I went to a restaurant run by feminists, and it was terrible



I went to a restaurant run by feminists, and it was terrible.

You probably have a lot of questions. I would too if I were the one reading that sentence rather than the one writing it.

These people — the people most obsessed with 'acceptance' as a political virtue — are generally miserable to be around.

How exactly do I know it was run by rabid feminists? Why exactly was it terrible because it was run by such feminists? I will explain.

My wife, children, and I were on vacation. We were off in the deep north of the Middle West. After driving for a few hours, we were ready for a bite to eat. There aren’t too many options that far out in the northern wilderness.

We were thankful to find a place — any place! — about 15 minutes away, right on a lake. A small restaurant on a lake up north, that’s got to be an easy-going, relaxing place to have lunch, right?

Wrong.

Service with a sneer

The atmosphere was rank from the moment we opened the door. The woman at the front greeted my wife with a cold and sour, “May I help you?” We sat down and things descended farther. They didn’t have a children’s menu. Who doesn’t have a children’s menu? They didn’t have booster seats. Who doesn’t have booster seats?

Often, when we go out with our kids, we order a side salad for them to split. Basically every restaurant has one or will make one.

But not this one.

My wife politely asked, “Could we get a side salad for the kids to share?”

Our frigid, tight-lipped waitress curtly answered, “No.”

They had a tiny menu, obviously excluding simple fare to signal some kind of “finer taste.” Remember, this is in the middle of nowhere, no cellphone service. Who are they kidding?

Whine list

There was a small bar with a single bartender. She was the type of gender-confused leftist who dyes her hair black, then chops it off into some kind of faux mullet.

Adorned with doodle tattoos, no makeup, and tasteless piercings, she stood behind the bar seething. Her default facial setting was one of bubbling rage. It looked like she wanted to kill. It may sound like I am exaggerating, and maybe I am, but only barely. This is how she looked, this is how she acted, and this is how it felt.

The general vibe was more reminiscent of a hostage situation than a dining establishment. The tables were full, but barely anyone spoke. It felt like everyone was afraid to say anything. They were scared for their lives.

There was a tense hum of silence over the tables. An older couple came in to ask if they could get a table, and the woman at the front made it seem like they were asking if she could split the atom for them. It was bizarre.

Malice's Restaurant

Different places have different feelings. It doesn’t come down to just one element. It’s the sum of the parts. The way people speak to you, the way they look at you, the way the decor is arranged, the music, the signs on the wall, the kind of people working. Some places are warm, inviting, and comfortable. Others are not, and this place was not.

Everyone working was a woman. At the front, behind the bar, waiting the tables.

RELATED: Against women wearing pants

  Bettman/Getty Images

It’s hard to describe why, but I got the sense that they were all owners, like they all pitched in together. They weren’t just workers with paychecks. There was something else there. They weren’t moms, young college students, or anyone else you might expect to be working at a restaurant. Something was off.

They all looked, and acted like, a different archetype of unhappy, unfulfilled feminist. They all had the same kind of unpleasant, tightly wound, ready to snap, judgmental demeanor. They all looked down on my wife and kids with a patronizing and adversarial predisposition.

Of course, they weren’t exactly friendly to me either.

Appetite for destruction

There is a certain way bitter feminists, angry lesbians, and gender destroyers look at me, my wife, and kids. My wife is beautiful; she wears dresses every day. My daughter too. I dress in a classic American style, and so does my son.

For these types of people, our family is an aesthetic refutation of their broken and disordered ideology. They don’t like us (or people like us), and it’s very obvious.

And that’s why their restaurant is so miserable. These kinds of people are not happy people, they are not welcoming people, they are not warm people. They don’t like kids, they don’t like families, they don’t like happy men or beautiful women. They only like bitter, broken, and disordered individuals.

They might make fine food — and the food was just fine — but their obvious disdain for us left a bad taste all the same.

Signal du jour

There were signals of their political orientation on the walls. There were two restrooms. Both had signs that read “All Gender Restroom” in the middle of the door.

These signs, if you haven’t seen them, include three figures. A man, a woman in a dress, and then a figure that is half-man and half-woman. Half pants, half dress. A perfect example of the laziest, most pathetic kind of leftist virtue-signaling.

Again, this restaurant is in the middle of nowhere. The restroom signs are a political act, an intentional provocation, and an obvious indication of who they are.

It was the type of place that hangs a sign in the window that reads “ALL ARE WELCOME” in a variety of colors, despite the actual atmosphere inside being one that is completely acidic and 0% welcoming.

Check, please!

It’s a fascinating thing. You see this a lot. Crunchy grocery stores, vegan restaurants, and other lefty-type places. These people — the people most obsessed with “acceptance” as a political virtue — are generally miserable to be around. They are devoted to acceptance on paper, but their aura is like that of an electric fence.

Women are warm, welcoming, and kind. It’s their nature. That’s why they are called the fairer sex. God made them best with kids and things more sensitive.

Extreme feminists of 2025 are none of those things and possess none of those wonderful attributes. They have, in general, made their identity into one based on opposing any natural female traits, virtues, or sensibilities.

They have instead set their sights on trying, and failing, to be men. They have decided to resist, reject, and make war on all the wonderful things of women. That’s why they are so unhappy, and that’s why their restaurant was so miserable. It was clean, the food was fine, the location was great, but the women were dreadful, dour, sad, and bitter.

Walking out of the restaurant, our kids stumbling over each other, our family gleefully disturbing the morgue-like pall of the dining room, we laughed to one another. Thankful we are who we are and aren’t who we aren’t. It must be a miserable life being an angry feminist.

Christo-fascism! Left panics after IRS says churches can endorse politicians



Do you need a reminder that the American left continues to barrel down its deeply delusional path? This random sampling of reactions to Monday's IRS ruling should do the trick:
  • “This is full on Christo-Fascism. There is no pretense anymore. Capitalism and Christianity have joined forces once more to do unimaginable harm to EVERYBODY. This is fascism, add Western Chauvinism and you have got the trifecta of EVIL that WILL DESTROY HUMANITY IF WE CANNOT DEFEAT THEM!”

So what finally turned us into Gilead? A new ruling allowing churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

But the church itself would do well to avoid endorsing any humans, for a myriad of reasons.

Technically, prior to Monday’s ruling, churches could not make endorsements due to the Johnson Amendment, which took effect in 1954 and barred tax-exempt nonprofit organizations from political speech.

I say technically, because left-leaning churches have never let that stop them, as journalist Megan Basham noted in response to a tweet decrying the new rule.

Quite a few on the left are also making evidence-free accusations that “right-wing” churches have been endorsing candidates for years. That’s definitely the pot calling the kettle black, since even Pew Research showed where the politicizing of church is happening. And this is all without fear of the IRS cracking down, apparently.

That’s why this rule, practically speaking, isn’t really changing much.

While conservative-leaning churches did speak out in 2024 about the evils being advanced by the Democrat ticket, in general, they are not nearly as likely to be involved in electioneering as liberal churches. So Megan Basham is likely on point in diagnosing leftist outrage as all about the newly leveled playing field.

What church is supposed to be

Having spent plenty of decades attending Bible-following Christian churches that were likely pretty Republican, I can personally attest that I’ve never heard a sermon that endorsed a candidate or even endorsed a particular political viewpoint.

I have heard sermons that addressed issues in the context of the biblical passage being preached, as they should.

If your pastor is teaching from Psalm 139, for example, and gets to verses 13-16, he better point out that this passage helps us understand how to think about abortion. (Here’s the passage if you’re not familiar.)

So here’s what should stay the same. Solid Christian churches should teach the Bible. Sunday sermons should work their way through scripture, helping us understand what it tells us about God, what it tells us about how to think about life, what it tells us about ourselves.

If, as in the example above, the scripture in question addresses a political issue, the pastor should absolutely be free to say so.

If, using the same example, there’s actually a current ballot issue for or against abortion, the pastor should absolutely be free to encourage his flock to vote with God’s Word — and the new rule should remove any fear of doing that last part.

I cannot conceive, however, of any instances where the focus of a sermon should move away from God’s Word and into which individuals to endorse.

Even in situations where a church member might be the one running for office, this kind of discussion from the pulpit would take the focus off the One we are there to worship.

I hope no pastors will do that.

There already is nothing preventing groups of church members from discussing who to vote for in a non-worship service setting, of course. Let’s keep doing that.

But the church itself would do well to avoid endorsing any humans, for a myriad of reasons — including the fact that tying the church’s name to a politician is far more likely to end up sullying the church’s name (and God’s) than the politician’s name.

RELATED: Patriotic heresy: 4 examples of tangling faith with the flag

  Tom Williams/Getty Images

It’s all about the money, or not

A lot of the left-wing angst over this issue seems to revolve around this idea, expressed by the American Humanist Association (unsurprisingly).

Theoretically a billionaire is limited in how much he/she can donate to a politician, but not to a church. So yeah, someone could give a boatload of money to a church.

But they could have done that before this rule change! And I think it’s highly likely that wealthy leftists have supported the kind of churches where people have been rallied to vote for Democrats. I recall photos of Tyler Perry doing a get-out-the-vote event for Barack Obama in a lovely church with stained glass windows.

So what the left is really afraid of is that conservative billionaires will somehow “buy” influence at conservative churches. Give them enough money, and the pastor will have to endorse Trump (or JD Vance, or whoever).

And there may be a few churches where that would work. It might appeal to the small, pathetic, and power-hungry Christian nationalists (the only “Christians” actually advocating some Gilead-like ideas).

Their goal is to take over America anyway. But they don’t have enough power or influence to draw big money, with their revolting takes on women, Jews, and a host of other issues.

As for most conservative-oriented Christian churches — why would our elusive right-wing billionaire spend money getting them to vote for someone they’ll probably already vote for? And that applies on the left, too, despite the political emphases in left-leaning churches. If a group of people is already in your pocket, you don’t need to buy them.

So I don’t think the humanists have a case for this being any more of a problem than it always was. But that doesn’t mean there’s no room for caution here.

Resist the temptation

Some conservative churches have flown a little too close to the political fire, conflating faith with patriotism. I think those churches might be a bit more at risk of taking their focus off the Lord and succumbing to this new temptation to delve into the political.

But as mentioned, church exists for us to worship God and learn how to follow Him. Anything that takes away from that does not glorify Him. Churches — and perhaps especially pastors — should resist the urge to share opinions that are not relevant to whatever they’re teaching.

Make no mistake — philosophically, this is a free-speech victory. But just because we can — does not mean we should. And pastors/churches should not be endorsing candidates from the pulpit or in an official church capacity.

Our proceeding with restraint in this area might also provide a counter to the left’s call, now, to remove tax-exempt status from churches entirely. I would hate to see this status revoked; I don’t think churches should be taxed at all.

Let’s get real

For the most part, we’ve usually known who our pastor might be voting for, because a church is a family of people who live life together and talk about important things. But if he had endorsed someone from the pulpit or in some official capacity, that would have been bringing things into church that distract from worship of a holy God. And that would be a shame. And a sin.

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. – Hebrews 12:28-29

Car dealers stuck with unsellable​ EVs have nobody to blame but themselves



When auto dealers began writing impassioned letters to Congress demanding to keep electric vehicle tax credits alive, it was a clear sign the honeymoon phase of EV policy was over.

Behind the public messaging of “going green” and “building the future,” EV dealers and manufacturers are panicking now that President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has ended the incentives propping up weak consumer demand.

Let’s not sugarcoat this. EV incentives overwhelmingly benefit upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans.

It turns out the incentives did less to protect the environment than to protect an industry shift that never had strong grassroots support in the first place.

CarMax, Carvana, and several dealer groups had urged Congress to preserve the subsidies underwriting their investments in EV sales and service. Now that the "big, beautiful bill" is set to eliminate these subsidies on September 30, these groups are scrambling.

Seeing green

But let’s be honest — this hasn't been about saving the environment for a long time, if it ever was. It’s about protecting profit margins and preserving political capital after years of lobbying silence.

These same companies and their lobbying arms didn’t push back when mandates were being written into law. Now that the tide has turned, they want taxpayers to continue footing the bill for what is, at its core, a luxury purchase for high-income households with easy access to charging infrastructure. For most Americans, this is out of their price range, and charging infrastructure isn’t available.

No more cushion

Congressional Republicans, backed by growing public skepticism of EV mandates, removed the taxpayer-funded cushion that made EVs appear more affordable than they actually are.

The Senate version of the “big, beautiful bill” ends EV tax credits by September 30, 2025 — three months earlier than the House version. The credits were initially set to expire in 2032.

Here’s what’s going away:

  • New EVs (under $80,000): up to $7,500 in tax credits;
  • Used EVs (under $25,000): up to $4,000 in tax credits.
Meanwhile, automakers under the 200,000-EV threshold can still qualify for incentives under current law until 2026.

Too little, too late

Dealers and manufacturers had years to challenge the growing federal mandates that funneled billions into EV production and infrastructure. They didn’t. Why? Because the gravy train was still running.

Billions in government contracts, purchase incentives, and sweetheart regulatory deals made it too lucrative to speak out. Now, with the Trump administration's sharp reversal of course, the industry wants the benefits to stay — even if the rules are changing.

Sorry, but this is the cost of doing business. You don’t get to opt out of pushback now that the political winds have shifted. If customers want EVs, they’ll buy them.

That’s how the free market works. What we’re seeing now is an attempt to artificially prop up demand with taxpayer dollars, even as surveys show most Americans still prefer internal combustion or hybrid vehicles, citing price, range anxiety, and lack of infrastructure as major concerns.

Judicial speed bump

In a twist that highlights the tangled relationship between politics and policy, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from halting EV infrastructure funds for 14 states.

These funds, stemming from former President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, were designed to eliminate “range anxiety” by building a nationwide EV charging network. The result was $5 billion spent and seven EV chargers that are live today. A massive waste of your tax dollars.

RELATED: Fudged figures wildly exaggerate EV efficiency

  Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Tana Lin ruled that withholding these funds exceeded federal authority. Because the U.S. attorney general's office failed to appeal the order, states like California, New York, and Colorado will see their EV charging infrastructure plans reinstated.

Still, this judicial intervention doesn’t fundamentally shift the larger momentum. Trump’s Department of Transportation has made it clear: The Biden-Buttigieg National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program was a failure, and it’s being removed. The outcome of this legal battle could delay the administration’s intent to unwind EV mandates and boondoggles. But in the end, the EV mandate and incentives will disappear.

Return to sender

Even the U.S. Postal Service is caught in the EV policy crossfire, as the new legislation has ended its $9.6 billion program to electrify its fleet. A substantial part of this budget went to Ford and Oshkosh Defense to supply the USPS with all-electric Next Generation Delivery Vehicles.

Why does this matter? Because it shows just how embedded (and expensive) this EV experiment has become. Forcing the USPS to go 100% electric is a waste of tax dollars and causes problems and delays of mail deliveries — especially considering that manufacturers were having difficulty meeting the promised deadlines and the agreed upon price.

Cui bono?

Let’s not sugarcoat this. EV incentives overwhelmingly benefit upper-middle-class and wealthy Americans. They’re the ones who can afford $60,000 Teslas or $80,000 Hummer EVs. They can afford home chargers, and they have multiple cars and easy access to public charging. The very Americans who are footing the bill for these incentives — the working class — are the least likely to benefit from them.

Moreover, EVs are not as “clean” as their marketing and mainstream media suggest. The mining of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals comes with serious environmental and human consequences, often in countries with little regulation. And the electricity that powers these vehicles? Still largely generated from coal and natural gas in many parts of the U.S.

Let the market decide

The EV market hasn’t succeeded like the past administration claimed. There’s still minimal demand; drivers want lower-cost gas vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids. But the idea that EVs are the inevitable future and must be subsidized into dominance is not grounded in economic or consumer reality.

Manufacturers and dealers made a business bet. Some will win, others will lose. But the solution isn’t to keep squeezing taxpayers. It’s to give consumers choices — gas, hybrid, diesel, or electric — and let the best technology win in a fair and open marketplace.

Instead of begging Congress to keep the incentives, maybe the industry should have taken a hard look at how it got here. Consumers want freedom of choice, not government mandates wrapped in green marketing. If EVs are truly better, they’ll succeed on their own merits.

  

Trump unplugged! One Big Beautiful Bill ends EV tax credit September 30



President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act just sent a jolt through America’s automotive industry — and this time, it’s not about subsidies or mandates. It’s about getting Washington out of the driver’s seat.

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation is packed with major changes that will affect your next car, your fuel bill, and maybe even your job.

Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works.

Whether you’re a mechanic, a car dealer, or someone simply trying to afford a reliable ride, this bill deserves your full attention. It dismantles a decade of EV favoritism, slashes penalties for automakers, and puts gas-powered vehicles squarely back in the spotlight.

Let’s break it down — without the fluff — and explain exactly why this matters to you.

USPS fleet unplugged

This legislation starts by hitting reverse on the U.S. Postal Service’s $9.6 billion push to electrify its fleet, which began in January 2024 with the purchase of 7,200 Ford E-Transit electric vans, developed especially for the USPS.

Now that this entire program has been marked "return to sender," USPS can get back to delivering mail instead of testing environmental policy.

While an earlier version of the bill called for the USPS to sell off the electric vans, that provision was missing from the final document. 

Hard reset on EPA overreach

Next up: the Environmental Protection Agency.

This bill takes direct aim at overreaching green energy policy eliminating California’s ability to set its own tougher vehicle emissions standards. California’s EPA waiver had long allowed the state to push automakers into building more EVs and hybrids — regardless of what the rest of the country wanted. That’s over. And with it, the ripple effect on nationwide vehicle standards could collapse.

More importantly, the bill removes the penalties automakers faced for missing fuel economy targets. Companies like Stellantis paid nearly $191 million in fines during just one two-year window (2019–2020) under CAFE standards. Now, those penalties are set to zero.

This gives automakers breathing room — and the ability to focus on building vehicles Americans actually want to buy: SUVs, trucks, and gas-powered cars with real utility or hybrid vehicles. Not battery-powered compliance boxes.

EV tax credits ending sooner

Here’s the part that really flips the EV market upside down: The tax credits are going away — and sooner than expected.

The $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs will vanish after September 30, 2025 — a full three months earlier than the House originally planned. And it gets more aggressive: Leased EVs from non-U.S. automakers lose their credits immediately. The EV charger tax credit also ends in June 2026.

What remains? A manufacturing tax credit for U.S.-built EV batteries, but even that excludes any company with links to China.

This is a major economic pivot. With EVs costing an average of $9,000 more than gas-powered vehicles, losing these incentives could price many buyers out of the market. Analysts are forecasting a 72% drop in projected EV sales over the next decade, along with a possible loss of 80,000 U.S. jobs and $100 billion in expected investment.

Tesla may survive the fallout. But other automakers — like Ford and Hyundai — will likely delay or scale back future EV development. Expect fewer EV ads, slower rollouts, and more conventional models hitting showrooms.

More choice, more questions

So what does all this mean for you, the driver?

Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works. Expect more variety, lower prices, and vehicles designed for the actual demands of American families and businesses.

RELATED: WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off 250th anniversary of the US with patriotic rally

  

Fuel demand is expected to stay high — and that’s good news for domestic energy production. Oil and gas industries have long warned that EV policy was artificially distorting the market. Now, that distortion is being corrected.

The bill also helps car buyers more directly with a proposed tax deduction for buyers saddled with auto loan interest — a nod to the growing number of Americans financing vehicles in a high-rate environment. It’s a way to offer relief without distorting the product landscape.

And while an annual $250 EV road-use fee didn’t make it into the final bill, don’t be surprised if that resurfaces in the next round of negotiations. Right now, gas drivers pay federal fuel taxes that help fund roads and infrastructure. EVs pay nothing. That imbalance may not last. This fight could be taken up by the EPA or the Department of Transportation.

Winners and losers

This legislation favors automakers willing to build vehicles Americans want — not those chasing regulatory credits. It’s a win for traditional manufacturers, oil and gas workers, and dealers in heartland states where EV demand has always been low.

It’s a loss for global automakers betting big on electric growth in the U.S. market — especially those with heavy investment in Chinese battery supply chains. And it’s a headache for urban planners, utilities, and environmental groups counting on mass EV adoption to hit clean energy targets.

The National Automobile Dealers Association, CarMax, and others were pushing for a longer transition period. They feared a sudden market disruption. Meanwhile, critics of the bill claimed it jeopardizes climate goals, raises future utility bills, and hands the EV lead to countries like China.

Why you should care

This isn’t just a debate about cars or clean air — it’s a fight over how much control government should have over your choices, your money, and your mobility.

Do you want a vehicle that fits your life, your budget, and your needs? Or do you want a central planner in Washington — or Sacramento — dictating your options? That’s the question this bill forces us to ask.

By pulling back mandates, cutting artificial market manipulation, and letting consumers — not bureaucrats — drive the demand, this bill aims to restore sanity to an industry that’s been distorted by politics and ideology for too long.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.

So think carefully about what this means, not just for the next car you buy — but for the future of freedom on America’s roads.

For more, check out my video here.

Were Biden’s strict fuel economy standards illegal? Sean Duffy says yes.



Could the rules behind your car’s fuel economy be hiding a big secret?

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says Biden-era fuel economy standards were illegal, and he’s rolling them back. This move could lower car prices and give you more options. But what does it mean for your wallet and your drive?

Biden’s rules, Duffy argues, assumed massive EV growth, inflating fleet efficiency targets and effectively mandating more EVs.

The Trump administration is shaking up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which set miles-per-gallon targets for automakers.

In June 2025, Duffy announced that Biden’s rules requiring an average of 50 mpg for light-duty vehicles by 2031 were illegal. Those standards, finalized in 2024, demanded 2% annual efficiency gains for cars starting in 2027 and light trucks in 2029, banking on a surge in electric vehicle sales.

Duffy’s new interpretive rule, “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program,” doesn’t change standards yet but empowers the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise them soon. It argues that Biden’s team violated federal law by factoring EVs into CAFE calculations, something banned under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Adding fuel to the fire, Senate Republicans proposed scrapping fines for automakers missing CAFE targets with gas-powered vehicles, part of a June 2025 tax bill. These moves aim to ease burdens on carmakers and shift away from EV-heavy policies, but they’re sparking fierce arguments about cost, choice, and environmental impact.

Why ‘illegal’?

At the heart of Duffy’s claim is how Biden’s CAFE standards were set. Federal law requires NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” mpg goals for gas-powered vehicles, weighing technology, cost, and energy savings. But it explicitly prohibits counting EVs — classified as “dedicated alternative fuel vehicles” — in these calculations.

Biden’s rules, Duffy argues, assumed massive EV growth, inflating fleet efficiency targets and effectively mandating more EVs. This raised costs for automakers, who had to invest heavily in electric models or face hefty fines.

Supported by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Duffy says this approach broke statutory limits, making the standards unlawful. Major automakers like GM, Ford, and Stellantis agree, arguing that Biden’s targets were unrealistic and forced them to prioritize EVs over popular gas-powered SUVs and trucks. The Trump administration claims resetting CAFE will cut manufacturing costs, make cars more affordable, and let you choose what you drive, whether it’s gas, hybrid, or electric.

Inside Biden’s ambitious plan

To grasp the rollback, consider what Biden’s rules demanded.

Set in June 2024, they aimed for 50.4 mpg for light-duty vehicles by 2031, saving 64 billion gallons of gas and cutting 659 million metric tons of emissions by 2050. Heavy-duty pickups and vans faced tougher goals, with 10% yearly efficiency jumps from 2030 to 2032. These standards were part of a push to halve vehicle emissions by 2032, with EVs expected to dominate new car sales.

Biden’s team argued the rules would save drivers about $600 per vehicle in fuel costs over its lifetime, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and fight climate change. Environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund cheered, citing cleaner air and energy security.

But automakers weren’t convinced, citing sky-high compliance costs and a market where EVs, despite heavy investment, remain pricier and less popular than gas vehicles. A credit-trading system let EV makers like Tesla sell excess credits to others, earning billions but adding costs for traditional carmakers, who called it unfair. Duffy’s rule challenges this system, aiming for a fairer market.

How this affects you

This isn’t just a policy debate — it impacts your next car purchase.

Duffy says scrapping Biden’s rules will lower production costs, letting automakers offer cheaper vehicles, especially affordable models for families and small businesses. High CAFE standards drove up prices by requiring costly tech like turbochargers or hybrids. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation suggests this could revive entry-level cars. However, less efficient vehicles could mean bigger fuel bills, potentially wiping out savings.

The rollback could also expand your choices. Strict standards pushed carmakers toward EVs, sidelining gas-powered SUVs and trucks that lead U.S. sales. Looser rules might bring more variety, including heavier, safer designs, as data shows these fare better in crashes. But environmentalists like Katherine Garcia of the Sierra Club warn this could limit clean vehicle options, frustrating eco-conscious buyers. Older, less efficient cars — more common if prices drop — may also pose safety risks, creating a complex trade-off.

Biden’s rules promised major cuts in emissions, but in some cases they could actually stall progress. In coal-heavy regions like the Midwest, EVs aren’t always cleaner than efficient gas vehicles. Curious? The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator shows how your local grid affects EV emissions — it’s worth a look.

Policy meets politics

This fight goes beyond mpg — it’s a battle of priorities. Biden used CAFE to speed up EV adoption, tying it to climate goals and the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV subsidies. Trump, backed by automakers and oil interests, sees it as government overreach. His January 2025 executive orders “Unleashing American Energy” and “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” directed agencies to ditch EV mandates and boost fossil fuels.

The timing adds intrigue. Duffy’s rule landed amid a public clash between Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, with Trump suggesting that Musk opposed a budget bill cutting EV tax credits. Musk pushed back, but it highlights tensions as EV policies unravel. The EPA, now led by Lee Zeldin, is also rethinking emissions rules and California’s 2035 gas car ban, signaling a wider retreat from green policies.

Environmentalists are alarmed. Garcia warns that weaker standards will raise fuel costs, increase pollution, and harm health. Automakers, however, see relief after struggling with EV investments and sluggish sales. Stellantis, for instance, delayed its electric Ram pickup and doubled down on gas models post-election, reflecting the industry’s shift.

What's next?

Duffy’s rule is a starting point. NHTSA will soon propose new standards, likely easing mpg targets and excluding EVs. Senate plans to eliminate fines could further relax enforcement, giving carmakers room to breathe. But legal battles are brewing — environmental groups may sue, arguing that NHTSA must set “maximum feasible” standards. California’s tougher rules could also trigger a federal-state clash.

For now, the rollback aligns with Trump’s promise of affordability and choice. Whether it delivers cheaper cars or dirtier air depends on NHTSA’s next steps and consumer response. Fuel economy standards, born during the 1970s oil crisis, remain a flashpoint for energy, economics, and the environment.

Why you should care

This story hits your driveway, your budget, and the world you live in. Biden’s CAFE rules aimed high but, per Duffy, broke the law by banking on EVs. The Trump rollback could make cars cheaper and give you more options, but it risks higher fuel costs and emissions.

Stay tuned for NHTSA’s next moves and tell policymakers what matters to you. Whether you love gas, lean electric, or ride hybrid, you deserve rules that balance cost, choice, and a cleaner future.

  

Canada declares independence from Liberal censorship — with Donald Trump's help



Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that his government would rescind the Digital Services Tax. Yes, Carney caved.

Canadians should be relieved.

Within 48 hours, the PM was on the mat, again acquiescing to Trump even after his finance minister had categorically rejected abandoning the tax.

The Liberal government enjoys inventing new ways to tax both Canadians and anyone doing business in Canada. Canada is the home of the Goods and Services Tax and the Harmonized Sales Tax.

Now it was about to have a DST.

Punitive taxation

Of course, taxation for globalists like Carney has nothing to do with raising money. He can always print more money. Taxation has become punitive — either punishing the poor hapless citizens with an ever-increasing tax burden or using taxation to prevent Canadians from receiving anything not officially sanctioned by the Liberal government.

In this case, it’s about restricting access to unacceptable news.

On June 30, U.S. tech companies operating in Canada were expected to begin paying the DST — a 3% tax on all their Canadian earnings. And it would have been retroactive to 2022. The cost was estimated to be over $2 billion, but the experts were probably lowballing it.

On June 27, President Donald Trump announced that if the DST was not scrapped, trade talks between Canada and the U.S. would be terminated.

We have a great relationship with the people of Canada, but it's been very difficult, and they put a charge, and they were a little bit early. We found out about it, and we have all the cards. We have every single one.

… So I said, we're going to stop all negotiations with Canada right now, until they straighten out their act.

Bluff called

Carney’s reaction was initially another example of his cocky, insouciant attitude, as he pretended there was nothing to worry about.

But within 48 hours, the PM was on the mat, again acquiescing to Trump even after his finance minister had categorically rejected abandoning the tax. Just another example of the president’s unique version of realpolitik.

RELATED: '51st state': Trump teases annexation again after Canada quickly caves on major tax

  STEFAN ROUSSEAU/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

The winners in the flip-flop are American tech companies and Canadians who have been given a reprieve from another odious piece of Liberal government censorship legislation.

War on bad thoughts

Under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Canada adopted Bills C-11, the Online Streaming Act, and C-18, the Online News Act, and came very close to passing Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which would have jailed people for broadcasting “hate speech” and actually contained a thought crimes component that envisioned house arrest for people accused by neighbors of thinking bad thoughts.

Bill C-11 demands that foreign companies produce an acceptable amount of Canadian content on the internet, just as Canada has always demanded similar rules from television, radio, and print media.

 Bill C-18 went a step farther and demanded that U.S. social media companies provide an annual stipend to the Canadian government if they post Canadian news content on their platforms. The result has been the death of Canadian news on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram sites because the companies have refused to submit to this extortion.

Storming Fortress Canada

The net effect is to entrench the influence of the mainstream media in Canada, which receives massive subsidies from the federal government; and to weaken independent media, which tends to depend far more on social media exposure.

The DST would have furthered this government control and passive censorship of the internet, because many U.S. companies would probably simply have refused to pay the tax and told the Carney government to move on.

For more than a decade the Liberals have been trying to create some kind of Fortress Canada in which independent and foreign voices have no power to shape the national narrative. It is a dangerous and toxic authoritarian experiment.

Canadians should thank Donald Trump for at least slowing the process down by getting his way on the DST.

One of my favorite punk bands just banned Trump supporters ... in the name of Jesus?!



Growing up, my music collection was always a combination of two main genres: Christian worship and pop punk rock. Putting on shuffle, I would go from songs by Chris Tomlin, Hillsong, Shane and Shane, to songs from bands like Mayday Parade, Blink-182, and Simple Plan.

One day, I discovered that one of the bands I liked had a foot in both worlds. The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus is a secular punk band, but their lead singer, Ronnie Winter, is a Christian. I developed a soft spot for them.

The song's chorus warns that fear leads to anger, which leads to hate — and implores the listener not to 'buy in' to this cycle. Except when it comes to Trump voters, apparently.

In their more than 20-year career, RJSA have tended to stay away from politics. Recently, however, that changed — and Winter came out with a stance more polarizing than anything I've seen from any punk band — even avowedly "leftist" ones.

In short: If you voted for Donald Trump, you are not welcome at his shows.

Lifetime ban

Winter communicated the new policy in a lengthy Instagram post. After a preamble about how "woke people" were right about "everything they said was going to happen," Winter laid down the law:

Hi, I’m Ronnie Winter. I sing for the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, and I actually follow what Jesus says. If you’re a Christian and you’re watching this and you voted for Donald Trump, shame on you. You are not allowed to come to my shows. I don’t want you there. Don’t come to my shows. If you voted for Donald Trump, do not come to my shows — ever, not just these four years.

Don’t come to my shows because you’re going to hear a lot of woke propaganda, and you’re going to hear the actual words of Jesus. You’re going to see a lot of acceptance from all areas of life and races, and you’re just going to see a lot of harmony. That’s not what you’re about. Don’t come. Refunds are available. Forever, don’t come. Goodbye.

In retrospect, I should've seen it coming. As was the case with many performing artists, Donald Trump seemed to hit a nerve. I first remember them going political on a song from their 2020 release "The Emergency EP."

“Don’t Buy Into It” condemns a number of conservative "sins," including transphobia, immigration restriction, and telling people what they can do with what "God has given them."

"Everyone hates everyone," goes another verse. "That's not true, because we love you, and we're not buying into it." The song's chorus warns that fear leads to anger, which leads to hate — and implores the listener not to "buy in" to this cycle.

Except when it comes to Trump voters, apparently.

Mosh pit politics

Now, punk bands identifying with the left is nothing new, of course. For example, pop-punk group Green Day has always worn their politics on their sleeves, from their anti-G.W. Bush anthem "American Idiot" to lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong leading fans in a chant calling Trump a "fat bastard" at a recent concert.

Then there's Rage Against the Machine, the quintessential "antiestablishment" punk band, with nearly every one of their songs criticizing the domestic and foreign policies of current and previous presidential administrations.

The difference is these bands implicitly welcome all fans to come and listen, as far as I know. Fans know what they’re getting into when they attend one of these shows. Those who lean conservative can either not attend or decide not to let the politics bother them. That’s how it's supposed to be.

But Ronnie Winter has decided to go a different route. And that’s his route to choose.

That’s right, I’m not going to attack Winter for deciding he doesn’t want to associate himself with conservatives or Trump supporters. Winter is fully within his right as an artist to say, “Hey, you, I don’t want you here.” And fans of the band who may also be conservative can either decide to never support the band again or live with it.

Gospel fine print?

What I find issue with is Winter’s apparent belief that this is somehow following the teachings of Jesus Christ. That "the actual words of Jesus" he mentions are somehow not meant for the ears of those who support Trump.

I have to wonder, where in the Bible does Jesus offer an exemption from his command to love one another in the case of political disagreements? Did we forget to read the fine print for 1 John 3:16 ("offer not valid for certain voters")?

Time and time again, the Bible showed Jesus loving the marginalized. And whether Ronnie Winter is willing to admit it or not, conservatives these days can find themselves pretty marginalized — whether they're banned from social media platforms, dropped by a bank or payment processor, or just harassed for wearing a MAGA hat in public.

Jesus loved the marginalized and didn’t isolate or exclude those society deemed controversial. Winter is all for this ... except when it comes to conservatives.

A new command

Romans 5:8 puts it clearly, “But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” And in the exact words of Jesus, John 13:34-35 says, “I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

RELATED: Holy shot: Did Trump's assassination attempt survival prove miracles are real?

  Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

I’m currently going through my own struggles with Christianity and my faith, but I still find within me the urge to defend it. And while I agree with Winter that using Christianity to cause hate and division is wrong, I disagree with how he chooses to respond.

You can’t fight fire with fire. I cannot sit idly by and watch a person claiming to follow Christ while simultaneously putting this much effort into division and hate. It goes without saying that if any other band said to any other faction of society that they are not welcome at their shows, it would be met with criticism, if not outrage.

No stranger to the struggle

So my question for Ronnie Winter is: Do you actually believe this is the right course to take? Do you really believe that Trump voters aren't worthy of attending your shows — and presumably benefiting from the example of Christian faith you claim they embody?

I’m not here to question if Winters' faith is genuine or not. That's God’s job. I’m also not here to delve into Winter’s deeper theological views. There are people way more qualified to do that than I. I’m just a struggling Christian who still understands the core of Christianity and that this type of divisiveness should never be a part of the equation.

I’m also not going to judge. I’m no stranger to the struggle to follow the perfect example of Jesus Christ — especially over the last six years. For we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

But I can offer this charitable advice, both to Winter and anyone who takes satisfaction from the lines he's drawn: Don’t buy into it.

All in the family: Hollywood golden boy Pedro Pascal's loony leftist pedigree



Pedro Pascal and his sister have bonded together to attack author J.K. Rowling over the fact she wants women's spaces for women only.

The drama stems from Rowling's support of a U.K. Supreme Court decision that stuck to including only actual women in the government's definition of "woman."

Rowling posted a photo of herself on X smoking a cigar in celebration of the decision, sending Pascal, and subsequently his family, into a spiral.

'Bullies make me f**king sick.'

Pascal lashed out on an Instagram post about the news, calling Rowling's reaction "awful disgusting s**t" indicative of “heinous loser behavior."

The actor is sensitive to the topic given that his younger brother, actor Lucas "Lux" Balmaceda, started claiming he is a woman in 2021 at 29 years old.

From mister to sister

In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Pascal's sister Javiera Balmaceda joined the fray with her own progressive point of view, accusing Rowling of denying the existence of their transgender brother.

"But it is heinous loser behavior," Balmaceda decried. "And [Pascal] said that as the older brother to someone saying that our little sister doesn't exist."

After that, Pascal continued to label Rowling as an antagonist over her pro-female stances.

RELATED: Sick of me yet? Pompous pest Pascal in desperate race to make America hate him

 

  

 

"The one thing that I would say I agonized over a little bit was just, 'Am I helping? Am I f**king helping?' It's a situation that deserves the utmost elegance so that something can actually happen, and people will actually be protected," Pascal ranted to Vanity Fair.

"Listen, I want to protect the people I love. But it goes beyond that. Bullies make me f**king sick," Pascal said of Rowling.

Best supporting activist

The 50-year-old's life is covered wall-to-wall in activism, from his projects all the way down to his family lineage.

His hit show "The Last of Us" is overflowing with LGBT politics, through and through. Co-star Bella Ramsey, a 21-year-old who claims she is "nonbinary," has boasted about her on-set conversations with Pascal about progressive ideology.

In an interview with CBR, Ramsey said Pascal helped with her alleged gender journey, with the two actors having "honest and open" conversations about gender and sexuality.

"The Last of Us" aired an episode in 2024 entirely about the relationship of two gay men, a storyline that was only vaguely alluded to in the video game from which the show derives.

When fans voiced their displeasure with the forced narrative, actor Nick Offerman — who played one of the gay characters — called fans "homophobic" and said if fans had a question about the "gay story," they would be an "asshole."

RELATED: Pedro Pascal attacks JK Rowling over UK's Supreme Court ruling protecting biological women from transgender individuals

 

  Javiera Balmaceda Pascal and 'Lux' Pascal at the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival. Photo by Darren Eagles/Getty Images

 

Viva la revolución

"The promotion of gender ideology is evil," Fandom Pulse editor John F. Trent told Blaze News.

Trent added, "The Pascal family has clearly deluded themselves into pushing this evil in order to placate their brother, who pretends to be a woman."

The Pascals also have deep ties to left-wing ideologues that put them less than an arm's length away from communist political groups.

The L.A. Times reported in 1995 that Pascal's Chilean parents, José Balmaceda Riera and the late Verónica Pascal Ureta, were forced to flee Chile in the 1970s after they harbored Ureta's cousin Andres Pascal Allende, the leader of the Leftist Revolutionary Movement. The political party is described as a Marxist-Leninist group.

Fertility fraud?

Also according to the Times, Pascal's father then fled the United States after being hit with dozens of lawsuits and a criminal probe into his work at UC Irvine’s Center for Reproductive Health.

Balmaceda was accused, along with his partners, of egg-swapping without patients' consent, as well as financial wrongdoing.

Balmaceda reportedly returned to the United States in 2022 and plead guilty to tax fraud and agreed to a plea deal. He has since received adoration in the media for his journey to reunite with his son Pascal.

Born José Pedro Balmaceda, Pascal took his mother's maiden name as a tribute to her after her death in 1999.

The Balmaceda family has deep roots in Chile's political history, with about a dozen politicians in the family, including former Chilean President José Manuel Balmaceda (1886-1891).

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

The Scopes Monkey Trial at 100: Who really won?



If anyone remembers the Scopes Monkey Trial today, it’s most likely because of its fictionalized retelling in the classic 1960 movie “Inherit the Wind.”

Itself an adaptation of a popular play, “Inherit the Wind” stars Spencer Tracy as the Clarence Darrow stand-in, an idealistic lawyer defending a man accused of teaching the theory of evolution to schoolchildren — a crime according to (recently passed) Tennessee state law.

It was not evolutionists’ irreligiosity Bryan opposed but rather their overreach: Who were they to argue with how the people of Tennessee had decided to educate their children?

The movie depicts the trial as a battle between noble, free-speech-minded liberals and cruel and ignorant fundamentalists. It portrays prosecutor Matthew Harrison Brady (a proxy for William Jennings Bryan) as pompous and attention-hungry, while downplaying Darrow’s own love of the spotlight as well as his hostility toward both the South and religion.

Liberal folklore

A week away from the trial’s 100th anniversary (it took place July 10-21, 1925), this is more or less the version that survives in the cultural memory. In 1967, Joseph Wood Krutch, who covered the trial for the Nation, opined that Scopes had become “more of a part of the folklore of liberalism than of history.” To this day, it’s regarded as both a victory in the battle between progress and superstition and a sobering reminder that that battle still rages on. One recent headline is exemplary: “100 years after the Scopes trial, science is still under attack.”

Like the play on which it is based, “Inherit the Wind” uses the Scopes trial as an allegory for McCarthyism. (Director Stanley Kramer was subsequently praised for employing the blacklisted Nedrick Young as co-screenwriter.) As a result, the movie adopts a tone of high-minded seriousness quite at odds with the carnival-like atmosphere of the actual trial.

RELATED: 'Junk DNA' is bunk! Why the human genome argues for intelligent design

  Godung/Getty Images

The ACLU gets its man

The entire affair had the contrived air of a publicity stunt from the outset. The Butler Act — a statute prohibiting Tennessee’s public schools from presenting “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals” — had little if any immediate practical impact when the state legislature passed it in March 1925.

It was only when the American Civil Liberties Union decided to challenge the Butler Act on free speech grounds that the teaching of evolution became a cause célèbre. The ACLU placed ads in Tennessee papers for a teacher willing to serve as their defendant; these ads caught the attention of community leaders in Dayton, a declining mining town 40 miles north of Chattanooga, who saw an opportunity to bring in some much needed tourist revenue. They convinced local football coach and science teacher John T. Scopes to step forward.

Scopes barely qualified as a defendant; he’d only taught biology on occasion as a substitute, using a textbook that happened to mention evolution, and after the trial admitted he couldn’t remember if the subject had ever come up in class. Still, it was enough to accuse him of violating the Butler Act, a misdemeanor offense.

Tourist trap

The implied showdown between science and religion quickly eclipsed any First Amendment concerns, and Dayton got the tourism boom it had hoped for. More than 200 journalists and hundreds of spectators descended upon the town to watch the trial — and perhaps to patronize the blocks of newly erected stands selling stuffed monkeys and other keepsakes.

Bryan, Woodrow Wilson’s former secretary of state and three-time failed Democratic presidential nominee, was invited to join the prosecution and given the chance to rail against the evils of evolution, while celebrity lawyer Clarence Darrow embraced the defense team’s offer to attack fundamentalism on the public stage.

What emerged was largely a comical farce, its outcome weighted in favor of the prosecution and both sides more interested in swaying public opinion than in securing a relatively inconsequential legal victory. (While Scopes lost, incurring a fine of $100, his conviction was overturned on a technicality; the Butler Act remained on the books in obscurity until it was finally repealed in 1967.)

Monkeyshines

As historian Edward J. Larson describes, the trial was a laid-back affair. The judge dispensed with the usual courtroom dress code as a concession to the boiling Tennessee summer, occasionally even moving the proceedings outside. The town itself took on an atmosphere of absurd spectacle emblematic of the excesses of the roaring twenties, with at least two actual chimpanzees (technically apes rather than monkeys) paraded through the streets.

After a dramatic and sweltering eight-day battle, both the prosecution and the defense emerged convinced they’d successfully embarrassed the other. Neither suspected that they’d set in motion a series of lengthy legal battles over the role of religion in public life and set the stage for the fundamentalist-modernist crisis that came to split American Protestantism in half. The Scopes trial would change America forever but not necessarily in the ways those involved expected.

Bryan as Bible thumper?

“Inherit the Wind” openly maligns Bryan as an ignorant fool stirring up a mob of uneducated, hateful yokels, a selfish man more enthralled by the sound of his voice than devoted to the truth. Anybody who knows of his importance as the leading figure of the Progressive Era would understand why this is disingenuous. As for the citizens of Dayton, by all accounts they enjoyed the hullaballoo and were perfectly gracious to participants on both sides.

The movie culminates with a depiction of Darrow’s infamous two-hour grilling of Bryan on the witness stand. Called to testify as a Bible expert, the fictionalized Bryan stumbles repeatedly over his opponent’s complicated questions of Old Testament interpretation.

While this did have the effect of damaging Bryan’s reputation and perhaps even hastening the ailing man’s death (in the movie, Bryan expires in the courtroom immediately after the verdict; the actual Bryan died peacefully is his sleep five days later), “Inherit the Wind” drastically simplifies Bryan’s actual beliefs.

No 'mere mammal'

Bryan fit into an older political paradigm where socialism and fundamentalist Christianity could coexist on a platform of eschatological optimism. He wasn’t a shallow anti-intellectual pushing against new ideas but a defiant moralist who doubted that science alone could provide a moral framework for society.

Bryan was a liberal Democrat, a feminist, labor organizer, silver standard proponent, anti-imperialist, anti-KKK, anti-alcohol, and anti-war advocate. Although he believed progress was God’s will, he was hardly a theocrat and believed wholeheartedly in the mandate of the masses.

He arguably had a more sincere faith in democracy than anyone today, believing that change must come through the power of the vote. If the policies he advocated — such as prohibition — happened to save souls along the way, all the better, but he believed they must be achieved through secular majoritarian processes.

His central critique of evolution, though obviously rooted in Christian revelation, drew most heavily from rational moral arguments. Bryan was particularly concerned that reducing man to a “mere mammal” would fatally devalue individual human lives. Given the Nazis’ embrace of eugenics and genocide less than two decades later, it’s hard to conclude that Bryan was wrong.

Deifying Darrow

Conversely, “Inherit the Wind” treats the evolutionists as well-meaning, if flawed, idealists. But the real-life Darrow was a prickly, controversy-courting atheist and free-will denier who wasn’t above using cruel tactics to advance his agenda — a far cry from the dignified and tolerant figure the movie presents.

The movie also exaggerates the role journalist and gadfly H.L. Mencken (portrayed by Gene Kelly as E.K. Hornbeck) had in the proceedings, which has burnished his reputation as a free speech pioneer. While Mencken’s syndicated column for the Baltimore Sun made him a national figure, his influence on conventional wisdom was limited. As historian Madison Trammel writes, news “coverage of fundamentalists was fairly evenly split between positive, negative, and neutral articles.”

“Inherit the Wind” further lionizes Mencken by ignoring the less savory aspects of his self-styled crusade against ignorance and hypocrisy. As his late biographer Terry Teachout notes, Mencken’s tendency to dismiss entire classes of people (such as the ignorant masses he dubbed the "booboisie") at times could take on an ugly eugenic tone.

"The educated negro of today is a failure," wrote Mencken in an exchange with prominent socialist Robert Rives La Monte, published in 1910. "Not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man."

Mencken the misanthrope

Mencken’s interest in the trial derived in large part from his contempt for the prosecution’s side. Worried the local bumpkins wouldn’t provide him with enough material, Mencken attempted to trick them into attending the service of a made-up faith healer. Despite printing and handing out 1,000 handbills for his proto-"Daily Show" stunt, he was unable to find any locals gullible enough to take the bait.

Like Darrow, whom Mencken convinced to take the case, Mencken took glee in making Bryan look like a fool. He couldn’t even resist crowing about the latter’s sudden death, publicly joking that “God aimed at Darrow, missed, and hit Bryan instead.” In private, he was less eloquent, noting simply that “we killed the son-of-a-bitch.”

Continuing impact

After a century of this mythology, what remains of Bryan’s public image is a caricature — a fat, egotistical, ignorant, religious nut-job, driven by what Mencken called “simple ambition.” Darrow and Mencken, on the other hand, retain their images as progressive heroes.

In this sense, it’s clear that the trial’s putative losers have been victorious in the long-term. Their underlying assumption that Christian faith poses a threat to education has influenced debates about school prayer, homeschooling, and the right of the state to intervene against religious parents for their children’s safety.

RELATED: I was a 'problem student' — until all-male Catholic school let me be a boy

  Alex_Bond/Bettman/Getty Images

At the same time, the attempts of majority-Christian communities to enforce their own local norms have been recast as fanatical campaigns to impose religion on public life, with the removal of age-inappropriate materials from public school libraries likened to book-burning .

One can even spot the influence of Scopes on the COVID-era demonization of “anti-vaxxers,” whose main offense is their obstinate refusal to defer to their supposed superiors, the technocratic elite deriving authority from “the science.”

'Free speech' as power grab

Bryan rejected this claim to authority. It was not evolutionists’ irreligiosity he opposed but rather their overreach: Who were they to argue with how the people of Tennessee had decided to educate their children? Why did they assume that their particular beliefs held greater weight than those of their opponents?

“Christians are compelled to build their own colleges in which to teach Christianity,” Bryan said in a statement weeks before the trial commenced. “Why not require atheists and agnostics to build their own colleges in which to teach atheism and agnosticism?”

For Bryan, the invocation of free speech concealed the kind of secular, governmental power grab we still see playing out today: “The duty of a parent to protect his children is more sacred than the right of teachers to teach what parents do not want taught.”

English Catholic journalist G.K. Chesterton echoed this view, arguing that the removal of Christianity from education had merely swapped trust in God for trust in the pluralistic education system and any teacher who administered it: “And if his own private opinions happen to be of the rather crude sort that are commonly contemporary with and connected with the new sciences or pseudo-sciences, he can teach any of them under cover of those sciences. That is what the people of Dayton, Tennessee, were really in revolt against.”

Who is in charge?

One can see how prescient Chesterton was about such fashionable educational trend-chasing in everything from the trans-kids controversies to the “book burning” scandals. Who is truly in charge? Parents or teachers? Majoritarian populists or experts? Who should be in charge?

While objections like Chesterton’s seem to have faded from memory, to view the Scopes Monkey Trial as Christianity’s last, desperate attempt to claw back institutional power from ascendant science is to overstate the case. Gallup reports that 37% of Americans still believe in young-earth creationism, while a further 34% believe in some form of theistic evolution or divine intervention. Both sides of the debate remain as inflamed as ever, if not more virulently distrustful of the other's intentions.

The fundamentalists may or may not be correct about the age of the Earth or the origin of species, but their instincts about the authoritarianism lurking beneath our modern, post-religious order are worthy of our attention.

Considering that the same technocratic oligarchy that claimed Scopes as a victory drove the world into two World Wars, multiple economic crises, and a pandemic-cum-social engineering experiment, the spiritual heirs of William Jennings Bryan may yet get another day in court.

9 reasons we (still) love America — and you should too



1. We're incurable optimists

  H. Armstrong Roberts/Classic Stock

If you're on music duty for the barbecue this weekend, don't overlook "Little Pink Houses."

The John Cougar Mellencamp classic is a dependable crowd-pleaser because it's one of those songs people tend to forget they love. At least until it gets to the first "Ain't that America?" — at which point everybody's singing along. An essential addition to any patriotic playlist.

Now, some party poopers love to point out that "Little Pink Houses" isn't really a celebration of America. (They do this with "Born in the U.S.A." too.) Even Mellencamp himself.

“This one has been misconstrued over the years because of the chorus — it sounds very rah-rah. But it’s really an anti-American song."

Tell you what, Mr. Mellencamp: We'll be the judge of that. And as soon as we hear that opening riff, our hearts swell with patriotic pride.

It's not that we haven't heard the lyrics. It's that we don't feel sorry for the everyday Americans they describe — as we're apparently supposed to.

Take the black guy in the first verse, with the interstate running through the front yard of his little pink house.

That guy inspired the song. He's based on a real person Mellencamp saw in Indianapolis, sitting in a cheap lawn chair with a cat and watching the endless traffic go past his front yard.

The most striking thing to Mellencamp was how content the guy seemed. But instead of contemplating this mysterious serenity, he dismisses it as delusional.

"You know he thinks he got it so good."

Who are we to say he doesn't? Have you ever seen a better distillation of patronizing, paternal liberalism?

From that simple image, by the way, the up-and-coming singer-songwriter built a top-10 hit and classic rock staple beloved by millions for more than four decades. How's that for the American dream? The dream "Little Pink Houses" is supposed to "critique."

Or consider the young man with the greasy hair and greasy smile "listening to the rock and roll station."

When we hear that verse, we get an intense nostalgic feeling of doing nothing on a lazy summer afternoon before smartphones were invented.

Paradise. He's young and it's morning in America. And we're supposed to think he's sad that he's not going to be president?

Forget the self-defeating, sad-sack interpretations. "Little Pink Houses" is about the kind of determined optimism only Americans understand. "There's winners, and there's losers," the song notes. Can you think of a better place to be either?

It's the pedantic killjoys who miss the point. Yes, we're taking a tale of ordinary hardship and cheerfully focusing on the good parts until the hardship itself almost seems fun. It's the American way.

From the moment "Little Pink Houses" hit the airwaves in October 1983, all the Debbie Downers and Gloomy Guses trying to bum us out didn't stand a chance.

Or as one scold puts it, "Most people simply heard 'America,' tuned out the sarcasm, and unfurled the flag."

Exactly. Sounds like the perfect Fourth of July to us.

—Matt Himes, managing editor, Align

2. We love pulling off the impossible

 

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville said, “Democracy is slow and sluggish and inefficient, but once the will of the people is set in motion, nothing can stop it.”

At least, that’s what I remember him saying, but my computer says no. Maybe he said it to me in confidence and I thought I read it in a book.

At any rate, it’s true. Americans are capable of letting the pendulum swing very far into chaos (not as far as South Africa, but almost) before correcting. Chicago went from the frying pan of Lori Lightfoot into the fire of Brandon Johnson. New York City has been choosing progressively worse progressives since Giuliani and currently has its sites set on a spoiled rich kid who thinks he hates money and loves Palestine.

However, after Biden, we got Trump. After letting in more immigrants in four years than Ellis Island did from 1892 to 1954, we got deportations. After praising Antifa and BLM for burning our country to the ground and then condemning innocent J6ers to decades in prison, we we got pardons for the innocent and punishment for the pyromaniacs.

It might feel sometimes that we are losing our country and the pendulum is locked into “slow and sluggish” mode, but Trump should give us hope. If the presidency can be saved, so can the whole country.

Andrew Breitbart always said, “Politics is downstream from culture,” but MAGA is both. Last week a replica of the "Dukes of Hazzard" car was jumped over the downtown fountain in Somerset, Kentucky, as 35,000 people screamed their heads off. It wasn’t just a random stunt. It was a sign. America is becoming great again. We just have to stay the course and have faith.

—Gavin McInnes, host of "Get Off My Lawn"

3. You can't shut us up

 CORBIS via Getty Images

Once upon a time Hollywood loved free speech, the all-American value we need now more than ever.

The 1995 political romance "The American President" ended with a stem-winder by President Shepherd, played by Michael Douglas.

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

That was then. Hollywood wouldn't allow that opinion in a feature film today. The industry recoils over "hate speech," refuses to defend conservatives banned from social media, and twiddles its thumbs while "sensitivity readers" swarm the publishing ranks.

Oh, and the best and brightest cheered when social media platforms booted President Donald Trump off of their digital turf.

I want that 1995-era Hollywood back. And if today's version can't rise to the occasion, a new Hollywood will emerge. It won't be based in California, mind you, but as technology gives artists the tools to tell their stories their way, new tales will be told across the fruited plain.

Why? Because that's how America works. Still.

—Christian Toto, film critic

RELATED: America’s Southwest was conquered fair and square

  Photo by Nawrocki/ClassicStock/Getty Images

4. We have the need for speed

 Bernard Cahier/Getty Images

America, to me, is the land of boundless opportunity, where hard work, creativity, and ingenuity drive progress, from the open road to the factory floor.

Our nation is built on the freedom to chase dreams, like restoring classic cars; driving the type of vehicle you want, where you want and when you want; or pioneering new technologies, all while honoring the values that keep us strong.

For our family, our life is all about cars, auto racing, and restoration. One American who has especially inspired us is the famous car racer, designer, and marketer Carroll Shelby.

In the early 1960s, GT automobile racing was dominated by European brands like Jaguar, Ferrari, and Aston Martin. Shelby, a young Texan who had won Le Mans in an Aston Martin, thought he could make something faster. And he did — putting a Ford V8 engine in a sleek, lightweight body.

For us, Shelby represents American ingenuity, hard work, and never-say-die spirit. He reminds us of the simple, uniquely American freedom of getting behind the wheel of your own car and hitting the open road.

It's impossible to drive or ride in a Shelby Mustang or Cobra without a big smile on your face; it's one of those special experiences you don't forget. We certainly won't — we named our daughter Shelby.

—Lauren Fix, Align Cars

5. We love a long shot

  Joshua Lisec

Scott Adams was working at Pacific Bell and wanted a career change. So he woke up early every day before work to figure out his next step.

Even though he had little artistic experience and no special talent, the career that stuck was newspaper cartoonist. "Dilbert" was born. After almost a decade of grinding it out, he made it the most successful comic strip in the country.

With his MBA and corporate resume, Adams had no business trying to break in to the hyper-competitive world of syndicated newspaper strips. It shouldn't have worked — but it did. As he writes in his book "Reframe Your Brain,"

Once you realize you're terrible at estimating the odds of your own success, you're free to try things you might otherwise not consider. You are allowed to expand beyond your comfort zone without pressure because the only way to know what will work is to test it yourself.

In 2015, Adams noticed another corporate guy attempting an improbable career change. He was the first to predict that Donald Trump would win the presidency. People laughed, but of course Adams was right.

Since then, Adams has gone on to launch a beloved YouTube show, publish a few books, and build a reputation as one of the wisest political commentators and dispensers of career and life advice around.

When Adams announced that he had terminal prostate cancer in May, the outpouring of tributes on X and elsewhere was a powerful indication of how many lives he changed.

Since then, he's continued to show up for the community he's built, while acknowledging that he's on borrowed time. His fans plan on sticking with him to the end.

In the words of Adams' frequent collaborator, ghostwriter, editor, and publisher Joshua Lisec:

Scott is the original internet dad. It's obvious to all that basically everyone under 45 or so has the father wound — either from overbearing dads who weren't helpful in giving quality life advice or dads who were totally checked out while a second-wave feminist mom ran the show. So what's it like to have a father who wants the absolute best for you and provides you firm yet kind counsel in every area of your life, from career, health, and relationships to how to think productively about politics, religion, and happiness? That's Scott Adams.

—Matt Himes

6. We're different but the same

  Raymond Boyd/Getty Images

Order a "hot dog" in New York City and you'll get an all-beef frankfurter in a natural casing with mustard and maybe some sauerkraut and onions. In Chicago they'll load you up with everything: yellow mustard, dark green relish, chopped raw onion, peppers, pickles, and tomato — crammed into a poppy-seed bun with celery salt on top.

In D.C. the style is half beef, half pork with chili and onions. In Philadelphia they'll make it surf and turf by adding a fish cake.

In Cleveland they have the Polish Boy, which is a kielbasa with french fries, slaw, and barbecue sauce. Go to a Colorado Rockies game and you'll get a foot-long with grilled peppers. Up in Maine they like their dogs bright red.

At Fenway Park they boil and grill them and offer to put baked beans on top. Cincinnati is known for chili and cheese. And in the Southwest, they'll add salsa, bacon, and pinto beans.

Come to think of it, this is a great metaphor for the big immigration brouhaha these days. Opening the borders to millions of foreigners who have no interest in America except as a nice place to set up their own ethnic enclaves and send money home is like replacing all the hot-dog stands in Albany with samosa carts or kebab trucks.

You want both. And when it comes to hot dogs, you want something recognizably American (a hot dog) but with its own regional spin. Making it their own while still respecting the core elements (frankfurter, bun, toppings) that make it work. That's the kind of "diversity" this country is built on.

—Matt Himes

7. Show us a frontier and we'll build on it

Just returned from weekend at Wagon Box. It was great.

Beautiful, intellectual, long conversations, incredible local beef, flow of locals and weirdos interfacing with Substack religo-dorks and scenester art women. A little janky, not everything works right, everything a bit slanted, erratic, and natural. Some things you pay for, some you don't.

Nobody quite knows the rules. An overtly hostile shouting bartender whom everyone learns to love. Two types of delicious local ale and only three items on the lunch menu. Zero gloss of private equity. A positive and non-hateful crossroads of genuinely strange IRL human connection, contemplation, and discussion.

And most importantly, no policing of thought or language.

When Paul McNiel bought it a few years ago, it was a former biker bar in the woods where hardcore one-percenters would stop on their way around upper Wyoming and Montana. They used to sit on that porch and howl and make trouble all night long, until cultural feminization quelled their activity to a trickle.

And now instead of bikers, it's a bunch of thinkers and talkers who sit on that porch thinking and talking late into the night, with a lot less meth and a lot less fighting and a lot more plotting and planning to benefit the globe and humankind. It's a free zone one way or another.

—Isaac Simpson, founder and director, WILL

8. We elected Donald Trump. Twice.

  SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

No modern American president has ever been this fully president before. He is pulling every lever and pressing every button, even ones that haven't been pressed in decades, if ever. He is dusting off the forgotten control panels and firing up the long-abandoned machines.

It may not be exactly to your liking, but this is the best we are ever going to get in our lifetimes, so enjoy it while it lasts.

—Peachy Keenan, author of "Domestic Extremist"

9. Because it's worth fighting for

  Portland Press Herald/Getty Images

It's wild that simply loving America has become a revolutionary act. But since it's the closest I'll get to the founding fathers, I'll take it.

—Lou Perez, writer and comedian