3 females caught on video brutally beating, stealing from victims on Philly street; suspects still at large, police say

Three females were caught on video brutally beating and stealing from victims on a Philadelphia street, police said.
The Philadelphia Police Department's Central Detective Division is seeking the public’s help in identifying the individuals responsible for the attacks, and police provided video and still images showing the suspects.
'Conceal carry. A 9 mm would have resolved this issue.'
Police didn't specify the number of victims in the brutal attacks, but WTXF-TV reported that there were two victims.
The beatdowns occurred around 2:15 a.m. April 18; police posted the notice describing the attacks earlier this month.
Police said the three culprits assaulted the victims along the 1300 block of Chestnut Street. Video shows one attack occurring on the sidewalk against the outside wall of a building; the other attack occurs on the street next to a parked car. The victims are repeatedly kicked and punched while on the ground.
Police said the victims' bags were stolen, and their credit cards were later used fraudulently.
Video shows the street was crowded with pedestrians, but it appears only one person attempted to help the victims.
The victims were hospitalized with significant face and head injuries, police said.
Police offered the following descriptions of the suspects:
- Suspect #1: Black female, 25 to 30 years old, 5’5″ to 5’7″, 150 pounds, medium build
- Suspect #2: Black female, 25 to 30 years old, 5’2″ to 5’4″, 130 pounds, medium build, tattoo on right side chest
- Suspect #3: Black female, 25 to 30 years old, 5’5″, 175 pounds, heavy build
Police said if you see the suspects, do not approach — instead call 911 immediately.
To submit a tip by telephone, dial 215-686-TIPS (8477), police said. Tipsters also can use this electronic form to submit a tip anonymously, police said. All tips will be confidential, officials added.
Those with any information about this crime or these suspects also can contact the Central Detective Division at 215-686-3093 or 3094, police said.
More than 600 comments hit WXTF's Facebook post about the beatings, and commenters did not hold back. The following are but a few reactions:
- "Caught on camera! It’s just a matter of time before they are caught! Good for them!" one commenter exclaimed.
- "When caught, make an example of them!!" another user declared.
- "They’re good girls," another commenter wrote sarcastically.
- "Conceal carry," another user suggested. "A 9 mm would have resolved this issue."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Steve Deace drops 8 key lessons for conservatives after Zach Lahn’s stunning Iowa upset

On June 2, Zach Lahn won the Iowa Republican gubernatorial primary. Campaigning as an "Iowa First" outsider focused on water quality, reducing corporate influence, and core conservative issues, the political newcomer and farmer/businessman pulled off a shocking upset, earning about 38% of the vote in a crowded five-candidate race and narrowly beating Trump-endorsed Rep. Randy Feenstra.
On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace extracts “8 lessons” the political right can learn from Lahn’s stunning victory.
Lesson #1: Christian conservatives are changing from being profile-driven to issue-driven.
Deace explains that historically, Iowans have voted for people that look the part.
“We're flyover country, and a lot of times the rest of the country just kind of wants to look down and sneer at us. So understanding us — being from us, one of us — is a big thing,” he says, noting how Iowa’s longtime senior Senator Chuck Grassley has been running successful campaign ads showing him “driving a tractor” for his entire political career.
But Lahn’s victory proved that voting based on profile is “no longer the model.”
“We can now see it's a paradigm shift — that issues now matter more than the profile does,” says Deace, highlighting how Lahn “spoke to the issues” and defeated opponent Adam Steen who “represented the profile.”
Lesson #2: MAHA and Christian conservatives are the coalition of the future.
Lahn’s success was largely a result of his ability to appeal to Make America Healthy Again supporters. Endorsed by RFK Jr.’s MAHA Action PAC, his campaign zeroed in on Iowa's cancer crisis, water toxicity, and use of chemicals and pesticides in farming.
Deace predicts that the union of MAHA advocates and conservative Christians will be the right’s strongest weapon in future elections.
“You see this especially with our mamas and our nanas,” he says, noting how the government’s handling of COVID-19 created a deep skepticism that will surely continue to influence voting.
Lesson #3: Issues still trump everything.
Just days before the primary, Deace — who had earlier endorsed Adam Steen — released a last-minute video endorsement for Lahn, which he says was the “last spackle of frosting on the cake” that pushed him to his razor-thin victory.
But that’s not a pat on his own back. Lahn, Deace argues, was only in the position where he could be nudged to victory because he ran on “hard-right issues.”
“If I put that video out about Zach Lahn, but he hasn't been running all the issue ads they did the last few weeks, does it work? No,” he declares.
“They baked the entire cake. I helped them with the frosting.”
Lahn’s victory, he argues, is proof that “the number-one thing our people want to vote on is issues.”
Lesson #4: This wasn’t a 'loss' for President Trump, but one of his most impressive shows of force yet.
Many political observers and media outlets are interpreting Lahn’s win as a notable loss or setback for Trump, who endorsed Feenstra.
But Deace pushes back on that narrative. “Folks, this was actually one of the most impressive shows of force that Trump's ever had with an endorsement,” he counters.
Deace marvels that Trump was able to “[take] a candidate that his own base did not like, who saw his negatives go up by 20 points in the last three months” and “in less than four days with no major media in our state” made him jump “at least 10 points.”
“He got people to vote for a guy they didn't like because they like him more,” he says, calling it an “incredibly impressive feat.”
Even more impressive is that Trump was able to accomplish this despite rural Iowans suffering the most from the rise in diesel prices thanks to the U.S.' ongoing conflict with Iran. The fact that Feenstra only narrowly lost to Lahn is proof of how deep Iowa’s Trump loyalty runs.
Lesson #5: The generational divide is real, and it’s here.
“What we saw is Feenstra won the oldest of voters, and Zach Lahn won every other group,” says Deace.
“If you're 65 or older, you narrowly voted for Randy Feenstra, and if you were under 65, you narrowly voted for Zach Lahn,” he continues, noting that this same dynamic played out in the Thomas Massie-Ed Gallrein race.
Deace interprets this as proof of the “generational divide” within the Republican voter base.
Lesson #6: Reports of the demise of TPUSA continue to be greatly exaggerated.
Since the atrocious assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in September 2025, several outlets have reported that the nonprofit, which is heavily credited with helping Trump get re-elected in 2024, is losing influence.
But Deace says Lahn’s victory debunks this claim.
Immediately after Trump endorsed Feenstra, TPUSA formally endorsed Lahn, which Deace speculates was not a counter-endorsement but rather coincidental timing.
Even though this was the first time TPUSA has ever gone against Trump, the organization stuck with the endorsement and went “all in,” with door-knockers and full effort the weekend leading up to the primary, proving TPUSA is still a strong, committed organization.
Deace calls it “a helmet sticker for TPUSA.”
Lesson #7: If you don’t come in with your money or already have high name ID, you probably can’t beat the establishment in a statewide election.
Deace argues that in today’s environment, it’s almost impossible for a first-time candidate like Adam Steen to win a statewide race unless he comes with wealth (like Lahn) or already has high name recognition — because campaigns are very expensive.
The other factor at play is Trump’s “king” power. His endorsement holds so much weight that major donors and organizations are scared to back anyone else, fearing that Trump might endorse an opponent and make the investment worthless.
That’s why Feenstra, who was “as dead as Star Wars” on the Thursday before the primary, almost won, says Deace. Trump’s last-second endorsement was powerful enough to boost him from hopeless to the narrow runner-up.
Lesson #8: Nominate candidates who energize and unify the base.
Deace argues that Lahn is a much stronger general election candidate than Randy Feenstra because Iowa Republicans have a huge built-in advantage: “over 200,000 more registered voters than Democrats.”
Feenstra, he says, “disappointed” and “dissed” the conservative base as a congressman, which would negatively affect voter turnout. At the same time, Democrats would do what they always do and call him “the worst, most Nazi, most homophobic, transphobic, racist that's ever racisted and transphobited.”
With Lahn, however, the base is actually excited and unified, meaning more Republicans will actually show up to vote in November.
“With Zach, we have a chance to control what we can control — mobilize, unite our base, inspire our base with messaging they want to vote for, not branding they want to vote against,” says Deace.
To hear more, watch the episode above.
Want more from Steve Deace?
To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Foul-mouthed Democrat congresswoman doubles down on now-deleted profane tirade

Democrat Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada took to social media earlier this week to post an ill-tempered tirade filled with profanity.
Lee let out a flurry of F-words in response to an article detailing President Donald Trump's plans to attend the Supreme Court's oral arguments on a landmark birthright citizenship case. Notably, Lee's profile banner on X brands her as "America' #1 Most Bipartisan Member of Congress."
'Clearly my language touched a nerve.'
"So f**king f**ked up," Lee said in a now-deleted post with a timestamp of 1:03 a.m. Wednesday. "I'll pray they f**k him to his face. Sorry, I say f**k a lot these days."
Rather than apologizing for her low impulse control, Lee doubled down and defended her incoherent rant, claiming Trump has violated the Constitution and its separation of powers.
RELATED: SCOTUS asks pointed questions as fate of Trump's birthright citizenship order hangs in the balance

"Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers," Lee said in a post later that morning. "I took an oath to protect and defend it."
Administration officials and allies of the president mocked Lee's lack of professionalism, insinuating she has a drinking problem that contributed to her lack of online inhibition.
Brandon Herrera, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, piled on to the ratio on Lee's childish follow-up post.
"I’m gonna need you to take an oath to stop swearing until you get good at it," Herrera said in a post on X. "Currently you sound like a 9 year old trying to impress the older kids."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
THESE predictions Glenn Beck made 10 years ago are playing out in real time — but it’s all about to come to a screeching halt

Ten years ago on his radio show, Glenn Beck gave “three possibilities” of what America’s future would look like in a decade’s time.
Possibility #1: “Slow Decay” — “Corruption would become routine. Violence will become background noise. Currency ... buys less and less year after year until you just have to adjust your expectations downward. The border will blur. Drugs will flood in. Institutions will continue to weaken, but they won't break. They just stop working the way they once did.”
Possibility #2: “Control” — “A moment will come when the system decides dissent is a real threat, when the people who warned, protested, resisted are no longer just wrong but dangerous. And the label will change from opponent to enemy.”
Possibility #3: “Wake up” — “Citizens would wake up, that grassroots movements (imperfect but loud) ... would remind the country who it was supposed to be. And people will look back and say, ‘Wow, that was the moment that it really turned around."’
“I think a little bit of all of those things happened,” says Glenn.
The first predication, he says, was spot on — “Corruption is routine? Absolutely. Violence, a background noise? Absolutely. Currency hasn't died, just buys less year after year. We have to adjust our expectations downward. The border has absolutely blurred. The drugs are flooding in (still are). The institutions haven't broken but they weakened, and things aren't working the way they used to,” he says, confirming his old hypothesis.
The second prediction about mitigating chaos via control, he argues, also came true, specifically “during the Biden administration, where the system decided dissent was a real threat, and they started to silence people.”
The third and most hopeful possibility — a nationwide grassroots movement to restore order and morality — has also partially come to fruition.
“I think all three paths happened at the same time — bits and pieces. Here's what hasn't happened: We haven't decided which one,” says Glenn.
But we have to choose, he urges, because the next ten years won’t afford us the same wiggle room.
“In ten years from now, what does the world look like? Well, it's not going to be a combination of all three,” he says bluntly.
“We’re out of runway,” Glenn warns. “You have to choose: Do we slam on the brakes with this plane right now, or do we pull on the yoke and start to fly?”
To hear more, watch the video above.
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.
Battle over MTG's former seat goes unresolved on election night — but Trump-backed Republican tastes victory

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) called it quits and left office on Jan. 5, leaving Georgia's 14th congressional district up for grabs.
Shawn Harris — a Democratic retired brigadier general who was previously defeated by Greene in a landslide — attempted to take the seat in Tuesday's free-for-all special election. He was, however, thwarted by Clay Fuller, a hard-nosed Republican who served in the Air National Guard and left his role as district attorney to run for Congress.
'TOO BIG TO RIG.'
With over 95% of the votes in as of Wednesday morning, Fuller — whom President Donald Trump characterized as an "America First Patriot" in his endorsement last month — had secured 34.9% of the total vote, reported the Associated Press.
Trump's pick handily outperformed over 10 other Republican contenders, including former Georgia state Sen. Colton Moore, who identified himself on the campaign as "Trump's #1 Defender for Georgia's 14th Congressional District." Moore received 11.6% of the vote.
The other Republican candidates couldn't crack 5%.
Harris, alternatively, managed to secure 37.3% of the vote.
As neither Harris nor Fuller reached the necessary 50% plus one vote to take the district outright, they are headed to a head-to-head runoff election on April 7 where Trump's pick won't have to compete with fellow Republicans.
RELATED: Illegal alien allegedly voted in 2024 federal election, when Trump and Kamala were on the ballot

Fuller told reporters at his election night watch party, "I would describe this as an outright win."
"We know that the endorsement from President Trump made a difference in this race, and we're going to go and win it," continued the candidate. "I think it's time that the Republican vote unites and gets a representative to Capitol Hill as soon as possible."
Trump noted just before midnight, "Congratulations to Clay Fuller, of Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, on getting such a high percentage of the vote with 12 Republicans running. We want to make the next vote 'TOO BIG TO RIG.' Clay will be a GREAT Congressman — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!"
Notwithstanding his opponent's performance in a crowded Republican field, Harris claimed, "This race isn't over."
"Momentum is real. The coalition is growing," continued Harris. "Let’s finish what we started."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Allie Beth Stuckey shares her 3 biggest takeaways from the DOJ’s latest Epstein drop

On Friday, January 30, the U.S. Department of Justice released a massive trove of over 3 million pages of documents, along with roughly 180,000 images and 2,000 videos, related to investigations into Jeffrey Epstein.
This third file dump — the largest to date — has drawn intense attention due to its massive scope and the unverified but sensational claims linked to high-profile figures, including President Trump, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew, among others.
On a recent episode of “Relatable,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey shared her three biggest takeaways.
Allie first delivers an important preface: “Some of the files do mention prominent figures. … They have not been tied to any wrongdoing, any substantiated criminal activity in connection with this case. It is important to note that a mention of a famous individual does not necessarily mean that they were involved in Epstein's nefarious activities,” she says, noting that much of what is currently going viral is “uncorroborated tips” from anonymous sources, many of which have been deemed "not credible” by the FBI.
That said, there are still plenty of lessons we can take away from the information we were given.
Lesson #1: “Notice the nature of sin.”
“Sin makes you stupid. Lust, envy, selfish ambition — they all have a way of arresting our thinking. And Satan does his most effective work by overplaying the benefits of sin in our minds and downplaying its eventual consequences,” she says.
“These powerful people in science, medicine, business, finance, and politics all got caught up in Epstein's web, and they were enticed by this promise of connection and greater power and maybe unfettered pleasure in a lot of cases.”
“Some of them probably didn't intend to be involved in a criminal enterprise,” says Allie, “but little by little and small justification by small justification, they found themselves connected to an evil person, and, in some cases, they themselves started practicing evil things.”
Lesson #2: “Recalibrate our definition of success.”
Allie cautions against chasing wealth, power, and fame, as they can be a slippery slope into “ruin and destruction.” Sometimes when we’re denied by man — a promotion, invitation, or endorsement that would have given us a boost — there’s a good chance that it ends up being “God’s protection” over us.
She points to Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 19:24: “Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God,” as well as Paul’s warning in 1 Timothy 6:9-10: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pieced themselves with many pangs.”
“The seeking of wealth and power for the sake of wealth and power has a way of crowding out godly affections and replacing those affections with idolatry,” she summarizes.
“So we should thank the Lord for what he gives and what he takes away, knowing that his glory and our holiness is ultimately his goal. So we recalibrate the definition of success.”
Lesson #3: “Be grateful for a Christian civilization.”
“There are Jeffrey Epsteins throughout history across a wide variety of cultures. In fact, in many non-Western nations today, child marriage or raping underage girls is not seen as perverse. It's not seen as criminal,” says Allie. “The reason the West and the United States has a general consensus around the evil of pedophilia is because of Christianity.”
In the ancient world, she explains, children were often aborted, left outside to die, killed after birth, or forced into labor or prostitution.
“They didn't possess the physical strength that was lauded by Rome, and they didn't possess the full intellect or the logos that was lauded by Greece, so they were treated as kind of subhuman," says Allie. “And it wasn't until Christians introduced the world to the imago dei and preached this radical message of equality before our creator that slowly but surely the world changed how it saw children — not as animals but as these vulnerable people in need of extra protection.”
“The revulsion to Jeffrey Epstein and his ilk, whose actions are incredibly common throughout history, is actually evidence of the vestiges of the Christian conscience that forged the West and inspired the words that we read in the Declaration of Independence.”
To hear more, watch the full episode above.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Allie Beth Stuckey shreds ‘anti-ICE pastor’ arguing for open borders

Christians are being told by anti-ICE pastors like Ben Cremer that putting America first is unbiblical, that enforcing borders violates Scripture, and that letting Christian beliefs inform public policy is “Christian nationalism.”
And according to BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, none of that is true.
“We hear a lot from people like Ben Cremer that putting your country first is wrong, or allowing your Christian conservative views to inform how you vote, that that’s wrong,” Stuckey explains.
And eight months ago, Cremer posted, “Myth #1: Immigrants are a drain on our country.”
“What I’m most interested in is not that he’s saying that that’s a myth, but his response to that,” she comments, before reading Cremer’s response.
“The Bible never defines a person’s worth by their economic output. In fact, it warns us not to favor the rich over the poor (James 2:1-7). God’s kingdom is built not on cost-benefit analysis but on belovedness. The call to welcome the stranger (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19) is rooted in who God is — not in what the stranger can offer us,” Cremer wrote.
“He is conflating the kingdom of God with America. ... We’re not talking about God’s kingdom. We’re talking about the United States. So, actually, in him saying that Christian nationalists are trying to enforce some theocracy by allowing the law to be informed by what we believe, he is actually the one that is conflating our spiritual obligation to the poor in the spiritual kingdom of heaven with America here today,” Stuckey responds.
Stuckey also points out that the government was instituted by God, pointing to Romans 13:2-4, which explains that “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad,” and that the authority figure is “God’s servant for your good.”
“It was his idea. Law and law enforcement were God’s idea. Now, this right here is why it is so important to elect politicians that define good and evil how God defines them,” Stuckey says.
Cremer has also written in a post on his Instagram that “Christian Nationalism looks like hearing God say ‘I will pour out my spirit on all people’ in Acts 2 where all nations, languages, and tribes were present then protesting by saying ‘America first!’”
“There’s an irony in this accusation. Progressives, as I noted earlier, consistently conflate America and the church, which is the very thing they accuse Christian nationalists of doing,” Stuckey says.
“The truth is, hot take, we do not see the importance of ethnic diversity within nations or local churches anywhere in Scripture,” she continues. “Nowhere.”
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.
Did feminism create wokeness?

Helen Andrews recently revived discussion of what she calls the great feminization — the idea that as women come to numerically dominate institutions, those institutions begin to function differently, often badly. Her observations are important and largely correct. What follows is a friendly amendment to her thesis. I agree with much of what she sees, but I think an essential part of the story still needs to be named.
Let’s begin by laying out her argument clearly.
The psychological feminization of institutions preceded the numerical one. Men in power enabled it.
The great feminization thesis
Men and women, on average, tend to behave differently. For our purposes, the key distinction is this: Women tend to prioritize relationships and consensus-building, while men tend to prioritize rules, justice, and abstract principles.
Helen Andrews puts it this way: Women ask, "How do we make everyone feel okay?" Men ask, "What are the rules, and what is just?"
If we borrow a familiar parental analogy: Mothers want children to be happy; fathers want children to behave.
The great feminization thesis makes two claims:
- When women numerically dominate an institution — whether a profession, a university, or a bureaucracy — that institution will naturally drift toward more “feminine” priorities.
- What we now call “wokeness” is simply the institutionalization of those priorities.
From this, Andrews draws a sobering conclusion: If wokeness is driven by demographics rather than ideology, it will not simply burn itself out or be defeated by better arguments.
That observation is serious, largely correct, and incomplete.
Key takeaway #1: Wokeness is not the point — totalitarianism is the point
Anyone who thinks wokeness began in 2020 is already naïve. What we now call wokeness is simply a recycled version of an ideology that has been circulating since at least the 1930s. We have called it communism, socialism, political correctness, multiculturalism — and now wokeness. Same garbage, different label.
The label is not the point. The content is.
These ideologies all promise the impossible: the end of poverty, the end of discrimination, the end of pollution, even the end of viral disease. When people talk this way, look out. They are asking for a blank check — unlimited moral permission to acquire power in pursuit of an unattainable goal.
Doing the impossible requires enormous power. Convincing people that it is not only possible, but a moral duty, requires propaganda. These ideologies don’t work for you or for society as a whole. They work for the people who are trying to accumulate power, while endlessly moving the goalposts.
So worrying about where “wokeness” begins or ends is a distraction. Totalitarian aspiration is the point.
Key takeaway #2: The great feminization is more than numbers
The problems Helen Andrews identifies did not begin when women crossed the 50% mark in any institution. They began much earlier. Which means we cannot diagnose civilizational decline by counting heads alone.
The great feminization is not merely statistical. It is psychological and political.
Consider the case of Larry Summers, forced out as president of Harvard in 2006 after remarks about sex differences in aptitude at the extreme upper end of scientific fields. Importantly, Harvard was not majority-female at the time.
Several prominent women defended Summers. They noted that he was speaking off the record, citing substantial research, and had a long history of supporting women in academia. But those voices did not matter. What mattered were the women who expressed the greatest emotional distress — the ones who said they felt sick or faint.
Someone made a decision to elevate those reactions above truth-seeking and institutional integrity. Someone allowed the public to believe that “insensitivity” was the decisive issue. That decision mattered.
Key takeaway #3: Specific people made specific decisions
Treating wokeness or feminization as an automatic demographic process lets decision-makers off the hook. Institutions did not drift accidentally. People chose to reward grievance, punish dissent, and redefine excellence around emotional display.
Statistical generalizations obscure two crucial facts.
First, bell curves overlap. While men and women differ on average, individuals vary widely. Some women are more analytical than many men; some men more emotional than many women.
Second — and more importantly — no one’s behavior is predestined. The ability to regulate our emotions is a basic requirement of adulthood. Every functioning society expects adults to govern their reactions rather than demand that institutions reorganize themselves around tantrums.
The Yale moment
The 2015 Yale Halloween costume episode provides a clear example. A professor’s wife suggested students “be chill” about costumes. Students were outraged, with some of them having public meltdowns, demanding that Yale prioritize their emotional comfort over free inquiry.
Yale was not majority-female. Feminization alone cannot explain this behavior.
What we witnessed instead was a demand for paternal authority stripped of paternal discipline. “Make us feel safe,” the student insisted — while rejecting the professor’s insistence that other people have rights too.
When you smash the patriarchy, you don’t get freedom and justice. You get a spoiled 2-year-old running the place.
RELATED: Milo Yiannopolous dares to tell the truth about homosexuality

The sexual revolution and power
The psychological feminization of institutions preceded the numerical one. Men in power enabled it.
Businesses gained access to a new labor pool. Elite men rewrote workplace rules in ways that advantaged themselves while disadvantaging male competitors lower down the ladder. Universities institutionalized grievance disciplines. Contraceptive ideology separated sex from responsibility, granting men sexual access without paternal obligation.
Women did not enact these changes alone. Men cooperated — and benefited.
Key takeaway #4: Identity politics is a power-grab
Every wave of identity politics follows the same script: Emotional display replaces argument; disruption replaces persuasion; grievance replaces evidence.
“We are oppressed. You owe us.”
This is not really a moral argument at all. It is a power-grab.
Helen Andrews has done a real service by calling attention to the deep problems that majority-female professions and institutions may present. But we have to go deeper than demographics. We have to be willing to say — calmly, firmly, and without apology — "I don’t care how offended you say you are. You still have to behave."
Men and women alike benefit from that expectation. And the future of civilization and free institutions really does depend on it.
This essay is adapted from the following video, which originally appeared on the Ruth Institute's YouTube channel.
BlazeTV host shares 3 personal experiences PROVING the Islamification of America is happening RIGHT NOW

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales has been sounding the alarm on the Islamification of the United States — the deliberate plan to replace traditional American culture, laws, and national identity with Islamic values, cultural practices, and Sharia-influenced demands — but she fears people aren’t taking the threat seriously enough.
On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara shares three personal experiences that make it clear just how far the plan to Islamify America is already underway.
#1: Meta banned Sara’s anti-Sharia ad
Sara is the vice president of Texas Family Project, a conservative advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening the state of Texas by prioritizing parental rights, protecting the innocence of children, and reforming how the state government and its institutions view families.
When TFP recently tried to purchase an ad from Meta (Facebook and Instagram), it was denied.
The ad simply stated: “Sharia has no place in Texas.”
“[Sharia law] is incompatible with this country ... the Constitution ... the laws in the state of Texas,” says Sara. “That should be something very simple and noncontroversial. We're not saying ‘get out if you're brown. Get out if you're Islamic. Get out if you're Muslim.”’
Even still, Meta rejected TFP’s ad request with a message stating, “Your ad contains content that is not allowed on Meta’s advertising platforms.”
“You're not allowed now to say on Facebook, on Meta, that Sharia law has no place in this country, in the state of Texas. That's how far we're in with this whole Islam thing,” says Sara.
#2: Dallas suburbs turning into foreign enclaves
“The Texas Muslim population is approximately half a million people. By the way, these are conservative estimates ... but just know I believe it's far larger, far larger,” says Sara.
“I walk around in the DFW suburbs — Plano, Richardson, Irving, Carrollton. I don't see anyone like me,” she adds.
“I don't want that to sound like, ‘Oh, if they have a different color skin, they can't be here.’ No — it's just like they're speaking different languages; they're wearing clothing that we don't wear here in America.”
On top of these huge cultural differences, Sara’s experience with these foreign-born Texans hasn’t exactly been up to the Lone Star State’s hospitality standards.
“They have no intention of speaking to me or becoming friendly with me. That is very clear,” she says.
#3: Public school sending multi-language ‘holiday’ emails
Sara displays an email about a “holiday party” from a large public school in the DFW metroplex. As you can see in the tweet below, the message is available in multiple languages, including Farsi, Urdu, Arabic, Pashto, and Spanish.
— (@)
“They couldn't call it the ‘Christmas party’ ... [and] why do we need that many translations for a school newsletter in America?” scoffs Sara.
“How is this Texas? How is this America?”
While the examples above are personal to Sara, her list of ways Texas is rapidly changing under Islamic influence goes on and on. To hear more about the dangers Texans — and Americans at large — face as the country becomes increasingly inhabited by people whose religious doctrine commands them to kill anyone who refuses to convert, watch the full episode above.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
