Category: Political Analysis

How Moral Relativism Paved the Way to Communism

The news of late has been filled with stories about election wins here in the United States for socialist (aka, communist) candidates.

It wasn’t that long ago that a majority of people in our country would have considered it preposterous for a major American political party to openly advocate Marxist governance.

But here we are.

Many in our nation were already aware of how detrimental such policies were and where they would eventually lead.

Additionally, we had generations of refugees here in our country to remind us of the misery that awaits when the crooked path to communism is taken.

Plenty of folks in the country are now in the state of shock, trying to figure out how the unthinkable has happened. A look behind the curtain may provide insight.

A major factor in the societal equation is the collapse of several of our country’s foundational pillars. The pillars were actually displaced over time by a distinctly different worldview known as moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the philosophical notion that “right” and “wrong” are not the same for everyone. When a society adopts a morally relative worldview, what is considered morally acceptable is wholly dependent upon whatever a person, family, culture, or system deems so.

This is untenable for any society in the long run. With regard to individuals as well as the population at large, moral relativism creates confusion. Confusion creates instability. Instability creates anxiety. Anxiety creates the inability to function. The inability to function results in a breakdown.

Truth be known, a society can actually endure a great deal of hardship if people share a belief system based on absolutes. If not, a breakdown becomes inevitable.

In a morally relative belief system, everything is relative. Consequently, nothing is for certain.

“Ball of Confusion,” The Temptations’ 1970 hit song (written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong), aptly expresses the thinking and feeling of the times. The basic precepts of our society were systematically being removed from our collective conscience.

“Evolution, revolution, gun control, the sound of soul

Shooting rockets to the moon, kids growin’ up too soon

Politicians say more taxes will solve everything

And the band played on”

If you take a listen, you’ll likely find that the tune sounds as if it dropped this morning. That’s not just because the music remains contemporary. It’s because the writers of the song were able to capture the historical experience and put it to music. And the musical artists were able to convey the cognitive dissonance and intense emotion that our people were suffering through.

Society was in an attenuated heated argument about what was right and what was wrong. It was evident that moral relativism had already taken root in a significant portion of the country.

Back before things went wobbly we generally shared a common pop culture. We watched the same TV programs, read the same books, went to the same movies, and listened to the same songs. These weren’t just trivial details. They were some of the specific social components that helped form a bond between us and hold us together as a nation.

We keep hearing now that people are so divided, so polarized, so incapable of coming to an agreement on any major or minor issue. That’s because moral relativism foments disharmony. And disharmony produces more of the same.

Peaceful co-existence requires shared norms. When norms are declared optional, something else will swoop in to fill the vacuum. The “something else” that swooped in was communism.

Founding father of communism Karl Marx contended that those who revolt against capitalism are the ones who get to define what morality is.

After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communists didn’t just change the form of government. They changed the moral manual.

Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin surmised that formerly-held morality was essentially a ploy that was used by the affluent in society to maintain their status and wealth. The communist regime ended up slaughtering tens of thousands of people who were tagged with the label “enemies of the working class.”

Lenin argued that the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” (i.e., the dictatorship of the working class), must show no mercy in crushing the old ruling class. And Russian dictator Joseph Stalin went even further, intentionally starving to death millions of his own people. Officials at the time characterized it as a necessary step toward socialism.

Moral relativism is the prelude to communism. Asserting that some things are simply wrong is the minimum condition in preventing the slide from moral confusion into systematic coercion.

In the 1970s, we resonated to the music and lyrics of “Ball of Confusion.”

Same ball today. Just a different decade.

Radical Leftist Democrats Are Following a Communist Script

Recent primary victories by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates in New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are being hailed in certain left-wing circles as some sort of a grassroots movement, when it’s anything but.

Those familiar with the wretchedness of communism have for years been doing their best to sound the alarm bells about the ideological seepage that has been occurring in our own country.

In a way, the DSA victories are serving a purpose in that more and more influential political and media figures are beginning to speak out about the dangers of veiled communist constructs and their inevitable road to ruin.

The philosophical playbooks, which the recent candidates and potential officeholders embrace, mirror the early stages that transformed previously free societies into economic and humanitarian catastrophes.

It may not be an exact replay of history’s songbook, but the anti-liberty refrain is eerily familiar. In the name of equality, activists pursue ideas about concentrating economic power.

If we look at communist countries prior to their becoming glorified prison camps, each experienced a state-controlled takeover of healthcare, energy, housing, and wages, usually accompanied by the fomenting of hostility to private enterprise, a redistribution of wealth, and a continuous erosion of individual freedom.

Venezuela is one of the more modern examples. Its tilt toward communism didn’t begin with tanks in the streets. It started with the holding of elections.

In 1998, Hugo Chávez was democratically elected on the promise of being a fighter of poverty and corporate greed. He called his platform “21st Century Socialism.”

He quickly nationalized the oil, steel, and food industries, imposing price controls, currency restrictions, and massive wealth transfers. Communism had slithered its way into a once-free country.

Supporters hailed the new way of life as empowering the people against the wealthy. Within a brief time period major production collapsed, shortages appeared, hyperinflation exceeded one million percent at peaks, and GDP cratered.

Millions fled, opposition leaders were jailed, and media were muzzled. What started as popular redistribution required an ever-greater coercion to sustain. What Nicolas Maduro inherited, he further hardened.

With regard to Russia, after 1917 the Bolsheviks promised land and bread. Factories and farms were seized under “war communism.” Then Vladimir Lenin’s New Economic Policy gave way to Joseph Stalin’s total collectivization. The results were engineered famines, gulags, and a police state that murdered millions to enforce central planning.

China’s Maoists promised peasant liberation. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution resulted in the deaths of millions from famine and purges, all the while private property and markets were being decimated.

Cuba’s Castro followers seized power. They promised democracy and justice, but turned around and built a tyrannical one-party system that practiced rationing, surveillance, and confiscation.

In each of the above cases, the initial pitch was the same: End exploitation, give power to the working class, and use the state as an instrument of justice.

The mechanism used was also the same: Replace voluntary exchange and dispersed knowledge with government allocation of resources.

When results were disappointing, and they consistently were, leaders blamed fake scapegoats such as saboteurs, foreign interference, or insufficient commitment to Marxist principles.

More power was demanded to fix what a prior power grab had broken. Liberty eroded bit by bit, and the system collapsed because it is impossible for central planners to replicate the information and incentives of free markets.

DSA platforms and candidates drape their major themes in American garb. Proposals such as “Medicare for All” and “Green New Deal” have them dreaming about massive new federal control over trillions in economic activity.

“Housing for All” and “Tenant Rights” campaigns end up being a means of imposing rent control, while restricting development and reducing supply.

Criticism of “corporate greed” and calls for the public ownership of businesses use the same twisted logic that was used to justify nationalizations in Moscow, Havana, Beijing, and Caracas.

For decades the United States has retained stronger constitutional guardrails, federalism, an armed citizenry, and a culture of individual rights, unlike nations that have succumbed to communism.

However, the trajectory of ideas in the leftward direction is particularly concerning for our country precisely because, more often than not, it is an incremental process.

Each step is typically defended as temporary and necessary. Each step makes reversal more difficult and failure more costly.

Americans who value prosperity and freedom should treat DSA advances, not as quaint democratic socialism but as the latest iteration of failed communist ideology.

The United States built its wealth and mobility on the opposite principles. Vigilance begins with a total rejection of the premise that concentrated political authority over production and distribution is superior to individual choice.

It’s best to listen to those who have suffered under leftist totalitarian regimes. They are sending us a message to immediately banish communism from our midst.

We fail to listen at our own peril.

California’s One-Party Rule Could End with a Steve Hilton Win

California is at a breaking point.

The once-Golden State has been pummeled with sky-high taxes, faded dreams of home ownership, soaring crime rates, a crumbling infrastructure, and an absentee governor who is consumed with national ambitions.

As California’s 2026 gubernatorial race draws near, one candidate in particular recently took the lead in the polls: Steve Hilton, a business consultant, restaurateur, and former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Hilton has garnered national attention for his common-sense approach to revitalizing the Golden State.

Resonating with the state’s battered populace, Hilton has been focusing on working folks, as opposed to Sacramento insiders and coastal elites. And he has zeroed-in on what voters truly care about: Good jobs, affordable homes, safe neighborhoods, and effective schools.

He received an assist with his candidacy from three issues currently in the news: California’s proposed punitive billionaire wealth tax, the state’s Commercial Drivers License scandal, and the recently uncovered corruption and incompetence that has driven away businesses, families, and untold opportunities.

Some info on the state’s proposed 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.

Pushed by unions and primarily cheered on by the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, the proposed ballot measure would slap a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of any individual whose assets are valued at $1 billion or more and who was residing in California on January 1, 2026.

In anticipation of the passage of the proposed ballot measure, California is already seeing jobs disappear, wealth flee, and its tax base shrink.

Billionaires are hard at work restructuring assets and pondering exit strategies.

Tech giants who, not so incidentally, are largely responsible for building up California’s economy are now packing up in droves.

The proposed ballot measure is being peddled to voters through the use of old fashioned class envy and newfangled propaganda.

Hilton’s reaction to the idea of a billionaire wealth tax? A flat-out “No.”

Instead of confiscatory gimmicks that punish success and hurt everyone within reach, Hilton proposes actual relief: No state income tax on earnings under $100,000, a flat 7.5% rate on anything above the amount, and the protection of Proposition 13 with no new property tax hikes.

Hilton plans to cut state spending back to pre-pandemic levels, which would end the 50% explosion that occurred in bureaucracy. This is the same bureaucracy that spent $24 billion on homelessness with zero results, wasted $30 billion on high-speed rail that failed to materialize, and engaged in endless giveaways to unions.

Hilton’s pro-growth policies will keep talent and capital in California and put a damper on exits to Texas, Florida, and other more inviting alternatives.

Regarding the Commercial Drivers License (CDL) scandal, here are some notes on the textbook case of Sacramento prioritizing politics over public safety.

Federal audits have revealed that California’s DMV illegally issued more than 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs to foreign drivers, whose legal status did not match their license expiration dates.

These were no minor oversights. The state government put unqualified, oftentimes unvetted drivers in the front seats of 18-wheelers and school buses. The fallout? Deadly crashes, including tragedies in and outside of California.

When the Trump administration’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy demanded fixes, California officials dragged their feet. This cost the state $160 million in withheld federal highway funds.

It was not mere incompetence on their part. It was an arrogant insistence on a leftist political agenda. Rules were bent in favor of illegal immigrant drivers, who in many cases were insufficiently screened and lacking in proper instruction, which seriously jeopardized public safety.

Hilton’s solution is to enforce California law, revoke illegally issued licenses, and place valid and competent workers behind the commercial wheel.

If elected governor, Hilton is intent on restoring accountability at the DMV, prioritizing legal workers, and ensuring that roads and highways are kept safe.

After eight years of unchecked one-party Democrat rule, the median price of a home is about $1 million, arrest rates have plummeted, violent crime has risen precipitously, reading and math scores of public school students have dropped, the state’s budget has experienced record deficits,

the cost of living has spiked, the population has declined, and tent cities have continued to line the streets, despite billions having been spent on homelessness.

Hilton additionally plans to enforce laws against shoplifting and open drug markets, empower parents with school choice and charter options, cap hidden housing fees, slash anti-housing regulations so that the American Dream can once again be realized, and deliver abundant energy and water minus the routine blackouts.

His persona is appealing, an outsider with executive experience who is not just another career politician.

Can he end the one-party stranglehold and restore luster to the once-Golden State?

Anything is possible here on the Left Coast.

Lack of Authenticity Spells Doom for the Democrat Party

Democrats have been making the rounds on podcasts, cussing up a storm, singing sixties songs, and putting on their best tough guy and gal faces.

It’s all a desperate attempt to win back the voters they lost along the way to the Land of Woke.

Negative public feedback as well as pathetic polling results indicate their antics aren’t working. But they keep on trying.

Apparently, no one has told them yet that it is impossible to resonate with people if you haven’t got a message that’s worth hearing.

Envious of President Donald Trump’s positive poll numbers as well as his widespread appeal, Democrats have adopted a cheap imitation strategy in hopes of once again duping folks.

Recent stunts by Dems include former veep Kamala Harris’s unofficial beer summit with late-night host Stephen Colbert, Left Coast congressman Eric Swalwell’s anti-GOP jaw-flapping gym session, and Garden State Cory Booker’s “Jersey Shores”-style rant on the Senate floor.

Their machinations have consistently come across as unimaginative, juvenile, and inauthentic.

Why would prominent Democrat figures engage in such undignified behavior? The numbers provide the likely explanation.

According to The New York Times, when it comes to voter registration, Democrats are “bleeding support beyond the ballot box.” All of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party measured severe drops in Democratic Party registrations in between the elections of 2020 and 2024.

A recent survey from CNBC indicates that the Dem’s net favorability has hit a near three-decade low.

The Democratic Party carries a -32 net favorability rating among registered voters, which is the lowest rating for either the Democratic or Republican Party going as far back as1996.

The Dems have a 24 % positive rating and a 56 % negative rating.

A recent YouGov poll shows that 58% of Democratic voters view their leaders as “out of touch,” compared to only 42% of Republicans who view their leaders in the same way.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that 54% of Americans trust Republicans more on economic issues, compared to 39% for Democrats.

The numbers suggest that people are seeing through the political theatrics. The Democrats lost 2.1 million registered voters across 30 states and Washington, D.C., while Republicans gained 2.4 million registered voters.

These numbers reflect the self-evident principle that authenticity is something that cannot be concocted.

Democrats, many of whom have presidential ambitions, are attempting to duplicate President Trump’s communication and leadership style. Interestingly, pretending to be him just isn’t cutting it.

That’s because President Trump isn’t method acting. He’s himself 24/7. His comments resonate because they are routinely unscripted, unvarnished, and unapologetic. The exact opposite of the Dem Trump wannabes.

While the Democrats have been hard at work creating TikTok videos, President Trump has been hard at work solving problems. He makes sure that he updates the public each day, reporting on issues that have been resolved and those still in need of tackling. And he spells all of it out in primary colors so we don’t have to carry a pocket dictionary or woke wordbook to figure out what he’s trying to tell us.

Democrats are seemingly stuck in an unending sequel to High School Musical. They may be having fun but they don’t realize they aren’t being laughed with, they’re being laughed at, in addition to subsequently being ignored.

The backlash on social media confirms that their calculated spectacles are backfiring, perceived by the public as second-rate and utterly fake.

Reportedly, Democratic strategists have privately warned that the approach risks turning candidates into caricatures. Recent polling data indicate that voters want political candidates to be real. A Rasmussen survey from early 2025 shows 63% of the all-important independents say they’re less likely to vote for candidates who “try to act like someone they’re not.”

The younger voter demographic that Democrats covet appear to be increasingly apathetic. Only 49% of Gen Z voters plan to turn out in 2026, according to a recent Tufts University study. This number is down from the 57% seen in 2020.

The reason for the drop is simple. Many of the young people cited distrust of politicians, who in their words are “pretending to be like us,” as the reason for their pulling away.

Authenticity is a difficult concept to describe, but humans seem to have an inner sense of whether or not a fellow human being is being genuine.

In terms of the way in which Dems have been behaving, folks additionally sense what authenticity is not about.

It’s not about mugging for the cameras, showing off one’s talents or lack thereof, chasing internet fame, or channeling another person’s persona.

With regard to public service, authenticity is about being honest about who you are, straightforward about what you stand for, and resolute in putting the needs of your constituents ahead of your own. Things that the current iteration of the Democrat Party either can’t or won’t do.

If the Democrat Party doesn’t learn the authenticity lesson in a hurry, the curtain just may come down before the play is over.

Lawmakers’ Desertion Is Soros Funded

Over 50 Democrat legislators recently fled their home state of Texas and took up temporary residence in the ultra-blue states of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts.

While the who, what, and why of their ill-advised departure continue to be hammered out, the how may be of particular importance to Texans and the country at large.

It appears as though the absconders may have received an assist in their runaway efforts from none other than George Soros, Beto O’Rourke, and possible others.

More than a mere political stunt, the performance act is a frontal assault on the legislative process and blatant mockery of our governmental system.

These state lawmakers swore an oath to serve the people. Needless to say, showing up for the job is a prerequisite. Abandoning their posts and hiding out in various other states is a breach of their core obligations.

They have one major goal in mind: To thwart a constitutionally mandated redrawing of a congressional map, which is necessitated by Texas’s population growth and the societal values of the region.

This quorum-impeding antic is racking up quite a bill. Private jets, luxury hotels, and logistical support for the runaway legislators has been costly. However, the tab is evidently being picked up by the Soros-backed Texas Majority PAC and O’Rourke’s Powered by People PAC.

The involvement of Soros and O’Rourke is particularly concerning. Soros, through his various foundations, has poured millions into radical causes over the past decades, causes that have eroded America’s shared societal values.

O’Rourke is a failed political candidate, who appears to be chasing fame and seeking relevance. His group reportedly has a $3.5 million war chest, much of which has apparently been funneled into covering the legislative duckers’ airfare, lodging, and possibly the $500 per day fines, which every lawmaker faces for dodging the legislative session.

Despite how the mainstream media characterize it, this is not grassroots activism. Rather, it is a cynical ploy on the part of Democrats to have their betrayal of voters paid for and the desired unearned power placed in their hands.

Texas has seen its population explode over the past decade, with millions of residents being added and additional congressional seats being warranted.

Texas is a red state powered largely by conservative principles, such as smaller government, religious liberty, and individual autonomy. Voters in the Lone Star State have repeatedly rejected the left’s agenda of open borders, higher taxes, and radical social policies. The proposed congressional maps reflect these realities.

The truth is the Democrat’s hypocrisy is in plain view. Gerrymandering, or the redrawing of lines on congressional maps, which set unnatural boundaries and carve out slivers of one-party voters, has been the hallmark of Democrats for years now.

Look no further than the states of Illinois and New York. Maps were redrawn prior to elections to secure power for Democrats, with the goal of maintaining it indefinitely.

What Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican majority in Texas are doing is not a moral equivalent. Rather, the governor and the legislators are utilizing a tool that is at their disposal to bring the congressional map up to current representative standards.

Gov. Abbott has correctly ordered the Texas Rangers to investigate potential bribery charges. If O’Rourke’s PAC is covering fines or personal expenses for the renegade Democrat lawmakers, it may be in violation of Texas’s election laws. House rules explicitly bar the use of campaign funds for personal expenses.

Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against O’Rourke’s group alleges that funds are being misused for private jets, hotels, and dining expenses. In the lawsuit, he has accused the political group of misleading donors by claiming contributions would be used for political purposes, when instead the money is being used for what the AG has characterized as “lavish personal expenditures” for AWOL lawmakers.

Atty. Gen. Paxton also claims that O’Rourke promised to cover fines for Democrats if they broke quorum. Additionally, he has petitioned to have 13 of the lawmakers removed from office for their roles in stalling the redistricting plan, and he is seeking a court declaration to allow Gov. Abbott to call special elections in order to fill the seats of missing Democrats.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, has the FBI assisting in the apprehension of the illicitly absent lawmakers.

Ironically, back in 2021 a group of Democrats tried to pull off a similar stunt, fleeing the scene in order to block election integrity measures. They returned empty-handed, their grandstanding achieving nothing.

In the current version of the same ploy, Democrats are hoping to run out the clock on a legislative process that they cannot legitimately outmaneuver.

Staying out of state until December 2025 would cost Democrats more than $3.2 million in fines.

December 2025 also happens to be the filing deadline for candidates to register for the 2026 midterms. Congressional maps would have to be set by that point, and no further redistricting could take place.

These absentee lawmakers are shirking their responsibilities, wasting taxpayer dollars, and undermining the foundations of representative government.

Democrat legislators have chosen to game the system.

May honorable leaders right the wrongs.

James Comey’s Stumble on the Beach

In a recent post on his Instagram account, former FBI Director James Comey put up a photo of seashells on the sand that had been arranged to form the following pair of numbers: 86 47.

Accompanying the photo was a not so cryptic comment from Comey: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”

The social media subsequently exploded with reactions from individuals who were outraged over the post.

Comey responded with another post, alleging that he “didn’t realize some folks associate it [the number 86] with violence.” He added that he is “opposed to violence in all circumstances,” and he took down the original post.

To say that Comey’s comments regarding the number 86 stretch the boundaries of credibility is an understatement, especially when you consider who Comey is, the position in government that he previously held, and the individual with whom the number 47 is associated.

As a high-ranking law enforcement official, Comey’s prior duties included the prosecution of participants in organized crime. Such participants routinely use the number 86 as a code word for “assassination.”

According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, the number 86 means “to kill, to murder; to execute judicially.”

Perhaps surprisingly for Comey, the seriousness of his wholly ill-advised post appears to be increasing with the passage of time. This is because the individual with whom the second seashell number is associated was saved by God’s grace from two attempts of the first seashell number’s kind.

In fact, Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the agency she heads as well as the Secret Service are investigating the matter.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have also joined in the investigative tasks.

Director Patel indicated that the FBI is ready to assist the Secret Service with “all necessary support.” And Director Gabbard stressed that the administration and the Secret Service are taking the incident “very seriously.”

“There has to be accountability for this,” Director Gabbard told Fox News host Jesse Watters.

Predictably, the mainstream media have failed in their responsibility to objectively and truthfully report on the story. Instead they appear to be carrying water for the former FBI director.

Headlines about the incident speak volumes, as demonstrated below:

— “With Comey questioning, the Trump administration again targets speech” (The Washington Post)

— “The old slang term ‘86’ probably started as restaurant-worker jargon. Suddenly it’s in the news” (The Associated Press)

— “Trump admin’s Comey investigation is meant to stoke a culture of fear among Americans” (MSNBC)

— “Ex-FBI boss interviewed by Secret Service over Trump seashell post” (The BBC)

It just so happens that Comey’s seashell encounter during his stroll on the beach occurred just a few days prior to the release of his latest book. Could it have been a way to generate some pre-release buzz? In any event, he has been making the rounds on every media outlet that is willing to pitch him softballs.

While appearing on MSNBC with Nicole Wallace, he seemed to take on the role of victim.

“You are back in the middle of a political firestorm,” Wallace said.

Comey responded, “Yeah, for walking on the beach with my wife.”

He went on to describe himself as “a grandfather and an author wearing sweaters and jeans,” explaining that he had “posted a silly picture of shells” that he apparently “thought was a clever way to express a political viewpoint…”

A political viewpoint? FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino sees it very differently.

In a post on X, Deputy Director Bongino said that the numeric symbolism was being used by copycats to send out threats that the FBI is mandated to investigate, which requires valuable time and resources.

“We are now dealing with copycats, sending cryptic threats to public figures, using the ‘86’ reference,” Deputy Director Bongino wrote. “Whether they turn out to be legitimate threats or not, taxpayer-funded public safety agents are going to have to run these all out and investigate them.”

If a prosecution against Comey is sought, it is likely to be a difficult one, considering free speech and intent arguments. However, time will tell whether other significant facts will emerge that justify legal action against the former FBI director.

In the meantime, many like me are still hoping that the haters’ hardened hearts are transformed.

Still sending up prayers, too, for the one who despite the hate, fights on anyway.

Elon Musk and the Dog Days of DOGE

During the 2024 campaign cycle, then-GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump promised voters that when he took the oval office for the second time he would enlist the help of Elon Musk to assist him in ridding the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Musk is the entrepreneur extraordinaire that with his forward-thinking approaches to electric vehicles and rocket technology was able to transform the automobile and aerospace industries.

He is also the individual that was able to take the social media platform Twitter, christen it with the new name of “X,” and take it to the level of being one of the most influential platforms ever to exist. In so doing, he not only liberated the media landscape, he accomplished the seemingly impossible.

In 2021 he secured the Time magazine title of “Person of the Year.” About Musk, the then-Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote, “Person of the Year is a marker of influence, and few individuals have had more influence than Musk on life on Earth, and potentially life off Earth too.”

It’s difficult to imagine an equally qualified person that would be willing and able to take on the fiscally challenging responsibilities.

During the campaign, Trump had told the Economic Club of New York that he planned to create “a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms.”

Following his historic victory, the president fulfilled his promise and set up a government efficiency commission, with Musk being given the assignment of running it. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was born.

It’s just what Trump voters had wanted. And judging from their reactions, it was exactly what the Democrats and the mainstream media feared.

The surprise is how good DOGE has been at exposing the corrupt use of taxpayers’ money.

In the decades-old tradition of leftists and fringe radicals, a mind massage of the public psyche is once again in the works. This time propaganda is being disseminated in the form of an endless repetition of a falsely-scripted phrase, which was likely created via focus groups.

Like the past not-so-catchy “existential threat to democracy” slogan that droned on and on in an effort to undermine President Trump’s reelection bid, Democrats and their media allies have an old new phrase with which to program people’s minds: the equally vapid “constitutional crisis.”

However, the real crisis that our country is facing is a fiscal one. A little clarification of the words “deficit” and “debt” is in order, two words that are routinely and unfortunately incorrectly used interchangeably.

In 2024 our nation had a deficit(spending beyond our means and having a shortfall in revenue so that we are unable to pay our bills) of almost $2 trillion.

The deficit amount simply gets added to the national debt(the money our country owes), which is currently more than $36 trillion.

The reality is that President Trump’s appointment of Musk to conduct a search-and-disclose expedition of a bloated bureaucratic executive branch is necessary, lawful, and constitutional.

President Trump named Musk in accordance with what Section 202 of Title 18 of the United States Code labels a “special government employee.”

Musk’s appointment is nothing new. Previous administrations have also had industry experts fill similar roles. Article II of the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint individuals to assist in carrying out the administration’s agenda.

As a result of his role as a defense contractor, Musk already holds high-level government security clearances. The rocket and satellite technology that he oversees has been used by the Department of Defense as well as many other departments of the U.S. government. And his Starlink satellite internet system has been invaluable in helping to assist domestic disaster relief efforts.

Democrats have been ignoring voters’ pleas for a more efficient and honest government. A recent survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates indicated that 79% of the participants wanted Washington’s reckless borrowing and spending to be curtailed.

The DOGE quest for efficiency also includes serious efforts to reduce regulations. During President Trump’s first term, he had ordered that two old regulations would be eliminated for every new regulation created. His new approach in his second term is that for each new regulation, 10 regulations must be identified for elimination.

This appears to be the first time that an administration is actually scrutinizing the entire executive branch in earnest.

Why all the hysteria, anger, and crocodile tears from so many in the Democrat Party, federal offices, government agencies, liberal media, and activist organizations?

It’s only logical that the president, who is the chief executive of the executive branch, has the right and the duty to examine how agencies of the executive branch of government are spending federal dollars.

Certain parties are acting as if they want bureaucratic abuses to remain secret.

Guess it’s okay to sit back and enjoy the histrionics as long as we pray for DOGE’s success and our beloved country’s future.