The climate movement has a new catastrophic prediction, and BlazeTV host Pat Gray isn’t buying it.

The prediction is that the climate could lead to four billion deaths by 2050.

“The hysteria on the left continues,” Gray says. “Criminal hysteria, I would say.”

“David Cromwell ... this global warming goofball, his latest thing is ‘there’s going to be four billion dead, and there are no words for why humanity just can’t, and the media just won’t deal with this,’” he continues, mocking Cromwell. “Are you kidding me? They’re not playing your climate change hysteria reel?”

“Nothing could be farther from the truth,” Jeff Fisher chimes in.

“It’s pretty amazing how he talks about how four billion people are going to die from climate change by 2050 ... less than 25 years from now,” Gray says.

“Like everything else they’re hysterical about though, the end of humanity thing, because of climate change, I think it’s worn really thin on anybody who has a speck of common sense or any access to the internet to actually look things up for themselves and see what the actual reality is,” he continues.

However, one group is struggling with all the climate-change propaganda the most.

“It’s despicable what they’ve done to the youth, because they have almost entirely bought in on it,” Gray explains, noting that 75% have reported anxiety over the future because of “climate change.”

“And how do you get them to get that hope back up for themselves?” Fisher asks.

“It’s really hard because we set up our teachers as the people who are experts, and they’re going to teach all this stuff, and so they believe them,” Gray says.

“Have to put your faith in government,” executive producer Keith Malinak chimes in, adding, “That’s their God.”

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.

Michigan U.S. Senate hopeful, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, has been caught deleting old social media posts that contained shocking comments about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead of holding El-Sayed accountable, left-wing media is now attacking Bari Weiss and CBS for pointing out the obfuscation.

Thanks to a report from CBS News, paired with a plunge into El-Sayed’s old Twitter account via the Internet Archive, we found two controversial 9/11-related posts El-Sayed removed from his X page.

'They're enraged an Islamist and his pals have become a liability in a major Senate race that could cut off a blue tsunami in November.'

“#COVID19 has taken over 3000 American lives — more than 9/11. I hope that means we’ll spend the next ten years fighting a war for public health & against climate change & poverty ... like we launched a global #WaronTerror after 9/11. We could save lives, rather than take them,” El-Sayed tweeted on March 31, 2020.

Abdul El-Sayed/Internet Archive

“Today, I mourn the 3K lives, 6K injuries, & infrastructural devastation in NYC, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my faith. Tomorrow, I'll mourn ~1M lives, millions of injuries, & infrastructural devastation in 3 countries, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my country," he wrote on September 11, 2021.

Abdul El-Sayed/Internet Archive

The two tweets appear to have been part of a mass post-removal where El-Sayed's campaign deleted everything prior to July 2023 “to prevent any old posts from being taken out of context.”

RELATED: Mike Rogers crushes 'conman' Abdul El-Sayed for being a weirdo in BRUTAL political ad

L-R: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call; Sarah Rice/Getty Images

Former CNN reporter Oliver Darcy was quick to point out the CBS News story on his independent news site Status. However, instead of aiming his ire at El-Sayed for his previous tone-deaf comments, he instead criticized CBS News editor in chief Bari Weiss for doing her job.

Darcy penned an entire piece suggesting that drawing attention to El-Sayed’s deleted tweets about 9/11 was a racist "scandal":

“They took a small nugget of news, forced into something much larger, and messed up,” one CBS News staffer told Status of the story.

A former senior CBS News staffer who remains in touch with former colleagues was more direct, calling the story “shameful" and telling Status, “The racism is overt.”

According to Darcy, "The obvious implication was that there was something sinister about the manner in which the prominent Muslim candidate invoked 9/11, even though his posts themselves were mundane."

Curtis Houck, the managing editor of NewsBusters, had a different perspective, which he shared with Blaze News:

Oliver Darcy and his army of leaders are beyond crestfallen that anyone — let alone a non-woke, lesbian Jew with a track record like Bari Weiss — has sought to move a legacy news outlet a few ticks toward the center.

They're enraged an Islamist and his pals have become a liability in a major Senate race that could cut off a blue tsunami in November.

All of the liberal, elitist outlets — including Darcy's former employer CNN — have made articles about controversial deleted social media posts into an Olympic sport. In that respect, what CBS published was standard fare. What made it unforgivable was it actually went after someone on the left.

In response to a request for comment, an Abdul El-Sayed spokesperson told Blaze News: “Abdul has always unequivocally condemned terrorism and the September 11 attacks. Mike Rogers’ attempts to misrepresent Abdul’s beliefs are bad-faith lies meant to mislead Michiganders.”

As for the media's attack on Weiss, it appears to be retribution for not toeing the leftist line as she continues to turn CBS News into a balanced organization, no longer doing favors for the Democratic Party. Changes in media could spell trouble for the growing number of democrat socialist candidates this election season.

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

Lindsay Clancy's triple murder trial remains unresolved after jurors failed to reach a verdict on Tuesday, their fourth day of deliberations.

While jurors determine whether to hold Clancy criminally responsible for strangling her three young children — 8-month-old Callan, 3-year-old Dawson, and 5-year-old Cora — there are outside forces apparently keen to apply additional pressure.

'She is a wonderful, wonderful person.'

Massachusetts State Police arrested 56-year-old Dawn Light outside the Plymouth Superior Court around 3:40 p.m. on Tuesday and charged her with one count of intimidation of a witness, jurors, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings, a MSP spokesman confirmed to WCVB-TV.

While officials have yet to confirm whether the arrest was connected to the Clancy case, WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex reported that sources informed her that "someone (who is not a media member) was arrested outside Plymouth Superior Court this afternoon, accused of filming jurors in Lindsay Clancy's trial. Jurors allegedly saw the filming happening."

MSP did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

If convicted on the intimidation charge, Light could face up to 10 years in state prison and/or a hefty fine.

RELATED: Female reporter caught mischievously smirking during Lindsay Clancy trial has smile wiped off her face

There has been a lot of commotion taking place outside the courthouse since Clancy's trial began.

Hundreds of women have gathered — in many cases wearing pink and in some instances carrying their children — in support of the defendant.

A woman identified as Hannah E., who traveled from Houston to Massachusetts to show her support, told CBS News on Tuesday that she had postpartum depression after her second child was born and that she "understand[s] what happened to Lindsay."

"I understand the course that she went and the way things affected her," said the Texas mother.

Lindsay's attorney, Kevin Reddington, told reporters that his client has received enough letters of support from sympathizers to fill three banker's boxes.

"She knows that there are people out there that have not judged her and know that she is a wonderful, wonderful person," said Reddington.

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

Nearly a year after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University, the man suspected of murdering him has been bound over for trial.

On Tuesday, after more arguments from both prosecutors and the defense, Utah District Judge Tony Graf determined that the state had met the burden of probable cause in the case against suspect Tyler Robinson.

'Today’s decision ... marks an important step in our family’s pursuit of justice.'

"It is hereby ordered that the defendant, Tyler James Robinson, is bound over for trial," Judge Graf told the court.

Robinson, 23, now faces seven charges: aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and misdemeanor commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child. During the hearing, Robinson's attorney pleaded not guilty to all charges on his behalf.

If Robinson is convicted, prosecutors intend to pursue the death penalty. He is scheduled to appear in court again on October 23.

Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow, welcomed the judge's decision. "Today’s decision, which comes nearly a year since Charlie was taken from us, marks an important step in our family’s pursuit of justice for him," she posted to X Tuesday night.

RELATED: TPUSA plans return to UVU on solemn anniversary of the Charlie Kirk assassination

Francisco Kjolseth-Pool/Getty Images

"Every step in this process carries the weight of all that Charlie’s murder has taken from his family, especially his children who will grow up without their father. We are grateful to all who have continued to pray for us, support us, and stand with us through a year of unimaginable grief."

While the Kirk family appears pleased that Robinson will be tried for murder, the process has been slow and painful. Kirk was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, and Robinson was arrested in connection with the deadly shooting within days.

However, the probable cause hearing in the case did not begin until July. Even on Tuesday, Robinson's attorney, Richard Novak, claimed that when Charlie Kirk was alive, he "spoke hatefully of certain groups of people," including gay people, those with different gender identities, and fornicators.

Blaze News has reached out to Novak for comment.

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

The establishment of the Democratic Party was able to easily fend off a "moderate" challenge in the party's primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Incumbent Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has been in either the House or the Senate for five decades, was declared the winner over challenger Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) only 30 minutes after polling closed.

'What are you going to accomplish in the next six years that you haven’t been able to accomplish in the last 50?'

Unlike in other races, the progressives of the party backed the incumbent, Markey, rather than the challenger, described as more "moderate" despite a leftist record. Far-left Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York was among those who endorsed Markey.

Moulton meanwhile tried to argue that it was time for generational change to make way for younger candidates to take lead of the party.

"People ought to ask, 'What are you going to accomplish in the next six years that you haven’t been able to accomplish in the last 50?'" said the 47-year-old Moulton.

Markey is 80 years old and has been in the U.S. Senate since 2013.

The octogenarian had attacked Moulton for not toeing the party line on transgender-identifying athletes competing in women's sports. Moulton later backed off and apologized to the "trans community."

"To the trans community feeling the weight and the pain of the Trump administration policies, I deeply recognize your trauma," he said in the August debate with Markey. "And I’m sorry if my comments hurt you. That was not my intention."

RELATED: Democrat CAVES to trans lobby after previously warning party about alienating voters

Markey will now go up against Republican John Deaton in the November general election.

Massachusetts has been a reliably blue state and will likely not flip to Republican control in the midterms.

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

For years, the tech elite touted the many benefits of AI, claiming it could revolutionize all kinds of industries and health care. Even as this technology strained our resources, wrecked our supply chains, and stirred up uncertainty over job loss, we were all told just to get in line — this is the future. That tune, however, is starting to change, as guys like Bill Gates are finally saying the things the rest of us have been saying all along: This tech could be dangerous. Is it too late for humanity to recover?

The Microsoft co-founder took to his own blog to post an extensive piece detailing all the ways AI could be good for humanity. As expected from a high-profile leftist, he leaned on the idea of equity, noting that AI can “make the world a fairer place and keep it from widening the divide between rich and poor.”

The tech elite created this problem, and now they have the nerve to warn everyone about the monster they contrived.

That sounds like a counterintuitive statement coming from an elite technologist worth $109.3 billion. If he’s prepared to relinquish his fortune for those beneath him on the ladder of success, I must have missed the memo.

On the flip side, AI is also a force capable of driving bad times ahead, if it’s abused. He focused on three main risk factors:

1. Jobs are disappearing to AI, and many of them could go away forever. Until recently, many AI CEOs even touted this as a good thing. You may remember when Elon Musk said that universal basic income was the future and that we should get so comfortable with a socialistic wealth system that we shouldn’t even save for retirement. Just in case it needs to be said, don’t do that. Even if Musk is right (though I doubt he is in this case), it’s always good to have a retirement backup plan.
2. AI will enable people and other AI bots to do more harm. With respect to Mr. Gates, this isn’t a hypothetical. This is actually happening already. We’ve covered countless tales of AI breaking cybersecurity systems, hacking into websites, and running rogue without developers’ knowledge. For all intents and purposes, AI is spiraling out of control, and our cybersecurity systems are not ready for the crash that is coming, though the Trump administration is trying to rein in the damage with an AI review process for new frontier models.
3. AI could slow our kids’ development. Sadly, this is already happening, too. Students are encouraged and even implored to use AI in the classroom, further contributing to waning literacy and critical thinking skills. It also helps students cheat instead of learning the curriculum. Worse still, AI has made it easier for predators to target students under the guise of education partnerships.

The tech elite made the bed we all lie in

The worst part is that the tech elite, like Bill Gates, created this problem, and now they have the nerve to warn everyone about the monster they contrived. Remember that Microsoft was an early backer of OpenAI, the company behind the first mainstream LLM, ChatGPT. Throughout their partnership, Microsoft injected $13 billion into OpenAI and held a license to wrap ChatGPT into Microsoft Copilot on Windows PCs and other devices. Today, Microsoft still holds a significant minority stake in the AI giant’s company, though it has pulled back in favor of building its own large language models.

And that’s just Microsoft.

The Gates Foundation partnered with Claude on a $200 million grant to install AI deeper into “global health, life sciences, education, and economic mobility” programs, even as Gates admits himself that this technology could be a threat to students and jobs.

RELATED: Google's AI is taking over your Android. Here's how to kick it out.

Is it too late to save humanity?

Gates sums up the dichotomy of today’s AI landscape with a single sentence: “AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice.” Unfortunately, it seems like we’re already leaning toward the latter, but that doesn’t mean we’re doomed.

There are signs that the AI race is running out of steam. The fearmongering over jobs, for instance, is already starting to abate. Of course, opportunistic CEOs like Sam Altman are disappointed, lamenting that AI hasn’t swept through the workforce nearly as fast as predicted. "I think it means we've all been too ambitious on timelines,” he recently said during an interview. “People keep doing the same things they're doing. They keep buying from the same company. They keep sort of wanting to use their tools in the same way,” instead of turning to AI. While this doesn’t bode well for the AI takeover, it offers a rare glint of hope, that maybe humanity won’t have its God-given responsibility to work stolen by soulless bots.

There’s also a bright spot for education. Although a new semester has just begun, last year ended with college students booing graduation commencement speakers for merely uttering the letters “AI.” If enough of them reject what has become an invasion on their ability to think freely, create intentionally, and dream openly, then they may be better off than some of the adults who already trust AI more than they should.

As for the security of our digital systems, the Trump administration is already trying to keep us safe by reviewing frontier models before they’re released to the public. There are pros and cons to this approach, but at least it’s an attempt to ensure that Bill Gates’ prophetic nightmare never comes to pass.

For decades, American hiring and admissions have been distorted by a legal and bureaucratic regime that promised equal treatment while repeatedly rewarding institutions for sorting people by race and sex. The Civil Rights Act itself does not exclude white men; Title VII protects employees from discrimination because of race and sex regardless of which race or sex they are. But affirmative action rules, consent decrees, diversity mandates, contracting preferences, and institutional risk management created powerful incentives to treat demographic categories differently.

Incentives shape behavior. Universities, Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and nonprofits learned to fear discrimination claims, bad publicity, activist campaigns, and regulatory scrutiny. Long before “wokeness” became a corporate religion, lawyers and compliance departments were already teaching institutions to think in terms of protected groups, disparate impact, representation targets, and litigation exposure.

The right does not need another conference panel lamenting DEI. It needs lawyers willing to make discrimination expensive. Equal protection will not enforce itself.

The practical question was never simply who had rights on paper. It was whose complaints institutions expected to carry consequences.

For years, conservative media documented the resulting discrimination against white men. DEI programs openly advertised preferences, scholarships excluded applicants by race or sex, and employers sometimes boasted about hiring goals that would have been scandalous if the preferred and disfavored groups were reversed.

Yet a nasty and stupid trend has emerged on the right: The same people who spent a decade describing the system now mock young white men who notice its effects.

They call them losers. They accuse them of victimhood. They insist that any man who works hard enough can simply transcend a system conservatives themselves spent years condemning.

That is politically and morally incoherent.

After Donald Trump’s compelling victory in 2024, Democrats discovered they had a serious problem with male voters, especially white men. It turns out that a political coalition saturated with rhetoric about “whiteness,” “male privilege,” and “toxic masculinity” will eventually alienate some of the people being described as social pathologies. Progressives produced endless postmortems about podcasts, masculinity, and how Democrats might win young men back.

RELATED: This is what existential politics looks like

Blaze Media Illustration

Republicans should have recognized the opening immediately.

The Trump administration deserves credit for taking aggressive action against DEI. But much of the GOP still seems embarrassed by the idea of representing white men as a constituency with legitimate interests. This is bizarre. A party that promises equal protection should have no difficulty saying that discrimination against white men is wrong for exactly the same reason discrimination against anyone else is wrong.

The political failure is glaring because young white men are not asking for a patronage machine. Most want the same things politicians promise everyone else: decent work, affordable homes, marriage, children, and confidence that effort will be rewarded rather than filtered through a demographic spreadsheet.

Conservatives who spent years explaining how DEI distorted institutions cannot suddenly sneer at those consequences when the victims are inconvenient. If the system has been biased, fix it. If the law promises equal treatment, enforce it. And if Republicans refuse to defend a constituency increasingly voting for them, they should not be surprised when those voters conclude that the party likes their ballots more than it likes them. A coalition cannot survive forever on gratitude for being less hostile than the other side.

The law already says so.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated federal law or the Constitution. The ruling did not abolish every consideration touching race, and universities quickly looked for ways to preserve diversity goals through essays, recruitment, socioeconomic proxies, and other methods.

That is what institutions do when incentives remain unchanged: They adapt.

Corporations made similar adjustments as legal pressure against DEI increased. Some renamed programs, changed language, or removed explicit demographic preferences. But nobody should expect a half-century of institutional habit to vanish because the Supreme Court issued one opinion or because an executive order changed the mood in Washington.

Law changes behavior when violating it becomes expensive.

That is the lesson the left understood long ago. Civil rights organizations built durable legal institutions capable of finding plaintiffs, financing cases, generating publicity, and making discrimination costly. Lawyers could build careers bringing important cases. Universities and corporations knew that a bad decision could become a lawsuit, a settlement, a headline, or all three.

RELATED: Stop ‘owning the libs’ and start owning institutions

Blaze Media Illustration

The right has built far less comparable infrastructure for people alleging discrimination because they are white or male.

Organizations such as America First Legal have begun bringing these cases, and other public-interest firms challenge race- and sex-based preferences. But the scale remains small compared with the institutional ecosystem that has enforced progressive civil rights priorities for decades. Many potential plaintiffs still assume nobody will take their case, that suing will destroy their career, or that publicly claiming discrimination against white men will make them objects of ridicule.

That social taboo is a powerful enforcement mechanism all by itself.

The answer is not to create special rights for white men. They do not need them. The answer is to enforce the rights they already possess with the same tenacity brought to every other discrimination claim.

That means sustained lawfare.

When a university uses a racial preference that violates the law, sue. When a corporation excludes applicants from a program because they are white or male, sue. When an employer retaliates against a worker for objecting to unlawful discrimination, sue. Find plaintiffs. Fund cases. Build precedent. Publicize victories. Thousands of cases, week after week. Make compliance departments understand that discriminating against white men carries real legal risk.

Not every angry employee has a case. Not every disappointing admission or promotion decision is discrimination. But where unlawful discrimination exists, conservatives should stop treating litigation as somehow beneath them.

Institutions respond to incentives. For decades, the incentives pushed them toward demographic engineering while telling white men that noticing was shameful. If equal protection means anything, those incentives must run in both directions.

The right does not need another conference panel lamenting DEI. It needs lawyers willing to make discrimination expensive. Equal protection will not enforce itself.

A 37-year-old man was arrested for battery after allegedly touching himself inappropriately while creeping behind a female employee at a Florida store.

On Friday the Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office released some of the disgusting details at a media briefing.

'It is pretty shocking that he would do something like this in front of the camera and in front of kids and anyone looking.'

Officers responded to the Ross clothing store on Southwest 56th Street on Aug. 17 at about 4:15 p.m. for a report of a battery.

The alleged perpetrator had fled, but police found the victim as well a witness.

The witness said that the man was touching himself while the female worker was stocking shelves at the store.

"The male just happened to get into an area where she was working at and took a liking to her and started taking pictures, as we see on the video of her, of her buttocks and getting close to her," said Lead Detective Diego Mendoza.

"The witness went to loss prevention about this, and when she came back, she saw the subject getting directly behind the victim, who was crouching down on the floor, and he sprayed her," he adds.

Some news reports say that the man ejaculated onto the worker, but others say he sprayed her with an "unknown liquid." WTVJ-TV reported that police were DNA testing the liquid, which was described as "cloudy" and "sticky."

Police said they were able to identify a suspect as Sean Edward Uribe based on the witness picking him out of a lineup. He was arrested a week later a the office of his probation officer.

Mendoza said Uribe had been arrested previously for similar incidents.

"This is not the first time he has done this," he said. "He is well known to our unit. But it is pretty shocking that he would do something like this in front of the camera and in front of kids and anyone looking."

RELATED: Camera shows DoorDash driver allegedly masturbating at woman's door after delivering food

Mendoza said the latest charge would be a felony because of the previous convictions.

"My concern is that he is doing this to a number of women across Miami-Dade County," he added. "I am sure multiple females are not even aware he has done that to them. I am sure this guy has done this multiple times to multiple people and multiple females all over Dade County."

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Mindy Glazer set his bond at $10,000 and ordered a public defender to represent him.

Uribe lives with his mother, according to CBS Miami.

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

For years, a handful of powerful corporations have wielded control over the nation’s food supply, with small farmers and ranchers being hit the hardest.

Now, the Trump administration says it is finally taking action.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck that president Trump “will arguably go down in history as the most pro-rancher, pro-farmer president in American history.”

And under this administration, Rollins explains that officials are fighting “decades of massive consolidation in agriculture, offshoring of our food supply in agriculture, the loss of hundreds of thousands of farms and ranches.”

“There is no national security, there is no freedom, unless we can feed and fuel ourselves,” she adds.

And Glenn, who operates a ranch himself, is no stranger to this struggle.

“I’ve got to go to Denver to sell my cows. I can’t get them processed, really, in my state because I don’t process enough meat. … People can’t go and process their beef in our state and then sell them to the local grocery store,” he explains.

“Which, you know, I don’t understand the people on the left. They’re for these big huge conglomerates. And then on top of it, they understand farm to table,” he says. “How do they not understand that same concept with beef and chicken?”

Glenn also points out that “85% or almost 90% of all beef is processed through these big four.”

“It was not like that 20 years ago. It’s never been like this. This is a massive monopoly,” he says, before asking, “Are you going to make it easier for people to be able to build processing plants in their own states and get state inspections?”

“Yes,” Rollins answers.

“What we have done over the last year is really invested in small and midsize packing. So that a co-op, a group of farmer-owned — we’ve got some great examples of this, by the way, around the country that are building this out with the help of USDA grants and loans,” Rollins says.

“And there is an opportunity here. … A few weeks ago, Tyson announced the closure of three of their plants. They’re shifting a lot of their processing. … That opens up, Glenn, about 20% of the market for smaller and midsize companies to come in. American-owned, to rebuild and to catch some of that market that is now opening up,” she continues.

“So as tough as that decision was, that announcement was — I actually think the long-term implications are very positive for this industry,” she adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

Common sense versus crazy is the defining feature of today’s politics.

On immigration, the choice is between enforcing the law and tolerating policies that burden U.S. workers and communities. On elections, the SAVE America Act has exposed the same divide: More than 80% of Americans support voter ID, yet Democrats continue to resist basic election-integrity safeguards.

Do lawmakers recognize biological reality and protect children from irreversible treatment, or do they protect the establishment that branded dissent dangerous?

But one contrast between Republicans and Democrats this cycle is even more fundamental: whether government should recognize biological sex as real.

That fight now runs through women’s sports, military readiness, and the treatment of children suffering from gender dysphoria. Common sense says boys are boys, girls are girls, and children should not be rushed into life-altering medical interventions. The alternative is crazy.

For years, the gender-medicine establishment told vulnerable children that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries could align their bodies with an internal identity. Too often, institutions presented those interventions with more certainty than the evidence justified.

U.S. Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) wants Congress to answer that problem with H.R. 7651, the Chloe Cole Act, which targets providers where accountability is most likely to be felt: civil liability.

The bill would create a federal cause of action allowing patients and families to sue medical providers that prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or performed sex-rejecting surgeries on minors.

Chloe Cole, the bill’s namesake, is a detransitioner and activist who says she was pushed toward irreversible treatment without clear, informed consent. Her own malpractice case has made her one of the most prominent critics of pediatric gender medicine.

The legislation also arrives as institutions that once claimed broad consensus are facing harder scrutiny. The Trump administration filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, challenging claims about medical necessity and insurance coverage.

RELATED: Taxpayers paid $9.6 million for a gender ideologue's puberty-blocker study. She hid it. Now we know why.

L-R: Luis Soto/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images; Michael Tullberg/Getty Images

In a recent legal filing, WPATH described portions of its guidance as “opinion” rather than binding scientific consensus. That distinction is important. Parents were told for years that the science was settled. Now the institutions involved are emphasizing judgment, interpretation, and professional opinion.

Malpractice cases are moving too. In the Varian case, a jury awarded $2 million in damages over a sex-rejecting surgery. Individual lawsuits may expose failures one patient at a time. The Chloe Cole Act would be a major step toward stopping this industrial-scale profiteering once and for all.

As Congress returns for its pre-midterm September sprint, the choice is once again common sense versus crazy. Do lawmakers recognize biological reality and insist on caution before children undergo irreversible treatment, or do they protect a medical and political establishment that insisted for years that dissent itself was dangerous?

Congress has already seen versions of the same fight. Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) is leading the charge to define men and women clearly under Title IX. Before the August recess, Heritage Action key-voted an amendment from Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to codify President Trump’s “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” order requiring service members to serve in accordance with their biological sex.

The legislation asked Congress to say something extraordinarily simple: Men serve as men, and women serve as women. Every Democrat who voted on the amendment went on the record against it.

The Chloe Cole Act offers another clean vote. Members can side with children and families seeking accountability for irreversible medical treatment or with the institutions like the billion-dollar transgender lobby that told the country for years that common sense had to yield to crazy.

The owners of a brewery in North Carolina shut down a drag show intended to raise funds for illegal aliens after allegedly receiving death threats.

Teri Lippy said they contacted law enforcement but could not determine whether the threats were credible, so they decided to stop the event to protect their employees.

'They posted it everywhere, and people started harassing both us and the venue.'

The "Drag Brunch for a Cause" program had been scheduled for Sunday at Eleven Lakes Brewing in Cornelius until critics campaigned to stop the event.

The drag show was described as a family-friendly fundraiser for the Carolina Migrant Network, a nonprofit group that provides legal services to illegal aliens for free.

About 100 tickets had been sold for the event before it was posted to social media by the popular account "Libs of TikTok."

"Eleven Lakes Brewing, a business in North Carolina, is hosting an ‘all-ages’ drag queen show to raise money for illegal aliens," the account wrote on the X platform. "Yes, this is real. They want to groom your children while donating money to fund foreign criminal invaders. Would be a shame if they went viral!"

Melissa Easley, who works with the event's lead sponsor, implied that the threats were tied to the Libs of TikTok post.

"They started advertising it as a children’s drag event," Easley said about the campaign. "They posted it everywhere, and people started harassing both us and the venue."

Lippy claimed that critics had twisted the meaning of the event and said that parents could bring in children without paying for an extra ticket.

"Nice brewery. Looks like it would burn down easy," was one threat she says they received via email.

"All of a sudden, physical and death threats started coming to both the venue and us," Easley added.

RELATED: Drag queen defends shows for children, says drag shows teach kids 'there are no boundaries'

Easley remains defiant, however.

"They may have won this battle, but we’re not going away," she said. "We are regrouping, and this event will happen."

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

Michigan Democrats are finding themselves in a bit of an uncomfortable spot after Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s ties to far-left activist and streamer Hasan Piker are becoming a growing issue in the general election campaign.

At a recent campaign event for El-Sayed, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) pleaded with reporters to stop focusing on Piker and instead discuss El-Sayed’s candidacy, insisting Republicans were using the controversy to divide Democrats.

“I’m done,” Dingell said. “This election is about what’s going to happen when we elect Abdul to the United States Senate.”

“So don’t any reporter ask me again about Hasan Piker; it’s not what November is about,” she continued.

“Republicans are trying to make it, they’re trying to divide us, and we got to stop letting them try to divide us. I don’t agree with Hasan Piker on a lot of stuff, and I really don’t agree with him on some of the woman things he said,” she added.

“Nice try,” executive producer Keith Malinak says on “Pat Gray Unleashed.” “No, he’s yours. Own him.”

“He got El-Sayed through the primary, and now they want to disown him for the general. No,” Malinak continues, “No, he’s yours.”

“Also, you got in bed with the DSA,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray chimes in. “You got in bed with Hasan Piker. I’m sorry. We’re not the ones dividing you. You did this to yourself.”

“This is the best thing that’s ever happened to Republicans,” he adds.

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.

New York City police gunned down a woman who had attacked random strangers with a knife in Times Square on Monday.

Cellphone video captured the moment that police surrounded the woman, who lunged at them while armed with two knives.

Police were able to recover two knives at the scene.

Police said the 49-year-old woman began the "unprovoked and random" knife attack on strangers near 41st Street and Seventh Avenue.

She allegedly stabbed a 68-year-old man in his abdomen as the victim walked out of the subway with his wife. He was hospitalized for treatment of his injuries.

A second victim was identified as 32-year-old Erin Piacenti of Chester, New Jersey, who died of her injuries.

Witnesses flagged down officers who confronted the woman for about four minutes.

The officers "gave her numerous commands to drop the knife," said NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch.

"During the encounter, she told the officers, 'I'm not dropping anything. I would rather kill both of you.' She repeated, 'I will kill you,'" Tisch added.

Officers deployed Tasers, and other officers shot at the woman, which can be viewed on the graphic cellphone video.

She was hospitalized and later declared dead, Tisch said.

The woman was later identified as Pamela Cisneros of Queens, who had a documented history of mental illness, according to Tisch. She added that police were able to recover two knives at the scene.

RELATED: Video allegedly shows man stuffing body parts into suitcase after dismembering stepfather

Piacenti worked as a vice president at Bank of America.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) thanked police at the media briefing.

"I want to thank the NYPD officers who stepped in and prevented a horrific attack from becoming even worse," the mayor said. "This is what the men and women of this department do every single day to keep our city safe."

He added that body-camera footage from police would be released after an investigation.

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

Virginia Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger's attempts to disrupt cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Robert Payne said in his ruling Monday that the federal government would likely succeed in the lawsuit against the restrictions on federal cooperation.

'My office strongly disagrees with the judge’s order and will urgently file a motion to stay this ruling and appeal.'

Payne, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, issued a preliminary injunction against the order while the case continues going through the legal process.

The Trump administration argued that the Virginia law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as well as the Contract Clause.

Spanberger had signed the law, and Attorney General Jay Jones began cracking down on the Greene County sheriff for continuing to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and aiding in 50 arrests.

The order from Payne will allow law enforcement officials and state prisons to cooperate with ICE operations, but not for new agreements to be made.

Jones said he would appeal the order from Payne.

"My office strongly disagrees with the judge’s order and will urgently file a motion to stay this ruling and appeal the temporary injunction," he wrote in a statement, according to the Virginia Mercury.

Jones argued that the state had the right to order state officials against cooperation.

"The General Assembly was well within its legal authority to pass this law and to put statutory requirements in place to ensure Virginia’s already resource-constrained localities and law enforcement agencies are not devoting critical resources toward carrying out responsibilities that rest solely with the federal government," he added.

RELATED: Democratic congressman claims he forced ICE to back off from arrest at courtroom

The Department of Homeland Security had vehemently criticized Spanberger after she signed the restrictions on ICE cooperation.

"The heroes of ICE will continue to arrest and remove criminal illegal aliens across the Commonwealth while Governor Spanberger RELEASES them from jails into Virginia communities to commit more crimes and create more victims," the statement read.

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

Few series have a tighter grip on young female readers than Sarah J. Maas’ romantasy juggernaut “A Court of Thorns and Roses."

The wildly popular series follows Feyre Archeron — a human huntress pulled from a starving village into the faerie courts of Prythian, where she is drawn into immortal politics, ancient magic, and a romance that remakes her.

But Allie Beth Stuckey has concerns about this BookTok obsession that has so many women, including Christian women, in a chokehold. On this episode of “Relatable,” the BlazeTV host dives into the viral series and the romantasy genre and explains why they’re delivering far more than just entertainment.

“Despite what Maas says … about her hypersexual novels being quote ‘more than smut,’ the picture that she paints of relationships, of morality, of sexuality, and the world [is] not neutral … and it's certainly not biblical,” says Allie.

“These kinds of romantasy novels are having an effect on how women, even Christian women, view men and view marriage, which then has an impact on children, has an impact on society,” she continues.

While Allie is a fan of reading fiction, she believes Christians need to stay away from all of Maas’ series and other authors who write similar novels not only because many are “pornographic” and thus contradict Philippians 4:8’s call to entertain only wholesome thoughts but also because they erode the reader’s “perception of reality” — especially when it comes to relationships.

Allie plays a clip of Maas telling “Call Her Daddy” host Alex Cooper that she’s proud that her books help women leave their abusive husbands.

“Obviously we believe that if you have an abusive husband that you and your children should go and be protected … but there is a question of what Sarah J. Maas considers abusive,” says Allie.

“I think we've expanded the definition of abusive to include things that were never before seen as abusive, so when she's talking about women leaving their husbands, I'm like, well, is it really because of abuse, or is it because their husband could not live up to this fantastical depiction of what love should look like or what a romantic partner should look like?” she asks.

To illustrate her point, Allie recounts a TikTok post from a fan of the books, explaining that the series motivated her to get a divorce.

“She said that reading the novels helped her realize that she deserved an explosive, passionate, adventurous life in love,” Allie recaps.

In a Reddit post, a Maas fan wrote, “Rereading [‘A Court of Mist and Fury'] and realising it’s ruined my perception of love because I don’t think I could ever meet a man who would be as devoted and loving towards me as Rhys was to Feyre.”

“You’re right, because he’s not real,” says Allie bluntly.

These examples capture one of her biggest issues with Maas’ books and the romantasy genre in general: They set readers up to have unrealistic expectations about romantic relationships.

“Comparing real-life people — fallible human people who deal with sin and get tired and get distracted and have their own things going on in life … to a mystical creature, and you're mad that your boyfriends haven't stacked up to that? That is very disturbing,” says Allie.

“We are seeking, it seems like as a culture, a frictionless life with frictionless relationships — no inconvenience, no discomfort, no sanctification, no working hard, no getting through things, but just ‘I deserve, I deserve, I deserve sunshine,”’ she continues.

The irony, of course, is that these readers can’t offer the same perfection they seek.

“Think about yourself for a second,” says Allie. “Is that what you offer to a man? Do you offer perfection? Do you offer unconditional and unwavering sunlight at all times? Is that who you are?”

“No, it's not who any of us are. It's not who I am. We're all imperfect people, and yet I do think that women have become more and more used to, at least online, like, holding men to a standard that you do not hold yourself,” she continues, highlighting the Lindsay Clancy supporters whose “unending compassion” for the woman who killed her three children would likely never extend to mentally ill men guilty of similar crimes.

The idea that “women are always victims no matter what,” she argues, has poisoned many women — and that includes those who leave their husbands or give up on relationships because real-life men can’t compare to fictional ones who are “tall, dark, and handsome” and love and act perfectly.

In the "A Court of Thorns and Roses" series, the male protagonist Rhys, Allie explains, is “described as the most beautiful man imaginable,” “the most powerful man in the world … yet is somehow always emotionally available and vulnerable for Feyre,” is “protective and chivalrous,” and “encourages her independence and helps enable her be able to protect and defend herself.”

“Is that so hard, men? Is that so hard to be the ruler of the world and also emotionally available and accessible at all times?” Allie jokes. “Come on. Women aren't asking for much.”

To hear more of her analysis, watch 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.

Activist actor Mark Ruffalo is going to live by the petition and die by the petition.

The 58-year-old has been more entrenched in politics than filmmaking in recent history, and now he is merging his two worlds together by taking direct shots at a Hollywood studio.

'There is nothing anti-Semitic about recognizing that fact.'

Hulk accuse

Ruffalo is vehemently against the $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance, and he attempted to take the latter's executives to task recently the best way he knows how: the open letter.

The actor started with Oracle, the company owned by Larry Ellison, who also has a controlling stake in Paramount Skydance. Ruffalo posted a video of Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra Catz talking about helping the Israeli military in its war against Palestine. According to Variety, Ruffalo then said the executive "revels in what we now have come to see as a genocide, which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle."

Ruffalo then went on to criticize Ellison and the merger, saying it could cost Hollywood between 4,500 and 14,500 jobs.

A spokesperson for Paramount fired back, saying the company is "troubled when anti-Semitic tropes are invoked in purported service of a business dispute."

"Words like 'genocide' and 'apartheid,' applied to a corporate transaction, aren't just wrong — they're a bridge too far, and they cheapen the very real suffering those words are meant to describe," the letter added.

Ruffalo, an artist scorned, responded with another strongly worded diatribe, telling over 31 million readers on X that he has "deep love and respect" for Jews.

"Everything I know about acting, activism, and humanism has been profoundly shaped by the Jewish friends, colleagues, and loved ones who have been integral and family throughout every point of my life," he declared.

RELATED: HULK HYPOCRITE: $35 million man Ruffalo stumps for socialism

Another fight, another letter

More than 170 "Jewish figures" signed a letter of support for Ruffalo, backing him in the face of "false and dangerous weaponization of charges of anti-Semitism."

The letter went on to say that others like Ruffalo are simply being "brave enough to point out the obvious: that the assault on the Palestinian people and the assault on our liberties at home are deeply interconnected, and there is nothing anti-Semitic about recognizing that fact."

Whether Ruffalo battles pro-Israel forces or corporate mergers, he seems to always have time for an online-letter battle. In fact, he is fresh off a different letter-based foray with federal immigration authorities.

RELATED: Celebrities demand ICE send illegal immigrants back ... to your neighborhood

Oracle CEO Safra Catz, September 2025. Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Million-dollar baby

In April, Ruffalo signed yet another letter that urged the federal government to shut down one of it's immigration detention centers in Texas.

The letter demanded children be released and illegal immigrants be allowed to roam about the United States until trial. This of course would have sent its illegal immigrant detainees back into American neighborhoods, but the letter nonetheless proved fruitless and the Dilley ICE detention center remains open.

Ruffalo's politics have him spinning in so many directions that he is supporting socialists and battling capitalists while starring in new movies.

While the actor may be signing declarations left and right, his latest role in "Spider-Man: Brand New Day," which had one of the biggest openings of all time, paid him a reported $8 to $12 million.

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

What if a heart transplant could be scheduled weeks in advance? Not because a donor volunteered, but because a prisoner was selected to die?

Epoch Times senior editor and "Killed to Order" author Jan Jekielek explains that this is happening right now — and it’s happening in China.

“This really is a kind of next level form of organ trafficking, the most extreme example I’m aware of. And the key part is that it happens at scale” Jekielek tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

And it’s nothing like a “normal situation,” where an organ transplant begins with a recipient who needs a transplant and waits for an organ donor to have a catastrophic accident.

“What happens is someone has to have a catastrophic accident, OK? And then that person, we need to believe that they’re not coming back. An ethics team makes that decision,” Jekielek explains, pointing out that the organ donation system in America was decertified in the past year because they “got too easy on making that decision.”

“If you transplant for someone that is coming back, you’re killing that person,” he says.

In America, you also have to find someone whose organ will be compatible with your body so that your body doesn’t reject it.

“In communist China, it works very differently,” he continues, explaining that in his book, he profiles a whistleblower who was a professor of transplant surgery.

“He had a patient who basically told him, this is in 2005, ‘I’m tired of waiting. They’ve organized a heart for me in two weeks, scheduled,’” he says.

“That catastrophic accident is scheduled,” he adds.

That, Jekielek says, is the first “red flag.”

“And the second red flag, how are you getting that perfect match in two weeks, right?” he asks, before explaining that certain groups of citizens were dehumanized and incarcerated in China for refusing to be “re-educated.”

“So they have prisons, black jails, re-education through labor camps, labor camps, all sorts ... and this is what sets up the unique situation for this killed-to-order type of organ harvesting, forced organ harvesting,” he says.

“So because you have this dehumanized group, masses of them are incarcerated, and this is how you get the two weeks,” he explains, “because what they do is they start blood typing and tissue typing and organ scanning those people that are in prison.”

“And now when that transplant tourist comes with their 100 or 200 grand to buy that new heart, you see they can get it in two weeks because their so-called donor is actually an innocent prisoner of conscience, and they’ve been pre-matched,” he continues.

“That unique set of combination of variables already exists in the system, and that person can then be shipped and killed to order,” he adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

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

While many believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is positioning herself for a presidential run, she refuses to separate from extremist influencer Hasan Piker.

Piker is a far-left communist who defends Muslim terrorists and has even said America deserved the 9/11 attacks, but many Democrats have found it difficult to condemn him.

'And young people are engaging in mediums and conversations that we have a responsibility to attend to and be responsive to. ... Millennials are not, you know, punk kids anymore.'

Ocasio-Cortez was given the chance to reject Piker's extremism when confronted by CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju about Abdul El-Sayed, the Islamic Democratic Michigan candidate for the U.S. Senate.

"Do you think that Abdul El-Sayed needs to do more to disavow Hasan Piker, given how big of an issue he's become?" Raju asked.

"I do not think that a Twitch streamer is what the people of Michigan are concerning themselves on," she replied. "So I think that what they want to hear all of us talk about is how we're going to make their lives more affordable."

The left-wing congresswoman had responded similarly when challenged by Jonathan Karl on ABC's "This Week" early in August.

"Is he somebody that should have a role in the progressive movement going forward?" Karl asked.

"I think when we look at our elections that have happened, we have lost young people. Much hay was made about the fact that we lost young men in the last election, and many of the same consultants that are wringing their hands today were the same ones talking about how we need to go on 'Joe Rogan,'" she replied.

She said that Democrats should not be participating in "cancel culture" over Piker.

RELATED: 14 times 'unhinged' Democrats have called for political violence

"I think the fact of the matter is, is that Democrats can go on 'Joe Rogan,' Democrats can go on Fox News, Democrats have a responsibility to build a winning coalition. And young people are engaging in mediums and conversations that we have a responsibility to attend to and be responsive to."

She added, "Millennials are not, you know, punk kids anymore."

El-Sayed similarly said about Piker, "While politicians and pundits try to make this race about a Twitch streamer, we’re going to be talking about gas, groceries, good schools, and health care. Because that’s what Michiganders keep asking about."

Piker appeared to be supportive of a possible presidential run for Ocasio-Cortez in 2028, and polling shows her near the top for the Democratic nomination.

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

California Democrats want to make President Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents unemployable.

The California Senate passed the Get the Feds Out Act on Sunday, banning immigration enforcement agents from virtually all public-sector roles in the state. It now awaits the signature of Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom.

'They should be grateful that ICE officers stepped up to keep criminal illegal aliens off of California’s streets.'

The state Assembly voted to advance the bill 53-21 in May and concurred with Senate amendments on Monday.

“Since the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, immigration enforcement agents have carried out an indiscriminate mass terror campaign against innocent men, women, and children across the nation,” the bill reads.

Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who authored the bill, crafted the legislation to specifically target ICE agents serving under the Trump administration.

Though primarily intended to prohibit ICE agents from becoming California police officers, Gonzalez and Rivas made the bill expansive enough that it excludes them from any public employment.

With few exceptions, under the bill, any ICE officer or contractor involved in immigration enforcement between January 20, 2025, and January 20, 2029, would be ineligible for employment with the state as well as all California cities, counties, and other public entities. If signed into law, the bill will take effect January 1, 2028.

“We have the fourth-largest economy in the world because of our immigrant and undocumented community, and they’re being penalized and targeted by the Trump administration,” Gonzalez told the L.A. Times on Tuesday after the bill passed the state legislature. “This package of immigrant bills that we’ve sent [to the governor] is trying to say that we are here to defend you.”

Gonzalez and Rivas did not respond to requests for comment.

RELATED: Democrat candidate admits he's 'utterly unqualified,' wants a promotion anyway

Blake Fagan/AFP/Getty Images

Newsom doesn't actually need to sign the bill for it to become law, according to the California Constitution. Bills that reach the governor's desk at the end of the legislative session sit for 30 days. If the governor takes no action on it, the bill is automatically enacted as if it were signed.

Newsom's office did not respond when asked whether he would sign the bill, though he has been consistently critical of ICE. The governor has previously referred to the agency as "not law enforcement," a "secret police," and Trump's "private police force."

ICE expanded its operations in Newsom's back yard after Trump took office. Between January 2025 and July 2026, ICE arrested over 50,000 people in California, according to records acquired by UC Berkeley Law and UCLA’s Deportation Data Project.

“We have immigration laws for a reason. And they do have to be enforced, just like we have our laws that we pass here, and we expect them to be enforced by our law enforcement officers,” Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher said in a May hearing about the bill. “This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

California is already struggling to keep cops.

Department staffing peaked in 2008 and has declined since. Head count dropped sharply after 2020, with about 3,600 officers leaving the force in just two years. Staffing levels remain below pre-pandemic and pre-Black Lives Matter riot levels.

RELATED: How good cops end up funding California's Scott Wiener and his radical LGBTQ, anti-police agenda

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

“Our concern, again, is we have many agencies throughout the state who are short, extremely short, sometimes 28% short on manpower, which is dangerous, not only [for] the officers but the community,” Peace Officers Research Association of California President Randy Perry told the state Senate in July.

Sacramento is California’s most understaffed police department, with 43% of necessary positions unfilled, according to PORAC.

"Many of ICE’s new recruits are former law enforcement officers, military, or former ICE officers who retired or quit under President Biden because they were frustrated about not being able to do their jobs," a DHS spokesperson told Blaze News.

“California sanctuary politicians are casting federal law enforcement as villains while ICE officers are being targeted, threatened, and doxxed simply for doing their jobs," the spokesperson said. "They should be grateful that ICE officers stepped up to keep criminal illegal aliens off of California’s streets."

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

An NFL trainer warns that new data is revealing more about concussions than was ever known before.

Myths surrounding concussion assessment and recovery still persist to this day, and they can stand in the way of getting proper treatment.

'It is not necessarily an emergency situation.'

Kayla Parker, an athletic trainer with the Denver Broncos and official trainer of the NFL team's cheerleaders, wants parents to know that risking brain trauma to participate in youth athletics is going to have more negative lingering effects than actually sitting out to recover.

Parker spoke with Blaze News and revealed that a lot of discussion and amateur analysis surrounding head injuries can be much further off the mark than some may realize.

"If you even suspect you have a concussion, sit it out. It's not worth it," Parker advised.

If a child, or adult, is indeed concussed and gets hit a second time within a 48-hour window, Parker warns that the brain can suffer from "second-impact syndrome," which could potentially result in death.

The faster an athlete is removed from activity following a suspected concussion, the faster he typically comes back, Parker explained.

Concussion myths

It's not always an emergency.

"If you suspect your kiddo or yourself have a concussion, it is not necessarily an emergency situation. You don't need to rush off to the emergency room," the trainer detailed.

A typical concussion protocol in an emergency room will include a CT scan, but that is to rule out a possible brain bleed.

"Outside of that, they don't have anything else for them," Parker said.

RELATED: The 'youth sports industrial complex' is destroying young bodies — NFL doctor speaks out

Scott Taetsch/Getty Images

Another long-held myth is to never let a concussed person fall asleep.

"That is definitely a myth," Parker said in response. "When we suspect a concussion, they are absolutely allowed to go to sleep."

At the same time, Parker said that a loss of consciousness is actually only prevalent in around 10% of concussions. Moreover, it is not an indication of seriousness either.

"It really doesn't dictate how fast they're going to come back from that concussion. We've seen those athletes come back faster than the ones that never lost consciousness at all. It's going to be the previous medical history that's really going to dictate how well they do coming back from the concussion."

With concussion history and existing medical conditions as main drivers of ongoing health problems in many professional athletes, Parker said concussion prevention is the obvious goal for both kids and adults. However, "There is nothing that will 100% prevent a concussion."

Another myth, one perpetuated in recent years, is that increased padding on the outside of a football helmet can help reduce concussions. This has been seen with the use of Guardian Caps.

But this is giving a "false sense of security," the trainer said.

Chiefly, Parker added, "We are very concerned about preventing brain bleeds and skull fractures, and that is truly what helmets were originally designed to do."

RELATED: 'Just follow the money': NFL doctor reveals why so many players are getting injured

Justin Edmonds/Getty Images

New knowledge

Parker's work with the Broncos cheer team has expanded her depth of knowledge for different types of injuries. In that same vein, an important part of the job for the trainer is keeping up with new data and information surrounding concussions.

With that has come a new understanding of how young athletes are growing up and the possible effects screen time is having on their brain.

Vision problems have been consistently tracked as part of head trauma recovery, with recent studies — cited by Parker — suggesting that prolonged screen exposure has been "associated with symptoms such as visual fatigue, dizziness, and imbalance."

When asked directly if excessive screen use can make a person more susceptible to a concussion, Parker replied:

"That is yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. ... It is something that they're currently studying."

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