The job market is booming for young people – but not those with college degrees. Are employers finally coming to realize that colleges these days mainly produce coddled, know-nothing, whiny, entitled brats?

A recent analysis from Burning Glass Institute found that unemployment among those 22-34 years old without a college degree is lower than it’s been in decades, but those with college diplomas are having a much harder time finding work than before.

“For most of the past two decades, the two groups largely tracked each other, in good economic times and bad, the Wall Street Journal reported. “Now, though, just as job hunters without degrees are having one of their best runs, those with college educations are having one of their worst.”

The Journal says that AI is contributing to this unprecedented education divergence in job prospects, because companies are replacing entry-level white-collar jobs with AI just as colleges churn out more graduates than ever. At the same time, the shortage of skilled workers is making it hard to replace the many who are now retiring.

Employers are finding that degree holders today lack basic workplace skills but are very adept at complaining about corporate practices, staging walkouts, and embarrassing their employer on social media, when not demanding loan forgiveness.

There clearly is a mismatch. But this isn’t exactly new. The oversupply of college graduates and lack of skilled workers has been a long-time problem. Former “Cheers” star John Ratzenberger, for example, has been raising the alarm about skilled worker shortages for decades.

So why is it affecting employment opportunities now?

Here’s a clue.

A Columbia University professor recently won a national book award for a volume arguing that white paint is racist. We kid you not.

“I discovered numerous examples of the way that it figured into systems of erasure, exclusion, violence, and the masking of power in the social and natural world,” said author Wendy Walters.

This is just the latest of a mountain of examples of how disconnected colleges have become from reality and why they are churning out ignorant leftists by the truckload. Universities are stuffed with professors like Walters, who think that complaining about the color of paint counts as academic research.

Students who attend most colleges today get a steady diet of leftist propaganda about how terrible the U.S. is, how evil free markets are, and the wonders of Marxism. Polls consistently show that the more time spent in college, the more likely people are to be socialists.

In a normal market, such problems would be quickly resolved. The supply and demand of academically trained workers would balance out. The relative value of a college education would be part of the cost-benefit calculations.

But college isn’t a normal market. It’s one that has been wildly distorted by massive amounts of public aid — $155 billion in federal aid last year alone. According to the College Board, the average amount of per-undergraduate college aid has doubled in the past two decades, even after accounting for inflation.

Young people are repeatedly told that they have no future if they don’t have a college degree. Colleges lower entrance requirements and create phony majors to accept as many as they can. And students are told not to worry about costs because they can get loans that – they are also told – they’ll probably never have to repay.

Massive government subsidies let colleges raise tuition far ahead of the inflation rate, knowing they will never be held accountable for wasting taxpayer money. Students end up strapped with debt, holding worthless degrees, and facing diminishing career prospects.

The current lack of job prospects for college graduates is a painful but long-overdue correction.

But the underlying problem will continue so long as the federal government showers $155 billion a year in taxpayer money to subsidize colleges.

Until that’s resolved, the cycle will continue.

Issues & Insights Editorial Board

Virtually one third of the Democrat party members agree that it would be good if President Trump were assassinated. These are not a few random people. Yes, much of the rank and file may not say these things, or be murderous people, but the big problem is that they ignore the rhetoric and real violence. They remain silent.

That is more than unsettling.

When you factor in the rise of Hasan Piker as one of the left’s newly minted chief spokesmen, you know there is a flood of sympathy from most leftists to using violence as a major tactic. He wants “capitalist blood in the streets.” He leans into Islamic superiority. He hates this country. The silent majority of leftists agree.

Heck, many on the left celebrated the first “Kirkaversity,” making fun of Charlie Kirk’s murder and those who loved him. I saw no one on the left upset or even mildly challenging this kind of disgusting behavior. In the world of high-stakes poker, you would call this a “tell.” They have become numb to violence and ugly rhetoric. They now expect it, swimming in a sea of complicity.

All this to say, Houston, we have a problem. The left appears to want harm inflicted on MAGA-supporters, all because we support the MAGA movement, Trump, and the new conservatism. Not only is Trump derangement syndrome real, but the 24/7 news cycle supporting TDS was highly effective. It has made a swath of our citizenry angry enough to kill, or at least condone killing those they disagree with.

On occasion, TDS is laughable, silly, and simply juvenile. But behind this bizarre mindset, to have nothing but contempt for Trump and his movement, an evil mindset has grown and infused itself onto many of our countrymen. Goaded on by our media types and outlets, they have manufactured a man they disagree with into “Hitler.” And Hitler and his supporters deserve to be hanged.

From The American Thinker

Actually, Newsmax reports that the number of Democrats who condone violence against people with differing views may be as high as 44 percent.

Nazis killed millions for having differing views, or for being the wrong religion. Nazis hated Jews and others as much as vocal Democrats appear to hate whites, heterosexual males and Christians. The common theme? Hatred merged with the rationalization for violence.

Makes perfect sense. People who want a totalitarian government to control every tiny aspect of human activity, via socialism and censorship, quite naturally want the most effective and influential proponent of the other side to be taken out. And remember: Once they get Trump (whether by murder or some other means), they will be coming for all other opposition, large and small. That means you, me or potentially anyone who doesn’t applaud The Party enthusiastically enough. It’s how all dictatorships work. Stop saying it can’t happen, because this is America. With one of our two major parties now radicalized and committed to an unlimited and previously unimaginable obliteration of individual rights and due process — we have a serious struggle developing. Right now.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

OpenAI has decided not to release its GPT-6.1 Astra model due to heightened AI safety concerns.

Saachi Jain, head of safety systems at OpenAI, said the model “didn’t quite meet the bar in terms of staying within scope and authorization, and how it communicates back to the user about the type of work it’s done.”

The heads of OpenAI and rival Anthropic have both indicated recently that top AI labs should slow the pace of model development.

OpenAI decided not to release an upcoming artificial intelligence model, GPT-6.1 Astra, after determining that it did not adequately meet the company’s safety standards, CNBC confirmed on Monday.

The announcement, which landed a day before OpenAI’s annual developers conference, comes as the AI industry faces intensifying concerns surrounding the safety of advanced models. Leadership at OpenAI’s chief rival, Anthropic, urged AI companies to slow the pace of model development earlier this month — a proposal that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman supported.

“Of course we want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that’s in the company, or when we ship it to users,” Saachi Jain, head of safety systems at OpenAI, said in a statement. “But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment.”

The Wall Street Journal was first to report OpenAI’s decision to scrap the release.

Earlier this month, OpenAI released GPT-6 Astra, which the company described as the product of “years of research and big bets.” Altman told CNBC at the time that Astra comes with a “new capability level” and would lead to “a boom of entrepreneurship, of creativity, of economic growth, of scientific discovery.”

OpenAI introduced two additional tiers to its GPT-6 family, GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, last week. A spokesperson said Monday that the company has other models coming soon.

The safety and security practices at OpenAI, in particular, have been under intense scrutiny since July, when two of its models escaped containment, accessed the open internet and breached the open-source developer platform Hugging Face. The company has since disclosed several additional incidents where its models behaved in unintended ways, prompting industry researchers and government officials to call for additional oversight.

Following the incidents, OpenAI pledged to invest more in its safeguards and alignment work, which is the process where the company works to ensure that its models act in accordance with human interests and values.

“For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade off,” Jain said Monday. “You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction.”

Balancing safety and speed has been a particular challenge as AI companies contend with the Trump administration, which wants to move fast. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with calls for a slowdown, and emphasized his desire for the U.S. to maintain its lead over China.

Altman was one of the tech bigwigs photographed in attendance at Trump’s glitzy state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping last week. Other executives, including SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were also present.

“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social earlier this month.

Ashley Capoot, CNBC

WASHINGTON — Former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two since-dismissed federal criminal cases against Donald Trump, told Senators on Tuesday that he would not be silenced “by continued threats of prosecution” over his handling of the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Smith appeared before Senate Judiciary Committee amid the Justice Department’s push to target law enforcement officials involved with Smith’s investigation into Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results as well as the probe into his handling of classified documents after he left office in January 2021.

Smith said in his opening statement that he stood by his decision to bring charges against Trump, that it was the result of a deep investigation that uncovered substantive evidence.

“The status, power, prominence, or political affiliation of the subject of an investigation must play no role in the decision to investigate, prosecute, or decline to prosecute,” he said.

“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,” he said. Trump has said he did nothing wrong.

Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has repeatedly criticized Smith. The title of Tuesday’s hearing, which Grassley lead — “Oversight of Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters” — suggested a potentially combative hearing. Grassley asserts that Smith misused his investigative powers and politically targeted Republicans. Smith, who as a career prosecutor went after Republicans and Democrats, has denied such allegations.

Grassley said that Smith must answer for what the senator portrays as “rampant abuse of authority and political targeting” funded by American taxpayers. He said his goal is to expose the “weaponization” of the Justice Department for actions taken during the Biden administration.

“Jack Smith’s corrupt operation undermined the rule of law and threatened our very political institutions,” he said Tuesday.

Smith has said he believes a jury would have convicted Trump in the 2020 election-related case had it gone to trial and that the notion that his decisions were “influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.” Smith’s final report in the election interference case stated that Trump “inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence” at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Trump pleaded not guilty in Smith’s Jan. 6 case and denied after the attack that he incited his supporters, calling his remarks at a rally that day “totally appropriate.” Trump later described Jan. 6 defendants as “hostages” and gave them mass clemency upon his return to

The Trump administration last year launched a so-called grand conspiracy investigation looking at actions taken by federal law enforcement officials dating back to 2016, which would fall outside the typical five-year statute of limitations for most federal crimes.

The Trump administration also has purged FBI and Justice Department officials involved in past Trump investigations. Defense attorneys for current and former officials informed a court last week that DOJ officials appear interested in probing the circumstances of an August 2022 FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, during which agents found classified documents that were at the heart of one of the since-dismissed Trump cases.

Joe diGenova, who was a federal prosecutor during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, headed up the “grand conspiracy” investigation until he left the Justice Department this month. He told NBC News that “lanes got crossed” in his final days.

In his first public testimony before Congress earlier this year, Smith told the House Judiciary Committee that he would not be intimidated and predicted that the Trump administration would attempt to launch a criminal case against him. Months later, one of Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked the Trump administration to investigate Jordan’s assertion that Smith “seemingly” made false statements in congressional testimony.

Smith’s lawyers said he provided “truthful, responsive answers” and that Jordan’s referral “reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law.” Former federal prosecutors have told NBC News that the Justice Department would have a tough time bringing a perjury case against Smith.

Smith is not expected to discuss the classified documents investigation because Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ordered that that portion of his report as special counsel cannot be released. The Justice Department has taken the position that answering questions about that investigation would violate Cannon’s order.

Ryan Reilly, NBC News

The political left seems to have unlimited funds to spread its poison. Meanwhile, promoting free markets and capitalism is almost always done on the cheap. It shouldn’t be this way. The individuals and businesses that have enjoyed the bountiful fruits of capitalism should generously support those who fight on the ground to keep government from choking the only arrangement that has produced widespread prosperity.

The Democrats and their big tent of progressives, socialists, Marxists, Leninists and Maoists not only have infinite in-kind contributions from a friendly press, they are well funded by the wealthy who have chosen to subsidize virulent anti-capitalists. Think of George Soros. Reid Hoffman. Neville Roy Singham. Michael Bloomberg. Walmart heir Christy Walton. There are hundreds of other rich Americans who became wealthy through the blessings of capitalism, yet give large sums to politicians and organizations that intensely oppose the system that made it possible for them to succeed.

There are some prominent financial supporters of capitalism — the Koch brothers, the Wilks brothers, the Mellons, Adelsons, Uihleins, as well as Elon Musk, Ken Griffin and Scott Banister, of whom we recently just became aware — who understand the importance of protecting capitalism from the vandals on the left. But there are too many capitalists who inexplicably don’t feel the need to fund the guardians of capitalism. Their donations could help offset the big money that finances politicians and groups whose goal is to kill the based-in-liberty system that allowed them to generate great wealth. They seem to not understand that if they don’t battle for what is theirs, it will be taken from them and their heirs.

Yes, Republicans are spending heavily on the midterm elections. This is necessary to keep the left from accruing more political power, which it will use to ruin the great American experiment of liberty and economic freedom. But Republicans have not been reliable defenders of capitalism.

From our experience, we’ve learned that defending capitalism through the intellectual and moral arguments made by nonprofits in Washington and elsewhere, and through media outlets, which know that without capitalism we are uncivilized louts, is a perpetual strain because there’s never enough money to fend off the left.

Ideally, there would be no reason to have think tanks and media that are dedicated to safeguarding capitalism. All voters would understand how, as legendary economist Milton Friedman observed, that “never in history has there been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free-enterprise system and the free market.” But our country, in fact the developed West, is impaired by thoughtlessness, ignorance and incomplete public school educations that are exploited by the vicious plunderers and radicals on the political left who crave power.

There has never been a means by which millions have become so prosperous that they live better than the kings and queens of previous generations other than through capitalism, which is simply the financial interactions that take place when people are allowed to trade freely among themselves. It’s as natural to humanity as socialism, communism, central planning and forced wealth redistribution is unnatural. It is not based on greed, but on mutual cooperation.

Socialism, however, runs on greed, on the envy of another’s success, on covetousness and resentment. The organizing principle is to take, by force, if necessary, the property of producers and funnel it to the violent leaders who will hoard it for themselves. If allowed to run wild, it will crush all the great benefits capitalism has produced.

Issues & Insights Editorial Board

Under the first scenario proposed by the researchers, Moscow’s forces would continue their incremental advance and push westward toward the Dnipro River. As a result of their military victories, the Kremlin would force Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on terms beneficial to Moscow. According to the report, such an outcome would amount to a Russian partial victory, giving the Kremlin influence over Ukraine’s political and economic orientation, including EU and NATO membership. The study further warned that Ukraine could lose half its territory, face long-term political destabilization, and risk democratic backsliding — or even state failure. Millions more Ukrainians — an estimated 6 to 11 million — could flee toward Europe, generating 524-952 billion euros ($606 billion – 1.1 trillion) in refugee-related expenses over four years.

Additional defense spending to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank would raise Europe’s total costs under Scenario 1 to €1.2-€1.6 trillion ($1.4-1.8 trillion). Following a negotiated settlement to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia could then redirect military resources toward Moldova, the Baltic states, or the Nordic region, the report said. European governments would need to rapidly build up its defenses and deterrence in the Baltics and Arctic, while simultaneously dealing with rising political strain from migration and domestic polarization.

Under a second scenario — or a Ukrainian victory — the cost associated would be significantly less for Europe, the researchers found. With the right level of support, Ukraine could rebuild superior combat power — similar to its successful 2022 counter offensives — and begin retaking occupied territory. In this scenario, Ukraine’s battlefield momentum would force Russia into peace talks that safeguard Kyiv’s vital interests. To facilitate victory, Ukraine would require a rapid influx of military equipment. This would include “1,500-2,500 battle tanks and 2,000-3,000 artillery systems over one or two years… Ukraine will also need up to 8 million drones of all types, air defense, and strategic missile systems.”

If these capabilities are delivered, the report argued, Ukraine could stop Russian advances, reclaim strategically important areas, and restore conditions for political normalization and economic recovery. A Ukrainian partial victory would also accelerate EU integration, encourage refugee returns, and reduce country-risk premiums for investors. Europe’s estimated cost for enabling such an outcome — including military aid, industrial support, and reduced refugee burdens — totals 522–838 billion euros ($605-$972 billion) over four years, roughly half the cost of a Russian victory. Confiscation of frozen Russian assets could further reduce European expenses by up to 50 percent.

A Russian military victory in Ukraine would cost Europe twice as much as a Ukrainian victory, according to a new study by Corisk and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs published on Nov. 25.

Under the first scenario proposed by the researchers, Moscow’s forces would continue their incremental advance and push westward toward the Dnipro River. As a result of their military victories, the Kremlin would force Ukraine to accept a negotiated settlement on terms beneficial to Moscow. According to the report, such an outcome would amount to a Russian partial victory, giving the Kremlin influence over Ukraine’s political and economic orientation, including EU and NATO membership. The study further warned that Ukraine could lose half its territory, face long-term political destabilization, and risk democratic backsliding — or even state failure. Millions more Ukrainians — an estimated 6 to 11 million — could flee toward Europe, generating 524-952 billion euros ($606 billion – 1.1 trillion) in refugee-related expenses over four years.

Additional defense spending to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank would raise Europe’s total costs under Scenario 1 to €1.2-€1.6 trillion ($1.4-1.8 trillion). Following a negotiated settlement to its invasion of Ukraine, Russia could then redirect military resources toward Moldova, the Baltic states, or the Nordic region, the report said. European governments would need to rapidly build up its defenses and deterrence in the Baltics and Arctic, while simultaneously dealing with rising political strain from migration and domestic polarization.

Under a second scenario — or a Ukrainian victory — the cost associated would be significantly less for Europe, the researchers found. With the right level of support, Ukraine could rebuild superior combat power — similar to its successful 2022 counter offensives — and begin retaking occupied territory. In this scenario, Ukraine’s battlefield momentum would force Russia into peace talks that safeguard Kyiv’s vital interests. To facilitate victory, Ukraine would require a rapid influx of military equipment. This would include “1,500-2,500 battle tanks and 2,000-3,000 artillery systems over one or two years… Ukraine will also need up to 8 million drones of all types, air defense, and strategic missile systems.”

If these capabilities are delivered, the report argued, Ukraine could stop Russian advances, reclaim strategically important areas, and restore conditions for political normalization and economic recovery. A Ukrainian partial victory would also accelerate EU integration, encourage refugee returns, and reduce country-risk premiums for investors. Europe’s estimated cost for enabling such an outcome — including military aid, industrial support, and reduced refugee burdens — totals 522–838 billion euros ($605-$972 billion) over four years, roughly half the cost of a Russian victory. Confiscation of frozen Russian assets could further reduce European expenses by up to 50 percent.

Lucy Pakhnyuk, Kyiv Independent

Remembering the False Gloom and Doom of the 1992 Elections—and the Upcoming Midterms

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidential election partly on the basis of his campaign’s false accusation that George H. W. Bush had overseen “the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.” Or so claimed Clinton’s running mate Al Gore.

James Carville, chief campaign adviser to Clinton/Gore, amplified that message with the constant refrain: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

That strategy worked for three reasons.

First, third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 19 percent of the vote. Most of his supporters would otherwise likely have gone to Bush. Perot allowed Clinton to win with a mere 43 percent of the popular vote, in part by echoing the false narrative of a crushing Bush recession.

Second, the brilliant Bush campaign strategist Lee Atwater, who had virtually destroyed the Dukakis campaign in 1988—remember the tank ad, the Boston Harbor ad, and the Willie Horton ad?—had died in 1991 at the age of 40 from a brain tumor.

Atwater’s canny but hardball 1988 tactics had turned off establishment Republicans. So in 1992, Republicans reverted to the notion of losing nobly rather than winning ugly and resumed unilaterally playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. The result of Democratic demagoguery was that the sober and competent elder Bush was branded a heartless elitist who had wrecked the economy and defended Kuwait only for “blood for oil.” And without Atwater, the Bush team utterly failed to refute such caricatures and counterattack.

Third, and most important, the anemic Bush reelection campaign never refuted the Clinton-Gore economic hysteria. That “recession” deception had drowned out the historic foreign policy achievements of Bush’s four years, from the successful policies that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to the decisive 1991 Gulf War.

Despite overwrought claims about a recession or even a new Great Depression, in truth, the recession had ended in March 1991. In fact, final GDP growth for 1992 was a robust 3.52 percent. That was hardly a recessionary indicator. Indeed, the election-year growth proved even stronger than in Clinton’s first year of governance in 1993.

While unemployment was still high at 7.5 percent, the 1992 stock market nonetheless grew by 7.6 percent. And the 1992 inflation rate had stayed moderate at 2.9 percent.

In other words, the economy had already begun to recover from the 1990–91 recession, which—to reiterate—had officially ended 20 months before the 1992 election.

One cause—eerily now familiar—of the earlier 1990–91 downturn was that oil prices had initially doubled after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the U.S. military response. But prices collapsed as soon as Operation Desert Storm began, despite the later torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields and continued uncertainty in the Gulf. Yet by the November 1992 election, oil prices had long been back to pre-invasion levels.

In short, the Democrats’ charge that 1992 saw the worst recession in 60 years was absurd. (The 1973–75 and 1981–82 recessions were far worse than the 1990–91 recession.)

Fast forward to the present. The economy today is far better than in 1992. But Democrats’ successful 1992 demagoguery should remind Republicans that the perception of the economy peddled by campaign rhetoric can often decide elections more than the reality does.

But they remain impressive: the rebooting of NATO by getting its members to rearm and take up their fair share of collective defense; the acquisition of new treaties ensuring an American military presence in the Greenland to monitor the contested Arctic; the radical transformation of much of the Western Hemisphere from leftist and anti-American nations into pro-American, tough-on-crime, free-market countries; the expulsion of the Chinese bad actors from the Panama Canal and the extradition of the anti-American communist Maduro from Venezuela; the restoration of Pentagon recruitment; and the change in Pentagon procurement to emphasize quantity of weaponry along with quality.

The verdict on the unpopular war against the Iranian theocracy is still out. But the idea that the last seven months of on-again, off-again strikes and negotiations amount, in terms of human and material costs, to a “forever war” is absurd and a lie.

While all our soldiers’ deaths are tragic, the conduct of the war against the terrorist powerhouse of the Middle East had deliberately been waged to limit the loss of American lives. Indeed, the average daily fatality rate due to accidents in all branches of the military during the seven months of the Iran conflict is some eleven times greater than the number of those killed fighting Iran.

The roughly $40 billion cost of the war so far, while substantial, amounts to about 25% of the conservative estimates of recently discovered welfare corruption and fraud in California alone—involving theft of Medi-Cal, unemployment insurance, in-home services, and hospice funding.

The war will be judged by historians, fairly or not, on whether it delays for years or, if not, ends Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons altogether, and on whether it so weakens the theocracy that it permanently loses its terrorist leverage over the Middle East—if not eventually implodes from popular resistance. If such a regime collapse should follow the conflict, the Middle East miasma of the last 70 years would largely end, marking the most profound American achievement abroad since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

So much is at stake.

Nevertheless, the Republicans have not yet developed a strategy to inform the public that the economy is sound and improving—and will likely soon take off, after the Iran conflict is over, oil becomes plentiful again, and tax cuts, foreign investment, deregulation, and productivity gains from AI take their full effect.

Most importantly, Republicans have still not articulated why the “affordability” issue persists. Under Joe Biden, average prices were nearly 21 percent higher than when he took office, with a yearly average increase of more than 5 percent.

The Trump administration nearly halved that annual rate in 2025. It will reduce Biden’s yearly inflation rate substantially again in 2026.

But neither Trump nor any other president could or would wish by design to engineer radical deflation to restore prices to the pre-Biden levels of 2020 during Trump’s last year in office.

Trump’s first-term total four-year inflation rate was under 8 percent, averaging about 2 percent per year—far less than half the yearly inflation average of the subsequent Biden years.

In 2025, wages still climbed higher than the rate of inflation. But it would require a damaging recession to undo Biden’s 20 percent rise in prices. And worse still, the cost of staples such as food, shelter, vehicles, fuel, and insurance rose nearly 30 percent over Biden’s four years.

Nor have Republicans made the easy case that the midterms are no longer merely a matter of liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, or even progressives versus MAGA.

Rather, November 3 represents normality and common sense pitted against an unrecognizable “Democratic” revolutionary party that is driven by Islamist-sympathizing socialist zealots who are not fond of the United States as it has existed for 250 years. They are not shy about planning to remake America along the lines of, at best, radical European socialism and, at worst, something resembling Cuba.

Needless to say, if they get their way, even the most lurid false liberal claims about our current alleged economic problems will pale by comparison.

Victor Davis Hanson

Manheim has a son, Milo, who is also an actor. The 25-year-old was apparently conceived via sperm donation from her close friend Jeffrey Brezovar, who is  gay, and who seems to play an active role in Milo’s life. I honestly don’t care about any of this, but they put it out there.  

What I do find kind of sad is a joke that Manheim made over the weekend at the Human Rights Campaign 2026 National Dinner. The actress was presenting an award — specifically, the Ally for Equity Award — to her pal, Marcia Gay Harden, and she had this to say:  

I always wanted a gay son. I did. I love that relationship between gay sons and their mothers. I want to be the picket sign-holding mom who would beat the s**t out of somebody for her kid. I mean, let’s just admit it: Gay sons are the best, right?  Right!?

I have photographs of my son in high heels, in full drag. He knows every word to every musical ever written. His fairy godfather, Aaron Walton, is here with us tonight. I mean, truly, I thought I had this f***ing thing locked up.

But no, nooooooo. He’s the only straight guy in his entire musical theater company.  

So, when Marcia called me about 10 years ago from her closet — I kid you not, she was in her closet — to tell me that her son had come out to her as gay, all I said was, ‘Oh my God. You are so f***ing lucky.’  

About a week later, I was at Marcia’s house for dinner when an Amazon package was delivered for her son. And inside, I’m not kidding you, was a pair of thigh-high red patent leather boots — like kinky boots. And I thought, oh come on, now she is just showing off, right?  

I don’t care what Manheim or her friends do in their spare time, but when they put their bigotry and poor parenting skills (notice it’s all about what she wants) on full display, it’s fair game. First, this might be some kind of inside joke with her and her son, but as someone in the comments section on that video points out, could you imagine if the son was gay, and she came out and said she’d hoped he was straight?  

Second of all, she makes it out like being a gay man is just about being flamboyant and wearing women’s clothing. I have gay men in my life, one of whom I’m quite close to, and this is exactly what they hate about the LGBTetc. crowd. They aren’t walking cliches or some single mom’s fantasy BFF who can go shopping for “kinky boots” with her. They hate Gay Pride and all that nonsense. One has told me that he often wishes he wasn’t gay because it’s not the easiest life. My next-door neighbors are gay, and they just want to live their lives unbothered. 

Finally, when my colleague, Catherine Salgado, heard I was writing this story today, she said, “I hear that an LGBTQ child is a must have accessory in Hollywood this year.”  

She’s not wrong. Even stripping away the LGB part of it, just look at how many celebrities have “trans” or “nonbinary” kids. In just the last month or so, I’ve heard stories about the children of Jennifer Lopez, Naomi Watts, Charlize Theron, Jamie Lee Curtis, Cynthia Nixon, Jennifer Garner, and more.   

I’m not sure if it’s a mental health epidemic, the result of growing up with narcissistic and attention-seeking parents, or just some trend — maybe a bit of all three — but these parents act like they’ve won some sort of prize when their kid “comes out” as anything.  I feel bad for these kids and the ones outside of Hollywood who look up to them.  

PJ Media

I don’t know if I’m the only one experiencing this in the last several years or if others have noticed this as well. I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone whenever I talk to medical provider offices. The level of communication skills is just in the gutter. I get ghetto-level schedulers and other personnel who can barely speak English, or who don’t speak clearly into the phone. Not at one provider only, but with ALL the providers I deal with.

And their knowledge of their jobs is just as abysmal. It’s like I went to a Walmart cashier to have my gall bladder removed. I can’t get a coherent sentence from anyone, either because they’re straight of of the ‘hood, or English is their second or third language. Don’t competent white males or females apply for these jobs anymore?

It’s idiocracy brought to life! I feel like society is crumbling.

fwdude, self

Researchers proved AI has deleted every reason universities exist.

Harvard University ran a controlled experiment pitting a custom AI against their own top-tier classrooms.

And the results are going to collapse the higher education bubble.

They took 194 undergraduates and split them up.

One group learned physics in one of Harvard’s best hands-on, active-learning physical classrooms. Group work. Instructor support. The premium university experience.

The other group went home and learned the exact same material with an AI tutor.

The AI didn’t just win. It embarrassed the institution.

Students using the AI learned more than twice as much as the students in the elite Harvard classroom.

They scored 30% higher on the final assessment.

And they did it in less time.

Let that sink in.

A piece of software sitting on a laptop outperformed a world-class faculty in one of the most elite learning environments on Earth.

Universities have always justified their exorbitant tuition with two things: access to elite knowledge and the physical classroom experience.

This study just proved both of those moats are gone.

When software can teach you complex physics twice as well as a $60,000-a-year institution, the math of higher education breaks permanently.

The AI didn’t just give the students answers. It used strict pedagogical guardrails. It guided. It questioned. It forced the students to do the cognitive work.

It offered perfect, one-to-one tutoring, personalized to the exact moment a student misunderstood a concept.

That level of attention is mathematically impossible to scale in a physical lecture hall.

For a thousand years, the university was the only place to get a premium education.

Now, it’s the bottleneck.

If AI can double your learning speed for a fraction of the cost, what exactly are students taking on decades of debt to pay for?

Superman, X