5 family-friendly podcasts for smooth summer road trips



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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: What moving my family to Budapest has taught me about America

nedomacki/Getty Images

'Intentionally Blank'

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

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

'Sports Wars'

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

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

'Against the Odds'

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

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

'How I Built This'

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

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

'Spooked'

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

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

This investor is wiping out white-collar jobs



If you've never heard the name Elad Gil, you're not alone. He’s not a headline-chaser or a techno-evangelist. He doesn’t preach on panels. He doesn’t tweet manifestos. He doesn’t need to. His name travels in whispers, passed from boardroom to boardroom like a trade secret. Yet what Gil is quietly engineering could shape the economy for decades, perhaps even forever.

Not through invention, but through subtraction.

Gil made his money the Silicon Valley way — early and often. Google, Twitter, Stripe, Airbnb. He was a ghost in the margins, always one chess move ahead. But now, the ghost is stepping into the light. According to TechCrunch, Gil has turned his attention to service businesses: accounting firms, law offices, and marketing agencies. Stable. Predictable. Bloated with white-collar workers. The kinds of jobs parents once prayed their children would land. And that’s exactly why he’s targeting them.

Is it heartless? That depends on whether you think hearts belong in the workplace.

The model is surgical: Acquire the business, replace the humans with AI, use the freed-up cash to buy the next one, and repeat. Some might refer to it as innovation. I prefer to label it consolidation through automation. A system designed not to disrupt but to dismantle, not just head count but entire categories of human purpose.

Take a beat to really absorb that. Gil isn’t automating the future. He’s converting the present. Turning human institutions — businesses once run by people, for people — into stripped-down algorithmic systems. Places where your skills, your degree, and your job title don’t mean anything any more. Because the thing doing your job now doesn’t sleep, doesn’t complain, doesn't have flings with colleagues, and doesn’t ask for a raise.

A machine with no need for you

Gil’s investments include Klarity, which uses AI to automate back office work across industries as varied as accounting, finance, health care, insurance, and law – where it helps remove the need for junior associates and legal clerks. Pricey legal work, a crucial upward mobility pipeline for generations, is especially in the crosshairs; there’s also HarveyAI, catching on fast in elite law firms across the U.S. Entire tiers of legal support are becoming obsolete. In marketing, meanwhile, firms like Copy.ai and Jasper are turning copywriters and ad creatives into legacy roles. It’s not “do more with less.” It’s “do everything with code.”

Is it heartless? That depends on whether you think hearts belong in the workplace.

Gil and his cohort don’t. To them, the human being isn’t a collaborator. It’s a friction point. A legacy system waiting to be deprecated. Unlike the robber barons of a century ago — who, however brutally, still depended on human labor to build their empires — today’s technocrats don’t need you. They need your data. Your patterns. Your output, divorced from your existence. This is a different species of capitalism. Not extractive, but excisive.

And let’s be honest — this isn’t just about greedy investors. Gil’s strategy lands because many of these jobs, for years, have been pointless. A generation of college graduates was funneled into open-plan offices to send emails, fine-tune slide decks, and sit through meetings that led nowhere. The "bulls**t job" economy, as David Graeber put it, was never built to last. But that doesn’t mean what replaces it will be better or more humane.

You can call these jobs expendable. Maybe they were. But they still structured lives. They paid mortgages. They gave people routine, insurance, and purpose. They were a way in. And now, increasingly, they’re a way out — out of the economy, out of relevance, out of the social contract.

RELATED: BlackRock’s illusion of choice: Are investors truly empowered — or manipulated?

SOPA/Getty Images

Ontological redesign

Some cheer this shift. Let the accountants go. Let the copywriters retrain. Let the middle managers find something “real” to do. But real where? And for whom?

The jobs replacing these eliminated roles don’t exist — not at scale, not at pay, not with stability. The idea that workers can simply upskill and move into “AI oversight” or “prompt engineering” is a Silicon Valley fairy tale. For every prompt engineer making $300K, there are a hundred people waiting tables or fighting with gig apps for scraps.

When the AI wave rolls over the white-collar workforce, there’s no levee to stop it. No new Roosevelt. No Marshall Plan for knowledge work. Just the slow, quiet disappearance of millions of people from the center of economic life. And when the lights go out in those buildings, when the consultants, creatives, and coordinators vanish from LinkedIn, what comes next?

Nothing.

Gil’s model isn’t just about economic efficiency. It’s about ontological redesign. It asks: What kinds of people should exist in a digital economy? And the answer, increasingly, is: fewer. Fewer thinkers. Fewer doers. Fewer citizens with jobs that anchor them to a class, a community, and a sense of contribution.

What remain are consumers. Subscribers. Passive users of a system run by invisible technocrats who, like Gil, don’t need to advertise. They don’t govern with slogans. They govern with math. With marginal gains. With software that logs on when you’re asleep and decides that, actually, you’re no longer needed.

There are no protests for this kind of change, no uprisings, and no villains twirling mustaches on TV. The great erasure is happening in silence — in HR spreadsheets, calendar invites that never get sent, and job postings that never go live.

And the most sinister part?

It works.

Profits go up. Costs go down. Investors cheer. Business schools start case studies. Politicians, desperate not to look Luddite, parrot the line that “AI will create more jobs than it destroys.” And they may even believe it.

But such a belief doesn't mirror reality. In fact, it ignores it.

The automated and displaced

Let’s say you’re 42, mid-career, working at a regional law firm or a mid-tier marketing agency. You’re not a thought leader. You’re not building apps in your spare time. You’re just ... working. Supporting a family, trying to get ahead.

Your firm gets acquired by one of Gil’s AI-forward portfolio companies. Your job is “automated.” No severance, just a link to an AI help center and a webinar about how to “future-proof your skills.” Good luck. Try Fiverr. Try Upwork. Try not to drown. The truth is, people like you don’t get retrained. You get sidelined.

And the longer you're out, the harder it gets to claw your way back in. Not because you're unqualified, but because the rules changed in the blink of an eye. Because the economy stopped needing you.

To be fair, Gil didn’t invent this trajectory. He’s just executing it more efficiently — and more quietly — than most. He’s not building a Terminator. He’s building infrastructure. Tools, workflows, and systems designed to remove human labor the way a surgeon removes a tumor: cleanly, clinically, with minimal disruption to the host.

But make no mistake. Once you strip out enough of those pieces, the whole system fails. Not with a bang, but with quiet resignation. So when your child asks what job he should pursue, what do you tell him? If a degree in law or accounting can be outpaced by an LLM trained on Reddit threads and the Harvard Law Review, where does that leave stability? What becomes of upward mobility or any sense of security at all?

Gil may not be the architect of dystopia, but he is its quiet contractor, making acquisitions one at a time.

The question isn’t whether we stop him. It’s whether we recognize what he represents and whether we’re willing to fight for a future in which relevance isn’t defined by whether or not you can be replaced by a line of code. Because if we don’t, then the most terrifying part won’t be what Gil builds.

It’ll be what he no longer needs.

Us.

$8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda



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

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

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

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

Cleaner fuels, higher prices

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

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

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

About climate — or control?

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

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

RELATED: California gas-car ban overturned by Senate

The Enthusiast Network/Getty Images

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

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

California in charge?

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

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

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

Not buying it

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

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

Meeting consumers, not mandates

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

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

Freedom vs. forced transition

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

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

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

Taking back the wheel

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

For more on this, check out my video here.

Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry?



When it comes to tariffs on foreign cars, President Trump seems to have a simple philosophy: “The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here."

This bold strategy is already showing results, with foreign automakers investing billions of dollars in American production. But it's also raising costs for automakers and consumers.

When automakers build plants in the US, they create jobs not only in manufacturing but also in related industries like steel, logistics, and technology.

So what does this mean for the cars we drive, the jobs we create, and the prices we pay? Let’s dive into the details and unpack why this story matters to every American — and why you’ll want to understand the full impact.

Tariffs as a catalyst for US investment

Trump’s tariff strategy is straightforward: Make it more expensive to import vehicles, and automakers will have no choice but to build factories in the United States.

It’s a high-stakes chess move, and early signs suggest it’s working. General Motors recently announced a $4 billion investment in three U.S. plants, including a shift of some SUV production from Mexico to American soil.

Hyundai, too, made headlines in March with a $21 billion commitment, which includes a new U.S. steel plant. Trump didn’t mince words when he credited these moves to his tariff policies. “They wouldn’t have invested 10 cents if we didn’t have tariffs,” he said, pointing to the ripple effect on industries like American steel, which is seeing a resurgence.

RELATED: Revving up America: Trump’s Nippon Steel deal puts the pedal to the metal

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images

These investments are more than just numbers — they translate into jobs, economic growth, and a renewed sense of pride in American manufacturing. For communities hit hard by decades of outsourcing, the prospect of new factories is a beacon of hope. But the story isn’t all rosy. Automakers are feeling the pinch, and some of those costs are trickling down to consumers. The question is: Will the long-term gains outweigh the short-term pain?

The auto industry’s pushback

Not everyone is cheering Trump’s tariff plans. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis have been vocal about their concerns, urging the White House to roll back the 25% tariffs imposed on imported autos. They argue that these tariffs drive up costs, making it harder to compete in a global market.

Adding fuel to the fire, automakers are frustrated by a recent deal that reduces tariffs on British car imports but leaves Canadian and Mexican production facing the full 25% levy. This discrepancy has created tension, as North American supply chains are deeply integrated, with parts and vehicles crossing borders multiple times before reaching showrooms.

Mexico, however, has secured a partial reprieve. Cars assembled in Mexico and exported to the U.S. will face an average tariff of 15%, thanks to reductions tied to the value of U.S. content in those vehicles. This compromise shows the complexity of Trump’s tariff strategy — it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, and automakers are navigating a maze of regulations to keep costs down. Still, the pressure is on, and companies are being forced to rethink their global production strategies.

The cost of tariffs: Who pays the price?

Tariffs are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they’re spurring investment in U.S. factories; on the other, they’re driving up costs for automakers and, ultimately, consumers.

Ford Motor recently raised prices on some models, citing tariff-related costs that are expected to shave $1.5 billion off its adjusted earnings.

General Motors is grappling with an even bigger hit, estimating its tariff exposure at $4 billion to $5 billion, with roughly $2 billion tied to affordable Chevrolet and Buick models imported from South Korea.

Subaru of America has also hiked prices, a move that reflects the broader industry trend.

For car buyers, this could mean sticker shock at dealerships. Higher production costs often lead to pricier vehicles, especially for entry-level models that rely on imported components.

The average American family shopping for a reliable sedan or SUV might feel the squeeze, particularly as inflation and supply-chain challenges already strain household budgets.

But there’s a silver lining: As automakers shift production to the U.S., new jobs and economic opportunities could offset some of these costs over time. The trade-off is real, and it’s worth exploring how this balance will play out.

It’s also important to note that there are over 2.5 million cars that are ready to sell that are pre-tariffed. So there are some deals out there if you shop around.

Why tariffs matter to you

You might be wondering: Why should I care about tariffs if I’m not in the auto industry?

The answer lies in the broader impact. Tariffs don’t just affect car prices — they shape the economy, influence job creation, and even touch on national pride. When automakers build plants in the U.S., they create jobs not only in manufacturing but also in related industries like steel, logistics, and technology. These are the kinds of jobs that sustain communities, from small towns in the Midwest to bustling industrial hubs.

Moreover, Trump’s tariff push is part of a larger conversation about America’s place in the global economy. By incentivizing domestic production, the administration aims to reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing, a move that resonates with many Americans who want to see “Made in the USA” mean something again.

But it’s not without risks. Higher tariffs could strain trade relationships with allies like Canada and Mexico, and they might invite retaliatory tariffs on American exports. The stakes are high, and the outcome will shape the auto industry — and the economy — for years to come.

The road ahead: What to watch for

As Trump hints at raising tariffs soon, all eyes are on how automakers will respond.

Will they increase U.S. investments, as GM and Hyundai have done, or will they find ways to absorb or pass on the costs? The Detroit Big Three are already under pressure to compete with foreign automakers, which may have more flexibility in navigating global supply chains. Meanwhile, consumers will be watching their wallets, weighing the benefits of American-made vehicles against the reality of higher prices.

Another key factor is the global response. Countries like Mexico and Canada, integral to the North American auto industry, may push back against U.S. tariffs, potentially escalating trade tensions.

At the same time, the steel industry, a beneficiary of Trump’s policies, could see further growth as demand for American-made materials rises. It’s a complex web of cause and effect, and the next few months will be critical in determining whether Trump’s gamble pays off.

Why you should share this story

This isn’t just an auto industry story — it’s an American story. Whether you’re a car enthusiast, a worker in a manufacturing town, or just someone who cares about the economy, Trump’s tariff strategy affects you. It’s about jobs, innovation, and the future of American industry. Stay informed about policies that could reshape the way we buy and drive cars.

So what’s the bottom line? Trump’s tariff push is a bold move to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., and it’s already yielding results with billions in new investments. But it comes with challenges — higher costs for automakers and consumers, trade tensions, and an uncertain road ahead. By reading this far, you’ve gotten a front-row seat to one of the most consequential economic debates of our time.

So let's keep the conversation going. What do you think about Trump’s tariff strategy? Will it drive American innovation, or is it a risky bet? The answers are still unfolding, and you won’t want to miss what happens next.

Watches, clothes, and cars are no substitute for character



If you spend any amount of time on X (formally known as Twitter), it’s hard not to notice the incredible amount of daily anxiety people experience.

It’s all over. There’s political anxiety, height anxiety, weight anxiety, relationship anxiety manifesting in an accelerating gender war, and, of course, class anxiety. And my God, the class anxiety is so painful, so fraught, and so vapid. Really, it’s so absurd you have to laugh.

In our degraded era, developing into a civilized, literate Westerner is considered boring.

“If I have to read one more post about what something ‘codes as,’ I am going to throw my phone through the (insert expletive) window.” That was my sentiment about three days before I finally muted the phrase, “codes as.”

Code breaking

For those not in the know, the latest trend online seems to be analyzing a person's every sartorial/consumer/personal choice and determining what it says about their status. In other words, what it "codes as."

RELATED: Children's clothing should be cheap — but it doesn't have to look ugly

Universal History Archive/Getty Images

It gets old quickly. How many posts can be made analyzing what a car "codes as"? How many hot takes can there possibly be on the apparent class-signaling evident in how a woman does her hair? How many overwrought opinions clearly overcompensating for a hidden fear about “downward mobility” can really be sent out into the X-verse?

It appears there is no limit, no ceiling. This silly, trite — though pretending to be enlightened and insightful — discourse knows no end.

Mixed signals

We all know that we all send signals all the time. Sometimes we send them intentionally, other times unintentionally.

We understand that what we wear says something about what we value. That how we speak reveals something about our upbringing.

The watches we wear, the music we hear, the way we talk about faith, and the way we voice our disagreements with those opposite us all speak volumes. The way we talk about money — or more importantly, the way we don’t talk about money — the manners we have or the ones we don’t have, all these things are signals.

So what’s wrong with analyzing these signals?

Trend traps

Nothing. It’s the talking about it publicly. It's a bit gauche, especially when it leads to obsessing over our own choices and what they communicate to others.

Being in a constant state of trying to anticipate trends or copy the taste of others is exhausting. To base your identity entirely on signaling as a certain class and how others see you as an embodiment of that class is silly.

It’s a sign of having no internal compass, opinion, or taste of your own. It’s a sign of extreme over-socialization. It’s closer to slavery than freedom. It’s no way to live life.

Improving your manners is good. Manners are a sign of dignified civilization. Trying to dress well out of respect for others is also good. Dressing well is a sign of decency. Becoming musically literate so as to understand some of the most beautiful music ever written is key to understanding the greatness of Western civilization. These things used to be attached to class in some way. Now, not so much.

Personality void

In our degraded era, developing into a civilized, literate Westerner is considered boring. Today, class anxiety mainly revolves around buying the right things and consuming them in the right way.

It’s what happens when one lacks a personality or confidence. It may sound strange, but it takes confidence to be who you are, enjoy what you enjoy, pursue what you believe, learn about art and culture out of genuine curiosity, and be a decent person because it’s the right thing to do.

RELATED: Fashion icon turned Nazi ally: Coco Chanel’s dark wartime secrets (plus the nation that revived her)

Horst P. Horst/Condé Nast | Getty Images

If you are in a constant state of reacting to the world and then becoming whoever you are based on that reaction, what are you? Is there anything in there, deep down? Do you have autonomy, or are you just a pinball bouncing around?

That’s the problem with all of this. That’s the story under the story. That’s what the obsession with what everything "codes as" reveals. A lack of self and an inability to be someone — anyone! — without first consulting the trend opinions of everyone else.

It’s a life lived for others. A life without honest direction or authentic intention.

Quick Fix: What's the safest used car for my teenager?



Hi, I'm Lauren Fix, longtime automotive journalist and a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Welcome back to "Quick Fix," where I answer car-related questions you submit to me.

Today's question comes from Sarah in Tampa, Florida.

Hi Lauren:

We are helping our teenager buy his first car so he can drive himself to his job this summer. We want something safe, inexpensive, and reliable.

Can you 1) recommend where to look for such a car? And 2) suggest any makes or models that buyers tend to have good luck with?

Thank you!

Great question, Sarah — and I think I've got some good answers for you.

When it comes to buying a used car, dealers are always a good bet: buy a certified pre-owned vehicle and you're protected by a warranty.

If you want buy from a private seller, I recommend you get the vehicle you're considering up on a lift so an ASE certified mechanic can look at. Have him or her give the car one of three rankings:

Green: This means "go," of course. It's well-maintained, no rust, the engine and brakes are in good working order. An easy decision to buy.

Yellow: Cars like this might have been in a minor fender-bender, or have some concerning but repairable issues to deal with. Worth a buy if you know what you're getting into.

Red: Avoid. This includes severe accidents, flood damage, a salvage title, and the kind of problems (transmission, for example) that can cost more than the value of the car.

As far as car safety goes, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) maintains a wealth of ratings online.

Now for where the rubber meets the road. Here are a few of my car recommendations at different price points.

New

  • Kia K4
  • Mazda CX 30
  • Toyota Prius
  • Honda Civic

Used under 20k

  • 2017 Toyota RAV4
  • 2018 Mazda CX 5
  • 2017 Honda CR – V
  • 2021 Toyota Corolla

Used under 15k

  • 2018 Kia Sportage
  • 2019 Kia Soul
  • 2017 Toyota Corolla
  • 2018 Mazda3

And, for some real bargains (keep in mind, however, that with cars 10-15 years old you're sacrificing safety and/or reliability):

Used under 10k

  • 2009 Toyota RAV4
  • 2010 Honda element
  • 2011 Toyota Avalon

Much more information where that came from. Just click the video below:

Got a car-related question? Email me at getquickfix@pm.me.

GM head touts EV-only future — while pouring $1 billion into gas engines



Americans aren't buying them and Trump wants to take away their $7,500 tax credit — but General Motors CEO Mary Barra still thinks electric vehicles are the future.

Never mind the $888 million her own company just poured into gas-powered V-8 engines — Barra seems to think they'll go the way of the dinosaurs sooner rather than later.

Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

"I see a path to all EV," she announced at the Wall Street Journal's Future of Everything conference late last month. "I do believe we'll get there because I think the vehicles are better.”

Barra's commitment to phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 has made GM one of the frontrunners in the EV race.

Consumer doubts

Meanwhile, actual consumers still bring up the rear. A recent AAA survey reveals that 63% of Americans are skeptical about EVs, citing high costs, higher insurance premiums, and inadequate charging infrastructure.

Then, there's that almost billon-dollar investment in gas-guzzlers. Something tells us Barra's not exactly putting her money where her mouth is.

Can she have it both ways? As some automakers resist the all-EV push and others cling to outdated mandates, the auto industry is at a crossroads. Let’s unpack the contradictory strategy, consumer hesitancy, and the brands charting their own paths in this high-stakes debate.

This could impact the economy, your driving choices, and where you spend your money..

RELATED: Introducing 'Quick Fix': Practical answers to all your car questions

Blaze Media

The rubber meets the road

Barra has positioned GM as an EV leader, boasting, “We have more EVs in the market right now than anyone else in this country.” GM’s lineup includes nine electric models, such as the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Cadillac Escalade IQ, and GMC Hummer EV, with four more planned.

The Equinox EV, priced around $35,000, aims to make EVs accessible to everyone. To support this, GM has invested $35 billion through 2025 in EV and autonomous vehicle development, including a battery cells factory outside Nashville.

In contrast, last December, GM announced it would sell its stake in the Ultium Cells plant in Lansing, Michigan, to LG Energy Solution. Partnerships with EVgo and Pilot Company aim to expand fast-charging stations, with Barra asserting, “Charging is just going to continue to get better.” GM has dropped the “Ultium” brand name for EV batteries.

Hedging bets

Yet, GM’s actions tell a different story. In a surprising move, the company announced an $888 million investment in its Tonawanda Propulsion plant, outside of Buffalo, New York, to produce the sixth generation of V-8 engines for full-size trucks and SUVs.

These engines promise stronger performance, better fuel economy, and lower emissions through new combustion and thermal management innovations.

This follows a $579 million investment in January 2023 to upgrade the Flint Engine plant for the same V-8 engines, marking Tonawanda as the second facility to produce them.

Barra defended the move, saying, “Our significant investments in GM’s Tonawanda Propulsion plant show our commitment to strengthening American manufacturing and supporting jobs in the U.S.” She added that the Buffalo plant, operational for 87 years, will deliver “world-class trucks and SUVs to our customers for years to come.”

This dual strategy raises questions. Is GM truly committed to an all-electric future, or is Barra hedging her bets to meet consumer demand for gas-powered vehicles?

Consumers might argue she’s trying to have it both ways — pushing a government-favored EV agenda while quietly acknowledging that Americans still want gas trucks and SUVs. Barra’s claim of “choice” feels like a nod to market freedom, but it’s hard to ignore the influence of past presidential administrations’ heavy-handed EV mandates.

If GM is serious about consumer choice, why not let the market — not bureaucrats — set the pace?

'No' to top-down mandates

Americans aren’t buying the EV hype. AAA’s latest survey shows only 16% of U.S. adults are “very likely” or “likely” to buy an EV as their next car, the lowest interest since 2019. Meanwhile, 63% are “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to go electric, up from 51% last year.

Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering, noted, “While the automotive industry is committed to long-term electrification and providing a diverse range of models, underlying consumer hesitation remains.”

The reasons are clear: high battery repair costs (62%) and purchase price (59%) top the list. AAA’s "Your Driving Costs 2024" analysis confirms EVs’ higher upfront costs, despite long-term savings. Additionally, 57% see EVs as unsuitable for long-distance travel, 56% cite insufficient public charging stations, and 55% fear range anxiety. Safety concerns trouble 31%, 27% struggle with home charging (especially in apartments), and 12% worry about losing tax credits.

These numbers reflect a market rejecting top-down mandates. Consumers aren’t anti-EV — they’re anti-being told what to buy when the infrastructure and affordability aren’t there. Barra’s EV push aligns with policies mandated by past administrations, but her V-8 investment suggests she knows the market isn’t ready to abandon gas. This contradiction exposes a flaw in centrally planned transitions: You can’t force consumers to want what doesn’t work for them.

Hybrid theory

While GM straddles both worlds, other automakers are rejecting the all-EV narrative.

Toyota has been vocal about its skepticism, focusing on hybrids like the Prius, which deliver fuel efficiency without charging hassles. Toyota’s investment in hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks positions it as a pioneer in alternatives to battery EVs.

RELATED: Toyota, Jeep, and the big emissions scam

Camerique/Getty Images

Mazda, with its MX-30 EV, prioritizes gas engine improvements and hybrids, citing battery production costs and environmental concerns.

Subaru, offering the Solterra EV, emphasizes hybrids and awaits better charging infrastructure.

Hyundai is navigating the shifting auto landscape with a pragmatic strategy that prioritizes consumer demand over government mandates, a move drivers can applaud. The company’s $7.6 billion Metaplant in Georgia is now expanding to include hybrids, with Kia models joining the lineup in 2026.

Hyundai’s focus on hybrids, like the 2026 Palisade, reflects growing demand for fuel-efficient options that don’t rely on sparse charging infrastructure. Meanwhile, Hyundai continues to produce gas-powered vehicles, recognizing that internal combustion engines still dominate consumer preferences in many markets.

Unlike GM’s Barra, who pushes an all-EV future while investing in gas engines, Hyundai’s approach avoids hypocrisy by openly embracing a mix of EVs, hybrids, and gas vehicles. This flexibility shields Hyundai from policy swings — like potential tariff hikes or the loss of EV subsidies — while giving drivers the freedom to choose what fits their lives, not what bureaucrats dictate.

Stellantis, parent of Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler, balances plug-in hybrids like the Jeep Wrangler 4XE with gas vehicles, catering to diverse consumer needs.

These brands are listening to the market, not bureaucrats. By offering hybrids and gas options, they’re giving consumers what they want — freedom to choose — while GM’s $888 million V-8 investment suggests even Barra knows gas isn’t going away soon. In addition, GM currently does not offer a hybrid powertrain in its vehicles.

This resistance to EV mandates reflects buyers' common sense: Let the market, not the government, decide what drives America.

The road to freedom?

Barra’s vision for 2035 is ambitious, but her actions betray uncertainty. GM’s EV efforts for affordable models, batteries, and charging partnerships are serious, but the $1.4 billion combined investment in V-8 engines for Tonawanda and Flint shows she’s not ready to abandon gas.

AAA’s survey proves consumers aren’t convinced, and brands like Toyota, Stellantis, Mazda, Hyundai, and others are betting on hybrids to bridge the gap. Car brands need to pick a lane: Build what consumers want, not what bureaucrats demand.

If you’re eyeing an EV, the lineup is diverse, but AAA’s data urges caution. Can you charge reliably? Can you afford the cost? Does the range work for your life? If not, you’re among the 63% holding back — and that’s your right.

You're in the driver's seat; where you go should be up to you — not bureaucrats.

Trump to kill $7,500 EV credit ... and Elon agrees?



No more $7,500 tax credit for electric cars.

That crucial proposal is tucked away in Trump's big, beautiful bill — and even Elon Musk likes it. (At least, that's what he's saying.)

As Stellantis Ram brand manager Tim Kuniskis says, “Americans like to count cylinders.”

If passed, it would spell the end of up to $7,500 in federal subsidies per EV and would shut the door on an increasingly controversial and costly pillar of the Biden administration’s transportation policy.

Cash for Clunkers 2.0

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about disliking innovation or electric vehicles. Some people love them. Americans love tech and efficiency. But many are waking up to the realization that we’ve been here before — back in 2009 — with the infamous “Cash for Clunkers” program.

That federal boondoggle was touted as a win-win: Stimulate the economy, clean up the roads, and help Americans afford new, fuel-efficient cars. Instead, it destroyed perfectly good vehicles, reduced the used car supply, inflated car prices, and ultimately did little for emissions.

RELATED: Extend your EV battery's lifespan with two simple steps

Education Images/Getty Images

Fast-forward to today, and the government is repeating history with a different name and a different agenda. This time, it’s EVs that are being pushed through incentives, tax breaks, and regulations. The problem? Americans aren’t buying it — literally. According to AAA’s latest 2024 survey, only 16% of U.S. adults say they’re likely to purchase an EV as their next vehicle, the lowest percentage since 2019. A staggering 63% say they’re unlikely or very unlikely to go electric.

Not buying it

The reasons are clear and reasonable. High purchase prices, unreliable charging infrastructure, battery range anxiety, higher insurance rates, and sky-high repair costs are all legitimate concerns. Add to that the challenge of charging at home — especially for apartment dwellers — and you have a product that’s simply not ready for mass adoption.

That hasn’t stopped the federal government from funneling billions of your tax dollars into EVs, much of it to automakers who were already profitable. What’s worse, companies that don’t even manufacture in America are reaping the rewards, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

No EV-only future

Brands like Toyota and Stellantis (which includes Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, and Jeep) have already expressed skepticism about a full-EV future. Toyota's and Hyundai’s leadership continues to advocate for a mixed drivetrain approach — hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, and even internal combustion — arguing that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't make sense globally or domestically.

They aren’t alone. Honda and Mazda have also taken more cautious steps, resisting the full-EV tunnel vision. It’s not resistance for the sake of rebellion; it’s an approach that represents the truth, rooted in economics, infrastructure, and real consumer behavior.

RELATED: Gas car ban by 2035? EPA sets stage for electric-only future

Raul Arboleda/Getty Images

Meanwhile, EVs sit on dealer lots for months at a time. Automakers are slowing production. Ford slashed its F-150 Lightning production goals by half. GM is backpedaling on its EV transition timeline, delaying new launches, and many brands are following. Even Tesla, the king of EVs, is feeling the squeeze, with fluctuating demand and concerns about long-term profitability.

Stuck on green autopilot

And yet, the federal government has remained stuck on green autopilot. The current EV tax credit system — expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act — is projected to cost more than $200 billion over the next decade, according to Capital Alpha Partners. These aren’t small subsidies; they’re massive market distortions. And like Cash for Clunkers, the unintended consequences may haunt us for years.

The Republicans’ proposal doesn’t stop at EV credits. It also seeks to eliminate incentives for commercial EVs, used EVs, and other so-called clean energy projects. But don’t confuse this with an anti-tech or anti-progress stance. It’s about rebalancing the market, restoring consumer choice, and stopping the flood of taxpayer dollars toward an agenda that simply doesn’t align with how Americans drive — or want to drive.

As Stellantis Ram brand manager Tim Kuniskis says, “Americans like to count cylinders.”

Americans deserve a transportation future that prioritizes freedom, innovation, and infrastructure that works. That means more choices — not mandates. It means supporting vehicles people actually want and can afford, not forcing premature transitions through subsidies.

President Trump’s new tax plan could do more than balance the books — it could finally bring some sanity back to our roads. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Are Californians finally fed up enough to do the impossible?



California is burning again.

In fact, we are still digging out from under the ashes of the last catastrophe. That one was a lethal combination of weather, climate, and incompetent leadership. This current iteration of the ongoing California disaster can be laid squarely at the feet of incompetent leadership.

I don’t care what you see on MSNBC. Californians of every stripe are fed up. We have no compassion left. We have no money left.

The ongoing Los Angeles riots were fully preventable, despite our esteemed politicians like Mayor Karen Bass (D) and Governor Newsom (D) trying to spin the narrative that ICE’s presence launched the destruction.

Highjacked protest

The very basics of municipal security would be enough to maintain law and order in a functioning city. In Los Angeles, the “basics” of decent living have long been washed away into the oceans, along with the rest of the rainwater our government refuses to collect.

Perhaps, in the beginning of these events, there were some legitimate California citizens simply protesting ICE. We are surely all deeply familiar by now with the ignorance of the unwashed masses on the left. Their only media sources are TikTok and late-night talk show clips.

Yes, we like to make fun of them, but they’re still people, and most of them are not terrorists. And those people were on the ground as their lawful (if obnoxious) protest was overtaken by the professional rioters and the Antifa terrorist cells.

Those people watched in real time as their own neighborhoods and businesses were looted, burned, and destroyed. Those people watched as commuters with children in their cars tried desperately to get home on the freeways that had been commandeered by violent rioters, who were throwing concrete and fireworks at police and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the way.

Those people watched every last inch of downtown Los Angeles be covered in graffiti and filthy slogans. Those people watched their own streets and parks being literally torn apart to be used as weapons against law and order.

Mostly feckless

We all saw the complete fecklessness of Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom as they told media these “protests” were “mostly peaceful,” even as the split screen showed the destruction happening at that very second in real time.

RELATED: Ashes of Imagination

Matt Himes

Back in January, as the smoke was still billowing into our atmosphere from the unprecedented blazes, I wrote an article I felt described the mood that had descended upon Californians during those days.

We were no longer able to avoid the truth. Even the wealthiest among us, the typical Democrat donor class, were victimized.

We all watched the dry fire hydrants and the worthless mayor as she stared blankly at reporters at the bottom of that jetway upon her return from Africa as the city burned. We all saw the looting and the arsonists and the lack of manpower. We saw the chaos at City Hall, and we watched the president have to come in and dress everyone down.

The left doesn’t own the information or the media any more.

Burning off the fog

As I wrote then, those fires burned away the last of our fog.

EVERYONE HERE HAS ABSOLUTELY HAD IT.

Angelenos and Californians in general have no confidence in their leaders. Our laws haven’t protected us. Our politicians won’t let our police protect us. The gun-control nuts won’t even let us protect ourselves. Even still, crime and chaos has invaded every community in the state. There has been no rescue coming from Sacramento, only punishment for the good people here.

People are watching their homes burn. Their communities are still under threat. Some have lost everything because of an insurance boondoggle that has been totally manufactured by the state. Simultaneously they are seeing [their] Mayor partying in Africa on the taxpayer dime; the President interrupting airspace for photo-ops; the governor scolding residents as their property burns.

It all just feels like a kick in the teeth and we are sick of it.

I can’t stress enough how pervasive this feeling is right now. Remember how it felt like the entire culture shifted overnight after Trump’s election? That’s how this feels.

It’s like that.

This very well may be an event that changes how Californians relate to their political class for the foreseeable future. You can feel it in the air.

As I watched the reaction of regular citizens and even the growing fatigue of our local left-wing media’s “mostly peaceful” narrative, my January feelings were confirmed.

Fed up

Everyone here has absolutely had it. The Democrats have managed to do the impossible: They have driven away their own cult members. This chaos has come to the doorstep of nearly every Californian now. There is nowhere left to turn for safety or ignorance.

I don’t care what you see on MSNBC. Californians of every stripe are fed up. We have no compassion left. We have no money left. Most of us are barely hanging on to even our housing.

RELATED: Why is Gavin Newsom going full Jefferson Davis?

Blaze Media Illustration, Stock Montage / Contributor | Getty Images

We are not interested in this mass immigration experiment any more, and we are certainly not interested in the fake sob stories of those on the growing deportation lists. No one had any energy for our very real sob stories during the 2020 riots, the COVID lockdowns, the wildfires, or even these riots.

California is a mess.

Our 'impossible' task

It is important to remember that we are still living in the leftover timeline of pre-November America. California has another year to go before we can get to the ballot box to change some important state offices, including the governor’s office.

The skepticism of those outside our borders is deserved. We haven’t been a great electorate.

But those of us inside the borders can see the mood changing in real time. We see the situation on the ground changing. Some big things will have to happen for real change to occur next year. It needs to be too big to rig, and we’ll need to build a coalition of willing Californians from across the political spectrum to defeat the establishment.

And before you tell me that’s impossible, let me echo the words of our honorable president on Inauguration Day, a day he met because we pulled off the impossible in November: In America, the impossible is what we do best.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on Substack.

Mass deportations can’t save California, but Trump should do it anyway



“Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”

A few illegal aliens at a Home Depot parking lot in south Los Angeles were rounded up by ICE the other day, and now it’s war.

At their 100% Hispanic public schools, these teenagers have been brainwashed by literal communists to hate America — especially whites — cops, ICE, and Republicans.

Thousands of “Latinx” protesters in Los Angeles immediately mobilized to kill police and burn the city, along with all the usual suspects: teachers' unions, SEIU, and other government shock troops. Naturally, chaos ensued.

Black Lives Matter and Antifa wrote the playbook, and now the Mexicans have picked up right where they left off.

Hordes of pyromaniacs and cop-killers converged on downtown L.A. over the weekend and tried to destroy it and every cop they saw.

Sunday night was particularly crazy. Multiple attempted assassinations of police on live TV. Then this guy in a van went on a rampage. This was followed by all-night looting of every store in the area.

Tale as old as time.

Your Waymo's gonna be late. Benjamin Hanson/Getty Images

Haven’t we been through enough in this city? Lord, please, enough! Downtown L.A. is already so disgusting and dirty that after I went to a party there a few weeks ago, I vowed never to return.

Removing and deporting clutches of illiterate El Salvadoran drywall installers in Westlake Village is like pulling up a few weeds in a hundred football fields. Entire school districts should be sent south — but people aren’t ready for that conversation yet.

The reform that wasn’t

You probably forgot that in 2006, President George W. Bush tried to pass stricter immigration laws. I forgot!

Maybe because they were the mildest laws ever: “legislation passed by the U.S. House that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally. It also would impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, require churches to check the legal status of parishioners before helping them, and erect fences along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border.”

What a joke.

But any change to the status quo is not allowed, so half a million people marched in protest in L.A. that year:

David S. Holloway/Getty Images

“My mom came from Mexico, she had to cross the river, and thank God she did,” said David Gonzalez, 22, who held a sign saying, “I’m in my homeland.”’

Gonzalez rejected claims by advocates of the legislation that it would help protect the nation from terrorism, noting that it would hurt Hispanics the most.

“When did you ever see a Mexican blow up the World Trade Center?” he said. “Who do you think built the World Trade Center?”

—NBC News, 2006

End-stage globalism ruined LA

The protests worked. Over the next 10 years, illegal immigration went parabolic, as millions arrived here from around the world and Republicans did nothing.

If you ever drive through the grimy parts of the city, where graffiti stains every square inch of available concrete and wall, piles of fast-food trash cling to rusted chain-link fences, and infinite ramshackle cellphone repair sheds, illegal outdoor taco shops, and cheap schmatta stores cling to street corners, you will have one overriding thought: It’s way more than 10 million. It’s more than 20 million. There are at least 5 to 10 million extra people just in Los Angeles who are here illegally. Maybe more.

The official number of illegal aliens in L.A. is 950,000. Please.

Meanwhile, every west-side sh**lib I know posted this on Instagram over the weekend — it’s the new BLM black square:

Thrive LA

I wanted to scream. Just shut up and take your semaglutide, people. You guys only talk to Latinos when the guy comes to detail the Rivian.

The insipid Kamala Harris called the violence “overwhelmingly peaceful.” This is shameful but predictable. But you can’t blame her — from her love nest in the hills of Brentwood, things are indeed quite peaceful.

Los Angeles is well over half Hispanic, and most young Hispanic citizens want open borders, mass immigration, and an end to deportations. They are the same as every other woke white sh**lib in Brentwood and Los Feliz. At their 100% Hispanic, totally non-diverse LAUSD public schools, these teenagers have been brainwashed from preschool by literal communists posing as teachers to hate America — especially whites — the cops, ICE, and Republicans.

Instead of learning calculus and poetry, they were trained to be little activists and “speak truth to power.” They learned that their racial identity was not just the most important thing about them; it was the only thing that mattered (at least to the craven political activists seeking to harvest them).

Latino vs. Latinx: This means war!

What we’re seeing in Los Angeles amounts to Latino versus Latinx — a clash between OG Hispanic families and the more recently arrived, some of whom may not even be citizens.

Incredibly, LAPD officers remain under orders not to ask about anyone’s immigration status or cooperate with ICE. Yes, really.

If you're white, black, or Asian, you get to stay home and watch the chaos unfold from your living room.

Despite the city's depraved leadership, most Angelenos function like normal human beings — dumb ideas aside. They go to work. They call in to local radio shows. They hit Disneyland. They worship the Dodgers and Lakers. They eat In-N-Out, love the weather, and hate the traffic. Seventy percent of them voted for Kamala Harris.

The Latino community I grew up with — and still know well — is here legally. Most are the children of 1960s immigrants, and many gained amnesty under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They're a massive, influential demographic in Los Angeles. They value law, order, and family. And the ones I know are as American as it gets.

Huge numbers of the LAPD come from these foundational Los Angeles Latino families. The most recent graduating class of the LAPD academy consisted of 13 Latinos, two African-Americans, and one white. More than half of the Los Angeles Police Department is Latino. Around 24% are white, 9% are black, and 8% are Asian.

Myung J. Chun/Getty Images

When you see these guys, they’re quite impressive.

When I was at a Catholic protest a couple of years ago near Dodger Stadium, the cops at the scene were all young Mexican-American dudes. They are ultra-fit and muscular, clean-shaven and sometimes a mustache, and their hair is close-cropped, neatly parted, and slicked down. They are not the fat, slovenly, donut-munching cops of yore. They are into being cops. Many came out of the armed forces after they served their country abroad.

These are the kinds of guys you want as cops. And now the Latinx illegal aliens and their Marxist compatriots are trying to kill them.

This is like the Crips versus Bloods, but in this case, the LAPD is banned from using lethal force or ever doing anything that looks like “police brutality.” Rodney King made sure of that.

Gone forever

“California” the way it was when I was growing up is gone forever. Illegal immigration, followed by mass amnesty and permanent one-party rule, took care of that.

The Latino citizens of California may want law and order and even may be in favor of stopping new illegal immigration, but they also remember the stories of their abuela who had to dodge alligators and La Migra to cross the Rio Grande and then got called a “wetback” at work. They don’t really want to see mass deportations of their cousins.

What this means is that actual, lasting, meaningful deportation efforts in Southern California will be done against a hostile regime and their murderous shock troops, who will do everything to stymie it and to Make Trump Look Bad. That’s their real goal.

If he succeeds in deporting all illegal aliens down to the last day-old newborn with pierced ears, he is Satan. If he doesn’t, he is a failure.

But despite the risks, he should still do it. Why? Because it has huge practical benefits to us, the voters!

The beneficial effect of mass deportations on Americans will be profound. We’ll get a healthier economy that no longer spends a trillion to support foreigners living here. Relief to city budgets that no longer will have their jails and hospitals and schools filled with new arrivals. The housing crisis ends. Traffic gets better. Crime and drug sales go down.

And the most important reason of all: I voted for this. So bring it on.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on Substack.