Category: Lifestyle
Diesel under attack: EPA targets engines that power America
America runs on diesel. From freight haulers and farm equipment to fire trucks and snowplows, diesel engines are the torque behind our economy.
Yet the same engines that built the nation’s backbone are now in Washington’s crosshairs — strangled by layers of federal regulation that threaten the people who keep America moving.
Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk.
The Environmental Protection Agency insists it’s cleaning the air. But for those who live and work beyond the Beltway, these mandates aren’t saving the planet — they’re shutting down livelihoods.
Cost of clean
Since 2010, every diesel engine sold in the U.S. has come fitted with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems — components meant to capture soot and neutralize nitrogen oxides. In theory, they’re good for the environment. In practice, they’re crippling the very trucks that keep shelves stocked and first responders rolling.
DPFs clog, SCR units freeze, and when that happens, engines “derate” into limp mode — losing power until the system is fixed. A single failure can leave a truck stranded for days and cost upwards of $5,000 to repair. For independent owner-operators, who haul 70% of the nation’s freight, that can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy.
Even worse, under the Clean Air Act, simply repairing or modifying those failing systems can make a mechanic a federal felon.
Tamper tantrum
Meet Troy Lake, a 65-year-old diesel expert from Cheyenne, Wyoming. For decades, Lake kept his community’s fleets running — farm trucks, snowplows, ambulances, and school buses. But when emissions systems began failing in subzero temperatures, Lake found himself forced to choose between obeying Washington’s regulations or keeping critical vehicles on the road.
His fix? Remove the faulty components and reprogram the engine to restore performance — a commonsense solution that kept essential services moving. But the EPA saw it differently. Under federal law, “tampering” with emissions controls carries up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines per vehicle.
In June 2024, Lake pleaded guilty to one count of emissions tampering. By December, a federal judge sentenced him to a year in prison. His shop was fined $52,500 and shut down. Ironically, during his sentence, Lake worked on the prison’s own diesel equipment — the same skills that, outside those walls, had made him a criminal.
Now home but barred from his trade, Lake carries a felony record that cost him his business, his rights, and his reputation — all for keeping his community’s engines running.
Endless repair cycles
No one disputes that diesel exhaust can harm air quality. The EPA’s emission rules dramatically cut pollution over the past decade. But these results have come at an unsustainable cost to the people who depend on diesel most.
According to the American Trucking Associations, emissions-related repairs account for roughly 13% of total maintenance costs for Class 8 trucks. Each incident costs an average of $1,500 and countless hours of downtime. Multiply that across millions of trucks, and the burden on small businesses and rural economies is staggering.
Farmers, truckers, and local governments can’t afford the endless repair cycles. For them, Washington’s mandates translate to fewer working trucks, higher consumer costs, and dangerous response delays in emergencies.
Senator Lummis fights back
Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis (R) sees what’s happening. She’s watched the federal government criminalize working Americans while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rules. In October 2025, she introduced the Diesel Truck Liberation Act — legislation designed to restore sanity and balance.
The bill would:
- Remove mandatory federal requirements for DPFs, SCRs, and onboard diagnostics;
- Limit the EPA’s enforcement powers over diesel tuning and emissions deletes;
- Protect mechanics and operators from prosecution for performing practical repairs; and
- Provide retroactive relief — vacating sentences, clearing records, and refunding fines for past convictions.
A call for flexibility
Environmental advocates warn that such legislation could reverse decades of progress under the Clean Air Act.
That’s a legitimate concern. Clean air matters. But it’s also true that today’s engine tuning and filtration technologies are far more advanced than those available when these mandates were written. Recent research shows that advanced, model-based engine controls and “virtual sensors” can significantly cut nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions and help engines stay within strict tailpipe limits while reducing dependence on extra physical sensors and minimizing urea and fuel penalties.
Even current EPA leadership has acknowledged the need for flexibility and modernization. The question isn’t whether we should protect the environment — it’s whether rigid, outdated enforcement is the best way to do it.
And the impact doesn’t stop at the loading dock. Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk. A snowstorm doesn’t care about EPA compliance, and neither does a heart attack.
Who makes the rules?
Opponents of the Diesel Truck Liberation Act argue that removing emissions hardware would increase pollution, disproportionately harming urban and low-income communities. Supporters counter that Washington’s policies have already created economic inequality by crushing rural economies and small operators.
The divide isn’t really about clean air — it’s about who gets to make the rules. Should unelected bureaucrats in D.C. dictate how a farmer in Wyoming runs his truck? Or should local communities have the flexibility to balance environmental goals with economic reality?
Image via @MusicScarf/X (screenshot)/Photographer: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Common sense prevails
The Diesel Truck Liberation Act doesn’t aim to destroy the Clean Air Act. It aims to reform it. It recognizes that environmental protection must work hand in hand with reliability, safety, and economic survival.
For people like Troy Lake, it’s about justice — not just for one man, but for thousands of mechanics and operators who’ve been punished for solving real problems in real America.
And there’s already a hopeful sign: President Trump recently issued a full pardon for Lake, acknowledging that enforcing broken regulations against hardworking Americans is not justice — it’s overreach.
The next step is whether Congress will follow through. The bill currently sits in the Senate Environment Committee, with hearings expected later this year. If it passes, it could set a precedent for rethinking how environmental policy is enforced — and how to protect the people who keep America running.
America’s diesel fleet isn’t the enemy. It’s the engine that powers our nation — from coast to coast, farm to factory, and every highway in between. Reasonable environmental goals are achievable, but not through criminalizing those who fix the equipment that keeps this country alive.
The question facing lawmakers is simple: Will they choose common sense — or continue punishing the very people who make modern life possible?
Elon Musk to reveal flying car next year
Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.
Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.
As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.
Rogan reveal
On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”
Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”
He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”
Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”
That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.
The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.
Good timing
Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.
Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.
Hovering hype
So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.
There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.
The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.
Sky’s the limit
Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.
In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.
Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.
The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.
Got a permit for that?
Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.
Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.
RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car
Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson
Free parachute with purchase
Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.
NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.
In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.
Sticking the landing
So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.
But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.
Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.
Bugs for thee, beef for me: How big business monopolizes meat
President Trump is right to turn his gaze toward the meatpacking industry. It’s one of the dirtiest businesses in America — not just in hygiene, but in habit. I grew up around beef cattle, familiar with the blood and bone that keep this machine alive.
What was once a farmer’s trade has become a monopoly’s empire. Four corporations now control nearly 85% of U.S. beef processing. They set the prices, squeeze the ranchers, and pass the pain to consumers — all while preaching “market efficiency,” that modern hymn for exploitation.
When the men who raise the cattle can’t afford to eat steak and the companies that kill them post record earnings, something stinks — and it isn’t the beef.
The transformation wasn’t sudden. It crept in, one merger at a time, one farm foreclosure after another. The local slaughterhouse — once a fixture of every rural county — vanished, replaced by sprawling steel citadels where flesh and spirit move down the same assembly line. The small family business that once sponsored Little League or donated to the parish fundraiser is gone, its name buried beneath a global brand logo. What remains is meat without meaning: shrink-wrapped, standardized, and severed from life.
Bled dry
The result is as dire as it is deliberate. Independent ranchers are being bled dry. Farmers sell out not because they want to, but because the alternative is bankruptcy. When four conglomerates dictate what you earn, what you buy, and what you eat, the free market ceases to be free — it becomes feudal. The serfs still wear denim and drive pickups, but they serve the same masters: corporate overlords with billion-dollar appetites and offshore addresses.
Consumers don’t fare much better. They pay more for lesser cuts, duped into believing the illusion of abundance. The supermarket shelves are full of choice, but the choice has already been made. The labels may differ, but the profits lead to the same boardrooms. When the men who raise the cattle can’t afford to eat steak and the companies that kill them post record earnings, something stinks — and it isn’t the beef.
RELATED: ‘Farmer’ George Clooney wouldn’t last a minute with my family’s sheep
Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/Andia/Getty Images
Corporate cleavers
The story is no different across the Atlantic. In Europe, the meat trade has been quietly butchered by the same corporate cleavers. Small abattoirs — the lifeblood of rural France, Ireland, and Spain — have disappeared beneath the weight of regulation and consolidation. What used to be an honest trade of handshakes and hanging carcasses is now ruled by faceless conglomerates answering to Brussels and shareholders in Frankfurt. The European Union speaks loftily of “sustainability,” but its policies have done more to sustain monopolies than livelihoods.
Ask a French farmer about EU policy, and you’ll get a shrug somewhere between despair and disgust. In Ireland, cattle farmers — men like my father, who once fed nations through famine and war — now feed debt. In Germany, abattoir workers live in company dorms, shipped in from Eastern Europe to keep costs down. The romance of the pastoral has been replaced by the cold arithmetic of the spreadsheet.
From beef to bugs
Meanwhile, consumers are told to eat less meat “for the planet.” How convenient for the corporations that now sell the alternatives — lab-grown patties and insect protein, neatly packaged in recyclable guilt. They’ve found a way to profit from both sides of the moral ledger: first by monopolizing real meat, then by marketing its replacement. It’s a master class in hypocrisy and a catastrophe for the working class.
Trump’s decision to investigate the industry won’t fix a century of collusion overnight, but it is a long-overdue reckoning. For decades, Democrats and Republicans alike treated Big Meat as too big to question. The lobbyists wrote the laws, the lawyers buried the lawsuits, and the bureaucrats looked away. The result is a landscape where cattle ranchers depend on corporations that despise them and consumers rely on supply chains that could snap at any moment.
Food, the most basic human need, has become another instrument of control. When you own the meat, you own the man. Farmers used to raise herds; now they herd invoices and inspectors.
It’s tempting to believe that this system is simply broken. It isn’t. It works exactly as designed — to enrich the few and exhaust the many. The old rural ideal of self-reliance has been slaughtered on the altar of efficiency. What we are left with is a parody of plenty: full shelves, empty towns, and even emptier pockets..
Trump’s probe may not slay the beast, but at least someone is willing to pull back the curtain and show the nation what’s really being carved up. For decades, the Big Four packers have sliced the market to ribbons, fixing prices while farmers starved and consumers paid the bill. Now, for the first time in generations, there’s a man in power with the will to carve them up instead. Call it poetic justice: The butchers may finally find themselves on the block.
Trading in your car? Here’s how to get the biggest payout
When you find the right new car after a long search, it can be tempting to close as soon as possible. But before you sign, there’s one question that can save — or cost — you thousands.
What should you do with your current car?
Should you trade it in at the dealership or sell it privately? It’s more than a convenience question — it’s a strategy. And with used-car prices still unsettled, the right choice can make a real financial difference.
Let’s break down what actually matters and what the dealership won’t always volunteer.
Financial fork
Most buyers can’t keep their old car when upgrading. They use it as part of the down payment. But there are two very different paths:
- Trade it in.
- Sell it privately for typically more money.
Reality check: Dealerships rarely offer full market value. They need to buy low and sell high — it’s business. Knowing that puts you in control.
If your car is worth $15,000 privately, a dealer may offer $12,000. That’s $3,000 lost — money you could use to lower your loan or upgrade trims.
Why trade-ins win
Sometimes a trade-in is the smarter move — especially in states offering a sales tax credit.
Example: Buy a $40,000 car and trade in a $10,000 vehicle. You’re taxed only on $30,000, which can save you hundreds.
If the tax break closes the gap between your private-sale price and the trade-in offer, taking the trade may be the better move. Plus, there’s no hassle: no listings, no test drives, no strangers.
The timing sweet spot
Timing matters. The best moment to sell or trade is before your factory warranty expires.
- 3 years / 36,000 miles for basic.
- 5 years / 60,000 miles for powertrain.
Cars still under warranty are easier to resell and command higher prices. If your car is paid off, clean, and under those mileage limits, you’re in the prime window.
When you owe money
You can trade in a car with an outstanding loan — but be careful. If your car’s value is less than the payoff, that’s negative equity.
Your options: pay the difference Or roll it into your new loan (not ideal).
This is how people end up upside-down for years. Avoid it by calling your lender for your payoff amount and checking your car’s true value on KBB or Edmunds.
If you have positive equity, that difference becomes your down payment.
RELATED: Quick Fix: What’s the safest used car for my teenager?
CBS/Getty Images
Watching the market
Used-car prices have swung wildly since the pandemic. The market is still strong for vehicles that are under five years old; well below 14,500 miles/year; and properly maintained.
If that describes your car, a private sale may be worth it. If not — high miles, cosmetic issues, or a soft local market — a trade-in may be the smarter, calmer choice.
Mileage and condition
Both private buyers and dealers care about the same things: mileage and condition. Before selling or trading, get the car detailed; fix small cosmetic flaws; replace worn tires or weak batteries; and gather maintenance records.
A clean, documented car always sells faster and for more.
The private sale payoff
Selling privately usually brings the highest price. But it has strings attached: writing the listing, taking photos, answering questions, meeting buyers, and handling title and payment. If that sounds like too much, a trade-in may be worth the lower price. But if you have a desirable car and the patience, a private sale can easily beat any dealer offer.
Final decision points
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. The right move depends on your equity, your time, your state’s tax laws, your loan payoff, and your tolerance for hassle.
What matters is going in informed.
Know your numbers. Know your choices. Don’t let a dealer rush you. Done right, you can upgrade smoothly and walk away financially ahead.
Bottom line: Do your homework, understand the trade-offs, and choose the path that keeps the most money in your pocket.
Locked out: How Big Auto could destroy the used-car market
When it comes to replacing your daily driver, “used” is often the smartest buy. A low-mileage model from a few years back can save you real money while offering nearly all the same features. And as long as you do your homework, a well-maintained used car is every bit as serviceable as something brand new.
But that might not be true for much longer.
In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.
Automakers are steadily locking down the data that modern cars generate. If they succeed, independent repair shops, do-it-yourself mechanics — and your wallet — will feel the squeeze. The stakes are enormous: 273,000 repair shops, 900,000 technicians, and 293 million vehicles could be affected.
Stick with me. By the end of this, you’ll know exactly why the national right-to-repair movement is pushing the REPAIR Act — and why it’s worth calling your legislator today.
Gatekeeping data
For decades, car repair was straightforward. The OBD-II port — standardized in 1996 — gave shops and owners direct access to diagnostic data. That openness fueled competition, kept repairs affordable, and protected your right to choose who services your car.
Today’s vehicles are computers on wheels, containing hundreds of microprocessors and dozens of electronic control units. And instead of sending data through that familiar port, cars now stream diagnostics wirelessly through telematics systems. In 2021, half of all vehicles already had this capability. By 2030, McKinsey projects 95% of new cars will be fully connected.
Here’s the problem: That wireless data goes straight to the manufacturer. They become the gatekeeper — deciding who gets access, at what time, and for what price.
Independent shops get shut out or forced to pay steep fees for limited information. Consumers get funneled back to dealerships. And while telematics can offer real benefits — remote diagnostics, predictive maintenance — those perks mostly stay inside the dealership network when automakers control the data.
Drivers pay the price
When manufacturers monopolize data, drivers pay the price.
- Higher repair costs: Independent shops must buy expensive, manufacturer-approved tools or subscriptions — or they can’t complete repairs at all.
- Fewer options: Your trusted neighborhood shop may be unable to work on newer models, leaving you with dealership-only service.
- Privacy erosion: Every drive generates information on your habits, location, and behavior. Automakers routinely share or sell that data to insurers, advertisers, and third parties — often without clear consent.
In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.
The aftermarket fallout
Independent repair is a massive economic engine. Cut off their access to data, and the ripple effects are huge:
- Aftermarket parts makers struggle to design compatible components.
- Innovation slows.
- Dealers gain monopolies on everything from diagnostics to repairs.
- Wait times increase while prices rise.
Voters have noticed. Massachusetts passed a telematics right-to-repair initiative in 2020 with 75% approval. Maine followed in 2023 with 84%. Those wins matter — but a patchwork of state laws won’t protect drivers nationwide.
Enter the REPAIR Act
Industry groups — including the Auto Care Association, MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers, and the CAR Coalition — are backing the REPAIR Act (H.R. 906). It’s not radical. It simply updates consumer rights for the connected-car era.
Four core principles drive the bill:
- No artificial barriers to repair or maintenance.
- Owners and their chosen shops get direct access to vehicle-generated data.
- No manufacturer can mandate proprietary tools or dealer-only equipment.
- A stakeholder advisory committee keeps the rules current as technology evolves.
The act restores choice. You can repair your own vehicle — or choose any shop you trust. It bans anticompetitive behavior like withholding service information or requiring dealer-exclusive parts. And crucially, wireless data must be shared through secure, standardized, owner-approved channels.
NHTSA and the FTC would set cybersecurity rules. Consumers would receive clear data-sharing notifications. And if manufacturers abuse the system, the FTC can act fast.
RELATED: Right-to-repair sweetens McFlurry but sours when lives are at stake
400tmax via iStock/Getty Images
Skimp my ride
Without the REPAIR Act, the used-car market collapses into uncertainty. Vehicles that require dealer-only repairs will lose value quickly. Planned obsolescence accelerates. And as cars become fully connected, the familiar OBD-II era winds down.
A car you buy in 2025 could be effectively “dealer-locked” by 2030.
Manufacturers argue they need total control for cybersecurity. But secure, standardized data access — the model used globally — proves you can protect vehicle integrity without destroying competition.
The aftermarket already has a workable framework: encrypted data, authenticated access, owner permissions, and interoperable platforms. It’s practical, safe, and ready today.
The price of inaction
Without federal action:
- Repair costs rise 20%-50%.
- Independent shops close.
- Innovation dries up.
- Consumer privacy evaporates.
- The used-car market contracts.
The REPAIR Act reverses all of that. It creates a fair system where manufacturers build the cars — but the aftermarket keeps them running.
Don’t wait. Act.
This affects every driver. Contact your representative and urge support for the REPAIR Act.
It protects choice, savings, and your right to repair in a digital automotive world.
Your car, your data, your repairs. That’s what’s on the line.
New head of US Catholic Bishops said he would deny communion to pro-abortion politicians
Archbishop Paul S. Coakley is not in favor of giving politicians preferential treatment.
Coakley, archbishop of Oklahoma City, was elected as the next president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in a secret ballot on Tuesday and will serve a three-year term as president.
‘I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice.’
Coakley has set a strong precedent for supporting the denial of communion to certain politicians that dates back more than a decade.
Most recently, in 2022, Coakley spoke in support of Archbishop Salvatore Joseph Cordileone of San Francisco. As reported by Life News, Cordileone decided to withhold communion from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time after she backed the Democrats as they blocked a vote on a bill to stop infanticide at least 80 times.
As Pelosi’s district encompasses San Francisco, Cordileone informed Pelosi she would be denied communion following her repeated dismissal of the archbishop, who attempted to speak with her about supporting “grave evil.”
Coakley supported the decision, saying, “I applaud the courage of Archbishop Cordileone and his leadership in taking this difficult step. Let us continue to pray for Abp. Cordileone, priests of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Speaker Pelosi, for the protection of the unborn, and for the conversion of hearts and minds.”
The new USCCB president has remained consistent, and the proof is showcased in an interview he gave in 2014.
RELATED: They think ‘Christian AI’ will hasten Christ’s second coming — and now they’re building it
After Coakley said that many Catholic politicians have been at the forefront of “fostering so-called abortion rights,” he was asked about denying them communion due to the “severity” of their support for abortion.
Coakley replied, “I think one has to determine yet at what point it can be determined that they have come to that state of obstinate refusal to desist from that condition of manifest, grave sin.”
He told Life Site News, “I think we have an obligation as bishops, as pastors, to try to work with them to bring them to a change of heart and refusing them communion would be, not the first, but more than likely, the last stage in a serious [sic] of steps.”
The outlet then clarified, asking if it was something he would rule out or not.
“Oh, absolutely not,” Coakley reiterated. “I think it is something that Canon Law sanctions and that I think many bishops find themselves with no other choice but to make that decision. I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice.”
RELATED: Protestant pastor says polygamy is biblical: ‘He divinely ordained it’
VATICAN – 2022/06/29: US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (R), with her husband, Paul Pelosi (C), attend a Holy Mass for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul lead by Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Basilica. (Photo by Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Upon accepting his new role, Coakley wrote a statement on X about being “put out into deep waters” in his new position.
“Once again, the Lord is inviting me,” he wrote. “Please pray that I may be a faithful steward and a wise servant of unity and communion with our Holy Father, Pope Leo, and with my brother bishops.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Protestant pastor says polygamy is biblical: ‘He divinely ordained it’
A protestant pastor is not backing down from his claim that he can have multiple wives.
Rich Tidwell, a pastor in Canton, Missouri, has sparked an online debate about the acceptance of polygamy in Christianity and whether or not it is biblically justifiable.
‘I have two beautiful wives.’
To the expected amount of backlash, Tidwell recently made an announcement on his Instagram page that his second wife is expecting his eighth child.
“I have two beautiful wives,” Tidwell wrote in a long entry. “We’re thrilled for what the Lord has done for our family,” he added, citing Bible passage Luke 18:29.
The pastor wrote about his justifications in an article called “Plural marriage,” labeling the practice as polygyny, which refers to one man being married to multiple women.
“In 2019, I discovered the surprising fact that God not only never prohibited polygyny throughout the entire biblical narrative (as He did with polyandry or homosexuality), He divinely ordained it in several cases,” Tidwell claimed.
He then cited more passages.
RELATED: Church-hopping: Confessions of an itinerant worshipper
Exodus 21:10 regulates but does not prohibit the practice, Tidwell claimed, when it says, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.”
Tidwell also noted 2 Chronicles 24:2-3, which mentions that “Jehoiada took two wives for him, and he became the father of sons and daughters,” as well as 2 Samuel 12:7-8:
This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”
The pastor continued with more citations and said that if God explicitly gave men more than one wife at any time in history, “Then it was not and is not sin.”
For those who argued that polygyny is not the original design for mankind, Tidwell countered, “Neither is death, nor clothing, nor eating meat.”
RELATED: This crisis in churches is real. Will Christians fight back?
In an article titled “Should polygamist families be welcome at church?” Tidwell shared a letter he wrote to an Anglican church in Missouri requesting to attend its worship services; he was soundly denied.
A priest replied, saying the bishop, clergy, and parish council “unanimously decided against” the family’s participation.
“On multiple levels, polygamy is forbidden in our convictions, interpretation of Scripture, and the Canons and Constitution of the [Anglican Church of North America],” the unknown representative wrote, citing the following: “Canon II.7: Of Christian Marriage, which defines marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.”
“These convictions are non-negotiable,” the letter said. “If you ever repent and become functionally and theologically monogamous, you are welcome to participate.”
Tidwell is a pastor at the nondenominational Ormond Church in Canton, Missouri, according to Protestia.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Avoid these 9 car-rental rip-offs
Renting a car should be simple: You reserve a vehicle, drive it, and return it at the end of your trip.
But for millions of travelers each year, what seems like a straightforward process can quickly become a source of frustration and unexpected costs.
In 2024, US car-rental companies collected more than $2 billion in optional insurance and add-on fees.
Hidden fees, deceptive insurance upsells, false damage claims, and overpriced extras have become all too common, turning a simple rental into a costly experience. Understanding how rental companies operate and knowing what to watch for can save you time, money, and stress.
1. Hidden fees
One of the most pervasive problems in car rentals is the hidden fee. Travelers are often lured in with low advertised rates, only to be shocked when extra charges appear on their final bill.
These can include cleaning fees, administrative charges, or taxes that were not clearly disclosed. A rate that appears to be $25 a day can quickly balloon when additional costs are tacked on. The key to avoiding these surprises is vigilance: reading the contract carefully, asking for a full breakdown of potential charges, and choosing reputable rental companies that provide transparency from the start.
2. Fuel charges
Fuel charges are another frequent source of frustration. Many agencies offer prepaid fuel options, promising convenience at a flat rate. In reality, these plans often overcharge travelers. A prepaid tank might cost $70, while filling up locally could cost half that. The best strategy is to select a policy requiring you to return the car full and refuel it yourself, giving you control over price and avoiding overpayment.
3. Insurance upselling
Insurance upselling is a classic tactic at rental counters. Agents may encourage you to purchase extra coverage, claiming your personal insurance or credit card benefits are insufficient. Many credit cards already include rental car insurance, and personal auto policies often extend coverage to rentals. Knowing what protections you already have, and bringing proof, allows you to confidently decline unnecessary insurance and avoid paying for coverage you don’t need.
RELATED: 10 tactics to beat even the pushiest car salesman
Mark Sullivan/Getty Images
4. Damage claims
Damage claims can create even bigger headaches. Renters are frequently billed for scratches, dents, or other damage that existed before their rental. Without proper documentation, disputing these charges can be difficult. To protect yourself, inspect the car thoroughly before and after driving, take comprehensive photos or videos, and ensure any pre-existing damage is recorded by the rental agent. A few minutes of documentation can prevent thousands of dollars in unjust repair charges.
5. ‘Free’ upgrades
Even seemingly generous “free” upgrades can carry hidden costs. A larger or fancier car may require premium gasoline, have lower fuel efficiency, or carry higher insurance rates. What seems like a perk can quickly become an unexpected expense. Always confirm the details of any upgrade before accepting it and assess whether it truly makes sense for your trip.
6. Early return penalties
Timing is another area where fees can accumulate. Early returns may trigger additional charges, as some companies consider schedule changes disruptive to their fleet planning. Returning a vehicle late, even by an hour, can also result in steep penalties, sometimes amounting to a full extra day’s rental. Understanding the agency’s policies, communicating any changes in advance, and planning your return carefully are essential to avoid unnecessary fees.
7. Unauthorized driver penalties
Unauthorized drivers are another hidden cost. If someone not listed on the rental agreement drives the vehicle, you may face significant penalties. This can be particularly costly during family trips when multiple people share driving duties. The solution is straightforward: Ensure every driver is added to the contract up front. Some companies even offer one free additional driver, which can reduce the financial burden and prevent insurance complications.
8. Location surcharges
Location surcharges are a more subtle form of deception. Renting at airports or central city locations is convenient, but convenience comes at a premium. Airport locations can be 20% to 30% more expensive than nearby off-site branches. Taking the time to compare rates at alternative locations and factoring in transportation costs can yield substantial savings.
9. Add-on accessories and services
Additional accessories and services: GPS devices, car seats, and toll passes are often priced exorbitantly. Renting a car seat can cost $15 to $20 per day, adding up to over $100 for a week-long trip. Smartphones equipped with navigation apps can replace GPS units at no extra cost, and parents can often check car seats on flights for free, avoiding rental fees altogether.
Protect yourself
The reality is that the rental industry profits heavily from these practices. In 2024, U.S. car-rental companies collected more than $2 billion in optional insurance and add-on fees, a significant portion of which came from products renters didn’t truly need. Legal challenges have occasionally forced companies to settle claims over hidden fees and false damage charges, but systemic issues remain.
Navigating this environment requires preparation and awareness. Researching rental companies in advance, documenting the condition of the vehicle, confirming coverage with your insurance and credit card, and reading the fine print of agreements are essential steps. Avoiding high-pressure sales tactics, understanding the cost implications of upgrades, and planning for return times can save significant money and prevent unpleasant surprises.
While consumer advocacy and regulation are slowly increasing transparency, renters remain the first line of defense against these tactics. Until industry-wide standards are strictly enforced, vigilance is essential. Understanding how companies maximize profits and where they might bend the rules puts you back in control of your rental experience.
Renting a car doesn’t have to be stressful. With careful planning, attention to detail, and knowledge of potential pitfalls, travelers can avoid unnecessary costs and enjoy a smoother, more predictable journey. In the world of car rentals, the most important tool is not a GPS or a car seat, it’s knowledge.
Farewell to fake fuel efficiency stats, hello to tough future for EVs
Fake fuel economy has got to go.
That’s the message of a recent decision by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sent to the scrap heap: a Biden-era Department of Energy rule that critics say wildly inflated the fuel economy ratings of EVs — giving them an unfair regulatory advantage over gasoline and hybrid vehicles.
The court’s ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.
This is a major correction to how the U.S. government measures vehicle efficiency, with consequences for automakers, consumers, and the future of the EV market.
Efficiency inflation
The case was brought by 13 Republican attorneys general, who argued that the DOE’s formula for calculating EV efficiency was misleading and legally indefensible. The court agreed, ruling that the Biden administration overstepped its authority by continuing to use an outdated, artificial formula that inflated electric vehicle performance under federal fuel economy standards.
At stake is the credibility of how America measures vehicle efficiency — a key driver in regulatory decisions that shape everything from automaker product lines to what cars consumers can buy.
For years, the DOE’s so-called petroleum equivalency factor has been used to translate electric power into miles-per-gallon equivalents. But the formula wasn’t based on realistic energy comparisons. Instead, it massively overstated how far an EV could travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline — often rating electric cars above 100 MPGE, regardless of actual energy costs or grid efficiency.
Credits as currency
Rather than immediately fixing this issue, the Biden administration’s DOE planned a slow phase-out of the inflated metric between model years 2027 and 2030. That delay allowed automakers to continue claiming exaggerated efficiency numbers — and collecting fuel economy credits that made it easier to comply with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
Why does that matter? Because those credits act as a form of regulatory currency. A company that racks up credits through high-efficiency vehicles can use them to offset the sale of less efficient models or even sell them to other automakers.
In other words, the inflated EV math didn’t just look better on paper — it saved automakers millions of dollars in potential penalties while giving policymakers a talking point about “historic progress” in fuel efficiency that wasn’t based on real-world performance.
A direct rebuke
In its 3-0 decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the DOE had gone beyond its legal bounds. Agencies can’t rewrite laws through policy tweaks, the judges said, even under the guise of “phasing out” old rules. The DOE was required by statute to eliminate the flawed formula entirely — not stretch it over several more years of inflated numbers.
The court’s ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.
That’s a significant rebuke not just to the DOE, but to a broader pattern of regulatory overreach that has characterized much of Washington’s EV push.
For the states that brought the lawsuit, the decision represents a major win for transparency, accountability, and consumer protection.
Pivoting on EVs
The implications for automakers are enormous. For years, inflated EV efficiency numbers helped carmakers meet federal fuel economy targets and avoid costly fines. Without that regulatory buffer, the industry will need to adapt quickly.
Automakers may now lose the valuable fuel economy credits they’ve relied on to remain compliant with CAFE standards, forcing them to find new ways to meet efficiency goals. That shift will require genuine engineering improvements — advances in aerodynamics, weight reduction, and hybrid technology — rather than relying on inflated paper-based advantages.
This change could also prompt a broader reassessment of electric vehicle strategy. If the regulatory math no longer tilts in favor of EVs, many manufacturers may slow their rollout plans or diversify their portfolios to include more hybrids and high-efficiency gasoline models.
The timing is significant: EV demand has cooled, dealer inventories are building up, and consumer interest has leveled off. Automakers such as Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen have already scaled back or delayed certain EV programs in response to slower-than-expected sales and ongoing infrastructure limitations.
RELATED: Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Consumer transparency
For everyday drivers, this ruling doesn’t ban EVs — but it brings more honesty to the system.
Consumers deserve accurate information about vehicle efficiency, cost of ownership, and environmental impact. Inflated fuel economy ratings distort that picture, making EVs appear more efficient than they are when accounting for charging losses, battery manufacturing, and electric grid emissions.
Now, car buyers can make more informed choices — whether that’s a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or traditional gasoline vehicle.
In the long term, this ruling could encourage a broader mix of technology rather than a forced, one-size-fits-all transition to battery electrics.
The fight to come
This case isn’t just about EVs. It’s about how much power federal agencies should have to rewrite laws without Congressional oversight.
For decades, Washington has leaned on regulatory agencies to shape environmental and energy policy — often through complex formulas that most Americans never see. But as the Eighth Circuit emphasized, the ends don’t justify the means.
Even if the goal is cleaner transportation, the process has to respect legal boundaries. When agencies overreach, courts must intervene to restore balance.
This decision reinforces an important principle: Policy must be grounded in law, not ideology. And in a country that values free markets and consumer choice, regulations should enhance transparency, not distort it.
The ruling leaves several key questions unanswered, but it is likely just the beginning of a much larger policy fight. Congress could attempt to step in by rewriting the laws that govern fuel economy standards, giving the DOE clearer authority to define how electric vehicle efficiency is calculated. However, such legislative efforts would almost certainly face significant political gridlock in an already divided Congress.
Much-needed realism
Automakers, meanwhile, are expected to take a hard look at how they allocate their research and development budgets and how they plan future vehicle lineups.
Companies heavily invested in electric vehicles have shifted strategies, focusing more on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and improved gasoline technologies — especially in markets where EV sales have already shown signs of slowing or flattening.
Finally, the court’s reasoning may open the door to further challenges that could include renewed scrutiny of EPA emissions standards and federal tax credits, both of which critics argue have tilted the market in favor of electric vehicles rather than allowing consumer demand and market forces to guide the transition naturally.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision is a defining moment for the future of American automotive policy. It doesn’t kill the EV market — but it forces it to stand on its own merits.
Electric vehicles have their place in the market, but consumers deserve truthful efficiency data and honest cost comparisons. Inflated numbers and creative accounting don’t serve innovation — they undermine it.
This ruling restores some much-needed realism to the national conversation about the future of mobility. It’s a win for transparency, for accountability, and most importantly, for consumers who want to make decisions based on facts rather than politics.
Can leucovorin cure autism? Meet the moms determined to find out
A humble, decades-old folate compound — used not to fight cancer but to ease the side effects of chemotherapy — has become the latest flashpoint in America’s health wars.
On September 10, the Trump administration announced that the FDA would move toward approving leucovorin for children with cerebral folate deficiency, a rare metabolic disorder linked to autism in some cases. Supporters hailed it as long-overdue recognition of promising small studies; critics called it another example of the MAHA agenda politicizing science.
While bureaucrats and scientists bicker, families with real skin in the game tirelessly run their own experiments and share their results, hoping the science will eventually catch up.
The debate since has been fierce, with professional groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics advising against the off-label use of leucovorin for autism, warning that the evidence remains preliminary — while prominent physicians call for larger, biomarker-guided trials to confirm what early studies suggest.
A parent’s love
All parties insist their motives are pure, but this latest skirmish is a reminder of how tangled those motives can be. What drives the people and institutions pushing medical science forward is often a sincere desire to help people, yes — mixed in with ambition, rivalry, financial interest, and the unspoken urge to be the one who’s right.
But there’s another force at work here, deeper and simpler, and it tends to override all the rest: a parent’s love for a child.
This is the same love that kept the parents of children with cystic fibrosis pushing to understand a condition doctors considered hopeless, or that led a Hollywood father to resurrect a forgotten epilepsy therapy to help his son. And now it’s the force animating hundreds of parents who believe a decades-old folate compound has literally given their autistic children a voice.
While bureaucrats and scientists bicker, families with real skin in the game tirelessly run their own experiments and share their results, hoping the science will eventually catch up.
Even before the FDA signaled approval of leucovorin for cerebral folate deficiency — a rare metabolic disorder with links to autism — parents have been sharing reports of progress with the drug on Reddit forums and in Facebook groups to share anecdotal reports of progress. A few families have also told their stories in clinic-produced or news-segment videos.
A treatment’s hope
Leucovorin, also called folinic acid, is a bioactive form of folate. It’s been used for decades to “rescue” patients from high-dose chemotherapy. In autism, it’s being repurposed to bypass what some researchers call a “folate transport blockade.”
Up to 70% of autistic children in certain studies test positive for folate receptor alpha autoantibodies — immune proteins that prevent folate from reaching the brain. The result: cerebral folate deficiency. High-dose folinic acid appears to restore that supply, sometimes with striking behavioral effects.
Dr. Richard Frye, a pediatric neurologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, led one of the first controlled trials in 2016. His team found improved verbal communication in FRAA-positive children treated with leucovorin. Later case studies described language bursts, better eye contact, and calmer affect.
RELATED: Tylenol fights autism claims, slams proposed FDA warning label as ‘unsupported’ by science
Photo by ISSAM AHMED/AFP via Getty Images
From ‘no words’ to the Pledge of Allegiance
The parents themselves provide more affecting testimony. Carolyn Connor’s son Mason was 1 when she realized something was amiss: “He wasn’t talking. No language. No words.”
When their pediatrician downplayed this lag in development as typical in boys, she and her husband began doing their own research, which led them to Frye. Three days after starting leucovorin, Mason spoke his first words.
Now 6, he continues to take the medication, and continues to thrive.
Beth Ann Kersse’s daughter was diagnosed with autism at age 3. “In her vocabulary she had about three or four words,” Kersse said in a video uploaded by Washington, D.C.-based Potomac Psychiatry.
“But she didn’t call me ‘Mom.’ She kind of would point at me,” she added.
That’s when Kersse and her husband began exploring leucovorin. Two years later, Kersse describes her almost 5-year-old daughter’s transformation as “incredible.”
“The other day she stood up and put her hand over her heart, and she recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and we were just like, OK … I didn’t know we knew that. … She’s able to have a full conversation; she can tell us how she’s feeling.”
Late last month, Nebraska pediatrician Dr. Phil Boucher posted a case study detailing how a 3.5-year-old autistic girl responded to leucovin treatment, citing texts from her mother reporting that she was “blown away” by the changes she observed:
She is starting to consistently look at people when they call her name. … She’s becoming more interested in her little sister. … She also has started taking some of the baby dolls that we have and has been covering them up with a blanket, giving them a kiss, and saying, “Night night.”
As Boucher is careful to point out, anecdotal success stories like these don’t prove the drug works. But to those experiencing the improvement firsthand, they’re a promising sign that a simple, inexpensive vitamin derivative can do what years of therapy can’t.
And if this promise does indeed bear fruit, leucovorin treatment will be the latest of many homegrown revolutions in medical care spearheaded by determined mothers and fathers unwilling to wait for consensus.
