RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/04/25/can-trump-kill-this-2-2-trillion-regulatory-beast/

The President lays the groundwork for explosive economic growth.

“I’ve never seen anything like this.” — Donald Kenkel, Cornell University

Last week, the New York Times discovered that President Donald Trump was serious when he promised to liberate the economy from the oppressive weight of the regulatory state, describing it as “deregulation on a mass scale.”

Cornell’s Donald Kenkel, who was chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers in the first Trump administration, told the Times that “It’s going on much more quietly than some of the other fireworks we’re seeing, but it will have great impact.”

Great, indeed. In both senses of the word.

Gutting the regulatory state would free up massive amounts of pent-up economic energy, raise standards of living, lower inflation, and sharply cut the deficit, without unduly harming anyone (except busybody bureaucrats).

It’s hard to fathom just how gargantuan and intrusive the regulatory state has become over the past 100 years. Even the Times seems surprised, noting that “more than 400 federal agencies … regulate almost every aspect of American life.”

But that barely scratches the surface. Thursday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released its annual “10,000 Commandments” report, which tracks the regulatory Leviathan. CEI calculates that the annual cost of complying with federal regulations is now $2.155 trillion.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/24/the-dangers-of-the-political-gender-gap/

Throughout history, poverty, class and economic self-interest have driven radical political movements. The Bolsheviks harnessed the anger of impoverished workers and peasants to create a movement that controlled the world’s biggest country for seven decades. The Nazis came to power due to both the Great Depression and resentment towards a small but economically nimble Jewish community.

Today, extremist politics is not bubbling up primarily from the economically disaffected, as occurred both in medieval and modern times during periods of upheaval. The self-professed radicals of our age seem more driven by their own inner cultural angst and disturbed psychology.

This angst is now expressed increasingly with violence, from the well-funded campaign against weirdo-genius Elon Musk, which includes arson attacks on Teslas, to the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, the most destructive outbreak of civil disorder in US history, as well as the awful ‘January 6’ riots. Blood-curdling rhetoric now comes even from the once respectable political class. Democratic congresswoman Jasmine Crockett wants Musk ‘taken down’ and says that Democrats have to be ‘okay with punching’. One study suggests that nearly 38 per cent of respondents and over half of ‘progressives’ would see the assassination of Donald Trump as ‘justified’.

At the core of today’s political extremes lies a deep-seated social anxiety, fuelled by atomisation and alienation between the sexes. This is particularly true for the young women who have become the vanguard of so-called progressives. This can be seen in leftists’ support for Luigi Mangione, who allegedly murdered healthcare executive Brian Thompson. In California, a centre of lunacy, there is even a pending proposition on healthcare reform named after Mangione. Taylor Lorenz, a former star reporter at the Washington Post and New York Times, has called the alleged murderer ‘a morally good man’. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was promoting a defence fund for Mangione before being shamed into taking it down. There is even a controversy about his ‘fangirls’, the young females who dominate the crowd at hearings about the case.

This division between men and women comes at a time when females are outpacing men in school and careers, leaving them with fewer potential partners, and are increasingly sceptical of marriage. Over 28 per cent of young US women, notes Gallup, identify as LGBTQ – more than twice the rate for older millennials. Over five per cent of US high-school students struggle with their gender identity, according to the CDC.

Alienated from traditional familial ties, young, educated and unattached women have become ever more prominent across the far left. Some even embrace violently homophobic and anti-feminist movements like Hamas and see no contradiction with their own supposedly progressive beliefs. A large, highly disproportionate segment of anti-Israel activists, notes researcher Eitan Hersh, consists of LGBTQ-identified people.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/24/what-is-democratic-legality/

Since 2021, the left has waged a veritable war against the American legal system in a variety of ways.

One serial target of Democrats and the Left has been the Supreme Court.

In 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to an angry throng of pro-abortion protestors assembled at the very doors of the court chambers.

He threatened two of the justices, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, by name. Schumer yelled to the volatile crowd that the justices’ views would make them “reap the whirlwind,” and the two would not know what “hit” them.

In the ensuing months, protestors mobbed some of the conservative justices’ homes—likely committing felonies. The sympathetic Biden Justice Department chose not to follow the law, and so did nothing—although eventually a would-be assassin turned up.

Joe Biden himself bragged that he would try to ignore the Supreme Court ruling banning his arbitrary cancellation of billions of dollars in student loans. Indeed, he boasted, “The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me.”

In response, no one on the left ever complained about endangering the “rule of law” or Biden as “a dictator.”

For three years, four local, state, and federal prosecutors warped the law to neuter Donald Trump. Most of the charges had never been brought against other political figures in similar circumstances.

The vast majority of the 93 weaponized indictments backfired on the liberal prosecutors, who had contorted the legal system for political purposes and now face their own ethical or legal quagmires.

The federal prosecutor Jack Smith belatedly reported accepting $140,000 in free legal services.

Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis was removed from the Trump case and fined, and is now under further investigation.

New York prosecutor Letitia James is now facing allegations of falsification of documents and loan fraud.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-field-guide-to-the-american-left/

The Democrats have responded to their repudiation by the voters by tripling down on the toxic ideas and preposterous policies that make sense only when one remembers that, as DOGE has exposed, in the end, they are patent grifts, opportunities for enriching themselves and their plutocratic, corporate globalist co-grifters.

On one hand, this state of affairs makes for great comedy enlivened by 100-proof schadenfreude. But we should remember that as British PM Harold MacMillan famously said, “events” are the most frightening thing in politics. The unforeseen, the unpredictable, the astonishing anomaly, all are most powerful in representative governments with regularly scheduled elections that invite the voters to ask, whether fairly or not, those in power, “What have you done for us lately?”

Despite having twice been victims of that biennial habit of our democratic republic, the Dems seem to keep deepening the hole they’ve been digging for decades, mostly by endorsing various iterations of Marxism, and abandoning the Constitution––but also by willful blindness to the voters’ anger over their policies that defy not just the Constitution, but also morality, virtue, common sense, and the science they arrogantly claim as their guide.

Typical of the Dems’ willful blindness is their attacks on the Republicans’ attempts to stop the blatant corruption of our elections by passing the proposed Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act.

As Joe Concha recently pointed out, on this issue the contrast between the majority of voters, who are concerned about electoral integrity, and the Dems’ left-wing caucus, was one of the issues that cost them the election last November. Yet “208 Democrat Congressmen,” Concha reports, voted against “a bill aimed at preventing those who entered the country illegally from voting,” and 47 Senators for now are also lined up to vote against it. “And since 60 votes are needed for cloture,” Concha reminds us, “that means this is dead on arrival.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/04/parental_rights_at_risk_from_tyrannical_state_overreach.html

Last month, one-month-old Roxana was wrested at gunpoint from her mother Emily Yazdani’s breast by police and Child Protective Services (CPS) of Loudon County, Virginia. CPS placed the infant in a “foster to adopt” program before being returned to her parents after eight days. A few vigilant websites reported it, but mainstream media ignored this heartless snatching.

What did her parents do to warrant such an intervention? Nothing, says Roxana’s father Farzin Yazdani, an engineer and Navy veteran. CPS was acting on a false allegation of abuse filed by his ex-wife, with whom he is involved in a custody dispute over their five-year-old son. Her previous allegations that Yazdani was abusing their son had also resulted in separations that were later overturned.

While taking Roxana away, armed deputies said they were there “only to enforce.” But there was no warrant nor any specific charges—only CPS and police violating parental rights and riding roughshod over constitution-guaranteed due process. In actions faced by the Yazdanis, police withheld bodycam footage, and CPS rejected FOIA requests for its records.

Eventually, the abuse charges against Yazdani were dismissed. But despite no criminal record, he was handcuffed on one occasion, and, on another, watched helplessly as Roxana was torn from his wife. In a heartrending April 5 post on X, Yazdani called these actions “terror,” “psychological warfare,” and “government-sponsored child abuse.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/liberal-hypocrites/

A handful of years after they cheered a president flanked by armed soldiers declaring half the countries to be enemies of the state, liberals are denouncing President Trump as a dangerous authoritarian. The misinformation censors of yesteryear have suddenly discovered that they love free speech and the men who filled D.C. with federal troops worry about the right to protest.

This born-again liberalism fools absolutely no one except the fools virtue signaling it.

The majority of liberals cast aside liberal values, they learned to deplore meritocracy, fair play, freedom of speech and all differences of opinion that did not serve their radical cause. They became leftists who play the cynical game of viewing dissent as either a ‘threat to democracy’ or the ‘highest form of patriotism’ depending on whether they’re the ones in power or dissenting.

That’s not liberalism. It’s a leftist wolf who puts on sheep’s clothing when he’s being hunted.

Liberalism means fundamentally distinguishing between speech and violence. It does not mean, as leftists have come to do, declaring that their violence is speech and that everyone else’s speech is violence. Branding the BLM race riots as the “speech of the unheard”, while also arguing as the New York Times did that, “Free Speech Is Killing Us”, is illiberal totalitarianism.

Free speech isn’t defending the speech you agree with, but the speech you disagree with, and the last time the born-again liberal hypocrites did that was at least a generation ago. The same people who told us that cancel culture was really ‘consequence culture’ are outraged when consequences come for their activists after they spent over a year calling for Death to America.

The cries about the sanctity of academic freedom ring hollow from the establishment that watched conservatives and then even actual liberals and non-conforming leftists being purged from academia until it became a political monoculture. The same liberals now defending campus Hamas riots were fine with campus bans on everything from sombreros to copies of the Constitution. Scrawl a Hamas red triangle and the civil libertarians will jump to your defense who ignored when a campus chalk message in support of Trump was treated like a hate crime.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21570/nuclear-fusion-energy-race

A visionary, an entrepreneur, a futurist, and perhaps one of the most creative of his generation, one still needs to spend considerable time in reading the comments of Elon Musk to determine his current opinion regarding fusion energy.

Prior published interviews suggest he has been a very strong proponent of solar and wind power, energy sources that have brought Europe to its knees economically and that, understandably, are not currently in favor at the White House.

In 2023, Musk told Joe Rogan during a podcast that “You could actually power the entire United States with 100 miles of 100 miles of solar.”

Musk did in fact recognize the power of fusion energy but, in this context, he meant the sun generating electricity through solar panels:

“We have a giant fusion reactor in the sky…. the sun is converting more than four million tons of mass to energy every second and requires no maintenance….If you can generate energy from solar panels and store it with batteries, you can have energy 24 hours a day.”

Yet Musk tacitly recognizes a growing strategic fact. The nation that owns the stunning advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) may well hold the technology that dictates who will dominate the rest of the 21st Century. AI consumes an enormous amount of power, so much so that Microsoft is investing in bringing back online the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant to ensure uninterrupted electricity to power its AI data centers.

No matter the size of their “farms,” solar panels and wind turbines simply cannot produce enough uninterrupted electricity to protect America’s AI leadership. Consider this quote from a report issued by the International Energy Association:

“In the United States, power consumption by data centres is on course to account for almost half of the growth in electricity demand between now and 2030. Driven by AI use, the US economy is set to consume more electricity in 2030 for processing data than for manufacturing all energy-intensive goods combined, including aluminium, steel, cement and chemicals.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/04/22/a-tale-of-two-presidents-deportation-records/

With their party dragging itself through an existential struggle, Democrats, with of course help from the media, have made the president’s illegal immigrant deportations their raison de etre. They’ve turned to tantrum-laced political theater and seasoned it with a mountain of hypocrisy.

This year’s George Floyd (or Michael Brown) for the Democrats is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the El Salvadoran and alleged MS-13 gang member who was sent back to his home country. His case, says the Associated Press, is for Democrats “about fundamental American ideals — due process, following court orders, preventing government overreach.”

Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, was speaking, even if unofficially, for the party and the media that does the party’s dirty work when he said in regard to the administration’s deportation policy, that “due process and separation of powers are matters of principle” and “without due process for all, we are all in danger.”

It’s blatantly obvious that Democrats “desperately want to neuter the Trump administration’s right to remove those who have come here illegally, including those who belong to foreign gangs, or commit serious felonies.”

Where were the Democrats and the media when Barack Obama was deporting more than 5 million (including both formal removals and returns), many – maybe even a majority – of whom didn’t get their “day in court”? They were around, but not much was said, certainly not to the level of screeching we’re hearing today. There was no rancor, no childish grandstanding, no rallies on behalf of the deported.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2025/06/chicagos-longest-weekend-the-george-floyd-riots-five-years-later/?utm_

The city recovered, but its Democratic politics were wrecked

I want to tell you a story about how my city lost faith in itself. The end of May marks the five-year anniversary of the George Floyd riots. It is a dark memory to summon, nearly as dark as the five-year anniversary of nationwide Covid lockdowns in March, which are the riots’ immediate predicate and context. Many of the nation’s cities burned or experienced looting. Our national politics changed forever, for the worse. And half a decade on, Chicago still reels from the consequences in a way that few other metropolises do; we have arguably never recovered from the loss of confidence and shift in city politics the Floyd riots triggered. Your experience of them may be different — every state in the union witnessed at least some sort of civil unrest, after all — but this is mine.

The story begins elsewhere, of course. On May 25, Minneapolis man George Floyd died after being restrained during arrest by police officer Derek Chauvin. By May 26, viral videos of the arrest taken by onlookers were rocketing around social media, raising public outrage at the tactics used by Chauvin to restrain Floyd. On May 27, the powder keg exploded in Minneapolis: Protests swiftly turned into vandalism once night fell, then riots and fires, and finally unrestrained larceny. And the riots did not end. They continued for days, each time beginning as night fell, their purpose seemingly different from that of the initial spasm of civic rage: with method, intent, and mass looting.

Equally as alarming as the violence on the streets was the reaction of mainstream and social media to it all: Instead of deploring the civic breakdown, a good portion of the nation seemingly excused or even lionized it. We were told over and over again by print media and cable news that the protests were “mostly peaceful,” regardless of how much property destruction, arson, and looting was going on. (The trend reached its legendary apotheosis a few months later, when a CNN reporter did a live hit in Kenosha, Wis., in front of a burning store and declared the protest, with zero sense of irony, “mostly peaceful.”) The unceasingly celebratory din from the left on Twitter was even more appalling, as a nation of self-radicalized twentysomethings, restless from lockdown, convinced themselves that this was their moment for revolutionary racial justice and sloganeered about the need to “defund the police” while cheering for as much destruction as possible. (The snide cries of “Who cares about looting? Target has insurance, after all” still ring in my ears.)

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2025/06/injunction-dysfunction-is-a-threat-to-our-system/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=top-of-nav&utm_content=hero-module

Nationwide rulings by judges in single districts distort American politics

Nationwide injunctions — or perhaps, as Justice Neil Gorsuch has acidly observed, we should call them “universal” or even “cosmic” injunctions — are a distortion of our constitutional order. Alas, they are proliferating because of other, more deeply seated distortions.

A nationwide injunction occurs when a single unelected judge, seated in just one of 94 federal districts throughout the nation — say, the District of Hawaii, home to just 0.4 percent of our population — issues a ruling that binds the entire country, forbidding the government (most often, the president through subordinate executive agencies) from executing a policy, regulation, or statutory interpretation.

A judge’s role in our system is vital but modest. As Chief Justice John Marshall admonished in Marbury v. Madison (1803), establishing the authority of courts to review the constitutionality of congressional statutes: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

To say what the law is. Not to write or enforce it. The courts are the nonpolitical branch. It is not for them to make policy, the prerogative given to the political branches accountable to the people whose lives are affected. The judge’s burden is to dispose of cases or controversies — justiciable claims of concrete harm brought by a plaintiff allegedly aggrieved by the defendant — by saying what the law is. Because a court merely interprets the law within the four corners of the dispute, it settles the legal rights of the parties and nothing more.