Category: Opinion & analysis
Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending
More than 50 years ago, I witnessed firsthand how Mao Zedong’s socialist experiment dismantled market competition, suppressed innovation, and plunged China into economic ruin. As a survivor of that experiment, I watched in horror last week as Zohran Mamdani won over 50% of the vote in New York City, promising a socialist illusion of city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, universal rent control, and a defunded police department.
Such proposals might sound compassionate, but they threaten to repeat the class warfare and state control that devastated China from the 1950s to the late 1970s, only this time they are taking place in the financial capital of the world.
The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home.
Consider Mamdani’s push for “good cause eviction” laws and expanded rent control. He claims these measures protect tenants from exploitation, but they discourage property ownership and investment — just as Mao’s housing policies did.
In communist China, the state assigned apartments to urban families, but most people lived in poverty. My family of five was crammed into a 200-square-foot unit with no running water or a toilet. Today, rent control has already reduced housing supply by 20% in parts of New York City, driving up costs for everyone else. What Mamdani offers isn’t progress — it’s stagnation disguised as equity.
Mamdani’s support for “Medicare for All” and fare-free buses also ignores fiscal realities. Mao’s “barefoot doctors” promised class equity but delivered substandard care, contributing to millions of preventable deaths. America’s health care system leads the world in breakthroughs because of merit-driven research and competition, not government mandates. Meanwhile, New York City’s transit authority estimates free transit would cost taxpayers $1 billion annually without improving service. When socialism promises “free” services, it often delivers shortages, rationing, and inefficiency.
The proposal for city-owned grocery stores is another red flag. Under Mao, government-run stores led to chronic food shortages. Rice, cooking oil, and meat were rationed. Each urban citizen received only two pounds of meat per month. Even with ration coupons, I had to wake at 3 or 4 a.m. and wait in line for hours to buy a few ounces. Mamdani’s plan threatening private grocery competition risks repeating this nightmare.
Then there’s his support for defunding the police and replacing them with vague “community safety” alternatives. In 2020, he co-sponsored bills to slash NYPD funding by $1 billion, claiming it would combat systemic racism. This mirrors Mao’s Red Guards, who dismantled law enforcement and replaced it with ideological enforcers — leading to chaos, violence, and mass suffering.
Since 2020, crime in New York has risen by 15%, according to NYPD data. Weakening law enforcement doesn’t protect vulnerable communities — it leaves them exposed. As a father of a New Yorker, Mamdani’s reckless approach to policing is not just a political concern; it’s a personal one.
Mamdani also seeks to eliminate gifted and talented programs in public schools, calling them “inequitable.” But these programs offer high-achieving students — often from diverse backgrounds — a path to excellence.
RELATED: The right needs bigger ideas than tax cuts
Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
During the Cultural Revolution, China crushed its intellectual class and smothered innovation. New York is making a similar mistake. Gifted programs lifted math proficiency by 25%, according to a 2022 Department of Education report, yet Mamdani wants them eliminated in the name of “equity.” As an Asian-American parent who raised a child in STEM, I’ve seen how excellence takes root: You cultivate talent; you don’t level it.
Mamdani’s agenda mirrors the same destructive ideology I fled from. Socialism thrives on utopian promises pitched to voters who have never lived through the consequences. I have. And I recognize the warning signs.
Yet according to CNN exit polls, 70% of voters ages 18-44 supported Mamdani, compared to just 40% of older voters. Even more alarming: 57% of New Yorkers with college degrees voted for him, versus only 42% without. This reflects the growing influence of pro-socialist indoctrination in American universities.
The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home. To prevent a socialist takeover, we must fight back by reforming higher education and teaching our children the truth about socialism in K-12 classrooms.
Free markets don’t need federal babysitters
At a recent competition law symposium in Washington, the Trump administration’s antitrust chief, Gail Slater, made a welcome promise to keep markets open to new competitors and innovation.
That pledge comes at a critical moment. Too many politicians in both parties still believe government’s job is to engineer economic outcomes rather than let consumers decide. That mindset misunderstands what makes markets dynamic — and often locks in the very problems regulators claim they want to fix.
Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced ‘industrial policy’ when it serves their political interests. They call it leadership, but it’s just another form of central planning.
Cronyism takes many forms: subsidies for favored industries, tax breaks for politically connected firms, or lawsuits targeting companies for being too successful.
Take the Biden Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Visa. The administration said it “feared” Visa’s market share, even though the payments space is crowded with competitors — Mastercard, PayPal, Square, Apple Pay, and a swarm of fintech startups. Instead of protecting consumers, the Justice Department tried to punish one company for competing well and dictate the terms of an already vibrant market.
That’s not protecting competition — it’s manipulating it. When government intervenes this way, it distorts incentives, weakens confidence, and replaces consumer choice with bureaucratic preference.
Consumers always lose
When regulators overreach, consumers pay the price. Every dollar a company spends fending off groundless lawsuits is a dollar not spent on innovation. Every subsidy handed to a politically favored firm skews the playing field against smaller rivals. And every new dictate slows the experimentation that keeps markets alive.
Officials who justify these intrusions claim they’re “protecting competition.” But true competition doesn’t need Washington’s help. It needs Washington to step aside. Entrepreneurs, not regulators, create rivals. Consumers, not bureaucrats, decide who wins. The invisible hand disciplines firms far more effectively than any government lawyer.
Free markets need fewer meddlers
Government’s legitimate role is narrow: preventing fraud, enforcing contracts, and protecting property. That’s a far cry from deciding which companies are “too profitable,” which mergers are “too large,” or which industries deserve “strategic” subsidies. When officials cross that line, they stop refereeing and start playing the game themselves — badly.
This temptation spans parties. Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced “industrial policy” when it serves their political interests. They call it leadership, but it’s just another form of central planning that shackles consumers and businesses alike.
RELATED: Smash the health care cartel, free the market
File photo/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
The cure is restraint
The best way forward is simple. Washington should stop punishing success and stop handing out favors to friends. It should let consumers and entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats and lobbyists, determine winners and losers.
America’s prosperity was built on open competition and voluntary exchange — not government micromanagement. Crony capitalism is just socialism by another name, and it breeds the same stagnation and corruption.
President Trump’s team understands that prosperity comes from freedom, not favoritism. If policymakers truly care about fairness, they should start by doing the hardest thing in politics: stepping aside.
The railroad that could unite — and revive — America
When America completed its first nationwide railway in 1869, it did more than link two coasts. It united a nation. Railroads carried goods, materials, and people across vast distances at unprecedented speed, sparking an economic boom that forged a stronger, more unified country.
A century and a half later, the United States faces a new test. Globalization, supply-chain fragility, and inflation have exposed how dependent America has become on foreign systems and vulnerable networks. To meet these challenges, the nation must again invest in its own strength — beginning with its railroads.
Trucking currently dominates US freight, providing flexibility but at a steep cost in lives and highway damage. Railroads, by contrast, build and maintain their own infrastructure.
The proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, announced in July, offers that opportunity. The combined company would create America’s first coast-to-coast rail network under a single U.S. carrier, spanning more than 50,000 route miles and linking 100 ports across 43 states.
A direct line to lower costs
A unified system means fewer handoffs between fragmented regional networks, faster delivery, and lower costs. Streamlined routes would eliminate the bureaucratic friction that slows commerce and adds uncertainty to shipping. For farmers, manufacturers, and consumers, that translates into stronger supply chains, lower prices, and renewed confidence in the American economy.
Trucking currently dominates U.S. freight, providing flexibility but at a steep cost. Federal data show that heavy trucks were involved in more than 150,000 crashes and 4,500 deaths in 2024. A single tractor-trailer inflicts the same highway damage as 9,600 cars — a massive public expense that taxpayers absorb.
Railroads, by contrast, build and maintain their own infrastructure. They reinvest billions each year without federal subsidies, move more goods with less fuel, and emit fewer pollutants. When uninterrupted by carrier transfers, rail shipping can be up to 60% more cost-efficient per ton than trucking.
A transcontinental system would amplify those advantages. Freight could move directly from origin to destination without costly delays. Lower transportation costs in agriculture, manufacturing, housing, and retail would ripple through the economy, easing inflation and boosting competitiveness for U.S. producers.
Strengthening American industry
The merger also complements the Trump administration’s effort to reshore manufacturing and rebuild domestic supply chains. With access to 100 ports and 10 international interchanges, a unified Union Pacific system would give U.S. manufacturers cheaper, more reliable routes for sourcing materials and delivering finished goods.
Expanded rail operations would also protect and grow good-paying union jobs in an industry that has powered America’s growth for more than a century. These are stable careers with benefits — the kind of work that anchors communities and sustains middle-class families.
Critics of rail mergers often warn of reduced competition or service quality. Those concerns deserve review. But in this case, the overlap between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern is minimal. Rather than suppressing competition, the merger would strengthen it by enabling U.S. carriers to compete more effectively against trucking, air freight, and Canadian railroads — which have enjoyed uninterrupted transcontinental systems for decades.
RELATED: Trucks destroy roads, but railroads — yes, rail! — can save taxpayers billions
Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images
A historic chance to unite the nation again
When the first cross-country railroad opened in 1869, it helped knit together a divided nation, fueled commerce, and launched America into the industrial age. The proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger represents a similar moment of promise.
By creating the first true coast-to-coast rail network in U.S. history, this partnership could help reshore manufacturing, fortify supply chains, and make American transportation safer and more efficient.
Rebuilding American prosperity begins with reconnecting America itself. The next great chapter of that story could once again be written on steel rails.
Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine
On Sunday night, the Oversight Project announced the culmination of a long effort: President Trump’s pardons for the so-called “alternate electors” and their affiliates who faced state-level prosecution for their role in the 2020 election.
Credit belongs to President Trump and Pardon Attorney Ed Martin for seeing this process through — and for having the political will and moral memory to leave no MAGA supporter behind. These pardons are the result of over a year of focused work by the Oversight Project. And because the corporate left-wing media has predictably denounced them for their politics, prudence, and legal effect, it’s worth explaining the pardons’ justification and impact.
Participation in a constitutional process is not a crime. Operation Arctic Frost and its imitators will not define the future of American justice. These pardons will.
First, terminology matters. “Contingent electors” is the correct phrase. “Alternate electors” or “fake electors” are loaded terms invented by the press to imply criminality.
In reality, these electors prepared slates to be submitted to Congress while investigations and legal challenges into the 2020 presidential election were still pending. Their purpose was simple: to preserve flexibility should fraud or irregularities be confirmed.
The 2020 election was unlike any in modern history. Under the pretext of COVID-19, officials across multiple states expanded mail-in voting without the safeguards required by law. Signature verification, chain-of-custody rules, and registration requirements were ignored. Courts refused to hear evidence, dismissing cases on procedural grounds rather than the merits.
And somehow, we were told that the vice president and Congress — bodies that have historically played a role in adjudicating electoral disputes — no longer had any role to play. As a result, President Biden’s victory will forever carry an asterisk in the history books.
Debunking modern myths
The notion that elections can only be challenged in court is a modern myth. Since the founding, Congress has played a central role in resolving disputed elections, as have state legislatures empowered to ensure the integrity of their own processes — including, when necessary, selecting electors directly.
The list of precedents is long.
- In 1797, John Adams, as president of the Senate, allowed time for objections to Vermont’s votes.
- In 1801, Thomas Jefferson counted Georgia’s contested votes — for himself.
- In 1857, a snowstorm kept Wisconsin’s electors from voting, but their ballots were counted anyway.
- In 1876, during the Hayes-Tilden standoff, Congress created a commission to adjudicate dueling slates from four states.
- In 1961, Hawaii submitted a contingent slate while its results were still being certified.
- In 2005, both chambers of Congress debated and ultimately rejected objections to Ohio’s votes.
- And as recently as 2017, multiple House members objected to electors from several states, though they lacked Senate co-sponsors.
This long record makes clear that the use of contingent electors is not criminal — it is, in fact, perfectly constitutional.
From constitutional to criminal
So why are good-faith contingent electors from 2020 now facing state prosecutions and financial ruin? The answer is weaponization.
During the Biden years, the federal government, blue-state prosecutors, and activist networks have coordinated to transform lawful political activity into criminal conduct. The same machinery that pursued President Trump through endless investigations was turned on ordinary citizens whose only “crime” was preserving constitutional options.
Operation Arctic Frost — the campaign of “map, harass, and isolate” tactics aimed at Trump allies — illustrates this perfectly. It was designed to intimidate lawyers, donors, and officials who supported Trump’s legal challenges, freezing them out of professional and financial life. The contingent electors were swept up in that same apparatus: coordinated prosecutions, media smears, and punitive lawfare intended to silence dissent.
RELATED: Biden FBI’s Arctic Frost surveillance of lawmakers could cost the government
Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
From Fani Willis’ politically motivated prosecutions in Georgia to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s efforts to organize partisan coalitions against perceived “threats,” the coordination has been unmistakable. Government, activist, and media arms all moved together with one goal: to erase the America First movement and criminalize its constitutional exercise of power.
That is the true definition of weaponization — using the law to destroy political opposition.
The legal case for Trump’s pardons
Critics claim the president cannot pardon state-level offenses. But that view collapses under constitutional scrutiny. States cannot prosecute conduct that falls under federal authority once it has been pardoned.
The selection of electors is a hybrid function — both state and federal — but the contingent electors acted in service of a federal purpose: the certification of the presidency. By issuing these pardons, the federal government has declared that these individuals acted lawfully, in good faith, and consistent with historic precedent.
If the federal government deems their actions lawful, how can states claim they committed crimes? That’s a question any fair court — or any fair jury — should be able to answer easily.
If these pardons are treated honestly, the state cases will collapse. More important, this should reassure every American committed to election integrity that defending the Constitution will never again be treated as a criminal act.
RELATED: The bureaucracy strikes back — and we’re striking harder
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Now what?
The toll on those targeted has been immense. Many have endured years of legal harassment, public vilification, and financial ruin simply for acting according to their constitutional duty.
The Oversight Project is exploring every possible avenue to secure restitution for those harmed — whether through private support, legislative action, or further executive remedies. These pardons mark the first step in correcting the record and restoring faith in the justice system.
They are not merely acts of mercy; they are acts of correction. They affirm that Americans who act to preserve election integrity, often at great personal cost, were right to do so.
The message is clear: Participation in a constitutional process is not a crime. Operation Arctic Frost and its imitators will not define the future of American justice. These pardons will.
Antifa burns, the media spin, and truth takes the hits
On Monday night, violence erupted at UC Berkeley. Again.
That sentence alone might not shock anyone. Berkeley and riots go together like gender studies and Marxist slogans — a tradition older than most of its students. But this time, the target was different.
Christians and conservatives should keep showing up. Every TPUSA Faith event, every lecture, every debate — attend them. The more witnesses, the less room for lies.
The mob didn’t come for a politician or a protest. It came for families.
The crowd surrounded a Turning Point USA Faith event hosted by an officially recognized student club, featuring Christian apologist Frank Turek and atheist Peter Boghossian, along with comedian Rob Schneider and British commentator and satirist Andrew Doyle. In one evening, TPUSA offered more intellectual diversity than the entire Berkeley humanities department has managed all year.
The riot that proved the stereotype
Picture families walking into a campus hall to hear a Christian and an atheist debate civilly. Now picture an angry crowd blocking the doors, throwing bottles, lighting fires, and chanting, “Punch a fascist in the face!”
Their only problem: No fascists were present. Unless, of course, you classify Turek, Boghossian, and a few Christian undergrads as Mussolini’s heirs. But that’s Berkeley logic — where “diversity” means everyone thinks the same and disagreement is treated like violence.
The radical left has no greater enemies than Christianity and free speech. Combine the two, and leftists melt down faster than a Berkeley sophomore trying to define the word “woman.”
How did we get here?
Berkeley has been the stage for riots since the 1960s. If campus unrest were Broadway, Berkeley would be “The Phantom of the Opera” — always running, always loud, always masked. But tradition doesn’t excuse terror.
The deeper problem is the culture feeding it. In today’s universities, students are marinated in ideology, not inquiry. The humanities have traded Socrates for slogans and replaced debate with denunciation.
This worldview breeds fragility and fanaticism: emotional dependence on outrage, intellectual intolerance, and the conviction that disagreement equals danger. It’s no wonder students’ activism now mimics the very authoritarianism they claim to resist.
Antifa’s unofficial motto might as well be: “Accuse your opponents of what you plan to do.”
The media’s complicity
Right on cue, the Guardian rushed to describe the riot as “mostly peaceful.” That phrase should be Berkeley’s new marketing slogan: Mostly Peaceful Since 1964.
The truth is simpler. The TPUSA attendees were peaceful. The rioters were not. They screamed in people’s faces, hurled debris, blocked exits, and called it “defending democracy.” Apparently, democracy now means assaulting Christians.
The radical playbook
If you want to decode the left’s method, just reverse the leftists’ accusations. They say, “Don’t demonize others,” while labeling everyone to the right of Lenin a fascist. They say, “All voices deserve to be heard,” while drowning opponents in primal screams.
They say, “Fight oppression,” while physically intimidating families trying to attend a faith event.
At Arizona State University, a colleague of mine once wrote, “I’m all for free speech — but not for bigots,” to justify banning Charlie Kirk from campus. Translation: I love freedom — as long as no one I dislike exercises it.
This is the moral logic of the modern left: Disagreement equals harm, and harm justifies censorship — or violence.
The ‘radical’ minority that isn’t
We keep calling these leftists radicals, but that implies rarity. Surveys say otherwise. The ideological monoculture dominates academia. The “moderate left” isn’t moderating anything; it’s supplying the radicals with silence, funding, and applause.
The tenured class that claims to value “diversity of thought” has created an institution where dissenters are treated like heretics.
RELATED: The Antifa mob at Berkeley showed us what evil looks like
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
What must be done
First, Christians and conservatives should keep showing up. Every TPUSA Faith event, every lecture, every debate — attend them. The more witnesses, the less room for lies.
Second, tell your state legislators you don’t want tax dollars funding violent intolerance disguised as higher learning.
Third, warn every parent and student what really happens on college campuses. Prepare your kids to challenge the ideological orthodoxy behind DEI, critical theory, and the alphabet soup of new moral dogmas.
Finally, support alternatives. Seek out institutions that teach truth instead of propaganda — and organizations like TPUSA Faith that defend free inquiry.
That’s why I started my Substack: to expose the rot inside American universities before your children discover it the hard way.
The cure for intellectual darkness is light. The cure for ideological riots is courage. And the cure for the Berkeley disease begins with showing up, speaking truth, and refusing to bow.
America’s addiction to Chinese money runs deeper than we care to admit
In a recent interview, President Trump defended his earlier claim that bringing 600,000 Chinese college students into the United States would be good for the country. When the interviewer questioned how that aligned with an America First agenda, Trump replied that without those students, “Half the colleges in America would go out of business.”
To most Trump supporters, that sounds like a win-win — fewer foreign students and fewer left-wing universities to subsidize. But Trump seemed to view the issue as a business transaction: Closing locations is bad, losing revenue is bad, and the substance of those “economic units” doesn’t really matter.
Why should we play Russian roulette with our national security to pad universities’ bottom lines?
His comments revealed a deeper confusion about what America First really means.
The China contradiction
America’s relationship with China has long been incoherent. Every Republican politician insists China is our chief geopolitical rival — a totalitarian power bent on unseating the United States as global hegemon. Yet few make any effort to restrict Chinese immigration, investment, or influence. At some point, it becomes difficult to take any of the rhetoric seriously.
The problem is obvious: China has too many people and too much money. The country’s strength lies in what America abandoned: manufacturing. While American corporations chased financial gimmicks and “service economies,” China focused on making tangible goods at scale. That discipline built a vast middle class and positioned Beijing at the center of global production. Now nearly every Western industry — film, retail, education — depends on access to China’s markets.
The result: American institutions bend over backward to please a government they claim to fear. Chinese nationals can buy land, start companies, and enroll by the hundreds of thousands in U.S. universities. It would be funny if it weren’t so corrupt.
The university addiction
Trump knows mass immigration hurts Americans, but he struggles to say no when big money is involved. Foreign students pour billions into universities, and administrators have built their entire business models around them. But counting up dollars isn’t the same as serving the national interest.
Universities are publicly subsidized and supposedly dedicated to educating Americans first and foremost. Instead, they’ve turned into pipelines credentialing foreign elites — and sometimes, spies. Every seat filled by a Chinese student is one less for an American, and every dollar that props up a hostile regime’s protégés deepens our dependence on that regime.
The Department of Justice has charged three Chinese nationals at the University of Michigan for smuggling research materials and stealing technology. Eric Weinstein has even suggested that theoretical physics is being throttled for fear of espionage. Yet the universities — and now, apparently, Trump — seem unfazed.
Why save the enemy’s seminary?
Propping up higher education with Chinese cash isn’t just shortsighted — it’s insane. Colleges and universities have become leftist seminaries, charging astronomical tuition for courses that teach Americans to despise their parents and their nation. They already receive lavish government subsidies and still demand more.
Trump’s claim that “half the colleges” would collapse without Chinese money is dubious, but if it were true, those institutions deserve to fail. Let them. Destroying the patronage networks that produce radical activists was once a Trumpian goal. Reviving them with foreign money would be an act of political masochism. Why should we play Russian roulette with our national security to pad their bottom line?
RELATED: The ‘China class’ sold out America. Now Trump is calling out the sellouts.
Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The broader threat
Chinese money poisons more than academia. Nationals and shell companies routinely buy American land — including, alarmingly, property near military bases. One recent purchase of an RV park in Missouri by a Chinese couple just happened to place them next to Whiteman Air Force Base, home of the B-2 stealth bomber fleet. Similar shadowy transactions dot the map.
The pandemic exposed the madness of this dependence. The same regime that unleashed a virus on the world also controlled the supply chains for the medicine and protective gear we needed to fight it. Yet America’s political class still refuses to sever the tie. They are too addicted to Chinese money — and too invested in pretending that dependency equals diplomacy.
If the GOP is serious about confronting China, it must start by cutting every cord of reliance. Banning Chinese students from U.S. universities would be a simple, symbolic first step — and it would strike directly at the heart of the progressive academic machine.
Fleetwood Mac’s real breakup story: Death before motherhood
Stevie Nicks has decided to “weigh in” on abortion. In a recent interview with the Center for Reproductive Rights, she described how an unwanted pregnancy — conceived during her years of promiscuity — led to an abortion she now defends as necessary for her career.
You might remember Stevie Nicks. She’s the former Fleetwood Mac singer who chose to end her child’s life to preserve fame and fortune. A few years later, the dysfunctional group fell apart anyway, torn by jealousy and resentment. Nicks sacrificed her child for an illusion of success — and lost it all.
The idols of the 1960s — unrestrained desire, sexual libertinism, and the worship of self — have produced nothing but loneliness, guilt, and moral ruin.
“I got pregnant, how could this be? I have an IUD,” Nicks recalled. “Fleetwood Mac is big, and it would have destroyed the band.” She remembered thinking, “Everybody kept asking, ‘Why won’t someone do something?’ I thought, I have a platform, I tell a good story, maybe I should do something.”
She told a story, all right — a horror story. In her own words, she chose abortion not because her life was in danger but because she feared an awkward confrontation with her ex-lover and bandmate Lindsey Buckingham. “Having a child with Don Henley,” she said, “would not have gone over well in Fleetwood Mac, with Lindsey and me. … It would have been a nightmare for me to go through.”
So a child died to spare a rock star an emotionally uncomfortable conversation.
The moral wreckage of ‘free love’
Nicks’ confession is more than a personal tragedy; it’s a parable of an era. The generation that preached “free love” is now paying the bill. The idols of the 1960s — unrestrained desire, sexual libertinism, and the worship of self — have produced nothing but loneliness, guilt, and moral ruin.
The abortion Nicks defends didn’t liberate her. It enslaved her to a lie — that personal freedom justifies killing the innocent. The band she protected disintegrated. Her fame faded. And the moral emptiness she embraced has followed her into old age.
The irony is that this rebellion against “patriarchal control” delivered precisely what the so-called patriarchy wanted: women stripped of prudence and virtue, persuaded to destroy what men once had to protect. The revolutionaries of “free love” preached empowerment while handing men a permission slip for irresponsibility. Men couldn’t believe their luck.
A real-life trolley problem
Philosophers use the “trolley problem” hypothetical to explore moral choices — sacrificing one life to save others from a runaway trolley. Nicks faced her own real-life version. One track held her child’s life; the other, her fame and comfort. She threw the switch. An innocent child died. Her fame soon followed.
The members of Fleetwood Mac later turned on one another, proof that the god she served — success — wasn’t worth the price.
RELATED: Christians are refusing to compromise — and it’s terrifying all the right people
Photo by Bildagentur-online/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
A reckoning awaits
Jordan Peterson recently refused to entertain a student’s hypothetical about lying to save Jews in World War II, saying he’d never live in a way that forced such a choice. Virtue prevents moral traps before they arise. Stevie Nicks created her own trap through promiscuity and “solved” it by ending a human life.
But Nicks’ reckoning doesn’t end with the interview. Her child’s soul, like all souls, lives on. One day she will face that child — and the creator who gave that child life. When asked why she ended it, her only honest answer will be: for fame, for money, and to avoid a hard conversation.
That conversation will be harder still when she faces God Himself. For her sake — and for those tempted to follow her path — one hopes she repents and seeks the forgiveness found only in Christ, while there is still time.
When the AI bubble bursts, guess who pays?
For months, Silicon Valley insisted the artificial-intelligence boom wasn’t another government-fueled bubble. Now the same companies are begging Washington for “help” while pretending it isn’t a bailout.
Any technology that truly meets consumer demand doesn’t need taxpayer favors to survive and thrive — least of all trillion-dollar corporations. Yet the entire AI buildout depends on subsidies, tax breaks, and cheap credit. The push to cover America’s landscape with power-hungry data centers has never been viable in a free market. And the industry knows it.
The AI bubble isn’t about innovation — it’s about insulation. The same elites who inflated the market with easy money are now preparing to dump the risk on taxpayers.
Last week, OpenAI chief financial officer Sarah Friar let the truth slip. In a CNBC interview, she admitted the company needs a “backstop” — a government-supported guarantee — to secure the massive loans propping up its data-center empire.
“We’re looking for an ecosystem of banks, private equity, maybe even governmental … the ways governments can come to bear,” Friar said. When asked whether that meant a federal subsidy, she added, “The guarantee that allows the financing to happen … that can drop the cost of financing, increase the loan-to-value … an equity portion for some federal backstop. Exactly, and I think we’re seeing that. I think the U.S. government in particular has been incredibly forward-leaning.”
Translation: OpenAI’s debt-to-revenue ratio looks like a Ponzi scheme, and the government is already “forward-leaning” in keeping it afloat. Oracle — one of OpenAI’s key partners — carries a debt-to-equity ratio of 453%. Both companies want to privatize profits and socialize losses.
After public backlash, Friar tried to walk it back, claiming “backstop” was the wrong word. Then on LinkedIn, she used different words to describe the same thing: “American strength in technology will come from building real industrial capacity, which requires the private sector and government playing their part.”
When government “plays its part,” taxpayers pay the bill. Yet no one remembers the federal government “doing its part” for Apple or Motorola when the smartphone revolution took off — because those products sold just fine without subsidies.
The denials keep coming
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman quickly followed with a 1,500-word denial: “We do not have or want government guarantees for OpenAI datacenters.” Then he conceded they’re seeking loan guarantees for infrastructure — just not for software.
That distinction exposes the scam. Software revolutions scale cheaply. Data-center revolutions depend on state-sponsored power, water, and land. If this industry were self-sustaining, Trump wouldn’t need to tout Stargate — his administration’s marquee AI-infrastructure initiative — as a national project. Federal involvement is baked in, from subsidized energy to public land giveaways.
Altman’s own words confirm it. In an October interview with podcaster Tyler Cowen, released a day before his denial, Altman said, “When something gets sufficiently huge … the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort.” He wasn’t talking about nuclear policy — he meant the financial side.
The coming crash
Anyone paying attention can see the rot. Nvidia, OpenAI, Oracle, and Meta are all entangled in a debt-driven accounting loop that would make Enron blush. This speculative bubble is inflating not because AI is transforming productivity, but because Wall Street and Washington are colluding to prop up stock prices and GDP growth.
When the crash comes — and it will — Washington will step in, exactly as it did with the banks in 2008 and the automakers in 2009. The “insurer of last resort” is already on standby.
The smoking gun
A leaked 11-page letter from OpenAI to the White House makes the scheme explicit. In the October 27 document addressed to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Christopher Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, urged the government to provide “grants, cost-sharing agreements, loans, or loan guarantees” to help build America’s AI industrial base — all “to compete with China.”
Altman can tweet denials all he wants — his own company’s correspondence tells a different story. The pitch mirrors China’s state-capitalist model, except Beijing at least owns its industrial output. In America’s version, taxpayers absorb the risk while private firms pocket the reward.
RELATED: Stop feeding Big Tech and start feeding Americans again
Credit: Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images
Meanwhile, the data-center race is driving up electricity and water costs nationwide. The United States is building roughly 10 times as many hyper-scale data centers as China — and footing the bill through inflated utility rates and public subsidies.
Privatized profits, socialized losses
When investor Brad Gerstner recently asked Altman how a company with $13 billion in revenue could possibly afford $1.4 trillion in commitments, Altman sneered, “Happy to find a buyer for your shares.” He can afford that arrogance because he knows who the buyer of last resort will be: the federal government.
The AI bubble isn’t about innovation — it’s about insulation. The same elites who inflated the market with easy money are now preparing to dump the risk on taxpayers.
And when the collapse comes, they’ll call it “national security.”
Lowering the bar doesn’t lift women up
For years, Americans have been told a comforting lie: Anyone can do anything, be anything, and succeed at anything, regardless of limits or differences. But ideological fantasies collapse on the battlefield, where physics, endurance, and human limits matter more than slogans.
After years of social experimentation, the military is rediscovering a basic truth: Equality of opportunity makes the force stronger, while equality of outcome weakens it. The return to gender-neutral standards announced last month by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth marks a long-overdue step toward restoring merit, discipline, and respect across the ranks.
Pretending that men and women have identical physical capabilities doesn’t empower women; it endangers them.
For most of our history, the armed forces held one clear principle: Anyone, male or female, could serve in any position if they met the same standard. The promise was simple and fair — the uniform didn’t care about sex or gender, only performance.
That began to change in 2015, when the Army opened all-male combat units to women. At the time, the Pentagon promised no dilution of standards. But in 2018, when the new gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test was introduced, 84% of female soldiers failed. Instead of maintaining expectations, the Army rewrote them.
By 2022, the ACFT 4.0 came with gender-based scoring — a quiet admission that standards had become negotiable. The result: Combat units staffed with soldiers unable to meet the physical requirements of their jobs. That puts missions, morale, and lives at risk.
Worse, it undermines respect for women who do meet the standard. When the bar moves, doubt replaces trust. Hardworking female soldiers — the ones who earned their places — are forced to prove themselves twice: once in training and again in the eyes of their peers.
Diversity by design, weakness by consequence
In 2021, U.S. Special Operations Command declared that “diversity is an operational imperative.” But this new “imperative” wasn’t about the real diversity already found across the military — people from every background, race, and income level serving side by side. It was about engineering statistical parity, even in elite combat units where performance alone must decide who stays and who goes.
That mindset has consequences. Combat units can’t afford ideological experiments. The job is to close with and destroy the enemy — not to serve as laboratories for social theory. Lowering standards in the name of inclusion doesn’t just weaken readiness; it puts soldiers in unnecessary danger.
And no woman who trains to fight wants pity disguised as progress. The women who seek out elite units don’t ask for special treatment — they ask for the same chance to prove themselves by the same rules. When standards drop, those women lose too.
Strength in truth
Gender-neutral standards don’t discriminate. They recognize that men and women are different and that most people — men included — simply can’t meet the demands of combat. That’s not “oppression.” It’s just reality.
Women who pass those standards have demonstrated extraordinary strength, skill, and resolve. They deserve admiration, not suspicion. And those who don’t — along with the vast majority of men who don’t — can still serve honorably in the hundreds of vital roles that keep America’s military functioning.
RELATED: How America lost its warrior spirit when it feminized its academies
Photo by Kevin Carter
A sex-neutral standard is an act of fairness, not exclusion. It’s a recognition that excellence demands truth, not ideology — that merit, not identity, keeps soldiers alive and wins wars.
Restoring purpose
The military’s duty is national defense, not social engineering. Pretending that men and women have identical physical capabilities doesn’t empower women; it endangers them.
Reaffirming one standard for all isn’t an attack on women — it’s a defense of every soldier’s dignity. It calls each person to rise to the challenge, to serve according to one’s God-given abilities, and to be judged by results.
If we want a stronger force — and a stronger nation — we must stop confusing fairness with fantasy. Let’s demand standards worthy of the uniform, and let every soldier, male or female, earn respect the same way: by meeting them.
Washington’s priorities are backward — and veterans know it
When Washington shuts down, it doesn’t just stall politics — it shakes the lives of America’s veterans. At the outset of the government shutdown last month, a veteran named James called VetComm in tears. His question was simple but heartbreaking: “Will I still get paid next week? Because I can’t afford groceries if I don’t.”
James served his country with honor. Yet he worried about feeding his family because Democrats in Washington insist on prioritizing illegal immigrants over the very men and women who defended this nation.
Enough is enough. Stop putting illegal immigrants ahead of the heroes who built and defended this country.
I’ve dedicated my life to fighting for veterans like James — those who bled for this country, only to watch so-called representatives in Washington bend over backward for people who entered it illegally. With this latest government shutdown, Democrats have again slammed the door on veterans while rolling out the red carpet for illegal aliens.
A manufactured crisis
For over a month, Democrats held the entire nation hostage, demanding a $1.5 trillion, poison-pill-stuffed funding bill that includes “free health care” for illegal aliens while programs for veterans teeter on the brink. It’s not just reckless — it’s cruel. These are the same priorities that helped drive a 19% spike in veteran homelessness while illegal migrants got luxury hotel rooms on the taxpayer’s dime.
As the shutdown ends, the facts are clear. The House passed a clean continuing resolution to keep the lights on, maintain VA funding, and avoid chaos. But Senate Democrats — led by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York — rejected it, choosing to plunge the country into an unnecessary shutdown to appease their left-wing base.
The Democrats’ alternative was loaded with giveaways: subsidies for illegal immigrants’ doctor visits, hospital stays, and “health care rights,” while hundreds of thousands of veterans remain stuck on VA wait lists — some dying before they’re seen.
Staggering hypocrisy
Schumer once said avoiding a shutdown “is very good news for the country, for our veterans … all of whom would have felt the sting.” More recently, he warned that “a shutdown would mean chaos and pain and needless heartache for the American people.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “It is not normal to shut down the government when we don’t get what we want.” Jeffries said shutdowns are “about the harm.”
Those very same politicians ended up leading one — weaponizing activist wish lists and pet projects against the GOP and the nation.
RELATED: Disabled vets denied dignity as VA claim backlog becomes unbearable
Johnrob via iStock/Getty Images
This pattern of betrayal isn’t new. Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the VA was caught reimbursing health care for illegal immigrants and their families, draining resources from veterans. I’ve seen it firsthand in San Diego — hotels packed with migrants while homeless veterans sleep on sidewalks, dodging needles and despair.
Over 10 million illegal crossings have occurred under the Biden administration’s watch. The result: big money for migrants, broken promises for veterans. The audacity to continue putting invaders ahead of patriots is shocking — and unforgivable.
The real human cost
Everyone knows a shutdown hurts troops, veterans, and families. Yet Democrats embraced it anyway, in service to radical ideology over national duty. Americans overwhelmingly oppose this madness.
Enough is enough. Stop putting illegal immigrants ahead of the heroes who built and defended this country. It’s time to restore sanity and start prioritizing America again.
At VetComm, we see the toll every day. The sleepless nights. The panic over missed paychecks. The spiraling PTSD and anxiety triggered by uncertainty. Veterans have already given everything; they shouldn’t have to fight their own government for stability and dignity.
Our mission is simple: Stand in the gap for those who stood for us. We help veterans understand their rights, claim the benefits they earned, and remember that their service still matters. A shutdown tests that mission — but it also steels our resolve.
Because while Washington bickers, we will keep fighting for every veteran, every day, not just Veterans Day.
