Hailee Steinfeld and her husband, Buffalo Bills Quarterback Josh Allen, are newlyweds and now new parents. Hailee shared the big news in her latest Beau Society newsletter, Pop Crave reported. “Special delivery… Our baby girl has arrived!! We’re feeling incredibly grateful and blessed and savouring these early moments. Thank you so much for the love and well wishes,” she wrote. Hailee Steinfeld’s baby news comes less than a year after the couple tied the knot on May 31, 2025, in a lavish celebration. Hailee Steinfeld announces she gave birth to her first baby with Josh Allen:“Special delivery… Our baby girl has arrived!! We’re feeling incredibly grateful and blessed and savouring these early moments. Thank you so much for the love and well wishes.” pic.twitter.com/09d4yoNCqO— Pop Crave (@PopCrave) April 2, 2026 Hailee Steinfeld Was Very Excited to Have a Baby with Josh Allen In November 2025, in a Bustle interview, Hailee Steinfeld teased becoming a mom. She said, “Of course,” she looked forward to having a baby with Josh. She also talked about feeling so comfortable and in love with him. “That inner peace that you have, that rock, that solid, consistent part of your life is indescribable. I literally thank God every day that I found my person, and it’s the greatest thing in the world. Life makes sense. Everything makes sense. I feel like I am stepping into the version that I’ve always dreamed of being, having so much to do with being with him,” Hailee said. Fans immediately shared congratulations with Hailee Steinfeld and Josh Allen on their baby news on X. “Congratulations Hailee and Josh!Welcome to the world, little one. Wishing you all the love, snuggles, and peaceful moments in these early days,” someone shared. “Congrats to Hailee Steinfeld and Josh Allen on their baby girl pure joy in that ‘special delivery’ announcement!” Another fan added. “Hailee deserves everything. Josh should win a title for the family now, lol,” a fan joked. This story’s featured image is by Christopher Polk/2026GG/Penske Media via Getty Images

This week, the Supreme Court rightly held that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” violated the First Amendment by dictating what counselors can say in therapy sessions. However, the therapist who sued Colorado isn’t the only winner—gender-confused kids arguably came out ahead, too. Colorado’s law didn’t just aim to force therapists to endorse transgender orthodoxy—it also aimed to prevent kids from receiving the best kind of treatment for gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identification with the gender opposite one’s sex). Transgender activists push an extremely cruel agenda, dressed up as “gender-affirming care.” When a boy claims he suffers from a persistent and painful sense that he is “really” a girl, they say society should “affirm” his identity as a girl and that he should take experimental interventions to make his male body appear female. Activists claim this is the only path, and that kids will commit suicide without “affirmation.” Some scientific studies, however, suggest that suicidal thoughts actually increase when minors take drugs to “block” puberty. Even hormones alter body chemistry and make patients dependent on doctors for constant injections, and surgeries often require gruesome forms of maintenance. If the patient later decides to detransition, care becomes even more complicated. By contrast, studies have found that if kids are allowed to develop on their own without social “affirmation” of a transgender identity, between 65% and 94% of them will resolve their gender dysphoria and end up at peace with their sexed bodies. Not only will these kids actually have their gender confusion resolved, but they won’t have undergone invasive sex-rejecting procedures that would have left them stunted, scarred, and often infertile. Rather than “gender-affirming care,” boys and girls need reassurance in their own sex. If a boy suffers from the sense that he is “really” a girl, he needs counseling to realize that he is still a boy, and there’s nothing wrong with that. With time and appropriate counseling, he can resolve the underlying psychological issues that make him suspect he may “really” be a girl. Colorado sought to outlaw this kind of counseling, and in doing so, it would have cut kids off from what they really needed. The Supreme Court’s ruling opens the door for what may be termed “sex-reaffirming therapy,” counseling to help gender-confused people find peace with their bodies. In doing so, it offers hope for true resolution of gender dysphoria, not the false resolution of “gender-affirming care.” So, how did transgender activists convince Colorado to ban it in the first place? Historically, some therapists used unethical methods to “cure” patients of same-sex attraction. Some engaged in electroshock therapy to train men not to feel sexual attraction to other men. Since many of these therapists aimed to help patients live by traditional Christian sexual morality, opponents of these therapists branded these efforts “conversion therapy.” Therapists today nearly universally condemn these methods, and mental health counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged Colorado’s law, supported Colorado’s attempt to ban them. Yet Colorado also sought to ban “talk therapy”—the mainstream practice of asking questions and guiding a person to resolve psychological issues merely through speech. Perhaps ironically, some feminists have warned that “gender-affirming care” is itself a form of “conversion therapy,” because many of the gender-confused men and women would otherwise identify as gay or lesbian, if they did not identify as transgender. Yet transgender activists suggest that transgender identity is innate and unchangeable—such that therapies attempting to resolve it are unnatural and doomed to failure. For this reason, many activists lump in sex-reaffirming therapy alongside electroshock therapy as a form of “conversion therapy.” Colorado’s law would have allowed talk therapy if it affirmed same-sex attraction or a transgender identity, but not if it might lead a patient away from such identities. Of course, such a legal invasion of the therapy space is unwarranted because the best therapy aims to help patients resolve underlying trauma, not to shape patients into one kind of person or another. The data suggest the best solution for gender dysphoria isn’t experimental drugs and surgeries but talk therapy to address the root cause of gender confusion—whatever that may be. It is cruel, and arguably evil, to try to fix a psychological issue with invasive drugs and surgeries. But now, kids in Colorado have hope for a better path. I pray that therapists are brave enough to follow in Chiles’ footsteps and offer the sex reaffirmation these kids so desperately need. The post Gender-Confused Kids Are the Real Winners of the Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Did “the Jews” kill Jesus? Are the Jewish people as a whole responsible for the death of Christ? I was horrified recently to see this claim—which I thought was a fringe position—on a prominent conservative website, and I feel compelled to respond. The claim traces back to Matthew 27, during the trial of Jesus, when the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate washed his hands, proclaiming, “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” before turning Jesus over to be crucified. The crowd replied, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Before I delve more deeply into the spiritual meaning of this passage, I feel compelled to note that—perhaps contrary to the suspicions of my fellow Protestants—the Catholic Church does not use this passage to blame the Jews for Jesus’ death. The declaration “Nostra Aetate,” promulgated by Pope Paul VI at the Second Vatican Council, states that Jesus’ death “cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” That’s only logical. After all, the historical record only mentions a specific group of people at a specific point in time making this statement. To blame all Jews everywhere for the death of Jesus would be tantamount to blaming all British people everywhere for the execution of Joan of Arc or all Greek people everywhere for the death of Socrates. The notion of corporate guilt does play a role in the death of Jesus, but it has nothing to do with blaming the Jews, who remain God’s chosen people. The Passion Narrative If this verse does not implicate the Jewish people in Jesus’ death, whom does it implicate? This passage appears in the narrative of Jesus’ “passion” (from the Latin word for “suffering”). After Jesus eats the Last Supper with his disciples and prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas leads a group of guards to Jesus, handing him over to the Jewish religious leaders. The leaders hold an early-morning trial and use false testimony to find Jesus guilty, and they hand him over to Pilate because only the Romans can execute someone. Pilate wants to release Jesus, but the crowd won’t have it. The crowd demands the release of a murderer and rebel by the name of Barabbas instead, and Pilate fears a revolt, so he goes along with it. So, who is the guilty party? The clearest answer is Judas, who had Jesus arrested in the first place. Behind him come the Jewish leaders. Caiaphas, the high priest, prophesied that one man should die for the people (John 11:50), and the religious leaders repeatedly schemed to kill Jesus. The Bible presents the crowd as a catspaw for these leaders. Despite Pilate’s symbolism of washing his hands of the guilt for Jesus’ death, the Roman leader did order Jesus’ execution, and the Roman authorities carried it out. Yet Jesus didn’t blame Pilate. When Pilate asks Jesus, “Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answers, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11). Jesus, who had been dodging previous attempts to execute him, ultimately made the key decision to sacrifice himself. “For this reason, the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again,” Jesus taught. “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:17-18). While Pilate, the crowd, the religious leaders, and Judas share some responsibility for Jesus’ death, the savior has the ultimate agency—he gave his life to redeem sinners. What of Corporate Guilt? This has led some Christians to place the ultimate blame not on a historical figure nor on an ethnic group but on all of us who accept Jesus’ gift of forgiveness. In a sense, all the sinners who are redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice share some guilt in his death. It is for our sake he died. That is the real reason why, traditionally, when churches have a public reading of the Passion narratives, with separate speaking roles for Jesus, Pilate, a narrator, and others, the entire congregation reads the part of the crowd. When I have said, “His blood be on us and on our children” in that context, I have understood this to be an echo of what the crowd then said—not as an attempt to blame the Jewish people for the death of Christ, but as an invitation for me to reflect on my own sins and the unfathomable love of God. I believe the Passion narratives are faithful history, but they also bear the weight of heavy spiritual meaning. The theme of Jesus taking the place of another to save sinners runs through the entire narrative in subtle ways, from Caiaphas’ prophecy to Barabbas’ release at the crowd’s demand. Historically, the crowd said those wicked words. But when it comes to corporate worship and our commemoration of Jesus’ Passion, those words are an invitation for us to examine our hearts and to repent of sin—not an excuse to indulge in sin by hating other people. The post Are the Jews Responsible for Jesus’ Death? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Tina Peters, Imprisoned 'Election Denier,' Gets Resentencing Hearing

It's the Great Fear that has been haunting California Democrats, and especially Politico, since they noticed the possibility last December that because of the Democrats splitting the votes among each other in the open gubernatorial primary in June. The two top candidates could end up being Republicans, thus locking Democrats out of the November general election. The angst over this possibility has only increased dramatically since then, with the latest poll results sending poor Politico over the edge to the extent they have completely dropped even the bare pretense of objectivity as they MindMeld with the Democrats in deep deep concern as you see with senior politics reporter Jeremy B. White furiously rubbing the worry beads on Wednesday in "Democrats risk a historic upset in California." White might have written his panic piece on April Fool's Day and the joke appears to be on the Democrats as illustrated by the subtitle: "How the party in America's bluest state could lock itself out of the governor’s race." The  nightmare scenario (for Democrats and You-Know-Who) was laid out by White: In a typical election, Democrats would be cruising. But this is not a typical year. After heavyweights like Sen. Alex Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris passed on the race to succeed Gavin Newsom, no Democrat has broken away from the scrum. Now, some polls show Republicans are in position to capture the top two spots — including a survey circulated by state party Chair Rusty Hicks, whose plea for lower-tier Democrats to drop out has been met with backlash and accusations of racism. “It’s completely dysfunctional,” said a former legislative leader granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “It’s the weirdest combination.” The cause for the latest panic attack was most likely the most recent Evitarus poll, SPONSORED BY DEMOCRATS, that revealed these hilarious results as reported in the March 25 Palm Springs Desert Sun, "New California poll shows Hilton, Bianco leading as Democrats split." The EVITARUS poll released Tuesday, March 24, shows conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading with 16% of likely voters, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco just behind with 14%. Three Democratic candidates — Congressman Eric Swalwell, Congresswoman Katie Porter, and climate advocate Tom Steyer — trail behind, each capturing 10% of likely voters. The other five democratic candidates each hold 3% or less of likely voters. Yes, absolutely the worst of all worlds as far as both Democrats and Politico are concerned. And yet with the three top Democrats tied at exactly 10 points each behind the Republicans the political agony is made even funnier. White does his bit for damage control by hyping the candidacy of Mr. Fang Fang, aka Eric Swalwell, perhaps with the intent to help him break away from the rest of the Democrat pack and especially ahead of at least one of the Republican candidates now leading in the polls: In recent weeks, much of the political establishment has backed Rep. Eric Swalwell, who has picked up endorsements from Sen. Adam Schiff and two of California’s most prominent labor groups. A pro-Swalwell super PAC has piled up millions of dollars from medical interests and Uber, and a well-funded anti-Steyer effort launched late last month. Finally, Jeremy White entertains us with some amusing "Woe Is Us" shtick: California Democrats say they’ll clean up this mess. But in a governor’s race that has all the makings of a debacle, they’re digging themselves deeper. With a sprawling field threatening to split the vote and hand the governorship to a Republican, a late-hour effort failed to persuade longshot contenders to drop out. A preeminent labor group split its coveted endorsement four ways, elevating no one. And in the most recent upheaval, a televised debate was hastily canceled after an uproar from within the party that leaving out low-polling candidates of color would produce an all-white stage. ...“We know there’s this risk ahead — a 15 percent chance of calamity. It’s not a 15 percent chance of stubbing your toe, it’s a 15 percent chance of losing the governorship, losing the down-ballot races,” said Paul Mitchell, a leading Democratic data strategist in the state. Losing the governorship would rank among the biggest upsets in modern political history. For Democrats, who have held a monopoly on statewide office for a generation and outnumber Republicans two to one, it wouldn’t just mean ceding California’s role as a national leader in progressive policymaking. The lack of a top-of-the-ticket standard bearer could also suppress turnout and cost the party House seats, squandering Democrats’ victory last year in a hard-fought gerrymandering campaign. Exit Question: Will there be Californians in June who will vote for one of the GOP gubernatorial candidates just for the comedic entertainment value of watching a Conniption Fit For The Ages by the Democrats and Politico?

After six years of delivering unfiltered commentary and sharp political insight, BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere has closed the book on “Stu Does America.”But don’t get bummed — Stu isn’t going anywhere. He’s teaming up with comedian and former “Normal World” host Dave Landau for a brand-new (and very funny) show called “Stu and Dave Do America.”It’s the same no-holds-barred takes you love, now with twice the laughs. The duo will tackle the news with common sense, skepticism, expertise, and plenty of comedy. From in-depth political analysis and news coverage to cultural takes and side-splitting segments, “Stu and Dave Do America” is the ultimate mash-up of Stu’s sharp insight and Dave’s bold humor.If you crave honest political commentary without the media theatrics, real-world humor, and conversations that feel more like a podcast than cable news, then “Stu and Dave Do America” is your new go-to.This is politics without the filter and comedy without the apology — and it’s at your fingertips starting April 6. If you’re going to follow the chaos of American politics, you might as well enjoy it.Tune in on Monday, April 6, at 8 p.m. ET on BlazeTV or YouTube for the premiere of Blaze Media’s funniest show to date.Don’t miss it!Want more from Stu and Dave?To enjoy more of Stu and Dave's lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Everybody Has the Same Question After Newsom Press Office Posts 'President With a Functioning Brain' Pic

Sky News Reporter: Apollo Mission Wasn't for All Humanity Because It Was All White Men

No More Sitting Ducks: SecWar Hegseth Empowers Our Warriors to Defend Themselves on Base

Pete Hegseth Gives the Army Chief of Staff His Walking Papers