Can Trump Kill This $2.2 Trillion Regulatory Beast?

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.

Trump’s Bold Diplomacy on the Ukraine War and Iranian Nuclear Program Trump unveils bold plans to end the Ukraine war and halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, warning all sides the U.S. will walk if his offers are rejected. By Fred Fleitz

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/25/trumps-bold-diplomacy-on-the-ukraine-war-and-iranian-nuclear-program/

There was a lot of movement this week on two intractable global security problems when the Trump Administration put forward proposals that defied the foreign policy establishment to end the war in Ukraine and halt Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

There were predictable condemnations of Trump’s proposals from parties to these disputes, European leaders, foreign policy experts, and the mainstream media. However, Trump officials made clear that they will not agree to endless negotiations on these disputes and are prepared to walk away if the president’s proposals are rejected.

To end the Ukraine-Russia War, Trump officials put forward what has been called President Trump’s final offer to end the war.

Under this plan, Russia would receive formal U.S. recognition of Crimea, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014, as Russian territory. Washington would also agree to de facto recognition of Russia’s occupation of territory it seized in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The U.S. would pledge not to support Ukraine’s membership in NATO, lift sanctions against Russia imposed since 2014, and offer U.S. economic cooperation.

Ukraine would be offered “a robust security guarantee” from European military forces. It would also get back part of the Kharkiv province currently occupied by Russia, navigation rights in the Dnieper River, and assistance in post-war rebuilding.

Ukraine reportedly will also have the right to its own army and defense industry as part of a peace agreement. If true, this means the U.S. is rejecting Putin’s demand that Ukraine be demilitarized as part of a final settlement.

Trump’s proposals will be very tough for Ukraine to accept, and it was not a surprise when Ukrainian President Zelensky immediately and publicly rejected the U.S. offering at least de facto recognition of Russia’s occupation of Crimea and areas of the Donbas. Zelensky’s allies in the U.S. and Europe echoed this criticism. Trump replied that the U.S. was not asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Trump and Vice President Vance also faulted Zelensky for publicly criticizing the new U.S. proposals, which they said were harmful to the peace process.

Critics of President Trump’s Ukraine peace proposal are arguing that it does not hold Russia accountable for its vicious and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Some claimed it rewards this aggression. Although these are principled positions, Trump’s hard-nosed realist plan may be the only chance to end the war. Trump’s plan recognizes facts on the ground that are unlikely to change and offers a chance to get both sides to the negotiating table and end the war.

Why Hamas Must Not Be Allowed to Keep Its Weapons by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21572/hamas-weapons

Hamas wants to keep its weapons so that it could kill even those Jews who “hide behind stones and trees.” Hamas also wants to hold on to its weapons so that it can continue to oppress Palestinians who dare to speak out against the terrorist group. This old but reliable method of control is how Hamas has managed to remain in power for the past two decades.

Any deal that allows Hamas to keep its arsenal of weapons is simply a green light to the Islamists to pursue their jihad against Israel. It is a waste of time to demand that Hamas just be removed from power in the Gaza Strip.

The Trump administration actually needs to place the issue of disarming Hamas and all the Palestinian terrorist groups not among its demands, but at the top.

As the war in the Gaza Strip is about to enter its 20th month, the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist group has once again repeated its refusal to disarm. It says the weapons are needed to continue its fight against Israel. Those who believe that Hamas would ever agree to lay down its weapons are living in a dream world. There is, unfortunately, only one way to convince Hamas to disarm: military force.

Recently, two senior Hamas officials, Mahmoud Mardawi and Bassam Naim, announced their group’s absolute rejection of any proposal related to laying down its weapons. They said that other Palestinian terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip also reject any plan to disarm.

“The [Palestinian] resistance’s weapons represent the life of the Palestinian people and cannot be relinquished under any circumstances,” Mardawi said in a statement to Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV station. Hamas, he added, “will not negotiate over its weapons, or those who carry them, at any stage. The mere entry into a discussion about this issue is completely unacceptable.”

Naim also told the TV station that Hamas would not lay down its weapons and that the “resistance will continue as long as there is an [Israeli] occupation.”

UK Labour’s Lost Loves John O’Sullivan

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/qed/uk-labours-lost-loves/

On a quiet parliamentary afternoon, just before the House of Commons adjourned for the Easter Recess, Sir Keir Starmer’s  own government launched a destructive missile, not an unguided one either but one aimed squarely at the Labour Party, in the hope that MPs would be so keen to leave for the holidays that they wouldn’t notice or mind very much.

Governments do that kind of thing from time to time, and sometimes it works by pushing an embarrassing controversy into a future when public opinion has “moved on,” i.e., is distracted by a later and more outrageous ministerial decision. But the maneuver collapses when the topic is a truly incendiary one.

On this occasion the topic was the scandal of Muslim grooming-and-rape gangs and their mainly white working-class young English women victims, some of whom were children (and not only legally so.) That scandal is now entering its third decade—first rumors of it were heard in 2001 and it broke into national news with the Rotherham episode in 2013—as it simultaneously morphs into an even more serious scandal of official and police complicity in both the original rape scandals and the subsequent cover-up.

It’s not the case that nothing has been done in the intervening twelve years. More than fifty major cities across Britain have had grooming gang scandals, trials, and convictions which resulted in lengthy sentences for perpetrators since the Rotherham scandal went national in 2013. There have been ten official enquiries, from which a general picture emerges of organized gangs of “South Asian” or “Pakistani-heritage” Muslim men who prey on vulnerable teenage English girls, seduce them, beat and brutalize them, demoralize them as worthless sluts, and then prostitute them to friends and clients in other towns.

The mass media has also reported these stories, run commentaries on them, and interviewed some of the surviving victims. But they have done so at intervals in response to the latest city “shamed” rather than in a sustained and detailed way that would compel government action to discover what was happening and to set it right once and for all. Similarly, the enquiries, though serious and informative, have been limited in their impact because they have had neither the powers to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath nor terms of reference covering police and official complicity that would force the worst aspects of the scandal into the sunlight of public and political debate.

Accordingly, the scandals have rumbled on in the background of politics with some of its key facts hard to establish. “Grooming” of the kind described above doesn’t exist as a specific criminal offense and “rape” covers a larger category of offenses. Statistics about the numbers of such rapists and their victims are scattered—the Office of National Statistics doesn’t keep them and tells inquirers to write to the Home Office. Over the years both official inquiries and police investigations have refused to divulge some of their findings “in order to protect community relations” which is sometimes a sanitized explanation of the fear of being accused of racism. And there are underlying disagreements in Westminster, Whitehall, and the media over whether Muslims are disproportionately represented in such crimes and if so, whether their religion has anything to do with it, and if so, whether such a connection should be discussed.

The dangers of the political gender gap Young women and men are gravitating towards opposite political extremes, with potentially explosive consequences. Joel Kotkin

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.

Christopher F. Rufo, Ryan Thorpe Princeton’s War on Civil Rights The university has entrenched a system of racial discrimination—against whites.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/princeton-university-christopher-l-eisgruber-dei-civil-rights?skip=1

Amid the ongoing showdown between the Trump administration and the Ivy League, one university president has positioned himself as a leader of the academic resistance: Princeton’s Christopher L. Eisgruber.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants to Princeton as part of its investigation into racial discrimination and anti-Semitism at the New Jersey campus. Eisgruber, though, was defiant, telling the New York Times that he’s “not considering any concessions” and calling for other university presidents to follow his lead.

This isn’t Eisgruber’s first bid for the spotlight. After the death of George Floyd in 2020, he declared that Princeton—where he has served as president since 2013—was guilty of “systemic racism.” In a letter to students that September, he went so far as to claim that racism was embedded in the very “structures of the university itself.”

Eisgruber was right to say that he presides over a system of racial discrimination—but not in the way he imagines. The university does not discriminate against “oppressed” groups, such as blacks and Latinos, but against those seen as “oppressors.”

“At Princeton, it’s totally common knowledge that there are favored groups and disfavored groups,” one professor said. “And the disfavored groups are whites, Jews, males,” and others commonly disliked by the Left.

A City Journal investigation confirms that Princeton has, in fact, entrenched a system of racial discrimination and segregation. We have obtained more than a dozen internal documents and conducted interviews with a half-dozen employees, who confirm that the university has flagrantly violated the principles of the Civil Rights Act in the name of “social justice.”

Bright Spots Do Exist in American Higher Education—Are They the Future? Four small colleges reject woke orthodoxy, student debt, and federal strings—offering faith, grit, and classical learning as a bold alternative in higher ed. By Teresa R. Manning

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/24/bright-spots-do-exist-in-american-higher-education-are-they-the-future/

On April 8, the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, did something unusual: it found and showcased bright spots in American higher education. Such hidden gems are rare, so the event and its participants deserve attention and support.

Many Americans are painfully aware of academia’s current pathologies: soaring tuition resulting in unprecedented debt for students; leftward politicization with Democrat professors outnumbering Republicans 50 to 1; grievance studies such as Women’s Studies or Queer Studies displacing real learning; and, consequently, graduates who are ignorant, especially in American civics, world history, math, and finance, as the repeated schemes to cancel student loans attest.

The humanities were the first to go bad, though the sciences have certainly caught up as politically correct “diversity” and “equity” initiatives are now common in medical schools. The liberal arts used to focus on what was common to all of humanity—hence “the humanities.” They instructed us on our shared vices and virtues, our passions and reason, as depicted in the Great Books of Western Civilization, such as those by Chaucer, Milton, or Shakespeare.

But today’s campus identity politics inverts this and encourages a focus on self, one’s tribe, or one’s pet politics—the direct opposite of the word “education,” the root of which is the Latin ducare, meaning to bring forth or draw out. Traditionally, education was never a focus on one’s own problems but rather a means to broaden the mind and one’s world, to see universals, including human nature, not to fight today’s political battles. Alas, whether they know it or not, most colleges today instead subscribe to the Communist Manifesto line that, “Philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it.” Campus protests make the point.

But a few notable schools reject this Marxist norm. Presidents of four of them spoke at the Heritage panel, Reclaiming the Culture of Higher Education, introduced by Jonathan Pidluzny, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs in the Education Department.

What Is Democratic Legality? The left decries Trump’s deportation of an MS-13-linked illegal alien while ignoring its own legal hypocrisy and attempts to undermine the U.S. justice system. By Victor Davis Hanson

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.

Ivory Tower Hypocrite: University of California-Los Angeles Pro-Israel speakers censored while Hamas rioters take over campus. by Sara Dogan

https://www.frontpagemag.com/ivory-tower-hypocrite-university-of-california-los-angeles/

#1: University of California-Los Angeles

In the spring of 2024, as pro-Hamas protests roiled college campuses and illegal encampments led by keffiyeh-wearing radicals took over campus quads, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) stood out as an example of supreme hypocrisy on how to handle controversial discourse on campus.

Radical student activists aided by outside agitators took over an enormous swath of campus, denying entry to “Zionists” (meaning virtually all Jews) or anyone who refused to parrot their glorification of Hamas and the beauty of the terrorist organization’s October 7th massacre of over 1200 innocent Israelis. Students who attempted to breach the wooden and metal barricades erected to form the so-called “Palestine Soldiarity Encampment” were explicitly turned away with either words or, when the activists deemed it necessary, physical force.  Instead of ensuring equal access to all students, as is the university’s constitutional obligation, university security forces were instructed to stand by and guard the encampment.

The Amcha Initiative, a watchdog group dedicated to tracking and combatting anti-Semitism on campus, has documented some of these horrific confrontations on the public university campus and the resultant denial of freedom of speech and freedom of association. As Amcha reports:

A Jewish counter demonstrator at the anti-Zionist encampment on campus was beaten. After her 13-year-old sister dropped her Israeli flag, the counter demonstrator bent down to pick it up and at least five kefiyah-clad protestors accosted her, first by stomping on the flag and then by knocking her to the ground, repeatedly kicking her in her head and causing her to lose consciousness and apparently suffer a concussion. When she awoke she was bleeding from her head, disoriented, and unable to recognize her family.
According to the ADL, a Jewish individual was also harassed near the encampment by an individual who stated, “Go back to Poland.”
A pro-Israel counter-protester was attacked by an anti-Zionist encampment protestor who attempted to rip the sign from his hand, grabbed his hat and flashed a taser.
Also, the same day, a moving barrier of protesters was formed to block a Jewish student, who wears a Star of David necklace, from entering campus while as a security officer stood nearby. The Jewish student told protesters, “I’m a UCLA student, I deserve to go here, we pay tuition, this is our school, and they’re not letting me in. My class is over there, I want to use that entrance … will you let me go in?” The protesters simply told him that they’re “not engaging” and blocked the Jewish student every time he attempted to go through the entrance.
Additional incidents occurred with anti-Zionist protesters affiliated with the SJP and JVP encampment blocking Zionist students from walkways and accessing the library, using wristbands to identity anti-Zionists, with many of these incidents documented on video. In one video, protestors have taken over access to an area near the school library, demanding wrist bands and approval to each student passing, with one Jewish student attempting to enter and upon being denied asking, “So you won’t let me in because I’m Jewish?” The anti-Zionist protester responses, “Ummm no… we have a couple Jewish students here… are you a Zionist?” The Jewish student responds, “Yes of course I am” to which the protester retorts, “Well yeah, we’re not gonna let Zionists in.”

Tyranny of Islam Diane Bederman

https://dianebederman.com/tyranny-of-islam/

We are told to pander to Islam so we are not accused of Islamophobia!

There are approximately 8 billion people on earth and almost 2 billion Muslims-one quarter of the world population. And 2.4 billion Catholics/Christians. Many researchers project that Muslims will outnumber Christians by the year 2050. There are 193 countries. Muslims are the majority in 49 countries which means these countries are ruled by sharia Law.

Muslims now live all over the world in countries that are based on the Judeo/Christian ethic: all people are born with equal intrinsic value, all life is sacred and we have free will– which is anathema to Islam.

How do I know? So says Islam:

“Is Islam compatible with the values of Western democracy?

“The political system of Islam is totally incompatible with western democracy.

“[Hadith]: 673. Abu Bakrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: I heard Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, “He who insults the rulers Allah will insult him.”

[At-Tirmidhi].

“Commentary: To affront and degrade the ruler means to disobey him and to by-pass his orders. This impairs his power, honour and dignity.

“Believers have been told to obey and support rulers for the sake of national interest and welfare, understanding that they desist from committing an overt disbelief and maintain congregation Salat and other duties of religion.

“The concept of government party and the opposition is alien to Islam.