US President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he signed a bill ordering the release of all files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The bill requires the Justice Department to release all information from its Epstein investigation “in a searchable and downloadable format” within 30 days. Trump previously opposed releasing the […]

The post Solo Traveling Woman Shocked When Sri Lankan Man Exposes Himself appeared first on SALTY.

IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME. Last year, the Red Clay Strays were nominated for their first-ever CMA Award in the Vocal Group of the Year category. Some may have considered the fact that they were even nominated as a win, and there might have been a small part of the band that thought that way, too. They walked away empty-handed at the 2024 CMAs, but the band from Mobile, Alabama, was up for the very same award this year. And it should have been no contest, right? I mean, the band released back-to-back musical masterpieces with their debut album, Moment of Truth, in 2022, and their follow-up, Made By These Moments, in 2024, which speaks volumes about their caliber of talent. However, fans were concerned that the CMA Awards would (again) give the honor to Old Dominion. If this had been the case, country music fans would have lit their torches and grabbed their pitchforks, ready to burn down the CMA building, but we are happy to report that fans can put out their fires because…. THE RED CLAY STRAYS ARE YOUR 2025 CMA VOCAL GROUP OF THE YEAR WINNERS. View this post on Instagram I think the country music collective all thought this after seeing the group hit the stage to accept their honor: The mf'in Red Clay Strays, y'all. Love to see it.#CMAAwards — Whiskey Riff (@WhiskeyRiff) November 20, 2025 Drew Nix (electric guitar, vocals, harmonica), Zach Rishel (electric guitar), Andrew Bishop (bass), John Hall (drums), Sevans Henderson (keys), and frontman Brandon Coleman have come together to create something that’s entirely new, fresh, and unique in the country music sphere. They are by far the best Vocal Group in the genre right now, and their meteoric rise in the past couple of years only supports that. When the group got on stage, they remained a true class act, thanking the good Lord above for all He’s given them. Brandan Coleman thanked Jesus multiple times on stage, showing fans once again that they really live the message they preach. I’m not going to lie, when drummer John Hall said a few words in honor of his late brother, I choked up a little bit. This is a group that is greatly deserving of this honor… we made the right people famous. Social media was also thrilled to see the Red Clay Strays bring home Vocal Group of the Year, and even more delighted to see the reign of Old Dominion come to an end. Check out some of the reactions: Hell yeah!! Congratulations to Red Clay Strays!! #CMAAwards — Imagination (@SuppressedName) November 20, 2025 Plot twist … totally thought it would be Old Dominion. I don’t hate it though … loved their performance tonight! #CMAawards https://t.co/6opFieM5ks — Shanna Quinn (@ohheyitsshanna) November 20, 2025 Fuck yeah!!!! @RedClayStrays bout damn time!!! #CMAAwards — Travis Burleson (@Travis_Aaron1) November 20, 2025 RED CLAY STRAYS……HECK YEAH!!!#CMAawards — itsme (@father_son_hs) November 20, 2025 Jumped up and scared my dog. That's what he gets for making me sit through Old Dominion. — Whatever (@MIFrenchieMom) November 20, 2025 #redclaystrays well done and very well deserved!! #CMAawards — Travis Watkins (@thespitmonkey) November 20, 2025 Hells Yeah! Red Clay Strays #CMAawards Vocal Group of the year. https://t.co/rJp3WjSHRB — Jennifer L. Dawson (@JLDContentQueen) November 20, 2025 “I already thanked Jesus, we’re good. Thank you, Jesus, again!” @RedClayStrays #CMAawards — Asa Williams (@asavwms) November 20, 2025 I am not watching the award show but I came on here to congratulate @RedClayStrays! Yay! #CMAAwards — Savannah (@saviranch89) November 20, 2025 Love little big town and lady a bit congrats to the Red Clay Strays! #CMAAwards — Veronica. (@generalleiax) November 20, 2025 @OldDominion’s CMA Vocal Group Winning Streak is OVER!!!! #CMAAwards — Erin Barton (@ErinLBarton) November 20, 2025 Thank god. It was starting to become a running joke how many times Old Dominion has won this. #cma2025 #CMAawards https://t.co/GSaNlvzz6E — Titans_Tennessee615 (@TitanOwn) November 20, 2025 The Red Clay Strays’ Will Never Break Up The Red Clay Strays aren’t afraid to say it…. they aren’t ever going to break up. There’s a lot that goes into why the band from Mobile, Alabama feels that way. They’ve grown a lot together since they formed in late 2016, when frontman Brandon Coleman says they were clearing out bars because people didn’t like how they sounded. Bet most of those people would stay right where they were with hindsight, eh? The good news is that the people that originally didn’t care for The Red Clay Strays should have plenty of time to see them. That’s because Coleman doesn’t ever see the group breaking apart, and frankly doesn’t understand how some bands break up, as he explained on The Joe Rogan Experience: “I don’t understand why bands break up. I don’t get it.” Rogan cited that egos, internal conflicts, stress, traveling, and different personalities are often to blame for bands calling it quits. And think about it… some of the biggest bands in the history of the world have broken up (The Beatles, most famously). It almost seems inevitable for bands to have an expiration date. But Coleman disagrees, and thinks that as long as the band has their priorities in order, a break up shouldn’t ever happen: “I think you’ve got to have your mindset correct. For us, it’s a God thing. If you are just chasing worldly things, and worried about ‘me’ and how I’m getting done wrong or how he’s getting on my nerves, and that’s what dictates your decisions… I could see (that). You are gonna walk away from that. Because people suck and people are always going to fail you at the end of the day. But when you turn it into a ‘I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing this to fulfill my calling that God’s given me,’ then it becomes a selfless thing. ‘He who is greatest among you, let him be your servant’ is what always pops in my head. If I want to make this thing work, how can I serve these guys?” The Red Clay Strays frontman then offered up a story of how, in the early days of the band when they would all share one hotel room, the guys would fight over who got to sleep on the floor. There certainly seems to be a selflessness that’s contagious amongst the Red Clay Stray bandmates, and that’s why Coleman confidently thinks they’ll always be together: “When everyone shares that mindset, and everyone is worried about one another, I don’t really see how you could break up.” As to where that mindset came from, the band credits growing up knowing Jesus and having a relationship with God for treating their roles in the band with such equal footing. They do really feel as though they are being called by God to do what they are doing, and there are some real world examples that support that idea. Brandon Coleman first pointed out that they make music for a certain type of person: “Our fanbase is a lot of sad people. A lot of depressed people. Lot of people who are suicidal. We make music for that fanbase, and you’re not gonna hear that at a country music festival on the beach.” He then backed that up with a story that could have ended in tragedy, yet didn’t because of one of their songs. The Red Clay Strays have fans reach out to them all the time, and one woman sent them an email detailing how “I’m Still Fine” saved her life: “We get messages everyday. We had one lady who sent us an email saying she decided to off herself, take a lot of pills and she wanted to ‘go to sleep’ listening to music. As she was laying there waiting to take the ‘big nap,’ our song ‘I’m Still Fine’ came on. And it snapped her out of it a little bit. She started crying and immediately regretted it, got up and called her sister and told her sister what she had just did. They rushed her to the hospital and did whatever at the hospital for someone who takes a lot of pills at once and saved her life. It was so moving. That’s what makes it really worth it for us.” A really powerful message right there. Here’s to hoping that The Red Clay Strays truly never break up, so they can keep bringing music into the world with the power to save lives. And speaking of bringing new music into the world, the fellas released a new single, titled “People Hatin’.” A song that was penned earlier this year, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, inspired them to kick off the new album with it. You can hear more from The Red Clay Strays in the latest episode of The Joe Rogan Experience below: The post Country Music Fans Rejoice As Red Clay Strays Are Crowned CMA Vocal Group Of The Year first appeared on Whiskey Riff.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Controversial. The post “I was getting death threats”: The strange history of Joan Osborne’s classic ‘One of Us’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

You probably saw this Wednesday, and your reaction might well have been similar to mine. pic.twitter.com/6S0tX1CrIz If there is a technical problem with the Democratic-lawmakers-urge-military-and-IC-to-resist-the-commander-in-chief video, here it is again. — Byron York (@ByronYork) November 19, 2025 The video isn’t particularly novel. A couple of decades ago, someone in Hollywood got the idea that it would be really cool if they recruited a half-dozen or a dozen familiar faces who’d be willing to engage in leftist activism, have them all read the same script, and then do a bunch of rough-cut edits that would make them look cool as the final product jumped from one to another saying the same stupid things. The Hollywood Left doesn’t do this anymore, because the general public has gone well beyond the eye-rolling stage at the infliction of these videos on them. But the Washington Left, who sees themselves as the ugly-people version of Hollywood, still thinks they’re awesome and can’t stop recording them. They’re lame. You know that. Hell, everybody knows that but these people. But the Democrats have become a party devoid of anything but outrage — that which can be performed and that which can be generated — and so they do what they know. It’s like Alinsky told them: Never go outside the experience of your people. Alinsky knew that the Left is generally a bunch of hacks who don’t come about their philosophy honestly, but rather see it as the easiest grift available — if you can lie your way into power, you’ve generally got it licked, and raiding the public till for spoils is just the gravy off the top of the game. So coming up with something new is really too much work for these guys. That’s a commentary on the form of this disgusting missive, though. Far more problematic is the substance. What the hell is this supposed to mean? We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. These are all supposedly former members of the military and intelligence community, and presumably they understand the concept of the chain of command that they’re explicitly subverting. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. Is it? How so? For such a highly charged statement, one would expect that a specific allegation would be forthcoming. Because if not, then this would seem to be an awfully subversive message, one that would seem to be highly suspect and likely suggestive of insurrection. Why, a non-specific allegation that the duly elected president of the United States has set the military against the American people would have to be punishable at least by congressional censure, if not removal and prosecution as sedition, would it not? You all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad. Have some right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. Interesting. Can’t wait to hear the specifics. What are these illegal orders? You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. Well, sure. Still waiting to hear what orders are illegal, though. And that’s a pretty significant hole in the argument so far. Are we talking about the missiles taking out the narco-terrorist drug boats attempting to bring cocaine and fentanyl to poison Americans, of whom more have died this year from that poison than perished in the Vietnam War? Pirates on the high seas have always been fair game for the U.S. Navy; are we now saying that Venezuelan narco-terrorists are somehow protected by international law? Because if they are, if that’s the position of Elise Slotkin and Mark Kelly and the rest of these brave patriots standing up for the poor unfortunates of Cartel de los Soles taking up residence in Davey Jones’ locker, then why not have the cojones to say so? We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army or Navy or Air Force, your vigilance is critical. Vigilance for what? Where is a specific allegation here? And know that we have your back. Because now more than ever— The American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up. Don’t give up what? Don’t give up the ship. Oh, sure. The ship. This is a historical reference, of course. It refers to the final words of James Lawrence, a United States Navy captain, as he was carried below the decks of the USS Chesapeake during a naval battle on June 1, 1813, against the British frigate HMS Shannon in the waters off Boston. Lawrence’s words didn’t carry his crew far; the Chesapeake was shortly overwhelmed by a boarding party, but word got around that he’d uttered them before he died and a few months later his friend and fellow officer Oliver Hazard Perry ordered a large blue battle ensign, stitched with the phrase “DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP” in bold white letters, and the Perry Flag was displayed on his flagship during a victorious engagement against the British on Lake Erie in September 1813. What any of this has to do with President Trump is not outlined by Mark Perry, Elise Slotkin, and the rest of the Ugly Hollywood script-readers. They just implore the soldiers and spooks not to give up the ship. These are the same people who forced them to work without pay by shutting down the federal government for six weeks so that invading illegal migrants could get free health care. They’re the same people who supported purging our armed forces of people who wouldn’t take an experimental vaccine that caused such astonishing rates of myocarditis in young men that we suddenly had a dearth of combat-ratable pilots. And we’re supposed to credit their warnings about Trump? Is he starting wars with our neighbors and thus offering illegal orders to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines? It sure seems that Trump has ended many more wars than he’s started. Is Mark Kelly trying to say Trump is breaking the law should he order military strikes against Mexican cartels that have penetrated our country with drugs, sex trafficking, and much more? If so, say so. Then we can have a legitimate debate, to include the question of just how deeply those cartels have bought up the Arizona and California Democrat Parties, and gain an honest assessment of whose side Kelly is actually on when he makes his exhortations about holding the ship. There is a fresh outrage from these people every day. One must be somewhat circumspect as to how much opprobrium and contempt to dole out in response to this video, lest one should empty the stores in advance of the next, and surely worse, outrage. Especially given its context, which is the failure of their shutdown to generate a political win and the subsequent failure of their changing the subject to Jeffrey Epstein — again — to generate positive results. But even so, this is a new low. And it shouldn’t go unpunished. In a previous column or two, I talked about how the modern Left has fully embraced victimhood culture as a replacement for honor culture, and how that’s a significant marker of their behavior. This is another example. It’s of a piece with that video everyone saw a month or two ago of the Antifa cretin who spat on an ICE officer amid a rowdy protest and was promptly roughly arrested for his trouble. This is that, with a stupid Hollywood activist-chic tint to it. These people are inviting retaliation from the administration or the House or Senate leadership so that they can then performatively claim victimization. The way to beat victimization culture is to gleefully victimize the victims, whose victimization is fake to begin with. Strip their committee assignments, kick them out of their offices, refer them to the Justice Department for sedition, open investigations into them for every possible violation of campaign finance or other laws. Make examples of them and let them scream about persecution as patriots standing up for American principle. Nobody believes Elise Slotkin is a patriot. She wouldn’t have cut that video if she was one. She’s a partisan hack installed in the Senate by her Deep State CIA masters in a questionable election. Nobody is fooled by any of this. So lean on her and let’s see just how committed to supposed principle she is. These low blows shouldn’t be tolerated. Of course they’re provocations. Everyone understands that’s what they are. What isn’t as well understood is that they aren’t just a kick in the family jewels against Republicans. They’re also assassination porn. They’re dog-whistle exhortations to the Left’s crazies that it’s OK to take a poke at Trump, Pete Hegseth, and others atop the military chain of command. Which is why the allegation of “illegal orders” is left unspecific. That’s a dodge of real debate, but it’s also a clumsy sidestepping of responsibility when the next James Hodgkinson or Thomas Crooks decides to pop off and shoot their political enemies. And because of that reality, punishing this is much more important than any negative political ramifications of letting these people whine about being “persecuted” for making this video. READ MORE: Cautionary Tales: What Can November 2025 Teach the GOP About November 2026? Yes, New York Times, A Christian Can Be Both Pro-Life and Pro-Secure Borders Mamdani Won, But Socialism Still Lost

There’s a certain kind of conservative, often credentialed and overconfident, who clings to the belief that Trump’s departure from the ballot magically resets the board. They imagine the movement snapping back to a tidy, small-government ethos — as if the last decade were a loud, unruly detour rather than the story itself. Sarah Isgur’s recent conversation with David Leonhardt of the New York Times is a clear example of this instinct: a hope that the base doesn’t really want what it overwhelmingly chose, twice, and might suddenly return to the Church of Limited Government once the orange comet leaves the sky. But that vision isn’t merely naïve. It’s a profound misunderstanding of what happened, why it happened, and why “returning to normal” is not only impossible but undesirable for the voters who reshaped the Right. And the harder truth is this: Even if Trump vanished tomorrow, even if a Republican restoration or a Democratic technocrat took the wheel, small government is not coming back. The country that once believed in it no longer exists. Big Tech is now a fourth branch of government. Wall Street has more influence over national life than most federal agencies. Surveillance is baked into everything from smartphones to school boards. The alphabet agencies didn’t shrink under Trump, Biden, or Obama. They metastasized. The state grew teeth, and it will not file them down because a few pundits find them unseemly. On paper, Isgur is the model Republican insider: Texas-raised, Federalist Society, Romney campaigns, a stint at Trump’s Justice Department, now safely parked at The Dispatch and chatting with the New York Times. In public, she packages herself as the tough, no-nonsense “don’t tell me what to do” girl — the conservative who rolls her eyes at both parties, swears by the Constitution, and insists she has no real home in today’s GOP. In practice, it’s a neat trick. She talks like a rebel, lives like a Washington regular, and spends most of her time translating the Right for people who already decided they don’t like it. Isgur speaks with the confidence of someone who thinks the great conservative error was letting Trump crash the cocktail party, rather than asking what caused half the country to kick down the door in the first place. She longs for a world where Congress is back in the driver’s seat, agencies shrink, presidents behave, and the Founders nod approvingly from Mount Rushmore. It’s a pleasant fantasy, like imagining the kids will stop fighting because you’ve counted to three… for the 47th time. The Reagan–Romney–Ryan consensus didn’t collapse because Americans suddenly forgot the beauty of balanced budgets or federalism. It collapsed because it stopped speaking to real people, real problems, and real pain. And while Isgur talks about structure — process, constitutional purity, separation of powers — voters were talking about something else entirely: wages, borders, factories, fentanyl, culture, and a country that felt like it was slipping through their fingers. No amount of constitutional craftsmanship fixes a kitchen where the fridge is empty and the neighborhood has changed beyond recognition. The strict conservative mistake is believing that Trump distorted the movement. In reality, he revealed it. He didn’t invent the grievances. He merely voiced them in a manner that resonated with tens of millions of Americans. And Isgur’s notion that post-Trump conservatism can be rebuilt on small-government nostalgia ignores a simple truth. Yes, some conservatives still want a slimmer state. Who doesn’t? But what most Americans want, especially the working class the Right now claims, goes far beyond tax cuts and tidy org charts. They want a government that actually fights for them. One that protects their jobs, their towns, their borders, their kids, and their culture.  This is where the disconnect becomes almost comic. Isgur warns that presidents wielding executive power are dangerous. Voters warn that Congress wielding no power is useless. She envisions a renaissance of local politics. Voters can barely name their mayor but can absolutely name the factory that closed. She urges people to put down their phones and talk to neighbors, as if the national crisis were caused by poor manners instead of hollowed-out towns, disappearing jobs, drug overdoses, and a culture carved up by corporations and algorithms. It’s the kind of advice that sounds wise only to people whose neighborhoods never fell into a black hole. Plenty on the Right, not only the Left, keep insisting Trump was an error message, when he was the software update. They think America drifted away from them by accident. In reality, America drifted because the old ideology failed to address the world people actually live in. Globalization gutted communities. China rose. Wars dragged on. Wages stagnated. Universities radicalized. Corporations went woke. And the GOP’s answer, year after year, was a PowerPoint on marginal tax rates. Trumpism was the first major Republican recalibration toward material reality. Voters didn’t want a philosopher-king. They wanted someone who saw the same decay they saw. They wanted borders that meant something, elections they trusted, jobs that paid bills, leaders who didn’t treat them like rubes. They wanted someone who didn’t run for cover when the media barked. Someone who didn’t apologize for existing. Isgur’s structural concerns aren’t wrong. They’re just incomplete. A sturdier constitutional spine won’t save a nation whose arms and legs are giving out. And her belief that America can “return” to something calmer is like saying a marriage is thriving because the dishes are clean, even as both spouses quietly pack suitcases. Populism wasn’t a detour from conservatism, but conservatism remembering who built the country. Not donors. Not think tanks. The people who actually get their hands dirty for a living. This is why a post-Trump conservatism cannot revolve around shrinking the state. It must revolve around strengthening the nation. It must be muscular, not managerial; grounded, not nostalgic; rooted in ordinary lives, not law school seminars. If the Right refuses to build that future, a new movement will.  Isgur jokes that maybe she should pitch her vision to The Rock. That’s the problem in miniature — a belief that the issue is messaging, not meaning. Conservatives didn’t lose the old gospel because of a bad messenger. They lost it because the country changed, and the gospel didn’t. Conservatives can accept that. Or they can keep rambling to sympathetic hosts while the nation shrugs and moves on. READ MORE by John Mac Ghlionn: Train Dreams: An Elegy for the Men Who Built America America’s Crime Divide Is Racial, Regional, and Ruthless David Brooks Can’t Hide His Contempt for Ordinary Americans

Well New York, you did it: The world’s financial capital just elected Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, as its 111th mayor. For all of the enthusiasm of his mostly millennial and Gen Z supporters, many other New Yorkers and observers worldwide are horrified at the prospect of the experimental application of far-left economic policies to America’s largest municipality. While in the age of social media Mamdani has left a comprehensive record of various radical (economic and otherwise) sympathies, one needn’t look beyond his own mayoral campaign platform to reveal a dystopian panoply of collectivist economic policies. Rent freezes. Free buses. Government-run grocery stores. Politicians are frequently accused of hiding their true positions under the cover of bland nostrums while campaigning; Mamdani cannot be fairly accused of hiding the ball. The policy extremism is plain to see. Let’s be honest: These are terrible ideas, and no serious person with even the most basic understanding of economic theory (or who has simply apprehended the real world on a daily basis) believes any of them will work. Flawed economic ideas, of course, have always been with us: Serfdom, slavery, and sharecropping were all fundamentally forms of economic organization rooted in exploitation and impoverishment, and have deservedly been consigned to the ash bin of history. What sets collectivism apart — whether called Marxism, socialism, communism, or more vaguely as “social justice”, take your pick — is that those on the exploitive side of the ledger in those now-defunct systems were quite clear-eyed that they were not for the benefit of those subjected to them. Collectivism distinguishes itself from other failed economic ideologies not only by its longevity (despite consistently failing to deliver), but in that it is marketed as an uplifting economic policy for those upon whom it is inflicted — thus explaining its longevity. Yet how can anyone credibly advocate for something proven time and again not to work? Let us first dispense with two straw men frequently deployed in defense of socialist economics. The first is “It’s never (really) been tried.” Quite the contrary; we have living among us — including in the outer boroughs of New York City — citizens with a living memory of Soviet communism and its myriad failures. The other is “All modern economies are at least partially socialist, in the form of large public sectors.” It is true that modern “mixed” market economies contain both free-market and command elements. Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate degree of government intervention in a largely free market system; such arguments, however, which have constituted much of the political debate at the federal level in the U.S. since at least the New Deal era, could not be more distant from the policies elaborated on the Democratic Socialists of America’s website — policies which have consistently failed whenever and wherever they are tried. Some bad ideas do eventually fall from favor — bloodletting and lobotomies, thankfully, have been cashiered as solutions to the maladies they were intended to treat. Why does collectivism seem to have nine lives? One reason is that the merits of free market capitalism are seen — particularly by many of those over the age of 50 — as self-evident. The success of the U.S. and the “first world” in the postwar era, particularly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, bred triumphalism and academic hubris (remember “The End of History”?). Little attempt was made to forcefully advocate for or promote the moral and material merits of the market economy, as to do so was akin to saying that water is wet. Also contributing is the Enlightenment notion of “progress” as an unalloyed good. A belief that the human condition can be improved through an unwavering commitment to reason and science can also be maladapted to suggest that all change — or any change — to the existing order constitutes progress. As market economies in the West have been the incumbent economic order for centuries, any market failure associated with capitalism can be misattributed to that system’s underlying flaws, rather than what are more often the culprits: distortions associated with the socialist scaffolding in a mixed economy (readily witnessed in the U.S. housing and health care markets), or unrelated factors (such as the quality of education or natural resource policies). When markets rule, to make “progress” typically equates to more government. Yet another Enlightenment-era phenomenon embedded within socialism’s enduring popularity is the debate between reason and sentiment, each championed by Voltaire and Rousseau respectively. The protesters who carry signs stating that “Health Care is a Human Right” (and thus should be paid for by others, and administered by the state) give primacy to emotions over reason, just as Rousseau did. The complexity of the modern world can be difficult to ascertain; thus, when presented with any problem requiring a solution, the impulse to hand it to the only standalone entity (the state) with the resources and legitimacy to “fix it,” whatever “it” may be, can be a powerful one. A factor in socialism’s more recent appeal is how the advance of technology and social media, combined with a decline in the quality of primary education, have resulted in an increasingly ahistorical public. The “urgency of now” which demands immediate state action to any problem is animated by not understanding — or even being passingly familiar with — what happened 15 minutes ago. Empiricism as part of a heuristic approach to public policy cannot work in a democratic polity willfully ignorant of easily observed phenomena. Lastly, human nature being what it is, one cannot count out simple bad faith on the part of its advocates for collectivism’s persistence. For some on the statist left, the primary objective is not to deliver the stated outcome — say, cheaper groceries — but rather to concentrate resources under the control of those lobbying for a larger public sector role in the economy. Much of current climate policy fits this profile, in that state control has arguably superseded efficacy as a guiding principle. The irony of our current pass is that we live in a world in which it has never been easier to access information, yet that ease of access has depreciated its value and made it that much easier to ignore — or permit one to fall prey to emotional entreaties or outright misinformation. What we may be about to witness in New York is our largest city, in the wealthiest and most technologically advanced society the world has ever known, democratically and full-throatedly assent to its own immiseration. Richard J. Shinder is the founder and managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy. READ MORE: Mamdani Won, But Socialism Still Lost Cautionary Tales: What Can November 2025 Teach the GOP About November 2026? A Manhattan Project to Stop Socialism and Revive the American Dream

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After a series of devastating wildfires obliterated 22,500 homes, only 8,400 — or a lackluster 38 percent — have been rebuilt. You probably think I’m referring to the January fires in and around Los Angeles, but I’m not. These numbers, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, refer to the rebuilding process from a previous set of fires from 2017 to 2020. After the 2018 Woolsey Fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, only 41 percent of the burnt homes have been replaced. As the Times aptly noted, “Now, with 13,000 homes lost this year in Los Angeles County, these experiences offer a scope into the future.” Analysts offer their various in-the-weeds explanations (difficult terrain, insurance issues, individual owners’ financial hurdles) for the slow rebuilding, but it’s foolish to overlook the big picture. Again, per the newspaper: “Along the California coastline, overlapping layers of regulations make it hard to build at any time. When fire strikes, homeowners can find the circumstances unforgiving.” With regard to this year’s fires, the state’s rebuilding dashboard shows fewer than 2,000 permits issued for all of the affected communities. ABC 7 reports that Malibu has issued only 11 permits for the January fires 10 months after the fact. State and local officials have waived myriad environmental and other rules, yet despite that sensible approach the regulatory process is excruciatingly slow. The devastation has only exacerbated the region’s housing crisis, which had already been burdened by a housing shortage for many years before the devastation. One prominent study argues that the LA area is short 338,000 housing units, but guesstimates for the shortfall vary widely based on the research. Nevertheless, with the region’s median home prices pushing $1 million and median rents of around $2,800, most observers would agree that much more building is in order. Meanwhile, some other lovely, high-demand cities such as Austin, Texas, have seen prices plummet by — get this — letting the market work. Instead of following that sensible example, the Los Angeles City Council last week decided to undertake the worst imaginable approach from a boosting-supply standpoint: tightening up its rent-control statute. As Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck famously said, “[R]ent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.” Or except, maybe, for setting large segments of the city on fire. As the Los Angeles Daily News reported, the council established a new rent formula for the 650,000 Angelenos who live in rent-controlled apartments. Currently, landlords can raise rents 3 percent to 8 percent and even as high as 10 percent when the landlord pays utilities. The new rule will limit hikes to between 1 percent and 4 percent, and it applies to nearly three-quarters of the city’s multi-family rental stock. In simple terms: At a time when the city desperately needs more rental units because of the wildfires, it approved a policy that will restrain housing supply. A prominent study of San Francisco’s rent control ordinance found that it reduced housing supply by 15 percent and perversely encouraged property owners to keep their properties off the market altogether given the difficulty in evicting nonpaying tenants. Economists are in rare, near-universal agreement about the effects of such ordinances. They do reduce prices for existing tenants, but they quash supply by discouraging new building. They discourage renters from ever vacating their apartments. They drive up costs for the market in general and discourage building improvements. They obliterate housing markets and upward mobility. Regarding Los Angeles’ specific rent control policy, a February study from Beacon Economics found: “Almost two-thirds of increases in average rents for RSO [Rent Stabilization Ordinance] units are driven by turnover, not annual rent increases for continuing tenants. Making rent control stricter by lowering the caps could backfire — stricter caps will mean that rents will have to be raised more during turnover, which currently occur for 40 percent of units every three years. This could cause average rents to rise faster for RSO units.” Landlords aren’t willy-nilly pricing people out of their existing apartments, but generally raise rents after tenants leave. Those rents will now become much higher and the market will become more aggressive. Notably, landlords are raising rents in part because of growing costs, some of which are driven by government policies, per Beacon: “Operating costs, including insurance, maintenance and regulations, have risen sharply — insurance premiums increased 17% in 20 months, and maintenance costs grew 25% more than CPI over the past decade.” Consider this against the backdrop of a Times article from October, which reported the following: “Los Angeles apartment construction has dropped by close to a third in three years as developers struggle with unprofitable economics and regulatory uncertainty.” Given the regulatory and tax burdens, developers told the newspaper they need rents of $4,000 to $5,000 a month for these projects to pencil out. The city needs much more construction. The rent ordinance only applies to 1978 and older buildings, but it will have ripple effects. Now let’s return to Texas. The Dallas–Fort Worth metro area permits more houses each year than the entire state of California. And the Texas Tribune explains Austin’s falling rents: “The chief reason behind Austin’s falling rents, real estate experts and housing advocates said, is a massive apartment building boom unmatched by any other major city in Texas or in the rest of the country.” It’s amazing what happens when regulators get out of the way. Los Angeles remains a lovely city with idyllic weather, great scenery, and beautiful beaches. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea and indeed the city has seen some population drops, but demand remains high for housing. Instead of doubling down on a regulatory system that delays wildfire rebuilding for many years or slows apartment building to practically zilch, officials there need to roll back rent controls and revamp its permitting system so that the private sector can finally function. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: California’s Hypocrisy on Property Rights Post Prop. 50, California GOP Needs Reality Check California’s Debt Crisis Is Brewing Again