This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** For years, progressives have been shrieking about book bans, insisting conservatives want to pull classics from library shelves or burn fantasy novels for promoting witchcraft. It was always a straw man.  The real fight was never about classic literature; it was about books like “Gender Queer,” which includes illustrations of oral sex and masturbation, and which 90% of voters in a 2023 poll said was inappropriate for public school libraries. Or it was about “This Book Is Gay,” which introduces dating apps to teenagers. Those books are undeniably gross, but they do have exactly one redeeming quality: They are obvious. If your kid came home with a copy of “Gender Queer” or “This Book Is Gay,” it would immediately signal that it was time to attend a school board meeting. But there’s a much more dangerous form of young adult literature out there, and it’s lurking behind an intentionally deceptive cover that’s meant to trick parents into thinking everything is fine. Rebecca Bendheim, the author of a YA book for teen readers, posted on social media about deliberately designing the cover art to hide the book’s theme from parents while simultaneously advertising it to children. “When Penguin [Random House] asked me what I wanted for my cover, I said I wanted it to be gay enough for queer kids and teens to clock it, but for homophobic parents to just think it’s a friendship story,” the author and middle school teacher bragged on Instagram. The book is called “When You’re Brave Enough” and was released on Tuesday. According to the publisher, it is recommended for children ages 10–14. “So I said, no holding hands, make my character look gay,” Bendheim explained. She went on to point out subtle details she and the cover artist agreed on, including flowers growing between the pair to represent a crush that’s “growing.” In a follow-up video, Bendheim showed her book cover to random people on the street to see if they could guess what it was about. “Shoutout to the people who answered and to librarians who help kids and teens find subtle queer books if they need them,” she wrote in the caption. “I’m a firm believer that positive representation saves lives!! Would you be able to tell?”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Rebecca Bendheim (@rebeccabendheim) Bendheim’s approach is insidious for what it hides. But other YA authors aren’t bothering to hide anything at all. A “Good Morning America” YA Book Club selection, “Sibylline,” apparently includes graphic sex scenes depicting necrophilia, threesomes, and rape, with no warnings for unsuspecting parents. The novel, written by Melissa de la Cruz, is advertised as “a heart-stopping dark academia romantasy series” in the YA genre. Typically, these books are aimed at middle and high school children, with characters around that same age range. “Sibylline” was published on February 3. When the main character Atticus dies, two other characters attempt to revive him by engaging in sexual acts with his apparently lifeless body. The scene — presented from the perspective of the dying character — depicts a graphic, non-consensual sexual encounter between all three characters. There are no content warnings anywhere on the book. The book has been earning mostly one-star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, with readers noting the themes are wildly inappropriate for its target audience. “The audience is children and there are graphic descriptions of sexual acts between characters. Yes, the characters are older. No, they’re not always consenting,” one reviewer wrote. “The main three characters participate in a threesome that is graphic, and this book is listed as appropriate for 9th through 12th graders, which is completely insane,” another said. “If we think that it’s appropriate to market sex — let alone a threesome — to 12-year-olds, there’s a serious problem in this industry.” Child sexualization used to be something the culture at least pretended to oppose. The exploitative imagery around a teenage Britney Spears, the Calvin Klein ads featuring a 15-year-old Brooke Shields — society claimed to reckon with all of it. So why have people in the publishing industry decided those lessons don’t apply to them? The answer, it turns out, is that some of the people running that industry don’t think there’s a problem here. Andrew Karre is an executive editor at Penguin Random House’s Dutton Books for Young Readers, the same publishing house behind “When You’re Brave Enough.” In an interview with PEN America published in November 2025, he was remarkably candid about his worldview. “Once you approach it that way, what is a part of teenage experience?” Karre said. “Sex. Whether actually having it or imagining having it, sex is inextricable from 13- to 19-year-olds.” He went further, saying that a YA publishing industry without sexual content was essentially unimaginable. “If, all of a sudden, it became impossible to publish YA novels with sex in them, I think it would effectively become impossible to publish YA novels as I understand them,” he said. “I don’t think that’s hyperbolic at all.” Karre also argued that since teenagers will encounter sex anyway through what he called “ethically problematic” avenues like pornography, books serve as a healthier medium to instruct them. Those who would prefer sexual content removed from YA books, in his view, are simply making an error. He speaks for an industry that seems to indicate it knows better than parents what children should be reading. This all amounts to a multifaceted attack on parental authority. On one side, authors and publishers are deliberately designing books to slip past parents’ radars with cover art engineered to look innocent. On the other, you have publishers saturating the YA market with graphic sexual content that has no warnings, all in service of providing instruction to sex-curious teens. The Supreme Court pushed back last year. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court ruled 6-3 that parents retain a constitutional right to shield their children from objectionable material in public schools. That ruling was a start, but it doesn’t solve the problem of YA publishers believing they have the moral duty to impart sexual instruction on minors. Parents need to know these books exist, and they need to keep speaking out against them. The publishing industry has made it abundantly clear it’s not censoring anything.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** Dax Shepherd made headlines earlier this year for telling his 11-year-old daughter that he’d pay for her to freeze her eggs when she turns 18 so she won’t “have to think about that.” By “that,” what the actor presumably meant was any trade-offs at all. A woman’s window for having children is biologically determined, starting in her adolescence and ending in her forties, with declines in fertility beginning on average in her mid-to-late thirties. Egg freezing, proponents tell us, is a way to extend that window as much as possible and stave off any declines. The idea is that if a woman freezes her eggs at the peak of her fertility — in her twenties, or perhaps even earlier — she can buy herself time in her thirties and forties, and maybe even beyond that if she’s willing to use a surrogate. Clearly, more and more people find it compelling: Between 2014 and 2021, the number of women undergoing egg freezing nearly quadrupled, and many employers now offer it as a health benefit. Egg freezing, in other words, has been successfully presented in the culture as a trade-off-free solution to trade-offs that have traditionally been forced by biology and social mores. There’s no rush to date, or marry, or have kids; your eggs are frozen, you can relax, you have all the time in the world. The problem is that no matter the cultural narrative that has formed around egg freezing, technology has yet to supersede biology. Egg freezing, like any other treatment, comes with real trade-offs and potential side effects, and it should be treated as the medical procedure it is, rather than a means of prolonging family formation indefinitely. To be clear, there are cases where egg freezing has obvious pros: For instance, ovarian cancer patients can freeze their eggs prior to chemotherapy to help preserve their fertility. Women with endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome can also often benefit from egg freezing at younger ages, as those conditions often make natural conception more difficult. It is a great blessing of the modern world that we can avail ourselves of these options. That said, there are also cons to egg freezing that almost no one talks about. Julie Fredrickson, a venture capitalist in Montana, wrote on her blog that she chose to freeze her eggs in her early 30s as “an insurance policy” when she and her husband were struggling to establish their careers. But by the time the invasive egg extraction procedure was over, Fredrickson began to develop an autoimmune condition that left her too sick to be able to carry a pregnancy. Her rheumatologist believes it was caused by the egg freezing process itself. “I’m honestly astonished no one said a f*cking thing,” she wrote. “No maybe you should talk to a counselor. No here is what could go wrong. No here is how you might feel. No disclosure or discussions of some of the outlier cases of how these hormones might impact me … I’d struggled with some inflammatory conditions as a kid … But no one ever brought up that being stimulated to produce eggs for harvesting might set off a chain reaction with my latent autoimmune complaints.” Fredrickson’s story, while perhaps rare, shows the importance of informed consent that is often glossed over by free advertising from stories in the mainstream media. Dismissing possible side effects while overselling efficacy rates is ultimately harmful to women, whether they choose to freeze their eggs or not. Take Brigitte Adams, who went viral in 2014 for being on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek on an issue titled “Freeze your eggs, Free your career.” At the time, the idea was new, even revolutionary. And yet, per a Washington Post article that profiled her four years later, when she was in her mid 40s, she was unable to have a child from any of the 11 eggs she had frozen.  Unfortunately, her story is not uncommon: The overall chance of a live birth from frozen eggs is just 39%, which is lower than the overall chance of a live birth from embryo transfer. That’s not even considering the logistical challenges. Women who freeze their eggs not only pay the cost of the medical procedure, but the steep cost of keeping their eggs frozen, often entailing two or three decades worth of subscription fees. They are also physically storing their potential futures in an external space that’s out of their control, which entails real risk, too; there have been cases, including in California and Ohio, where eggs and embryos have been lost or destroyed by clinics.  Additionally, because frozen eggs have to be fertilized in vitro, and embryos have to be created outside the womb, women should also consider how they might feel about having frozen embryos down the line that they might never implant. For some women, it’s no problem at all, but for other women, it can become (sometimes unexpectedly) a cause of real moral concern. None of this is to say that egg freezing is inherently a bad decision, just that it’s a more serious one than the media and industry make it out to be. Beyond that, only 6% of patients use their eggs within five to seven years, with higher rates of use among older women. While there may be many reasons for this — including the possibility that many women with frozen eggs wind up getting pregnant naturally — it implies that at least some of these women are having difficulty getting to a place in life where they feel prepared to have children. Given the steep cost of egg freezing, it’s less likely that most of these women feel unprepared financially, and more likely that even with what has been touted as an “insurance policy” and “extra time,” they are still having difficulty meeting men and settling down. Acknowledging this shouldn’t entail shaming single women; rather, it should make us consider just how much contemporary dating culture is failing women. We expect women to tolerate what Hadley Heath Manning, in a report for Independent Women, calls “the decade of dating — often a decade of drifting through life — that the average American experiences today between their late teens and late twenties.” This expectation of “drifting” hurts men, too, but ultimately it is women who have the most to lose in the precious years of their youth. Rather than encouraging egg freezing as a means to enable even more wasted time among men and women alike, we should encourage young people to align themselves with biological reality. At its best, egg freezing can be a means to work with that reality, but it should not be seen as a way to escape the very real choices that all humans inevitably face. After all, the ultimate biological clock, for men and women alike, is death. Even if modern technology gives us a wider array of reproductive choices than people had in the past, we can only kick down the can for so long. *** Neeraja Deshpande is an Independent Women policy analyst and senior IW Features contributor.

ICE agents detained an illegal alien from Ghana convicted on 15 counts for stealing more than $8 million through an online dating fraud scheme targeting the elderly, the Department of Homeland Security told The Daily Wire.  Convicted three years ago in Boston, Massachusetts, for defrauding the elderly through fake dating profiles, ICE agents detained Kofi Ib Osei on Tuesday. Osei was convicted in March 2023 on seven counts of false statement to a bank, six counts of wire fraud, aiding and abetting, and two counts of money laundering.  “Kofi Osei is a criminal illegal alien who committed fraud throughout New England,” Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis told The Daily Wire. “On April 6, 2026, ICE arrested Osei from jail and took him into custody in Virginia. This is why we need local cooperation.” Osei first entered the United States in 2010 and was convicted on March 22, 2023, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The indictment against Osei revealed that he targeted victims across the country, from Florida to California, from 2016 to 2020, through a romance scheme that involved tricking individuals into sending money to bank accounts operated by Osei under fake names. This money was then used for buying cars and other personal items, according to the indictment. To open bank accounts, Osei would use passports from South Africa and Lesotho under various names.  One victim in the indictment included a woman who met Osei on eHarmony under the name “William Karlsen.” They communicated by phone and text, and Osei claimed he needed her to send him money so he could leave the oil rig he claimed to work on to visit her. Eventually, the victim transferred Osei over $200,000, according to the indictment.  A second scheme involved Osei using the name “William Woodcox” and getting money from a woman he targeted on the dating website Plenty of Fish. That victim transferred him around $65,000 to help him after an accident in which he’d claimed to be involved.  In total, the Justice Department said that Osei scammed hundreds of people out of $8 million. He was sentenced to 54 months in prison over the scheme.  Osei was just one of the illegal immigrant criminals arrested this week by ICE.  Others arrested by ICE this week included Pedro Joel Martinez, an illegal alien from El Salvador convicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14-years-old; Miguel Angel Vazquez-Garcia, an illegal alien from Mexico convicted for dealing child pornography in Wilmington, Delaware; Ader Aldair Ramirez-Quiroz, an illegal alien from Honduras convicted for importation of fentanyl in San Diego, California; and Anyeli Carolina Peley-Herrera, an illegal alien from Venezuela convicted for acquisition of personal identification by false authority in Bonneville County, Idaho, according to DHS.  “Yesterday, the heroic men and women of ICE arrested child predators, child rapists, drug traffickers, and other scumbags,” Bis said. “Under President Trump, criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the United States. If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, we will hunt you down, arrest you, deport you, and you will never return.”

Imagine that you’re Gavin Newsom. You’re clearly the frontrunner to be the Democrats’ next nominee for president. And in preparation for that role, you’ve done a lot of homework. You’ve gone on Fox News several times for debates with Sean Hannity and Governor Ron DeSantis to hone your skills against the opposition.  You’ve traveled to the Munich Security Conference to make it seem like you understand foreign policy — even though you just awkwardly walk around the lobby and stare at Marco Rubio the entire time. You’ve laughed, or pretended to laugh, at all of the jokes about how you look (and act) like the guy in “American Psycho”. And you’ve even launched a podcast where you sit down with conservatives, including Steve Bannon, so that you come across as a moderate candidate who can carry a conversation with anyone — even the people you’re going to throw in prison, if you ever get the chance. So you’ve gone to great lengths to create a very specific image, for the sole purpose of clearing the field and becoming the undisputed choice of the Democratic Party for president. And then, after all of that effort, imagine that your wife — Jennifer Siebel Newsom — decides to go out in public and attract as much attention as possible. She decides to become the most visible Newsom and go on her own speaking tour, even though she’s not a public official and no one has any reason to care what she thinks. And to make matters worse, she decides that she wants the entire world to know about the time she accidentally killed her sister with a golf cart. And then, without any hesitation whatsoever, Jennifer Newsom states that this golf cart mishap, which she describes as completely unintentional, is totally analogous to the many violent crimes committed by inmates who are currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. In other words, you’re the leading Democrat presidential candidate, and one day your wife goes out in public and states that criminals in California’s most hardcore prison are guilty of one thing, and one thing only — making the same kind of mistake you did as a child, when you ran over your own sister with a golf cart. Unfortunately for Gavin Newsom, no one has to imagine this nightmare scenario. His wife just went through with it, live on camera. Watch: Gavin Newsom’s wife recalls telling prisoners at San Quentin about running over and killing her sister with a golf cart. She said that she wasn’t punished because it was an accident but that the prisoners are doing life even though theirs was “probably an accident too.” pic.twitter.com/24HqCHXSZh — MAZE (@mazemoore) April 7, 2026 Source: @mazemoore/X.com Gavin Newsom may not be the smartest politician, but even with that handicap in mind, there’s no way he didn’t throw something at the television when he saw this. It’s the single most stereotypical, on-the-nose statement possible, from an affluent white liberal woman. The idea is that criminals — even violent criminals who are incarcerated in California, a state that goes out of its way to allow criminals to do whatever they want — aren’t actually guilty of anything. They don’t have free will. Therefore, they certainly can’t commit any crimes. Instead, they’re like Bob Ross — they just committed “happy little accidents.” There was an episode in that new “Star Trek” show that covered similar territory. And there’s a reason no one — other than liberal wine aunts — watched that show. Sane people don’t infantilize violent criminals, regardless of their mental state. We throw them in prison, forever. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered about the first part of Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s remarks — where she talks about killing her own sister. I had never heard that story before. So I looked up some background information, and I came across this article from the Los Angeles Times, from a couple of years ago. A few days before her 7th birthday, she and her older sister, Stacey, were playing on golf carts with several other children during a family vacation in Hawaii. Siebel Newsom didn’t see her sister hiding behind her cart when it went backwards, killing the 8-year-old, she said. … The second-eldest of five daughters, Siebel Newsom was raised in a wealthy conservative family in Marin County. Reading that story, I have no reason to doubt that this was, indeed, a horrible accident. I wasn’t there, so it would be hard for me to come up with some other version of events. But at the same time, obviously, something criminal occurred here. It doesn’t matter what seven-year-old Jennifer was trying to do. Put simply, if you allow your seven-year-old to drive a golf cart with so little supervision that she runs over your other child and kills her, then by definition, you’re a negligent parent. The parents’ job is to make sure that something like this never happens. And whether they’re wealthy or not, the same rule should apply. So, at a minimum, we have a case of parental neglect, which, to my knowledge, was never charged. Of course, it’s a horrible story, and it’s the kind of thing I’d rather not talk about. But Jennifer talks about it and uses it to make a political point, and the political point is nothing short of deranged. She wants to release violent criminals onto the public, and she’s using the death of her own sister as a cudgel to drive that point home. The whole thing is unspeakably perverse in every imaginable way. Or maybe Jennifer Siebel Newsom was trying to tell us something here. Maybe she was trying to communicate that, like the violent inmates of San Quentin, she — or her parents — had indeed committed a criminal act, on the day of that fateful golf cart incident. It’s hard to say. But the more I looked into this woman, the more I came to the conclusion that, no, she’s not trying to tell us anything intelligent at all. On the contrary, Jennifer Siebel Newsom possesses an extremely low IQ, coupled with a narcissistic personality. She is, in every respect, an existential threat to Gavin Newsom’s campaign for the presidency. And if they’re smart, Republicans will do exactly what I’m about to do — which is to conduct a deep dive into her history. But before I get into that, I need to play a couple of videos first, from this woman’s recent public appearances. In addition to being entertaining, these clips could help explain why she’s keeping such a high profile. So here’s one video from the other day, where she talks about Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi leaving the Trump administration. Watch: NEW: Gavin Newsom’s wife suggests Pam Bondi was fired because she is a woman, says Trump is declaring “war on all women.” “[Trump’s agenda] is pushing us back into this straitjacket of femininity that is only in service of men,” she said. This woman might single-handedly… pic.twitter.com/HlUmHswUxw — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 4, 2026 Source: @CollinRugg/X.com It’s yet another dumb and insufferable video, which is why it’s making the rounds on X. But I don’t think people on X are the intended audience of this clip. I could be wrong about this, but it seems like Jennifer is putting out this kind of content as part of a deliberate strategy by the Newsom team to appeal to women. It wouldn’t exactly be a stretch — everything about Gavin Newsom’s operation is highly choreographed and calculated. These are extremely cynical and strategic people we’re talking about here. So it seems reasonable to conclude that Newsom’s wife is posting these videos to appeal to women — easily the most Left-wing, radicalized demographic in the electorate. And while conservatives are laughing, liberal women are eating this stuff up. But again, something in the video caught my attention. She’s attacking Donald Trump for sex stuff, or something along those lines. But if you know anything about her own personal history, it comes across as an extremely fake, strained line of argument. As it turns out, Jennifer Siebel Newsom claimed that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 2005. But she didn’t make that allegation publicly for more than a decade. Instead, she kept up friendly communication with Weinstein. In fact, two years after the alleged rape, in 2007, Newsom’s wife again contacted Weinstein for advice on how to handle a sex scandal involving her then-boyfriend, Gavin Newsom. Watch: After Harvey Weinstein allegedly sexually assaulted her in 2005, Gavin Newsom’s wife contacted Weinstein to meet up and discuss movie roles. In 2007 Newsom’s wife contacted Weinstein to get his advice on how Gavin should handle his own sex scandal.pic.twitter.com/K0L6SUTXRv — MAZE (@mazemoore) February 8, 2026 Source: @mazemoore/X.com This is more than a little suspicious, obviously. If someone sexually assaults you, then you probably aren’t going to reach out to that person two years later, as a friend, seeking advice on behalf of your husband. But Newsom’s wife did that. She did it constantly. This is from The Guardian: Weinstein’s defense attorneys spent hours going through nearly 70 emails Siebel Newsom exchanged with Weinstein in the months and years after the alleged attack. They contrasted her bright tone and multiple requests for in-person business meetings with Weinstein in New York and at film festivals in Toronto and Cannes with her testimony that she had felt fear in her subsequent interactions with Weinstein. … [The defense attorneys] noted her signatures on different emails Weinstein received, including “warm regards” and “xx”, and flagged that she had once responded within eight minutes to an email from Weinstein about finding a time to meet in New York. Siebel Newsom said she simply did not remember sending most of the emails. ‘I send hundreds of thousands of emails to people,’ she testified. So that’s a little unusual. She’s sending extremely friendly messages to Weinstein and hitting him up for campaign contributions after he allegedly attacked her. She also changed some important details of her story, after-the-fact. Her trial testimony was different from her previous interviews. She only surfaced with her final version of the story more than a decade later, at the precise moment it became politically beneficial to claim to be a victim. This is called “reasonable doubt,” and it’s why, after Jennifer Newsom testified against Harvey Weinstein, the jury couldn’t reach a verdict on her claims. Watch: Source: CBS News Sacramento/YouTube.com Again, I can’t take any position on the merits of the allegations. But it’s hard not to suspect we have a Jeffrey Epstein situation here. There’s a horrible guy who’s guilty of several serious crimes. But at the same time, because the guy’s so horrible, it’s a free-fire zone for women to come in, claim they were victims, and receive an endless stream of positive press (and money, in many cases). They’re called “survivors.” And if they happen to have a documentary business, which Newsom’s wife did, then the publicity is obviously a big help. What could have actually happened here — and I don’t know this, but it’s a theory one might formulate — is that Jennifer had a consensual sexual relationship with a repulsive ogre named Harvey Weinstein because she thought it would help her professionally. Then, later, she decided it would help her more professionally to claim that he raped her. That seems like the other possibility, and you might argue that it’s even more plausible. It’s not exactly difficult to imagine Newsom’s wife pulling off a scam like that. As it stands, she uses her business operations — which are supposedly “nonprofits” — to enrich herself. This is reporting from The Daily Mail. IRS documents from recent years show Gavin Newsom’s wife has been paying herself and her company, Girls Club LLC, up to a third of her nonprofit’s entire income each year – pocketing over $3.7 million from 2012 to 2023, the nonprofit’s most recent figures. Siebel Newsom, 51, runs the Representation Project, a charity that fights against ‘intersectional gender stereotypes’ and ‘harmful gender norms’. The organization brings in between $1 million and $1.7 million a year in grants and donations, with roughly $300,000 of it going straight to her and her company in recent years, according to financial records. If you look into other nonprofits in the state, almost none of them work like this. Around 95% of the charities and nonprofits in the state, which are comparable in size to Jennifer Newsom’s, pay their executives less than this. That’s according to an analysis conducted by The Daily Mail. So she’s making an awful lot for a “nonprofit.” So who exactly is paying her millions of dollars to “fight against intersectional gender stereotypes”? They couldn’t possibly be large institutions that are seeking to garner favor with her husband, the governor of the state, could they? Let’s read on. The article continues: Ethics questions have been repeatedly raised over the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to the charity by companies which then received millions in California taxpayer money. … AT&T donated $185,000 to the Rep Project from 2017 through 2020, and received $260 million from the state of California in 2021. The company also gave $100,000 to Newsom’s inauguration fund in 2019 and executive Ken McNeely gave $10,000 to the governor’s campaign in 2018. Media firm Comcast donated $15,000 over the same period and received $20 million, while healthcare company Kaiser Permanente donated $20,000 in 2018 and 2019 and received $172 million. By itself, this should disqualify Gavin Newsom from ever holding elected office. Everyone knows his wife runs a useless charity. They just throw a bunch of buzzwords around. And there’s no reason for this charity to receive massive donations from telecommunications companies and Big Pharma, unless those companies are trying to buy favors from the administration. It’s utterly corrupt. These people are simply too dumb to hide it. That’s why, if they get into office, they’ll do what the Biden administration did: They’ll lock down social media. Newsom’s wife has admitted that her plan — and her husband’s plan, by extension — is to censor Americans (and in particular, children) who might become Right-wing. Watch: Gavin Newscum’s wife casually admits that she would censor free speech if women like her were in charge of social media. “I don’t think we would have… or have allowed for so much bigotry, racism, misogyny, and hate online.”pic.twitter.com/eXqr1lHCS9 — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 6, 2026 Source: @libsoftiktok/X.com Gavin Newsom’s wife: we have to use the powers of government to stop boys from becoming right wing pic.twitter.com/S8ewWvv0qj — captive dreamer (@captive_dreamer) April 6, 2026 Source: @captive_dreamer/X.com It’s all very reminiscent of the NPR CEO, who you may have forgotten about. She delivered this infamous line in one of her TED Talks, in which she says the truth isn’t really that important. What’s necessary, she says, is “consensus.” Watch: “I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.” — Katherine Maher (NPR CEO) pic.twitter.com/nCfDcyPJjf — The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole) April 6, 2026 Source: @TheRabbitHole/X.com This is why Gavin Newsom and his wife would happily ban you from all social media and throw you in prison if you dare to say that a man can’t really become a woman. Sure, you might be telling the truth. But the truth doesn’t matter to women like this. What matters is that everyone “gets along” — that is, everyone who agrees with her. Everyone else must be silenced. That’s why, if you’re a parent, and your child flees to California to undergo life-altering castration and gender mutilation, then Gavin Newsom’s California will take custody of your child. They’ll call you a bigot while they destroy your child’s life. What I find interesting about the Newsoms is that they both relentlessly promote liberal, leftist ideologies that are corrosive to family formation and undermine traditional values. However, at the same time, they’ve been in a heterosexual marriage for roughly 20 years and have four children together. By those measures, they are more “trad” in terms of their own lifestyle than most Americans — even a lot of conservatives aren’t married with four kids. Of course, Gavin Newsom is on his second marriage, and his wife has the Weinstein stuff in her past, but in terms of their current relationship, at some level, it has more of the hallmarks of a traditional marriage than many other politicians’ marriages. What that tells me is that the Newsoms know that the traditional family model is the best. They could have chosen any other lifestyle, but they chose to have a family. But as elites, they still promote insidious ideologies that end up harming the ordinary people who listen to them. It’s a perfect illustration of “luxury beliefs.” And it’s also why, despite what you may have gathered, I truly believe that Gavin Newsom’s wife is awesome. Without irony, I really think she’s an incredible woman, for one reason: She’s the perfect feminist. Not only because she’s constantly out babbling about how men are evil, but also because her husband is trying to achieve something great (becoming president), and she is determined to put herself at the center of the story and absolutely destroy his dream in the process. If Newsom’s presidential ambitions are dashed, his wife will be one of the primary reasons. It’s great. A very instructive cautionary tale for young men. Never marry a feminist. She will ruin your life. Guaranteed.

Prosecutors plan to issue a subpoena later this month to the Palm Beach, Florida, pharmacy used by Tiger Woods as they seek more information on the medications prescribed to the legendary golfer and whether they included any warnings about driving. Prosecutors in Martin County, Florida, said in a court filing that they will issue a subpoena to Lewis Pharmacy on April 22 as they seek to find out if the drugs included a warning about “operating a motor vehicle while taking the prescription,” The New York Post reported. Two hydrocodone pills were found on Woods when he was arrested after crashing into a truck and trailer in South Florida in late March. He was subsequently charged with DUI and property damage. The subpoena will seek records on Woods’ medication from January 1 to March 27, the date of the crash. Prosecutors are seeking information on the “date and time prescription was filled, type of prescription, number of pills in each prescription, the dosage amount, and all special instructions,” according to the Post. The golfer’s defense team has 10 days to object to the subpoena. A breathalyzer test showed no alcohol in Woods’ system, but a deputy described him as “lethargic and slow,” with “bloodshot and glassy” eyes and “extremely dilated” pupils, according to the arrest affidavit. “So at this time, I do believe your normal faculties are impaired,” one of the deputies told Woods as she placed handcuffs on him, bodycam footage shows. “And you’re under the unknown substance, so at this time, you’re under arrest for DUI.” Woods clipped the trailer of a truck as he attempted to pass it, flipping his SUV in a residential area in Jupiter, Florida. The golfing legend told deputies that he was distracted and had looked down at his phone before the crash. Woods also told deputies that he takes “a few” prescription medications. Hydrocodone, which is typically taken to treat severe pain, is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance by the U.S. government. The drug is considered to be among “some of the most addictive and potentially dangerous prescription medications available.” Hydrocodone is also among the drugs that the Food and Drug Administration warns “could make driving dangerous.” Woods has dealt with severe back injuries throughout his career and was involved in a serious single car crash in Los Angeles in 2021. Woods pleaded not guilty to the DUI charge and one count of refusing to submit to a lawful test after he told deputies he would not go along with a urine test. Woods said last week that he is “stepping away for a period of time to seek treatment and focus on my health.”