R Magic Brow

The dystopian future writers once imagined has quietly become our reality, and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck has been sounding the alarm for years — but not everyone is paying attention.“We’ve slipped into 'Brave New World' and Orwell at the same time,” Glenn tells best-selling author and former Navy SEAL Jack Carr, adding, “and then didn’t even notice it.”“Some of us noticed it. Some of us did,” Carr responds. “But you have to be a reader to notice these things. You have to be a reader, both fiction and non. You have to build that foundation so that you’re aware of the manipulations and are able to apply the wisdom of the past to current problem sets.”“And we’re not very good at doing that in this country, especially with the manipulation devices in our pockets,” he adds, before the conversation turns to Carr’s hit series, “The Terminal List” — a work of dystopian fiction with some unsettling real-world parallels. In the series, the main character, James Reece, is a Navy SEAL commander who unknowingly leads his team into an ambush orchestrated by the U.S. government. The attack is meant to cover up the government's alleged experimentation on his team, which left the men with brain cancer.As the sole survivor, Reece sets out to exact revenge on the powerful figures responsible for his teammates' deaths.Glenn points out that the storyline is one Americans can easily relate to, given the growing distrust of the nation's institutions.“I think that’s the real message that everybody should, in Washington, get,” he tells Carr.“And that’s scary. No country can survive that. If your institutions are completely distrusted, there’s nowhere to go. In 'Terminal List,' you have James, you know, exacting justice because the government, you know, gave these guys brain cancer,” he continues.“Where’d that come from?” Glenn asks.“Is that just a response to looking for something that, you know, people will relate to?” he says. “Or did any of that come from any of the stuff that the American government has done to our soldiers in the past?”“Certainly,” Carr responds.Carr recalls the Church Committee hearings of the mid-1970s, which he tells Glenn “brought to light a few instances of our government using drugs on soldiers, on mental institution patients, on university students, prisoners, those sorts of things, doing those experiments back then.”“So that’s really where some of that idea came from,” he says.“And I thought, well, what if somebody didn’t get the memo all these years later? And of course, while I was in the military, I was getting poked and prodded with all sorts of things, anthrax shots and all that,” he continues.“So I thought, well, what if one of these things is a test? Because they’ve done it before,” he adds.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Nine times out of ten, if asked to choose sides in a dispute between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ronald McDonald, I would choose the McDonald. No questions asked. Warren, after all, went viral for claiming Native American ancestry, only to be ridiculed and forced to offer groveling apologies. Ronald, meanwhile, has spent over 60 years selling Americans Happy Meals and creating plenty of happy memories.Yet we live in strange times, so strange that I now find myself siding with the teepee-loving teller of tall tales. Warren, along with four other Democrats, recently sent McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski a furious letter.Your perceived wealth dictates your bill.In it, the pols demanded answers about the company's AI-powered pricing tools. The technology estimates what customers at each location are prepared to pay and quickly recommends the prices the company believes will make it the most money. It’s sneaky, and I’m certainly not lovin’ it.The golden arches built a huge empire on low-cost convenience. Drive into any suburban strip mall, drop a few dollars, and receive a standardized slab of meat-like matter. The transaction was simple and straightforward. Today, that transaction is morphing into a machine-learning surveillance operation designed to calculate the absolute limit of your financial tolerance.The question is no longer what a Big Mac actually costs to produce, but how much McDonald’s thinks it can fleece you before even a Jack in the Box burger starts to look appealing.Maybe one lost customer doesn't even register for a chain as big as Mickey D's. But dissatisfaction can spread like wildfire. And every day, the fast-food giant serves approximately 26 million people across the country. In other words, well over a million people every 60 minutes. At that scale, little algorithmic tweaks that leave you grumbling can net out to megabucks of profit.May I take your Orwellian order?Corporate executives love to hide behind technical jargon and market theory. They insist that their AI doesn’t technically set menu prices because individual franchisees retain final authority over their final prices. Three separate franchisees told Reuters that the pricing engine's recommendations have noticeably widened the cost gaps between nearby locations. When a multibillion-dollar corporate headquarters sends automated price targets to a franchise owner, those numbers carry the weight of an imperial mandate. Calling it a mere suggestion is nothing but corporate doublespeak.Let me paint a somewhat sinister picture. Two working-class parents pull up to a drive-thru window after a 10-hour shift. Ten miles down the highway, another family pulls up to an identical menu board. The meat in the kitchen arrived on the same refrigerated truck. The workers behind the register wear the exact same uniforms and earn the exact same hourly wage. Yet the family living in the slightly higher-income neighborhood pays an extra dollar for every single item. The AI analyzed local income metrics, traffic patterns, and economic desperation, concluding that those specific parents had nowhere else to go.RELATED: Your zip code or computer type can determine what you pay for groceries, deliveries, and services Your zip code or computer type can determine what you pay for groceries, deliveries, and services L-R: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg/Getty Images, Klaudia Radecka/NurPhoto/Getty Images This dynamic is disturbing, and it flips traditional commerce on its head. In a standard market, prices reflect supply, demand, and overhead costs. Algorithmic pricing discards that tried-and-tested trinity, creating a localized dynamic in which your perceived wealth dictates your bill. Forget inflation. Forget rising beef costs or supply chain bottlenecks. McDonald’s has built a shady system designed to squeeze every penny out of your pocket.The broader implications extend far beyond a bag of French fries. Fast food has historically functioned as an economic equalizer, a place where a plastic surgeon and plumber bought the exact same lunch for the exact same five-dollar bill. Algorithmic pricing makes each neighborhood into a distinct cash cow, milked through digital demographic profiling.And if this software succeeds across 14,000 American locations, you can be sure it won't stop with burgers. Every major retail sector could adopt the exact same play. Supermarkets, pharmacies, gas stations, and hardware stores may run machine-learning software to price basic necessities based on your neighborhood's financial scorecard.Flimsy defensesAmerican consumers are already struggling to keep their heads above water. More and more have less than $500 in savings, while countless others are being squeezed by higher rents and eggs priced as though they came with the chicken.Eating out at a fast-food chain used to provide a brief reprieve from economic stress. Now, even a simple meal has become a calculated financial extraction exercise. You drive up to the speaker box, state your order, and wait for a computer server in Chicago or California to decide how much value it can pull from your checking account today.McDonald’s insists that its machine-learning tools merely help store operators navigate ever-changing economic environments. That defense is flimsy, and it ignores the fundamental contract between a business and its customers. People don’t walk into a fast-food restaurant expecting to be on the receiving end of algorithmic manipulation. They want a quick burger, a side of fries, and a few minutes of peace without worrying about their bank balance.If the golden arches can turn a routine bite into a localized wealth-extraction test, the traditional concept of a fair price is dead. We are rapidly moving toward a future in which the price tag on the wall is little more than an illusion, tailored in real time to extract maximum revenue from whichever unfortunate soul craves some greasy goodness. Elizabeth Warren might be an unlikely defender of the average American’s wallet. But on this issue, McDonald’s has made the not-so-native American look surprisingly reasonable.

Do you ever notice how the WNBA demands respect but seems to have an awfully hard time giving it?Respect the players. Respect the league. Respect the game.Imagine a white player committing a hard foul on a black opponent, getting ejected, then posting 'BLACK PRIVILEGE' at the other team.All reasonable requests.Now how about respecting the fans who pay to watch? The players who don’t hold the approved opinion? And while we’re at it, how about respecting the rule book?The 2026 season is finally over. Mercifully. But believe me, this play is not over.The WNBA is on fire. And not in a good way. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert keeps handing out fiddles when somebody ought to be looking for a fire extinguisher. And too much of the sports media stand beside the flames explaining that the real problem is the people pointing at the fire.Before we address the blaze, ma’am, what does your T-shirt say?I've worked for Walt Disney Studios, the WWF, and the Dodgers. Alongside my wife, I own an independent production company. I thought the idea of running a business was fairly straightforward: Give people something they want. Make them feel welcome. Give them a reason to come back.Apparently, I missed the Ted Talk where you learn to resent the customers.The WNBA finally has people looking through the window. More people are buying tickets, following players, and turning on games. Now would seem like a good time to open the door. Instead, parts of the league seem determined to slam it in their faces.You’re watching for the wrong reason. You’re cheering for the wrong player. You’re wearing the wrong shirt.I've had easier relationships with cable companies.I have never seen so many people associated with a business work so hard to make new customers regret showing up. Except Hollywood. Tinseltown has spent years insulting its audience and then acting bewildered when the masses find something else to do on opening weekend. The WNBA seems determined to see whether that business model works with a shot clock.The escape laneStart with A’ja Wilson’s confrontation with a fan during the Indiana playoff series. The rule book says a player who deliberately enters the stands, other than as a continuation of play, is subject to ejection. After a lengthy discussion, the officials gave Wilson a technical. That was it.The league declined further punishment, explaining that she remained in the “player escape lane.”The what? Yes. The “player escape lane.” Even as your lying eyes clearly show Wilson moving toward the fan and leaning over him in his second-row seat.Apparently, the WNBA’s escape lane is expandable. Perhaps the most flexible boundary in professional sports. Does it go all the way to the concession stand? The parking lot? Somewhere, a surveyor is watching the footage and wondering whether he needs to renew his license.Show us the boundary. Explain the ruling. Apply it consistently.Then there’s the officiating, which of course brings us to Caitlin Clark. During a June game, Phoenix’s Alyssa Thomas made contact with Clark’s throat with her fist. The officials called no foul. After reviewing the play, the league assessed a flagrant 2 and suspended Thomas for one game.The league eventually recognized what happened. Unfortunately, the officials on the floor apparently needed to wait for the morning papers.Later, in Indiana’s deciding playoff game against Las Vegas, Clark ended up with a bloody mouth. No flagrant review. Lexie Hull gets brought down with a perfect WWE suplex. But she gets called for the foul.I worked in the WWF. Yes, before the E. I've seen more than a few people get taken to the mat. At least there, when somebody landed on his back, we knew who had done the slamming.The answer is better officiating for everyone. Clark. Reese. Hull. Cunningham. Wilson. All of them. Of course basketball is physical. So is moving furniture. But you still notice when somebody drops a refrigerator on you.Instead, we get another promise of improvement. The league says it will begin using the NBA's centralized replay facility in 2027. Wonderful. Rome's new sprinkler system opens next spring.The golden gooseMeanwhile, the league keeps supplying reasons to question whether its biggest commercial attraction is appreciated inside her own workplace.Clark finished 11th among guards in player All-Star voting. Eleventh. The WNBA's own announcement had her fifth in league scoring and second in assists. She was second among guards in fan voting, was third in media voting, and was selected as a starter.You can argue about who belongs first. Eleventh requires considerably more imagination.I'm beginning to think some of those ballots were filled out with the same map that located A’ja Wilson in the escape lane.The golden goose is bringing people through the gates. And some of her colleagues appear to be shopping for stuffing.That doesn't mean other players aren't talented. They are. It doesn't mean the league started with Clark. It didn't. But her drawing power has helped fuel growth that supports bigger media deals, higher salaries, and opportunities throughout the league. The smart business move is to give those new fans a reason to stay and discover the rest of the talent.The selective sisterhoodAnd then there's the racism.The WNBA and its media defenders have spent plenty of time condemning racist behavior directed at black players. They should. No player should be subjected to racial abuse for playing basketball.But the principle seems to get fuzzy when the hostility is directed toward white players.Chicago's DiJonai Carrington was ejected after striking Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham in the head and neck. Then Carrington posted “WHITE PRIVILEGE” and tagged the Indiana Fever.Imagine a white player committing a hard foul on a black opponent, getting ejected, then posting “BLACK PRIVILEGE” at the other team. How many days would that dominate the coverage?I keep hearing that judging people by the color of their skin is wrong. I could not agree more. Racism directed at black players is wrong. Racism directed at white players is wrong. That really should be a two-sentence policy.Then there's Cunningham, who said she wants to protect girls' opportunities and safety in girls' sports. Coaches and players are free to disagree with her. But disagreement too often seems insufficient. She needs to be corrected, condemned, and made an example of.And check your shirt at the door, because the wardrobe department appears to operate by a different set of rules.Minnesota coach Cheryl Reeve can wear a “Trans kids belong” shirt while coaching against Indiana. Meanwhile, fans wearing XX-XY Athletics shirts, supporting female-only sports, have been told to cover them.At Game 1 of the Finals, XX-XY Athletics founder Jen Sey and friends wore the company’s shirts. Sey says fans cursed at them and told her to kill herself; she posted video of parts of the confrontation. Security pulled the group aside after complaints about their clothing.Earlier in the season, Seattle Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton confronted young fans wearing XX-XY shirts. The league fined her and suspended her from five home games. Good. It acted. But consider what it took to get there: A team owner had to be reminded how to behave toward paying customers.Usually, when an owner approaches your seat, you expect a handshake and appreciation. Now you wonder whether you should bring an attorney.That's an interesting approach to inclusion. Everybody belongs. Except you.The rule book, againAnd a big one for me, that pesky little thing known as our national anthem.In all seven games of the championship Finals, the Atlanta Dream and Golden State Valkyries left the floor before the anthem, then returned as soon as it was over. The Valkyries say it's part of a long-standing pregame routine.I've seen the timing. As a veteran, I find their absence during the anthem offensive. Others can disagree. I'm not asking them to agree with me. I am asking the league to explain its own rule.The WNBA rule book contains language about players standing and lining up during the anthem. But the league suspended the protocols in 2017. If the rule has been suspended, say so clearly. If teams can leave, explain who decided that. And if the words no longer mean what they appear to say, why are they still in there?The WNBA can spot an objectionable shirt from across an arena. Finding a straight answer in its rule book apparently requires a search party.The media plays alongSome of the coverage has been every bit as selective. USA Today columnist Nancy Armour invoked the murder of Emmett Till in a column about Clark's on-court reactions. Think about how far a sports column has to travel to connect a basketball player arguing calls with one of the most horrific racial murders in American history.The Guardian characterized Cunningham's concern about girls competing against biological males as an “anti-trans dog-whistle.” There's a convenient way to avoid debating someone's actual argument: Assign an ugly motive to it and move on.The WNBA doesn't need a cheering section in the press box. It needs people willing to cover the whole story.Here's an interesting little stat. A YouGov survey commissioned by the Bulwark and Pablo Torre Finds Out asked 1,417 American adults about their opinions of public figures. Caitlin Clark registered 56% favorable and 11% unfavorable. Sophie Cunningham scored 38% favorable. Angel Reese stood at 24% favorable, with 21% unfavorable and 54% saying they didn't know who she was.Popularity doesn't make anyone right about everything. It doesn't win a basketball game, either. But it ought to tell the league something about the people bringing an audience to its product.And just when you thought the WNBA couldn't find another way to make its business more difficult, there was Game 6 of the Finals. The tip-off at Atlanta's State Farm Arena? 12:30 on a Thursday afternoon. That's 9:30 in the morning for Golden State fans.Nothing says “championship basketball” quite like watching the opening tip between your first cup of coffee and your second meeting.RELATED: Charles Barkley defends WNBA, but says 'race' and 'sexuality' are behind Sophie Cunningham clashes L-R: Michael Reaves/Getty Images; Mitchell Layton/Getty ImagesA new conductorCathy Engelbert has announced that she will retire as commissioner at the end of the year. Having worked for large corporations, I know how these announcements can sound.Thank you for your years of service and dedication. There's cake in the conference room, a lovely parting gift on the table. Oh, and your key card will stop working at five.Now, Engelbert says the decision was hers. Okay, I'll take her at her word.The bigger question is what happens next. Will the next commissioner enforce the rules consistently? Protect all the players? Welcome fans who don't think exactly like everyone in the front office?The WNBA has grown. New viewers, new money, new opportunities for extraordinary athletes. It has something very valuable to squander.Give the fans a better game. Enforce the rules. Protect the players. Treat the customers with respect. Let people disagree without deciding that half the audience needs to be shown the door.Instead, we keep getting smoke, excuses, and another lecture.Rome is burning. League leaders are fiddling. And too many sportswriters are reviewing the concert.

First came same-sex marriage. Now, parts of California are taking another step toward redefining marriage — this time by recognizing polyamorous relationships.“We have Los Angeles County now legally enshrining polyamorous couples,” BlazeTV host John Doyle begins. “You’ve got throuples, foursomes, not in a golf-concerned context, as basically being the legal equivalent of marriage.”This concept, he explains, originated “from this idea of having these kinds of deviant relationships be granted equal status to marriage under the law.”“California struck down gay marriage in 2008 when it was put to a democratic vote," Doyle says, "and then less than 10 years later, the Supreme Court of course discovers the right to marry a man if you are a man in the Constitution.” “So it seems to be the result less of this kind of slippery slope, more of just like hyperfocused, dedicated leftist activism,” he adds, asking Daily Wire host Michael Knowles, “What do you make of all of this?” Knowles recalls that Andrew Breitbart, whom he describes as “the king of the Hollywood conservatives” aided in organizing Friends of Abe.“There are a lot of conservatives in California. It’s just that there were more left-wingers,” he tells Doyle.“So Breitbart had this line that went very, very viral, which is that ‘politics is downstream of culture.’ And really what he was saying was we need to get involved in the arts and the media and take over all those institutions,” Knowles explains.Although he admits that Breitbart “was totally right about that,” he also notes that “some people made an idol out of that maxim and tried to raise it to the level of political philosophy."“It isn’t quite that because what you saw with Prop 8 and now the throuples … in California is the opposite,” he says.“You see that culture is downstream of politics,” Knowles argues.“When it was put up for a vote, when the popular culture was asked, do you want gay marriage? The culture said, ‘No, we don’t want that,’ even in liberal California,” he explains.But Knowles argues that the issue ultimately wasn't left to voters.Rather, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom Knowles sarcastically calls “a romantic poet,” invoked “the right to intimacy that we have.”“And he just rewrote the Constitution to say that two fellas can get married. Not merely rewriting the Constitution, but also trying to rewrite natural law,” he explains.“And after that, guess what? If you put it up to a vote, people will vote for it. They will support it,” he continues. “Now, that’s declined a little bit in recent years as the reality of these weird sexual relationships has come to light, but nevertheless, it’s still majority support.”“So you see that in California, and you see it elsewhere in the country,” he adds.Want more from John Doyle?To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.