Our partner Rob Brezsny, who has a new book out, Astrology Is Real: Revelations from My Life as an Oracle, provides his weekly wisdom to enlighten our thinking and motivate our mood. Rob’s Free Will Astrology, is a syndicated weekly column appearing in over a hundred publications. He is also the author of Pronoia Is the Antidote […] The post Your Weekly Horoscope – ‘Free Will Astrology’ by Rob Brezsny appeared first on Good News Network.

CNN's Boris Sanchez had trouble controlling himself, after his guest, Portland City Council member Angelita Morillo, referred to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as a "renowned puppy killer." That went viral on the Left. “See mom?” she wrote in an Instagram post sharing a headline about her CNN appearance. “I told you the snark would pay off one day.” Sanchez, who never mentioned that his guest sits on the far left of the city council as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, closed his eyes, smiled, looked away, down, and then straight up again, finally losing the reflexive grin that took over his face in response to his guest's name-calling of Noem, who wrote in her memoir that she felt she had to put her dog Cricket down years ago. Noem made a surprise visit to Portland last Wednesday, and although she witnessed only a few protesters at an ICE facility, including a man dressed as a chicken, it didn't change her overall view of the violence that has been happening at that facility and elsewhere in Portland. On Thursday, she spoke at a meeting on Antifa at the White House. While sitting next to President Trump, she accused the Mayor of Portland and the Governor of Oregon, of "covering up terrorism that is hitting their streets." Sanchez played that clip for Morillo, and asked her to respond. "I never thought that renowned puppy killer Kristi Noem would be so afraid of protesters wearing frog costumes and chicken costumes. But here we are.... People are exercising their right to free speech as they are allowed to under the constitution, if that still matters. But no, nothing is out of control. There is no terrorism happening here..." Having finished his laugh, Sanchez then asked Morillo, "What about the claim that Antifa is operating outside this ICE facility? Have you seen evidence of that?  And the Councilwoman used that opportunity to question the existence of Antifa, and speculate on why the term is used. "I don't know what the word Antifa means to them. To me it means people who stand against fascism. So they would label anyone who is anti-this current administration, imbuing our local governments, and taking over everything as fascists I presume." As you might expect, Sanchez was perfectly satisfied with that response, and moved on to the next question. "And what about this claim that local officials, including the Mayor and Governor, and you heard Noem allude to some of it there, that they have refused to render aid to ICE officers because there have been even limited incidents of folks with incendiary devices outside that facility. And some of the demonstrations have gotten rowdy. Have any local officials intervened to not allow local police to render aid?" And Morillo, who questioned the meaning of Antifa, was at it again, " I would love for you to define what incendiary devices mean, or what a crowd being described as rowdy means...." Journalist Sanchez could have called his guests' bluff and defined an incendiary device for what it is, a device that is designed to cause fires. He could have talked about the cops arresting conservative journalist Nick Sortor. Instead, he played along with her.  "There was a report of some form of incendiary device, I don't have the description right in front of me, but I combed through some of the police reports over the last several months...and you're right, there have been dozens of arrests but nothing that amounts to an actual terrorism charge." This would have been a good time for Sanchez to refer to the recent DHS report on arrests made by ICE in Portland, "Despite Riots and Antifa Violence, ICE Arrested the Worst of the Worst Including Pedophiles, Murderers, Sexual Predators, and Drug Traffickers in Portland Last Month."  Let's guess Morillo isn't opposed to Antifa. The local paper Willamette Week describes Morillo this way in a story on the socialists setting the agenda in Portland:  Morillo is the social media–savvy firebrand who’s known for roasting centrists with witty one-liners on the dais. She proudly displays a “hot socialist summer” poster inside City Hall, the slogan splashed across a picture of [Zohran] Mamdani. If Boris Sanchez, wants to be taken seriously, he needs to at least pretend to be a journalist. That means not laughing at a months-old joke aimed at a government official, not allowing the smart-as Bs answers of a guest to go unchallenged, and it means telling your audience that your guest touts a "hot socialist summer." Don't hold your breath.

A church in Alabama was vandalized with a spray-painted message calling a Turning Point USA speaker the "Antichrist" ahead of the organization's event at the church.A spokesperson for the Madison County Sheriff's Office said that Movement Church was vandalized between 5 p.m. Tuesday and 8 a.m. Wednesday.'Unfortunately, we have seen growing hostility toward those who stand firm in their convictions. Our hope and prayer is that this moment reminds us all that disagreement does not have to lead to destruction.'A TPUSA event was scheduled at the church for Thursday evening.The church's senior pastors — Seth Adgate and his wife, Lori — told WAFF-TV that they were shocked by the vandalism but were not surprised. "It doesn't even really make sense to me what the messages are," Lori Adgate said. "I honestly wish they would've just contacted us because I would love to hear the heart behind what they're saying."The graffiti referenced Bryan Dawson, who is the keynote speaker at the event."Bryan Dawson serves the Antichrist" read one message, while the other read, "Beware his falsehoods."The couple said Erich Nelson, the owner of a local pressure-washing company, called to help remove the vandalism. Nelson is also a member of the church."To attack with hatred on a place of love — it's really not going to do anything but ... galvanize the love here and the mission to serve our community," he said.The Adgates said the vandalism was not caught on their cameras. They're increasing the security for the event on Thursday."Unfortunately, we have seen growing hostility toward those who stand firm in their convictions," Lori Adgate said. “Our hope and prayer is that this moment reminds us all that disagreement does not have to lead to destruction."RELATED: Church's pro-life sign vandalized in Maine with 'queer love' and pro-abortion messages Sheriff Kevin Turner released a statement about the incident."Acts of vandalism and intimidation have no place in our community. Every person, regardless of their beliefs or affiliations, deserves to feel safe where they worship, work, or gather," Turner wrote."We will not tolerate this type of behavior in Madison County," he added. "Our detectives are working diligently to identify those responsible and ensure they are held accountable. To the citizens of Madison County, please know that this kind of conduct is unacceptable, and we will use every available resource to bring those responsible to justice. This is not who we are as a community."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sex-specific education is essential to preserve America’s self-governing republic. Though many are only now rediscovering single-sex public schooling, there is still space for it to exist within the framework established by the Supreme Court’s 1996 United States v. Virginia decision, as I argue in a just-released “Provocation” for the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. In that decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled for the 7-1 majority that the Virginia Military Institute, a public school, must admit women.The Bush administration sued VMI in the early 1990s, alleging that Virginia’s single-sex military school violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Clinton administration continued the case, and Virginia had to tailor its defense to the reigning civil rights framework. Since VMI’s discriminatory practices faced “intermediate scrutiny” from the courts, Virginia had to prove that its admissions policies supported practices that served important but gender-neutral educational goals.VMI’s once-famous standards have been eroded, its core values replaced with bureaucratic boilerplate, and its culture hobbled by the artificial imposition of modern sensitivities.Virginia asserted that men especially benefit from and are attracted to VMI's distinctives, including its Marine-style, in-your-face “adversative” training methods, its lack of privacy, its egalitarian grooming and uniform standards, and its rigorous, stoical honor code.After proving that its admissions policy matched its practices, Virginia had to prove that the purposes served by the adversative method were legitimate. Under our reigning civil rights ideology, however, VMI had to fight with its strongest hand tied behind its back.VMI’s defenders could discuss only gender-neutral goals, such as increasing test scores, educational excellence, or maintaining institutional diversity. They could not mention the real reason VMI existed: to point men to a special destiny grounded in manly honor, martial valor, and public-spirited ambition.Still, VMI prevailed in the lower courts, as the school fostered the diversity of educational offerings in Virginia and elevated the test scores of the men who attended. VMI would, as lower courts held, be “significantly different upon the admission of women,” and the school “would eventually find it necessary to drop the adversative system altogether.”The Clinton administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court and won.Ginsburg’s decision, from which only Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself, as his son was enrolled at VMI at the time), now sets the boundaries for sex discrimination cases generally and for single-sex schooling in particular. According to Ginsburg, keeping women away from VMI’s distinctive education could be justified only by outmoded stereotypes about how women are demure, uncompetitive, and domestic.The notion that admission of women would … destroy the adversative system and, with it, even the school, is a judgment hardly proved, a prediction hardly different from other ‘self-fulfilling prophec[ies]’ once routinely used to deny rights or opportunities. … Women’s successful entry into the military academies, their participation in the Nation’s military forces, indicate that Virginia’s fears for the future of VMI may not be solidly grounded.All the expert testimony in the world would not shake Ginsburg’s belief that sex differences were culturally contrived, so policies based on claims about sex differences are, on this view, simply stereotypes. Surely American women would adopt the fierce attitudes of Viking shield-maidens (as they appear on television, at least) if given the chance.“Virginia’s fears for the future of VMI” were indeed very well grounded. Using only publicly available information, my report charts how VMI is no longer what it once was. The school’s once-famous standards have been eroded, its core values replaced with bureaucratic boilerplate, its connections to tradition and the past broken, and its culture hobbled by the artificial imposition of modern sensitivities.Excellence over equityIn principle, the Virginia Military Institute could keep the same admission standards and adversative training methods while admitting only women — perhaps just a few each year — who can meet them.Josiah Bunting III, VMI’s president during U.S. v. Virginia, said, “Female cadets will be treated precisely as we treat male cadets. I believe fully qualified women would themselves feel demeaned by any relaxation in the standards the VMI system imposes on young men.”Every cadet would get the same buzz cut. Every cadet would have to meet the same mile time. Every cadet would be treated the same — like dirt.In reality, though, the logic of civil rights law would never allow VMI to admit only a tiny minority of women. Instead, future litigation would likely take low female admission rates as evidence that the standards themselves were forms of covert discrimination.Predictably, VMI changed to pre-empt future legal action.By the early 2000s, standards had been relaxed across the board to make physical benchmarks more accessible for women to achieve. Male cadets now must perform a minimum of five pull-ups, while one is sufficient for females. Male cadets must run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes, 30 seconds, while females get almost an additional two minutes. In 2001, female cadets were allowed to eschew buzz cuts for more feminine hairstyles. Current hair standards permit females to wear their hair down to their shoulder blades.VMI’s experience after integration raises a deeper question: Is separation of the sexes healthy only when sanitized, or can it serve the natural differences between men and women?Most illuminating is the change in VMI’s “Code of a Gentleman,” which was replaced by the “Code of a Cadet” in the early 2000s. In 2022, the school implemented an even more “inclusive” code.The old code was stoical, demanded silence on private matters (finances, girlfriends), taught sturdy independence within a hierarchy (a gentleman “does not lick the books of those above” nor “kick the face of those below him”), and instilled self-control in matters relating to drink, gambling, and other vices.VMI contributed to a military tradition dating back centuries, eschewing fads and embracing the Western and Christian traditions. A VMI gentleman was “the descendant of the knight, the crusader … the defender of the defenseless and the champion of justice.”In contrast, under the new code, a cadet aspired to be a social worker, standing “against intolerance, prejudice, discrimination, hate, and oppression.” Nothing situates the cadet in the Western tradition, nor is anything said about justice or any intimation of self-sacrifice or courage. Instead, the new code ends with vague platitudes about ill-defined trendy terms.A VMI cadet is a well-mannered, respectful, and properly presented individual who holds themself and others accountable for their actions and words as a valued member of the Corps. VMI standards are high for a meaningful purpose — to produce leaders of character. A cadet wears the VMI uniform with pride, always remembering and demonstrating what it means to be a VMI cadet. The old ethos was republican. The new one is managerial. Students wrote the old code and handed it down by tradition, but it was not formalized or blessed by the administration. Officially, no one had to memorize it. Peers enforced the rules through mentoring and discipline.Meanwhile, the Code of the Cadet is formal (written by the administration), and cadets must memorize it. The commandant’s office oversees training in the code and punishes violations in consultation with the school’s Diversity and Inclusion Office.What was once in the hands of the cadets is now in the hands of the administration and managers. Informal oversight has disappeared in favor of formal, legalistic, and administrative demands since the student culture, allegedly a product of racism and sexism, cannot be trusted to take the lead. The diversity, equity, and inclusion revolution of the past 15 years, along with the post-George Floyd fever, has brought further changes.Even a cursory survey of VMI’s history after U.S. v. Virginia puts the lie to Justice Ginsburg’s blithe insistence that the institution could remain substantially unchanged after the admission of women.RELATED: Feminism weakened our military — now it’s time to fix the damage Photo by Daniel Grill via Getty ImagesSeizing the opportunityGinsburg left escape hatches for single-sex education, which she thought must not be based on outmoded stereotypes about how men and women are different or their various social destinies. Single-sex must be completely voluntary. The institutions must also be genuinely equal, yet sex-specific.The experience of VMI after sexual integration raises a deeper question that is obscured by our reigning civil rights ideology: Is the separation of the sexes healthy only when it serves some inoffensive gender-neutral purpose? Or can it be wholesome per se, serving the innate differences between men and women and their somewhat different social destinies?In order to test U.S. v. Virginia and force the courts to answer this question, a state should establish a VMI-type academy. Under those circumstances, the case against U.S. v. Virginia should not only reassert the record of sex differences since the original case was decided, but also show how the idea of manly honor has been deconstructed at VMI since its sexual integration, defend the public utility of manly honor specifically, and argue (within reason) for distinct sex roles as a positive good.In its heyday, the Virginia Military Institute stood within a broader social order of single-sex schools and clubs that trained young men and women for distinct but complementary roles. As public approval for such differences waned and policy flattened them into sameness, the institutions that once shaped boys into men and girls into women faded away.That private system once thrived — and it served the nation’s men and women well. It could do so again.Today, it would be a radical departure from our co-ed present to create a voluntary track within the public school system for serious sex-specific education. School choice movements make such an option possible, and the declining state of boys and the immiseration of American girls make it more and more necessary.Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

His exemplary presidential museum in Austin explores the times that still haunt us.

Classroom curricula see literature as a means rather than as an end in itself.

Many conservatives understandably associate UC Berkeley with leftist activism. But it has been surprisingly open to differing opinions.

Employers and individuals alike must be free to choose better, more affordable health insurance.

Why is anyone shocked to hear that the FBI perused senators’ phone records around the time of a riot at the Capitol over which the president had been impeached?

30 California District Attorneys Are a Hard NO on Prop. 50, Gavin Newsom's Gerrymandering Scheme