I’ve been a huge fan of Joe Rogan and Theo Von for years. As podcasters, they are two of the sharpest, most entertaining voices around. I’ve spent countless hours listening to both men, laughing, thinking, and sometimes seeing the world a little differently, which makes what I have to say rather painful. Gambling addiction is devouring America, and DraftKings is leading the feast. Young men, already adrift in a culture of loneliness and economic despair, are the primary casualties. And disturbingly, the very voices they trust — figures like Theo Von and Joe Rogan — are pushing them deeper into the trap. Rogan and Von host two of the biggest and most influential podcasts in the United States. Their reach spans millions every week, cutting across class, geography, and ideology. So much of the cultural debate today obsesses over guardrails for guests, i.e. who podcasters should and shouldn’t platform. But almost no one talks about the other side of the equation: the advertisers. That’s often where the real danger hides. Because sometimes, you’re not just selling ad space; sometimes, you’re selling addiction. A devastating psychological disorder that correlates strongly with depression, financial ruin, family breakdown, and suicide, gambling addiction is on the rise. A recent study published in the Lancet shows that the rate of suicidal ideation among problem gamblers is staggeringly high. In fact, suicide is often the leading cause of death among patients diagnosed with gambling disorder, a grim reminder that the consequences aren’t just financial. They’re fatal. Recent studies show that 10 percent of young men in the U.S. already exhibit signs of problem gambling, which is over three times the rate seen in the general population. Today, across America, things have gotten so dire that some experts now describe gambling addiction as an emerging public health crisis. When someone like Rogan or Von reads an ad for DraftKings, promising promotions, jackpots, “better payouts” and “bigger wins,” they are not speaking to an anonymous crowd. They speak directly to men who trust them, men who see them not just as entertainers, but as champions of independent thinking in a culture that increasingly dismisses this very idea. And they’re not just reading ads; they’re offering promo codes and personalized incentives designed to pull their listeners even deeper into the system. It’s a direct invitation, one stamped with their names, their credibility, and the unspoken assurance that it’s all part of the fun. Of course, it makes complete sense for DraftKings to partner with the pair. Von has close to four million subscribers on YouTube, while Rogan has five times that amount. These are not niche voices. They are empires. To a gambling company, this is an absolute goldmine. It’s a direct line into a community of young listeners, predominantly male, many of whom already admire risk-taking and the thrill of overcoming the odds. In marketing terms, it’s a dream demographic. But, I ask, why are Rogan and Von partnering with DraftKings? They aren’t struggling comedians trying to make ends meet. They are two very wealthy men. They don’t need DraftKings’ money. Von is reportedly worth $5 million, while Rogan is worth at least $200 million. They could align with thousands of brands that wouldn’t put their fans in danger. Instead, they chose one of the few industries almost guaranteed to harm the very young men who hang on their every word.. For those who think this is just a petty hit piece, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. I am not a hater. Far from it. As mentioned, I’m someone who has spent countless hours listening to these men and often admires their insight. That is precisely why this story matters. I’ve seen close friends get consumed by gambling addiction, losing vast sums of money, spiraling into depression, and watching their lives slowly collapse. It’s also what makes this situation feel so bitterly ironic. Von is a man who has overcome addiction and spoken candidly about his own struggles on his podcast and elsewhere. Rogan has been a vocal advocate for men’s health, resilience, and the urgent need for stronger, more disciplined males in society. Moreover, when you’ve earned the kind of loyalty Rogan and Von have, you owe it to your audience to protect them, not to sell them out. This isn’t about being puritanical. No one is arguing that adults shouldn’t be allowed to place a bet. No one is demanding censorship. This is about something far simpler: moral duty. If you know that an action carries serious, foreseeable harm, and you have the power to choose otherwise, you are morally responsible for what you choose to endorse. This is basic, ground-level ethics. You don’t have to be a theologian or a philosopher to grasp it. Rogan and Von are not stupid men. And gambling, especially the form marketed by DraftKings, is engineered to prey on psychological vulnerability. It is algorithmically engineered to hook users early, flatter them with small wins, and trap them in a cycle of chasing losses until the financial and emotional damage is complete. VIP programs go even further, targeting young men (and women) with perks and rewards, grooming them into becoming heavy bettors before chewing them up, spitting them out, and moving on to the next victim. Gambling doesn’t just promise money. It promises transformation. In a few minutes, you can go from overlooked to admired, from powerless to powerful. But it’s a lie. And right now, it’s a lie that Theo Von and Joe Rogan are helping to sell. If they want to be more than just another pair of famous voices selling out to the highest bidder, they need to stop. Not tomorrow. Not when the next contract renewal comes up. Now. Some choices in life aren’t complicated. This is one of them. Kill the ads. Take the hit. Protect the people who made you who you are. Because in the end, it’s not about what you say into a microphone. It’s about what you’re willing to lose to stay worth listening to. READ MORE by John Mac Ghlionn: Beyond DEI: How a Top US University Became a Marxist Factory Is Post Malone a Good Role Model? Will This Director Save James Bond or Bury Him for Good? The post Why Is Joe Rogan Selling Addiction to the Masses? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In August 1992, the American Bar Association held its annual meeting in San Francisco. It was there that, by a vote of 276 to 168, the ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates endorsed pro-choice legislation that was pending before Congress. This was a radical reversal of the ABA’s previous position of neutrality regarding abortion. Simultaneously, following a keynote speech by immediate past chair Hillary Rodham Clinton, the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession presented an award to Professor Anita Hill in “special recognition” of her “key testimony” in the 1991 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Hill had attempted to portray Thomas as a sexual predator unworthy of a seat on the Court. In short, 1992 was the year when the ABA abandoned all pretense of being an apolitical professional organization and publicly emerged as a special-interest adjunct of the Democrat Party. Up to that point, as a Philadelphia trial lawyer, I had been a dues-paying member of the ABA. But, when I learned of the progressive hijinks in San Francisco, I wrote a letter of protest to the editors of the ABA Journal as follows: I was most interested to learn that we have adopted an official policy on abortion. So what’s our position on apartheid, gun control, concentration camps in Bosnia, homelessness, AIDS and ozone depletion? As with abortion, the public no doubt needs and awaits further moral instruction from us on these and other big issues that dwarf the grubby business of practicing law. By the way, must future nominees to the federal bench adhere to our ideological agenda in order to be deemed professionally qualified by us? The editors elected not to publish my letter. But I did receive a call from a reporter who interviewed and subsequently quoted me in the ABA Journal as follows: Who are we to tell anybody about abortion, or any other issue that isn’t directly a part of the practice of law? We can talk about the rules of procedure and substantive areas of the law, but the idea of the ABA taking an official position about a fundamental moral issue [such as abortion] – I just think we’ve strayed too far from our real purpose. Why do we think the public wants to hear from us? Shortly thereafter, I joined thousands of other lawyers who quit the ABA in protest. All of which prompted ABA President J. Michael McWilliams to minimize the scope of the problem with this dismissive observation: “Certainly we don’t want people to resign just because of one issue.” As in “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?” But let’s back up a bit. Prior to the early 20th century, law schools were not the primary path to becoming a lawyer. Instead, aspiring lawyers would “read the law” under the guidance of preceptors such as practicing lawyers or judges in preparation for the bar examination. This was the way that, for example, Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow, and Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and Robert Jackson became lawyers. But, in 1893, the ABA formed its Section of Legal Education, which began promoting education in law schools as a better way to mint lawyers. And, in 1923, the ABA established national standards for legal education and began vetting law schools for adherence to those criteria. Since then the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the one and only national accrediting body for law schools. As such, the ABA holds the power to effectively turn off the lights of any law school that does not meet with its approval. For, if a law school were to lose accreditation, its students would likely become ineligible for federal loans and Pell Grants and be denied permission to sit for the bar exam in most states. Unsurprisingly, this singular and sweeping authority has become a useful tool for the leftists who run the ABA. In 2021 the ABA promulgated a “core” accreditation requirement pursuant to which law schools must “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion,” including by “commit[ting] to having a student body [and faculty] that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.” Consequently, a law school could lose accreditation if it failed to satisfy the ABA that it was providing “full opportunities” for “under represented groups” based on, among other things, race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, and socioeconomic background. But, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court ruled that such programs relied on racial stereotypes and discriminated against certain racial groups (such as Asian applicants) by penalizing them relative to others. In 2025, following warnings by state attorneys general and the Trump administration, the ABA paused enforcement of its “core” diversity, equity, and inclusion standard as it considered ways to work around the Supreme Court’s holding in the Harvard case. And so it was that, on April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order ending the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion as an accreditation standard for law schools. After noting that the ABA has suspended its DEI requirements “while it considers proposed revisions,” the order flatly states that “this standard and similar unlawful mandates must be permanently eradicated.” (Emphasis added) The executive order instructs the U.S. attorney general and the secretary of education “to investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American law schools that is advanced by the [ABA] Council, including unlawful ‘diversity equity and inclusion’ requirements under the guise of accreditation standards. The Secretary of Education shall also assess whether to suspend or terminate the [ABA] Council’s status as an accrediting agency under federal law.” So now the leftist ideologues who preside over the ABA are faced with a bitter choice. They can either swallow their invidious and discriminatory DEI mandate or lose their monopoly on accrediting the nation’s law schools. Either way, it will be a well-deserved and long-overdue reckoning for the ABA and yet another decisive win for President Trump and the American people. George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor and civil and criminal trial lawyer. READ MORE: Is Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Above the Law? The Bell Is Tolling for Puffed-Up, Arrogant Propagandists at CBS Mark Carney Is Incredibly Dangerous The post The American Bar Association’s Day of Reckoning appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Democrats are poor in virtue, but rich in craftiness. They always are up to something, and almost always no good. Since President Donald J. Trump’s inauguration, Democrats relentlessly have screeched, “Republicans want to cut Medicaid! Republicans want to cut Medicaid!” Their desperate screams have made Chicken Little’s warnings of a collapsing sky sound as startling as a train schedule. Baffled Republicans looked at each other, shrugged, and explained that no one in the GOP called for cutting Medicaid. “We’re not going to touch it,” Trump said in February. Through their sincere denials, Republicans unwittingly painted themselves into a corner. As they prepare the Big, Beautiful Bill, complete with Trump/GOP tax cuts and other free-market measures, some Republicans want to Make Medicaid Great Again. They aim to return this entitlement to its roots as a slim program, focused on the truly needy, rather than today’s morbidly obese boondoggle, which, as of December, covered 71.3 million Americans, or 21 percent of this country’s 340 million men, women, and children. Can Republicans escape this corner without covering the political landscape with paint-colored footprints? Actual Medicaid-spending reductions would give Democrats a huge rhetorical triumph. The last thing Republicans need is every Democrat in America hollering: “We told you so! We told you so!” This would give the Left precisely the self-justifying endorphin rush to escape their doldrums and act like a respectable opposition party — a duty for which these politically violent cultural Marxists are categorically unqualified. Republicans can reform Medicaid without actually slicing below today’s spending levels. Necessary and sensible steps would limit this program’s future growth — dramatically but without an actual Democrat-rescuing cut, per se. First, boot every illegal alien from Medicaid. Illegal aliens who invaded America, with neither permission nor papers, have no rights, other than to turn around and get the hell out of this country. Congress and President Lyndon Baines Johnson enacted Medicaid in July 1965, to heal pregnant women, poor children, low-income seniors, and the disabled. They did not do so to nurse those who broke into America. If Democrats want to argue that Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars should treat foreign invaders rather than U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, Republicans should give Democrats free microphones to deliver such speeches. The Naples, Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability produces superb policy analyses, in real time, on Medicaid reform. Many of its findings and data appear in this opinion piece. FGA found that, under Joe Biden’s wide-open border, Medicaid outlays for illegal aliens swelled 75 percent between 2020 and 2024. In just 18 states, this cost taxpayers an extra $16.2 billion. Illegal aliens may receive Medicaid benefits for 90 days, while state officials check their immigration status. Corrupt Democrats have abused this rule by letting illegals reapply as those 90-day intervals lapse. In some states, illegals have remained on Medicaid for 14 years, by renewing their quarterly benefits 56 times! Last year, Biden issued a new regulation that prevented states from capping these 90-day renewals. In essence, illegal aliens can remain on Medicaid until further notice. FGA reckons that closing this loophole would save taxpayers $5 billion. A broader effort to verify that Medicaid recipients actually are eligible for benefits could save up to $282 billion. A stunning 78 percent of voters support this idea. Equally stunning and far more stupid: An Obama-era regulation keeps eligibility checks, at most, annual. Second, battle Medicaid fraud. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO not FGA) reported last month that improper Medicaid payments in Fiscal Year 2024 totaled $31.1 billion, or $311 billion over a decade. Some of this impropriety might concern an inaccurate procedure code here or a missing doctor’s signature there. But if even 10 percent of this sum involves fake patients getting phony treatments in imaginary clinics, the counterfeit doctors should be in handcuffs, and taxpayers should recover $3.1 billion every year. Third, able-bodied adults without small children should work, train, or volunteer in exchange for Medicaid. Currently, 62 percent of in-shape adults on Medicaid do not work, and 85 percent of new enrollees over the last 10 years did equally little. As the economy accelerates, physically fit beneficiaries will score full-time jobs, slide off of Medicaid, and the program’s cost will drop. This will liberate resources for the bedridden, chronically ill, elderly, and feeble who need help, unlike robust men and women on Medicaid who prefer to watch Netflix and take naps. Among voters, 73 percent favor this idea, which could save up to $287 billion. Work requirements will make Democrats squeal like suckling pigs wedged between barn doors. Republicans should tell them to simmer down and savor the words of far-Right extremist Joe Biden. “Since 1987, when I first proposed an overhaul of the welfare system, I have argued that welfare recipients should be required to work,” then-Sen. Biden said in 1996. “I was pilloried by many of my friends back then for even suggesting the idea of requiring work. Today, I think everyone here believes that work should be the premise of our welfare system.” Fourth, ObamaCare’s absurd funding formula pays states 57 percent of the cost for truly needy Medicaid recipients, but it covers 90 percent for able-bodied enrollees. Grandfathering current beneficiaries and ditching the 90 percent subsidy for new aid recipients would save $219 billion and cut nothing from anyone now on Medicaid. This idea earns cheers from 78 percent of voters. Finally, consider Most Favored Nation. This glamorous name camouflages a dreadful idea that the GOP should scorn. Some bamboozled Republicans are considering infecting the Big, Beautiful Bill with a Socialist-Price Scheme for pharmaceuticals. They want America to import the artificially low drug prices set by foreign governments, such as the $1,000 that the British National Health Service pays for each injection of Eyelea, a treatment for age-related macular degeneration. In America, that same dose lists at $1,850. Likewise, in 2019, the NHS coughed up a paltry $170 per shot of Humira, the revolutionary arthritis drug. U.S. cost: around $3,000. British and European prices reflect the Soviet-style, “take-it-or-leave-it” power that these government-run health systems use to shake down U.S. drug companies. Americans, meanwhile, often enjoy steep discounts that insurers negotiate. Big Government intervention lets overseas consumers enjoy cheap drugs while sticking U.S. patients and taxpayers with higher prices to offset consequent foreign losses. This is the global equivalent of a Walgreens cashier charging double to compensate for the mostly peaceful looters who swiped half the drug store’s inventory. Republicans should reject this demented Socialist Price scam and, instead, prescribe an America First cure to this pharmakleptomania. This would shift the unfair share of drug prices from U.S. patients, back where it belongs: Make socialist medical monopolies pay their fair share for the fruits of U.S. pharmaceutical laboratories. If they want American drugs, pay American prices. Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor. The post Make Medicaid Great Again appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Abortion has been a rather critical issue for Democrats in the past couple of years. First, it was protecting the status of Roe v. Wade against pro-lifers who were doing everything in their power to get it overturned. Then, it was reacting with disgust and horror when the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization actually did get it overturned. By the time Kamala Harris got started on her campaign to run for the presidential office, abortion was the party’s key issue. Harris ran ads labeling state restrictions on abortion “Trump Abortion Bans,” she gave speeches on the sacredness of “women’s reproductive rights,” and she even orchestrated a campaign rally with Beyoncé to push the issue in Texas. In fact, Democrats poured “$570 million on abortion-focused TV advertising alone for federal races during the general election, according to data from AdImpact,” National Review reported. (READ MORE: Why Trump Should Act Against Abortion) But ever since November, it’s been crickets on abortion.  So much so that Paul Kane at the Washington Post was inclined to notice. Kane pointed out that the issue has practically vanished as a leftist talking point — whether it was during a 25–minute speech that looked like a campaign rally from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), or Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s nearly 30-minute stump speech, which mentioned “reproductive rights” just once.  Even Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Fight the Oligarchy” campaign doesn’t spend any time on the issue. In an hour-and-a-half-long YouTube video streaming an Idaho event, “reproductive rights” came up just once as a sort of passing side comment from a speaker introducing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and the word “abortion” was never used.  “Most Democrats still view abortion rights as a cornerstone of party orthodoxy, embraced by the majority of voters,” Kane remarked, “but they also consider it essential for the party to expand beyond that cultural issue.” Why? Well, Kane says it’s because of the Trump administration’s decision to deport a bunch of illegal immigrants, impose widespread tariffs, and fire excess government bureaucrats.  Daily Wire commentator Michael Knowles disagreed: “If abortion were super duper popular, you wouldn’t focus on other things. Your saturation messaging would have worked and you would have won the 2024 election. But it doesn’t work cuz most people aren’t psychos who want to slaughter babies left and right.” But if you ask the pollsters, that’s not quite the case. A Pew Research Center poll published in May of last year found that, since Dobbs, American support for legalized abortion had increased from 61 percent just before the decision to 63 percent nearly two years later. A Gallup poll published at the same time found that 50 percent of Americans thought that abortion should be legal in some circumstances, and an additional 35 percent thought that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. (WATCH: The Weekend Spectator Ep. 38: May Day, ‘Deadnaming,’ and Chemical Abortion) When you have numbers that solid on an issue, that issue is a winning issue. So why didn’t the Democrats win in 2024 on that issue? Why are they, by all accounts, neglecting to bring it up now? To put it bluntly, it’s difficult for Democrats to claim that Donald Trump is some sort of pro-life monster when his administration does things like request the Supreme Court to dismiss a case on the safety of the abortion pill, mifepristone. The position is identical to the one the Biden administration took in January and is just the latest instance of the Trump administration distancing itself from pro-life positions by embracing pro-choice ones.  If that makes the pro-life crowd squirm a little bit, it should. Mifepristone is a deadly and dangerous drug. Take the cases of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, both women from Georgia who died after the drug killed their unborn children and left them with severe septic shock. They aren’t the only ones. According to data recently released by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and referenced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in an article at the Federalist, “[N]early 11 percent of women who use the drug [mifepristone] to induce an abortion suffer an ‘adverse health event’ — as in a major, potentially life-threatening medical disaster. We’re talking about things like sepsis, infection, and hemorrhaging … the kind of things that could lead to death.” To be fair to the Trump administration, it’s done something to advance the pro-life cause; just last month, it announced it would cut Title IX funding to some Planned Parenthood clinics while it investigated DEI initiatives. But that’s a pitiful platitude compared to the enormity of arguing that the abortion pill — which killed approximately 672,000 babies in 2023 and was responsible for 63 percent of all U.S. abortions — should remain on pharmacy shelves. (READ MORE: Taking Down Planned Parenthood) In the face of those kinds of numbers, the Trump administration has yet to demonstrate that it really cares about the abortion issue.  Perhaps Trump is playing 3D chess here. Maybe he thinks that attacking mifepristone in court is less effective than eventually banning it outright via the FDA (arguably, that’s not the case, since a Supreme Court ruling lasts a lot longer than a conservative FDA commissioner’s term). While we can certainly hope that’s the case, it’s worth being wary of his approach and of calling Trump and his administration to account if the political game they’re playing gives us the same bad outcomes the Democrats would have if they were in power. The post Trump Is the Reason Democrats Aren’t Talking About Abortion appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The progressive is a creature that, like all others, evolves. Many progressives at 18 turn conservative by their 30s, as soon as they start earning a paycheck and witness the federal government’s greed firsthand. Others take longer. Here are 50 symptoms your progressivism is going to hell. You should hold fast to it. We still need someone to laugh at. You’re horrified when a teacher tells your kid they’ll learn math “with a gender perspective.” You no longer need to be the trendiest person at the Thanksgiving dinner table. If it’s a choice between saving a lettuce or a grilled rib, the lettuce is dead. You start sentences with, “I have gay friends, but…” When you see a field of solar panels, you miss the natural landscapes of your childhood. You’re disgusted watching your kid’s teacher twerk half-naked on TikTok. You’d rather drill a hole through your toenail than argue in defense of Hunter Biden. Women in burqas make you feel uneasy. You identify more with the Fourth of July than Pride Day. You mention something Reagan did well and forget to insult him right after. Looking around, you wonder if subsidies help or harm the people getting them. You think Bill Gates is more senile than the Windows 95 Clippy. When you hear “environmental justice,” you instinctively grab your wallet. You smile and nod quietly when Trump talks about Alcatraz prison. You accidentally swapped Mother Jones for The American Spectator, and the results are shocking: you look younger and your cholesterol’s down! You start wondering how progressive activists have survived the last 20 years while you’ve been working your butt off. You see no real difference between OnlyFans and Congress. You explain to your old progressive friends the difference between legal immigrants (whom you support) and illegal immigrants (whom you don’t). Emmanuel Macron seems too dumb to also be French. Your sense of solidarity shrinks as your taxes grow. John Lennon’s “Imagine” strikes you as the cheesiest, dumbest song ever. You see no difference between George Soros and a raisin. Your new baseball cap has a little American flag on it. You show your grandkids “old” Disney movies, saying, “That was the good stuff.” You secretly smile at a meme posted by Elon Musk. Obama’s starting to seem less “black” to you. Jordan Peterson’s talks feel too woke. You no longer foam at the mouth when you see a Bible. You think animals are cuter in the wild. You start saying things like “our people first.” You yell at New York Times headlines on your computer screen. You cringe when AOC speaks on your behalf. You’ve stopped reading bestsellers and self-help books. You couldn’t care less about the UN’s recommendations. You’re uneasy watching your progressive buddies cheer parents castrating their underage kids. Greta Thunberg is starting to seem more annoying than honest. You’re suspicious of digital currency (you’ve started stashing cash under the mattress). You trust a gas can more than an electric battery. You think DOGE is bad for politicians but great for regular folks. After the assassination attempts, you no longer see Trump as pure evil. You miss May ’68: sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll — not transsexuality, veganism, and strawless cocktails. You worry a Chinese AI robot might escape and spark a murder pandemic. Clint Eastwood is starting to feel like a national hero. You love five-patty burgers. When the news says “We’ll eat crickets,” you shout, “Your momma will eat them!” If BLM wants another cent from you, they’ll need a Kalashnikov and six guys to take it. You’re relieved to openly say Kamala Harris seemed like a total idiot. You watch “far-right” activist videos to get mad but end up thinking, “If they weren’t far-right, I’d agree.” You’ve hung a Winchester ’73 in your hallway. And you salute it as you pass. You’ve reached number 50 without wanting to cancel me. The post 50 Awful Signs Your Progressivism Is Crumbling appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Spectacle Podcast host Scott McKay is joined by special guest Robert Malone, the author of PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order. Robert dives into how new technologies combined with government propaganda and control are manipulating public opinion. Robert explains how his personal experience of being censored by social media and big-name corporations impacted him. Robert and Scott also discuss the media’s fear-mongering tactics behind COVID-19 and measles. Tune in to hear their discussion!  Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.  The post <i>The Spectacle</i> Ep. 222: COVID, <i>PsyWar</i> and Modern Fascism, With Dr. Robert Malone appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President Donald Trump’s 2026 “skinny budget” is out, and at first glance it gives small-government advocates reason to cheer. It proposes deep cuts to domestic agencies, calls for eliminating redundant programs, and gestures toward reviving federalism by shifting power and responsibility back to the states. It promises to slash overreaching “woke” initiatives, end international handouts, and abolish bureaucracies that have outlived their usefulness. But this budget is more rhetorical than revolutionary. As impressive as Trump’s envisioned cuts are — $163 billion worth — they lose luster because the version of the budget being considered in Congress also calls for increases to defense and border security spending, as well as the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. And for all its fiery declarations, the budget fails to truly confront the drivers of our fiscal crisis. The budget does, thankfully, enshrine the Department of Government Efficiency’s acknowledgment that federal sprawl has become unmanageable. It proposes defunding environmental justice programs, trimming National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation budgets, slashing the Department of Education, and eliminating corporate welfare masquerading as climate policy. It also rightly calls for cutting the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities —- two anachronisms with no constitutional justification. Art and education don’t need federal management; they need freedom. The budget retreats from Washington’s micromanagement of local affairs. Education grants, housing subsidies, and green energy projects are best cut and handled by state governments or the private sector. One-size-fits-all federal fixes for everything from school lunches to water systems have failed. Devolving authority isn’t just constitutional; it’s practical. But these trims are wrapped in a document that nevertheless sustains a bloated government. Even with the reductions, 2026 discretionary spending would remain essentially unchanged at $1.6 trillion. In some respects, the budget enshrines Biden-era spending. Then there’s defense. For all the “America First” rhetoric about maintaining a domestic focus, Trump’s budget does nothing to rein in the Pentagon’s fiscal free-for-all aimed at projecting power around the world. Quite the opposite: It proposes a 13 percent increase, pushing base defense spending past $1 trillion, including $892.6 billion in discretionary spending supplemented by $119.3 billion in mandatory spending and an additional $150 billion to be passed through Congress’ reconciliation process. The Pentagon remains the largest federal bureaucracy and among the least accountable. It hasn’t passed a full audit since 2018, yet it gets a raise. If “peace through strength” means blank checks for defense contractors and redundant weapons systems, we need to rethink our definition of strength. Consider the new F-47 fighter jet included in this budget. As Jack Nicastro notes in Reason magazine, this aircraft — billed as the most advanced ever built — is being developed to replace the F-35, which has been a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. So far, the F-35 has cost taxpayers more than $400 billion, far beyond the initial projected cost, and is expected to total $2 trillion over its lifespan. It’s suffered from technical failures (including at some point having problems flying in the rain) and some doubt it will ever be fully functional. Considering the government incentives that gave us the F-35 mess still exist, and given that aerial combat is shifting toward automated or remotely piloted systems, why would we believe our money will be better spent on the F-47? Trump’s budget also boosts Homeland Security spending, propping up another sprawling bureaucracy. The president’s high-profile and problematic approach to deportation, while politically popular with his constituency, costs a lot of money. As the Cato Institute’s David Bier notes, indiscriminate deportations risk shrinking the workforce, reducing tax revenue and undercutting economic growth — all while ignoring the merit-based immigration reforms Trump claims to support. Finally, there’s the ever-present elephant in the room: entitlements. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up nearly 60 percent of spending and are the main drivers of our debt. Yet they are mostly untouched in the current fiscal sketch. The administration promises a more complete plan later to show where the savings would be found, but we’ve heard that before — and House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that Republicans would block some of the most effective approaches to cutting Medicaid. But the math is straightforward. Without serious entitlement reform, no discretionary spending cuts can avert a debt crisis. The bipartisan failure to govern responsibly isn’t just a policy lapse; it’s a moral one. Deficit spending and the burden of debt repayment crowds out private investment, fuels inflation, and burdens future generations with obligations they have no say over. The U.S. is on track to exceed its World War II–era debt record by 2029. If this budget is truly the plan to reverse course, we’re in trouble. Yes, the new Trump budget has bright spots, but those gains are neutralized by massive defense spending, costly immigration priorities, and persistent gimmicks. At best, it maintains a flawed status quo. We don’t need more of the same; we need evidence of a serious turnaround. Until that happens, we have little choice but to assume that Trump’s budget is another big-government blueprint in small-government clothing. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: Why Tariffs Won’t Fix America’s Work-Attachment Problem Will Republicans Own the Brewing Budget Calamity? The post The Good, Bad, and Ugly in Trump’s New Budget appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The World Needs a Truly Brave Pope

Killing Democracy to Save 'Democracy'

America Must Stop Funding South Africa’s Discriminatory University