eagle. Even Mr. Edwards, a minor character in the books, gets a heavy backstory and emotional arc.

It’s just all wrong.

Wilder’s books are about resilience, family, and the pioneer spirit. Sonnenshine’s version is about those things too, but the core messaging is heavily filtered through modern guilt, diversity lessons, and critiques of manifest destiny.

Don’t get me wrong — it’s a good story. It’s just not Wilder’s story.

​Little house on the prairie, Literature, Woke, Netflix, Entertainment 

The radical running the show at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History floundered during a congressional hearing when confronted with the anti-white propaganda pushed on her watch.

The White House’s Domestic Policy Council released a lengthy report on Independence Day exposing the extent to which the NMAH has been captured by radicals and transformed into a vehicle for leftist revisionism and resentment.

‘Is Mickey Mouse racist?’

On Tuesday, the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency peeled the rotten onion further in an attempt to find out “how a once-proud American institution fell victim to ideological capture — and how to rescue it,” according to Chairman Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.).

In addition to putting questions to a pair of academics and Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez — who provided Blaze News with insights last year into the extremism behind the scenes at the Smithsonian — lawmakers grilled NMAH Director Anthea Hartig, a radical who regards history as a “prime tool of social justice,” seeks to “get out of the ‘America First’ mentality” when telling history, and wants to shift attention in the museum away from an “Anglo-centric” focus on the American founding.

While Hartig struggled throughout the hearing, she had an especially difficult time answering the questions posed by Texas Rep. Brandon Gill (R).

Gill kicked things off by referencing the bizarre claims advanced in a document included in the NMAH-endorsed toolkit, which the Domestic Policy Council claimed was discussed at the museum and used to inform the “staff responsible for the development of NMAH’s Interpretive and Collection Plans, educational resources, and exhibits of today.”

RELATED: ‘An attempt to turn back the clock’: Woke historians melt down over exposé of Smithsonian’s ideological rot

The document identified perfectionism, a sense of urgency, the prioritization of quantity over quality, politeness, paternalism, “worship of the written word,” either/or thinking, individualism, objectivity, and other noble traits or actions as “characteristics of white supremacy culture, which show up in our organizations” and are “damaging to both people of color and to white people.”

Screenshot – White House Domestic Policy Council, Saving America’s Story

After having Hartig concede that objectivity is “one of the goals of history,” Gill noted that the document promoted by the NMAH claims that “objectivity is a core and defining aspect of white supremacy culture.”

“Do you think that it’s the goal of the Smithsonian Institution to promote white supremacy culture?” asked Gill.

Hartig sought clarification on which document Gill was referring to, mumbled to herself, then said that the NMAH did not “develop” the toolkit. After frantically jotting down some notes, the propagandist claimed that the museum is “not promoting any ideology.”

The congressman asked Hartig, “Is it important to be polite?”

“Yes, sir,” said Hartig.

“It’s also interesting because the same mass-action toolkit that your organization has been promoting references politeness as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture,” said Gill. “Ma’am, are you a white supremacist?”

“Hmm, no, sir,” the radical responded, smirking.

During the hearing, Gill also asked Hartig, “Is Mickey Mouse racist?” citing the NMAH’s characterization of the cartoon rodent as representative of “vestiges of longstanding traditions of blackface minstrelsy.”

Hartig said that Walt Disney’s mouse wasn’t racist but told the Texas Republican that Mickey is nevertheless “rooted in minstrelsy” and that blackface minstrelsy had “certain and obvious racial overtones that have been well-documented.”

The NMAH director said in her prepared remarks that the White House Domestic Policy Council’s report “does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum.”

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

​Mickey mouse, Brandon gill, Tim burchett, Republican, Smithsonian, Politics 

Most of your online accounts are protected by a username and a password. Unfortunately, login credentials are under fire recently with security flaws in popular password managers that leave users exposed with their personal information strewn across the dark web.

What if there was a better way?

There is. You just probably haven’t heard about it yet.

Big Tech actually invented a much more secure solution with passkeys, but many websites and apps still refuse to use them.

What are passkeys?

Depending on how closely you keep your ear to the internet, you may or may not have heard of passkeys. These are digital credentials attached directly to your user accounts. Passkeys are a replacement for passwords, and they don’t include any letters, numbers, or symbols for users to jot down or remember. They exist simply as encrypted lines of code in your devices that permit access to your accounts on request.

The benefits far outweigh the hassle.

From a user perspective, passkeys are convenient because they don’t require the user to remember their password or even reset it in the event the password is forgotten. Instead, they use the biometric sensor embedded on your device — whether that’s facial recognition or fingerprint authentication — or the lock screen pin to verify your identity and complete the login process for any supported app or service.

From a platform holder perspective, passkeys are more secure than typical login credentials, and they’re much harder to hack. Simply put, passkeys can’t be stolen or leaked like typical passwords. They live on the host device — not in a password database — and require user authentication, meaning that a hacker would need to physically possess the user’s device and know their lock screen pin to access the passkey-protected website.

On the downside, passkeys are a little tricky if you use multiple device platforms. For instance, passkeys saved to Apple Passwords are stuck in Apple’s ecosystem, while keys created for Google Password Manager are saved to Google, and keys for Microsoft Password Manager are saved to Microsoft. Big Tech is supposedly working on an interoperable solution to share keys between platforms, but for now, you’ll need to create multiple passkeys for supported websites on every platform you use.

Getting to know (and use) passkeys

Passkeys soft-launched across Apple’s, Google’s, and Microsoft’s platforms back in 2022 and 2023.

For our purposes, as you’re very likely to use one or more of those platforms, you should focus your passkey energy there. Each of the big three companies offers a simple walk-through to set up passkeys for your Apple account, Google account, and/or Microsoft account.

However, here in the year 2026, passkeys are not nearly as prevalent across the web as the three companies expected them to be. Web developers, app makers, and service providers have to choose to support them; otherwise user accounts will default back to the usernames and passwords we know all too well. So far, this hasn’t happened.

RELATED: The latest iPhone security threat has a nasty fix

Moor Studio/Getty Images

There’s even a website that explicitly monitors and calls out the top 50 sites online that do and don’t support passkeys. Top names like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon all offer passkey protection, as expected. However, Instagram, Netflix, and Spotify are dubiously missing the feature. As it stands, 36% of the top websites online still don’t have passkey support, and there are countless others outside of this purview that have dragged their feet. The question is why.

There are plenty of theories around why some websites still don’t support passkeys. For starters, it takes development time and money to switch away from legacy login credentials to the passkey system. Second, the lack of interoperability between device platforms is a potential headache for users that website owners may not wish to navigate. Finally, some sites may also believe that switching to passkeys simply isn’t worth the trouble when passwords are effective enough; in other words, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

Should you use passkeys?

In a word, absolutely! You should definitely use passkeys on every account that supports it. The benefits far outweigh the hassle of limited multi-platform support. Plus, when you consider that password manager hacks, breaches, and leaks are on the rise – like the one Dashlane suffered earlier this year – passkeys are a simple, yet effective way to keep your accounts safer in the age of AI scams and other cybersecurity threats.

​Tech, Passkey, Google, Microsoft, Apple