Why Not Put Congress on Medicare?

Every few months, Congress threatens to shut down the government — and every time, ordinary Americans pay the price. Workers lose paychecks, services stop, and uncertainty ripples through the economy. Meanwhile, lawmakers keep their salaries and elite insurance coverage.

So here’s a simple question: why not put Congress on Medicare — with a work requirement?

Same Coverage, No Loopholes

Members of Congress love to debate what kind of healthcare you deserve. Some call Medicare “government overreach.” Others say we can’t afford it. Fine — let them live with it firsthand.

Every Senator and Representative would be automatically enrolled in Medicare. No more special congressional plans, no private perks — and no “backdoor” options. They wouldn’t be allowed to buy private supplemental coverage.

If it’s good enough for seniors and people with disabilities, it’s good enough for the people who make the laws.

Let them experience the same wait times, billing headaches, and coverage limits as the rest of us. My guess? The system would start improving fast.

Work Requirement: Keep the Government Open

Here’s the kicker: their Medicare benefits only stay active as long as the government does.

If Congress shuts it down, their coverage — and their paychecks — stop immediately.

They’ve imposed work requirements on food assistance, unemployment, and Medicaid. They say people need “skin in the game.” Okay — let’s apply that logic where it really belongs.

If they can’t do the basic work of keeping the lights on, they don’t get paid, and they don’t get care. Simple as that.

Shared Stakes, Better Results

Imagine how quickly bipartisan deals would appear if members of Congress risked losing their own healthcare during a shutdown. Suddenly, compromise wouldn’t look so bad.

If lawmakers had to live under the same programs they legislate for the rest of us, they’d finally have an incentive to fix them — instead of using them as talking points.

Why Not?

If it’s good enough for the American people, it should be good enough for Congress.

No perks. No exemptions. No excuses.

Why not put Congress on Medicare — and make them earn it like the rest of us?

Why Not Garnish Lawmakers’ Income During a Shutdown?

When Congress fails to pass a budget, the government shuts down. Millions of Americans lose paychecks or get sent home without knowing when they’ll return. But the people responsible — members of Congress — keep getting paid. Their campaign ads still run. Their donors keep donating. Their stock portfolios keep growing.

Why not change that?

If lawmakers can’t keep the government open, every form of their income — salary, campaign funds, speaking fees, investment gains (realized or not) — should be subject to automatic garnishment until the shutdown ends. The proceeds would go directly to pay essential federal workers who must keep working without pay: air traffic controllers, TSA agents, border staff, medical researchers, food inspectors.

We already garnish wages for unpaid taxes or child support. Why not apply the same principle to the people who cause financial harm to millions of others through political gridlock?

Imagine if, during a shutdown, congressional paychecks and campaign accounts were drained first to keep the lights on. If every day of delay meant watching their own net worth shrink, lawmakers might suddenly discover the art of compromise.

It’s simple accountability. If politicians want to hold the country hostage for leverage, they should be the first to feel the cost — not the last.

Why should public servants be immune from the pain they inflict on everyone else?

Why not make them live — and pay — by their own shutdown?

Disproportional Response

In a recent post, I wrote that what we’re living through isn’t classic authoritarianism — it’s the Mob, in the Mafia sense. Power maintained through loyalty, fear, and intimidation.

What we’re seeing is that same ethos turned into government practice: public displays of dominance meant to send a message. The tactics vary — helicopters over Chicago, warships in the Caribbean — but the theme is the same: disproportional response.

ICE Raids & Immigration Enforcement

Recent immigration enforcement actions have taken a dramatic and alarming turn.

In Chicago, ICE agents used Black Hawk helicopters to descend on an apartment complex and detain roughly three dozen people as part of Operation Midway Blitz. (Reuters, Oct. 4, 2025)

The operation reportedly swept up entire families, including U.S. citizens, and sparked protests outside a nearby ICE facility — peaceful protests that were met with tear gas and pepper balls from federal agents. (Reuters, Oct. 3, 2025)

Many of the violations being pursued are civil infractions, not crimes. Unlawful presence in the United States is handled through administrative removal, not criminal prosecution.

Yet the tactics being deployed — helicopters, heavily armed agents, and mass detentions — suggest a war footing rather than law enforcement proportionality.

At the same time, the administration is attempting to revoke legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had been allowed to live and work in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

As the Associated Press reports:

“Trump’s Republican administration has moved to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the United States and work legally, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians who were granted protection under President Joe Biden.”

— AP News, Oct. 2, 2025

TPS is typically renewed in 18-month increments to protect people from returning to unsafe conditions, such as political persecution or natural disasters.

The Supreme Court recently allowed the administration’s TPS terminations for Venezuelans to proceed while litigation continues, leaving hundreds of thousands in limbo. (Reuters, Oct. 3, 2025)

Ongoing lawsuits — including National TPS Alliance v. Noem — challenge the legality of those terminations.

National Guard Deployments in U.S. Cities

The militarization of domestic policy doesn’t stop at immigration.

The administration has deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles and Washington D.C., citing concerns about “urban instability” — but in both cases, the deployments occurred without formal requests from local leaders. (AP News, Sept. 2025)

City officials and civil rights advocates argue that the presence of troops has done little to improve safety and much to heighten tension.

Meanwhile, the White House has threatened to send the Guard into Chicago, despite opposition from the mayor and governor, who argue that local law enforcement has the situation under control.

And as of this week, 200 National Guard troops have been activated in Portland, Oregon, amid warnings of possible unrest (NBC News, Oct. 3, 2025)

Local leaders said they were not consulted before the activation, calling it an unnecessary provocation.

At the same time, the administration has begun using military lawyers as temporary immigration judges, after firing over a hundred existing civilian judges. (AP News, Sept. 24, 2025)

Legal experts warn that this move blurs the line between civilian and military authority, potentially violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of armed forces in domestic law enforcement. (AP News, Sept. 25, 2025)

The Senate Judiciary Committee has expressed “deep concern” about this unprecedented blending of military and judicial functions.

Caribbean Military Strikes

Abroad, similar patterns of overreach are emerging.

The U.S. military has deployed eight warships and a submarine to the Caribbean and carried out multiple strikes on boats allegedly linked to Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang. (AP News, Sept. 2025)

So far, four incidents have been reported, yet the Pentagon has provided little evidence or public justification for the level of force used.

The operations have strained regional diplomacy.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has called for international criminal investigations into the attacks. (AP News, Sept. 2025)

In retaliation, the U.S. State Department revoked Petro’s visa, prompting Colombia’s foreign minister to renounce hers in protest.

Meanwhile, Venezuela has begun preparing for a possible U.S. invasion, moving troops and anti-ship defenses closer to its northern coast. (AP News, Sept. 2025)

These moves — rapid, aggressive, and lacking transparency — suggest a foreign policy driven more by optics than strategy.

Cruelty as Performance

Which brings us back to the central question: what is all of this for?

The level of force being deployed — whether against immigrant families, American cities, or foreign vessels — bears little relation to the scale of the supposed threats.

The costs of these actions, both human and diplomatic, far exceed any tangible benefit.

They appear instead to be performative — demonstrations of strength meant to project dominance or distract from failures elsewhere, particularly in economic and domestic policy.

History shows that governments resort to spectacle when substance falters.

When leaders lean on intimidation rather than competence, they reveal weakness, not power.

And when cruelty becomes performance, it stops being policy and starts being propaganda.

Final Thoughts

A government confident in its legitimacy doesn’t need to terrorize the vulnerable or flex its military might to feel powerful.

It governs through reason, restraint, and respect for human dignity.

What we’re seeing now — at home and abroad — is something else entirely: a politics of fear wearing the costume of strength.

Why This Shutdown Is About Health Care

The government shut down on October 1, 2025, because Congress couldn’t agree on a funding bill. But this isn’t just about politics in Washington. At the center of the fight is a question that affects millions of Americans: will health care stay affordable?

Democrats, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, say they won’t vote for a funding bill unless it also protects people’s health coverage. They argue that without action, premiums will jump and millions could lose Medicaid. Republicans want to keep health care separate from the budget fight. That’s the standoff that closed the government.

How We Got Here: The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed in 2010, made it easier for people to buy health insurance. It created online “marketplaces” where people could shop for plans, often with government help to lower the cost.

During the pandemic, Congress boosted that help. Families saw their premiums drop by hundreds of dollars a month. Those bigger subsidies were later extended, but only through the end of 2025.

If Congress does nothing, those subsidies will run out. For many families, premiums could double starting in 2026. Insurance companies are already setting prices for next year, so the pressure is on now.

Medicaid: Gains and Threats

Medicaid is the other big piece of this fight. The ACA encouraged states to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income adults. Millions gained coverage, especially during COVID, when extra rules kept people enrolled.

But in 2023, states began removing people again. Many lost coverage not because they were ineligible, but because of paperwork mistakes. And this year, Republicans pushed through new limits — including stricter rules and cuts that hit legally present immigrants.

Democrats want to block those changes. They say it’s wrong to throw people off their coverage just as health care costs keep rising.

Why the Fight Is Urgent

The timing matters.

• ACA subsidies: Open enrollment starts soon, and insurers are already setting 2026 prices. If Congress doesn’t extend the subsidies, families will see big premium increases this fall.

• Medicaid cuts: New restrictions are tied to the budget year that just began. Without a fix, those cuts start rolling out now.

Democrats argue that a “clean” budget bill — one that funds the government but ignores health care — would leave millions exposed to these changes. They see this shutdown as their only leverage to stop it.

What’s at Stake for Families

Shutdowns always cause short-term pain. Federal workers lose pay. Child care programs close. Local economies take a hit.

But Democrats say the bigger danger is what comes next:

• Families on ACA plans paying thousands more for coverage

• Low-income adults and immigrants losing Medicaid

• Hospitals forced to absorb more unpaid bills

For them, this isn’t just a budget fight. It’s about whether millions of Americans can afford to stay insured.

Closing

This shutdown is different from past ones. It isn’t just about spending levels or political posturing. It’s about health care.

The decisions Congress makes now will determine whether families face crushing insurance bills and whether millions keep their Medicaid coverage. That’s why Democrats are holding the line — and why the stakes are so high for everyday Americans.

Kimmel Is Back — And So Are We

A little over a week ago, I wrote about how Jimmy Kimmel’s show was pulled off the air after a dust-up with the FCC and some of the biggest broadcast chains in the country. Disney suspended him. Then Sinclair and Nexstar — two giant media companies that own dozens of ABC stations — kept his show blacked out even after Disney said he could return.

Well, here’s the update: Kimmel is back on the air everywhere. Disney reinstated him, and after days of pressure and criticism, both Sinclair and Nexstar finally caved and ended their blackout. What started as a dangerous example of censorship has turned into a rare win for free speech. (AP News)

Why this matters

This wasn’t just about one late-night comedian. It was about whether powerful corporations and government officials can silence voices they don’t like. For a few days, it looked like they could. But public backlash, criticism from across the media world, and the simple fact that millions of people tuned in anyway forced Sinclair and Nexstar to back down. (Politico)

That shows us something important: these companies aren’t untouchable. When enough people push back, they move.

Kimmel’s return

When Kimmel finally came back on air, he didn’t just crack jokes and move on. He opened with an emotional monologue, admitting how shaken he was by the attempt to silence him. At one point he said:

“This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this.”

That line captured exactly why this fight mattered. It wasn’t really about one program or one host — it was about whether people in this country still get to speak freely, criticize leaders, and laugh at power without being shut down.

Kimmel also thanked viewers and fellow performers for standing by him, and he called out Trump directly, saying the former president “tried his best to cancel me.” The episode drew the show’s biggest audience in years — proof that people do care when free expression is under threat.

The Bigger Picture: Nexstar + TEGNA

This fight ties directly into something even bigger — the proposed Nexstar–TEGNA merger. If approved, Nexstar wouldn’t just be the largest owner of local TV stations in the country — it would dominate the market, reaching nearly 80% of U.S. television households.

Think about what we just saw: one company, with its hand on the switch, was able to silence millions of viewers overnight. Now imagine giving that same company the power to reach four out of every five American homes. That’s not just business — that’s control.

And here’s something worth noting: TEGNA didn’t join the blackout. Their stations kept airing Kimmel when Nexstar’s didn’t. That shows there’s still some diversity of judgment in the system — and a reason why TEGNA deserves to exist as an independent company. If Nexstar swallows them, that independent check disappears.

The FCC’s rules were supposed to limit any single company’s reach to about 39%. But changes in recent years have loosened those restrictions, opening the door for massive consolidation. If Nexstar gets TEGNA, the balance tips even further away from independent local voices and toward corporate boardrooms.

A win worth celebrating — and a reminder to stay vigilant

So take a moment to recognize this victory. You helped make it happen. By speaking up, sharing the story, and refusing to accept censorship quietly, ordinary people reminded the biggest broadcasters in the country that free speech still matters.

But let’s also keep our eyes on the larger fight. The Nexstar–TEGNA merger could make this kind of censorship easier to pull off next time. If one company controls nearly 80% of local stations, we all lose.

We have more power than we think we do — but only if we keep using it.

It’s Not Authoritarianism. It’s the Mob.

Trump’s government runs on loyalty, intimidation, and silence—the same tools every mob boss uses until justice speaks up.

Americans hear terms like oligarch or authoritarian tossed around a lot. They’re useful words, but they often feel distant—like problems in Russia, China, or other faraway places. For many people here, those labels don’t quite land.

But what if we looked at it differently? What if we thought less about foreign ideologies and more about something closer to home—the Mafia? When we do, the Trump administration’s style of governing starts to make a lot more sense.

What an Oligarch Really Is

At its core, an oligarch is just a wealthy person who uses their money to bend politics in their favor. It’s less about ideology and more about influence: controlling courts, shaping laws, steering government contracts. Americans usually associate this with Russian billionaires or Ukrainian power brokers.

But we have our own. Tech moguls, hedge fund billionaires, and energy tycoons all operate in this space. Trump is unusual because he plays both roles—he’s a wealthy figure seeking political influence and a mob boss handing out favors once he’s in power.

How Authoritarians Rule

Authoritarianism sounds abstract, but it boils down to one thing: concentrating power in the hands of a single leader. The checks and balances that normally protect democracy—courts, legislatures, a free press—get weakened or sidelined. Dissent is punished, loyalty is rewarded.

For Americans, this often feels foreign. We imagine strongmen in military uniforms, or foreign parliaments stacked with loyalists. But you don’t need to look across an ocean to see how this works. The patterns show up here, too.

The Mob Boss Parallel

If oligarchs and authoritarians feel far away, the mob boss archetype feels very familiar. We know it from movies and TV—The Godfather, Goodfellas, The Sopranos. These stories reveal a system that is less about laws and more about loyalty, favors, and intimidation. And when you look at Trump’s style of leadership through that lens, the similarities jump out.

Loyalty Above All

Mob families don’t care if you’re competent, only if you’re loyal. Trump takes the same approach with his aides, cabinet members, and judges. Loyalty is the only qualification that matters.

Shakedowns and Protection Rackets

The mob’s classic line: “Nice little business you’ve got here—shame if something happened to it.” Trump’s version plays out with tariffs, foreign aid, or even pardons. He creates or threatens a crisis, then offers himself as the solution. Think of the “perfect phone call” with Ukraine, where military aid became leverage.

Omertà: The Code of Silence

In mob culture, rats are punished. Trump uses the same playbook, branding defectors as “traitors” or “RINOs.” Silence and complicity are rewarded with jobs, legal protection, or a presidential pardon.

Fronts and Cronies

Mafia families run businesses as fronts to launder money and keep control. Trump blurred those same lines—steering foreign dignitaries to Trump hotels, intertwining family businesses with official policy, and handing contracts to cronies.

The Big Boss Persona

The mob boss thrives on image—swagger, vengeance, the aura of untouchable power. Trump embodies this: “I alone can fix it,” endless shows of dominance, constant threats of retribution. The performance of power is as important as the substance.

Why This Matters

Comparing Trump to oligarchs or foreign authoritarians can feel abstract. But the mob boss frame translates it into something Americans instantly understand.

When a president governs like a mob boss:

• Corruption becomes the norm.

• Justice bends to loyalty.

• Citizens are left in a protection racket, dependent on the leader who created the threat in the first place.

Breaking the Boss’s Grip

The good news is that mob power—whether in the streets or in politics—never lasts forever. History shows that organized crime gets weaker when people stop playing by its rules. Prosecutors chip away at corruption, journalists expose the truth, and ordinary citizens refuse to stay silent.

The same applies here. A government run like a protection racket only works if people accept the boss’s terms. When courts enforce the law without fear, when the press keeps digging, when voters reject intimidation and demand accountability, the grip of “mob rule” weakens.

Democracy may bend under pressure, but unlike the mob, it has the power of transparency, collective action, and the rule of law on its side. The lesson is simple: bosses can be brought down, but only if people choose to stand together rather than bow down.

The boss gains strength from silence. Justice gains strength from voices.

When Late Night Comedy Becomes a Political Bargaining Chip

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended this week by ABC affiliates. On the surface, it might look like a programming spat. But look closer, and the real story comes into view: this was about appeasing regulators while a massive media merger hangs in the balance.

Kimmel’s supposed offense? A passing joke about Donald Trump’s indifference to tragedy, pointing out that the former president seemed more focused on polishing his ballroom than grieving with the nation. It wasn’t a rant, it wasn’t incendiary — it was the kind of pointed but mild humor late-night comedy has always traded in. Yet even that was too much, because one of the largest station groups in America has something much bigger at stake.

The Merger at Stake

Nexstar Media Group, already the largest local TV owner in the U.S., is trying to acquire TEGNA Inc. If approved, this merger would give a single company effective control over stations that reach nearly 80% of American television households. That’s more than double the FCC’s legal cap of 39%. (https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/6-bln-broadcast-tie-up-adjusts-ma-picture-2025-08-20/)

On paper, the deal violates existing rules. But in practice, approval comes down to the FCC — and right now, the agency is sending signals that media companies must play ball politically if they want their mergers rubber-stamped. The FCC chair has already hinted, on record, that critical coverage could draw extra scrutiny. That’s not regulation — that’s intimidation.

So when Nexstar affiliates threatened to pull Kimmel, ABC buckled. Not because of ratings. Not because of content. But because the company needs goodwill with regulators while the merger is under review.

Why the Merger Is Bad for Americans

Even if the politics weren’t involved, this merger would be a disaster for the public.

• Fewer voices. One company controlling such a huge share of the market narrows the range of perspectives available to viewers.

• Higher prices. With fewer station owners, advertisers and content producers face less competition and more leverage. Those costs don’t vanish — they’re passed on to consumers.

• Weaker journalism. Local stations have already been hollowed out by corporate consolidation. Investigative reporting is expensive, and big chains have little incentive to fund it. Viewers end up with syndicated fluff instead of accountability.

• Unfair leverage over competitors. Disney, which owns ABC, loses bargaining power when a single company can dictate so much of the broadcast landscape.

In short: consolidation doesn’t benefit the public — it benefits the owners.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t really about Jimmy Kimmel. It’s about the future of the American media landscape, and whether corporate deals can proceed only if companies silence critics of those in power.

If consolidation continues unchecked, and if regulators reward companies for political obedience, then Americans won’t just face higher prices and fewer programming choices. They’ll face a news environment where dissent is quietly scrubbed out — not by law, but by corporate calculation.

That’s not healthy competition. That’s not a free press. That’s censorship through consolidation.

Editor’s Note (Update): In my original version of this post, I focused on Nexstar’s role in pulling Jimmy Kimmel Live! while its TEGNA merger is under FCC review. But Sinclair Broadcast Group, another giant local station owner, made the same decision — and went further. Sinclair demanded a personal apology from Kimmel, donations to Charlie Kirk’s family and Turning Point USA, and even promised to run a Kirk tribute in Kimmel’s time slot.

This isn’t just parallel outrage. Sinclair has its own regulatory interests in play. Like Nexstar, it constantly needs FCC approval for license transfers and transactions. That means Sinclair benefits from echoing the FCC chair’s rhetoric about “public interest” and showing it is willing to clamp down on content that regulators criticize.

The bigger picture here is even starker: two of the nation’s largest station groups — together reaching tens of millions of households — acted not out of concern for viewers, but out of concern for their business with the FCC. What looks like a culture war fight is really corporate consolidation bending the press to political power.

What We Can Still Do

The good news is this deal is not done yet. Nexstar and TEGNA only announced their agreement in August 2025, and closing isn’t expected until well into 2026. That means there is still time — time to shine a light on what’s happening, time to push back, and time to stop it.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• Watch your local news. If your station is owned by Nexstar, TEGNA, or Sinclair, pay attention to the ads running during the broadcasts.

• https://www.nexstar.tv/stations/

• https://www.tegna.com/brands/

• https://sbgi.net/tv-stations/

• Call the advertisers. Let them know you won’t support their business if they continue funding companies that silence critics to curry political favor. Money talks.

• Make it public. Post about it. Share which advertisers you called. Build pressure in the open.

• Don’t stop at local TV. Nexstar directly owns or controls The CW, The Hill, NewsNation, and WGN Radio. And Sinclair owns Comet, CHARGE!, TBD, and The Nest. Advertisers there are fair game, too — they’re funding the same machine.

• https://www.nexstar.tv/networks/

• https://sbgi.net/networks/

• Send a message to Disney. If you want to go further, cancel your Disney+ subscription, or cancel that Disneyland or Disney World trip — and post about it. Disney owns ABC, and they also need to know that playing along with this is unacceptable. There’s also some hope here as this deal isn’t great for them long-term, either.

• Push Congress. Demand stronger antitrust protections, not weaker ones. Media consolidation should be rolled back, not rewarded.

This timeline gives us an opening. If the public looks away, the merger will slide through, and we’ll wake up with 80% of American TV households controlled by a single company. But if we act now — if we make noise, pull dollars, and demand accountability — we still have a chance to stop it.

How 9/11 Changed Me — and Changed America: A Personal Reflection

September 11, 2001 changed the world—and it changed me.

I remember first hearing about the attacks on the radio. Like so many others, I rushed to the television and sat in shock as the events unfolded. For days afterward, I couldn’t sleep. The images replayed endlessly in my mind, not just the collapse of the towers, but the sheer disbelief that something like this could happen here.

But while I mourned the lives lost that day, I also came to mourn something else: what our country became in the years that followed.

Honoring the Lives Lost

I didn’t know anyone personally who died on September 11th, but I still grieve for them. Nearly 3,000 innocent people — workers, firefighters, police officers, airline passengers, and so many others — had their lives cut short in an instant. Behind each number was a person with a story, a family, and a future they never got to live.

For those who survived, and for the families who carry the weight of that loss every day, the pain never fully goes away. Even from a distance, I felt it. The grief was not just national; it was deeply human. To this day, I pause to remember the lives taken and the heroism shown in those awful hours — from first responders who ran toward danger to ordinary people who helped strangers escape.

That tragedy deserves our respect, our mourning, and our remembrance. And it deserves better than the way our nation responded afterward.

The Shift in Our Politics and Freedoms

Almost immediately, the political climate changed. Fear became the fuel of governance. Leaders on the right seized the moment to consolidate intelligence and military power. Out of that fear came the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, and ICE—agencies designed to promise safety but which also chipped away at freedoms in the name of security.

I’ve written more about that here: The Post-9/11 Erosion of Civil Liberties. But the short version is this: our relationship with government was forever altered. Trust gave way to surveillance. Dissent became suspect. And “security” became a justification for powers that would once have been unthinkable.

A Nation at War Abroad

The attacks were horrific, but what came after was its own kind of tragedy. Our leaders framed the response as justice, but so much of it was blind rage. We launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that dragged on for decades, costing hundreds of thousands of lives abroad and thousands of American lives as well. We spent trillions of dollars chasing vengeance, often against people who had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

I didn’t have a personal connection to those wars, but I felt the weight of them as an American. Every headline, every news clip, every announcement of more troops being sent — it was like watching our country lose its way in slow motion. The America I believed in, one that prided itself on freedom and moral leadership, was being consumed by endless war. Violence bred more violence, and in chasing security through force, we lost a part of our soul.

A Personal Reckoning

Before 9/11, I thought of myself as conservative. I valued tradition, stability, and personal responsibility — ideas that felt safe and familiar. But as I wrestled with what unfolded in the years afterward, I began to understand that “liberal” wasn’t the dirty word I had been taught to think it was.

At its root, liberalism is about freedom. In the classical sense, it means protecting individual rights — free speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law — and limiting government to prevent it from trampling those rights. Those are values conservatives often claim, but they are liberal at their core.

In modern American politics, liberalism goes further. It recognizes that rights are meaningless if only some people can exercise them. Government, then, has a role to play in making sure opportunity is real: providing social safety nets, defending civil rights, and checking abuses of power. That doesn’t mean government should control everything — it means government should step in where unchecked power or neglect would otherwise crush people’s freedom.

And in everyday language, to be liberal is simply to be open-minded, empathetic, and willing to accept difference. It’s about caring enough to look beyond yourself and insisting that compassion is not weakness but strength.

Seen this way, I realized there’s nothing shameful about being liberal. If anything, our country’s deepest problems come from having too little of it — too little empathy, too little defense of freedom when it’s most at risk, and too little willingness to ensure opportunity for all.

Remembering, and Choosing Again

Every year, 9/11 reminds me not only of the lives taken on that day, but of the choices we made afterward. We could have pursued those directly responsible with focus and restraint. Instead, we launched wars that had little to do with the attacks themselves. We built Guantanamo, normalized torture, and let fear justify policies that betrayed our values.

We chose vengeance over justice. And in doing so, we lost something of ourselves.

This reflection is dedicated to the memory of those we lost on September 11th, 2001 — the workers, the first responders, the passengers, and all the ordinary people whose lives were cut short in that tragedy.

To honor them means more than mourning. It means remembering the America they lived in — one defined not by fear, but by freedom and possibility. If we carry their memory forward with compassion, courage, and empathy, then we can build a country worthy of their sacrifice. We cannot undo the choices of the past, but we can choose a better path now.

That is how we truly honor the victims: by becoming the America they deserved.

Charlie Kirk’s Death and What It Says About America’s Gun Violence Crisis

Political violence is abhorrent and should never be tolerated. You will not find any celebration of it here. This is a tragic event, and it must not be treated as normal. A man has lost his life, and his family and loved ones are left to grieve. They deserve compassion, not more anger. No matter what you thought of his politics, this is not how differences in a society should be resolved.

We also need to be cautious about those who will try to weaponize this tragedy. Political leaders and media outlets may attempt to assign collective blame to one side or the other. But the truth is most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, do not want violence in our society. Most people will rightly condemn it.

Just as I condemn the killing of Charlie Kirk, I also condemn any act of vigilante justice against his alleged killer. At the moment, the suspect is still at large. It is the responsibility of law enforcement and the justice system to handle this—not individuals taking the law into their own hands. We must insist on due process, even in moments of outrage.

For updates on the case, you can follow AP News’ live coverage.

What This Says About Us

If we want to take something from this moment, it should not be vengeance. It should be reflection. Violence like this does not appear out of nowhere—it grows in the cracks of a society that has allowed division, anger, and easy access to deadly weapons to fester.

Once we have acknowledged the grief and condemned the violence, we also have to ask what conditions make tragedies like this possible.

The Second Amendment is often quoted as a simple guarantee: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But that sentence does not stand alone. It begins with: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

For too long, our national conversation has split this amendment in half, focusing only on the individual right while ignoring the clear call for regulation and collective responsibility. We treat the right as absolute, and the responsibility as optional. That imbalance has cost us dearly.

The Question Before Us

We regulate cars, planes, medicine, even food. We require training, licenses, and insurance when individual choices create risks for the public. Why should firearms—tools designed to kill—be held to a lower standard than the family sedan?

The question before us as a nation is simple:

• Are we willing to accept the recurring cycle of shootings, grief, and outrage as the price of our current interpretation of “freedom”?

• Or do we believe that freedom also includes the right to live without fear of being gunned down at school, at church, or at a political event?

This is not about taking away all guns. It is about creating rules that protect both rights and lives. Common-sense measures—like universal background checks, safe storage requirements, and licensing—are not radical. They are the bare minimum for a society that values both liberty and life.

Where We Go From Here

The death of Charlie Kirk should not be an opportunity to score political points. It should be a wake-up call. If we cannot agree that violence must stop, and that regulation is part of the solution, then we will remain trapped in the same endless cycle.

We owe it to ourselves, to our communities, and yes—to Charlie Kirk’s family—to do better: to protect both freedom and life through responsibility.

The Business of Outrage: From Cracker Barrel to Sydney Sweeney

Have you ever scrolled your feed and felt your blood pressure rise over something that, if you step back, isn’t really life or death? A logo change. A celebrity ad. A coffee cup.

These flare-ups aren’t random. They’re part of a pattern. Outrage is one of the easiest ways to hijack our attention, and in the online economy, attention is gold. The more riled up we get, the more we click, share, and comment. What feels like genuine grassroots anger is often carefully exaggerated—or even invented outright—to keep us engaged in battles that don’t matter nearly as much as we’re told they do.

When a Logo Becomes a Battlefield

Take Cracker Barrel’s recent logo change. The company swapped its old-fashioned illustration—a bearded man leaning on a barrel—for a cleaner, modern design. That’s the kind of refresh brands do all the time, usually without anyone noticing. But this time, outrage exploded.

Commentators on the right framed it as an assault on tradition, a betrayal of Cracker Barrel’s “real America” identity. Fox Business even tied the change to the background of a board member with experience in diversity and equity initiatives, feeding the idea that the logo wasn’t just different—it was political. On social media, that narrative was repeated, memed, and shared until the story became less about design and more about identity.

A simple marketing update turned into a cultural flashpoint, not because of the logo itself, but because outrage drives attention. The logo became a symbol in a larger story about “heritage under attack,” and suddenly a routine branding decision was cast as part of a war over who gets to define America.

The Outrage That Wasn’t

The Sydney Sweeney ad campaign shows a different version of the same game. American Eagle released a cheeky “Great Jeans/Genes” ad starring Sweeney. Almost immediately, some conservative outlets claimed “the left” was furious—linking the wordplay to eugenics and mocking progressives as humorless scolds.

But here’s the twist: there wasn’t much actual outrage from the left to begin with. Outside of a few stray posts, there was no real movement of critics demanding the ad be pulled. The supposed backlash was largely invented. The story wasn’t really about Sweeney, or even the ad. It was about keeping the culture war churning—framing progressives as perpetually angry, even when they weren’t.

This is a subtler trick. Instead of blowing up a minor change into a major betrayal, you create a phantom outrage and then dunk on it. The tactic works because it doesn’t matter if anyone was truly upset; what matters is the perception that “the other side” is always irrational, always overreacting.

Two Tricks, Same Purpose

One logo and one ad. Two very different tactics:

• In one case, a minor change is blown up into a betrayal.

• In the other, outrage is fabricated out of thin air.

Both serve the same purpose: to keep us distracted, angry, and engaged in battles that don’t change much of anything. And both are rewarded by the systems we use every day. Media outlets get clicks. Social platforms get engagement. Politicians get talking points. We—the audience—get the fleeting rush of outrage, followed by exhaustion.

Meanwhile, the problems that actually shape our lives—wages, healthcare, housing, corruption—rarely generate the same sustained attention. They’re too complex, too messy, and too hard to fix to compete with a quick hit of anger about a logo or an ad.

The Real Punchline

As George Carlin warned, the outrage machine has a purpose: “They keep the lower and middle classes fighting with each other so they can run off with all the f*ing money.”

That’s the punchline of these culture-war flare-ups. We think we’re defending tradition or calling out hypocrisy, but the real joke is on us—our attention gets hijacked while real problems go unaddressed. The same trick shows up in conspiracy narratives like the so-called “deep state.” Both outrage and conspiracy thrive on exaggerating threats, keeping us angry and distracted while very little changes in our daily lives. I’ve broken that down more here: Is the Deep State Real—or Just a Symptom of a Bigger Problem?.

Awareness Is the Antidote

Manufactured rage is a shell game: keep the public angry about distractions while power and wealth shift quietly in the background. The antidote isn’t more outrage—it’s awareness. Before sharing the next viral “can you believe this” moment, pause.

• Ask who benefits from this story being amplified.

• Ask whether the outrage reflects real harm, or just symbolic theater.

• Ask what’s being ignored while we argue over logos and ads.

The business of outrage only works if we keep buying in. Awareness gives us the chance to break the cycle.

State Capitalism, American Style

They say America is the land of free enterprise. But lately, it feels like big business runs on political favors as much as hard work—and the story of the economy is whatever the White House says it is. Under Trump, the government isn’t just setting the rules—it’s cutting deals, swapping gifts, deciding which companies win, and even deciding which facts about the economy the public gets to see.

If you’ve ever thought the system was rigged for the powerful, this is how it happens. And it’s not coming from Beijing—it’s happening right here in Washington, with a red, white, and blue label.

---

For most of our history, American business has been about companies competing in open markets with minimal government interference. But now, the Trump administration is pushing us toward something different: state capitalism.

In state capitalism, the government has a heavy hand in the economy—steering investments, demanding a cut of profits, and using political influence to shape corporate decisions. It’s the kind of model you might expect in China, but these days, it’s being remade with “American characteristics” (Wall Street Journal).

How It’s Happening

Recent examples show how the Trump administration is reshaping the line between government and business:

• Profit-sharing demands – The administration is requiring certain chipmakers to hand over a cut of their profits to the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses.

• Public pressure theater – President Trump publicly demanded Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign over his previous financial ties to Chinese firms. Days later, after a White House meeting, Trump praised Tan. No policy changes—just a public reminder that the president can put a corporate leader on the defensive at will.

• Golden gifts and golden carries – In a White House event, Apple’s Tim Cook presented Trump with a U.S.-made glass plaque on a 24-karat gold base. Moments later, Trump announced Apple would boost its U.S. investment by $100 billion and granted the company an exemption from a 100 percent semiconductor tariff (Business Insider, Reuters). Symbolism and policy moved hand-in-hand.

• Pledges under direction – Trump says he has secured $1.5 trillion in investment commitments from Japan, the EU, and South Korea—pledges he has promised to personally direct toward U.S. goals. These are broad promises, not binding deals, and the idea of one person steering them raises questions about political favoritism (FT, WSJ).

The New “Tax” on American Exports

Another change is hitting the tech sector directly in the wallet. The administration told Nvidia and AMD they could keep selling certain high-end chips to China—but only if they paid a 15% tax on those sales to the U.S. government.

This isn’t a tariff on imports. It’s a direct skim off the top of U.S. companies’ overseas business, tied to a government-issued export license. Investors noticed, with both companies’ stocks dipping after the news.

What This Means for the Rest of Us

The U.S. still isn’t China. Companies are privately owned, and courts can push back. But the playing field is shifting. Political relationships now matter as much—maybe more—than market performance.

That might help the government push national goals faster, like building more factories or competing with China in tech. But it also risks turning the economy into a political game, where only the well-connected win and everyone else pays the price.

History gives us plenty of warnings about how this can go wrong. In the 1970s and 80s, the Soviet Union’s economy rotted from within because leaders surrounded themselves with loyalists who told them what they wanted to hear, not what was true. By the time reality broke through, factories were obsolete, shelves were empty, and the state could no longer prop up the system.

In more recent times, Venezuela’s leadership steered industries and foreign investment through political loyalty rather than competence. That made the rich and connected even richer—but it left the country’s oil infrastructure crumbling and the economy in freefall.

When leaders control the purse strings and the scoreboard, everyone with power learns to play the same game: keep the boss happy. Facts get massaged, problems get buried, and bad news never reaches the top until it’s too late.

When Facts Don’t Matter

That’s why a free flow of accurate information is as important to an economy as capital and labor. But under this administration, inconvenient facts are treated as threats.

Earlier this year, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after she refused to delay the release of jobs data that showed weak employment growth. The White House claimed the commissioner was “politically biased,” but her real offense was doing her job: publishing the numbers as they were, not as the President wanted them to be.

When you combine state-directed business with fact control, you create a dangerous loop. The same government that picks economic winners also controls the story about how the economy is doing. If the numbers don’t match the narrative, the numbers change—or the people in charge of them are removed.

In the short term, this might boost political approval or stock prices. In the long run, it’s a recipe for decisions based on flattery, not reality—and for an economy that looks strong on paper while quietly eroding underneath.

Texas GOP Pushes Mid-Cycle Redistricting Power Grab

In Texas, we believe in fair play. Whether it’s football, business, or elections, the rules should apply equally to everyone—and once the game starts, you don’t get to move the goalposts. But that’s exactly what some politicians in Austin are trying to do with our voting maps.

They want to redraw the maps for Texas congressional and legislative districts in the middle of the decade—something that’s never been done before in our state without a court order. This isn’t just unusual. It’s wrong. And it should be illegal.

What’s Going On?

After every U.S. Census—once every ten years—states update their district maps to reflect population changes. Texas did that in 2021. The new maps were drawn by the Republican majority in the Legislature. At the time, they defended those maps in court by saying they were based on politics—not race—because using race as the main factor in redistricting is illegal.

Now, just a few years later, those same leaders are changing their story. They claim the maps were racially flawed after all—and that’s why they need to be redrawn now, mid-decade.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t about fixing a racial injustice. It’s a political power grab.

Why This Matters

Mid-cycle redistricting has never been part of the Texas tradition. Once the maps are drawn, they’re supposed to stay in place until the next census—unless a court steps in to fix a legal violation. That’s what keeps the system fair and stable.

If we let politicians redraw the maps whenever they feel like they might lose power, then elections stop being about voters choosing leaders—and start being about leaders choosing voters.

Even worse, the communities being targeted in this proposal are diverse, growing areas, especially in cities and suburbs. This plan would dilute the voices of voters of color and make it harder for everyday Texans to hold their leaders accountable.

It’s a Bad Precedent—and a Legal Sham

Here’s the kicker: if the maps really were racially biased, then they never should’ve been approved in the first place. But Republicans swore in court that race wasn’t a factor. Now they want to use race as an excuse to change the rules midstream.

That kind of flip-flop doesn’t pass the smell test—and it doesn’t match what the law intends. The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect communities of color from being silenced—not be twisted into a tool to take away their representation.

This kind of manipulation should not be allowed in any state—especially not Texas, where we pride ourselves on independence, fairness, and doing things the right way.

What We Can Do About It

We can’t let this stand. If Texas becomes the first state to rewrite its maps mid-decade for political reasons, others will follow. The damage to our democracy will be deep—and lasting.

Here’s what you can do right now:

• Contact your Texas state lawmakers. Tell them you oppose mid-cycle redistricting.

• Support the Texas Democrats fighting this injustice. Visit RiggedRedistricting.com to donate, sign petitions, and stay informed.

• Share this post with your friends, family, and neighbors—especially if they live in Texas.

• Push for reform. It’s time to end gerrymandering for good. We need independent redistricting commissions and strong federal laws like the Freedom to Vote Act to protect our elections.

The Bottom Line

Texans may not agree on everything—but we know cheating when we see it.

Redrawing the maps mid-cycle isn’t just bad policy. It’s a betrayal of the Texas values we all share: honesty, fairness, and respect for the rules.

Let’s hold the line. Let’s protect the vote. And let’s remind those in power: In Texas, we don’t rig the game—we play it fair.

Trump Fired the Jobs Commissioner. That Won’t Fix the Economy.

President Trump just fired Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why? Because the agency revised recent job numbers downward. In May and June, it turns out we didn’t create nearly as many jobs as first reported.

Instead of addressing the problem, Trump chose to fire the person in charge of telling the truth about it.

Let’s be honest: that’s not leadership. It’s blame-shifting.

McEntarfer is a 20-year government professional, not a political hack. The BLS is a fact-based agency that gives all of us—businesses, workers, and policymakers—accurate data so we can make smart decisions. Firing her just for reporting numbers the White House didn’t like? That’s a red flag.

And let’s talk about why the numbers went down.

Tariffs and government job cuts are creating real uncertainty in the economy. When businesses don’t know what rules or costs are coming next, they hold back on hiring. And when the federal government slashes jobs in key areas—like construction, infrastructure, and support for working families—it hurts employment numbers even more.

At the same time, prices are rising. Tariffs raise costs on everyday goods—food, cars, tools, you name it. So we’re seeing inflation and fewer jobs. That’s a bad combination.

Instead of fixing the root problems, Trump fired the messenger.

That’s not conservative. That’s not smart. And it doesn’t help American workers or families.

We need leaders who face facts, tell the truth, and work to build a strong, stable economy. Not leaders who fire good people just to protect their image.

Bailing Out Big Oil: The Wrong Investment at the Worst Time

Yesterday, we highlighted a quiet revolution in clean energy: 24-hour solar power is no longer a dream — it’s a cost-effective, real-world solution. With solar-plus-storage prices falling sharply in recent years, and wind energy continuing to expand, we’re entering a new phase of the energy transition — one where fossil fuels simply can’t compete on cost, performance, or resilience.

So why, in the face of this progress, is the federal government choosing to bail out oil and gas?

In a sweeping $4 trillion package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the Trump administration has slashed support for clean energy while handing billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies. The bill includes:

• Increased subsidies for carbon capture — but only when it’s used to extract more oil from depleted wells.

• Lower royalties for oil and gas drilling on public lands.

• Delays to methane pollution penalties, effectively letting the industry off the hook for the emissions it promised to clean up.

• Mandated lease sales across 200 million acres, including protected lands and offshore areas.

• Expanded tax breaks for fossil fuel development — many of which date back to the 1910s.

All while cutting support for wind, solar, and energy efficiency — and increasing household energy bills by an estimated $280 a year.

Let’s be clear: this is not an energy strategy. It’s a political payoff.

The fossil fuel industry knows it’s on borrowed time. Global solar module prices have dropped by 50% since 2020, and battery storage prices fell more than 20% in the past year alone. Meanwhile, utilities across the U.S. are shutting down coal plants in favor of renewables — not because of mandates, but because clean power is simply cheaper. Natural gas is next.

At the same time, global markets are turning away from U.S. liquefied natural gas. Europe is accelerating its transition to renewables, and even major Asian economies are investing heavily in clean energy storage and domestic generation. As demand for U.S. gas exports shrinks, the only way for oil and gas companies to stay afloat will be more subsidies, more bailouts, and more lobbying.

This bill is the first installment in what will become a long, expensive series of taxpayer-funded lifelines for a dying industry — lifelines paid for by working Americans, many of whom are already struggling with rising energy costs.

We should be investing in the future — not propping up the past. Every dollar we spend subsidizing oil extraction is a dollar we don’t invest in grid resilience, clean manufacturing, or lowering long-term energy costs. And every delay in building out wind, solar, and storage puts us further behind in the global race for clean energy leadership.

The numbers don’t lie: clean energy is now the smart investment. The “Big Beautiful Bill” does the opposite — funneling public money into an outdated industry in decline. It’s not just a bad policy. It’s a bad bet on the past.

What You Can Do

If you believe our energy future should be clean, affordable, and built for the long haul — now is the time to act.

Contact your representatives in Congress and tell them this bill must be repealed or rewritten. Make it clear that if they continue to subsidize the past while sabotaging the future, they will not earn your vote. We need better leaders — ones who invest in the future instead of protecting obsolete industries for political gain.

Find your representative: house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Contact your senators: senate.gov/senators/senators-contact

Speak up. Share the facts. And vote like the future depends on it — because it does.

24-Hour Solar Is No Longer a Dream — It’s a Cost-Effective Reality

A new report from the energy think tank Ember, written by Kostantsa Rangelova and Dave Jones, finds that solar electricity can now be delivered around the clock in sunny cities—reliably and at a lower cost than new coal, nuclear, and in some cases even natural gas.

The technology isn’t new. What’s changed is the economics.

In Las Vegas, for example, combining 5 kilowatts of solar panels with a 17 kilowatt-hour battery is now enough to provide a stable 1 kilowatt of electricity throughout the day and night. This setup can deliver 97 percent of the electricity needed for full 24/7 coverage over the course of a year.

The cost of this near-continuous solar power is now just $104 per megawatt-hour. That’s 22 percent cheaper than the same setup would have cost only a year ago—and cheaper than the cost of new coal plants ($118/MWh) or new nuclear facilities ($182/MWh).

The Key Driver: Plunging Battery Costs

The report credits much of the improvement to falling battery prices. In 2024, average global battery costs dropped by 40 percent—from $275 to $165 per kilowatt-hour. In some regions, they’ve fallen even lower. A pair of 2025 tenders in Saudi Arabia reported battery costs as low as $72 per kilowatt-hour.

Because batteries now account for a smaller share of total project costs, this price shift is transforming the economics of solar-plus-storage systems. In 2023, batteries made up nearly half of the total cost to deliver 24-hour solar. In 2024, that share dropped to just over one-third.

Real-World Applications

Solar-plus-storage systems are no longer experimental. They’re being deployed today at utility scale and by large commercial energy users. Examples include:

• The first gigawatt-scale 24-hour solar project in the United Arab Emirates, announced in early 2025.

• Data centers in Arizona and Dubai now running on solar power with battery backup.

• Industrial microgrids in West Virginia and Saudi Arabia supplying around-the-clock solar power to heavy manufacturing and tourism developments.

In the U.S., 75 percent of new solar projects awaiting grid connection in 2023 were paired with batteries.

Why This Matters

The availability of cost-effective, near-constant solar electricity is a turning point. It reduces reliance on fossil fuels. It makes it possible to bring power to remote regions without waiting for expensive grid infrastructure. And it gives industrial users—especially those with high reliability needs—an alternative to gas-fired generation.

The report also highlights how battery-backed solar can reduce the need for costly grid expansions. In sunny regions, up to five times more solar capacity can be installed using existing grid connections, simply by storing excess generation for use at night.

The Challenge Now Is Policy, Not Technology

The report is clear: the technology is ready, and the economics make sense. What’s missing is widespread adoption.

Planners, regulators, and investors still think of solar as a daytime-only resource. That view is now outdated. Batteries are changing what solar can do, and fast.

As Ember’s lead author Kostantsa Rangelova puts it, “This is a turning point in the clean energy transition… Now it’s time for policy and investment to catch up.”

Privatizing the Dollar: What the GENIUS Act Really Does

This week, Congress passed the GENIUS Act—a bill pitched as a way to regulate stablecoins and protect consumers. On the surface, it looks like smart policy: coins backed by real dollars, clear rules, and protections against scams.

But that’s only part of the story.

Behind the technical language is a sweeping change in how the U.S. controls its currency—and who benefits from it.

As one analyst at Macro Pulse put it:

“We didn’t regulate the future of money. We privatized it—then gave Washington the off button.”

Read their full thread here →

Let’s break down what’s really going on—and how it connects to Trump’s growing financial influence.

What the GENIUS Act Actually Does

The GENIUS Act creates a legal framework for stablecoins—digital tokens that are pegged to the U.S. dollar. The law says these coins must be backed 1:1 by cash, short-term U.S. Treasury debt, or Federal Reserve balances.

That might sound boring. But here’s what it really means:

• Private companies like PayPal, Circle, or even politically connected firms like World Liberty Financial can now issue their own versions of the dollar.

• The Federal Reserve can shut down any coin it deems a risk, with no public explanation.

• A separate law passed alongside GENIUS bans the Fed from creating its own digital currency, effectively handing the job to the private sector.

• Red states can issue their own licenses, creating a patchwork of rules and a race to the bottom on oversight.

Most shockingly, the bill exempts the President and their family from ethics rules that apply to Congress. While lawmakers are banned from investing in stablecoins, the White House is not—unless you can prove “malicious intent.”

That’s a very convenient loophole if your last name is Trump.

Why This Matters for U.S. Power

In The Dollar Empire, we explored how the U.S. rose to global power by making the dollar the backbone of international trade and finance.

The GENIUS Act takes that foundation and outsources it to private companies. These new digital dollars will likely spread quickly across Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia—especially in places where access to traditional banks is limited.

That may sound like progress, but it also means the U.S. can now enforce sanctions, cut off wallets, and freeze accounts instantly—through corporate APIs, not government channels. It’s financial power on autopilot, and it’s not always democratic.

Trump’s Golden Ticket

In The Golden Tickets, we showed how Trump has built a fortune by selling access, loyalty, and financial products dressed up as patriotism.

The GENIUS Act gives him something even more valuable: a way to profit from the U.S. dollar itself.

With the ethics exemption in place, Trump and his allies could launch a MAGA-branded stablecoin tomorrow—and it would be legal. Backed by Treasury debt, boosted by the law, and protected from real oversight, this coin wouldn’t just be a gimmick. It would be a government-blessed product with built-in buyers.

And if things go wrong? The public—not the issuer—could bear the fallout, just like we saw in the 2008 crash.

The Bigger Picture

The GENIUS Act isn’t just about crypto. It’s a shift in how money, power, and politics work in the United States:

• It creates constant demand for government debt through stablecoin reserves.

• It allows political families to profit from the very policies they influence.

• It removes a public alternative (a Federal Reserve digital dollar) in favor of private versions.

• It hands new powers to the Fed—without public accountability.

In the long run, this could reshape global finance, weaken public trust in money, and deepen the connection between political influence and private profit.

Bottom line

GENIUS doesn’t just regulate crypto. It changes who controls the dollar—and who gets to cash in on it.

She Knew the Epstein Files. Now She’s Out.

On July 16, the U.S. Department of Justice fired Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor who helped lead some of the most sensitive investigations in recent memory — including the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and most recently, Sean “Diddy” Combs.

The DOJ did not provide a reason for her removal. They simply cited the president’s Article II powers. That might be legal. But is it right?

Because if you were trying to keep a lid on what’s in the Epstein files, this is where you’d start.

BTC: Democracy Watch - DOJ Fires Prosecutor

Who Is Maurene Comey?

Maurene Comey worked for years in the Southern District of New York, one of the most respected federal offices in the country. She is also the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey — a name that carries political baggage, depending on who you ask. But Maurene Comey’s record as a prosecutor has stood on its own.

She helped prosecute:

• Jeffrey Epstein for trafficking minors.

• Ghislaine Maxwell for recruiting and grooming them.

• High-profile cases involving organized crime, weapons charges, and sex trafficking rings — most recently, the case against Combs.

That kind of experience isn’t easy to replace. Nor is the knowledge she had about sealed files, cooperating witnesses, or people who may still be under investigation.

AP: DOJ fires prosecutor in Epstein case

Why Now? Why Her?

The timing is hard to ignore.

Comey was let go just days after MAGA influencers revived interest in Epstein’s connections — but mostly to accuse others. At the same time, Trump was defending Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had previously worked on Epstein’s case in Florida, where the deal he got was unusually lenient.

So while headlines were flying and Epstein was back in the news, the one person inside the DOJ who had handled the files and seen what was sealed was suddenly out of a job.

Daily Beast: DOJ removes Maurene Comey with no reason given

What Did She Know?

That’s the question that should be on everyone’s mind — regardless of political affiliation.

Maurene Comey likely had access to:

• Sealed court records.

• Grand jury testimony.

• Names of individuals not yet charged — or possibly protected under prior immunity agreements.

• Evidence from raids on Epstein’s properties, which reportedly included hard drives, blackmail materials, and extensive documentation of guests.

Her role may have also included reviewing who wasn’t prosecuted — and why.

So her sudden removal, without cause, from a DOJ now run by someone who once helped Epstein get a sweetheart deal — that deserves scrutiny.

Vanity Fair: MAGA, Epstein, and the politics of distraction

This Isn’t a Left or Right Issue

Some people will try to make this about politics. But justice isn’t supposed to bend with the political winds.

If the Justice Department is firing prosecutors who know too much — especially about something as dark and damaging as child trafficking — that’s not a left-wing or right-wing issue. That’s a deeply American issue. Because we believe in the rule of law, not rule by loyalty.

If powerful people from any party, any country, or any income bracket were involved in Epstein’s network, the American people deserve to know. And the people who worked to uncover that truth should not be treated like problems to eliminate.

Questions That Deserve Answers

• What cases was Maurene Comey still working on?

• Were any sealed indictments or investigations related to Epstein still open?

• Will those cases be reassigned? Buried? Forgotten?

• And most importantly: Was she fired to protect justice — or to protect someone else?

Final Thought

You don’t have to like her last name to admit something doesn’t smell right.

Maurene Comey had a front-row seat to one of the darkest chapters in recent U.S. history — a trafficking network that likely involved elites across business, politics, media, and royalty. Now she’s out, and nobody’s explaining why.

We should all be asking: What’s the Justice Department trying to keep from us?

The Price of Real Justice vs. the Cost of a Show

Many Americans still want answers about Jeffrey Epstein. Who was involved? Why haven’t more people been held accountable? Why does it feel like justice only applies to the rest of us—and never to the rich and powerful?

It’s a good question. Because if this administration really cared about crime, justice, and protecting children, the Epstein investigation would be a top priority. Instead, the government has chosen to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a prison complex in the Florida Everglades that looks more like a political stunt than a serious solution to anything.

Let’s talk about cost. Let’s talk about results. And let’s talk about what that tells us about who this government really works for.

What It Would Take to Prosecute the Epstein Network

Jeffrey Epstein didn’t act alone. He had connections—some still in positions of influence today. Survivors have named names. Flight logs, visitor lists, and financial records exist. Some of these files have been sealed. Some have been quietly ignored.

But none of this is impossible to investigate. In fact, experts estimate that it would cost somewhere between $20 and $200 million to do a full, credible investigation and prosecution of Epstein’s trafficking network. That includes:

• Releasing court documents and sealed records

• Interviewing survivors and witnesses

• Investigating financial and travel records

• Prosecuting 10 to 20 high-profile individuals

That’s a lot of money—but in government terms, it’s a drop in the bucket. We’ve spent more on minor construction projects or military equipment no one uses. And unlike those, this would deliver something Americans want: real accountability.

So why hasn’t it happened?

What We Got Instead: Alligator Alcatraz

While the Epstein files sit in legal limbo, the government is spending over $450 million a year to run a brand-new ICE detention center in the Florida Everglades. Nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” it’s being held up as a symbol of tough-on-crime immigration policy.

But what is it really?

• A massive detention facility hidden deep in Big Cypress Preserve

• Operated by ICE, mostly holding people in civil—not criminal—proceedings

• Packed with people who have not been charged with violent crimes

• Staffed under questionable conditions, with reports of overcrowding and neglect

• Promoted through VIP tours and social media photo ops

The facility looks dramatic. Rows of detainees, guards in black gear, flooded swampland. But does it make anyone safer? There’s no evidence it reduces crime. What it does do is give politicians a talking point—something to post on Truth Social while real issues go ignored.

Comparing the Two

Investigating and prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein’s network would cost somewhere between $20 million and $200 million in total. That would cover releasing sealed court documents, interviewing survivors, tracking financial records, and holding powerful people accountable in court. It’s a one-time cost with lasting benefits: real justice, a public reckoning, and a clear signal that no one is above the law.

Now compare that to Alligator Alcatraz, the new ICE detention center in the Florida Everglades. It’s costing over $450 million every single year just to operate. That money goes toward detaining mostly nonviolent migrants—people in civil proceedings, not criminals. There’s no evidence this facility reduces crime or makes Americans safer. But it looks good in staged photos and gives politicians something to brag about online.

One approach is focused, targeted, and fair. The other is bloated, theatrical, and cruel. One delivers justice. The other delivers headlines.

And somehow, the one that actually goes after real criminals—the one that might finally hold Epstein’s accomplices accountable—is the one they won’t fund.

What This Tells Us

This isn’t about resources. We have the money. It’s about priorities.

This administration promised to “drain the swamp,” “go after the deep state,” and protect children from predators. But instead of following through, they’ve given us a prison in a swamp while the Epstein network gets swept under the rug.

That’s not justice. That’s a distraction.

And it’s a pretty expensive one.

The Bottom Line

If you’re angry that Epstein got away with it—and that the people around him still haven’t been held accountable—you’re not alone. But don’t let this administration point you at immigrants or migrants as the problem. They’re not the ones who flew on Epstein’s plane. They’re not the ones with sealed court records and high-powered lawyers.

Real justice would mean shining a light on what really happened. Real justice would mean facing uncomfortable truths—even if they lead to the rich and connected.

Instead, we got Alligator Alcatraz.

Not because it works.

But because it distracts.

The Boy Who Cried Deep State

For years, some political figures have used conspiracy theories to stir up anger and win support. They claim there’s a secret group pulling the strings—“the deep state”—and promise to expose it. But time after time, those promises fall apart once they’re in power.

The recent handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files is just the latest example. After months of hype about a “client list” and secret tapes, the Department of Justice—now led by some of the same people who once promoted these theories—released a report saying there’s no list, no cover-up, and no foul play.

It’s a familiar pattern. And it’s time we start recognizing it.

Big Promises Before the Election

During the 2024 campaign, Trump and many of his allies leaned into the Epstein case. They didn’t just suggest there might be more to the story—they said the government was sitting on evidence. Attorney General Pam Bondi hinted there were “tens of thousands” of videos. Others, like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, had spent years fueling speculation that Epstein was murdered to protect powerful people.

These claims weren’t just background noise—they were used to win trust and votes. The message was clear: re-elect Trump, and the truth will come out.

It worked. The base was fired up. Epstein became another symbol of elite corruption. Social media and right-wing shows spread the idea that big revelations were just around the corner.

But those revelations never came.

A Quiet Walk-Back After the Election

In July 2025, the Department of Justice released its final report on the Epstein case. It said clearly: there was no “client list,” no evidence of blackmail, and no sign of foul play in Epstein’s death. Surveillance footage showed no one entering his cell area. The conclusion was that he died by suicide.

This wasn’t coming from career officials alone. The DOJ is now led by Pam Bondi—the same person who talked about “tens of thousands of videos” before the election. The FBI is run by Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, both of whom had spent years pushing the idea that Epstein’s death was suspicious and connected to powerful people.

Now, they were the ones telling the public: “There’s nothing more to see here.”

Their supporters were confused and angry. Some conservative media figures called it a betrayal. A few even accused Trump’s administration of covering things up, just like the people they once criticized. The same officials who once promised the truth were now dismissing the conspiracy they helped promote.

This wasn’t the first time something like this happened. But it was one of the clearest examples yet of how political narratives are used to stir emotions—and then dropped without explanation.

A Quick Note on the Case Itself

To be clear, I’m not claiming to know whether there’s more to the Epstein case that still needs to come out. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn’t. That’s not the point.

The real issue is how certain politicians and public figures used the promise of a dramatic reveal to build trust and gain power—then quietly stepped away once they were in charge.

This isn’t about what the truth is. It’s about how trust was built on a promise they had no intention—or ability—to keep.

That’s what turns skepticism into cynicism. Not just unanswered questions, but leaders who keep raising them for effect, only to walk away when it no longer suits them.

This Isn’t New

What happened with the Epstein files feels familiar because it is.

This wasn’t the first time MAGA leaders promised explosive truth and delivered very little. We saw it with the Durham investigation, which was supposed to expose a conspiracy against Trump inside the FBI. After years of hype, the final report found no deep state plot and led to almost no consequences. Yet for years, it was used to rally support and raise money.

The same pattern showed up with the “stolen election” claims in 2020. Dozens of lawsuits were filed, none produced clear evidence. Still, the claims fueled protests, donations, and political campaigns. Even now, some politicians still hint at voter fraud without offering real proof.

It’s the same playbook:

1. Make a dramatic claim.

2. Say “the truth is coming.”

3. Stretch it out for months or years.

4. Quietly move on when nothing comes of it.

These stories are powerful because they sound like they could be true. They tap into people’s sense that something is wrong and that powerful people are hiding things. But when leaders use that feeling to get votes—and then fail to deliver—it’s not just a political tactic. It’s a betrayal.

And the cost isn’t just frustration. It’s confusion. It’s distrust. When real wrongdoing happens, fewer people are willing to believe it.

See the Pattern—Then Decide What to Do With It

This pattern isn’t just about headlines or bad behavior—it’s about how trust gets used up. When politicians make big claims over and over, then quietly back away once they’re in office, people start to tune out. Some get discouraged. Others double down, waiting for the next promise.

But we don’t have to stay stuck in that loop.

If we step back and look at the bigger picture, it becomes easier to spot the difference between someone who wants to lead—and someone who wants to manipulate. Honest leaders talk about hard problems and real solutions. Dishonest ones talk about secret plots and deliver nothing.

You don’t have to change your party to see this. You don’t even have to change your mind. You just have to ask: Who keeps crying wolf? And how many times are we supposed to believe them?

It’s okay to want answers. It’s smart to question power. But it’s also smart to ask whether the people shouting the loudest are actually telling the truth—or just trying to keep our attention.

When the Noise Fades, What’s Left?

The Epstein case was supposed to be a turning point—proof that elites would finally face justice. That’s what we were told. But once the election was over and the cameras moved on, the truth turned out to be far less dramatic. And the same people who once shouted the loudest went quiet.

This isn’t just about one story. It’s about how easily big claims can become tools for political gain—and how rarely they lead to anything real.

You don’t have to be an expert to see what’s happening. You just have to watch what people say when they want your vote, and what they do after they have it.

If they keep crying “deep state,” “cover-up,” or “bombshell,” but never show you real evidence, maybe it’s time to stop listening.

We all deserve leaders who are honest with us—not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard. That starts with asking better questions. It starts with recognizing the pattern.

One last thing

It’s tempting to tune out. To stop voting. To stop caring. That’s part of the damage this cycle causes—it wears people down. But the only way we get better leaders is by staying engaged, especially during primaries, when most choices are actually made. If we only show up for the general election, we’re often left choosing between two options we didn’t help shape. If we want better choices, we have to show up earlier. Because if we don’t, the people who lie the loudest keep winning by default. Let’s not give them that win.

The Price of Cruelty: How the 2025 Immigration Crackdown Wastes Billions and Harms Communities

In the summer of 2025, Congress passed what supporters proudly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” pouring an unprecedented $170 billion into immigration enforcement over the next four years. The bill promises to build more walls, expand detention centers, and supercharge deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Supporters claim it will restore order. But at what cost?

In our previous post, “Do Undocumented Immigrants Really Drain Our Economy?” we showed that undocumented workers contribute billions to our tax base and strengthen entire industries. Now, with a fresh $170 billion on the table, the federal government is poised to spend record amounts tearing those same workers away from their communities.

Behind the slogans and big numbers is a simple truth: these policies target largely nonviolent, tax-paying workers — people who help build our communities. Spending tens of billions to arrest, detain, and deport them isn’t just inhumane — it’s staggeringly wasteful.

This post will break down the real dollars behind the new budget, the massive tax revenue we stand to lose, and the painful consequences for families and communities. In the end, it’s clear: this cruel spending spree will cost us far more than money.

The True Costs of Immigration Enforcement

The 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” represents one of the largest immigration enforcement spending sprees in U.S. history. Over the next four years, the bill commits more than $170 billion to expand and intensify immigration controls. Here’s how those billions break down:

• $45 billion for new or expanded detention centers, allowing federal authorities to detain more than 100,000 individuals at any one time — nearly double today’s already crowded system.

• $30–44 billion dedicated to deportation operations, covering transportation, legal proceedings, and contracts with local law enforcement to funnel more people into removal pipelines.

• $46 billion to expand and fortify border walls and barriers, despite evidence that walls alone do not meaningfully deter visa overstays, which make up nearly half of undocumented migration.

• The remaining billions will fund advanced surveillance technology, cooperation with state and local police, and an enlarged immigration court system designed to process far more deportations, far faster.

All told, this staggering investment is meant to supercharge deportations to a goal of 1 million people per year — about 3,000 removals per day. But these numbers ignore the human reality: many of those targeted are long-settled, nonviolent workers with U.S. citizen children, homes, and steady taxpaying jobs.

Instead of strengthening our economy and communities, this massive budget expansion is a commitment to mass detention and forced separation — at an extraordinary cost to taxpayers.

Unrealistic Goals, Inflated Spending

Behind the headline promises of 1 million deportations per year lies a logistical and moral nightmare. The current immigration system is already struggling under a historic case backlog, with deportations this year reaching about 239,000 as of July — far below the new target. To scale up to 3,000 removals per day, as the bill envisions, would require more than doubling the pace of arrests, transportation, detention, and legal proceedings.

Beyond legal barriers, there are massive operational constraints. Immigration courts are severely understaffed. Flights to repatriate deportees are limited by international agreements. Many people targeted for removal have deep roots in U.S. communities, meaning their cases are far more complicated than a simple “in and out” deportation.

Yet the federal government plans to funnel billions of dollars toward these unrealistic targets anyway. Detention facilities will expand, but the human and financial costs of holding tens of thousands of nonviolent individuals indefinitely will only mount. The promised “efficiency” of this operation is a political talking point — not a realistic blueprint.

In the end, these inflated deportation goals will not just waste money; they will push an already-overwhelmed system closer to collapse, all while tearing apart families and communities in the name of an impossible enforcement agenda.

The Economic Fallout: Lost Tax Revenue

Beyond the staggering spending, there is another price Americans will pay: the loss of billions in tax revenue from deported workers. Undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to the public purse. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented workers pay roughly $8,889 per person in combined federal, state, and local taxes each year.

If the administration achieves its goal of deporting 1 million people annually, the nation would lose nearly $9 billion in annual tax revenue — money that helps pay for schools, roads, and essential services in every state. Over four years, that loss would total around $35 billion, nearly enough to fund free community college tuition nationwide.

And that’s just the beginning. Economic modeling suggests that mass deportations would reduce GDP, shrink the available labor force in critical sectors like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, and weaken local economies that depend on immigrant spending power. In the long run, the total impact of removing millions of workers could drain hundreds of billions from the nation’s economy and starve public budgets of future revenue.

By spending billions to deport tax-paying workers, this policy effectively cannibalizes the very resources that keep American communities afloat — a cruel irony that no one in Congress seems willing to acknowledge.

The Human Cost: Breaking Up Families and Communities

Numbers alone cannot fully capture the damage this policy inflicts on people. Most of those targeted under this massive enforcement push are nonviolent individuals who have built lives and families in the United States. They raise children, pay taxes, and contribute to their neighborhoods. Many have lived here for decades, with deep roots and ties to their communities.

When these individuals are detained or deported, the harm ripples outward. U.S. citizen children face the trauma of losing a parent and, in some cases, being placed in foster care. Family-owned businesses lose trusted employees and may even close down. Local schools and social services must absorb the shock of suddenly displaced families.

Beyond that, indefinite detention itself is a humanitarian crisis. Overcrowded facilities, poor medical care, and prolonged legal delays have led to deaths and severe mental health harm inside detention centers. Mass deportation plans will inevitably expand these abuses, trapping tens of thousands of people in conditions that violate basic human rights.

By investing billions to break up peaceful families and destabilize communities, this policy trades compassion and stability for fear and cruelty — all in the name of “enforcement.”

Better Uses for $170 Billion

Imagine what $170 billion could achieve if it were invested in strengthening American communities instead of tearing them apart. That money could expand affordable housing, modernize public schools, repair roads and bridges, or dramatically improve our health care system. It could jump-start clean energy projects, expand childcare support, or help reduce student debt.

For example, just a fraction of this enforcement budget — around $10–15 billion per year — could fully fund community college tuition for millions of students, or provide universal preschool nationwide. It could also help rebuild vital rural hospitals, expand mental health care, and improve emergency response systems that are often chronically underfunded.

One powerful alternative would be to invest in a path to legal status or citizenship for undocumented workers. Experts estimate that providing a path to legal status for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would cost about $25–35 billion over a decade — a fraction of what mass deportation and detention will consume. And unlike deportation, this investment would pay dividends: newly legalized immigrants would contribute an estimated $100–150 billion in additional tax revenue over ten years, stabilizing families and fueling local economies.

Instead of spending $170 billion on mass detention and deportation — and losing an additional $35 billion in annual tax revenue from deported workers (a total hit of $205 billion) — we could invest far more wisely. For example, spending $25–35 billion on a path to citizenship, plus another $15–25 billion to fully fund community college or universal preschool, would cost around $50 billion total. This investment would pay itself back many times over, generating $100–150 billion in new tax revenue over a decade and delivering a net gain of $65–115 billion for the nation — not even counting the massive boost to productivity and economic growth from an educated workforce.

Instead of punishing peaceful, tax-paying workers, we could choose to strengthen families, grow the economy, and build a future rooted in fairness and opportunity — a far better return on investment than fear and cruelty.

Conclusion: A Cruel and Pointless Investment

The numbers are clear. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” plans to funnel $170 billion into a massive deportation and detention machine that will break apart families, destabilize communities, and drain billions in tax revenue from our own public budgets. By targeting nonviolent, tax-paying workers, these policies will rob the nation of both moral credibility and financial stability.

For a fraction of that spending — around $50 billion — we could build a path to citizenship and expand educational opportunities, earning back as much as $150 billion in new tax revenue while strengthening families and boosting the broader economy. That is an investment in our future, not an act of political vengeance.

It is time to see these mass deportation strategies for what they truly are: a cruel and pointless waste of taxpayer money. Instead of tearing down communities, we should build them up — with fairness, opportunity, and compassion guiding our policy choices. The American people deserve nothing less.