The VFW should be fighting for veterans, not gender ideology



Democratic lawmakers want the Department of Veterans Affairs to reintroduce special taxpayer-funded support staff services dedicated to assisting veterans who want to “change” their gender. If they take Congress in November, they might be able to pressure the Trump administration to do just that.

If this happens, conservatives may have the Veterans of Foreign Wars to thank for it — even though veterans tend to be conservative and there is never a need for taxpayers to pay for gender transition treatments and recovery. In fact, it’s horrible for national security. But the VFW doesn’t seem to care.

Veterans need advocates, not another organization trying to earn a medal in the culture wars instead of taking care of our actual warfighters.

Most Americans think of their grandfathers, fathers, or uncles swapping stories with their fellow vets over a beer at the local VFW hall. They think of the organization as apolitical. The reality, however, is that the organization has increasingly become political — especially in support of left-wing causes.

The most prominent one is its advocacy for LGBT issues. This past summer, the VFW backed Pride Month and bragged about supporting Pride Month ever since President Bill Clinton issued the first presidential proclamation about it in 1999.

In 2019, VFW National Commander B.J. Lawrence delivered a congressional statement calling for additional resources specifically for LGBT veterans.

Lawrence sounded more like a woke corporate human resources department than the uniting voice of a veterans' champion when he discussed "health inequities" affecting different identity groups.

These woke health care policies became entrenched within the organization. Instead of expanding access to care for all veterans, VFW supported giving favored groups access to specialized care at taxpayer expense. Thankfully, President Trump has reversed that, axing dedicated LGBT Veteran Care Coordinator roles and reorganizing specialized support networks so they support every veteran, critics be damned.

Now, the Democrats have explicitly called for those dedicated positions to be restored, and the VFW is right on board. In congressional testimony last year, Nancy Springer, acting director of the VFW's National Legislative Service, explicitly supported bringing woke medicine back to the VA through legislation that would establish an equity and reconciliation commission designed to remedy “institutionalized discrimination,” whatever that means.

If the VFW is lobbying for identity-specific federal programs, it opens itself to legitimate questions about its priorities.

RELATED: You don’t have to convict a Trump aide to bankrupt one

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Veterans are not all red or all blue. Some are conservative, some are liberal, and some are independent. They come from all backgrounds and walks of life, and they aren’t a monolithic political bloc. Regardless of their political views, they all deserve equal access to health care.

It doesn't matter where you, as an individual, stand on the question of gender “medicine.” We are all free to think what we want here in America. It does matter when a veteran organization wants taxpayers to fund surgeries and other procedures that don’t improve national security or enhance veteran care.

Veterans need advocates, not another organization trying to earn a medal in the culture wars instead of taking care of our actual warfighters.

The VFW already has a big job to do. It exists to “ensure that veterans are respected for their service, always receive their earned entitlements, and are recognized for the sacrifices they and their loved ones have made on behalf of this great country.”

That doesn't encompass partisan LGBT policy or advocating for dubious “gender-affirming” care.

Veterans are struggling to obtain mental health support, access medical treatment, navigate disability claims, and secure the benefits they earned through their service. The VFW should spend less time fighting over gender ideology and more time fighting for the veterans it was founded to serve.

The WNBA has a tolerance problem — and it’s not coming from the women in XX-XY shirts



Do you ever notice ... how people who insist words are violence can get awfully violent with their words?

And those self-righteous ones so eager to scream and shout about diversity? Some of them have a terrible time sitting next to it.

The WNBA cannot keep presenting itself as a model of inclusion while women who disagree with its prevailing politics are treated as intruders.

Not diversity of shirts. They’re fine with shirts.

Until you wear the wrong one.

Why is it that George Carlin’s NIMBY comes right to mind?

Shirt shrift

At Game 1 of the WNBA Finals, Jen Sey and three friends wore XX-XY Athletics shirts.

Sey, a former national gymnastics champion who founded the company, believes women’s sports should be reserved for females.

Up front. So do I.

Now, I’ve sat near people wearing things I didn’t like. Most of them said, Michigan Wolverines.

We don’t say the “M-word” in our house.

But somehow, we made it through the afternoon. Even had a beer and some laughs.

But apparently, four women wearing XX-XY shirts presented a situation that could not be resolved by watching a basketball game.

Jen and her friends wore their shirts where other people could see them. On their body.

At a public event in a sports coliseum.

How dare they?

The audacity.

Apparently, they should have worn their shirts inside their purses.

As security escorted Sey’s group up the stairs, video captured the insults and obscene gestures from many tolerant fans.

Screamed at.

"You’re disgusting!"

Several flipped them off.

Fashion fascists

Sey says some spectators told her to kill herself and said they hoped she would die. Real class.

In San Francisco.

The city of love and peace.

Security questioned the group about complaints that they were provoking other fans. How you might ask?

By wearing the shirts.

OutKick reported that the guard affirmed the shirts did not violate the Fan Code of Conduct. Duh.

They were allowed back to their seats.

According to Sey, they also received a security escort out after the game for their protection.

Of course, the league and the Valkyries both declined to comment when USA Today reached out.

I remember when the difficult part of leaving a basketball game was finding your car.

Ah, the good old days.

Quite an evening celebrating women. At a women’s basketball game.

Buy a ticket. Wear a shirt.

Receive a complimentary demonstration of why more women are afraid to speak up.

Flag fouling

Before that same game, Commissioner Cathy Engelbert condemned people using social media to “spew vitriol and hate and racism and misogyny at our players.”

She also discussed investments in player security.

Good.

Protect players.

But while you’re making your goodwill rounds, commissioner, there are a few women in the stands who could use some of that concern.

You won’t need to search their social media accounts.

Just follow the screaming to the section where women are being verbally assaulted over their clothing choice.

Meanwhile, both the Atlanta Dream and Golden State Valkyries left the floor before the national anthem and returned after it ended.

By the way, both teams walked off again before Game 2 and before Game 3. So let me try to understand this.

Players can make a disgraceful public statement through their absence.

But paying customers make a statement with a shirt and suddenly we need to discuss whether they’re antagonizing people.

Fine print

The league hadn’t answered questions about the teams walking out three games in a row. This column posts Saturday, just before Game 4. Will they continue their streak?

The league’s rulebook clearly directs players, coaches, and trainers how to conduct themselves during the national anthem.

But apparently, screw the rules.

Perhaps the commissioner is still looking for the page. Here, let me help you.

It can be found on page 75 under the "Comments on Rules" section, specifically under Section H ("Player/Team Conduct and Dress"), subsection 2.

“Players, coaches, and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the national anthem."

Those are fairly specific locations.

I’ve looked at a basketball court. Neither one is in the locker room.

Which raises the question.

Why is the WNBA so hostile to America and patriotism? The teams can leave during the anthem.

The commissioner can leave the questions unanswered.

But four women in the wrong shirts require immediate attention. And by the way, this wasn’t the first shirt emergency.

Storm warning

Earlier this season, Seattle Storm minority owner Celeste Keaton berated two teenage fans supporting Sophie Cunningham.

The league fined her and suspended her from five home games. But consider how far things have gone off the rails.

An owner of a women’s professional sports team confronting teenage girls for supporting a female player.

There’s a youth outreach program that could use some work.

In Atlanta, a mother and daughter at an Atlanta game were told to cover their XX-XY shirts or leave.

Notice a pattern here?

The WNBA later acknowledged that the demand should not have happened. How many times do they have to keep saying that?

You’d think that would be a fairly easy instruction to pass along to employees. “Don’t do that again.”

Four words. Fits on a Post-it.

You could put it right next to the employee schedule.

Mixed message

Meanwhile, Minnesota coach Cheryl Reeve wore a shirt supporting trans kids while coaching against Indiana.

Her supporters celebrate that as advocacy. Sey’s shirt gets treated as provocation. Same method of expression.

Different politics.

Very different reception.

Apparently, the problem isn’t putting a message on cotton. It’s failing to get the message approved.

Then there’s Cunningham herself, booed and subjected to protests after speaking up for female sports.

She also took a brutal foul from DiJonai Carrington that resulted in Carrington’s ejection. While that doesn’t establish a political motive for the foul, it does belong in any honest discussion of player safety.

Where is all that celebrated room for strong, outspoken women when the outspoken woman is Sophie?

The WNBA cannot keep presenting itself as a model of inclusion while women who disagree with its prevailing politics are treated as intruders.

That is hypocrisy.

And a pregame statement condemning hate doesn’t fix it when paying customers encounter hate inside the building.

RELATED: WNBA sends shocking letter to Congress about men playing in the league — but leaves out one huge detail

Michael Reaves/Getty Images

Stuck in the middle

Instead, here we are again, at the Finals, discussing whether women supporting female sports have dressed appropriately to attend female sports.

Players, coaches, owners, and fans are entitled to political opinions. So is the woman sitting beside them.

Even if hers comes in a different font.

That’s what people do with shirts.

We’ve been putting opinions on cotton for decades.

Half the people at the airport seem to be delivering a statement from their stomach. Most of us manage to read it without summoning security.

But in the stands trying to watch an WNBA game, it’s agitating.

If your response to a shirt is to scream obscenities at the woman wearing it, I’m less interested in what’s printed on her chest than what’s coming out of your mouth.

To borrow from Stealers Wheel ... clowns to the left of me.

Jokers to the right. And here we are ... stuck in the middle.

With the baffling WNBA and women wondering why a league built around their sex has such trouble tolerating their opinions.

For the VFW, Pride came before a fall



In June, the Veterans of Foreign Wars celebrated the left-wing holy of holies: LGBTQIA+ month. They paid tribute to those who fall under the ever-expanding umbrella of sexual identities and genders.

Framed as a gesture of inclusivity, the decision instead placed the VFW squarely on the opposing side of the demographic it has served for more than 125 years.

Having the right to say something does not automatically make saying it a good strategic decision.

Much of my career has been centered on reputation management and communications strategy. A painful lesson to learn the hard way is that the quickest way to lose influence is to pick unnecessary fights with your allies.

If the fight isn’t in defense of your core mission or identity, why go there and risk losing your base?

Every organization has a God-given right to say what it wants, when it wants. But the VFW seems to have forgotten something important about its members. According to Pew Research, 63% of veteran voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, compared with 35% who support Democrats.

Veterans are Americans. They fought for freedom, including the freedom of people whose beliefs and identities are different from their own. That does not mean they have to enthusiastically embrace every cause associated with the modern Pride movement or accept being branded intolerant and backward for questioning its politics.

Many veterans have legitimate concerns about taxpayer-funded gender-transition procedures, ideological brainwashing in classrooms, and military policies that could affect national security. By wading into this controversy, the VFW risks alienating its membership and its most important public policy audience: the GOP.

That is a spectacularly unnecessary political gamble, especially in an election year. The VFW could end up paying dearly if more disillusioned veterans decide to tear up their membership cards.

The VFW does not have to embrace every socially conservative position, nor should it abandon veterans who are not a part of its conservative majority. It should recognize that picking sides in contentious cultural debates carries risks, particularly when its overriding responsibility is to secure practical benefits for veterans.

Unfortunately, the communications problems extend well beyond Pride Month.

The organization has also managed to find itself in an extraordinary confrontation with Republican lawmakers over the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, a sweeping legislative package combining more than 60 veterans-related measures.

The legislation would improve access to health care, expand support for caregivers, strengthen suicide prevention programs, and address longstanding problems within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

These are the exact issues the VFW exists to champion.

RELATED: The CDC is hiding the data on armed citizens

James Carroll/Getty Images

A Mission Roll Call survey found that approximately 71% of respondents supported TCAVA.

Its concerns are not entirely without merit. Veterans deserve fair compensation for service-connected conditions, and any proposal affecting future benefits warrants careful scrutiny. But why scuttle a sweeping package of potentially transformative reforms over provisions that could be amended?

Surely the sensible response is to fight for a better bill rather than risk throwing the whole thing onto the legislative scrap heap. Instead, the dispute has descended into a damaging public confrontation.

In July, Republican Representatives Mike Bost (Ill.) and Jack Bergman (Mich.) requested a Department of Veterans Affairs review of the VFW’s accreditation to assist veterans with benefits claims.

The VFW has every right to challenge politicians. Its independence is vital, and lawmakers should not threaten its accreditation simply because they dislike its position on legislation.

But having the right to say something does not automatically make saying it a good strategic decision. The VFW should be hammering out compromises, winning amendments, and building coalitions.

Instead, it is flying the flag of a movement many of its members oppose and getting involved in ugly public feuds with folks who are supposed to be on the same side. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the veterans waiting for better health care, improved benefits, and meaningful reform.

The VFW’s history deserves respect. Generations of veterans have depended on its advocacy, and its influence in Washington once helped secure important victories for those who courageously served their country.

That makes its current predicament all the more frustrating.

With Republicans controlling Washington at the moment, there is a golden opportunity to secure meaningful legislative victories. The VFW needs to stop fighting unnecessary battles and concentrate its firepower on the issues that really matter.

OUTRAGE ensues after Christian Chick-fil-A CEO invites LGBTQ+ activists to try CFA's delicious chicken sandwiches



The corporate media are lining up once more to harangue the fans of Chick-fil-A, implying that they are homophobic for eating chicken sandwiches.

The occasion for this latest effort is the first broadcast interview with the company's CEO, in which he talks about how his Christian faith guides the mission of the chicken sandwich company.

'They’re welcome to come eat with us. We’d love to give them a great-tasting sandwich and give them great hospitality.'

"It is our anchor, in the sense of what our corporate purpose states: that we’re in business to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that’s entrusted to us and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A,” Andrew Cathy said.

The interview with Craig Melvin of "Today" was very cordial, but it has inspired headlines claiming newly outraged critics of the company.

Melvin asked Cathy to respond to LGBTQ-identifying people who have boycotted the Christian company's chicken sandwiches over gender, sexuality, and marriage issues.

"Well, for anybody that hasn’t tried us, we’d love for you to come try and have our great-tasting food and the hospitality that we’re known for," Cathy responded. "I think that everybody that will be willing to walk in the door, they’ll see that they’re welcome to come eat with us. We’d love to give them a great-tasting sandwich and give them great hospitality."

Melvin pressed him about conservative statements made by the previous CEO, Cathy's father, in support of conservative Christian causes.

"We’re focused on serving everybody that comes in and eat with us," Cathy responded.

Critics in the comment section of an Instagram clip of the interview included Katie Couric, Valerie Bertinelli, and Chelsea Handler.

"Chick-fil-A CEO faces backlash after LGBTQ interview question," read the headline at WAGA-TV.

"Chick-fil-A CEO slammed over evasive answer about LGBTQ rights during Today interview," was the headline at Entertainment Weekly. That report included comments from two participants in a drag queen television show.

"Chick-fil-A boss grilled over LGBTQ rights as CEO dodges question about chain's controversial past — sparking a furious debate among customers," was the headline at the U.S. Daily Mail.

"Today show host leaves Chick-fil-A CEO spinning over company’s LGBTQ+ stance," claimed the headline at the Independent.

"Don't eat at Chick-fil-A. And don't sleep with anyone who does," was the headline of an opinion piece at Out magazine.

RELATED: Chick-fil-A gets support from surprising ally against religious discrimination from Buffalo

A Blaze News request for comment from Chick-fil-A was not returned in time for publication.

Melvin and his "Today" show co-hosts did not appear to join the boycott, as they hungrily munched on the sandwiches at the end of the segment.

Despite criticism from Valerie Bertinelli and two drag queens, the company manages to earn about $24 billion sales across the board last year, according to Melvin's report.

The Chick-fil-A CEO also proudly reported that the company provided more than 200 million meals for the hungry through charity efforts in the past six years.

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

Ed Markey says he wants to hire BIPOC and LGBTQ+ interns — and gets hit with BRUTAL ridicule



Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts put out the call for interns but added a list of racial and gender requirements that made many people scoff.

The 80-year-old has been in Congress since 1976 and is running for re-election against Republican John Deaton, a U.S. Marine veteran and attorney.

'Why does a person need to disclose to you who they have sex with before you'll hire them?'

"I'm hiring motivated and eager interns for the Spring 2027 semester in my Boston office. BIPOC, LGBTQ+, working class, veterans, and other underrepresented candidates with Massachusetts ties are encouraged to apply," Markey wrote on social media.

"BIPOC" is an acronym for black, indigenous, and people of color.

Critics of Markey accused him of discrimination, and some responded with mockery.

"Blatant discrimination," conservative commentator Riley Gaines replied.

"Why does a person need to disclose to you who they have sex with before you'll hire them?" another critic asked.

"Funny way of saying that you're proudly discriminating against people from other backgrounds attempting to work as interns for you. Sounds like something for @CivilRights to investigate," another detractor said.

"Are you just openly announcing biased hiring practices? Wild," another response reads.

"I am a STRAIGHT, WHITE, REPUBLICAN, over-40 MALE ... my application will be in your office within the week. If you refuse me, I will sue you into oblivion," another critic said.

RELATED: Democratic senator calls for new laws to 'promote algorithmic justice' over the 'dangerous' influence of Elon Musk and other billionaires

Markey is known as a progressive politician, and one of his campaign promises is to support passing a transgender "bill of rights." He also pushed the Green New Deal alongside democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

He has said that if he's re-elected to another term, it would be his last in the Senate. He will be 86 years old at the end of that term.

Markey is far ahead of Deaton, according to the Blaze News Poll Watch below:

pollwatch.theblaze.com

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

The 3 failed promises of gay 'marriage'



Many people supported gay marriage in good faith, based on promises its advocates made. Here are three assurances that are no longer so sure.

  1. LGBT people need marriage.
  2. Legalizing gay marriage will make LGBT people feel better.
  3. The kids will be all right.

The children of cohabiting same-sex couples seem to fare better than the children of legally married same-sex couples.

Failed promise #1: LGBT people need marriage.

The reality: Evidently, LGBT people don’t agree that they need marriage.

There has been no dramatic "rush to the altar" among same-sex couples. Recent Gallup data show that only 8% of Americans who identify as LGBTQ are married to a same-sex spouse, while 6.4% are living with a same-sex partner. By comparison, 11% of those who identify as LGBTQ are married to an opposite-sex spouse and another 11% are living with an opposite-sex partner.

These figures suggest that much of the increase in marriages among LGBTQ-identified individuals has been driven by bisexual or nonbinary people in opposite-sex relationships. Presumably, many of these individuals could have married the person of their choice, even under pre-Obergefell law.

Also please notice heterosexual people are marrying in much larger percentages than self-identified sexual minorities. Even after years of legally permitted same-sex marriage, same-sex-attracted persons are not drawn to married life “just like everyone else.” Redefining marriage did not radically transform the relationship behavior among same-sex-attracted individuals.

Failed promise #2: LGBT people will feel better if we redefine marriage.

The reality: The mental health numbers for sexual minorities have not improved. In fact, there is some evidence that their mental health has declined. Researchers have long observed that sexual minorities report higher rates of psychological distress than exclusively heterosexual populations. What remains contested is the explanation for those differences.

We were told that stigma and discrimination were driving elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental-health challenges. Reduce the stigma, and the disparities would narrow. Yet after extraordinary gains in legal recognition and cultural acceptance, including gay marriage in the U.S., the worldwide evidence is difficult to reconcile with the so-called minority stress theory.

A study using data from UCLA's Williams Institute compared different generations of sexual minorities, ranging from those shaped by the Stonewall era to those who came of age during the push for “marriage equality.” The expectation was that younger cohorts, who experienced significantly greater social acceptance, would demonstrate substantially better mental health outcomes.

But the study found that the “equality generation” experienced higher rates of psychological distress and suicidal tendencies.

The researchers acknowledged, and I quote, “Our findings are clearly inconsistent with the (minority stress) hypothesis” that declining social stigma would produce corresponding declines in mental health problems.

A 2025 systematic review of 123 studies from 31 countries reached a similar conclusion. The review found substantially higher rates of depression, anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorders among LGBTQI+ individuals than among the general population. Nor were the disparities small: The rates of distress among LGBTQ individuals were between eight and 11 times greater than the general population.

In fact, the combined studies found that 35.3% of LGBTQI+ individuals reported depressive disorders, compared with 3.8% of the general population, or nine times greater.

None of this proves that discrimination plays no role in mental health outcomes. But surely, if “minority stress” or discrimination were the primary explanation for the high rates of psychological distress, we would have seen some positive movement in these numbers. That is exactly what we do not see.

Failed promise #3: The kids will be all right.

The reality: High-quality recent evidence shows that children of married same-sex partners are not “all right.”

This topic is so important that it deserves its own article. For now, let me give you evidence that casts doubt on the very strong assurances the sexual revolutionaries gave us.

A 2017 study showed that by the fifth year of elementary school, young children in same-sex parent families had significantly lower emotional well-being on three different standardized measures.

The measures include:

  • interpersonal skills,
  • externalizing well-being (which includes things like aggression and acting out), and
  • internalizing well-being, which includes things like anxiety and depression.

Compared with children living with their married biological parents, the children in alternative living arrangements have higher levels of psychological problems. The children of same-sex parents, shown on the far right-hand side of the chart, have as great or even greater problems than other children, even children in alternative family forms.

The authors attribute those difficulties to higher instability, meaning that same-sex couples have more changes in relationships and living arrangements.

The 'hold constant' fallacy

But this shouldn’t make us feel any better about these findings. More instability in the parents’ relationship is not a factor that we can legitimately “hold constant” or “factor out,” as if it were a completely independent factor. The well-documented increased instability in same-sex parents’ relationship means the kids experience more divorces, breakups, re-partnering, changing living arrangements, and so on. This instability is part of the package of having same-sex parents.

This reminds me of researchers back in the day trying to say that single parenthood isn’t so bad, if you “hold constant” their income. But having a reduced income is part of the experience of having unmarried parents. This attempt to explain away an unwelcome finding in no more valid when applied to same-sex parents today than it was when applied to unmarried parents back in the 1990s.

Another study examined a wide range of family structures, including married biological parents, single parents, cohabiting couples, stepparent families, legally married same-sex couples, and same-sex cohabiting parents.

This study found that children with same-sex cohabiting parents were 3.3 times more likely than those with intact married biological parents to suffer serious emotional problems. Children with same-sex married parents were 5.4 times more likely to have serious emotional problems when compared with biological parents married to each other.

These empirical results directly contradict the assurances we were given prior to the Obergefell ruling. With man/woman parents, marriage supported better emotional outcomes for children than with any arrangement of unmarried man-woman parents. But with same-sex parents, the opposite was true. The children of cohabiting same-sex couples seem to fare better than the children of legally married same-sex couples.

And yes, these estimates were adjusted to eliminate the effect of demographic factors, such as the child’s race, sex, and age. We don’t really know what exactly accounts for these findings. But we can conclude this: The idea that “the kids will be fine” is no longer a slam-dunk, end-of-discussion statement.

Full disclosure: The author of this 2021 paper is my colleague, Fr. Paul Sullins, Ph.D. a retired professor of sociology. If you are going to dismiss him because his clerical collar indicates a conflict of interest, you should probably also dismiss the findings of self-described gay or lesbian scholars. They certainly have an interest in some research outcomes rather than others.

RELATED: Hello Fresh's unappetizing 'Pride' ad exposes the sordid truth about gay 'marriage'

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Genderless marriage

In any case, I have shown enough to cast serious doubt of the assurances that advocates of genderless marriage gave us. Make no mistake, “genderless marriage” is a better description than “gay marriage.” The court removed the dual gender requirement for marriage. That was a tacit assertion that the sex of the body is irrelevant for marriage and by extension, irrelevant to parenthood.

We were told that gay people needed to get married. Evidently, not too many of them got that memo.

We were told that gay people would feel better. Evidently, and sadly, that is not the case.

Finally, we were told that the kids would be fine. The evidence I’ve presented shows that this is not self-evidently true.

People are making life-altering decisions based on the assurances of activists. The decision to have a child is not a decision that can easily be walked back if you figure out you had bad information.

It’s time to reopen these important conversations.

LGBTQ+ therapist arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting patients



A man who founded an LGBTQ+ therapy practice was arrested after he was accused of sexually assaulting two of his patients.

Joseph LoGiudice founded the "Liberation Psychotherapy" practice and acted as a clinical director when the assaults occurred, according to a press release from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

'While expressly described as an LGBTQ-centered practice, we allege that LoGiudice abused the trust placed in him as a therapist to sexually assault members of the LGBTQ community he serves.'

One of those who accused LoGiudice did so after hearing about a separate indictment against Remington Yhap, another worker at Liberation Psychotherapy who specialized in LGBTQ+ mental health.

Yhap was arrested for allegedly raping a teenage patient he had been providing therapy to for many months.

"Liberation Psychotherapy’s clinical director, Joseph LoGiudice, allegedly sexually assaulted two patients in his care at the very practice he founded," said Bragg in a statement with the press release.

LoGiudice had run the clinic's Gay Men’s Therapy Group and is a licensed clinical social worker.

One victim was assaulted by LoGiudice in Nov. 2022 after engaging in "sexual misconduct" with the patient twice.

A second victim was assaulted by LoGiudice in Jan. 2024 after a group therapy session and again in Jan. 2026 during a private therapy session, according to Bragg.

"While expressly described as an LGBTQ-centered practice, we allege that LoGiudice abused the trust placed in him as a therapist to sexually assault members of the LGBTQ community he serves. This investigation is ongoing.

LoGiudice is facing a total of 24 counts related to the alleged abuse, which includes 10 counts of third-degree criminal sex acts, 13 counts of third-degree sexual abuse, and one count of third-degree rape.

RELATED: Officials of 'Latinx' LGBTQ+ center outraged that months-long fecal attacks are not arrestable

Bragg asked for any other possible victims to contact his office.

A profile at Huffington Post said LoGiudice had published a book titled "Our Naked Lives: Essays from Gay Italian-American Men" in 2013. He wrote an article claiming that capitalism had destroyed people emotionally and psychologically.

He was also married to Michael Carosone, who was also a therapist at Liberation Psychotherapy, according to posts online objecting to anti-Semitic statements he allegedly made.

"His interests and passion are in understanding and advocating for individuals who are marginalized, vulnerable, and stigmatized, particularly LGBTQ individuals with disabilities, while utilizing perspectives from disability studies and intersectionality," read a line from the profile.

His profile at his website has been scrubbed from the internet but can still be viewed at the Wayback Machine internet archive. His website has also been scrubbed.

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

Where did 'teen takeovers' come from?



“Teen takeovers” have gone from a social-media spectacle to a serious public-safety issue. While the name conjures images of high schoolers innocently hanging around a drive-in à la "American Graffiti," at its core, this phenomenon is about sowing violence and chaos — and leaving communities to deal with the consequences.

The 2026 Wisconsin State Fair concluded its final evening with a massive brawl, during which violent “teens” swarmed the park and beat unassuming fair guests. One man was kicked and beaten as he lay in the fetal position. Earlier this summer, a teen takeover at a Chipotle in Washington, D.C., forced frightened patrons to scramble as youths began throwing chairs and screaming.

This is a natural consequence of an America that has glamorized injustice.

In cities across the nation, the same pattern of brutality has emerged: Swarms of young, primarily black teenagers will suddenly invade a public space to fight, threaten police, destroy private property, and occasionally get involved in shootings.

This is happening because over the past decade, our public institutions have encouraged black Americans to see themselves as perpetual victims of so-called systemic discrimination. As Spencer Klavan points out in his analysis of the fast-evolving political climate, “Wokeness in all its form is grievance politics.” Activists expanded DEI programs, decried America’s alleged systemic racism, and pushed for prison-abolition movements and reparations.

The behavior at teen takeovers is an outgrowth of the so-called peaceful demonstrations Black Lives Matter encouraged during the height of the George Floyd protests. Though the BLM movement has gradually lost traction — its corruption is widespread, and policies like abolishing the police are unpopular — its cultural influence endures.

Constant exposure to BLM has shown young people that if they commit wanton acts of violence en masse, they can get what they want. They can hop fences, smash windows, blast music, and brawl in the streets — and Democratic politicians will then attack peaceful citizens, demanding that they give away their livelihood and communities to correct “systemic injustices.”

The messaging BLM has promoted is irresponsible. Photos of cars, businesses, and school buses burning became regular fixtures online starting in the summer of 2020. Young people became convinced that, regardless of their lawless actions, they were morally superior to police officers and authority figures. They were taught that violence is a virtue because racism infects all public institutions. Teen takeovers are the result of a generation of children who believe that trashing public spaces is the righteous response of the unheard.

RELATED: Sanctuary cities’ get-out-of-jail fail

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu/Getty Images

BLM activists and “ICE Out” advocates have collectively turned protesting into an activity that’s considered as acceptable as going on a picnic. Young people are joining teen takeovers because they think they are owed the space to be violent, a lesson that Woke 1.0 normalized. For too many Americans, senseless rampaging is seen as a legitimate pastime for bored, testy teens.

This is a natural consequence of an America that has glamorized injustice. A recent study linked transgender ideology with increased support for political violence. Gen Z is more likely to attend protests, especially among those who support LGBTQ and climate-change movements. A similar study from the U.K. revealed that young people are more supportive of civil disobedience than members of previous generations.

The adulation of grievance politics culminates in a deeply nihilistic culture. The teen takeovers aren’t pursuing a righteous social cause — they’re aggressive reactions against civil society itself.

When previous generations protested, they mostly maintained a level of respect for their communities and even obeyed the law in some cases. But thanks to the radicalism of Woke 1.0 — pushed by BLM — young people don’t feel as though they owe anything to the people and places where they grew up.

They aren’t concerned with building a future or honoring their forefathers. The past decade of politics gave young Americans a permission structure in which anarchy comes with little to no consequences.

Americans have become accustomed to seeing entire city blocks burning, looting, and street fighting. The danger is that younger generations see disorder not as a public menace, but as the essence of freedom.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the American Mind.

A Christian guide to trolling without sinning



Donald Trump did not invent political trolling, but he may be its most gifted modern practitioner. His opponents still do not understand the tactic, which is why he runs circles around them. To understand trolling, we must see the larger ideological conflict of our time.

For Christians, trolling poses a serious moral question. It can seem cruel: a digital version of poking someone until he explodes, then laughing at the explosion. It also often involves deception. Does that violate the Ninth Commandment? How can deliberate provocation be reconciled with Christ’s command to “love your neighbor”?

When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll.

The answer begins by defining the term carefully.

The internet term “trolling” appears to draw on fishing, not the monster under the bridge. A fisherman drags bait through the water and waits for a fish to bite. A political troll places rhetorical bait before an opponent and waits for an angry, thoughtless response. The Oxford English Dictionary defines trolling as “posting antagonistic or disingenuous messages to provoke a hostile or annoyed response” and more broadly as behavior “intended to provoke or deceive.”

Political trolling is public mockery meant to elicit a response that exposes a contradiction, wastes an opponent’s time, and strips an ideology of undeserved authority. Legitimate trolling therefore presupposes that some public figures and ideologies deserve public mockery.

An effective troll identifies a contradiction in a public figure or ideology, frames it provocatively, and waits. The target becomes flustered and responds thoughtlessly, confirming the original criticism. Rather than merely accusing an opponent of hypocrisy, the troll induces him to demonstrate it before an audience.

This is not the same as insulting strangers for entertainment. Nor is trolling a license to lie, defame, threaten, or mock private suffering. It is more like misdirection in war or sports, used to confuse an opponent and reveal his weaknesses. No one accuses a quarterback of lying when he fakes a handoff, and no one expects a general to warn the enemy about a surprise attack.

Sun Tzu taught that warfare depends on knowing both your enemy and yourself. Schopenhauer cataloged the rhetorical tricks people use to appear right. The troll draws on both insights, arranging the contest so the opponent reveals his weaknesses to the public and loses respect.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

Christians recognize the distinction between just and unjust wars. Not every use of force is murder, and refusing to defend the innocent is not an act of love.

Rhetorical warfare is also real. Words can deceive, intimidate, indoctrinate, and destroy reputations. Institutions use language to disguise coercion as compassion and discrimination as inclusion.

Not every Christian is called to fight a kinetic war, and not every Christian is called to fight a rhetorical one. Some lack the temperament, position, or skill for public confrontation. That is no disgrace. A soldier without discipline endangers his own side, and so does a would-be internet warrior with a social media account and three cups of coffee.

But Christians cannot pretend that no conflict exists. Christian and anti-Christian visions of God, humanity, sexuality, justice, freedom, and authority compete for control of our institutions. They cannot both prevail. The question is not whether society will be governed by a moral vision, but which moral vision will govern it.

The Bible does not condemn every use of ridicule. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, suggesting that their god might be occupied or asleep. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed tombs.” Public teachers promoting public falsehoods were exposed so their teaching and authority would lose the audience’s respect.

We can identify a pattern for legitimate trolling. Its proper target is a public figure advancing a destructive ideology. Its method is ridicule aimed at hypocrisy. Its immediate purpose is to provoke a revealing response. Its true audience is not the target but the people watching. The goal is to protect the vulnerable from harmful ideologies that lead souls to perdition.

RELATED: Did Lindsay Clancy lose her mind — or her free will?

David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Publicly exposing the absurdities of ideologies such as critical theory or LGBTQ activism gives those who might be led astray an opportunity to reconsider. Stripping an ideology of its unearned authority can turn the audience toward truth and away from leaders and systems that lead to destruction.

I am not recommending that everyone take up trolling. But we should not treat an ideological war as less consequential than a sporting contest, where teams talk smack and use fake plays and misdirection to win.

When opponents of Christianity seek to censor biblical teaching and replace it with Marxist dialectics and LGBTQ sexual ethics, exposing their public leaders to laughter and ridicule is part of the conflict. Their panicked responses can display their folly. The purpose is to protect the vulnerable and persuade those who recognize the emptiness of the anti-Christian position.

Love of neighbor does not require helping a hypocrite preserve his disguise. Sometimes love requires argument, and argument requires confrontation. Trolling can protect your neighbor from wolves in sheep’s clothing. When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll — and the patience to let your opponent prove your point.

From ‘6 sexes’ to favorite drag queen: Glenn Beck reveals why Texas can’t trust James Talarico



Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico has made his stance on LGBTQ issues clear in the past, but in a desperate attempt to rebrand himself for Texas voters — he’s now walking it all back.

“He’s nuts. He is not Texan in any way, shape, or form,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck says, noting that his attempt to rebrand isn’t going so well as he recently was caught telling a fan who his favorite drag queen is.

“Mr. Talarico, so nice to meet you,” the fan began.

“I was there when you defended the drags. Who’s your favorite drag queen?”

“Oh my gosh. Probably Alyssa Edwards,” Talarico responded without skipping a beat.

“No hesitation,” Glenn comments.


But in a recent interview on Fox News, Talarico claimed that his views have changed.

“Would you vote in favor of a national ban for transgender surgeries when it comes to minors?” Talarico was asked in the interview.

“Absolutely,” he answered. “And in fact, in the legislature, I voted for an amendment that would have restricted the bill in question to a ban on surgeries for minors.”

“That’s a plot twist,” Glenn says.

In the same interview, Talarico claimed that his prior belief that there were “six biological sexes” was a mistake.

“I’ve missed the mark on some of my past statements. I will be the first to admit it. What I meant is that there are two sexes and then there’s a small percentage of people with genetic abnormalities,” Talarico said.

“I obviously didn’t say it correctly. There are not six sexes. There are two,” he added.

“Does anybody believe this?” Glenn asks. “You can’t say there’s six genders and then say, ‘No, there’s two sexes.’”

“You can’t name your favorite drag queen and then say that,” he adds.

But not even the Texas Democratic Party manager believes that Talarico has changed his tune. In a hidden camera video captured by the Daily Wire, she admitted it was simply to cater to Republicans.

In the video, the manager is asked by an undercover reporter why Talarico would “walk it back.”

“I would say that right now he’s trying to target a wider net, which unfortunately means being more palatable to Republicans here in Texas,” she answered.

“And I think that from the character that he’s shown us, it seems like he does believe the things that he said before. But at this point in time, it just seems like, from my perspective, yeah, he really needs to win those Texans over,” she continued.

“His support for trans children has not changed though?” the reporter asked.

“Yeah,” she answered.

“In his heart, he still supports,” the reporter said.

“Yeah. I think it’s, you talk to some Republicans, and they’re very Republican, especially here in Texas. Very, very to the right,” she answered.

“Who doesn’t know this?” Glenn asks. “Really. Texas, you’re going to get what you deserve if you let this guy win.”

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.