It's quasi consumer fraud on a global scale.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s electric vehicle mileage ratings are misleading millions, inflating EV efficiency and hiding the true energy cost of driving green. And it all comes down to one little number.

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

It’s time to pull back the curtain on the EPA’s Miles Per Gallon equivalent figure, a metric that’s been covering the truth about EVs for years. This flawed foundation overstates efficiency while shortchanging hybrids and traditional cars. This isn’t just a technical glitch; it’s a distortion that could sway your next car purchase and sabotage the resale of your electric car.

Stick with me as we dig into the numbers, uncover the truth, and explore why this scam happened. And make sure to share this with anyone who’s ever wondered if EVs are really as green as they’re made out to be.

MPGe: A flawed metric

The Obama administration EPA introduced MPGe to help consumers compare the efficiency of electric vehicles to traditional gas-powered cars. It’s supposed to represent how far an EV can travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.

On paper, it’s a tidy way to level the playing field. For example, the EPA rated the 2011 Nissan Leaf at 99 MPGe, suggesting it’s nearly three times as efficient as a typical gas car getting 35 MPG. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: The EPA’s calculation assumes a perfect world, where gasoline is converted to electricity with no energy loss.

That’s not just optimistic — it’s physically impossible.

The EPA’s methodology takes the energy content of a gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTUs) and divides it by the energy in a kilowatt-hour of electricity (3,412 BTUs), arriving at a conversion factor of 33.7 kWh per gallon. Using this, it calculates how far an EV travels per kWh and converts it to MPGe.

The problem? This assumes 100% efficiency in turning fossil fuels into electricity at power plants, ignoring the messy reality of energy production. According to the EPA’s own data from October 2024, the average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. is just 36%. That means 64% of the energy is lost as heat, friction, and other forms of energy waste before it ever reaches your EV’s battery.

Getty Images/Xinhua News Agency

The Department of Energy’s reality check

Contrast this with the Department of Energy’s approach, which accounts for real-world power plant efficiencies and the fuel mix used to generate electricity. The DOE also factors in the energy required to refine and transport gasoline for traditional cars, creating a fairer comparison.

When you apply the DOE’s methodology, the numbers tell a different story. That 99 MPGe Nissan Leaf? It drops to a much humbler 36 MPGe — still respectable but far less impressive. This is roughly equivalent to a good hybrid like the Toyota Prius or even some efficient gas cars like the Honda CR-V. Suddenly, EVs don’t look like the runaway efficiency champions they’re made out to be.

So why does this discrepancy matter? The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures create a false impression that EVs are seven times more efficient than gas-powered cars, which can mislead consumers and policymakers. It’s not just about bragging rights; these numbers influence fuel economy standards, tax incentives, and even what cars automakers prioritize. If you’re shopping for a car, you deserve the truth about what you’re getting — not a rosy picture that glosses over real-world energy costs.

A violation of physics

The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.

Power plants, whether coal, natural gas, or oil-fired, lose significant energy as heat during electricity generation. Transmission lines and battery charging add further losses. By ignoring these, the EPA’s MPGe paints an unrealistically efficient picture of EVs.

Meanwhile, gas-powered cars and hybrids are judged strictly on their tailpipe efficiency, with no such generous assumptions. This double standard tilts the playing field, making EVs appear far superior when the reality is different.

The Biden administration’s push for EVs, including stringent emissions standards aiming for 67% of new car sales to be electric by 2032, amplifies the issue. These policies rely on MPGe to justify EV mandates, but the DOE’s more realistic calculations suggest hybrids and efficient gas vehicles could achieve similar reductions in fossil fuel use without forcing a wholesale shift to EVs. The DOE’s method shows that EVs, while efficient in their own right (using 87%-91% of battery energy for propulsion compared to 16%-25% for gas cars) don’t deliver the massive efficiency leaps MPGe suggests when you account for the full energy cycle.

'Lightning' in a bottle?

The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures aren’t just a technical oversight — they have real-world consequences. Federal fuel economy standards, like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, use MPGe to determine compliance. High MPGe ratings allow automakers to offset less efficient gas-powered vehicles with fewer EVs, which sounds good but can mask the true environmental impact.

For instance, the Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup was credited with 237.7 MPGe under old rules, but a more realistic DOE estimate drops it to 67.1 MPGe — still efficient but not a miracle worker. This inflates automakers’ fleet averages without necessarily reducing fossil fuel use as much as claimed.

Consumers feel the pinch, too. EVs are often marketed as the ultimate green choice, but the EPA’s numbers obscure the fact that most U.S. electricity (about 60% in 2024) comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In regions heavy in coal production, like parts of the Midwest, charging an EV can produce as much greenhouse gas as a gas-powered hybrid. The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator, developed with the DOE, lets you check emissions by zip code, revealing how your local grid affects an EV’s true environmental impact. This is critical information the MPGe figure conveniently ignores.

Hybrids, which combine gas and electric power, often get shortchanged in this narrative. A hybrid like the Toyota Prius can achieve 50 MPG or more in real-world driving, rivaling the DOE’s adjusted MPGe for many EVs without relying on a charging infrastructure that’s still spotty in rural areas. Yet, the EPA’s MPGe metric makes hybrids look less impressive, potentially steering buyers away from a practical, cost-effective option.

Policy or politics?

The Biden administration’s aggressive EV agenda, including the 2024 emissions standards aiming for a 50% reduction in light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, leaned heavily on MPGe to justify its goals. These rules projected that EVs could account for 35%-56% of new vehicle sales by 2030, a target that shrunk after pushback from automakers and unions worried about job losses and consumer choice. The administration also adjusted DOE’s EV mileage ratings in 2024, gradually reducing them by 65% through 2030 to better reflect real-world efficiencies, but the EPA’s MPGe figures still dominate public perception.

RELATED: Paul Brian, 1951-2024

Lauren Fix

Critics argue this focus on EVs, propped up by inflated MPGe, prioritizes political goals over practical solutions. The Trump administration’s EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has since moved to reconsider these rules, citing overreach and costs exceeding $700 billion. It argues that mandating EVs limits consumer choice and raises costs for all vehicles, as automakers offset EV losses with higher prices on gas-powered models. Recently, President Trump signed into law the removal of the EV mandate, and this is a win for consumer choice.

Transparency and choice

So is the EPA’s MPGe a deliberate scam? Not exactly, but it’s a misleading metric that overpromises EV benefits while undervaluing alternatives. And it's been tricking almost everyone for years!

The EPA’s methodology needs to be corrected. The honest numbers would let consumers compare EVs, hybrids, and gas cars on equal terms. The Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator is a step in the right direction, showing how local grids affect EV emissions, but it’s underutilized compared to the flashy MPGe sticker on new cars.

You deserve to know the true energy cost of your vehicle — whether it’s plugged in, filled up, or both. The EPA’s MPGe has skewed perceptions, making EVs seem like a silver bullet when hybrids and efficient gas cars often deliver comparable benefits without the infrastructure headaches. With the Trump administration now removing EV mandates and reducing CAFE standards, there’s a chance to reset the conversation. Policies should prioritize innovation and consumer choice, not inflated metrics that favor one technology over another.

This isn’t just about car shopping; it’s about the future of transportation and energy. It's better to tell consumers the truth and not inflate MPGe figures that can mislead you into purchasing a vehicle that doesn’t go the promised distance. Hybrids, efficient gas cars, and EVs all have a role to play, but only if we judge them fairly.

Share this article with friends who are car shopping or curious about the EV hype — it could save them thousands and spark a conversation. The EPA must ditch MPGe and give drivers the unfiltered truth about vehicle efficiency.

Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price

Ten years ago, a great injustice was done to children.

In Obergefell vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court equated two things that for children will never be equal: Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. One pairing unites children with two people to whom they have a natural right. The other separates children from one — or both.

Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.

As many of us predicted, gay marriage eroded children’s right to their mother and father. It turns out, when you make husbands and wives legally optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become legally optional in parenthood.

Family redefined, kids sidelined

Since 2015, activists have been arguing state by state that equality requires making parenthood gender-neutral and elevating “social parents” (unrelated adults in the home who have not undergone background checks). Fathers have been legally erased from birth certificates to accommodate “two moms” and vice versa. Activists have insisted on requiring insurance or the government to fund the creation of fatherless and motherless children. Biology and adoption are bypassed in favor of “intent-based” parenthood. Giving same-sex couples equal access to the marital “constellation of benefits” denied children equal access to their own mother and father.

Politicians have followed suit.

When was the last time you heard a lawmaker say that children need a mom and dad? Odds are, it's been about 10 years. In 2013-14, the phrase “every child deserves a mother and father” appeared in over 30 congressional speeches. By 2023-24, it surfaced fewer than five times.

The message is clear: Redefining marriage redefined the family. Dissent is now discrimination.

Culture followed the court

But it isn't just law and politics. The Supreme Court's decision had a massive impact on culture, especially on kids.

The education establishment went all in on the Court-appointed family makeover. Before 2015, the National Education Association still referred to “mothers” and “fathers” in lesson plans and holiday activities. But after the ruling, it began purging traditional language.

Its 2020 “Checklist to Support LGBTQ Students” advised teachers to replace “mom and dad” with “family” or “caring adult.” GLSEN’s 2016 re-release of Ready, Set, Respect! toolkit conditioned kindergartners and first- and second-graders to believe that a mom and dad, two moms, two dads, or no mom or dad, all are perfectly normal.

What the Court de-gendered in law, teachers now de-gender in the classroom.

Publishers followed the court’s lead — and the money.

In 2021, Americans bought nearly five million LGBTQ-themed fiction books. By 2023, that figure had topped six million, a 173% increase since 2019. Many aimed to normalize motherless and fatherless families to children such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "My Two Dads and Me."

We lied to children, using school curriculum and sweet librarians, about the one thing every child longs for instinctually — to be loved by their mother and father.

The culture shift and the legal restructuring contributed to a booming fertility market. Surrogate pregnancies more than doubled from 2.2% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2020. Fertility clinics often direct gay couples to surrogacy grants in the name of “equitable access to parenthood.”

These children did not lose their mothers to tragedy. They lost their mothers to adult “equality.”

Enough is enough

Many good-hearted Americans, even conservatives, supported gay marriage because they felt it was a way to love their LGBTQ neighbors. Some stammered for a response to the question: “How will my gay marriage harm anyone else?!” Others were bullied into silence by accusations that they were “on the wrong side of history.”

After 10 years, we have seen the results. Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.

The truth is, their “marriage” redefined all families, and children across the nation are paying the price. That so-called “right side of history” has turned out to be the side of child victimization.

About 50 years ago, the Supreme Court made a devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children in the womb are fully human and worthy of life. It took nearly 50 years to overturn the child-victimizing Roe v. Wade.

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court made another devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children come from a man and woman and have a right to that man and woman. It redefined the institution that every society throughout history has employed to unite children to that man and woman.

We can't wait another 50 years to undo this injustice.

A coalition of child defenders is rising — Christians, conservatives, parents, pro-family leaders, ordinary moms and dads, and the children of LGBT parents themselves. We are committed to reclaiming the institution of marriage on behalf of the most vulnerable in the country: children.

Dean Cain scores with family-friendly sports flick 'Little Angels'

Dean Cain’s father gave his son valuable advice at the dawn of his Hollywood career.

“Don’t tell too much about yourself in interviews. Let them watch you on screen,” Cain recalls his father, veteran director Christopher Cain (“Young Guns,” “Pure Country”), sharing with him at the start of his Hollywood career.

'My closest friends are teammates from Princeton,' he says. 'I know what they’re made of. ... You learn so much about people by being teammates with them.'

Dean Cain heeded Dad’s wisdom … to a point.

Cain learned firsthand the inequities of the nation’s divorce laws while fighting for joint custody of his then-young son. Later, he traveled the globe and gained perspective on his home country’s woes.

It’s why he started speaking up on important issues and sharing his right-leaning views. It also explains his pivot to independent film projects over the past decade.

“I’m sure it affected my career,” Cain tells Align of his political views. It’s a risk he was willing to take. “Not speaking up is crazy to me. … If you have something to say, speak the truth and hopefully make the world a better place.”

From Superman to soccer coach

Cain continues to work steadily on film and TV projects, from faith-kissed stories (“God’s Not Dead: In God We Trust”) to his latest feature, an underdog sports story he wrote and directed.

“Little Angels" opened nationwide earlier this month and continues to expand to new theaters — thanks to a feature on its website allowing users to request a screening in their area.

The movie finds Cain playing a disgraced football coach forced to oversee a girls' soccer team. It’s the ultimate indignity for his character until he sets his mind to turning this ragtag bunch of athletes into winners.

Cain’s fans may find his foray into screenwriting surprising, but he’s been telling stories ever since he was a boy. The “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman” alum recalls his father nudging him to tap his creative side.

A writer at heart

“My dad started me as a writer,” Cain recalls, and he warmed to the task. “We’d go on vacation at our ranch house, and when it was raining, instead of watching TV I’d make up stories about our family.”

He later wrote episodes of “Lois & Clark,” but his bustling acting career took precedence. “The demands on my time were intense,” he recalls.

“Little Angels” allowed him to tap into that skill set, and along the way he leaned on the classic writing maxim.

Write what you know.

Pinnacle Peak Pictures

Team player

Cain was a first-team All-American and two-time first-team All-Ivy for Princeton in the late 1980s and had a brief NFL career with the Buffalo Bills before a knee injury ended his gridiron dreams. He also ran track at Princeton and was its volleyball captain.

He assembled his youthful cast amid pandemic restrictions, forcing him to skip chemistry reads and trust his instincts. The young girls bonded on the set, becoming faux teammates and real friends along the way.

Cain knows the feeling.

“My closest friends are teammates from Princeton,” he says. “I know what they’re made of, what they’re like in stressful situations. I know what their characters are like. You learn so much about people by being teammates with them.”

“It’s akin to what happens in the movie. They learn to stick up for each other,” he adds.

'Truth, justice, and the American way'

Cain’s “Superman” days remain an indelible part of his legacy, and he remains invested in the character. He’s hoping James Gunn’s “Superman,” opening July 11, captures the Man of Steel he modeled his own performance on — the "aw, shucks" Christopher Reeve version seen in four films.

Lou Perez

“He’s my Superman,” he says of the late actor, who captured the essence of the DC Comics superhero, a fictional character who means plenty to Cain. “He is truth and justice and the American way. That is really important. Hard work. Dedication. Being honorable. … I know it’s cynical now, but it still plays and resonates with many.”

“Little Angels” marks Cain’s feature-length directorial debut, but he’s been soaking up information from film sets for decades.

“I watched [my dad] go through his process as a director. He’d have to make his movies on a shoestring budget,” he says, adding that family members helped flesh out scenes along the way. He recalls his uncle holding a boom mic to make some scenes possible.

“I’ve always been around it,” he says of the filmmaking craft. Now, he can’t wait to do it again.

“I’m hooked. I want to keep doing it,” he says. “I like the process. It didn’t feel much like work.”

New 'Superman' and 'Fantastic Four' face fearsome foe: Audience fatigue

This July, Earth's greatest heroes meet their most formidable foe yet ... an indifferent audience.

At least, that's the worry as DC and Marvel go head-to-head for summer blockbuster season's main event: Disney's "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" vs. Warner Bros.' "Superman."

To be fair, Garner's character is canonical — she plays Shalla-Bal, the female successor to OG Silver Surfer Norrin Rad. It still feels like Marvel is up to its old tricks.

Does the fate of the world hang in the balance? No, but the fate of Hollywood might.

After years of alienating moviegoers by prioritizing leftist virtue-signaling over entertainment, the industry hopes to put people back in the seats next month with some good, old-fashioned tentpole crowd-pleasers. And what better to lure them in than two big-budget exemplars of the genre that has dominated the multiplex for the better part of two decades?

Except that audiences have been showing signs of superhero fatigue in the last few years, raising worries that this much-ballyhooed showdown may turn out to be box office Kryptonite.

'Superman' (July 11)

When Warner Bros. hired James Gunn as co-head of DC Studios, the announcement was met with mixed feelings.

While many were excited for the "Guardians of the Galaxy" director to dip his toes in the world of DC after the successes of "The Suicide Squad" and "Peacemaker," some feared his signature humor and style would be a turnoff to mainstream audiences. Emotions on both sides intensified when Gunn announced he would be writing and directing the first movie of the post-Zack Snyder DCEU, "Superman."

Newcomer David Corenswet takes the reins from Henry Cavill as the Man of Steel, with Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, and Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, a leading member of the Green Lantern Corps.

David McNew/Getty Images

Multiple trailers have led to plenty of speculation — and with it, sparring. Detractors cite poorly received test screenings, as well as unconfirmed rumors that the plot revolves around Lex Luthor using social media to garner hate for Superman with the hashtag “#Supers**t."

One thing seems certain: Whatever some fans find to criticize about the new "Superman," it won't be political pandering. Having himself felt the wrath of cancel culture, Gunn seems dead set on appealing to as wide an audience as possible.

Commenting on the film's first teaser trailer, which features shots of a bruised and battle-weary hero, Gunn said,

We do have a battered Superman in the beginning. That is our country. ... I believe in the goodness of human beings, and I believe that most people in this country, despite their ideological beliefs, their politics, are doing their best to get by and be good people — despite what it may seem like to the other side, no matter what that other side might be.

This movie is about that. It’s about the basic kindness of human beings and that it can be seen as uncool and under siege [by] some of the darker voices [and] some of the louder voices.”

Considering how vocal Gunn has been about his disdain for Donald Trump in the past, it’s refreshing to see the director offer signs that his movie will let viewers leave their differences at the door.

Fans of this new take have praised the performances, bright color palette, and a tone that feels more in line with the iconic 1978 Christopher Reeve-led "Superman." Will "Superman" save the industry? Strong pre-ticket sales suggest it has enough wind under its cape to soar well above Hollywood’s expectations.

'The Fantastic Four: First Steps' (July 25)

"The Fantastic Four: First Steps" looks to continue the goodwill earned by this spring's "Thunderbolts*," which opened to high praise from audiences and critics alike despite disappointing box office.

After underwhelming iterations of Marvel's first family in 2005 and 2015 (the less said about the unreleased 1994 version, the better), the studio is hoping the third time's the charm.

Starring Pedro Pascal as Mr. Fantastic/Reed Richards, Vanessa Kirby as Invisible Woman/Sue Storm, Joseph Quinn as Human Torch/Johnny Storm, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach as The Thing/Ben Grimm, "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" features the team going up against one of Marvel’s most feared villains: Galactus, the devourer of worlds.

If that will appease traditionalists, the gender-swapping of beloved Marvel mainstay the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) is bound to raise eyebrows — and attract more sniping at the "M-SHE-U."

To be fair, Garner's character is canonical — she plays Shalla-Bal, the female successor to OG Silver Surfer Norrin Rad. Point taken, but it still feels like Marvel is up to its old tricks.

Comments by producer Grant Curtis earlier this month certainly don't help matters.

“If you do go back through the comics," said Curtis, "you realize that Sue Storm is arguably the leader of the Fantastic Four, because without Sue Storm, everything falls apart.”

Many fans will be quick to point out the obvious: Mr. Fantastic has always been portrayed as the leader, with Invisible Woman taking on a more motherly role. For his part, however, Pedro Pascal doesn’t seem to mind being sidelined. In fact, he seems to welcome it.

I love being led in a way. What you may identify as generosity for me, it just isn't. I'm only inspired by … I guess just powerful women have been the thing that has gotten me through being alive. So to have the opportunity to stand by one, to learn from one — just a partner, it's partnership; it’s male and female, but it's also just a kind of transcendent sort of partnership in the work and in the characters. And so I don't really know what the f**k I'm gonna do without you [Vanessa] honestly,".

In addition to flaunting his "male feminist" bona fides (and giving fans the "ick" with his awkward shows of affection toward Kirby), Pascal has also drawn negative attention with his outspokenness on immigration policy. None of this has won over those for whom Pascal is simply and profoundly miscast as Reed Richards.

Worse, rumors that stars including Adam Driver, Jake Gyllenhaal, Christopher Abbott, and Jamie Dornan passed on the role before it went to Pascal suggest that it's the script's revisionist portrayal of Mr. Fantastic that is the problem — despite director Matt Shakman's insistence that he has looked to the original comics for inspiration.

That inspiration is certainly evident in the film's setting, a futuristic 1960s alternate reality that nicely pays homage to the original vision of "Fantastic Four" creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Pascal aside, the casting of "Fantastic Four" promises a satisfying adaptation, as does the comic-book-accurate appearance of Galactus (Ralph Ineson) — a far cry from the cloud-like space cluster depicted in 2007 sequel "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer."

While "First Steps’" pre-sales trail behind those of "Superman," they're impressive enough for Marvel to be optimistic.

Of course, no amount of hype, armchair producing, or post-credits "Avengers: Doomsday" teases can turn either of these movies into a hit. That power remains squarely with us: the audience.

In that spirit, which of these two movies are you looking forward to seeing? Or will you be forgoing superheroics altogether in favor of the seventh "Jurassic Park" movie? Let us know in the comments below.

Whoopi's warped I-rant leaves 'The View' co-hosts speechless

“The View” co-hosts Sara Haines and Alyssa Farah Griffin now know how the rest of us feel.

Audiences have endured an endless string of fake news stories, crazed conspiracies, and more from the toxic ABC News product.

The scariest part for tomorrow’s filmmakers? 'A Better Tomorrow' required just 30 people to complete.

We roll our eyes, laugh, and stare agape, wondering why the top brass isn’t ashamed to put the network’s name on the product.

Haines and Griffin must be numb to it all, enduring it five days a week while the paychecks keep clearing. Last week, however, Whoopi Goldberg’s commentary proved too much for even them.

The trouble began with the panel debating the latest Israeli attacks on Iran and the prospect of the U.S. entering the fray. That led to this bewildering exchange between Goldberg and Griffin.

Griffin began by explaining how the human rights abuses in Iran are far worse than what citizens face in the U.S. It’s a “the sky is blue” comment, except uber-patriot Goldberg disagreed.

GOLDBERG: We've been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car!

FARAH GRIFFIN: I’m sorry, but where the Iranian regime is today is nothing compared to the United States!

GOLDBERG: Listen, I'm sorry! They used to just keep hanging black people!

FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s not even the same! I couldn’t step foot wearing this outfit in Iran right now ... I think it's very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran.

GOLDBERG: Not if you're black!

HOSTIN: Not for everybody!

GOLDBERG: Not if you're black!

Haines jumped in, trying to bring sanity to the discussion, but Goldberg wouldn’t budge.

This really happened on a major television network, not a YouTube channel with 25 indifferent subscribers ...

Anadolu/Kevin Mazur/Getty Imagesed

China's 'Better' AI bet

U.S.-based film studios are treading carefully vis-à-vis AI. Very carefully.

They don’t want to be seen as pushing digital creativity over human inspiration, and the recent industry strikes offered limited protections for cast and crew against the AI revolution.

China has no such compunctions.

In fact, the China Film Foundation recently announced two new AI-driven projects: the restoration of 100 martial arts films and the first completely AI-produced animated film: “A Better Tomorrow: Cyber Border.”

The scariest part for tomorrow’s filmmakers? “A Better Tomorrow” required just 30 people to complete. Now, recall watching any MCU film and seeing the waves of names floating by during the end credits.

It’s no wonder Hollywood is very, very nervous ...

'Mega' millions

Find a spouse who will love you as much as Francis Ford Coppola loves “Megalopolis.” The auteur’s 2024 film earned rough reviews and an even worse commercial drubbing. It’s still Coppola’s baby, despite it costing him tens of millions.

Literally.

With a box office tally of only $14 million, the Mega-flop didn't come close to making back its estimated $120 million budget — most of which came from the “Apocalypse Now” director's own pockets. That’s commitment, and his relationship with the film is far from over.

Coppola has yanked “Megalopolis” from its brief VOD platform run and refuses to let the movie be shown on streaming platforms or Blu-ray. Instead, he’s about to start a limited U.S. tour where he’ll screen the film and provide post-movie commentary.

We’ll know it’s true love if he announces a sequel during the tour ...

Lane's gay panic

Thoughts and prayers go out to Nathan Lane. He just caught a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome.

The TV/film/Broadway actor is currently appearing in “Mid-Century Modern,” Hulu’s new gay sitcom. Lane is proud of the show but fears it could come to a crashing halt at any point. Is he worried about low ratings or disinterested Hulu executives? Perhaps the show’s budget is too expensive for the streamer?

No. He thinks Orange Man Bad might make it disappear.

“Is it going to change any minds? I don’t know about that. Trump, if he knew we were on the air, would probably try to shut it down, come after Hulu. But I think it’s a great thing to have right now, in the midst of books being banned and, ‘Don’t say this and don’t say gay and don’t do that.’ I think it’s a perfect time for a show like this.”

Maybe Lane should press Scott Bessent about his fears. Bessent is Trump’s treasury secretary, an openly gay man. He seems quite happy to be where is he today. Can Lane say the same?

How we help 'gay' men and women 'Leave Pride Behind'

You may have noticed that corporate America’s enthusiasm for Pride Month has waned.

But business leaders aren't the only ones pulling back from public celebration of “Pride.” Many ordinary people are retreating from full-on support for the demands of the LGBT lobby.

Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity.

Most importantly, many people who once identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or transgender have abandoned that identity. In some cases, they have completely reinterpreted their own past behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and political commitments. These brave men and women have left Pride behind.

Over the rainbow

If you’ve sensed that Pride-themed advertising has declined since 2023, you’re not wrong. A new survey finds that 43% of Fortune 1,000 companies are dialing back their external support for Pride Month in 2025. Social media feeds, once filled with rainbow branding, are strikingly subdued this year. No embarrassing displays by nonbinary “influencers” trying to sell beer. No doubt, the business community is responding to the views of the broader public.

A recent survey revealed that nearly 60% of Americans now prefer corporations to stay neutral on political and social issues.

At the same time, many Americans are questioning the goals and tactics of LGBT activism. People are starting to realize the cost of this ideology, particularly when it conflicts with faith, family, and biological reality. People are repelled by the sight of parents losing custody of their children for failing to “affirm” the child’s “gender identity.” Ordinary folk are cheering when J.K. Rowling takes down trans activists online.

'Obergefell' remorse

And people also intuit that redefining marriage in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case opened the door to transgenderism in the schools, drag queen story hours, and much more. As a result, the public is rethinking its commitments to policies such as genderless marriage. Gallup polling shows public support for same-sex marriage has dipped from 71% in 2022 to 68% in 2025. Among Republicans, the drop is even more dramatic — from 55% to just 41% over the past three years.

Even more interesting and significant is the group of people that we at the Ruth Institute refer to as those who have “left Pride behind.” Some in the public refer to this group of people as “ex-gays.” We hesitate to use this terminology, because most of them do not refer to themselves in this way. They might refer to themselves as “once gay.” They might call themselves “overcomers” or “people who have journeyed away from an LGBT identity.”

Many of them do not accept the term “gay” as an identity label in the first place. At most, they regard the term “gay” or “same-sex attracted” as a description of an attribute, which may or may not be permanent. For many people, “gay” is emphatically not an identity. So they certainly do not want to call themselves “ex-gay.”

Stories of transformation

That is why we at the Ruth Institute refer to them as people who have left Pride behind. Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity. These interviews include stories of transformation, healing, and faith. They challenge the destructive ideology that sexual orientation or gender identity is permanent and must be celebrated through political activism.

These brave men and women have left Pride behind, not just metaphorically, but literally. They’ve humbled themselves enough to say, “I was on the wrong path. I am willing to take responsibility for myself, my choices, and the totality of my life.” They risk the ridicule and censure of people they thought were their friends.

Amazingly, many of the people who have left Pride behind have also left other baggage. They have had bad things done to them. They’ve left blame behind. They’ve done things for which they are deeply sorry and ashamed. They’ve left toxic shame behind. They’ve done the best they could in deeply trying and confusing situations. They’ve left excuse-making behind.

In short, they have peace in their lives.

Evading the evidence

The LGBT political establishment thinks these people don’t exist. According to the “official voice” of the LGBT community, no one can change sexual orientation. People who say they have changed are either kidding themselves and will surely revert to their natural gay selves any minute, or they weren’t really gay in the first place.

That is a cop-out, evading the evidence rather than confronting it. This attitude is also deeply disrespectful. If corporate America can leave Pride behind, so can once-gay individuals. Personally, I have the utmost respect for those who have chosen to leave Pride behind.

I invite you to visit the Ruth Institute's YouTube channel. Get acquainted with the stories of those who have left Pride behind. Are they all lying or kidding themselves? Decide for yourself. I’m convinced that these are brave and honest individuals who have earned my respect.

God, Israel, and America First: Inside the biblical battle for our future

With the battle between Israel and Iran moving from decades of proxy warring to an all-out crisis, world leaders have been waiting, watching, and nervously pondering what happens next.

And as the political implications cause deep concern, some of the theological issues implicit in the discussion have moved from percolating and bubbling under the surface to outright erupting.

There’s undoubtedly something special about Israel and the Hebrew people, through whom Jesus came.

The age-old biblical questions surrounding modern-day Israel and its relevance to prophecy sit at the core of these heated debates, as Christians ponder the modern Jewish state’s connection to the Old Testament, prophecy, and how those sentiments impact contemporary Christians’ views on how the U.S. and other nations should respond to the current crisis.

This theo-political skirmish burst onto the main stage after a verbal showdown between Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The two now-infamously clashed, in part, over how Christians should respond to the Israel-Iran war.

The Cruz-Carlson spat intensified when Cruz proclaimed that he was taught in church that “those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed” and that support for modern Israel is a biblical command.

“Biblically, we are commanded to support Israel,” Cruz clarified after Carlson pushed back and questioned whether believers are truly commanded to “support the government of Israel.” When Cruz didn’t back down, Carlson demanded that the congressman “define Israel.”

The wick of an ever-smoldering theological debate was immediately lit on social media, with people on all sides pouring gasoline on the resulting flames.

Kayla Bartkowski / Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

Ultimately, the main question centers on whether God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 is speaking about the Jewish people or the nation of Israel — and whether Christianity is the ultimate continuation of that pledge.

“The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing,’” reads Genesis 12:1-2. Verse 3 continues: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’”

Cruz's critics match up this passage with the apostle Paul's words in Galatians 3:16, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”

Thus, some interpreters see Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, while others still see the state of Israel as biblically significant.

Truth in tension

But I’ve often been left wondering: Why can’t both be true?

As we assess these scriptures and consider whether modern-day Israel deserves unfettered support due to prophetic sentiments, we must confront two different realities. First, Israel is unlike any other nation in human history. Its formation, disappearance, and re-emergence raise important questions. It's a special nation composed of people through whom God has chosen to accomplish His will and offer salvation to all mankind.

Second, humans are prone to sin, and no nation run by mere mortals should be supported unconditionally without accountability. The entirety of the Bible is a testament not only to God’s truth and goodness but also to the pitfalls of man’s folly — even great men like David, Solomon, and Peter.

Ironically, it’s possible that both Cruz and Carlson are speaking kernels of truth or at least asking important questions we must ponder.

History meets prophecy

To first address Cruz, we must pull back and reflect on the stunning facts surrounding modern-day Israel’s existence.

When I was writing my book “Armageddon Code,” an exploration of various Christian beliefs about the end times, Israel’s contemporary existence truly struck me, particularly when I read the prophet Ezekiel’s words in Ezekiel 38, which was likely written during the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people in the sixth century B.C.

The prophet foresaw a future time when the Jewish people, who had been driven out and scattered, would come back to their homeland. For nearly 1,900 years after the Second Temple’s destruction in the year 70, the Jewish people were dispersed and persecuted; the idea there would ever again be a Jewish state seemed folly to most.

But the Bible boldly predicted its re-emergence. Ezekiel 37 speaks of a valley of dry bones — imagery invoking skeletal remains coming back together, with tendons, skin, and flesh re-growing. This visualization is said to be Israel as it is restored to the land, with the Lord proclaiming in verse 12: “My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.”

For nearly 20 centuries, these words seemed almost implausible — until the Holocaust and its aftermath left the Jewish people around the world reeling and seeking refuge. Remarkably, on May 14, 1948, the modern state of Israel was born.

To deny the prophetic significance is true folly, as no other people group in history has seen its land disappear from the map only to re-emerge nearly two millennia later — all while events lined up with what a prophet penned more than 2,000 years before.

There’s undoubtedly something special about Israel and the Hebrew people, through whom Jesus came. Any student of prophecy knows that the geographic area is key to still-to-be-fulfilled events, and the book of Revelation highlights its involvement in the end times.

Defending freedom — with wisdom

Beyond theological considerations, Israel is one of the main bastions of sanity in the Middle East, a place where freedom reigns. The Jewish state is a key American ally. That's why constant pledges to wipe it off the face of the earth by political foes like Iran should spark deep concern.

This doesn’t mean America must co-sign each and every Israeli action, nor does it require that Americans participate in Israel's conflicts. People and nations sin, and Israeli malfeasance — if and when it occurs, just like America’s — must be called to account.

Moreover, from a purely nationalistic position, there are times when “America First” means steering clear of international crises. Past military debacles and quagmires should be overwhelmingly pertinent testaments to our need for caution.

But there are also times when “America First” means intervening to protect American interests. Poor past decisions and wars don’t render every conflict unworthy; such a posture could leave the U.S. in a perilous place.

There’s no world in which a nuclear Iran is good for anyone, and burying our heads in the sand while pretending it's not happening is begging for terror.

So yes: Modern-day Israel holds prophetic significance and meaning. It’s a good, solid, and biblical posture to defend the Jewish people.

But even if you deny the biblical foundation of this argument, it’s morally expedient for our nation to help a friend ward off fiendish foes — enemies that also seek America’s destruction.

Still, such deterrence should always be done in a prayerful, political balance that ensures we truly weigh our engagement against truth, goodness, and American interests. As is the case in all things, discernment is key.

5 family-friendly podcasts for smooth summer road trips

The season of family road trips is upon us, and the open highway stretches ahead. You’ve packed the snacks, filled the tank, and are bracing yourselves for the first backseat skirmish over disputed elbow territory.

You consider keeping the peace via the usual distribution of digital Xanax — a screen and headphones for each underage passenger. But then a crazy idea hits you: Couldn’t we spend this time together? You know, making memories and such?

From cave rescues in Thailand to high-seas hostage escapes, 'Against the Odds' is the kind of storytelling that gets everyone quiet in the car (a rare feat).

“When do we get there?” The plaintive query, no doubt the first of a series, breaks your train of thought. Twenty-two minutes in — a new record. Then, the kicking starts.

Little thumps on the back of your seat, soft enough for plausible deniability and maddeningly off-rhythm, the kind of thing that could break a man once that white-line fever sets in ...

May we suggest putting on a podcast? Nothing like good, old-fashioned, audio-only entertainment to make the miles fly by. Here are five family-friendly favorites to get you started.

nedomacki/Getty Images

'Intentionally Blank'

Hosted by bestselling fantasy author Brandon Sanderson and sci-fi/horror writer Dan Wells, “Intentionally Blank” is like hanging out with your two funniest friends and listening to them shoot the breeze about everything from what makes a good villain to a running tally of notable food heists.

Try this episode: Ranking Our Favorite Cryptids
You've heard of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster — but what about the Mongolian Death Worm?

'Sports Wars'

Serena vs. Venus, Kobe vs. Shaq, Hulk Hogan vs. the world. Each season of “Sports Wars” takes you on a journey through some of the most intense rivalries across every sport, from basketball and tennis to football and wrestling. By turns hilarious and tragic, these stories of big personalities and high stakes will keep the attention of fans and non-fans alike.

Episode: Brady vs. Manning: Family First
Quarterbacks Tom Brady and Eli Manning are two of the most dominant players in the history of the NFL. Pit them against each other, and you’re looking at the most epic rivalry since the Pirate’s Booty ran out six exits ago.

'Against the Odds'

Never give up! That’s the core message at the heart of “Against the Odds” and it’s thrilling real-life accounts of survival. From cave rescues in Thailand to high-seas hostage escapes, it’s the kind of storytelling that gets everyone quiet in the car (a rare feat). Be prepared for a few intense moments but nothing that crosses into R-rated territory.

Try this episode: Thai Cave Rescue: Lost
Seven summers ago, the world held its breath as courageous rescuers worked against the clock to save a boys soccer team trapped in a treacherous Thai cave. This six-episode season's compellingly vivid account is gripping but not graphic — ideal for older kids who like suspense.

'How I Built This'

Every product you use has a story, whether it’s the socks (Bombas) your son just threw at his sister or the chicken fingers (Raising Cane’s) that she spilled all over her car seat. “How I Built This” host Guy Raz gets some of today’s most successful entrepreneurs to spills the beans on the ups and downs of launching a brand. If you want to know how to succeed and be inspired by people who’ve battled back and made their mark on the world, this is the podcast for you.

Try this episode:Spikeball: Chris Ruder
Ever dream of kicking off the latest sports craze? That's what Chris Ruder did when he revived a favorite game from childhood and turned it into Spikeball — and he tells the whole story here. Bonus points for inspiring kids to think beyond apps and startups.

'Spooked'

When the headlights start coming on and the sugar crash hits, there’s nothing like a ghost story to keep the blood pumping. The unique thing about “Spooked” is that its stories are true — and told by the people who experienced them. With a runtime of around 27 minutes per episode, the stories are long enough to suck you in but not so long that they drag on. Yes, some hauntings can get a bit intense (more than one takes place during the Vietnam War), but generally the vibe is eerie without tipping over into nightmare fuel.

Try this episode: Borderlands
A U.S. Border Patrol agent encounters something strange while on night patrol in the Arizona desert; and a Sri Lankan woman's mysterious illness requires a supernatural cure. Suspenseful and atmospheric while leaving plenty to the imagination.

$8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda

California drivers, brace yourselves. Starting July 1, 2025, you could be paying 65 cents more per gallon — pushing gas prices to a staggering $8 by 2026.

Why? Because California regulators, fresh off the repeal of the federal electric vehicle mandate, are going full speed ahead with stricter clean fuel standards — which critics say amount to a hidden tax and a deliberate attempt to force drivers into electric vehicles.

'This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.'

Back in November, the California Air Resources Board — an unelected group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — voted to update the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The new rules penalize gasoline and diesel producers and reward low-carbon fuel options like EV charging infrastructure.

Cleaner fuels, higher prices

CARB’s goal is to cut the carbon intensity of transportation fuels 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. Fuel producers that exceed carbon limits must purchase credits, a cost that gets passed straight to you at the pump. While regulators tout benefits like reduced air pollution and $4 billion in new clean energy investments, experts project these rules will raise gas prices by 47 to 65 cents per gallon next year — and possibly $1.50 more by 2035.

Meanwhile, two major California refineries are shutting down, reducing capacity by over 8%. That means less supply and even higher prices. Some forecasts, including one from the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, warn of $8 gas by 2026.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calls it “blatant price gouging" by an "unelected board of wealthy bureaucrats.” He’s filed a public records request to expose what he says is a coordinated effort to bypass voters and crush gas-powered mobility.

About climate — or control?

The timing of this update is no accident. It came just days after the 2024 election, ignoring nearly 13,000 Californians who petitioned for a delay. Republican Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the changes, warns that rural and working-class Californians can’t afford the hike.

Even after the Office of Administrative Law paused the plan in early 2025 due to procedural issues, CARB was given 120 days to revise and resubmit — keeping the threat alive.

The Enthusiast Network/Getty Images

Despite growing backlash, CARB has refused to revise its original 47-cent cost estimate, even as outside experts warn it could be far higher. Climate economist Danny Cullenward slammed the board’s secrecy, saying it erodes public trust.

Jones put it more bluntly: “This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.”

California in charge?

California’s policies don’t stop at its borders. About a dozen other states — covering 35% of the U.S. population — have adopted its EV sales targets, including the 2035 gas vehicle ban. States like New York, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts are now weighing how to enforce similar goals without federal backup.

While none of these states has matched California’s aggressive LCFS update, many use credit-based emissions programs that punish traditional fuels. Meanwhile, California’s refinery closures could send regional gas prices up 10 to 20 cents, even in states that don’t adopt LCFS-style rules.

The result? A creeping increase in gas prices across the country, driven not by market forces but by regulatory agendas.

Not buying it

An AAA survey earlier this month found that 63% of Americans are unlikely to buy an EV, citing cost, insurance, and lack of charging stations. In California, where electricity rates are double the national average, even charging an EV isn’t much cheaper than filling a tank. With EV financing averaging $783 per month and $105 billion in taxpayer subsidies on the line, the current system favors wealthier households — while working families pay more for both gas and electricity.

And it’s not just pump prices. The added costs ripple through the economy — affecting groceries, shipping, manufacturing, and transportation. The combined impact of the LCFS hike, refinery closures, and a scheduled excise tax bump could raise gas prices by as much as 90 cents per gallon in 2025.

Meeting consumers, not mandates

The auto industry is responding to real-world demand — not government mandates. With the federal EV mandate repealed, manufacturers are shifting their focus to hybrids and fuel-efficient gas cars while scaling back some EV plans. While new EV factories are still being built, carmakers are hedging their bets, giving consumers more options, not fewer.

That’s a refreshing contrast to California’s top-down approach.

Freedom vs. forced transition

California defends its LCFS update as a critical step toward its 2045 net-zero target. But critics argue that the environmental benefits are exaggerated and the economic burden is real. EVs, for instance, release 26% more tire particulate pollution than gas cars, posing their own environmental risks.

And if gas really hits $8 per gallon, the state’s policies may not just be unaffordable — they’ll be unsustainable.

Whether you live in California, Nevada, Arizona, or a state following California’s lead, this is about more than gas. It’s about who decides how you live and what you drive. With the federal EV mandate off the table, it’s time to ask: Should unelected regulators in Sacramento get to control the fuel in your tank?

Taking back the wheel

Will lawmakers block the 65-cent hike? Will other states follow California’s lead? If you care about affordability and choice, now’s the time to make your voice heard. This isn’t just about a gallon of gas — it’s about the freedom to drive what works for you.

For more on this, check out my video here.

Did Christianity birth the trans craze? Exposing the left's shocking historical hit job

Every so often, an academic wrapped in the robes of theory decides to rewrite history — not to correct it, but to commandeer it.

The latest example comes from the Conversation, in which a University of Iowa scholar, Sarah Barringer, claims that Christianity has a “transgender” heritage. You heard that right: Saints who renounced the world to live in chastity and devotion are now being posthumously enlisted in a modern identity crusade they never chose.

The modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos.

Let's acknowledge the truth up front: There is no such thing as a “transgender saint.” There are saints who disguised themselves, fled arranged marriages, and shaved their heads and donned robes to live among men in monasteries because that was the only place they could escape danger, obligation, or temptation.

But calling this “transness” is like calling Joan of Arc gender-fluid because she wore armor. It’s historical trespassing and spiritual identity theft dressed up as scholarship.

Faith, not fluidity

Consider St. Eugenia, St. Euphrosyne, and St. Marinos.

They weren’t confused teenagers raised on TikTok and identity slogans but were devout individuals who, in a brutal and hierarchical world, did what they had to do to escape danger, avoid forced marriage, or pursue a life of monastic devotion. Dressing as a man wasn’t some statement about “true gender” or an inner identity waiting to be expressed. Rather, it was strategy and self-preservation.

More than anything, they chose the path of intense spiritual focus in a world that gave women few choices.

They weren’t rewriting Genesis or making statements about biology. They were rejecting the noise of their time — power, status, family expectations — to live lives of sacrifice and submission to God.

These saints didn’t “identify” as anything — but only with Christ.

Leftists can't comprehend it

To retrofit their stories into modern trans narratives isn’t just ahistorical — it’s grotesque. It’s a desecration of the very virtues they lived for: humility, chastity, obedience, and detachment from self. They weren’t looking inward to define themselves. They were looking upward to lose themselves.

That is the difference. That is what today’s leftist ideologues can’t comprehend, and it's why they have no right to co-opt these lives for their own agendas.

The argument hinges on a dishonest conflation. Barringer admits these stories were “morality tales,” symbolic journeys about rejecting the world and embracing God. Yet somehow rejecting arranged marriage becomes an early form of identity politics and running from Roman militarism becomes evidence of internalized gender non-conformity.

It’s the theological equivalent of reading "The Iliad" and diagnosing Achilles with toxic masculinity.

The saints in question lived in monastic communities that demanded celibacy and asceticism. They weren’t changing genders; they were erasing self — not affirming identity, but crucifying it. Their bodies were temples, not canvases for self-expression.

To call this "transgender" is to confuse spiritual transformation with a social rebrand. One seeks union with God, but the other seeks alignment with self.

Desecrating the dead

Therein lies the real tension. Christianity, at its core, is not about affirming the self. It’s about dying to it.

“I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” the apostle Paul wrote (Galatians 2:20) — not “I live my truth.”

But the modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos. You are not your urges. You are not your emotions. You are a soul, and you are called to holiness like Jesus Christ.

The irony is laughable. The same scholars who sneer at scripture’s authority now claim ownership of its saints. They reject Christianity as bigoted and outdated, yet raid its tombs for ideological mascots. It's not a demonstration of reverence for Christianity's ancient saints, but an attempt to rewrite the past to control the present.

Let the saints rest

We can't pretend this is harmless. Redefining religious tradition to fit modern ideologies amounts to spiritual counterfeiting. It muddies doctrine, breeds confusion among believers, and turns the sacred into just another stage for performance politics.

If you want to find affirmation for trans identity, look to modern movements. Don’t twist the lives of ancient saints who had no concept of gender theory and would likely be horrified by what’s being done in their names.

Christianity welcomes the broken, the wounded, the uncertain — but not by sanctifying confusion.

So no, Christianity does not have a transgender heritage. It has a long and rich tradition of souls rejecting worldly labels to pursue something higher than themselves. That’s not a forerunner to modern identity politics. It’s the antidote to it.

Let the saints rest. Let the church speak. And let the past remain sacred.