Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script



Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen.

You’re chatting with a friend about this, that, and the other thing — carefully steering clear of politics, just like always.

You both know you don't see eye to eye when it comes to today’s contentious political landscape, so you do your best to keep things light. But then, out of nowhere, the forbidden topic appears. It sneaks into the conversation, innocently enough — until suddenly, it’s front and center.

I knew my friend Jeffrey didn’t like Trump, so I always tried to avoid politics when we talked. But somehow, I found myself on the phone with him getting a lecture on “how bad Trump is for democracy.”

What happened?

All I did was mention a film I thought we both appreciate: “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.”

With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: ‘political immaturity.’

I genuinely believed it was a safe topic. We’re both Christians, both admirers of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his courageous stand against Hitler and the Nazis. We also share respect for Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer many consider the definitive biography and which inspired the film adaptation.

Plus, Jeffrey knows I was Metaxas’ radio producer for many years. So really, I thought we were on solid, non-controversial ground.

But Jeffrey immediately jumped in to point out that Bonhoeffer’s descendants don’t support Eric Metaxas — because Metaxas supports Trump. That, in his view, proved just how awful Trump is and, dare I say it, how Hitler-like. From there, it was only a short leap to his inevitable conclusion: Trump is bad for democracy.

I calmly responded that descendants of historical figures, while entitled to their opinions, are just as influenced by the culture of their time as anyone else. Then I added what I considered the most glaring problem with his argument: the United States isn’t a democracy — we’re a constitutional republic.

I suggested that, in many ways, democracy can be a lousy form of government. After all, it allows 51% of the people to impose their will on the other 49%, forcing them to live under rules they didn’t choose and might not benefit from. In my quick tutorial on democracy versus the American system, I didn’t even get into the brilliance of the framers’ creation of the Electoral College — a safeguard that gives individual states real power and influence.

To my surprise, Jeffrey actually agreed with me on that point. But then he pivoted, arguing that Trump was just doing whatever he wanted — like sending back all the “asylum-seekers” who crossed the border during Joe Biden’s presidency.

I asked him how he knew all 15 million migrants (give or take) were asylum-seekers. Who vetted them? And I reminded him that Trump had nearly been blocked from deporting even the worst of the worst — violent criminals — by an unelected judge from ... well, somewhere.

Then I said, “It’s hard to imagine the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ even appearing in the same sentence these days.”

That didn’t go over well.

I listed just a few of the issues Democrats continue to support. I left out the wide-open borders — which my friend seemed fine with, even after I brought up the rise in sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and inner-city crime — and focused on other examples. I mentioned sex-change procedures for children, drag queen story hours in public libraries, and men competing in women’s sports.

That’s when Jeffrey cut me off.

“Of course I don’t agree with those things,” he said.

And then came the words every far-left friend says when he's on the brink of losing an argument to inconvenient facts: “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

End of discussion.

Since Jeffrey is a friend, I let the conversation fizzle out. We exchanged a few more pleasantries and then said our goodbyes.

But not long after I hung up, I realized how disingenuous “agree to disagree” can be in a discussion or debate. That phrase shuts down dialogue. It signals that neither side will reconsider his position and, worse, that neither side is allowed to keep making his case or challenging the other’s facts.

What struck me even more was how casually Jeffrey used the phrase — not just with me, but seemingly with his own party. It was as if he could personally find things like child gender surgeries or men in women’s locker rooms repugnant — especially as a Christian — but still wave it all off because Democrats “stand up for the little guy.”

To avoid making waves, many Christians stepped onto the slippery slope of so-called “political correctness” years ago. The idea was simple: Being on the “right side” of politics meant standing up for marginalized people. And what Christian wouldn’t want to be seen doing that? After all, didn’t the Bible and the saints speak out for the disadvantaged?

But over time, political correctness evolved. Or rather, it escalated. “PC” gave way to “woke,” and suddenly we were all expected to embrace a new worldview — one in which anyone with a shred of sanity and compassion would naturally join the swelling ranks of the awakened. Christians, of course, were included in that expectation — if they knew what was good for them and wanted to belong to the era’s grand new “Awokening.”

So what’s next?

With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: “political immaturity.”

When you ignore common sense to do whatever you are told is “correct” and “woke,” you have not matured into rationally thinking for yourself. You might start with a wish to "go along to get along," and now you are being led around and told what to think and do like somebody's child.

The only hope for America over these next few critical years is a true Great Awakening to the truth within the church that can lead to a foundational restoration within this great country.

Optimistically speaking, if we take this route, future generations might look back and say with joy: “Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen!”

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

Big Soda Paid Influencers to Defend Junk Food | Disney's $250M Snow White Failure | Ep 1036
play icon

Big Soda Paid Influencers to Defend Junk Food | Disney's $250M Snow White Failure | Ep 1036

Trump Taps Conservative Firebrand To Shake Up Kennedy Center

'Ric shares my Vision for a GOLDEN AGE of American Arts and Culture'
Kennedy Center apparently scrubs pages for most egregious left-wing content after Trump threatens takeover
play icon

Kennedy Center apparently scrubs pages for most egregious left-wing content after Trump threatens takeover

The shows featuring woke content have suddenly gone missing

Panda Express didn’t sign up to represent generational failure



Panda Express and Chipotle have unintentionally become memes for mediocrity and failure. While their food might be unhealthy and has occasionally caused food poisoning, labeling the restaurants as symbols of decadence seems unfair.

Similarly, it was unjust to blame old shows like "Saved by the Bell" and "Boy Meets World" for corrupting white American youth and causing them to fall behind their Asian American peers academically.

Zoomers need to take active steps to improve their own lives. This means putting down the phone, engaging with the real world, and fostering spiritual growth.

This reflects today’s public discourse, which often simplifies ideas into memes for easier, more entertaining consumption. Unfortunately, this approach obscures genuine disagreements and turns clear, reasoned debates into a tangled mess of bad arguments.

In what feels like a sequel to the recent H-1B visa brouhaha, another discussion has emerged that deserves attention. As before, both sides present valid points and would likely agree on solutions. Yet, in the pursuit of content and audience engagement, participants continue talking past each other and trading potshots.

The current debate focuses on Zoomers — those in their late teens and 20s — and their ability to succeed in today’s America. One side argues that this generation faces insurmountable obstacles to success. The side claims the workplace and academia have become toxically feminized, and the gerontocracy leading our institutions suppresses the rise of younger generations.

Demands for ever more credentials have reached absurd levels, while the American dream of a spouse, children, and homeownership has become prohibitively expensive. Adding to this, older conservative voices seem oblivious to these challenges.

As a teacher working with Zoomers, I would add that online pornography and smartphones have taken a massive toll on the generation coming of age. These influences directly affect the libidos and social habits of young people entering adolescence. They have also created an anti-social culture marked by paranoia, crippling anxiety, and self-loathing. Most interactions between young people now occur online, limiting shared realities and empathy. This dynamic has wrecked the dating scene and stifled the formation of real friendships.

In addition to diminishing job opportunities and upward mobility, older generations have left Zoomers with a world of universal loneliness. This began when they handed children tablets and smartphones with unrestricted internet access. While parents rationalized these devices as tools for learning and self-improvement, the reality was far darker. These gadgets acted like a drug, poisoning children’s minds and damaging the culture at large.

The opposing side in this debate contends that a decent life is still achievable if young people were to stop making excuses and put in the effort. This is where Panda Express comes in. A motivated Zoomer could work his or her way up to managing a fast-food restaurant. While not glamorous, these roles offer honest work and could support a family with disciplined, frugal living.

Supporters of this perspective often share testimonials to back their claims. These stories highlight individuals who worked hard, avoided the usual vices, fell in love, started families, and now live fulfilling lives as popular influencers. Their message is clear: If they could succeed, so can anyone else.

To this, I would agree that Zoomers technically have access to all the resources they need to succeed. I’ve seen stumbling blocks turn into stepping stones, helping some of my students become far more accomplished at their age than I ever was. They have the tools to teach themselves nearly anything and engage in discussions once reserved for older generations.

However, what is possible isn’t always probable. Most people aren’t intellectual prodigies capable of instantly achieving fame and fortune. And more importantly, they shouldn’t have to be exceptional just to enjoy the same quality of life their parents once had.

Many Millennials in their 30s and 40s fail to see the significant generational gap between themselves and Zoomers. What was achievable for Millennials no longer holds true for Zoomers, who have borne the brunt of woke ideology and elite mismanagement.

For Millennials, hard work and basic credentials still could guarantee decent-paying jobs. Relationships and friendships formed naturally, and housing was relatively affordable. This is no longer the case for Zoomers, and dismissing them as “whiny brats” who spend too much time online fails to acknowledge the unique challenges they face.

To address or mitigate the struggles of this younger generation, both sides of the debate must acknowledge the validity of the other’s arguments. Leaders should adapt to modern realities by ending the reliance on cheap labor, curbing excessive public spending, streamlining regulations, breaking up monopolies, reforming education, prioritizing American workers, regulating addictive technology and online pornography as public health issues, and incentivizing marriage and parenthood.

At the same time, Zoomers need to take active steps to improve their own lives. This means putting down the phone, engaging with the real world, reading meaningful books, gaining work experience, and fostering spiritual growth. These efforts can help them build friendships, find partners, accumulate wealth, and create stability. While this path may not lead to glamorous jobs or extravagant homes, it is far better than resigning to a life of aimless frustration and online trolling.

Donald Trump’s return to office offers hope for both sides of this debate. If he fulfills his promises, conditions will improve. At the very least, the current decline will pause for a few years, giving Americans time to adjust and steer their course toward a brighter future.

As with the H-1B debate, this conversation is productive. These arguments have long been overlooked, and younger generations have endured the worst effects of this neglect, living in a world filled with unnecessary dysfunction. Beyond sharing memes and entertaining ourselves, we must address these challenges seriously, take constructive action, and leave fast-food chains out of the blame game.

‘They’re in a bubble’: How Jaguar TANKED an already-failing brand



Not only did British auto manufacturer Jaguar release a bizarre ad campaign featuring androgynous models — but the ads featured no cars.

“I have no idea what Jaguar is trying to sell us in that ad and who thought this was a good idea,” Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” tells Matthew Peterson and WILL agency founder Isaac Simpson.

Simpson notes that in order to understand the ad, we also have to understand that Jaguar is a “failing brand” and that the brand has “been really struggling for a very long time.”

“So they’ve decided to switch everything over to EV, and they’re going to be 100% electric vehicles, and then not only that, they’re going to charge twice what they’re already charging for their cars,” Simpson explains.


This is where an ad like the one just released comes in as well as its rejection of its iconic logo that features a jaguar to one that just says “Jaguar” in futuristic handwriting.

“Clearly, they asked their marketing team to create a radical new approach to their branding,” Simpson says.

“I don’t think this was an ‘any publicity is good publicity situation,’” he continues. “I think that they’re in a bubble, and I think that the people that create the ads for this particular brand are just living in a bubble as we’ve seen so many times, time and time again with Bud Light and so many other brands.”

According to Simpson, the brand director, who was in charge of this campaign, is “the kind of guy who goes on stage, and he’s wearing a sheer, see-through shirt.”

“You could imagine the type of guy this is,” he says, adding, “They’ve just chased away all the people who would say, ‘Don’t do this.’”

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Girl with suspected autism punished by UK 'Serious Case Panel' for asking trans soccer opponent with beard, 'Are you a man?'



A girl with suspected autism was punished by a so-called National Serious Case Panel in the United Kingdom for asking a bearded transgender soccer opponent, "Are you a man?" the Telegraph reported.

The 17-year-old cried when the panel found her guilty of “discrimination” for her remarks during a match against a trans-inclusive team, the Telegraph added.

'The FA has declared open season on women and girls in football with its disastrous policy, which means that no one can question a male player participating in a women’s game.'

The outlet — citing a previous report in Telegraph Sport — said it was the "latest case to cause outrage over the Football Association’s policy of allowing those born male to play in the women’s game."

The girl's county Football Association charged her with saying, “Are you a man?” as well as, “That’s a man," and “Don’t come here again,” or similar comments, the Telegraph said.

She was banned for six matches, four of which were suspended, after a three-hour hearing last week during which she denied expressing transphobia at the "friendly" game in July, the outlet noted.

The girl also wept during a 30-minute grilling conducted via video conference, the Telegraph said, adding that she had been facing a ban of up to 12 games.

An individual on the call said the hearing was “farcical” and added that panel members repeatedly “misgendered” the alleged victim as “he," the outlet reported, adding that the girl also was said to have been repeatedly asked, “How many LGBQT+ players do you have in your team?”

More from the Telegraph:

Her parents were outraged both by the hearing and the outcome, with her mother telling Telegraph Sport: “We’ve always taught our daughter to ask questions, and if she doesn’t feel comfortable or she doesn’t feel safe then she should go to somebody in charge and ask the question. In safeguarding training at places of work, you’re always told that you should question everything but she’s been told and effectively sanctioned by the FA for doing so. She asked, ‘Are you a man?’, and she admitted to that. The FA is essentially saying that no woman, when faced with what appears to be a male on the pitch, is entitled to ask a question.”

The girl’s plight had previously been cited by former FA chairman Lord Triesman, who wrote to the governing body’s current chair and chief executive last month to complain about its trans policy. The FA has continued to permit players born male to compete in female-only events, despite being urged in May by then-Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer to adopt the “unambiguous position” of a ban.

The outlet noted that Fiona McAnena — director of campaigns at Sex Matters — told Telegraph Sport: “The FA has declared open season on women and girls in football with its disastrous policy, which means that no one can question a male player participating in a women’s game. Anyone who does could find themselves suspended just for asking. Disciplining women and girls for saying what they see plainly in front of them makes a mockery of the game. The FA’s new strategy for women’s and girls’ football is worthless as long as this transgender inclusion policy is in place. How can the FA talk about a commitment to true equality in community football while undermining the rights and safety of the very players it claims to be supporting?”

The girl was brought up on charges after the opposing team lodged a complaint through Kick It Out, which is English football’s anti-discrimination watchdog, the Telegraph said, adding that the trans player and the opposing team’s captain testified that the girl was persistently transphobic.

The outlet noted it has concealed the accused girl's identity due to her age and because she's "on the assessment pathway for autism."

'I raised a concern about the risk of serious injury as a 17-year-old girl playing against a biological male who was much larger than me and a very physical player, which was possibly a safety issue as I did not want to get dangerously injured right before the start of the new season.'

The girl admitted in a written statement submitted in her defense that she asked, “Are you a man?” to a player she described as having “a beard," the Telegraph reported. She also admitted asking the referee for guidance about the player’s eligibility to participate in women’s football “given my concern for my safety after already suffering a number of overly physical challenges," the outlet added.

However, the girl repeatedly denied her words constituted transphobia, the outlet said, adding that it is understood that the game's referee heard nothing he deemed discriminatory.

More from the Telegraph:

The girl said in her written statement she had become “confused” about the participation of the trans player during the match in question as the latter “wore jewelry and sunglasses” and was not in opposition kit.

She added: “The moment the player clarified they were transgender (which I previously hadn’t considered), I respected their answer fully, dropped the situation and immediately shifted my focus back to the game before seeking guidance from the referee. At no point was my question meant to be hurtful or malicious as I only intended to seek clarity in an unfamiliar situation. Knowing now that the player was transgender, I understand that there were better ways to approach this question.”

The girl also said the opposing team's captain accosted her during a water break, telling her that she shouldn't have an issue with playing against a transgender opponent, the outlet added.

“I raised a concern about the risk of serious injury as a 17-year-old girl playing against a biological male who was much larger than me and a very physical player, which was possibly a safety issue as I did not want to get dangerously injured right before the start of the new season," the girl said, according to the Telegraph. "Despite this, I made it clear that if the player met the eligibility criteria of the FA I would respect the rules and accept the risk involved in continuing to play the match. My safeguarding officer and the referee were both present for this conversation.”

The girl added that she was “truly disheartened that these allegations have been made against me," the outlet reported, adding that she also said "I have always supported and respected the diversity within my team, including members who are in the LGBTQIA+ community.”

The Telegraph added that the girl’s mother said none of her daughter’s teammates had been approached to make statements ahead of an upcoming hearing but that they were “100 percent behind her."

According to the outlet, the Football Association decided against publishing written reasons for the case.

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

Election Day 'self-care suites' reportedly offered to students at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy



Election Day "self-care suites" — filled with milk and cookies, hot chocolate, coloring books, and even a Legos station — reportedly were offered to students at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, the New York Post reported.

The specialized school at the elite Washington, D.C., institution of higher learning is tasked with training our next generation of elected officials and diplomats, the Post said, adding that the tab for attending is just over $61,000 annually.

'What kind of lives have these people led that makes them think that this is the right way to handle young people?'

“In recognition of these stressful times, all McCourt community members are welcome to gather … in the 3rd floor Commons to take a much needed break," wrote Jaclyn Clevenger — the school’s director of student engagement — in an email to students that the Free Press obtained, according to the Post.

Also on tap at the self-care suites are "mindfulness activities," the email also said, according to the paper, which added that the the suites are open Tuesday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The Post said Clevenger didn’t respond to its request for comment Tuesday.

There's more where that came from!

The paper also said similar amenities are offered not just on Election Day but all week long at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington.

The Post said students there can partake of cupcakes in a campus lobby before traveling to the campus rotunda, where they can take part in a “walkable labyrinth” featuring “calming lighting and music.”

What's more, students can indulge in arts and crafts that include beading, canvas-bag decorating, and painting while noshing on snacks, the paper said, adding that students also can visit a “Pause for Paws,” event where they can cuddle with animals and sip hot chocolate.

Finally, the University of Puget Sound is offering a “post-election processing space” where students can create collages, journal using self-care writing prompts, and eat comfort food from a baked potato bar, the Post reported.

The paper also noted that Jerry Seinfeld last week blasted the Ethical Culture Fieldston School in New York City — where the comedian's kids attended — for letting students who become “emotionally distressed” skip classes the day after the election.

“What kind of lives have these people led that makes them think that this is the right way to handle young people?" Seinfeld asked the New York Times. “To encourage them to buckle. This is the lesson they are providing for ungodly sums of money.”

Remember when?

Readers of Blaze News may recall that this sort of coddling goes back a ways.

  • Just prior to Donald Trump's 2017 inauguration, a Georgetown University LGBT student group planned on hosting a “Self-Care Night” featuring "Legos, juice boxes, and more!"
  • Later in 2017, a "Meeting of Healing" took place at the University of Connecticut in response to a conservative speaker's appearance at the school.
  • Marquette University’s counseling center advertised a safe space for students to "de-stress" from the ravages of the 2018 midterm elections.

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

Blaze News original: Top 5 insane quotes from the WNBA's biggest — and weirdest — season ever



The WNBA has wrapped up its most notable season since its inception, breaking multiple viewership records while increasing attendance across the league.

The rookie season of Caitlin Clark saw ticket prices skyrocket wherever she played, with games even having to change locations to accommodate the fans who wanted to see her.

'I'm speaking on a particular group that is motivated by hate and destruction.'

But with more eyeballs came far more scrutiny of — and pressure on — the players. Not only did many players buckle under their newfound fame but so did owners and reporters.

What resulted from this historic season wasn't a showering of praise on the league's new fans or an increased appreciation for the sport but rather a historic series of blunders.

5. WNBA owner calls Clark fans 'racist'

Typically, sports franchise owners want to pull fans into arenas, not alienate them. That note seemingly didn't make its way to the desk of Renee Montgomery, former WNBA star and part owner of the Atlanta Dream.

Not only did Montgomery claim there was a prevalence of "bots" and "faux fans" within Clark's massive online following, but also the owner doubted that the new star's fans even watched her games.

"I'm speaking on a particular group that is motivated by hate and destruction," Montgomery said in a clip she posted to X.

"I like when our fans are so engaged and so passionate that they just don't like the other team. But being racist, sexist, and violent with your words — come on now, what are we doing? ... That's not acceptable," she added.

For some reason, the owner even brought Boston Celtics fans into the mix and accused them of "racist treatment of players."

The Dream finished 15-25 and were swept in the playoffs. Karma?

4. Reporter says a single MAGA hat made a WNBA game 'unsafe'

It wasn't enough in the 2024 season simply not to be a fan of Clark. Any connection to conservative politics that possibly could have been made was made — and then connected to some form of hatred.

Take WNBA writer Frankie de la Cretaz. The "they/them" journalist attended Game 2 of the playoff series between Clark's Indiana Fever and the Connecticut Sun.

De la Cretaz's reporting included citing the game's "vibe" as "horrendous" while also claiming she and her "partner" told off a "racist" fan sitting behind them. The fan's crime was daring to mock one of the Sun players for wearing fake eyelashes on the court.

The writer was even more outraged by "a man in a MAGA hat" and a woman wearing a "ban nails" shirt. The fan also sported props of giant fingernails on her hands.

When all was said and done, de la Cretaz said she'd be writing a scathing review about her horrible experience before adding, "I've never felt unsafe at a WNBA game & tonight I did."

3. Players complain their private planes are too small

After Clark was photographed on a luxury private flight — likely due to her being responsible for the massive attention the league was getting — players began demanding similar amenities.

Did they take their issues to WNBA brass and ownership? Of course not. Instead they took to their social media pages and press interviews.

Chicago Sky rookie Angel Reese was the first to complain, posting a photo of herself seemingly embarrassed to be on a commercial flight.

On her Instagram story, Reese showed herself in sunglasses and a paper mask with the caption: "Just praying that this is one of the last commercial flights the Chicago Sky has to fly." A second caption read, "Practicing gratitude & patience as the league introduces charter flights for all teams."

Phoenix Mercury guard Sophie Cunningham went about her request far more arrogantly, saying, "Butterflies and rainbows now that we got the charters" before adding that the private planes weren't big enough.

Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images

"We are so grateful to be able to start chartering, but with that, there's a lot of things that need to be adjusted," she said during an interview. "Our bags and some of our people can't fly with us because our charter is too small. While other teams get big planes."

Cunningham seems to be unaware that while the league is losing a reported $50 million in 2024, its private plane program is responsible for half that debt at $25 million.

2. A'ja Wilson claims black players don't get endorsements — and is immediately proven wrong

In what may have been a cruel joke by a reporter, Las Vegas Aces player A'ja Wilson made wild, racially charged accusations, only to be immediately proven wrong.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Wilson claimed that race has played a "huge" role in Clark's popularity while adding that black women aren't seen as marketable and, despite what they may accomplish, are still ignored.

"It doesn't matter what we all do as black women; we're still going to be swept underneath the rug," Wilson argued.

To the surprise of very few, Wilson's claims were completely destroyed before they were even published.

A week before the interview went public, Wilson signed a deal with Gatorade. Then, on May 11, Wilson and Nike announced that she would be endorsed and given her own signature shoe.

On May 12, Wilson's interview with the Associated Press was published, leaving egg all over her face.

Wilson called it a "dream" of hers to be able to work with such an iconic brand as Nike, but she failed to mention anything about being unmarketable due to her race.

1. Cameron Brink accidentally calls her teammates ugly

The most jaw-dropping quote of the season came from the right place — that is, if you believe woke culture and social justice are forces for good.

When Cameron Brink gave an interview about "tired narratives," she focused on the idea of breaking stereotypes and tropes. However, the 22-year-old actually just ended up calling her teammates ugly and manly.

'Some of my teammates go by they/them pronouns.'

In an attempt to spew woke dogma, Brink initially went with race as a factor in popularity: "I will acknowledge there's a privilege for the younger white players of the league. That's not always true, but there is a privilege that we have inherently, and the privilege of appearing feminine."

Your browser does not support the video tag. Video by Dave Tolley/Getty Images

After stating there is pressure for women to appear womanly, Brink attempted to explain why her more "masculine" teammates should be more popular despite their looks.

"Some of my teammates are more masculine. Some of my teammates go by they/them pronouns," she said. "I want to bring more acceptance to that and not just have people support us because of the way that we look. I know I can feed into that because I like to dress femininely, but that's just me. I want everyone to be accepted — not just paid attention to because of how they look."

Brink has since continued to dress like a woman.

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

Joe Rogan triggers woke outrage after he visits US Grand Prix garage



Joe Rogan was invited into a McLaren team garage before the 2024 United States Grand Prix race Sunday in Austin, Texas — and woke Formula 1 fans accused McLaren of supporting a "conspiracy theorist" who spreads "misinformation."

The podcasting legend and UFC commentator — who attended the event with his wife, Jessica Ditzel — appeared in one of McLaren's social media videos.

'Let's see how much misinformation he can spread in 30 seconds.'

"Welcome to the McLaren garage, Joe Rogan," the racing team wrote on Instagram.

A known car enthusiast, Rogan seemed ecstatic as he smiled ear to ear while speaking to the camera: "Hi, I'm Joe Rogan, and I'm here in Austin at the Formula 1 race in the McLaren garage. Pretty amazing."

He added, "We're very excited to be here. Super psyched for Formula 1. Let's go!"

Of course, Rogan's very existence was enough to trigger leftist race fans, who quickly jumped into the comments to criticize his appearance.

"Why on earth are you supporting a conspiracy theorist fascist supporting blowhard?" one viewer wrote.

"Wtf, might as well invite Alex Jones," another said.

Joe Rogan hugs celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay.Photo by Peter Fox - Formula 1/Formula 1 via Getty Images

Several users claimed that hosting Rogan was an endorsement of "misinformation," likely due to his frequent discussions focusing on politics and controversial topics such as the COVID-19 vaccine.

"Let's see how much misinformation he can spread in 30 seconds," a social media user wrote.

"First Trump and now this?! McLaren is a shoe-in for the misinformation championship. Unfollowed," another replied.

The latter comment presumably refers to former President Donald Trump making an appearance at Formula 1's Miami Grand Prix in May.

At the time, controversy swirled after Miami Grand Prix officials reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Trump supporter. The race fan reportedly wanted to sell tickets to his suite at the event for $250,000 and put the proceeds toward Trump's presidential campaign.

In 2023, Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton sparked headlines when he criticized Florida during the Miami Grand Prix over "anti-LGBTQ measures."

"I stand by those within the community here," Hamilton said. "I hope they continue to stand firm and push back. I'll have the rainbow on my helmet. It's no different to when we were in Saudi [Arabia]."

On Sunday, McLaren cars driven by Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri finished fourth and fifth, respectively. Ferrari's Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz finished one-two while Red Bull Racing Honda's Max Verstappen rounded off the podium in third.

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