The second-most-important election is this fall. If the Democrats take the House, the Trump agenda takes a hit, and the impeachments will begin again. There is no scenario in which tribalism will abate so that the Democrats will bring back their neoliberal/progressive agenda, and most of what Trump has accomplished will be lost. The Republicans have to have eight more years in power to halt the progressive agenda fully.

Here we will take an early look at the Democratic race for the presidential nomination and see what it tells us.

According to Mark Halperin’s reporting, which I trust to be reasonably objective, Democrats line up as follows: Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Rahm Emanuel, AOC, Mark Kelly, J.D. Pritzker. In his opinion, all of the candidates are weak for one reason or another.

Mark’s ratings are based on intelligence from insiders, not polls. He separates electability from popularity, and one of his strongest metrics for electability is whether the candidate has a vision for themselves and the country. Most of the people on this list do not have a vision they can articulate.

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California – His strengths are an elite communicator, very comfortable on a national stage, strong fundraising network (Hollywood + donors), and he’s already running a shadow national campaign. His weaknesses are California liability (crime, homelessness narratives), and he can come off as overly slick. Newsom is a progressive hybrid, the most presidential-looking, but also the easiest Republican target.

Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania - His strengths are winning big in a swing state, a pragmatic, moderate tone, and a strong executive image. His weaknesses are lower national name recognition and a less charismatic persona than Newsom. Shapiro is a center-left candidate to the right of the progressives, and Halperin treats him as the most dangerous general-election candidate. Dangerous in the sense that if his competitors overlook him, they will be making a mistake.

Pete Buttigieg, former Transportation Secretary. His strengths are that he is extremely disciplined, a strong communicator, strong in media and debates, and he appeals to educated voters. His weaknesses are a limited executive record and his weakness with Black voters (historically). We could label him a technocratic reformer. He’s always competitive, but still needs to create a broader coalition.

Kamala Harris, former Vice President. Her strengths are a strong national infrastructure, support among key Democratic constituencies, and a first-in-line position if Biden fully exits the scene. Her weaknesses include low approval ratings and messaging inconsistency. She is an institutional coalition candidate. Kamala is the default front-runner if she runs well, but she is very beatable.

Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor and ambassador. His strengths are deep political experience, and he’s a strong operator and strategist. His weaknesses are that he is polarizing and seen as an old-guard establishment figure. You could label him a hard-nosed centrist. He is probably more influential behind the scenes than as a candidate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, current Congresswoman. Her strengths are her marketing ability and the base of followers she has developed. Her weakness is that she is a polarizing personality.

She will influence the race if she runs.

Mark Kelly, Arizona senator, astronaut. His strength is his strong general-election profile. His weaknesses are that he has only moderate appeal and weak primary energy.

J. B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois. His strengths are his massive personal wealth (which allows him to self-fund), strong progressive credentials, and executive experience. His weaknesses are low national charisma and the fact that Illinois doesn’t scream “electability.” He is a progressive establishment candidate, but he’s not a serious player if money and organization dominate.

You can place these candidates into four lanes: Shapiro and Kelly are electable; Harris and Newsom are part of the national machine; Buttigieg is a next-generation politician; and AOC and Pritzker are in the progressive ideological lane.

Of course, the central battle within the party is between the progressive and more traditional wings. The progressives want to change more and don’t care if that makes them less popular along the way. Elections, unlike primaries, are usually won by centrist candidates because they have to attract independents to vote for them.

The energy in the Democratic Party lies with the progressives for several reasons: their zeal makes them activists; primaries are ideological contests; institutions that generate new ideas (universities) are progressive; and the progressives have greater cultural influence through the media and cultural institutions.

Share

Moderates still have significant money influence, however. Contributions from East Coast and West Coast sources are approximately equal, so Silicon Valley/Hollywood doesn’t control things on its own. Blue state identity matters too. Strong blue states will nominate progressive candidates, while swing states must nominate moderates to increase their chances of winning the nomination.

How does the general election look from our long-distance position? The Polymarket betting line has Newsom ahead of AOC in the nomination race. On the Republican side, Vance defeats Rubio in the primary and goes on to win the general election over Newsom.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Ok, still a little vague. Taxation and spending. Better?

Government spending is out of control, and if there’s a political party anywhere in the world that claims to be concerned, I guarantee it isn’t in power. Parties only care about government spending when the other side is doing the spending.

How bad is it?

Here’s a chart for a few countries:

Ya, that doesn’t mean much to me either. Let’s try it a different way.

Every single major anglosphere country spends more than it collects in taxes. This means that “Interest as % of Revenue” will continue to increase until we’re all paying taxes just to cover debt payments.

Makes you think the Zoomer $28 lunch crowd is running these countries, doesn’t it?

Just kidding. I’m sure they’ll all blame the Boomers.

The truth is that we’re all to blame because we don’t seem to care enough to elect responsible governments.

Or it would be our fault if it were possible to vote for a party that’s serious about balancing the budget.

Which brings us back to the problem; most parties aren’t concerned with balancing the budget, or if they claim to be, their concern quickly vanishes when they’re elected.

Why?

Because their job is to get and stay in power, and you don’t do that when most of the electorate gets more out of the system than they pay into it.

Want a guaranteed losing election slogan? “We’re going to cut your benefits.” Good luck with that one.

Oh, both sides have “solutions.” Here are a few “interesting” ones floating around lately:

1. Don’t make seniors pay property tax – US, Florida, and British Columbia

2. Tax “the rich” – too many to list

3. A “wealth” tax – too many to list

4. Tax second homes – Hawaii, NYC, others

5. Cut senior benefits

6. Increase corporate taxes

7. Tax AI

My favorite by far is tax AI because it means one of two things, politicians think robots will be receiving salaries, or that you don’t know that this is simply another way of saying “increase corporate taxes,” which as we all know – or at least those of us with basic thinking skills know – means tax the consumer because corporations never eat taxes, they simply increase prices to cover them.

Like they do with tariffs.

Of course, it could be worse; “tax AI” could simply be another call for communism.

Or maybe that’s MAGAism because the government nationalizing private companies sounds an awful lot like something “The Donald” would get behind. Especially since he’s already done it.

The fact that Democrats want to increase corporate taxes and Republicans, or at least the MAGA strain, want to increase tariffs is simply an admission that neither party wants to cut benefits.

The cry is always, “if taxpayers would just pay ‘a little’ more, it would all be fixed.

Would it, though?

It seems that the government spending has been increasing since... well, since they first decided that a “selective” income tax would be useful.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: the rich already pay their “fair share.”

Unless by “fair share” you mean “enough to snuff out the flames of jealousy that rage in my heart” — in which case I’m going to need you to put a number on “fair share.”

Here’s another thing to keep in mind, you already pay your fair share, too, at least if you’re contributing more than you’re getting in benefits.

The big question is, if we can’t trust politicians to get spending under control, what will save us? Great question. All that we need is strong leadership willing to tackle difficult questions.

In other words, we’re screwed. Ok, that’s a bit harsh. Let me rephrase.

Given that politicians now bribe the electorate for votes – either by cutting taxes or spending increases - the financial issues that each country faces will not be addressed until politicians have no other choice but to raise taxes and/or cut spending.

This will happen when we face a national fiscal crisis due to a “Fiscal Crisis Spiral.”

Sounds pleasant, doesn’t it?

Here’s what a typical sovereign debt crisis looks like:

1. Government runs persistent deficits.

2. Debt grows.

3. Interest payments grow.

4. Investors demand higher interest rates.

5. Interest costs grow even faster.

6. Investors become worried about repayment.

7. Borrowing costs spike.

8. Government can no longer refinance existing debt.

9. Default, inflation, austerity, or a bailout follows.

There’s no clear indicator that one is pending, but there are warning indicators.

Here’s a “report card” for each country today.

Here is each county’s risk of a fiscal crisis and when we should expect one to occur based on current fiscal trajectories.

Things look pretty grim for the US if one can believe the economic data. To sum up, we have three choices: raise taxes, cut spending, or wait until there’s a crisis.

Share

Lay your bets! My money is on a fiscal crisis. It’s not all terrible news, though. Taxes may be a certainty, but so is one other thing.

Yep, the glass is half full: there’s a chance you’ll be dead before anything truly bad happens. Maybe a $28 lunch isn’t such a terrible idea after all.

About the Author

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech
😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece

The single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise.

If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

You flip on the television at night, exhausted from the day, and there it is again. Another segment on FOX News about “inner-city chaos” and skyrocketing crime. CNN rolls out experts decrying systemic barriers that keep Black men locked in cycles of poverty and punishment. On Newsmax or OAN, the tone is often even harsher, conveying the same message of danger, failure, and inner-city crime.

Scroll through social media (X, Facebook, TikTok, Truth Social, and even Instagram), and the algorithm serves up an endless buffet of outrage clips, fights, viral memes, and cherry-picked tragedies exploiting black violence and crime. Black men in America, the story goes, are either victims or villains. Rarely anything in between. This is what so many depict now as “Black Culture.”

But here’s a number that never makes the chyron: there are over 400,000- 500,000 more Black men in college than in prison. Let that sink in. Not a talking point. Not a spin. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has shown this reality for years.

Back in 2009, roughly 1.4 million Black men were enrolled in postsecondary programs, while about 840,000 were behind bars. The gap has fluctuated with enrollment trends and declining incarceration rates, but the fundamental truth remains: more Black men are hitting the books than the cell block. And yet you’d never know it from the nightly news or your feed.

One of the main reasons why this isn’t common knowledge is that outrage pays, while nuance and boring truth don’t. Media outlets on both the left and right run-on engagement. Fear keeps eyes glued. Hope doesn’t trend.

A police encounter gone wrong in a major city is prime-time and will headline news cycles for a week, if not more. A young Black man graduating from Howard, Morehouse, Tuskegee, the University of Michigan, Clemson, or Texas Tech with a degree and landing a good job or starting an innovative business will hardly ever get mentioned unless he is a star athlete. It doesn’t fit the script.

For progressive networks, acknowledging educational gains might undercut the narrative of perpetual systemic failure. For conservative ones, highlighting Black success stories risks softening the tough-on-crime message that resonates with their base. Social media algorithms are engineered to hack your dopamine, feeding on outrage, anxiety, and tribalism to keep you hooked. Statistics about Black college enrollment barely get mentioned, and when they do, it gets buried under the latest culture-war land mine.

This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s business. Cable news ratings soar during racial unrest. Social media companies profit when tribal users contribute to their echo chambers. Politicians on both sides raise money off the divide. This has led to a distorted mirror held up to Black America that reflects only the broken pieces.

I’m not saying these problems don’t exist. They definitely do. Black men are still overrepresented in the criminal justice system relative to their share of the population. Poverty, fatherlessness, and failing schools in some neighborhoods are real problems. Crime statistics paint a horrific and sad picture of reality for many Black Americans, and ignoring them helps no one. But the same honesty demands we acknowledge the other side of the ledger.

Incarceration rates for Black Americans have dropped sharply since the peak of the war on drugs. College enrollment, despite recent dips among Black men specifically, still outpaces imprisonment. Black-owned businesses are growing faster than the national average in many sectors. Homeownership rates have ticked up over the past two decades.

These aren’t miracles. They’re the product of individual grit, family sacrifice, mentorship, community churches, athletic organizations, HBCUs, and yes, policy shifts that reduced mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses. Yet the coverage gap is glaring.

Search any major outlet’s archives for stories on Black male college graduation rates. You’ll find a handful that are usually tied to some crisis or protest. Now search for stories on prison populations, bail reform failures, or urban violence. You’ll come across page after page and link after link. The imbalance isn’t accidental. It’s purposeful curation. Media gatekeepers decide what “matters,” and positive Black achievement rarely clears the bar unless it serves a larger ideological point.

I remember talking to a friend. He is a Black father of two sons. He put it bluntly: “They want us mad, not motivated.” He wasn’t wrong. When every headline screams crisis, young men internalize it. They see the world as rigged against them before they’ve even tried.

That’s the quiet poison of selective storytelling. It doesn’t just inform; it shapes expectations. Tell a generation that prison is their destiny, and some will live down to it. Show them the thousands walking across stages in caps and gowns every spring, many of whom are the first in their families, and you plant a different seed.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not calling for feel-good propaganda either. Truth requires both the bad and the good. The incarceration rate for Black men born in 2001 is still far too high. Some estimates have shown that one in five Black men born in 2001 is expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. That’s unacceptable. But so is pretending that the needle hasn’t moved.

Since the early 1990s, Black male college enrollment has exploded before recent headwinds. HBCUs, once written off, have produced leaders in every field. Black men are earning degrees in engineering, business, and health sciences at rates their fathers could only dream of. These aren’t exceptions. They’re patterns hidden in plain sight.

This matters beyond Black America. Every group gets the selective treatment. Immigrants are either all criminals or all saints, depending on the outlet’s bias. Rural whites are either salt-of-the-earth or dumb rednecks. The game is the same: simplify, polarize, and repeat. But when it comes to Black men, the stakes feel higher because the stereotypes have such deep roots, and there is very little “either” for us. The “thug” trope sells papers. The “scholar” doesn’t. Yet many scholars are out there. Many of them are quietly rewriting the story one diploma at a time.

Imagine if the media treated this like the achievement it is. Front-page features on first-generation graduates. Profiles of Black men mentoring at-risk youth while finishing night classes. Data-driven segments on how family structure, school choice, and personal agency drive outcomes more than pundits admit. Ratings might dip initially. But trust could be rebuilt. Viewers might feel something besides anger and prejudice, maybe even hope.

Until that happens, the responsibility falls on parents, teachers, pastors, uncles, coaches, bosses, mentors, and anyone with influence. We all have to be responsible and take accountability. Tell the young men in your life the whole truth. Yes, the world can be unfair. Yes, some systems need fixing. But no, prison isn’t inevitable. College, trade school, and/or entrepreneurship paths are possible and increasingly traveled. Data proves it.

Share

The next time you catch yourself doom-scrolling or glued to the 24-hour outrage machine, pause. Ask: What aren’t they telling me? Then go find out. The numbers don’t lie, even when the headlines do. There are more Black men in lecture halls than prison yards.

That’s not spin. It’s reality. And it’s time the rest of the country heard it-unfiltered, untwisted, and unapologetic. Because propaganda makes for lousy education. Truth, messy as it is, builds better futures.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

The right’s criticism of the left’s view of science is more narrowly focused. The right believes the left puts its own extreme ideology above science. For example, the multiple genders argument turns upside down basic biological principles in favor of identity politics.

Conservative positions hold that addressing climate change involves weighing trade-offs rather than panic over predictions that may not be reliable. A third area of conservative concern is crime. Conservatives reject the left’s notions that all criminals are rehabilitatable and that their crimes should be mitigated by their oppressed status. They believe the foundation of any stable society is law and order, so the public needs to know that its safety is protected by law enforcement.

An analysis of right and left positions on denial of science shows that both conservatives AND liberals can be science deniers. Why? Because scientific skepticism is a human trait, not a political one.

Science is a child of the Enlightenment, when mankind realized he could control his environment through technologies that were developed using scientific principles. Early in the Enlightenment, scientists believed that the world could be understood through the acquisition of absolute knowledge. This idea was debunked by the philosopher David Hume, who asserted that perceptions of reality can be mistaken. In other words, there was no absolute way to know reality.

The solution to Hume’s obstacle was Fallibilism, a philosophical principle holding that human knowledge is never certain and is always open to revision. Our beliefs may be false or mistaken. The important conclusion is that not knowing for certain about the world is an acceptable reality, as long as we continue to test what we believe to be the truth. That practical approach to understanding the world is the scientific method. Scientific theories arise when evidence supports a hypothesis, using observable laws (e.g., the law of gravity). Theories can be revised or discarded if the data no longer support them.

Given its remarkable track record, we should be aware of threats to science and its continued progress. One such threat is science denial: the groundless rejection of well-established scientific conclusions. Scientists themselves have been especially keen to sound the alarm about this widespread tendency, while social scientists have begun to investigate.

One common assertion is that science denial is primarily an issue on the political right. Consistent with this idea, right-leaning individuals are more likely than their left-leaning counterparts to deny various pivotal scientific claims.

Why do conservative people deny science? According to many psychologists, it’s because people on the right have certain cognitive tendencies that make science denial more tempting for them. These include a strong need for verifiable knowledge, rigidity in their worldview, and a tendency toward system-justifying beliefs. People on the left are less prone to these cognitive foibles and thus less likely to engage in science denial.

These ideas seem plausible enough at first glance, but they have to be tested. A problem with testing at the outset is that most psychologists and social scientists are themselves on the political left. This creates potential problems for research on science denial.

First, because most psychologists lean left, they may be more inclined to characterize people on the right as having behavioral biases that explain why they get everything wrong - and to portray themselves as having various traits that explain why they get everything right. Because there are relatively few right-leaning researchers, these conclusions may receive less attention than they should.

Second, psychologists may be quick to identify science denial on the right but slower to spot it among themselves. Although we’re less likely to hear about it, the left does have certain blind spots when it comes to accepting scientific findings.

Left-leaning individuals are often highly skeptical of the idea that genes help shape individual differences in mind and behavior. Many reject evolutionary psychology, thereby denying the evolution of the mind. Many deny the validity of IQ research. Many downplay or deny evolved differences between the sexes. And some even deny that the sex binary is one of the best-established findings in biology.

A study was conducted in 2016, and the resulting paper was titled “Science Denial Across the Political Divide: Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science,” by Anthony N. Washburn (awas hbu1@uic.edu) and Linda J. Skitka, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Volume 9, Issue 8, September 14, 2017.

The authors tested two main hypotheses:

1. The Uniquely-Right-Wing-Pathology Hypothesis: the idea that the right is more prone to science denial than the left.

2. The Symmetry Hypothesis: the idea that right and left are equally likely to reject scientific claims that clash with their political preferences.

Washburn and Skitka randomly assigned more than 1,000 participants to review scientific findings on various political topics. The topics included immigration, gun control, carbon emissions, health-care reform, nuclear power, and same-sex marriage. There were two versions of each reading: one with findings more aligned with the left, and one with findings more aligned with the right.

After completing their assignment, participants were asked which conclusion was supported by interpreting a set of numerical results included in the reading.

The findings largely supported the symmetry hypothesis over the uniquely right-wing hypothesis.

People on both sides of the political aisle were more likely to interpret the findings in ways that supported their pre-existing views than in ways that refuted them. After choosing an interpretation, participants were told the correct answer. They were then asked whether they agreed with it, whether they thought the researchers were knowledgeable, and whether they trusted the researchers’ interpretation. Finally, participants were asked for their own views on the issues covered in the study.

A twist was also added. For each reading, there was a simple but incorrect interpretation of the result, and a complex but correct interpretation. This was done to test the theory that, if the simple interpretation fit people’s pre-existing views, they’d be more likely to stop there. In contrast, if it didn’t fit, they’d be more likely to keep thinking until they arrived at the more complex - and correct - interpretation.

The findings largely supported the symmetry hypothesis over the uniquely right-wing or uniquely left-wing pathology hypotheses. People on both sides of the political aisle were more likely to interpret the findings in a way that supported their pre-existing views rather than in ways that refuted them.

Science denial is often construed as an ideological issue that is typically a problem for those on the political right (e.g., conservatives are anti-climate change science). The data suggest that this conceptualization is incorrect. When scientific conclusions conflict with people’s ideological stances and attitudes, people on the left and right are motivated both to perceive the evidence in a way that supports their preferred conclusions or to deny the validity of the findings when provided an interpretation that is inconsistent with their preferred conclusions.

Share

Explanations for ideologically motivated reasoning, however, go beyond simple attitude preferences and most likely indicate inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals that account for ideological differences in science reasoning.

The description of the study above includes excerpts from a Substack post titled “Who Engages in More Science Denial, Left or Right?” By Steve Stewart-Williams.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Call it “the home economics crisis.”

Although now that I think about it, there’s some overlap between the two problems as the blame for both can be laid at the feet of feminists, school boards, and teachers.

In case you missed it, users on X became embroiled in a battle the other day when Kevin O’Leary stated during his interview on The Diary of a CEO:

“I can’t stand it when I see kids that are making seventy grand a year spending twenty-eight dollars for lunch. I mean, that’s just stupid. It’s just think about that in the context of that being put into an index and making eight to ten percent a year for the next fifty years.”

This was followed by:

“If you have a credit card balance that goes into the next month and you’re spending $5 on a coffee, you’re crazy.”

Yes! How dare he!

Needless to say, X quickly divided into two teams:

Team 1: Brown bagging your lunch is cheaper than eating out.

Team 2: A bunch of morons.

Let’s hear from Team 2 first:

Combining the statements leads to the conclusion that a $28 lunch is essentially the bail the young pay to stay out of jail. Not “big boy” jail, of course, kind of a “go to your room without any supper” jail.

Nobody is arguing that these aren’t tough times, but those are exactly the times you should be trying to cut costs.

James Lindsay may have said it best:

I also understand that it’s tempting to ignore the advice of a billionaire as hopelessly removed from the struggles of the average person.

Except for the fact that you need some financial acumen to become a billionaire. Oh ya, and because he’s right. He’s not even asking Gen Z to make sacrifices, just to act like adults. Here’s a breakdown of how each generation spends its food budget:

I don’t know what percentage of their household budgets Gen Z is spending on restaurants and delivery but it’s too much. Honestly, calling it a “budget” is probably a misnomer since if you’re wasting 22% on delivery fees it’s clear that you’re either independently wealthy or don’t have a budget.

And despite what Taylor Lorenz says, it is not an issue of time.

Arguing that people who are predominantly single and childless have less time to shop and make meals than married people with kids is utterly ludicrous.

Where did we go wrong?

There will be an instinct amongst older adults to do what older adults always do and blame the issue on laziness. I’m sure there is something to do with it, but I doubt this generation is any lazier than any other.

There are two problems here:

1. A lack of meal preparation skills

2. A lack of budgeting skills

The first problem is easily explained.

Traditional home economics (now often called Family and Consumer Sciences) gradually began to be eliminated from high school curricula in the late 1970s, driven by the women’s liberation movement, rising female workforce participation, and budget pressures that led schools to cut non-core electives.

A growing emphasis on college-prep academics, STEM, and standardized testing (which intensified with the 1980s “excellence” reforms and later No Child Left Behind) squeezed out practical life-skills classes in favor of subjects seen as more rigorous.

True, home economics was overwhelmingly aimed at women, but at least someone knew how to make a sandwich. We can lay this problem at the feet of feminists, school boards, and teachers, but who is to blame for the apparent lack of budgeting skills in the Zoomer population?

I’m afraid that this is the fault of their parents. There has never been a core curriculum class aimed at educating young people on how to manage family finances. When I was younger, it never would have occurred to me to go to restaurants on a regular basis. I didn’t have the money.

However, I didn’t have a budget either; I just knew the value of a dollar and what was wasteful from watching my parents discuss money while growing up. The 70s and early 80s were tough, and I learned by osmosis.

I believe that the problem is that many Zoomers did not experience hard times until they were already adults or near adults, and consequently are incapable of adapting to them.

What are “hard times?” There are many ways to define it, but if you’re a pre-teen or teenager, you would likely define it as how much money your family is spending on non-essentials.

Gen Z would have been in prime “osmosis” territory between the ages of say 12 and 15 or from 2009 until 2024. Only one period, the COVID lockdowns, did US discretionary spending drop below the level of the early 1980s. They don’t understand the need to budget because they’ve never lived during a time when the majority of people had to do it.

How do we fix it?

For this generation? We can’t. They’ll slowly come to the realization that money is finite, and they will learn budgeting skills on their own, or they will be doomed to life-long debt.

However, we can help the next generation by demanding that schools make cooking and budgeting core courses in high school. One course, call it life skills, covering both would be sufficient.

Share

If they cry “there’s not enough money,” they can slash genocide studies, ethnic studies, and the like. Students will just have to learn to get by without the real-world knowledge those courses are teaching them.

Note: for those interested here are fifteen recipes that are cheap, easy, and nutritious. If you don’t like them Google your own. Yes, you can use modern technology to learn new skills. Another thing we didn’t have when I was growing up.

About the Author

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and whatever else catches his fancy.

📰 Hoist the Black Flag — politics, rights, and free speech

😄 Schrödinger’s Chicken — because sometimes you just need to laugh

If you enjoyed this piece, the single best thing you can do is hit the like button — it costs nothing and tells the algorithm this is worth sharing. After that, a restack puts it in front of readers who might never have found it otherwise. If you’d like to support the writing directly, subscribing or buying a coffee goes a long way. Either way, thank you for reading — it genuinely matters.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Participants weren’t all there for the same reasons, but common themes include: concerns about authoritarian leadership (too much executive power), immigration policies and ICE enforcement, U.S. involvement in conflicts (especially Iran), voting rights and civil liberties, and cost of living and economic issues. Of course, it’s much easier to produce large numbers of protesters if there are multiple causes to protest.

Americans have every right to protest about whatever they want, but it’s also important to look under the covers and see who’s funding the protests and what their motives are. The citizenry of a society is never an important tool for change or revolution, because they are a disorganized mass. Still, the public is often used to influence public opinion.

As Anna Ahrent wrote in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the drivers of revolution (the wealthy who want change, plus the intellectuals) use two groups from the public to assist them. The first group is the dedicated ideologues who want to see their chosen system implemented. Judging from the size of the socialist and communist organizations in America, that group isn’t large enough to matter.

The second group is people who want to be part of something big. They sign on for the thrill of participating. Often, there is a third component, the scapegoats. They help generate momentum for change because they are a handy target for blame for the current conditions. The Nazis’ use of the Jews as scapegoats was a historically important example. We are reminded of 1930s Germany by the antisemitism that is on the rise in the United States today.

The left blames Israel for the misfortunes of the Palestinian people, made a current issue by the Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. More recently, a group of conservatives, who lean libertarian, have turned against Israel. They have embraced nationalism and see Trump’s relationship with Israel as a violation of their ideological dogma. It’s a slippery slope from here to Jewish censorship and worse.

Movements such as the “No Kings” rallies or the 50501 Movement typically aim to signal public opposition, influence media coverage, pressure politicians and institutions, energize supporters, and build networks.

Public protests can shift public opinion by making an issue feel urgent, moving undecided people, and changing what’s socially acceptable to say or support. For example, the Vietnam War protests gradually shifted public sentiment in the 1970s. Specifically, protests are designed to influence elites (indirectly) by affecting polling, creating media pressure, and signaling voter intensity. That might influence legislative priorities, executive actions, and court awareness of public climate.

They seek to build long-term movements. Many protests are really about organization-building to recruit volunteers, grow email/text lists (like MoveOn), and connecting local activists.

They want to affect elections by increasing turnout among supporters, framing campaign narratives, and highlighting issues candidates run on.

The No Kings protest was funded by major left-wing groups, most notably Indivisible, MoveOn, The 50501 Movement, labor unions, and civil rights groups.

Indivisible is a nationwide grassroots political organization formed after the 2016 election. Its main funding sources include small-dollar donors (a very large share) and foundations such as the Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, and the Democracy Fund. They are heavily grassroots-funded, but also receive millions in foundation grants for civic engagement work. The Open Society Foundation is George Soros’s. The Ford Foundation does not explicitly label itself as “left-wing.”

Still, its focus areas overlap heavily with progressive priorities, and its funding choices often support organizations on the left side of the policy debate. The Democracy Fund is a philanthropic grantmaker focused on U.S. democracy, funded by a single billionaire (Omidyar), not by governments. It spends tens of millions of dollars per year on elections, media, and civic organizations. Like similar foundations, it indirectly supports activism, but that’s only a small part of a much broader portfolio.

MoveOn (often called MoveOn.org) is a progressive political advocacy organization in the United States, founded in 1998 during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. MoveOn focuses on mobilizing public opinion and political action, especially among left-leaning voters. Its key activities include petitions and email campaigns, political ads and fundraising, organizing protests and rallies, supporting candidates (mostly Democrats), and increasing voter turnout.

The 50501 (50 states, 50 protests, 1 day) movement is a loosely organized protest movement that aims to coordinate demonstrations across all U.S. states on the same day around shared political concerns. It is grassroots and decentralized, focused on pro-democracy themes, often tied to opposition against perceived threats to democratic institutions, election-related issues, and specific political figures or policies.

The left does much more protesting than the right, so they receive more airtime for their activities. The reason? The left is more dedicated to fundamentally changing our society, and they have to work harder to attack the status quo. Of course, the socialists and communists are part of the Democratic big tent, and they want our current system to be discarded.

The identity politics folks, for their part, want our culture radically changed to embrace the full expression of the human experience. To them, any law, behavior, or custom that places limits on individual behavior is immoral and must be changed. Their effort does not apply to white people.

Conservatives work as individuals because that’s their nature. They affect change through voting or becoming members of organized groups. It takes issues that strike at the core of conservative thinking to get them to protest; a prime example was the Equal Rights Amendment fight in the 1970s, which they won.

Share

The stakes are very high this year, and liberal passion is at its peak. The No Kings protest was a manifestation not of public opinion but of how money from left-wing sources is being spent. They are going to have to regain the support of those who flipped to the Republicans in 2024 to win in 2028.

Meanwhile, the evil Hitler Trump is sidelining their agenda to remake American culture. Instead, he is embracing the core principles our Republic was founded on, the principles the left seeks to destroy. Even though the 2024 election went badly, they believe that they have a chance to right the ship in 2026. If they take the House, the Trump agenda will be thwarted, and theirs will be reestablished. The impeachments will begin again.

Will this cycle of retribution ever end?

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In a recent piece, Oh, America, I tried to relay some thoughts and even some feelings about America being on the brink of something, and that it is a (secular) spiritual crisis the country faces. There is little chance of success for describing such a thing with words—it is internal and external, it is in the air. But with every reckoning, with every atmospheric shift in tone and tenor, there must be a collective investigation—a country must ask itself how it got to where it is, and where does it allow itself to be led to, in a presumably new direction, with a new cast of leaders?

Donald Trump will, at some point, die. I say this not with a glimmer or glint in my eye, not with a grin, nor with any grand announcement of sadness—I simply state it plainly, as a fact. As simply as I may say of myself, that some day, at some point, I will die. And for that matter, you will, too.

I mention the inevitable death of the president for a reason—there is no doubt that if one were asked to name the person who has most dominated politics, culture, dialogue, and has touched virtually every facet of American life over the last decade, what name would come to mind?

The death of the president, and the presumable death of MAGA on some level, will not be, in and of itself, the “settling of the dust” from our past woes, our current anxious state—but rather an event that may function more like a vacuum—a hole will be created for new dialogue, new conversations. It is worth asking what those conversations may look like, how those conversations will form, evolve, and how they begin, what they will evolve into.

It is not uncommon, when surveying the landscape of political conversation, to find many Americans unable or unwilling to have dialogue with those who disagree with their politics—whether it be friends, family members, or potential members out of a dating pool. I find any support specifically for the president to be strictly prohibitive among some, while a similar disregard for anyone self-identifying as liberal or progressive exists.

However, the weight of this phenomenon is not dispersed equally—a liberal or progressive has not been the centerpiece of American policy or political dialogue—in that way, it may prompt one to ponder—What do we do with all that MAGA energy? What will Trump voters do or say when their visionary is no longer in the conversation?

Without a doubt, new leaders will emerge to take the president’s place—but they just won’t be Donald Trump, and in his absence, we may find that the tenor and tempo of our national dialogue has changed, even if his legacy rides steadily through politics from a strict policy standpoint.

Whatever the case, the center cannot hold—America is fatigued, breathless, exhausted. In many ways, this is a consequence of our leader’s breathlessness, his exhaustion, his fatigue, his chaos, the rapid-fire nature of his many concerns—in some ways, America cannot keep up with the 81-year-old on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps this is all well-known. But what I have written here so far is a throat-clearing for what I believe the country will truly need, and what I hear so very seldom.

The word that I am trying to get around to is forgiveness. I have not been able to do it naturally in this text—so I´ll just say it plainly—this country will need heaps of it.

If we find our dear leaders are not worthy of forgiveness, I think it necessary to forgive ourselves, however we may have voted, however we may sway politically, however we have changed our minds or not, or who we decided to trust or not, to forgive our fellow countrymen and women.

But what does it look like to forgive a country? To forgive a population? It cannot be done personally, but rather internally. The act of forgiveness is often necessary, not for the person being forgiven, but for the person who chooses to forgive. We forgive ourselves, in order to release from us the weight of anger, the weight of frustration, perhaps even the weight of betrayal.

America’s deepest problems are internal. We suffer very little from outside agitation as a nation, and in order to progress, we must find our capacity to love ourselves and our fellow citizens. This feels nearly impossible, grandiose, dreamlike, unnattainable. But as the conversation shifts, new possibilities come into play. America has no destiny, no guaranteed future. The success of America is not written in stone, nor is the fate that we are an empire destined for collapse. One of the greatest strengths of the spirit is the power to forgive—and I believe it is a key component to end our collective national spiritual crisis, our collective grief.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I traveled to Israel in 1981 on a business trip, stopping in Paris on the way back. It was a two-week journey that began the last week of December and ended in early January 1982. I had just left academia and moved into the private sector when a friend called to tell me he had recommended me for a consulting assignment in Israel. He was acting as a consultant for the State Department and was not available for the assignment.

The Israeli Health Ministry had asked the State Department to send someone to advise them on IT deployment and network communications. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I jumped at it even though I knew nothing about the project.

The year 1981 saw the Iran-Iraq War raging and increasing unrest in Lebanon. Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982, marking the beginning of the Lebanon War. Israel’s attack was launched to destroy the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) fighters operating there. Then in 1983, the American Barracks in Beirut were bombed, and 241 Americans were killed. I knew what was going on in the Middle East, but I wasn’t concerned that I would be harmed.

I flew from Detroit to Frankfurt as the first leg, then on to Tel Aviv. The first leg was uneventful, but our departure from Frankfurt was an experience I will never forget. Instead of waiting in the gate area, the other passengers and I were taken to a private room with our luggage.

A team of airport employees was there to open and search the bags. After that was completed, we sat and waited for a bus to take us to our plane. After we boarded it, the bus took us to a remote part of the airport. There our Lufthansa plane sat, by itself, encircled by a group of soldiers armed with automatic weapons. Seeing those soldiers made the Middle East feel like a hotbed for me.

The plane departed Frankfurt on time for our four-hour flight. During the flight, I kept looking around, trying to identify the Mossad agents who were undoubtedly on the plane. They did a good job of disguising themselves. The flight was uneventful, and we arrived in Tel Aviv on time. Walking down the stairway, I noticed serious-looking men at the bottom. I guessed they were Mossad agents who had memorized the faces of every terrorist in the Middle East, and I appreciated their thoroughness.

I spent three or four days in Tel-Aviv, ushered around by health ministry personnel. The main event was a visit to Sheba Hospital, the city’s largest medical facility. We looked at the computer room and discussed how the equipment was being utilized.

That was when I was told of the reason for my visit. The Israeli hospitals at that time operated as isolated islands of information processing. The National Health Ministry saw this as a problem due to its obvious inefficiency. They wanted to consolidate their data and share it across the different locations.

When I wasn’t busy with Health ministry officials, I was on my own, which meant doing some exploring. I visited the beachfront area and had dinner there. Tel-Aviv appeared to be a modern version of Jerusalem.

On my last day in Tel Aviv, I was given a tour of the northern part of Israel, including Haifa, about an hour to the north. While there, I was taken to a place where we could observe the Golan Heights, a strategically important plateau of land, which was occupied by the Israelis in 1981. Before the Six-Day War in 1967, Syrians had used the heights to attack the north of Israel with artillery, so its occupation was strategically important to Israel.

The next day, I was driven to Jerusalem. My time there included an immersion in the region’s history. I visited Bethlehem, Jericho, and all the holy sites in the city.

It was fascinating to walk through the old walled city and imagine the events that took place there. I was taken on a tour of the famous Hadassah Hospital, probably the best-known medical facility in Israel. On New Year’s Eve, I sat in the hotel lobby for a while watching TV. It was an odd experience because there were no festivities. The Western New Year means nothing in Israel, which celebrates Rosh Hashanah in September.

On the last day, I was invited to a senior staff meeting at the Health Ministry to share my thoughts on their concerns. That meeting was an eye-opening experience, given the contrast with the kind of meetings we have in the States. All of the attendees were dressed casually, and the table where we sat was filled with bottles of various juices, water, and fruit.

During the meeting, the participants argued and interrupted one another, each seeking to prove that their ideas offered the best solution to the problem. It was like a big free-for-all. They may have expected me to join the melee, but it was hard for me to get a word in edgewise.

I’m afraid I was a disappointment to them because I couldn’t offer a magic solution. The internet did not exist, and data processing sites had to rely on phone lines to transfer information. The Israelis told me their phone systems were unreliable and subject to frequent disruptions.

Without an ironclad method of sending data, they couldn’t be sure of the data integrity at the other end. I told them that they had to continue with the “islands of data” model until their phone systems became more reliable.

I departed Israel for a weekend in Paris, which I had never seen. It was snowy and cold there. I visited the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame, climbing up to the roof of the great cathedral.

The trip had a profound impact on my understanding of Israel and how it has to deal with threats every day. I will never temper my admiration for a people who have had their traditional homeland returned to them and ferociously defended it against their adversaries in the Middle East. Every Israeli would die for their homeland if the need arose, which is why all eligible young people are required to serve in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

Share

The zeal of the Jewish people matches that of their ancestors who fought the Romans. In 70 CE, a Jewish militia attacked the Roman fortress at Masada and killed every Roman soldier in retribution for the Roman burning of Jerusalem. It took the Romans two years to prepare for an assault to retake the impregnable rock. When they finally broke through during the final assault, all the Jews had committed suicide.

Today, in the United States, Israel is being attacked from the left and right. To the left, they are oppressors of the Muslim people, who must be condemned. To the right, they are an unnecessary distraction from the implementation of an America First, nationalist identity in America.

The suffering of the Jews over the last two thousand years and their continued resilience deserve our respect and support, not our condemnation.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

What bothers me is that he’s not the first person to accuse me of using AI. Not that he was wrong, I do use it. I also use a computer, the internet, and search engines, and Word checks my spelling and grammar.

What am I supposed to do, write on parchment I’ve made myself using only information I’ve gotten by directly interviewing experts?

The number of people who have AI derangement syndrome is astounding. If they aren’t complaining that AI will destroy the world or take all our jobs, they’re complaining that it’s making us lazy or worse.

Note: If the concern is jobs, read this. Spoiler alert: the worry is exaggerated.

Here are two recent examples:

• ‘Think outside the bots’: How to stop AI from turning your brain to mush

• “AI chatbots could be making you stupider”

According to the first story, “GPS ruined our sense of direction. Search engines weaken our memory. AI, scientists warn, could do the same to everything from creativity to critical thinking.”

I have no doubt it’s true.

If you let AI do everything for you. However, if you use it intelligently – for research, editing, feedback, etc. - then it’s simply a tool.

I remember when technical advances were to be praised. Now it seems we’ve become a society of Luddites. Or have we?

This isn’t the first time people have argued that a new technology was going to make people dumber. Let’s look at some of the big ones:

• Writing - Socrates worried that it would weaken memory and create the illusion of knowledge instead of true understanding.

• Printing Press - Critics feared that it would result in a flood of cheap books which would spread misinformation, and that, without proper guidance, would lead to shallow reading and heretical ideas.

• Newspapers - Jean-Jacques Rousseau (among others) were concerned that they would encourage superficial thinking, gossip, and distract from serious intellectual life.

• Novels - Moralists and educators in the 18th–19th centuries believed that “trivial” reading would weaken discipline, especially among youth and women, and blur reality vs fantasy.

• Calculators - Educators in the 20th century thought students would lose basic arithmetic skills and become mentally lazy.

• Radio - Early 20th-century commentators worried that passive listening would replace reading and critical thought and that families would become less engaged with each other.

• Television - See “Radio” above, but add that it would shorten attention spans and turn public discourse into a shallow spectacle.

• Video Games - Parents, psychologists, and policymakers since the 1980s argue that it leads to addiction, reduced attention span, and less real-world socialization.

• Internet / Search Engines - Critics were concerned that constant access to information reduces deep thinking and memory (“outsourcing the brain”). Sound familiar?

• Smartphones / Social Media - Researchers, educators, and public figures today argue that they shortened attention spans, fuel dopamine-driven distraction, reduced face-to-face interaction, and lead to dependency.

I’m old enough to remember the last four, and I’d argue that the concerns around TV, video games, and search engines were overblown.

The jury is still out on smartphones and social media, as you’ve no doubt noticed based on the number of governments looking to ban them. I wouldn’t give a 16-year-old a bottle of whiskey, and I’m not sure giving them access to social media is any better.

That doesn’t mean that every new advance will ruin people, though. Or that sometimes there aren’t legitimate concerns. However, history also shows that people tend to adapt, and new tools often shift intelligence rather than simply degrading it.

What usually comes down to is this: if you’re using AI to do your writing, or if you believe everything it says, you’re heading for trouble. Use it wisely, though – and with a healthy dose of skepticism – and you’ll be just fine.

Share

At the end of the day, it comes down to who is doing your thinking, you or AI, and we each make that decision for ourselves.

If you’re letting AI do your thinking, maybe you weren’t all that smart to begin with.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Recently, I watched a podcast in which the host attempted to explain Trump’s foreign policy thinking. The speaker did not claim insider knowledge, and his credentials were questionable, so I approached the discussion cautiously. Still, the underlying theory was interesting enough to examine further.

Any discussion of American strategy begins with identifying the nation’s major rivals. Today, those rivals are clearly China and Russia, along with aligned or dependent states such as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Syria.

China has spent the last two decades steadily expanding its influence through economic, technological, diplomatic, and military means. Rather than direct confrontation, it favors gradual, long-term leverage.

Its primary strategy has been economic expansion through the Belt and Road Initiative, which finances infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and parts of Europe. These investments increase dependence on China and expand its influence over trade routes and strategic resources.

Militarily, China has strengthened its position in the South China Sea while modernizing its armed forces. Diplomatically, it presents itself as an alternative to Western leadership, particularly in the developing world. Beijing emphasizes “non-interference” in domestic affairs and avoids attaching human rights conditions to economic assistance, which appeals to many governments.

China has also invested heavily in technology and supply-chain dominance. Through its “Digital Silk Road,” it exports telecommunications infrastructure, surveillance systems, and smart-city technology. Countries that adopt these systems often become dependent on Chinese technology and manufacturing.

In addition, China uses media organizations, cultural programs, and information campaigns to promote the image of Chinese stability and Western decline. Its broader objective is not simply territorial expansion, but the creation of a China-centered economic and political order that reduces reliance on Western systems.

China has achieved major gains in parts of the developing world, though distrust of Beijing has grown in many advanced economies.

Russia’s goals differ somewhat from China’s. Moscow’s primary objective is rebuilding a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, with Ukraine at the center of that effort.

Russia also sees itself in long-term competition with the United States and Europe. It seeks to weaken Western unity through cyber operations, propaganda, political disruption, and pressure campaigns.

A third goal is maintaining great-power status despite Russia’s relatively weak economy. To compensate, Russia relies heavily on military power, nuclear deterrence, and advanced weapons systems.

Russia’s economy remains deeply dependent on energy exports, particularly oil and gas, which it uses as a tool of influence. At home, nationalism and external conflict help reinforce support for Vladimir Putin’s government.

Russia has demonstrated resilience despite sanctions and continues exerting influence in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe. However, the Ukraine war has exposed military weaknesses, increased Russia’s isolation from the West, and strengthened NATO rather than weakening it.

How do China and Russia fit into Trump’s larger foreign policy approach?

The first element is energy independence. Trump argues that the United States weakened itself by restricting domestic energy production in pursuit of climate goals. While sustainability is important, he believes economic and strategic stability require abundant domestic oil and gas production.

The second element is recognizing how oil shapes global power.

The United States imports most of its foreign oil from Canada, with additional imports from Mexico and a handful of other countries. Because the U.S. also produces massive quantities of shale oil, exports offset much of what is imported.

China, however, is heavily dependent on imported oil. Russia is one of its largest suppliers, while major volumes also come from the Gulf states, Brazil, Iran, Angola, and Venezuela. This dependency creates a strategic vulnerability.

From this perspective, Venezuela becomes highly important.

Trump’s supporters argue that pressuring or influencing the Maduro government gives the United States leverage over Venezuelan oil exports. If Washington can limit China’s access to Venezuelan energy, China becomes more vulnerable economically and diplomatically.

There is also a secondary effect involving Cuba. Cuba relies heavily on Venezuelan oil, so disruptions in Venezuela place additional stress on the Cuban economy. Supporters of Trump’s approach believe this creates opportunities to influence political developments inside Cuba.

Iran represents the next major piece of the strategy.

Supporters of a hard line against Iran argue that Tehran destabilizes the Middle East through proxy groups, terrorism, and regional intimidation. Weakening Iran would therefore reduce threats to U.S. allies and potentially reshape the regional balance of power.

In this interpretation, pressure on Iran also creates indirect pressure on China and Russia. China depends partly on Iranian oil, while Russia and China both maintain strategic relationships with Tehran, including military cooperation.

If Iran were weakened economically or politically, several potential outcomes could follow.

First, China could lose another major energy supplier, increasing American leverage in trade negotiations.

Second, Russia and China would lose a Middle Eastern partner that often challenges Western interests.

Third, Gulf states might feel more secure, lowering tensions in the region.

Finally, the United States could shift more strategic focus away from the Middle East and toward the Pacific, where competition with China is increasingly central.

Supporters of this worldview believe such a strategy could only emerge from a populist administration willing to challenge both globalism and traditional foreign-policy assumptions. In their view, previous administrations focused too heavily on diplomacy without integrating economic leverage into broader geopolitical strategy.

Trump’s approach attempts to combine politics, trade, energy, and security into a single framework. Rather than separating economics from foreign policy, the theory is that economic dependence itself can become a strategic tool.

Critics would argue this framework oversimplifies global politics and risks escalating conflicts abroad. Supporters, however, see it as a recognition that geopolitical rivals increasingly use economics, energy, and technology as weapons of influence.

Share

Whether one agrees with Trump’s methods or not, the underlying concept is understandable: reduce America’s vulnerabilities, increase leverage over adversaries, weaken rival power structures, and reposition the United States for long-term competition with China.

Ultimately, the argument is not that every individual action is disconnected, but that many of them are linked by a larger strategic objective centered on energy, economic leverage, and great-power competition.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

A relative was watching my toddler, so it was just my newborn and me, so this was the perfect time to shop for the perfect basket to surprise her as well.

I decided dipping eggs would frustrate my three-year-old since we’re still working on eye-hand coordination, and she hates getting her sleeves wet currently, but painting little cardboard eggs would be better, so I picked up a kit.

Unfortunately, I have not been cleared postpartum to run and jump at this time, so museums and large indoor spaces on rainy days (like indoor playgrounds, museums, science centers) were not in the cards right now, especially on my own with both kids.

So baking brownies, painting eggs, playing in the yard, and perhaps a story time at the local library would have to do! We probably won’t have time for all of those before nap time, but that’s alright. I love having multiple plans!

As a stay-at-home mom, I wear many hats, and the one above is my favorite: “program director”. Curating activities we can do together is something I am talented at, and it’s something I’m passionate about doing. What looks like fun outings is actually filling up my child’s brain with learning, socializing, and motor skill activities while her brain is developing.

I want her to be prepared for school and be a confident, secure child.

One time I asked my husband what I was the absolute best at, as a stay-at-home mom, talent-wise. He told me he loved the way I cared for our only child.

At first, for some reason, that bothered me. “Not my cooking? Or cleaning?” I thought. Why, I’m not really sure, maybe it’s some of my old prejudice towards being a stay-at-home mom in the first place that caused me to respond this way.

I never imagined myself to be a stay-at-home mom, to be honest, I wasn’t the nurturing type, but once I held my baby in my arms, that was it…I didn’t want to work anymore, especially while my kids are little.

That doesn’t mean my life is this idyllic, running through flower fields in dresses, trad-wife vision, because none of that is real. Like anything you do, some days are better than others.

Today, as I write this was an extremely stressful morning. My toddler wanted a ton of attention from me, which would have been fine except the newborn was having stomach issues (and also needing attention), and I needed to eat food, and so I was a little more short-tempered than usual.

My poor firstborn kept saying, “Sorry I made you mad outside,” and I repeatedly said to her I wasn’t mad, I was overwhelmed trying to take care of both of them (and myself), and that she did nothing wrong.

Other days, like Wednesday, were total bliss. My newborn ate and slept for 2.5-3 hours, and in between, my toddler and I played, and the day ran smoothly.

But boring? Repetitive? Definitely not how I would describe it. I would best describe it as a nurse, but with fewer people and stakes. Constantly triaging, trying to put things in order of their importance.

But as I write this, we made it through our first week with my husband back at work, and my newborn will be one month old next week! And that’s an accomplishment!

One of my mutuals on social media posted this, and I think it’s a good thing to remember:

Sometimes, as I’m trying to put away a load of laundry, load and unload the dishwasher, sweep, or do any kind of housework, it’s hard to remember this principle.

I was holding my newborn close to me recently, and I began to cry. Not out of exhaustion but out of this realization: that my kids are growing up.

That, my dear baby girl, isn’t going to be a baby forever. That my three-year-old won’t always mispronounce “Water” as “Wa wa”. That one day my little ones will be off to school, and that I love them so much, I don’t want this time we have together to end.

Obviously, being a stay-at-home mom isn’t for everyone. The hours are brutal, the stress levels, depending on your personality and how much support you have, can be extremely high.

I reached a sort of breaking point when my newborn turned two months old, and I realized I needed to prioritize my sleep a lot more in order to keep my mind in a healthy place.

You can’t fill from an empty cup. And these kids only have one mom, so I’d better take care of myself.

But lots of other jobs have extreme hours and stress. And, just like any other career choice, I don’t feel as though I “lost” who I am.

Share

I will always be a mom, and that will never change. But the choice to stay at home with my kids doesn’t define me. I’m still just as ambitious, curious, and hard-working as I was when I first entered the workforce for pay.

I didn’t lose myself. I simply found a new place to channel my talents.

I find the work meaningful. Every day, I see my toddler’s behavior get a little better, and she conquers new things I taught her. Little by little, she’s getting prepared for the next step, school.

I’m proud of what my husband and I have accomplished working as a team together. And I look forward to watching our newest addition grow.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Referring to European Union member nations, he stated, “For we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.” There’s a strong argument that were it not for the policies of the Trump administration, “we in America would have become the polite and orderly caretakers of our own managed decline.”

“Managed decline” is an outgrowth of a philosophy that employs sympathy as the basis for establishing policy and prioritizes weakness over strength as a means of dealing with social issues. That philosophy has caused a number of European countries to throw their borders wide open to immigrants from nations with autocratic governments that force their populations into the virtual prisons of poverty, oppression and slavery.

The Biden administration justified its open border policies as being a humanitarian action. That was nothing more than diversion from the true reason. The open borders policy was nothing more than an exercise of inhumanity as it facilitated the deaths of thousands of immigrants, condemned thousands of children to being sex-trafficked and welcomed criminals.

The top priority of the Biden administration seems to have been gaining a political advantage by using illegal immigrants to increase the populations of specific districts as a means of gaining seats in the House, and electors in the electoral college. If a few thousand Americans were killed, raped or otherwise victimized as a result. That’s no big deal- if you believe the end justifies the means.

Historically, people escaping nations with oppressive governments were seeking freedom and opportunity. Until recently, that was the case. But many recent immigrants seek to create an equally oppressive culture under which they are the oppressors as opposed to being the oppressed. Their next step is to impose that culture on the citizens of the country to which they have “escaped”.

The assault on Western values comes from many directions, but the most virulent are the attacks from proponents of radical Islam. With respect to that, retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West explains, “It’s not a religion, it’s a totalitarian, theocratic political system that is rooted in tyranny, that says you either convert, you subjugate or you die. That’s in their own words.”

That is not a condemnation of Islam, it’s a recognition of the goals of radical Islam which is to subjugate the “infidels” in the countries to which its proponents have emigrated.

If you don’t believe that uncontrolled immigration can lead to cultural and physical genocide, you probably think history is based on fairy tales. But look no further than the destruction of Native Americans and their culture, by the masses of European immigrants, to see that the life- and culture-killing effect of uncontrolled immigration is not a fairy tale.

For entirely different reasons, Native Americans shared the open border policies of the Biden administration and Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. With nothing to stop them, Europeans flooded the Native American homelands. Many came to North America in search of religious freedom or economic opportunity. Irrespective of individual reasons, all were escaping nations with oppressive governments.

And they brought their culture with them- one that did not share the values of Native Americans. As the number of Europeans grew, they displaced the original residents. Slowly at first, but as one generation was replaced by the next, Europeans became Americans who claimed the continent as their own. Native Americans’ culture did not harmoniously blend with that of the European-based American culture. Native Americans were a clear impediment to American expansion and were either forcibly removed or killed.

It’s unlikely immigrants could crush a Western nation’s civilization to the degree Europeans crushed that of Native Americans- unless their efforts were assisted by allies already in the country. Unfortunately, the reality is “inside” help already exists.

It arrived through the open border policies of previous administrations. The result of such policies is especially evident in numerous European countries which are now facing serious challenges to their existing cultures with over 15% or their populations are non-native and a significant percentage of those immigrants have no desire to assimilate.

Fortunately, the United States does not yet have such a high percentage of immigrants who would seek to destroy our existing culture. But the illegal immigration surge of the past few years supercharged the quest for self-destruction within the United States.

That quest originated several years ago under the leadership of elected officials and bureaucrats who have infested American government at all levels. It isn’t just Democrats, who have doubled-down on illegal immigration; in the past, many Republicans were complicit because for years, they took no action to improve border security.

The quest for self-destruction continues. Although the Trump administration is actively taking action to eliminate the threat created by anti-American immigrants, liberals still pursue the quest for self-destruction as Democrat-run cities and states continue to protect illegal immigrants with “sanctuary” policies. Obviously, their priority is to stack the deck against Republicans during elections.

Irrespective of their ethnic or religious background, the end goal of America-haters is to move local, state and ultimately federal governments to operate under socialist, communist- or Sharia principles. New York City is a case in point.

Share

The current socialist mayor is pushing an increase in the corporate tax rate along with tax-the-rich/tax-the-white schemes to fund such things as; universal free childcare, city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, subsidized public housing and rent-freezes. The question is, what’s next?

Time will tell whether the majority of voters wake up and reject the agendas of Democratic socialists like Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. If they do, the Democrat party will have been successful in its quest for self-destruction. If they don’t, the Democrats will have been successful in their quest for the self-destruction of the American republic.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Me: Whoa! Let’s not rush into this. What is it about your ethnic background, sexuality, or cognitive or physical disabilities that makes you think you’re qualified to cut my hair?

Barber: Uh, I’m sorry, what?

Me: You think just because I wander into your “Barber Shop” I’m just going to let you start cutting my hair?

Barber (looking around, confused): Is this a joke?

Me: This is the exact opposite of a joke. This is life and death! Why don’t you start by telling me why you think you’re the best person to cut my hair?

Barber: Because I’ve been cutting hair for 20 years?

Me: There you go, focusing on qualifications, using the violence of merit to perpetuate conditions that benefit whiteness.

Barber: But you’re a white man.

Me: You’re right to call me on that. I need to check my privilege.

Barber: And I’m Persian.

Me: Good! That’s a good start. That gets you the “Middle Eastern / North African” category. Go on.

Barber: The what category? Sorry, I’m confused. Go on where?

Me: Tell me what else makes you the best person to cut my hair.

Barber: My being Persian makes me the best person to cut your hair?

Me: It’s a start. I like to live my values, and my values mirror those of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS).

Barber (looking around bewildered)

Me: As you know, AMPAS is at the forefront of representation and inclusion, and if their rules are good enough for picking the Best Picture, they’re good enough to guide me in picking the best, no matter what it is I need. Including picking the Best Barber.

Sure, it can be challenging at times, but no matter how hard it is, I’m committed to promoting representation and inclusion in everything I do. Do you have any idea how hard it was to find a black lesbian mechanic in a wheelchair willing to fix my car?

Barber: You did that?

Me: Not yet. I’m still looking. It doesn’t help that all the local garages seem to be oppressive patriarchal structures that normalize the subordination of women. No matter, I’m committed to using public transport until I find a person in an underrepresented group who claims they can fix my car. How else can I be sure they’re the best mechanic?

Barber: Well –

Me: It was a rhetorical question. So, being Persian gets you the “racial or ethnic group” qualification, but as you’re clearly a man, I’m afraid that you miss out on the women qualification... wait, I didn’t just misgender you by mistake, did I? (hitting self in head repeatedly) Stupid, stupid! When are you going to stop assuming someone is a man just because you see a beard? I apologize for assuming your gender.

Barber: Uhm... it’s ok?

Me: Phew. Thanks. Anyway, before I let you cut my hair, I’m going to need you to prove you belong to a second underrepresented group. You don’t happen to be LGBTQ+, do you?

Share

Barber: I have a wife of 20 years.

Me: Disappointing. That means we’re down to “cognitive or physical disabilities” or “deaf or hard of hearing” qualifications. You seem to be hearing me well enough. You don’t happen to have a wooden leg or ADHD, or something, do you?

Barber (shakes head)

Me: Irritable bowel syndrome? Tennis elbow? Chronically late for appointments? Honestly, I’m pretty desperate for a haircut, so I’ll take anything.

Barber: Sorry, I’m just a normal guy.

Me (gasping): “Normal?!” How dare you use a socially constructed concept to judge, exclude, and marginalize individuals or groups who do not conform to a dominant standard! (stands up and throws barber cape onto chair). You sir – or madam (raising eyebrow hopefully. Barber shakes head “no”) – you sir are a disgrace to the barber profession.

(storms out).

Barber (to self): Why a bald guy needs a barber is beyond me.

Note: “The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences representation and inclusion standards for Oscars® eligibility in the Best Picture category are designed to encourage equitable representation on and off screen to better reflect the diverse global population.” Please support them by living their values in your day-to-day lives.

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

Full disclosure: he still has most of his hair.

As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In the case of President Truman, we note his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. That decision was certainly controversial and was strongly criticized. I believe Truman made the correct decision for two reasons: it induced the Japanese nation to surrender and bring an end to the war, and it scared the world by having them witness the power unleashed by atomic weapons. That fear has kept us safe from nuclear weapons for 80 years.

Truman made another controversial decision three years later, to recognize Israel as a nation. The British mandate, which gave Britain control of Palestine, was to end on May 14, 1948. Truman knew that Israel would declare its independence, so he had to decide how America should proceed. Supporting the recognition were the Jewish lobby, humanitarian pressure resulting from the holocaust, and some members of Congress.

Opposing recognition were General George Marshall, the Secretary of State and author of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and most of the State Department’s senior members. The leadership at the State Department believed that recognition would turn the oil-producing states in the Gulf against the United States and disrupt oil shipments to the United States. Some believed Truman was fishing for the Jewish vote in order to try to win the election.

In the days and weeks preceding decision day, the Arab countries in the region were amassing armies at Israel’s borders. Egypt from the south, Jordan from the east, and Syria and Lebanon from the north were ready to strike the new Jewish state at the appropriate moment.

The Israelis announced their independence at 4 PM Tel Aviv time, eight hours before the British mandate expired. President Truman announced America’s recognition of Israeli independence 11 minutes later. The next day, the Arab countries attacked simultaneously. The Israeli defence force at that time consisted of holocaust survivors and native Israelis, roughly organized into an army called the Haganah, as well as a group of small independent militias. By their strong will and dedication, the Israelis resisted the attacks and eventually pushed the invaders back beyond the borders set prior to the start of the war.

In the November election that year, Truman squeaked out a win despite expectations that he would lose. The statistics show that Truman received strong Jewish support, but the number of Jewish votes did not determine the outcome.

Later, Truman stated that his decision was based on the moral imperative to provide a permanent home for the Jewish people. He told friends he was Cyrus, recalling the Persian king who allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

Now we move forward in time to the present day and Trump’s attack on Iran.

YouTube is full of speculation about Trump’s motives. Much of it is designed to create controversy, because that produces clicks. Many know-it-all establishment types opine on what’s going on under the covers. I, for one, think it’s not that complicated. Trump sees Iran as a serious threat to the world, based on its stated goal of achieving threat-level ballistic missile and nuclear capability.

The previous residents of the White House did not seriously address the “Iran” problem, which has reached its 57^th year. It’s a Democratic Party tendency to be passive on foreign policy, and this was born out during the Obama presidency. Obama believed in “shared responsibility” with allies, multilateral leadership, and avoiding unilateral U.S. military action when possible.

The problem with that approach is that Western Europe, under neoliberal ideology, was also passive. Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy was just kicking the can down the road.

Obama believed that diplomacy was better than war, so he set out to bring Iran to the table. His administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. It was reached between the United States. Iran, and other major powers (UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, plus the EU).

Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program, including cutting uranium stockpiles by about 98%, reducing centrifuges, and allowing international inspections. In return, the U.S. and others lifted nuclear-related economic sanctions. The goal was to ensure Iran’s nuclear program stayed peaceful and far from weapons capability.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement. Critics had warned from the outset that some key restrictions were temporary (expiring after 10–15 years), and the deal did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability—only restricted it. This raised concern that Iran could later legally expand its program. It also didn’t address other concerns, such as Iran’s missile program and support of its regional proxies (Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, etc.). Opponents argued that this allowed Iran to create force multipliers to achieve its objectives.

The Hamas attack on Israel resulted in the neutering of Hezbollah and attacks on Iran, along with the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. The weakening of its partners and Iran’s continued bellicosity regarding Nukes convinced Trump that the problem needed his full attention. Diplomacy was tried without success, which moved Trump to act militarily.

The attacks began on February 28, and a rift emerged immediately within the conservative base. I do not believe this rift is mainstream; it is concentrated among the ideologues and pundits, who reflect growing anti-semitism in the United States.

In 2026, American public sympathy regarding the Middle East shows a widening divide, with 41% sympathizing more with Palestinians compared to 36% with Israelis, as found in a recent Gallup poll. The left has embraced the Arab point of view as an oppressed race and become more anti-semitic. A piece of the right has joined the opposition because they feel Trump is putting Israeli objectives above America’s interests.

Share

Trump will not allow the Iran invasion to become a “forever” war, so he is not going against his beliefs. As a person who hates war, Trump wants to stop Iran before they have a chance to start one. Like Truman, he made a hard decision. If the endeavor against Iran is successful, it will be the most important accomplishment of his presidency.

Trump knew that an attack could put the fall elections at risk if the Iran situation is not resolved by then. By Trump’s calculus, the threat Iran posed, their vulnerability, and confidence in a successful outcome outweighed the downside.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Democrats have been mostly silent since their attempt to put a leash on the president failed. They hope the effort will fail and bolster their chances of success in November. Short of that result, they hope for an economic impact that will strengthen their “affordability” campaign for the fall. Keeping the government closed is part of their calculus. The inpass is not about ICE, since ICE is already funded. It’s about a way to damage the president, given their limited ability to do so. Of course, no one really knows what will happen with the war.

Republicans are also silent, probably to remain on Trump’s side and because they believe in the cause.

What I get from the mass media is a nothing burger. They don’t really know anything, so they speculate and advocate for one side or the other. The Strait of Hormuz is trending because 20% of the world’s oil supply goes through there. Iran has declared the Strait closed, and the U.S. has to figure out how to keep it open so oil prices don’t skyrocket.

Some pundits have us returning to the 1979 oil embargo, which is fear-mongering nonsense. Trump knows the stakes of the game he is playing and will play his cards as he sees fit, but even he can’t predict when the Revolutionary Guards will surrender, if and when the Iranian people will rise and take their country back.

Here is a sampling from the New York Times: UD bombs Iranian oil hub. Why was so little done to head off the Strait of Hormuz problem? Trump and Rubio’s vision of war: The art of destroy and deal. Trump’s alliance with Israel is reshaping the Middle East.

The crown prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah, deposed in 1979, is now communicating directly with the Iranian people. He has told them to prepare for the regime’s collapse and to stay safe until then.

Frustrated by the political coloring of content, I started looking for alternative sources of information. What follows are some points of view I discovered.

1. There are daily updates on the YouTube channel Tousi TV, which is an online political news and commentary channel, mainly distributed through YouTube, social media, and its own subscription platform (Tousi TV+), all broadcast from the UK. It focuses on geopolitical news, politics, and commentary about current events.

Mahyar Tousi, the channel host, is an Iranian who provides updates on political events in his country and also speaks to the Iranian people around the world. He has 1.4 million followers. Tousi has shown videos of mass protests inside Iran demanding the return of the crown prince, and people taking control of police stations in some cities, where the police stood down and joined the celebration. Revolutionary Guard food distribution locations were taken over by the people and looted. Mahyar appears to have enough connections inside his country to provide an accurate picture of what’s happening on the ground.

2. I listened to Rafaela Siewert of the Free Press interview Elica LeBon, an Iranian lawyer and activist living in the United States, who talked from an Iranian point of view.

Elica made a strong point about the negative reaction to the war in the United States, as reflected in recent polls. The reality for people living in the U.S. and, generally, in liberal democracies is that they are never threatened. The force the U.S. is exerting to suppress threats from the outside and keep Americans safe also creates a paradox: people don’t see why we need to take any action against an enemy because THEY don’t feel threatened.

“The Iranian regime has enshrined in its Constitution from its inception, death to America and Israel. It has promised to eliminate both those forces, and it has acted on that intention significantly over the past 47 years. Some people push back on this contention because they don’t believe that the Iranians have nukes. Regardless of nukes, the Iranian regime is motivated to destroy the United States using any means possible.

The removal of this regime is absolutely the best thing for the American people, for the Iranian people, for the people of the Middle East. I can’t. I can’t guarantee that it will happen this way, but. We’re hoping.”

3. I listened to The Mishal Husain Show on Bloomberg. She interviewed Iranian scholar Vali Nasr from The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. I am very skeptical of scholars these days because politics has negated the value of their expertise. Deep establishment thinkers are largely anti-Trump because he doesn’t possess the gravitas they have.

“And now this war has gone out of his control. It’s far longer, far messier, and is actually exacting costs across the United States, both in terms of damage to its bases and the impact on energy markets and the global economy as a whole. So, I think it’s signaling that he wants to end it, but I don’t think Iran is ready to quit.

But I think they calculate that this is not a munitions count. This is not about who has a bigger bond. This is about who has a higher pain threshold. And they think the United States and Israel can Dash a lot faster, but they’re not really long-distance runners. And so, I think they’re prepared to absorb this for far longer.

And so if the president was looking for a quick political uprising in Iran, it’s not going to happen. It will not happen until the dust of this war settles. So for now, the Iranian public is not a factor in this war (false), and this was something that both Israel and the United States had been counting on, that the war would pave the way.

I was in India recently, and it’s very clear that, outside the United States and the West, Iran is enjoying widespread support for standing up to Donald Trump and Standing Tall. Also, they are actually inflicting pain on the United States.

When I was with the Obama administration, we pursued a path of Engagement. Mishal: If Donald Trump hadn’t ripped up the Iran deal, would it have resulted in a better present, or is your description of the regime too entrenched? For that, you know, I think it could have ended up better (false).”

4. Mohamad Faridi, an Iranian living in the United States (his parents are still in Iran), was interviewed on the Dave Wood podcast. Here are a few quotes from him.

“The regime, with all its brutality and all the evil that came down on the Iranian people, shut down. Protests killed thousands of Iranians throughout the years, and then the most horrific one of them was last month, in January, and now it’s actually March. About five weeks ago, they say, they killed, upward of 90,000 people.

I have spoken to my family in Iran. All of my family is in Iran. They told me that any relatives, any, anybody that they know they have lost, or one or two members of their families to this? Regime, you know, savagery? Many of the people were detained, arrested, in prison, tortured, raped, and they kept their backs against these evil people.

This regime is one evil, weird thing. I mean, from evil to unimaginable evil that they have ruled in this nation for 47 years. In 2009, we had the green movement, when Obama betrayed the Iranian people and sent pallets of money instead of jets. Just imagine how stupid a president could be negotiating with terrorists. That didn’t work.

In 2023, we had Masa Amini, the girl who didn’t wear her hijab, and she was killed. Iranians came, and we had the same situation, and Biden was in power, and we were thinking God, if Trump were in power, something such as this would have happened.

Share

And now, we see the difference. Trump told them that if they killed the Iranian people, the guns would be locked and loaded. Help is on the way.

But, thank God, finally. Thank God that they have arrived, and then they killed the head of the octopus that was in Tehran. I promise you, upwards of 90 percent of the Persian population in Iran and the diaspora are rejoicing in it. This has been the best news for them.”

The best place to get information about Iran is from the Iranian people. They are the ones with a stake in the game. They are the ones who want their country back. Comments from here from academic elites or journalists with a political axe to grind are useless.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

9/11 was an attack, but also an assassination. The assassination of a dream—awakened, now, a generation’s assumptions blasted away on live television. That was 25 years ago. Hardly would make sense to a thinking person—it was that long ago.

The years are blending in and bleeding onto one another. And then there is the claim that nothing has happened in the past 20 years. American culture has frozen. Every contribution reaches into the bucket of the past, vying for a reminder of what once was. About this claim, I am not entirely sure, but one instantly gets the sentiment—there is truth in it, let us say.

America is in the thick of its own discomfort, its own growing pains. American culture has not disappeared, but has rather calcified, crystallized itself into something utterly recognizable—we see the same films, hear the same songs ad nauseam. We crave the past; we wish to crawl back into it. The future is plagued with more pain, the light at the end of the tunnel is obscured, and the pathways forward are not clear.

The structures that we once felt safe relying upon have been shattered. And I mean this beyond the reliable, nameable structures of daily life, daily survival. This is not only a matter of forms to fill out, government programs, healthcare, etc. This sentiment has lodged itself into the hearts of many Americans. It is spiritual, existential, I will put it. It cannot be named totally, only described, only observed.

When I hear of America’s destruction—somebody will call it—has America as we know it been destroyed? Is the path towards its own destruction inevitable? Has it already been set in motion? Is this so-called destruction at the hands of a particular political party? A particular persuasion, or president? America, if it is said to be destroyed or its destruction imminent, can only be destroyed from within. Whoever the culprit is, we look to the citizens of a nation, that is to say, ourselves.

America cannot be destroyed in the way we think about destruction, and if it were, it has the potential to be resurrected, rejuvenated, revitalized. None of this will come from war, not from political solutions. I have the idea that America is seeing itself through another stage, another evolution, another writhing through the growing pains of its infancy.

Throughout the entirety of its short history, all roads have led the country to this day, this current state of affairs. The people of the United States can be rightly accused of sleepwalking—where comfort rules the day to day, and that state of half-consciousness has caused much to slip away from notice, from accountability, from investment. But I am no patriot; I never much jived with that word. I hear it, and I become claustrophobic...

Just the other day, I was asked how living back in America has been after those years being away.

“Especially now,” he said, referring to the general lowly state of affairs. But I hadn’t asked myself, not totally. Not enough to give myself a real answer. But if anything, living far away for so long allowed me to recognize the things about America I love. And there are many things about Americans that I love.

Still, amid numerous scandals and problems, and after being away from America for years, my return to my country is filled with a sense of optimism. With all the talk of money and price, America is still the economic envy of the world. Still, there are opportunities beyond what the average American can fathom, especially when compared to most of the world, and the relative difficulty one may find climbing up any social or economic ladder. In America, furniture is everywhere. We hardly notice it. People are giving furniture away...

The decline in American morale, where there is a collective feeling of anxiety, pessimism, and even rage about the country’s future, is something of an inevitability. I see it. America’s life cycle would be too incomplete not to have gone through those clumsy teenage years of angst and turmoil about its future. America and Americans will not be an evolved society until it faces a kind of imminent collapse, where its complete destruction seems every bit as real as it does likely.

Generations have been broken before in America—Slavery. The Great Depression. The World Wars. Assassinations. These events are relatively recent, but are at once near us and ancient history. With all the shiny new artifacts of our future—the internet, Artificial Intelligence, cars that drive themselves, online shopping, none can be said to save us from an existential malaise.

Share

America feels, in many ways, ready to burst, or break, or sink or swim. It feels like on the brink—I just cannot say what on the brink of. But perhaps this is its nature—to feel as though it has always been testing its own elasticity to chaos. America, it seems, must come up against the inevitable—to be tested and tried through terms like fascism, oligarchy, nepotism, nationalism, authoritarianism, terrorism, capitalism (use prefix of your choice), and depression. Not so much the economic depression here, but a spiritual depression. I use the term spiritual not to refer to god, or any gods, but to describe the nature of the problem best I can.

America, as a nation, has a shadow self. A self built largely on memorabilia, trinkets of the past, sacred stories, and assumptions about the future. But it takes only a single individual to hold up an honest mirror, to reveal an honest reflection. We may put our anger and rage into the mirror holder, but it is the reflection that has to be confronted first.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

In college, I never read for pleasure; instead, I focused on subjects related to my field of study. I observed that my friends were reading for pleasure and noted what they were reading. Still, I was not interested enough to read those books myself.

After my undergraduate years, and while I was in graduate school, I decided to read the great literature and plowed through the works of American and English writers. I also found Dostoevsky and other Russian authors to be a revelation.

A couple of years ago, I decided to tackle the books my college friends had read. I respected them as friends and figured they were reading the books for a good reason. No doubt, those books addressed issues related to my generation, most importantly the counterculture movement and the Vietnam War, which were significant events in recent American history.

I went through my book list with an open mind and quickly found myself transported back in time. These books reflect common themes of the time: rejection of 1950s culture, alienation, longing for a perfect world, peace rather than war, drugs as a tool to expand the mind, and the evil of the establishment. Reading them helped me understand the frustration of my generation, which I had ignored while pursuing a technology career.

I will discuss my book list in chronological order by year of publication. It will be immediately apparent why these books were embraced by the counterculture movement and 60s intellectuals in general. What’s more important is their impact on us today, because the concerns of the counterculture movement have not been addressed 60 years later.

Walden, by Henry David Thoreau (1854), explores Thoreau’s assertion that most people live overly complicated, distracted lives. By simplifying possessions, work, and habits, a person can gain freedom, clarity, and deeper awareness of life. Thoreau suggests we focus on what truly matters, reduce unnecessary labor and consumption, and observe nature and human life more clearly.

Steppenwolf, by Herman Hesse (1927), explores the personality of Harry Haller, a middle-aged intellectual living alone in a German city, who feels completely alienated from bourgeois society and thinks he has two opposing identities: a refined, thoughtful human, and a wild “steppe wolf” who despises society. Haller explores these two natures and discovers that his personality is more complex than he believed.

By leaving his mind open, he found he could discover new experiences of value. Themes of the book include alienation from society, the search for meaning, individuality versus conformity, and the need for humor and play in life. The rock band Steppenwolf took its name from the book, and the group’s best-known song, “Born to Be Wild,” became an anthem for motorcycle riders in the 1960s.

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley (1932). The novel is set in the World State, a global civilization in which humans are genetically engineered in laboratories rather than born naturally. People are designed to belong to five castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. From infancy, they are conditioned through hypnopaedia (sleep-teaching) to accept their social roles.

Citizens are kept content through entertainment, casual sex, and a mood-altering drug called Soma. The novel explores: the dangers of technological control over human life; consumerism and pleasure as social control; the loss of individuality; and the conflict between happiness and freedom. Huxley’s vision differs from that of other dystopias, such as 1984, in that its characters are not controlled by fear but by comfort, pleasure, and distraction.

The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien (1937). This book needs no introduction as it remains popular today. It explores courage in ordinary people, the corrupting power of greed, friendship and loyalty, the value of home, and the value of a simple life.

1984, George Orwell (1949). Unlike Brave New World, 1984 presents an ugly dystopian world in which elites control society through fear and intimidation. Major themes include: totalitarian control, propaganda and manipulation of truth, surveillance and loss of privacy, the corruption of language (Newspeak), and psychological domination of individuals. Sound familiar? The book should be required reading for anyone who admires the agenda of the WEF/WHO/UN/World Bank and can’t see the danger we would face with them in power.

Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse (1951), is a philosophical novel about a man’s lifelong search for spiritual enlightenment in ancient India. It explores the search for enlightenment, the limits of formal religious teachings, the unity of all life, and the value of learning through experience rather than doctrine.

Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley (1954). This book had a direct impact on the drug culture because it tells the story of Aldous Huxley’s experiments with the drug Mescaline. In the book, he introduced “his reducing valve” theory, which asserts the universe contains far more information than we can normally perceive, the brain filters most of it out so we can function practically, and so psychedelic substances may temporarily open the “doors” of perception, allowing access to a broader awareness. This book prompted drug experimentation by those interested in exploring a widened state of perception.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey (1962), is about a man placed in a mental institution for misbehavior rather than mental illness. He tries to enlighten his fellow patients in the ways of the world, only to be crushed by the institution and its masters. Central themes are individual freedom vs. institutional control, conformity and rebellion, the abuse of authority, and the restoration of personal dignity.

Cat’s Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut (1963). Vonnegut became a countercultural icon because his novels combined anti-war sentiment, distrust of powerful institutions, satire of modern society, and a humane moral outlook, all delivered in a witty and unconventional style. He used dark humor to explore themes he saw as reprehensible in American society. Cat’s Cradle explores the irresponsibility of scientific innovation, the dangers of technology without ethics, humanity’s need for comforting beliefs, and the absurdity of political power and religion.

Dune, Frank Herbert (1965). Dune is a science-fiction epic set thousands of years in the future, in a vast feudal interstellar empire. The novel explores several big ideas: Power and politics – rival houses and imperial intrigue; Religion and mythmaking – how belief systems can be engineered and used politically; Ecology – the fragile desert ecosystem of Arrakis; Human potential – training, genetics, and consciousness; and the danger of charismatic leaders.

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test: Tom Wolfe (1968). After writing One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey became involved in government-sponsored experiments with LSD while working at a veterans hospital in California. The experiences convinced him that psychedelic drugs could radically expand consciousness, so he gathered a group of friends who shared his beliefs and formed the Merry Pranksters, dedicated to exploring new forms of perception, community, and culture. The group bought an old school bus, painted it, and traveled across the United States.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by Hunter S. Thompson (1971), is a wild, semi-fictional account of a drug-fueled trip to Las Vegas that became a satirical exploration of American culture and the collapse of the 1960s counterculture. Its themes included the illusion of the American Dream, media and journalism satire, drug culture and altered perception, absurdity, and alienation in modern America. The book became a defining work of Gonzo journalism, blending reporting, personal experience, exaggeration, and fiction.

The Greening of America, Charles Reich (1971), is an analysis of the cultural revolution that occurred in the United States during the late 1960s. The book argues that a profound transformation in American consciousness was underway, led largely by young people and the counterculture. It argues that this shift cannot be stopped by political force, will gradually transform American institutions, and represents a peaceful revolution through culture rather than politics. Its assertions are hauntingly prophetic.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig (1974), is a philosophical novel that combines a motorcycle journey across the United States with a deep exploration of philosophy, particularly the concept of “Quality.” The book blends travel narrative, autobiography, and philosophical inquiry around themes including the nature of quality and value, the split between science and art, technology and human meaning, sanity, the limits of rational thought, and the importance of careful attention to everyday activities.

The themes and narratives in all these books remain relevant today. Challenge yourself to read one or more of them.

The impact of the counterculture was not what it intended. It took on the establishment, hoping to tear it down and replace it with a new system, but it never had the power to do that. Plan B became infiltrating the academic system and changing the culture through indoctrination. In that endeavor, it was highly successful.

The problem that occurred along the way, however, was its alignment with socialism, which was used as a bolt-on ideology. That alignment precipitated its 50-year attempt to destroy America’s institutions and traditions, which has now come far enough to reach the point of absurdity and has generated significant resistance among a large segment of the American population, who do not accept left ideology.

The youngest boomers are 62, and the oldest are 80. Their descendants are taking control of American society and do not have the same life experience. Let’s hope they proceed down a different path.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

I could have sworn I’d written about Canada’s “desire” for high-speed rail some time ago, but I can’t find it. Well, the project is back in the news so that’s what I’m going to write about. Possibly again.

If you’ve been following me for a while, you should already know two things about me: 1) I hate Justin Trudeau, and 2) I am not loyal to any party. Knowing these two things should make the following statement less shocking:

I’m on the fence with respect to Prime Minister Carney. On one hand, he’s intelligent, accomplished, and says a lot of things that sound good.

On the other hand, while Trudeau is gone, most of the occupants of the clown car that is the Liberal party are still there. Oh, and Carney is a politician, so everything he’s promising could be just another lie or an effort to fill the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and families.

Still, I’m on the fence because if my standard was an honest politician, I’d never vote; I’d just sit in my office all day and mumble to myself. And I already do too much of that.

That said, there are limits to how much lying and corruption I’m willing to ignore. Waste and incompetence bug me a little too.

So, when the government proposed to build a high-speed rail (HSR) system from Quebec City to Toronto, passing through major cities including Laval, Montreal, Ottawa, and Peterborough, it got my spidey senses tingling.

As with any project, there are many pros and cons.

Let’s start with the pros:

1. There are a lot of Canadians in that area.

That’s it.

There are also many roads and highways that could be expanded instead of building an HSR system. However, I don’t think building one in this area is a terrible idea. It would be much faster than driving, accessible to people without cars, and create jobs (allegedly).

There’s one big problem with the idea, though, its government funded, and they want $90 billion dollars.

“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
- Everett Dirksen

Choo choo enthusiasts make “concrete” arguments like “Canada is the only G7 country without high-speed rail” as if train-envy is justification for spending billions of dollars.

The government, on the other hand, will provide more detailed and rational arguments for proceeding, but they will be based on analysis designed to make the project look good. The process goes something like this:

1. Government asks a train company to do a cost-benefit analysis.

2. Company lies to government about costs and timeline.

3. Government winks at company then lies to the voters.

4. Several months of propaganda follow.

5. Government signs deal with train company.

6. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get rich.

7. Delays

8. Cost overruns.

9. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get richer.

10. Delays

11. Cost overruns.

12. Politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends and family get richer.

13. Most of us die before we see anything built.

Sarcasm aside, I come to this healthy level of skepticism by paying attention. Something the government relies on voters not to do.

Pass.

Correction, hard pass.

Here’s what paying attention reveals about Canadian government transportation projects:

• Eglinton Crosstown LRT – NDP MPP Joel Harden called it a “three-year late, billion-dollar, over-budget boondoggle.” When the NDP thinks something is a waste of taxpayer money, you know it’s a problem.

• Ottawa’s light-rail transit system – The project’s capital budget has risen from $4.66 billion to $4.91B as construction is behind schedule. The full extent of the fiasco is outlined here (well, at least through January 2022), but let’s just say there’s a history of delays, cost overruns, sinkholes, lawsuits, and malfunctions. It appears that those running the project also failed to take into account that it snows in winter. Sigh.

In case you think it’s strictly an issue with the incompetence of Canadian governments or transportation projects:

• The government Phoenix project, aimed at modernizing the federal government’s payroll system, was estimated to cost $310 million. It is now estimated to have cost $5 billion. Oopsie!

• In the UK, the HS2 High-Speed Rail Project, initially estimated to cost £32 billion, is now expected to cost £100 billion due to major delays, management inefficiencies, and budget mismanagement.

• And lest we leave out the US, the California High-Speed Rail project, also known as the “bullet train,” was initially approved by voters in 2008. The goal was to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. The original budget for the entire system was estimated at around $40 billion, and the initial completion date was targeted for 2020. The project has faced numerous delays and cost overruns, and the most recent cost estimate for Phase 1 (just phase 1!!!) has ballooned to $126 billion. This is more than triple the original budget. The initial operating segment, a 171-mile section from Merced to Bakersfield, is now expected to be completed mid- to late-2030s, possibly ~2040.

The California project is perhaps the most relevant to this discussion, as California and Canada have similar populations (around 40 million people) although California’s GDP is higher ($4.048 trillion USD vs. $2.2 trillion – thank you, Justin Trudeau!). Why anyone would believe that it will cost Californian taxpayers $126 billion USD to link two cities 171 miles apart, but the Canadian government can link 6 cities over 500 miles for” just” $90 billion CND ($65.1 billion USD), is beyond me.

Share

My advice to taxpayers? Expect the initial cost, once approved, to be significantly higher. Then double or triple the estimate. Consider yourself lucky if that’s the final cost.

My guess is $1 Trillion before it’s done.

In the immortal words of Happy Gilmore, “the price is wrong, bitch!”

Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.

As you may have picked up from this article, he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Let’s unpack this problem and explain what’s going on. We begin with a short list of turncoats.

Tucker Carlson, formerly the most influential host on Fox News. After leaving in 2023, he moved to independent media on X and other platforms. Increasingly critical of Republican foreign policy, corporate power, and parts of the GOP establishment. Often described as “post-conservative” or nationalist but anti-establishment.

Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept who is not originally a conservative, has broken with much of the progressive media establishment, collaborates frequently with conservative audiences, and is a strong critic of U.S. foreign policy, intelligence agencies, and corporate media.

Candace Owens rose to prominence through Turning Point USA and The Daily Wire, split with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire in 2024 over Israel policy and rhetoric, and now operates independently and often criticizes establishment conservatives.

Steve Bannon, former strategist to Donald Trump and former head of Breitbart News, now promotes a “national populist” movement through his War Room show, and often criticizes the Republican establishment and even parts of Trump’s circle.

Dave Smith, libertarian comedian and host of Part of the Problem, is associated with the Libertarian Party (United States) and a critic of conservatives for foreign intervention, surveillance, and government spending.

These individuals fall into four separate camps: National populists – e.g., Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon; Libertarian critics of the GOP – e.g., Dave Smith; Independent media conservatives – e.g., Candace Owens; and cross-ideological anti-establishment figures – e.g., Glenn Greenwald.

The splitters are now anti-MAGA.

This discussion is about people splitting from Trump. There was also a split that created Trump. If you look at the history, you’ll understand how we got here.

William F. Buckley, by his own willpower, created a conservative ideology in the 1960s. Prior to that time, conservatism was seen as nothing more than honoring traditions and resisting change. Buckley welded together three disparate groups: traditional conservatives, libertarians, and former communists, who had rejected the failed Soviet Union. That alliance got Reagan elected in 1980. The new conservative alliance included Irving Kristol, the so-called founder of Neoconservatism. Neocons believe in an interventionist foreign policy, including forcing regime change if necessary.

By the end of Reagan’s second term, some conservatives, most notably Pat Buchanan, were predicting an ideological split. Buchanan, himself, was one of the founders of Paleoconservatism, which is basically the Buckley ideology without the Neocons. Buchanan accused the Republican Party of becoming too globalist, pro-immigration, and interventionist. He promoted economic nationalism, immigration restriction, and non-intervention abroad. Trump later embraced these ideas.

Irving Kristol, for his part, predicted there would be growing tensions between economic libertarianism (small government and individual liberty) and social conservatism (moral order and cultural stability) within the right. The split is:

Establishment Right - global markets, immigration friendly, interventionist foreign policy, and Elite institutions.

Populist / National Right - economic nationalism, immigration restriction, non-intervention, and America First anti-elite populism.

The fusionist coalition that Buckley created lasted until 2015. At that point, the legacy of a single event broke it. That event was the Iraq War. The end of the Cold War in 1990 removed a uniting factor among the conservatives, but the Iraq War caused the final break. The break came when several political ideas became reality: trust in conservative foreign-policy elites collapsed, populist conservatives began attacking the “neoconservative establishment,” and libertarians and nationalists began cooperating politically.

This shift created the intellectual groundwork for populist momentum.

Many conservative intellectuals realized the break was permanent on February 13, 2016, at the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, when Donald Trump directly attacked the legacy of George W. Bush over the Iraq War, while standing next to Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush. During the debate, Trump said, “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.” He went further and blamed the Bush administration for destabilizing the Middle East, saying the war had made the region worse rather than better.

This comment cemented in place the difference between the conservative establishment and MAGA, leading to outrage among the Republican establishment over Trump. This outrage birthed the resistance to Trump in his first term, including The Lincoln Project, and the Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney.

Fast-forward to the present day, and we now see a fragmentation in the populist coalition. Tucker Carlson has become an anti-establishment nationalist. He heavily criticizes Israel and accuses Trump of being Netanyahu’s stooge. Carlson opposes Trump’s foreign policy because it draws our attention away from the country. His “cult of personality” behavior is evidenced by his ridicule of Ted Cruz during an interview and his embrace of Nick Fuentes, who is an antisemite and an admirer of Hitler.

There is no explanation for Candace Owens, who went from Democrat to conservative to conspiracy theorist. Some recent titles from her podcast include JD Vance’s Mysterious Past, Elon Musk, Secret Underground Bases, and UFOs, Shocking: The Sinister Group Behind Your Grocery Items, and How We Faked the Moon Landing. Most recently, she has been attacking Erika Kirk. She reveals what she calls Erika’s “shady past” and says Erika might be a psychopath.

When I notice a behavior change in those I listen to for content, a shift from politics to the weird and unusual, that ends it for me. The correlation between controversy and clicks is used to foster the cult of personality, rendering their discussions useless.

Share

The populist fragmentation we’ve been discussing is damaging to the conservative movement, and the behavior mimics what the Democrats do. They’re better at dealing with it, however, because they have to live with it all the time.

The conservative movement is breaking down into competing identities, each vying for airtime. The lack of unity and obsession with ideology bodes ill for this November’s election, and the left is giddy at its prospects. Building unity out of the ideological splinters of our populist movement is like herding cats when the cats only care about themselves.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Iranian people around the world are celebrating the death of the Supreme Leader, hoping the theocracy can be overthrown. It remains to be seen how, and whether, the people inside Iran can rise and create a new government. Revolutions are tricky things, and they fail as often as they succeed. People on the street are a gauge of dissent, but contribute nothing to revolutions. The outcome depends solely on the intentions of the wealthy; will they see a benefit in the change? It also depends on the intellectuals who must sanction the process.

Unfortunately, Iran, like many Arab states, is struggling with factional politics. Four groups are competing for power there: conservatives who strongly support the theocratic model, reformists who support social reform within the theocratic system, moderates who focus on economic and managerial competence rather than ideological overhaul, and the opposition, which seeks to tear down the theocracy. The first two groups have the power, and it may be difficult to wrest it away from them. Another possible outcome is the implementation of reforms, which may cool the public enthusiasm for change.

From an American interest standpoint, any outcome that stops Iran’s support and encouragement of terrorism around the world would be great. The world would truly be safer if that happened.

The remaining leaders of Iran contacted Trump and asked for a meeting. He told them he would take their call after the mission was complete. This message cuts off any notion they had about getting a quick ceasefire. For 47 years, the Iranian Islamic state has been lying to the world about its nefarious intentions and its willingness to discuss solutions, making an absolute fool of Obama, along the way.

This instance is classic Trump. Negotiate if you can, and give the opposition time and reasons to agree. In the business world, running out of time means the deal is off. In our conflicts between nations, time running out means that, if you’re evil enough, you will be attacked.

For 47 years, Iran has threatened its neighbors in the Middle East. It has funded proxy groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others, who create instability and seek the destruction of Israel. It killed our Marines in Beirut, killed sailors on the Cole, and threatened to kill our presidents. In the last two months, it had killed 32,000 of its own citizens who were protesting the economic conditions in their country. Enough is enough.

The Congress had its typical reaction. The Democrats accuse Trump of waging war without their permission. A Democratic politician said, “Trump used the word ‘war’ in his attack announcement, so it must be a war.”

This is an old complaint we have seen many times.

Long ago, Congress gave up its authority to initiate war, ceding that power to the president. Formal declarations of war have gone the way of the buggy whip, used at a time when nations were more polite than they are now. “Oh, you declared war on me? Alright, I will now declare war on you.” The following list shows some of the undeclared “wars” since the end of World War II.

Vietnam War (1965-73). U.S. fatalities: ~58,220 Johnson

Korean War (1950-53). U.S. fatalities: ~36,574 Truman

Iraqi War (2003-11). U.S. fatalities: ~4,550 Bush 43

Afghan War (2001-2021). U.S. fatalities: ~2,461 Bush 43

Gulf War (1990–1991). U.S. fatalities: ~294 Bush 41

Lebanon (1982–1984). U.S. fatalities: ~241 Reagan

Iraq & Syria (ISIS campaign, 2014-) U.S. fatalities: ~100 Obama

The Democrats can tout the fact that the resistance to Trump’s attack on Iran is bipartisan because they include the two “useful idiots” from the Republican side, Thomas Massie and Rand Paul. Both are libertarians, the most idealistic and impractical political ideology ever conceived by man.

I cite two examples and rest my case. Number one, libertarians believe in open borders. Number two, they support the legalization of marijuana. They are small-government advocates, a concept that became obsolete in the 1930s.

I would gladly trade Massie and Paul for John Fetterman, who puts America’s interests above politics.

What do the 2028 Democratic candidates say about the attack?

Former Vice President Kamala Harris condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to launch large-scale military strikes on Iran, calling the operation a “dangerous and unnecessary gamble” and urging Congress to intervene before the United States is drawn deeper into what critics are describing as a war of choice. (Prediction: the attack may end before Congress addresses it.)

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Gavin Newsom told a San Francisco audience while promoting his new memoir. “It stems from the complete failure of this administration, this president who’s historically unpopular.”

In these examples, candidacy adds a layer of hyperbole to Trump hatred because they must try to outdo their competition by offering raw meat to the base.

On the other hand, Moj Mahdara, head of the Iranian Diaspora Initiative, appeared on CNN on Sunday and said, “As a Democrat, I am not with my party right now.” She sees them as being on the wrong side of this issue.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans surveyed approved of the strikes, 43% disapproved, and nearly three in 10 were not sure. But there’s a partisan divide, with Republicans supporting the military action by a 55%-32% margin. The vast majority of Democrats, 73%, disapproved of the strikes, with only 7% saying they approved.

A plurality of independents, 44%, disapproved of the military attack, with 19% supportive and nearly four in 10 unsure. In this tribal time, one can expect no “atta boys” from the left, and we see the usual mixed bag from the independents.

Most of our European allies condemned the counterstrikes by Iran against its neighbors while avoiding criticism of Trump over the U.S./Israeli attacks. An odd exception was Keir Starmer, of the UK, who condemned our attacks as a breach of international law. Does he think Iran never violated international law? His position spells the end of Starmer’s relationship with the U.S., which his successor will have to repair.

Share

President Trump will carry this attack to its logical conclusion, and then it becomes a waiting game to see whether the Iranian government will change. We hope for at least a softening of its belligerent stance against the world, which would be a positive outcome.

Democrats are the party of peace, which also means they are the party of submission. They continue to believe that if you are nice to tyrants, they will be nice to you. No matter how foolish and naïve that idea is, it remains a fundamental component of their equality ideology.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.