A popular narrative in American politics holds that Democrats are better stewards of the economy—citing better stock market returns, higher GDP performance, and stronger job growth under Democratic presidents. I’m sure you’ve seen this argument many times on social media. Back in the early 1990s I made similar arguments. But when I studied political economy in graduate school, I begin to develop a different understanding of the way economic trends work, and the relationship of economic cycles to fiscal and monetary policy.
Source: History.com
The surface-level analysis one sees in social media and partisan commentators ignores a key reality of economic policymaking: the effects of major policy decisions often take years to materialize. When viewed through the lens of delayed impacts, a different story emerges, one in which Republican administrations lay the groundwork for prosperity that their Democratic successors inherit and enjoy—while also taking the fall for downturns set in motion by prior Democratic excesses.
Economic policies—monetary restraint, regulation, and taxes—do not yield immediate results. Deregulation and tax cuts may take several years to stimulate business investment, productivity gains, and wage growth. Republican presidents—from Reagan to Trump—implemented long-term growth strategies, even at the cost of short-term political popularity, that produced economic strength and stability. When those reforms begin to pay off, it was largely under the Democratic administrations that followed, allowing them to benefit from a rising tide they did not initiate—and would squander.
Take the Reagan revolution of the 1980s. His policies of deregulation, strong dollar, and supply-side tax cuts initially met fierce resistance and even recession. But by the 1990s, the United States was entering a historic boom. President Clinton inherited an already expanding economy and benefited greatly from the growth sparked by Reaganomics and continued by a Republican-controlled Congress that pushed welfare reform and balanced budgets. It wasn’t Clinton’s and George Bush Senior’s tax hikes that led to budget surpluses, but Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts—what Bush Senior called “voodoo economics.”
A similar pattern unfolded in the 2010s. President Trump’s 2017 pro-energy policies, regulatory rollbacks, tariff policies, and tax cuts contributed to a pre-COVID economic boom marked by rising wages, especially among lower-income workers and minorities. The rebound from the COVID-19 lockdowns—often attributed to Biden—was fueled by these earlier structural changes made under Trump.
To be sure, Democrats pursue short-term stimulus and expansive welfare policies that temporarily boost demand, but these sow the seeds of long-term instability. The inflation crisis under President Biden—driven by a flood of post-COVID spending, energy policy shifts, and supply restrictions that discouraged production—is a case in point. Should inflation fall and growth stabilize under Trump, future Democrat regimes will take credit for a recovery built on Republican course corrections. But their narrative will depend on popular ignorance—reinforced by the media narrative.
Ultimately, the idea that Democrats are consistently “better for the economy” rests on a snapshot understanding of time and causation. The ship of state moves slowly—and more often than not, it is Republicans who set its course toward long-term prosperity, even if they are out of office by the time the results are felt. Why this understanding isn’t intuitive is because of widespread economic illiteracy.
“Everyone. And, I mean every single person in this country. Unless, you are of 100% Native American/First Peoples decent, has ancestors that were immigrants. Whether they came by land, or sea, they immigrated to this land. Probably, in hopes of a better future. Whether by legal channels, or not, they were human searching for a homeland when theirs stopped feeling like one. They came to this place to have a better life.
“I know that’s what happened in my mom’s family. The war between the Protestants & Catholics drove them from their home. I am the 2nd generation, on her side, to be born in America. My gran-da was born in Ireland. My nana was born in Scotland. They both traveled to this country, separately, with their families in the very early 1900’s. Arriving at Ellis Island, & enduring the naturalization process, before coming onto the mainland. (The two of them met years later in Niagra Falls. That’s a whole ‘nother story.)
“My father’s family has been here for eons. We are Choctaw & have inhabited these lands for many – more than 2 – thousands of years. My 4th great grandfather was a tribe leader. My 4th great grandma was a healer & mystic, a kind of medicine woman. They walked the Trail of Tears from an area near Ft. Payne, Alabama. They were forced from their home by the/our government to, basically, a wasteland. The same government that decided genocide was better than honoring treaties & the spirits of other human beings.
“My point is, everyone deserves a chance to make something better for themselves & their future generations. And, no one should want to take that away from them.”
I hear this argument a lot and it makes no sense. Moreover, the conclusion does not follow from the premises however nonsensical they are.
American Indians are not originally from North or South America. They came across on boats or walked across a land bridge from Asia—where their ancestors had migrated to from Africa tens of thousands of years earlier.
A person born in the United States is not an immigrant by definition. He is a native. I am not an immigrant. I was born here. I am a native American. This is why I refer to American Indians not Native Americans, since the latter obscures the truth. It’s like referring to blacks who are born here as African American. They aren’t from Africa. They were born here. They’re black Americans. Elon Musk is an example of an African American, since he is a naturalized citizen from Africa. Trump just designated white South Africans as refugees. If they are naturalized, they will become African Americans. As it if they are South Africans. Race doesn’t have anything to do with it.
My wife immigrated here many decades ago. She became a citizen. She is a Swedish American, more broadly a European American. She can say she is an immigrant, but my children, both born in the United States, who have dual citizenship (since in her country citizenship is determined by blood, as it is throughout most of the world), cannot claim to be immigrants. They like to think about their Swedish experiences, but they are native Americans.
The slogan “America is a nation of immigrants” obscures the truth that the vast majority of people in the United States are natural citizens not immigrants. We can say that America is a nation with immigrants, but we cannot say it is a nation of immigrants. To argue that my paternal ancestors who came from Wales more than two centuries ago makes me an immigrant makes the ancestors of those who migrated here immigrants to Wales, since their ancestors migrated there from somewhere else (at the earliest approximately 12,000 years ago).
Human beings are a migratory species (see the above chart), but that does not make them all immigrants. The vast majority of people in the world are not immigrants. Even Africans migrated from place to place on the African continent to what are now recognized as different countries. What makes a person an immigrant is being a citizen of one country who moves to another country.
By the way, an eon is one billion years. Homo sapiens didn’t appear until around 300,000 years ago. The user’s father’s family has not been in North America for eons. Her father’s ancestors likely arrived in North America around 20,000 years ago when humans crossed from Asia to the Americas via Beringia.
All this clarified, how does it follow from these facts—either hers or mine—that everyone who comes to America deserves a chance to make something better for themselves and future generations? Apply to come to America. If America accepts the application, and you seek to become a citizen, there is a process for that. My wife followed the process. Everyone should follow the process.
However, not everybody in the world—or even most people in the world—can come here. We don’t have the space or resources. Besides, our standard of living, the integrity of our republic, the rule of law—all these depend on an integral nation-state with borders, a common culture, a common language, and a shared history. Nor can America send millions to go live in other countries. That’d be an act of colonization and I thought we’d all agreed that colonization of other people’s lands is oppressive and wrong. We can’t do anything about past colonizing projects and the erasure or distortion of their cultures, but we can do something about contemporary colonization projects now. And we should. The preservation of our republic depends on it.
I just saw a meme on Threads a little while ago noting that, while the truth can never have enough facts in its favor, the lie is believed with no facts at all. There’s something to that. But often the lie is believed when all the facts that betray it are known by everybody with eyes to see and ears to hear. That’s a much deeper problem.
Remember Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? He wrote that as a commentary on how the fear of appearing stupid can become a stronger force than the desire to speak the truth or be an independent thinker. The story captures a dynamic common to real-world behavior, especially among those who value being seen as intelligent and virtuous. (This is not my first essay using Andersen’s parable. See The Emperor is Naked: The Problems of Mutual Knowledge and Free Feelings.)
We’re all familiar with the story, but some specific details are important to recall. In the parable, the clothes worn by the emperor are invisible to those who are hopelessly stupid or unfit for their position. Even the emperor convinces himself he is clothed, when in fact he is buck naked (not in his underwear as depicted in our children’s books). The emperor must believe this because he sees himself as intelligent and regards his status is legitimate. His position requires this of him.
Swindlers posing as master weavers pretended to weave on empty looms and fabricated their progress only to provide the emperor and his subjects the opportunity to lie to themselves. The con men represent manipulators of public opinion who exploit fear and vanity to profit from the situation, much like ideologues and propagandists who introduce unquestionable ideas with significant social costs to those who question them.
The swindlers are metaphors for experts and institutions whose authority becomes unquestionable not due to merit but because doubting them is politically dangerous and socially ostracizing. In contemporary terms, the “weavers” are akin to figures who set the terms of cultural discourse—academics, activists, corporate leaders, media personalities—who introduce new “fabrics” of belief that people are afraid to challenge for fear of being labeled as bigoted, ignorant, or otherwise unfit. Their real power stems not from truth, but from everyone’s fear of speaking the truth.
The emperor and his loyal subjects engage in what sociologist Erving Goffman called “civil inattention,” where people deliberately ignore what’s plainly visible out of politeness or social pressure. The subjects deny the obvious to appear intelligent, loyal, and worthy. When image, reputation, or status are perceived to be on the line, those with weak egos choose conformity and silence over honesty—even in the face of obvious falsehoods. The risk of being thought ignorant outweighs the discomfort of going along with something they privately question. The reader knows that the subjects know that the emperor is naked.
Trans ideology is the invisible clothing of our time. We all know trans women are not women. Only someone deeply confused—or pressured into believing—would genuinely think otherwise. At small gatherings, when everyone is relaxed and lets down their guard, those who publicly repeat the slogans will often, albeit in hushed tones, admit the truth. But they’re afraid to say so openly because rejecting radical gender ideology would make them appear backward or bigoted to the elite circles whose approval they crave or need. They know trans women are men, but they’re unsure whether others will admit it, so they either endorse an obvious falsehood or remain silent.
In the pursuit of appearing smart and maintaining tribal affinity, people abandon the very traits—honestly observing the world and reasoning clearly—that define genuine intelligence. Intelligent people become stupid out of a desire to appear smart and be admired. This is the heart of Andersen’s parable: a critique of those who prize pride, vanity, and social approval over courage and honesty.
This is the mechanism that lies behind virtue signaling. It plays out across a range of cultural flashpoints—not just gender ideology, but vaccines (those who call skeptics “anti-vax” typically can’t rationally explain their pro-vaccine stance), the cause of Palestine (and the increasingly unsubtle loathing of Jews), or public shows of solidarity with Ukraine. Social media amplifies the rewards for public alignment and the penalties for dissent, but the underlying dynamic is ancient. Blackened profile photos, digital flags for Mexico or Pride Month, pronouns in bios—these are all current-day markers of moral posturing.
In each case, the dominant narrative becomes less about truth and more about signaling—saying the right words, striking the right pose, demonstrating that one is on the “correct” side, that they are “good” and “noble.” The slogans proliferate: “I stand with Ukraine,” “Silence is violence.” They are not invitations to honest debate but loyalty tests—expressions of the desire to belong, look good, and sound smart. Much of what we know as Trump Derangement Syndrome is driven by the desire for affirmation from other members of the tribe. To be a good progressive is to despise the President and to say so publicly and loudly.
The public square, contaminated by ideology, pride, resentment, and many other things, is shaped less by logic or shared inquiry than by performance. To question the prevailing orthodoxy—on gender, geopolitics, medicine—is to risk being cast out of polite society. So cowards and the self-absorbed play along. They wear the ideological garments they’re told are beautiful, even if they suspect—or know—they don’t exist. Like the emperor’s subjects, they avert their gaze from the obvious or nod and even applaud the falsehood. Those who speak the truth are cast as the foolish child in Andersen’s tale—not because they’re wrong, but because they’ve shattered the illusion and turned private doubt into public awareness.
Image generated by Sora
But the child in Andersen’s parable is not cast as foolish. The child is the embodiment of courage and truth. By bringing mutual knowledge to the subjects—that the emperor is naked and everybody knows it—the child, not yet indoctrinated in the ideology that holds the others back, shakes the subjects out of their commitment to civil inattention. The thing that made them uphold the illusion turns them against it: they don’t want to be fools.
Andersen’s parable endures because the mechanism it describes is timeless. When reputational risk outweighs the cost of falsehood, civil inattention becomes a defense mechanism, and mass self-deception is sustained not by the powerful, but by the silence of those who know better. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is not just a children’s fable—it’s a mirror held up to every age where fear eclipses truth and where being thought wise is valued more than being wise at all. And tragically, though we all learn the story as children, too many take nothing from it. Too many live their lives like loyal subjects in the presence of a naked emperor. And those who escape ideology, or those who were never totally consumed by it, and who are courageous enough to speak the truth, are smeared as backwards and bigoted.
As many of you know, I have taught college for thirty years. So many of the ideas that prevail in academia are like invisible clothing—people believe ideas handed down from on high because they want to appear smart. There is a lot of pressure on administrators, staff, and teachers—and students—to see what’s not there, to dress truths in fictions. It is a powerful milieu, one that, in more than a few ways, affected me. Critical race theory concealed just societal arrangements. Radical gender ideology obscured hard natural facts. At the same time, I never allowed misplaced humanitarianism to dissimulate class warfare. I was never completely taken in by postmodernist notions. How I was able to escape false doctrine or for the most part avoid it altogether was thanks to the atheist child in me.
But there’s an irony here, if irony is the right word. There are those for whom beliefs I could never accept provide protection from indoctrination. So many of my Christian friends could never be persuaded to accept CRT or queer theory. I am missing that strength. Myths aside, the Judeo-Christian tradition carries inherent in it the power of rational perception. There’s a reason sociologist Max Weber observed in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that the Enlightenment is Protestantism’s heir.
In Matthew 13:16-17, after explaining to his disciplines why he speaks to the crowds in parables, Jesus says to them: “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it.”
I can never be a Christian. But if anything can save the West from the perils of self-deception, it will be Christianity. Through its emphasis on the individual’s direct relationship with God, Christianity laid the groundwork for individualism and modernity. By asserting that each person has inherent worth and moral responsibility—independent of tribe or social status—Christianity challenged ancient collectivist norms.
Protestantism in particular intensified this by encouraging private conscience and a vocation-centered life, promoting autonomy and self-discipline. It was these religious beliefs that gave rise to ideas central to modernity: the dignity of the individual, moral agency, rational self-examination, and the value of work. To be sure, over time these theological roots were secularized, but their structure remains foundational to capitalism, civil rights, and liberal thought.
As I finish up here, a phrase comes to mind: “Speak truth to power.” This is from a 1955 pamphlet published by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization. Quakers are committed to moral integrity and the belief that truth has the power to challenge unjust authority. The line may be attributable to Bayard Rustin, who coauthored the pamphlet. Rustin’s ideas ran parallel to George Orwell’s—both were anti-authoritarian and anti-communist. Both believed communism—and by extension collectivism—was incompatible with democracy and civil liberties.
Rustin’s rationalism put him in conflict with the New Left. So does mine. The New Left played a major role in creating the detrimental circumstances—and all the virtue signaling—that confronts us today. New Left ideas are ubiquitous in the academia and the culture industry. These are the ideas that run through woke progressivism. We hear woke progressives using AFSC’s phrase. But speaking truth to power presupposes seeing and hearing it. The left has become subjects who admire the emperor’s new clothes. The left doesn’t speak truth to power, but rather seeks power to clothe the truth in lies.
After learning that the Obama administration interfered with the 2016 election, withdrawing a Presidential Daily Briefing (PBD) on December 8 because President-elect Donald Trump might learn that there was no evidence behind the claim of Russian interference with the election—that it was a political operation run by Democrats—and replacing it with a manufactured PBD that concluded with no real evidence that Russia interfered with our election, I opened Google’s news aggregator today to discover the conspicuous absence of news stories concerning what is, by any definition, seditious conspiracy and treason.
Image generated by Sora
If you ever doubted there is a Deep State, you can only do so now by lying to yourself. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard brought the receipts: New Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency. The State Department needs to cancel passports now. The Department of Justice needs to frog march Obama and his criminal associates out of their residences and into federal jail. But most Americans don’t even know about the scandal. They know a lot about what they think they know about the Epstein scandal. That story remains in the headline loop. But the fact that the Democrats conspired to thwart democracy is not news worthy.
🧵 Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the… pic.twitter.com/UQKKZ5c4Op
I have always known Obama was bad news. At the end of October 2008, in Hope for Failure, I warned folks on my old platform about him. Unfortunately, Obama won the election (and reelection) and, as a result, among other things, real wages for black Americans plummeted, millions of homes were lost, while trillions of dollars were sucked into the corporate class. The corporate state gave blacks and their allies racial ressentiment as a substitute—the ideological roots of Black Lives Matter. The Democrat rank-and-file bought the scam hook, line, and sinker. They still do. Obama took our country backwards and Democrats can’t see it because they hate the America Republic—they run down our country at every turn. And it’s only getting worse.
Welcome to reality: Obama and his criminal associates conspired to install Hillary Clinton as President in 2016 to keep the project of American decline going. And Deep State and corporate state media used the Russian collusion hoax—and many others—to derail Trump’s first presidency. And the same forces are trying to derail his second. I didn’t vote for Obama ruse either time because I saw it then for what it was. I didn’t vote for Hillary because I grasped the plan. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. I didn’t yet see what it was all about. I see it now.
In a Truth Social post highlighting the intense publicity surrounding billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities, President Donald Trump called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce all relevant grand jury testimony—subject to court approval. Bondi responded by petitioning the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts.
President Trump—we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts. pic.twitter.com/hOXzdTcYYB
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 18, 2025
I have not previously written about the Epstein case on Freedom and Reason, in part because much of the hysteria surrounding it reflects some of the more paranoid tendencies of the far right. On social media, I’ve said that while pedophilia is a serious problem (I have written quite a bit on that subject on this platform), we are not governed by a cabal of pedophiles. I urged people to step away from QAnon—a far-right movement rooted in a theory that the world is controlled by a Satanic cabal of pedophiles embedded in corporations, government, and popular culture. The theory reeks of antisemitism.
Moreover, if Epstein were such an urgent matter, why didn’t Democrats release the files during Biden’s presidency? They had four years. Why didn’t then-Attorney General Merrick Garland act? Why didn’t the media press the administration? Why didn’t Democrats in the House or Senate demand action? Their sudden interest now is highly suspicious.
While some documents have been released, many remain sealed or heavily redacted. No concrete evidence has emerged linking Trump to Epstein’s criminal activities. Elon Musk’s recent claim on X—that Trump is named in still-sealed files and that this is causing delays in their release—comes without evidence.
Suppose everything is released. After years of politicized investigations—remember the Steele dossier, the Russia collusion hoax, and the Biden Administration and media’s coordinated dismissal of the Hunter Biden laptop story—why should the public trust the integrity of these files? Democrats, Garland, Wray, and the Deep State had ample time to remove or insert names, scrub records, or manufacture evidence. They had cover, motive, and time.
Now, six months into Trump’s second term—and in concert with far-right paranoiacs—Democrats clamoring for release. They know what is and isn’t in those files. This feels orchestrated. Right on cue, The Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch, published a fabricated conversation between Trump and Epstein. Who was behind the forgery? Fusion GPS?
Trump has every right to be angry and frustrated. They tried to destroy him—and we still know little about the attempt on his life. We’re still uncovering details of the JFK assassination—61 years later. Now, elements of MAGA are turning on Trump because he dares say what anyone paying attention already knows: the establishment is hell-bent on bringing him down. We all know this is what lies behind the frenzy over Epstein.
Trump, future wife Melania Knauss, Epstein and companion Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago in 2000.
It has long been publicly known that Trump had social ties to Epstein. His name appeared in Epstein’s contact lists and flight logs. The two were photographed together at social events in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Is there anything real here? The Epstein case sits at the intersection of criminal justice, political power, and class privilege. It reveals the flaws in our legal system, the power of wealth and influence, and the ongoing difficulty of holding elite predators accountable. Epstein’s crimes are among the most notorious in recent US history, involving the systematic sexual abuse of underage girls, a suspiciously lenient plea deal, and deep connections to powerful figures in business and politics. All this is real and important.
The saga began in the mid-2000s, under President George W Bush. Following reports from victims in Florida, the FBI and local law enforcement launched an investigation. Federal prosecutors, led by then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta (appointed by Bush in 2005), oversaw the case.
Epstein was accused of having abused at least 36 underage girls, some as young as 14. Yet in 2008, Acosta negotiated a remarkably lenient plea deal. Epstein pleaded guilty to two state charges—solicitation of prostitution and solicitation involving a minor. In exchange, he avoided federal sex trafficking charges and received immunity for himself and unnamed “potential co-conspirators.” The deal effectively shut down the FBI investigation. Epstein served thirteen months, with liberal work-release privileges.
The non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was controversial for several reasons: it was negotiated with limited input from victims (in violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act); Epstein’s high-powered legal team—led by Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr—exerted heavy pressure on prosecutors; and its secrecy shielded powerful figures. Crucially, the deal only applied within the Southern District of Florida, not nationally. More on this in a moment.
Acosta’s role in the Epstein case resurfaced when Trump appointed him Secretary of Labor in 2017. Though academically and professionally accomplished (Harvard law, former Alito clerk), his handling of the Epstein case became a liability. Under mounting public pressure, Acosta resigned his post in 2019. A 2020 DOJ review found he had exercised poor judgment, though it stopped short of declaring legal or ethical violations.
As noted, Trump and Epstein were socially acquainted in the 1990s and early 2000s. But Trump reportedly severed ties in the mid-2000s. In a 2002 New York Magazine interview, Trump admitted “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
However, at a press conference in July 2019, a day after Epstein was arrested, Trump said, “I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him. People in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years. I wasn’t a fan.” In fact, Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in 2007. Epstein’s membership was terminated after he was accused of “perving” on the teenage daughter of a club member and making inappropriate advances at the resort.
There is no evidence that Trump and Acosta had a personal or professional relationship during Epstein’s original prosecution.
Why was Epstein re-arrested under Trump’s Justice Department in July 2019? Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York charged him with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy, focusing on crimes outside Florida’s jurisdiction. Renewed interest in the case came from investigative journalists, victim advocacy, and new evidence.
Epstein pleaded “not guilty” but died by suicide a month later in federal custody—shortly before trial. His death fueled intense speculation, with many believing he was murdered. It’s not an unreasonable suspicion. However, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have both said after reviewing the evidence that it was a suicide. Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted for grooming and recruiting underage girls for Epstein. In June 2022, she was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
Among the more sensational claims is that Epstein had ties to intelligence agencies—CIA, Mossad, MI6. These theories stem from his elite connections, unexplained wealth, and unusually lenient treatment. Some reports suggest Acosta was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” There is no record of this and there is no verified public evidence to support the underlying claim, but would such proof even be made public? Does anyone believe the CIA would allow evidence implicating itself to remain in declassified files?
The outrage over Epstein stems largely from the plea deal’s secrecy and leniency, and from the perception that it protected powerful people. Those concerns are legitimate. But the timing of today’s renewed hysteria strongly suggests yet another attempt to undermine Trump and the populist-nationalist movement.
Unfortunately, some elements of MAGA are playing into Deep State hands. Obama had eight years, Biden had four—plenty of time to tamper with files, delete evidence of Democratic involvement, and manufacture evidence against Republicans. Given the relentless onslaught against Trump—Crossfire Hurricane, Russia collusion, Ukraine, the “perfect phone call,” Charlottesville, “suckers and losers,” January 6, election interference, sexual assault allegations—is it unreasonable to be skeptical of the timing?
Maybe there’s nothing there. The Epstein saga has always been heavy on speculation, light on verified facts. It often veers into QAnon territory. Trump may well know this—and may be letting the left hang itself with its own rope. But the media hysteria has ensured that this issue won’t disappear. So, Trump has gone on the offensive.
Unsealing grand jury transcripts isn’t guaranteed. Grand jury proceedings are typically secret to protect investigative integrity, prevent witness intimidation, and shield the reputations of uncharged individuals. Courts only unseal such records when there’s a compelling public interest or credible allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The Justice Department’s argument will certainly cite compelling public interest.
Trump and Bondi are trying to gaslight you into believing they're turning over the Epstein Files.
Don't believe them.
Grand jury testimony won't include anything relating to any other people involved in the sex trafficking ring.
Even if the transcripts are released, it won’t satisfy the far right—or the Democrats. New York Congressman Daniel Goldman, who led Trump’s first impeachment, is already pre-bunking their release. Today, on X, he posted: “Grand jury testimony won’t include anything relating to any other people involved in the sex trafficking ring.” In another post yesterday, he said the real evidence—“videos, photographs, recordings”—is elsewhere. Does he know what’s in the files? Or more importantly, what’s not? He doesn’t seem concerned that Democrats might be implicated. He seems confident that Trump will be. That’s revealing.
Meanwhile, on the far right, anyone who questions the Epstein conspiracy becomes part of the conspiracy. And this is derailing the most successful presidency of my lifetime.
Sex trafficking is a serious issue. People are right to be upset about the fact that federal charges against Epstein were not pursued initially. Moreover, while justice cannot be taken out on a corpse, there are those who took advantage of Epstein’s sex network. Why they were never pursued is a relevant question.
However, what draws many to this case today is the possibility that Epstein was associated with intelligence. It’s alleged that Epstein lured powerful individuals into compromising situations—often with underage girls—and recorded them using hidden cameras installed at his properties. While there is no direct proof, it’s not irrational to ask questions. Epstein’s wealth has never been credibly explained. At least not to my satisfaction. Could blackmail have been his true business?
I remain curious about this piece. His 2008 sweetheart deal remains a staggering anomaly. Are the Epstein files being withheld for the same reason, namely because they implicate too many elites—perhaps enough to shake the Deep State to its core? If Trump is playing 4D chess, is this the angle?
For this reason, the grand jury record and how it is unsealed, in what manner evidence is shared, will be compelling news. As for the files accumulated by the Justice Department over the last several years or so, my confidence in their integrity is slim to none. I don’t trust the Democratic Party and what they left the Trump Administration to find.
In a recent video circulating on X, a man is seen filming in public when a woman approaches him and asks what he’s doing. He calmly explains that he is conducting a First Amendment audit—an activity rooted in the constitutional right to record in public spaces. There is no expectation of privacy in public, so the man is breaking no laws by recording activities of daily living in public spaces.
The woman, dissatisfied with this answer, presses him further, insisting that his reason isn’t specific enough. While her questioning may seem benign at first, it begins to cross a line when she continues despite having been given a legitimate and legally sound explanation.
The video ends before she’s leaves, so I do not know the outcome of the interaction. The man with the camera is calm and patient throughout. The woman obviously feigns ignorance to rationalize her desire to continue hassling the man.
Harassment occurs when someone persistently confronts, questions, or pressures another person who is lawfully exercising his rights, despite having received a clear and reasonable explanation. She is right on the edge.
Once the man recording states his lawful purpose—exercising his First Amendment right—any continued insistence that he justify himself further, especially in a confrontational and persistent manner, may cross the line from casual inquiry to intrusive, unwanted behavior.
Harassment is not simply asking a question; it is the refusal to accept an answer and the attempt to coerce, intimidate, or shame someone into changing their lawful conduct to suit another’s preferences. He does indicate that he wishes to break off the conversation, telling her that he has explained himself three times.
This interaction highlights a common but often misunderstood dynamic: the difference between legal rights and social expectations. The man has no obligation to offer an answer that satisfies a stranger’s curiosity beyond what the law requires. His explanation—that he is exercising a First Amendment right—is not only specific, it is entirely sufficient. Continued demands for a more palatable reason reveal less about the cameraman’s supposed arrogance and more about the interrogator’s sense of entitlement.
I said in the thread that her insistence than he answer the question to her satisfaction was a dick move. I was dismayed by the number of X users who thought the man was arrogant. Indeed, I was moved to comment initially because I was surprised to see so many people attacking the man for his attitude.
I suggested a useful analogy: open carry in a jurisdiction where it is legal. If a man walks down the street with a sidearm, a passerby is certainly free to ask why. If the man replies, “for self-defense,” that is a valid, constitutionally protected reason. If the questioner continues to press him—disapproving of the answer or attempting to debate the legitimacy of his action—the dynamic shifts from inquiry to harassment of the interaction is unwanted. The same principle applies to public filming. Rights are not contingent on the comfort or approval of onlookers. No one owes members of the public an explanation for why he is engaged in constitutionally protected activities.
The notion that someone must justify their lawful behavior in terms others find emotionally satisfying undermines the concept of individual liberty. In this case, it’s not the man filming who is being arrogant; it’s the person insisting that his answer conform to her standards. Exercising a constitutional right does not require a permission slip—and it certainly doesn’t require a debate with every passerby who doesn’t like it. In fact, nobody is obligated to converse with any other citizen in public.
Bottomline: The man has a First Amendment right to record in public. There is no expectation of privacy in public. She is free to ask questions, of course (that is her First Amendment right), but if the interaction becomes persistent and unwanted, which is what is starting to happen in the video, then crosses the line into harassment. A man with a camera in a public place harasses no one. He no more provokes responses than a man with a sidearm in an open carry state. She is permitted to speak with him as long as the interaction is mutual. As soon as it is unwanted, she is harassing.
I addressed the issue of Democrats lying about detention facilities years ago in a 20`19 essay Migrant Detention Facilities are Not Fascist Concentration Camps. Democrats are lying again about the conditions in the detention facilities for illegal aliens, this time focused on Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz.” Democrats were caught lying constantly about the detention facilities? They think you have short memories. unfortunately, a lot of people do. I don’t.
This whole business about drinking water from the toilet. It’s a unit that has a toilet and a sink combined—like in an RV. Do you know how in your own bathroom you have the toilet and often the sink is right beside it in the same pipes connect both the sink and the toilet? It’s the same thing in a more compact form. I wrote about this as well summer of 2019, Ocasio-Cortez and the Powers of Expectation and Identity.
It’s typical to find this type of compact organization in a prison cell or detention facility. It’s perfectly sanitary. Nobody’s drinking water out of the toilet. Either the Democrats who are telling you that are so stupid they can’t understand basic technology, or they’re straight up lying to you. They’re not stupid. At least not for the most part. For the most part, they’re lying.
The detainees are being treated well. They have soft beds. They enjoy a climate controlled environment. They have nutritious food. And we know where they are while they await their deportation orders. They all must leave the country. They are here illegally. We cannot allow them to disappear back into the interior of our country.
And all this talk about family separation? This one drives me up the wall. I wrote about this in 2018 (Law Enforcement and Family Separation), 2019 (The Rhetorical Function of Family Separation and Family Reunification), and most recently in January of this year (“Family Separation” Redux). We have hundreds of thousands of adult American citizens in our prisons and jails in the United States. They have partners, children, siblings, parents, and friends. They’re separated from all those people when they go to prison. Family separation is part of what happens when—because you engaged in illegal behavior—you get separated from society.
All these politicians who go on about the horrors of family separation are only concerned about it when it comes to illegal aliens. Have you noticed that? They don’t give a fuck about the horrors of family separation when it comes to their own citizens. These politicians are the ones writing and enforcing the laws that separate families every day in America.
When they engage in this propaganda, they’re not merely prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens. They’re erasing American citizens and all the trials and tribulations that the American citizen faces every day in the United States. Democrats want jobs for illegal aliens when there are millions of idle American citizens who need jobs. They don’t want you to think about your fellow citizen and his situation. They don’t want you to consider that at least some of those they’ve idled would not have committed the crime that sent them to prison if they had had a job—jobs taken from them by illegal aliens.
The Democrat political program is anti-American. They loathe ordinary Americans. The Americans they appear to loathe the most are the black and brown citizens that they trapped in the inner-city ghettos Democrats control. They’ve destroyed families, taken away jobs, and keep the disorganized and idle alive through a paternalistic system of welfare dependency. The only thing these citizens are useful for in their eyes is voting Democrat.
What is jaywalking? The legal definition of jaywalking varies by jurisdiction, but in most US cities and states, it generally refers to a pedestrian crossing the street outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk, especially between adjacent intersections that are controlled by traffic signals. It also includes crossing against a pedestrian signal, such as walking when the signal displays “Don’t Walk,” and crossing in a manner that creates a safety hazard or interferes with oncoming traffic.
Several US states and jurisdictions have moved to decriminalize or eliminate jaywalking as a criminal offense to address demographic disparities. What began in Virginia has grown into a national reform movement, with over 50 million Americans now residing in places that have relaxed jaywalking enforcement in some way. (Crowder’s example is New York City decriminalizing jaywalking last year.) These reforms are driven by racial equity concerns and the rationalization that jaywalking laws are ineffective safety measures.
It is well-documented that black and Latino pedestrians are disproportionately cited or stopped for jaywalking and other minor infractions. The progressive argument is police patrol patterns (heavier presence in certain neighborhoods), implicit bias (unconscious racial profiling), and socioeconomic or structural factors (fewer crosswalks, longer waits at lights) are the reason for the disparities. But could this be that blacks and Latinos are more likely to jaywalk? There is a significant lack of comprehensive, nationwide behavioral data comparing jaywalking rates by race or ethnicity. The available data comes from enforcement records, not observations of actual behavior. Is there another way we could answer this question?
Black and Latino pedestrians in the United States face significantly higher risks of being hit and killed by vehicles compared to their white and Asian counterparts. According to the latest age-adjusted fatality data from 2021, Black pedestrians had a fatality rate of 4.4 per 100,000 people, while Latino pedestrians had a rate of 3 per 100,000. In contrast, non-Hispanic white pedestrians had a rate of 1.9 per 100,000. Asian non-Hispanic individuals had the lowest rate of all these categories at 1.4 per 100,000. When examining risk in terms of exposure—measured as fatalities per mile walked—research suggests that black pedestrians are nearly twice as likely to be killed per mile walked compared to white pedestrians. Hispanic pedestrians, similarly, are about 1.5 times more likely to face a fatal outcome under the same conditions.
These disparities are not only present in death rates but are also reflected in injury statistics. Emergency room data collected between 2021 and 2023 showed that black pedestrians were 1.93 times more likely, and Hispanic pedestrians 1.70 times more likely than their White counterparts to require emergency medical treatment from being struck while walking.
One of many public shaming campaigns distributed to normalize laws against jaywalking.
What progressives will tell you is that these figures paint a sobering picture of systemic disparity. Despite often walking more due to lower car ownership rates, people of color are navigating environments that are less safe for pedestrians. This is due to historic underinvestment in pedestrian infrastructure in communities of color, such as the lack of crosswalks, inadequate lighting, and dangerous road designs that prioritize vehicle speed over pedestrian safety.
But it could be that blacks, and to some extent Latinos, as a group are engaged in what Karl Marx and Frederich Engels called “primitive rebellion”? This term describes individual and group acts of defiance by members of the lower class who believe system is rigged against them. Engels describes the phenomenon in his Conditions of the Working Class in England, where he describes how joblessness, overcrowding, and poverty are associated with crime, disorder, and rioting, which he interprets as expressions of social desperation.
In a letter to Marx, Engels remarks on the rise in petty crime and lawlessness in Paris, citing it as evidence for a growing belief among the poor that the law does not represent them, that it is merely a tool of bourgeois domination, and therefore worthy of violating. It’s what David Matza and Gresham Sykes a century later described as “techniques of neutralization”—rationalizations used to justify wrongdoing. This is a kind of demoralization, not in the sense of resignation, but in the loss of belief in the legitimacy of the social and legal order.
A regular guest on Crowder’s show, Nick Di Paolo, relayed an answer from a cop to a question concerning crossing against the light: “Why do they do that?” The cop responded, “Because every ounce of their fiber is fighting against the man and the establishment.” Di Paolo said it was the best explanation he has ever heard. And for good reason. And it’s not just jaywalking. It’s crime in general and a myriad of other subculturally-specific behavioral norms. Progressives normalize violations of the broader norms of society.
I argue in previous essays that the contemporary left has embraced a pattern that, at first glance, appears erratic or irrational: not merely the rationalization of their actions, but in the celebration of those who break the law, flout norms, or violate traditional moral codes. From criminals to illegal aliens, to individuals engaged in perverse lifestyles, lawbreakers and norm violators are increasingly held up not just as sympathetic, but as heroic. For the rest of us, this feels less like politics and more like cultural upheaval—confusing, chaotic, even unhinged. That’s because it is.
But this seeming irrationality masks an intentional moral and strategic realignment. It is the rational deployment of irrational means for political ends. The elevation of deviance isn’t a misfire of progressive politics—it’s a deliberate move to undermine existing structures and reframe moral authority. By recasting lawbreakers and outcasts as noble resisters of systemic injustice, progressives are engaging in a form of ideological subversion. What looks like compassion is, at a deeper level, a tool for cultural and political transformation.
This view relies heavily on structuralist explanations of human behavior—those found in academic theories that prioritize systems over individuals. Criminal acts are reframed not as failures of character or will, but as outcomes of historical trauma, poverty, or racism. Lawbreaking becomes not a breach of social contract, but a cry for justice. No justice, no peace. In this moral ecosystem, victimhood grants sanctity. To suffer is to be righteous, and those who suffer at the hands of authority—border patrol, immigration agents, police—are elevated as moral avatars.
From this perspective, punishment is rarely seen as just. Instead, it is recast as cruelty, a symptom of institutionalized oppression. The enforcers of rules become villains, while violators are recast as heroes. This moral reversal doesn’t merely confuse traditional categories—it redefines them entirely. It replaces individual accountability with systemic blame, law with empathy, and order with rebellion.
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland, speaks during a news conference, April 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) (Source)
In this new hierarchy, the highest form of moral standing comes from being “marginalized,” or more accurately marginalizing oneself through deviant behavior and life style. This is how a human trafficker and serial wife beater Kilmar Abrego Garcia can become a poster boy for injustice. Those seen as oppressed—especially if poor, non-white, or gender-nonconforming—are said to possess a heightened moral insight: the righteous privilege of the deviant. Their “lived experience” is unassailable truth. Crossing a border illegally, breaking laws, or flouting societal norms become courageous acts of resistance against a system deemed illegitimate.
Insisting that people follow traffic rules oppresses the righteous rebel. Jaywalking is an act of resistance.
This is the glue holding together much of the left’s political coalition. Immigrant communities, racial minorities, urban voters—all demographics more likely to experience friction with the state—deserve not merely sympathy but sanctification. Instead of addressing why certain behaviors lead to law enforcement encounters, progressives reframe the law itself as the problem.
This approach serves concrete political ends. It fuels activism, mobilizes voters, and shapes public narratives. Media stories highlighting sympathetic offenders transform individual wrongdoing into broad indictments of society. These stories aren’t just meant to evoke empathy—they’re designed to shift public perception, weaponizing what one might charitably describe as personal tragedy—at worst thuggery—for ideological gain.
In this light, the celebration of transgression becomes more than moral posture—it becomes strategy. Progressives argue that traditional concepts of justice—deterrence, equality, fairness, punishment—are merely masks for maintaining power structures dominated by capitalists, conservatives, nationalists, and other “privileged” classes—Christians, cisgendered, whites, white adjacent, etc. The left calls not for reform, but for reimagining justice itself: grounded not in impartiality or law, but in “equity,” “liberation,” and “repair.”
The jargon of the woke left, common in academia and activist spheres, flips the moral compass. Offenders no longer need correcting; they’re symbols of deeper truths. Lawbreaking becomes revelatory. Transgression becomes obligatory, even sacred. Deviance is not merely defined down, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned in the early 1990s. It is that, to be sure, but it is also redefined as virtue.
This linguistic turn reflects a broader philosophical departure from classical liberalism. Moral legitimacy is no longer found in customs, democratic consensus, or laws, but in personal suffering and subjective identity. Those once deemed criminal—be they illegal aliens or violent offenders—are now praised precisely because their lives defy convention. Their deviance becomes a form of moral authenticity.
We see this in the beatification of career criminals like George Floyd, in sympathetic portrayals of individuals with gang affiliations and violent pasts. These portrayals are not isolated—they represent a systemic effort to blur the boundaries between virtue and vice, legality and illegality. It’s not just storytelling—it’s an ideological reframing promoting cultural realignment.
This realignment is not a grassroots revolution. It’s engineered from above. Major institutions—academia, corporations, media conglomerates, NGOs—have embraced this moral inversion not because they share its ideals, but because it serves their interests. In many instances, they manufactured it. As traditional norms dissolve, individuals become more dependent, inner-isolated, and pliable. But not all are docile. Some are angry, and therefore useful. A society detached from family, heritage, nation, and tradition is one that’s easier to manage—through bureaucracy and ideology. And the ease with which they may be gathered in the streets and provoked to violence makes them instruments for sowing chaos.
This top-down destabilization reframes cultural disintegration and social disorder as moral progress—as liberation. Corporate HR departments speak the language of diversity and inclusion while extracting maximum value from atomized workers. Media companies amplify fringe identities not for justice, but for clicks. Bureaucrats use the rhetoric of “safety” to justify censorship and surveillance. None of this requires liberty or self-governance—only compliance. Liberty and self-governance are the signs of power and privilege. So, in the end, there must go away.
The breakdown of tradition isn’t a side effect—it’s the goal. Norms around family, morality, national identity, and sex are intentionally eroded. Norms bind people together, and a bound society is harder to control. Disorder becomes a tool of governance—rule over a disordered populace and conditions that draw the disordered. The Old Left sought to empower the working class. The New Left empowers the technocratic class by disempowering the citizenry.
In this environment, the glorification of deviance functions as a mechanism for substituting bureaucratic authority—technocracy—for civilizational values. Cultural boundaries are erased, inherited wisdom dismissed as prejudice, and legal structures undermined. In their place stand policies and paradigms determined not by voters, but by elite networks of credentialed professionals and ideologically aligned institutions.
This is the essence of the post-liberal and post-truth world. Classical ideals—free speech, rule of law, limited government—are subordinated to vague imperatives like “equity,” “inclusion,” “safety” (but not public safety), and “wellbeing.” These terms become weapons deployed to justify everything from race-based policies to censorship. They’re slogans of control masquerading as liberation.
The new order doesn’t suppress freedom with jackboots. It dissolves it through emotional manipulation, institutional creep, and technocratic consensus. It is Sheldon Wolin’s “inverted totalitarianism.” In this framework, deviance is no longer merely tolerated—it is instrumentalized. The breakdown of legal norms and moral precepts facilitates a larger project: the reengineering of society into a managed system, ruled not by law and custom, but by expertise and ideological conformity.
Donald Trump doesn’t like the word “progressive.” He says it sounds too nice. He likes the word “liberal” to describe this. Ironically Trump is a liberal and his word choice undermines his ability to accurately describe the problem. Progressivism is regressive. What claims to be progressive is in truth the cultural façade of a deeper transformation. Behind the stories of liberation lies a calculated campaign to dissolve the foundations of civil society and replace them with a new order—one more centralized and more intrusive than anything that came before it.
To those grounded in conventional moral codes—centered on lawful conduct, personal responsibility, and societal cohesion—this valorization of transgression is perplexing. Yet for many on the left, it’s righteous rebellion. Celebrating those targeted by law enforcement or immigration control becomes a way of attacking the institutions themselves, which are portrayed as inherently corrupt, oppressive, and racist. The goal of progressives is not to make America better. It is to make America go away.
I can hear the criticism now. How did we get from jaywalking to the decline of Western Civilization? To dismiss jaywalking as a trivial offense is to dismiss the symbolic weight it carries in the cultural and political imagination. What was once a minor infraction of urban order, one designed to protect human life, has become, in the progressive framework, an emblem of defiance against systems deemed illegitimate. Ultimately, it is not the act itself that matters. It’s what the act represents—a challenge to the authority of law, to the expectation of conformity, and ultimately, to the legitimacy of the social order. Jaywalking is a litmus test for a worldview that reinterprets deviance as justice, lawbreaking as virtue, and public safety as racist.
The deeper problem is not the individual crossing against the light but the broader ideological project that celebrates such acts as morally elevated—that valorizes one of a myriad of actions against the regular order of things. Excusing acts of primitive rebellion—jaywalking, resisting arrest, sitting in the road, smash and grab, violence against ICE agents—signals a deliberate and determined unraveling of the norms and institutions that sustain a free and cohesive society. Jaywalking may be minor in legal terms, but in the context of instrumental chaos, it reveals a profound shift in how justice, legitimacy, and morality are being redefined—not from the ground up, but from the top down.
Finally, for those considering telling me about the origin of jaywalking, how it was the evil auto industry through aggressive public campaigns shaming pedestrians, framing pedestrian behavior as the problem rather than dangerous driving or poor infrastructure, who manufactured a crime, I will not be impressed. Cars have been a wonderful addition to human history, liberating individuals to get to where they need to go quickly—to travel where they wish on a whim. There are sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians. There is nothing stopping pedestrians from getting where they need to go—except not following public safety rules.
There’s a way to tell the history of this law without the biased language The Resistance™ uses to delegitimize laws. Jaywalking originated in the early twentieth century during a time when automobiles were becoming increasingly common on city streets. As cities faced rising pedestrian fatalities amid increasing car traffic, auto industry groups and safety advocates promoted the idea that pedestrians should use sidewalks and designated crossing areas, helping governments establish jaywalking laws as a way to enhance public safety. The left wants to make everything good bad.
Even before he was President, Donald Trump was not afraid to attach his image to forms of popular entertainment mocked by progressive elites and their subalterns. You know, the “white-trash” and “trailer-park” culture of the commoner? The mouth-breathing Neanderthals who wouldn’t wear masks duing the pandemic? The deplorables who resist the elite consensus? The peasants who won’t obey their betters?
WWE chairman Vince McMahon prepares to have head shaved by Trump and Bobby Lashley while being held down by ”Stone Cold” Steve Austin after losing a bet in the Battle of the Billionaires at the 2007 Wrestlemania.
Remember “Battle of the Billionaires” at WrestleMania 23, where Trump faced off against Vince McMahon and the loser had to shave his head? Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame. Did you know that? Inducted in 2013. He’s also a huge fan of the UFC. Dana White, CEO and president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and Trump are very close. You didn’t forget Trump’s “fascist” rally at Madison Square Gardens that featured White and Hulk Hogan? It’s a far cry from Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Muppets in 1993.
Kermit the Frog sits on Hillary Clinton’s shoulder, Kennedy Center, January 19th, 1993
Remember how beloved Trump was by other celebrities before he came down the Golden Escalator a decade ago? Remember how they practically begged him to run for President and then turned on him in an instant when he answered the call? They loathe him because of who is in back of him.
UFC Event at the White House
Trump is working with White to bring a UFC match to the White House. Instead of a White House festooned in Pride Progress flags and men with fake tits out pushing the queer agenda, we get American flags and warrior displays of raw masculinity at the People’s House.
Teddy Roosevelt, President and Pugilist.
Teddy Roosevelt was a lifelong fan of boxing. Did you know that? It’s true. In fact, he boxed himself. As president, he installed a boxing ring at the White House where he would put on fights. He would box with military aides and professional fighters.
It will make for quite the contrast in ads and memes, won’t it? Progressivism versus populism. Elites versus the masses. It works for both sides. Working people get to see one of their beloved sport honored at the White House. Progressive elites get to condescend and mock the unsophisticates. As usual, Democrats will play the heel.
Happy Independence Day, first of all. Next year will be 250 years since we declared our independence from a monarchy.
The United States is more than $34 trillion in debt. Unless we achieve strong economic growth, we face serious fiscal peril. A 2% annual GDP growth rate isn’t sufficient—that’s barely keeping pace with inflation, population growth, and entitlement obligations. To stabilize and begin reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio, we need sustained real growth in the range of 3 to 3.5 percent. And we need it now. A sovereign debt crisis is looming. If we hit that wall, the consequences could be catastrophic: structural adjustments imposed by market forces or international institutions, which could mean deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements that millions of Americans—who built this country—rely on.
When Trump was elected in 2016, I said there would be pain. But if we fail to deal with these realities today, the pain tomorrow will be far worse. And tomorrow is rapidly becoming today. There is no time left to wait.
President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (source)
There’s no viable alternative to the economic path that Trump and Bessent have outlined. The progressive alternative—massive new government spending to stimulate growth—only leads to deeper debt. More debt pushes up interest rates, which slows investment and growth. Higher rates also increase the cost of servicing that debt, which now consumes over $1 trillion annually—more than we spend on defense. At the same time, expanded government means more regulation, less freedom, and a ballooning administrative state that inserts itself into every aspect of our private lives. Moreover, government spending often requires monetary expansion—raising the money supply—which fuels inflation. The progressive path is a trap: unsustainable debt, persistent inflation, and creeping authoritarianism cloaked in bureaucracy.
Some argue we should simply tax the rich. But this is a mirage. Hiking top marginal rates reduces private investment, which is the engine of economic growth. History and empirical evidence show that over-taxing high earners leads to capital flight and stagnation. Without growth, tax revenues shrink, deficits widen, and the debt burden worsens. It’s a vicious cycle. (The post-WWII era, often cited to justify high taxes, was unique: the US was the only intact industrial power, the dollar was backed by gold, and rebuilding the world created unprecedented demand.)
Instead, we need supply-side growth. That means making the Trump tax cuts permanent, creating certainty for investors, and freeing up capital for productive investment. Growth brings increased tax revenues without raising rates. Only through expansion can we pay down the debt, reduce interest rates, and unlock further investment—not just in capital markets, but in homes, cars, and durable goods that drive real economic vitality.
Immigration policy is key to this effort. By securing the border and enforcing existing laws, we can reduce the labor surplus that depresses wages. As capital flows into domestic manufacturing and infrastructure, labor demand rises. A tighter labor market means higher wages, especially for blue-collar Americans. Basic supply and demand.
Some critics say: “But capital is mobile—won’t investors just go offshore?” That’s where tariffs come in. Trump’s tariff policy discourages offshoring by making foreign production more expensive. If you invest in America, you avoid tariffs. In addition, tariffs serve as an external source of revenue—billions of dollars have flowed into the US Treasury from these measures, helping offset fiscal pressures. And critically, businesses are returning to the US—reshoring jobs and rebuilding capacity.
Trump and Bessent’s plan is not business as usual. It’s a bold departure from the stale orthodoxy of slow growth and elite consensus. The target is 3–3.5% real GDP growth. Achieving it means rebalancing the global economy to favor the United States. Call it what it is: economic nationalism. Supply-side economics plus strategic protectionism. An “America First” model fit for the twenty-first century. It’s time to unleash the animal spirits of innovation, investment, and labor.
What did Reagan say? “Let us begin an era of national renewal.” He awakened the sleeping industrial giant. Now it’s time to do it again—just in time to counter the next challenge: artificial intelligence.
AI is advancing rapidly. It’s coming for white-collar jobs—accounting, law, media, even academia. Bureaucrats aren’t safe either. But this opens the door for blue-collar America to rise again. We need to build a resilient, productive nation—one that digs and manufactures. That means refocusing on physical labor and industrial infrastructure, and on the dignity of work.
When did we last grow like Trump and Bessent propose? The Reagan years. Supply-side economics pulled us out of stagflation, brought down interest rates, tamed inflation, and sparked one of the longest expansions in US history. Despite a crash in 1987 and a mild recession under Bush Sr., the foundation was so strong that even Clinton—with a Republican Congress—benefited, claiming a budget surplus by the end of his term.
But Clinton’s deregulation, followed by Bush Jr.’s globalist wars and unchecked spending, laid the groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis—the worst since the Great Depression. Obama responded not by reforming Wall Street, but by handing trillions to corporate donors and expanding federal power. Between Bush Jr. and Biden, only Trump’s first term stood out—until it was disrupted by COVID-19 and the political chaos that followed.
Now Trump is back, and more prepared than ever. Those four years outside Washington were providential. He returns with clarity, purpose, and a tested economic blueprint. I understand why the Freedom Caucus wants more from current legislation. But no bill is perfect—and this one needs to pass. Delay means another continuing resolution this fall—and Biden’s budget all over again: more spending, more debt, more stagnation.
We don’t have time for that. We need growth—now. We need the Big Ugly Bill.
freedom and reason 