Fleetwood Mac’s real breakup story: Death before motherhood



Stevie Nicks has decided to “weigh in” on abortion. In a recent interview with the Center for Reproductive Rights, she described how an unwanted pregnancy — conceived during her years of promiscuity — led to an abortion she now defends as necessary for her career.

You might remember Stevie Nicks. She’s the former Fleetwood Mac singer who chose to end her child’s life to preserve fame and fortune. A few years later, the dysfunctional group fell apart anyway, torn by jealousy and resentment. Nicks sacrificed her child for an illusion of success — and lost it all.

The idols of the 1960s — unrestrained desire, sexual libertinism, and the worship of self — have produced nothing but loneliness, guilt, and moral ruin.

“I got pregnant, how could this be? I have an IUD,” Nicks recalled. “Fleetwood Mac is big, and it would have destroyed the band.” She remembered thinking, “Everybody kept asking, ‘Why won’t someone do something?’ I thought, I have a platform, I tell a good story, maybe I should do something.”

She told a story, all right — a horror story. In her own words, she chose abortion not because her life was in danger but because she feared an awkward confrontation with her ex-lover and bandmate Lindsey Buckingham. “Having a child with Don Henley,” she said, “would not have gone over well in Fleetwood Mac, with Lindsey and me. ... It would have been a nightmare for me to go through.”

So a child died to spare a rock star an emotionally uncomfortable conversation.

The moral wreckage of ‘free love’

Nicks’ confession is more than a personal tragedy; it’s a parable of an era. The generation that preached “free love” is now paying the bill. The idols of the 1960s — unrestrained desire, sexual libertinism, and the worship of self — have produced nothing but loneliness, guilt, and moral ruin.

The abortion Nicks defends didn’t liberate her. It enslaved her to a lie — that personal freedom justifies killing the innocent. The band she protected disintegrated. Her fame faded. And the moral emptiness she embraced has followed her into old age.

The irony is that this rebellion against “patriarchal control” delivered precisely what the so-called patriarchy wanted: women stripped of prudence and virtue, persuaded to destroy what men once had to protect. The revolutionaries of “free love” preached empowerment while handing men a permission slip for irresponsibility. Men couldn’t believe their luck.

A real-life trolley problem

Philosophers use the “trolley problem” hypothetical to explore moral choices — sacrificing one life to save others from a runaway trolley. Nicks faced her own real-life version. One track held her child’s life; the other, her fame and comfort. She threw the switch. An innocent child died. Her fame soon followed.

The members of Fleetwood Mac later turned on one another, proof that the god she served — success — wasn’t worth the price.

RELATED: Christians are refusing to compromise — and it's terrifying all the right people

Photo by Bildagentur-online/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

A reckoning awaits

Jordan Peterson recently refused to entertain a student’s hypothetical about lying to save Jews in World War II, saying he’d never live in a way that forced such a choice. Virtue prevents moral traps before they arise. Stevie Nicks created her own trap through promiscuity and “solved” it by ending a human life.

But Nicks’ reckoning doesn’t end with the interview. Her child’s soul, like all souls, lives on. One day she will face that child — and the creator who gave that child life. When asked why she ended it, her only honest answer will be: for fame, for money, and to avoid a hard conversation.

That conversation will be harder still when she faces God Himself. For her sake — and for those tempted to follow her path — one hopes she repents and seeks the forgiveness found only in Christ, while there is still time.

Reversal of FATE: Steve Baker’s update on January 6 prisoners is ‘a good sign’



January 6 started as a chance for Trump supporters to innocently protest and quickly turned into a day that would change their lives forever.

Now, however, things might be taking a turn for the better.

“One J-sixer is seeing a reversal of fate,” Jill Savage of “Blaze New Tonight” explains.

“John Strand is actually one of the more, let’s call it, infamous stories, certainly one of the more high-profile cases of all the January 6 defendants,” Steve Baker tells Savage.

Strand was friend and bodyguard of Simone Gold — a doctor and attorney who was the deplatformed founder of the Frontline American Doctors. Gold had been accused of “disinformation” for recommending alternative therapies that were not part of what Baker calls the “approved narrative” regarding COVID-19.

Gold was scheduled to speak on January 6 at one of the six legally permitted events scheduled on the Capitol property that day.

“By the time they got to the Capitol, everything had gone to hell in a handbasket, and so there was nothing but chaos by the time they arrived. The breaches had already taken place. John Strand and Simone Gold did not participate in violence, they did not participate in breaching the Capitol building whatsoever,” Baker explains.

However, their fatal flaw was going inside the Capitol peacefully.

“She actually decided to deliver her prepared remarks there in the Rotunda. She climbed up on the Eisenhower statue, with John standing guard beside her, she delivered her remarks there in the great Rotunda of the Capitol, and then they peacefully left, just as so many other hundreds and thousands of people did,” Baker says.

Both Strand and Gold were “handed that infamous 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding felony.”

The felony carried up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Gold ended up taking a plea deal and pled down to a single misdemeanor. Judge Christopher Cooper sentenced her to 60 days in prison.

“John Strand decided he was not going to take this lying down, that he was going to be a warrior, and he, despite the odds being horribly stacked against him, he was going to go to trial and he did that,” Baker explains.

He was convicted on all counts, and he was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

“Now what’s happening is that because of the Supreme Court’s overturning the 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding charge against 355 defendants, him being one of those,” Baker says, “they’re shortening their sentences or letting them go.”

If they haven’t gone to trial yet, they’re not charging them with it.

“It’s especially a good sign because the Department of Justice has already announced that they want to figure out how to continue with that charge,” Baker explains. “But the point being, is it appears that the judges are pushing back against the DOJ.”

“We’ll take this as a good sign,” he adds.


David DePape Found Guilty Of Five State Charges

'The Pelosi family is grateful for the kind thoughts and prayers they continue to receive'

‘Intentional Misfeasance’ Makes Show Trial Conviction Ripe For Reversal, Legal Experts Say

'If I were the court of appeals, the moment this case came in, I would overturn the conviction,' von Spakovsky said.

RFK Jr. accuses the Democratic Party of trying to defeat Trump 'in the courtroom rather than the ballot box'



Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested that the Democratic Party is using the legal system as a weapon to try to prevent former President Donald Trump from winning the 2024 presidential election.

A jury found Trump guilty on all counts in a New York criminal trial. The verdict, which was announced on Thursday, came in the middle of a presidential election cycle as Trump aims to defeat Democratic President Joe Biden.

'I'm challenging him on his record.'

"The Democratic Party's strategy is to beat President Trump in the courtroom rather than the ballot box. This will backfire in November. Even worse, it is profoundly undemocratic. America deserves a President who can win at the ballot box without compromising our government's separation of powers or weaponizing the courts. You can't save democracy by destroying it first," Kennedy tweeted. "The Democrats are afraid they will lose in the voting booth, so instead they go after President Trump in the courtroom."

"I'm also running against President Trump in this election. The difference is I'm challenging him on his record. His lockdowns during Covid. His atrocious environmental record. His cozy relationship with corporate America. His support for the war machine. His failure to root out waste and corruption in Washington. His service to the billionaire class. His bloating of the national debt. These are the issues that shape American lives," Kennedy continued. "I'll challenge him on these things, but the Democrats won't. You know why? Because they pursue the very same policies."

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has said she would be willing to serve as Trump's running mate, blasted Biden in a post on Thursday after the verdict had been announced.

"Biden: GUILTY of abuse of power. Biden: GUILTY of turning our country into a banana republic where those in power use the law to go after their political opponents. Biden: GUILTY of undermining our Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed therein. Biden has proven he is unfit for the office of the presidency," she tweeted.

Gabbard served in Congress as a Democrat but announced in 2022 that she was leaving the party.

— (@)

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

DeSantis and other conservatives react to Trump guilty verdict: 'Political debasement of the justice system'



A jury found former President Donald Trump guilty on all counts in a New York criminal trial, with the verdict coming in the midst of the 2024 presidential election cycle in which Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, is running to defeat Democratic President Joe Biden.

Conservatives have been sounding off on social media in response to the verdict.

"Red states need to respond by declaring themselves sanctuaries from blue state prosecutions. That if the state AG determines the charges are politically motivated, the state troopers would be prohibited from facilitating extradition," Blaze Media's Daniel Horowitz tweeted.

'I can't imagine a bigger, more impactful contribution to the Biden campaign.'

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who dropped out of the GOP presidential primary and endorsed Trump after placing second in the Iowa caucuses in January, spoke of "political debasement of the justice system."

"Today’s verdict represents the culmination of a legal process that has been bent to the political will of the actors involved: a leftist prosecutor, a partisan judge and a jury reflective of one of the most liberal enclaves in America—all in an effort to 'get' Donald Trump," he declared in a post on X.

"That this case—involving alleged misdemeanor business records violations from nearly a decade ago—was even brought is a testament to the political debasement of the justice system in places like New York City. This is especially true considering this same district attorney routinely excuses criminal conduct in a way that has endangered law-abiding citizens in his jurisdiction," DeSantis noted. "In America, the rule of law should be applied in a dispassionate, even-handed manner, not become captive to the political agenda of some kangaroo court."

— (@)

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia shared an upside down American flag in a post on X.

"Guilty on 34 counts, but no underlying crime. Partisan hacks serving as judges, investigators, and prosecutors have turned our legal system into a farce at both the state and federal level," GOP Sen. Thomas Massie of Kentucky tweeted.

"How long can our Republic survive once partisans have taken over the judicial process? This verdict will tragically undermine Americans' confidence in impartial justice. A sad day for America…" Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said in a post.

"I can't imagine a bigger, more impactful contribution to the Biden campaign," GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah tweeted. "Will the Biden campaign need to disclose the efforts of the New York prosecutors as an in-kind campaign contribution? If not, our campaign-finance laws seem somewhat pointless at this point."

"This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one," House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement. "The American people see this as lawfare, and they know it is wrong—and dangerous. President Trump will rightfully appeal this absurd verdict—and he WILL WIN!"

— (@)

"They dismembered kids and murdered them. Now they are mutilating them. They opened our borders. They destroyed the middle class dream and replaced it with both spouses have to work until July 1 just to pay their tax debt, and then their kids have to get a bunch of college debt to learn unmarketable doctrines of demons. They mandated you ingest a toxic genetic serum to work. I could go on and on," Blaze Media's Steve Deace tweeted. "No, folks, we didn’t cross any Rubicons today. Rather, today is just another confirmation the Rubicon was long ago crossed. The hay is already out of the barn you’re trying to lock. We are way down the rabbit hole, Alice. Revival or bust."

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

President Trump found guilty. What happens now?



On Thursday afternoon, former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts related to so-called hush-money payments to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, in connection with an alleged affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels.

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley claimed the verdict "saddened" him. "I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system that has been used for political purposes," Turley wrote on X.

I obviously disagree with this verdict as do many others. I believe that the case will be reversed eventually either in the state or federal systems. However, this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan. I am saddened by the result more for the New York legal system…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 30, 2024

So, what does this conviction mean for Trump in the immediate future with Election Day 2024 looming on the horizon?

Sentencing

Judge Juan Merchan requested that the prosecution and defense file their motions, which will include sentencing recommendations, by June 13.

She added that a jail sentence for Trump 'would have political implications that ... Judge Merchan would want to avoid.'

He also scheduled Trump's sentencing hearing for 10 a.m. on July 11. Trump's lawyers have the option of asking for a later date, perhaps even after the November election, but such a request is likely to be denied.

Between now and July 11, Trump will be able to move about as he pleases. He will also no longer have to adhere to gag-order restrictions which previously prevented him from discussing witnesses or the judge and his family members. Trump has previously noted that Merchan's daughter is a political consultant who raises funds for high-profile Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California.

Trump will also likely participate in a pre-sentencing interview with a probation officer, who will then submit a sentencing report to Merchan.

Judge Merchan will have almost exclusive authority to determine Trump's sentence, and he has several options to consider, including jail.

Though Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, they are nonviolent, class E felonies, the least serious in the state of New York, and often don't result in jail time. Trump also has no prior criminal record and at 77 years old is not likely to be a threat to the public, all factors that could play in his favor.

Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University, thinks it's "unlikely" that Merchan will give Trump time behind bars. "Given that he is a former president, has a Secret Service detail and is also the presumptive Republican nominee, I think a term of incarceration would be logistically very difficult," she told the Guardian,

She added that a jail sentence for Trump "would have political implications that ... Judge Merchan would want to avoid."

Merchan has previously expressed a disinclination to send Trump to jail. On May 6, after Trump had allegedly violated aspects of the gag order issued against him, Merchan told Trump: "The last thing I want to do is to put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president, as well." Merchan ultimately ended up fining Trump $1,000 per alleged violation, as Blaze News previously reported.

In addition to a possible jail sentence, Trump could receive probation, fines, and/or community service. "I would like to see community service – picking up trash on the subway," said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a former top prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Appeal

Whatever the sentence, Trump will almost assuredly appeal his conviction. The first step would be to file an appeal in the New York Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department. If that court upholds the conviction, he can then appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court.

Should that court also uphold the conviction, Trump may even take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, to have SCOTUS justices agree to take it, Trump's attorneys must first convince them that the case, decided by a Manhattan jury, is a federal or constitutional matter.

Such processes can take months or even years. During that time, the actual imposition of Trump's sentence is likely to be delayed.

Campaign

The Constitution does not bar felons from running for president, so this conviction should have no bearing on Trump's attempt at securing a second term this November.

If anything, Trump seems more determined than ever to make his case to the American voters.

"This was a rigged, disgraceful trial," he said after the verdict on Thursday. "The real verdict is going to be November 5 by the people. And they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here. You have a Soros-backed DA, and the whole thing, we didn’t do a thing wrong."

"It’s okay. I’m fighting for our country," he continued. "I’m fighting for our Constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now. This was done by the Biden administration in order to move or hurt an opponent, a political opponent. And I think it’s just a disgrace. And we’ll keep fighting; we’ll fight to the end, and we’ll win. Because our country has gone to hell."

Should he win and take office next January, Trump will be unable to pardon himself in this case since it is currently a state issue, not a federal one.

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

White House Reacts To Hunter Biden Cutting Deal With Biden DOJ

'The president and first lady love their son'

A Jury Finds Elizabeth Holmes Embraced Silicon Valley’s ‘Fake It Until You Make It’ Ethos Too Hard

By some measure, the trial of Holmes was also the trial of the 'fake it until you make it' Silicon Valley mentality.

Rittenhouse trial judge SHUT DOWN prosecutor's IRRELEVANT 'evidence'



Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder paused during the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse to explain to the prosecution why the "evidence" presented on Wednesday was irrelevant.

In this clip, Steven Crowder pinpointed the critical moment when Judge Schroeder shut down the prosecution's attempt to present the jury with biased video footage from the Kenosha riots that broke out during the summer of 2020.

So what exactly prompted the judge to remove the jury and smack down the prosecutor?

Prosecutor: I understand the objection. The problem is how portions of the video have nothing to do with the defendant but describe the scene, and I am trying to give the jury a sense of the scene.

Judge: That is hearsay.

Prosecutor: I am not introducing anyone's statements for the truth of the matter asserted. I'm introducing it for the state of mind of the defendant as he watches the scene.

Judge: If it's not for the truth of the matter asserted, then it is irrelevant.

The judge explained that he admitted the prosecution's video based on a two-part rule. The first part of the rule, according to Judge Schroeder, requires evidence to prove the defendant was aware of the decedent's violent acts or turbulent behavior, and the other part is circumstantial evidence of the decedent's violent behavior at the time of the incident.

Watch the clip to see what Crowder had to say. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.