The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.
Democracy,” H.L. Mencken once wrote, “is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Mencken probably would feel right at home among Californians in this age. Or, perhaps more accurately, among the Californians who haven’t left yet.
According to a new poll from Politico and its partners, California voters want graft and fraud on a massive scale to continue. And lucky for them, they’ve elected a governor who can deliver! For example, slightly more than six in ten Californians want Gavin Newsom to keep funding the high-speed rail project that hasn’t laid a single mile of usable track in 17 years — even though most of them realize they’ll never see it operate:
Nearly two-thirds — 62 percent — of voters say that California should continue bankrolling the planned rail line from the Bay Area to Los Angeles after the Trump administration clawed back $4 billion in federal grants last month, according to an exclusive POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll.
The poll revealed a clear partisan divide among the more than 1,400 registered voters surveyed, as just 21 percent of Democrats said it’s time to pull the plug, compared to 45 percent of independents and 62 percent of Republicans. But that doesn’t mean liberal Californians believe it’s any more likely that they’ll be able to ride from Southern California to San Francisco in their lifetime.
Just 27 percent of Democrats said there’s a high likelihood the project will be completed, roughly matching the 23 percent of their conservative counterparts who believe California officials can finish the first high-speed rail line in North America.
For some reason, Politico offers this as a conclusion to that data:
That seemingly counterintuitive outcome offers a lesson for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the candidates vying to replace him who’ve doubled down on their support: It’s time to put up or shut up.
Bwa-hahahahaha. How cute! Politico thinks this means that voters will hold HSR backers accountable for failure, when it means exactly the opposite. Not only has the project failed to meet any of its milestones or even put one car on a high-speed rail line of any length in 17 years, but there’s no prospect that the situation will change at any fixed point on the time horizon. The federal government just clawed back $4 billion in funding, and the state won’t get any more subsidies for at least the next three years. And yet these voters want the state to keep pouring good money after bad — all of it now in debt-increasing bond issues — for a system that probably will never connect Fresno to Bakersfield, let alone LA to San Francisco.
Politico sees this as an ultimatum, when the poll actually hands the boondogglers a blank check.
That’s not the only political insanity that emerges from Politico’s polling. Despite a massive budget crisis on their hands — and that same expanding debt from the HSR project, not to mention a looming pension crisis too — Californians want to foot the bill for medical coverage of illegal aliens. Again, the results show that federal cutoffs of such subsidies haven’t discouraged Californians from even more red ink:
In a survey of 1,445 registered voters, 29 percent of respondents said they believe the state should continue to provide subsidized health care through its Medi-Cal program to undocumented immigrants, even if doing so comes at the expense of other programs. That marks an increase from the 21 percent of voters who supported the idea in an April poll.
fairness, Politico offers at least some sobering context for this result:
Through its Medi-Cal program, California has offered Medicaid to undocumented people in some form since 2016, but significantly expanded coverage during Gov. Gavin Newsom’s time in office. By January 2024, every low-income person in the state, regardless of immigration status, had access to the full suite of Medi-Cal benefits.
The resulting growth of the Medi-Cal population has contributed to huge cost increases for the program. In the past year, Medi-Cal ran over its budget by 7.5 percent, forcing the state to spend more than $6 billion more to keep the program solvent. The overrun helped drive the state into the red, leaving lawmakers and the governor to deal with a $12 billion budget shortfall. They opted to cut back Medi-Cal for undocumented patients, chipping away at the universal coverage that has been a pillar of Newsom’s legacy.
What impact has this had on California voters? Er …
Thirteen percent of respondents agreed that the state should fully or partially roll back its Medi-Cal offerings for those in the country illegally — a decline from 17 percent in April.
Good. And. Hard.
Realistically, we aren’t going to boot California from the union in a “Calexit,” of course. However, it won’t be long before Newsom and his successors begin demanding bailouts from the fiscal and infrastructure crises that these policies will create. California voters will expect the other 49 states to indemnify them against their own stupidity. When that fails, Californians will start raiding capital and property within the state in “fair share” policies to subsidize their boondoggles and absurd giveaways. That has already been happening for the last few decades, and it’s why middle-class and entrepreneurial capital have fled the state over the past few years
Calexit, in that sense, is already underway. And with it goes not just the means to bolster the state’s economy but also most of its common sense as well.
Editor’s note: What happens in California unfortunately does not stay in California. That’s especially true of Greasy Gavin Newsom, whose leadership would prove utterly disastrous if he achieves his presidential ambitions. That’s why we focus so much time, attention, and analysis on Newsom and the ‘Golden State,’ because we must demonstrate the utter failure of progressive policies and leadership before it’s too late.
In historical times, the British Isles were first inhabited by Celts. Then they were invaded by Romans who withdrew after a few hundred years. Anglo-Saxons immediately replaced the departing southerners, landing in droves on the English east coast. Vikings also crossed the North Seas and tried their luck, gradually integrating with the natives. Finally, the isles were conquered by Normans — a third Germanic wave.
England and the rest of Britain have experienced numerous invasions from outside. However, ethnic peculiarities of neighboring peoples from the continent have been absorbed into the existing culture and have enriched it over time. Only in the last thirty years have the British experienced unlimited flows of aliens that threaten their own culture with extinction.
In addition to foreign invasions, British history is punctuated by moments of intense internal conflict. The English Civil War (1642–1651), a series of armed clashes between Parliamentarians and Royalists (known as “Roundheads” and “Cavaliers”, respectively), became instrumental in shaping the Britain that we used to know. The protracted state of war, intermittently complicated by Scottish and Irish independence efforts, not only settled the balance of power between monarchy and parliament but also deeply affected the religious, cultural, and political fabric of the nation.
Pious, proud, and principled, Charles I, son of Scottish-born King James VI, House of Stuart, ascended the English throne as ruler of three kingdoms (England, Scotland, and Ireland) in 1625. Like his father, he believed firmly in the divine right of kings: the idea that monarchs were appointed by God and accountable only to Him. This belief tempted him to govern without parliamentary consent for long periods and impose unpopular taxes and policies. The urban bourgeoisie (e.g. merchants) and lesser gentry resented his autocratic rule and demanded a greater share for Parliament in governance.
Intra-Christian divisions plagued England long after the break with the Roman Catholic Church (1534). Officially, papal authority had been renounced. However, Puritans swore to cleanse their church definitively of any pre-Anglican liturgy. What is more, Parliamentarians of Puritan persuasion viewed the king’s religious policies as Catholic-leaning and obstinate. Royalists, on the other hand, supported the hierarchical Anglican church and the king’s authority over religious matters.
While Royalists were largely aristocrats, greater gentry, and others loyal to tradition and monarchy, eager to maintain the established order, Parliamentarians, by contrast, included politically ambitious segments from prosperous areas and Puritans impatient for more parliamentary authority and religious reform.
The war was fierce and brutal. Battles such as those of Marston Moor and Naseby eventually decided the matter, leading to the capture and trial of King Charles I in 1646 and 1649, respectively. Anticipating the fate of Louis XVI and Nicholas II, his public execution was a dramatic turning point that shocked Europe.
A shrewd commander and devout Puritan, Oliver Cromwell would prove his abilities as leader of the Parliamentarian movement. After the royal execution, he set up the “Commonwealth of England”, a republican government that abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords. With the tyrannical privilege of making arbitrary decisions, a “proto-revolutionary”, he ruled Britain as “Lord Protector” (a peculiarly Orwellian title). However, his tenure brought relative stability after years of unrest. Distrustful of both Catholics and political dissenters until the end, he enforced Puritan moral reforms.
Civil wars inherently threaten social cohesion by pitting neighbor against neighbor. Yet, the English example shows how they may paradoxically increase sociocultural integration. So, albeit destructive in the short term, the war created a narrative vital to “nation building” — the process of forging an integrated political community from diverse social and religious groups. The conflict forced England to reconsider the nature of authority and governance. Ultimately, by challenging the divine right of kings and stipulating parliamentary sovereignty, Parliamentarians laid the foundation for a constitutional framework that unified the nation under shared laws and institutions.
The historical process drew inspiration from politico-legal traditions dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Signed nearly 400 years before the war, the charter stated that neither the king himself nor his government was above the law. Additionally, it guaranteed certain legal protections to the nobility. Originally intended to curb the abuses of King John, it became a venerable symbol and legal precedent for limiting royal power. Its ideals — such as the protection against arbitrary rule and the affirmation of legal rights — were echoed by Parliamentarians as they resisted King Charles I’s autocracy.
In the context of national reconciliation, the Restoration Settlement of 1660 was to become a precursor to the constitutional monarchy. At his coronation, Charles II accepted the limits on royal power decided by Parliament. A purported advocate of tolerance, he tried to restore social peace and trust. Much as the war disrupted traditional institutions, it stimulated new ideas about governance, rights, and religious freedom.
Recovering from hostilities, which highlighted the menaces of autocracy and religious intolerance, the nation showed resilience. Inspired by principles of “parliamentary sovereignty”, “rule of law”, and “individual rights”, it fostered a political culture that prized negotiation, legal frameworks, and representative government.
Like a phoenix, England emerged as a remarkably stable, orderly, and civilized society — the cradle of modern Western civilization. The laborious process of nation building, highly indebted to Magna Carta, and the post-war reinforcement of social cohesion succeeded after all. The English people united in a common culture, ensuring its long-term prosperity and global legacy.
Now, however, patiently invaded, England is broken. Unlike the drama at Hastings in 1066, the Islamic conquest has been insidious. Across the British Isles, a shift is taking place from a high-trust society, presupposing a homogenous culture, towards a multicultural “no-man’s-land” characterized by widespread suspicion and division. Alienation originates from foreign clan loyalties, which corrupt civil society and public institutions, religious supremacism, and social segregation.
Analogous to Mao’s “Long March”, Marxist activist Rudi Dutschke introduced the “Long March through the Institutions”. The revolutionary scheme was to seize academia in order to prepare the “people” for the showdown with Western civilization. In 1997, PM Tony Blair decided to change his country forever and let the Muslim masses in. Fresh supplies of “dispossessed” became necessary for socialist rule in the absence of a belligerent working class. At this point, public institutions had been taken over by anti-Western progressives.
In recent years, jihadist atrocities committed by rape gangs have provoked public outrage. Targeting minors has proven to be a criminal specialty of certain ethnic groups. In the wake of a cover-up by authorities and politicians, news media have revealed the depth of Islamic contempt, intertwining with concerns about mass immigration and Islamization of society. The unprecedented case of tribal warfare has increased tensions and distrust between communities and public institutions.
As the invasion progresses, the future balance of power becomes clearer. Christians, whether Catholic or Anglican, and Jews are in retreat. The political elite, as if it were a vassal court, betrays the indigenous people, denying them the right to speak freely and defend themselves against injustice. Unforgivingly, its police and courts persecute those who openly resist the anti-civilizational transformation of society.
If the ancient giants could see their descendants humble themselves and cower before Muslim invaders — see them submit and become enslaved in their own homeland, surrendering the green isles that their ancestors cultivated and inhabited for millennia… Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and Norman warriors alike would turn in their graves.
David Betz, Professor of War at King’s College, London, argues that Western societies — particularly Britain — are drifting towards a new kind of civil war. Nothing like a war in the traditional sense, it is a decentralized, low-intensity conflict rooted in tribal identity, grievance, and collapsing trust.
As public institutions fail to mediate social tensions, animosity freezes along ethnic, religious, and ideological lines. Betz sees growing alienation among young people, eroded faith in political systems, and state incapacity to enforce norms as ominous signs of breakdown. Awaiting the caliphate, as predicted by demographics, the warring parties will engage in urban disorder, infrastructure sabotage, and community self-policing. In the crumbling ruins of Western civilization, the state itself becomes just one faction among many. Lebanonization. Anarchy.
What is inflation? Most assume it’s a rise in prices — caused by greedy, mean people who want to make money.
Not so fast.
According to classical free market economist Ludwig von Mises, inflation is an increase in the money supply, not the resulting general rise in prices. He argued that this increase in the quantity of money (whether by central banks or fractional-reserve banking) devalues the currency, leading to more money chasing the same amount of goods, which then drives up prices and wages. Mises believed this process inevitably diverts resources, distorts the economy, and can ultimately lead to a complete breakdown of the currency system or a severe economic slump.
The money supply could not increase relative to demand — at least not long term — without a government control over the currency. It’s important to remember that America did not have this government control over the currency until the 20th century. That’s when the boom-and-bust cycles became normal, rather than the exception.
We don’t really have a free market economy in America. We have more of a free market than, say, Cuba or Venezuela. We’re not fully politicized — yet — like Communist China. But we’re very close. The Democratic Party aims to finish the job and make our economy government-controlled, as is China’s. Most of the established, long since paid off Republican politicians are little better.
So remember: the next time you hear about inflation, don’t think of mean people raising their prices. To any person with a business, the right price is what you can get. You’re not “mean” for raising your prices, nor are you “nice” for lowering them. That’s not how economics works — not in a free market, and not anywhere.
Inflation happens because government wants an increased money supply. This allows more money for themselves (think Nancy Pelosi), but it also allows more money to distribute to loyal people and programs to keep these career politicians in power.
Inflation is not the product of a free market. It’s the product of a society and economy consumed by nasty, rotten corrupt politicians — and the Imperial City they have created in and around Washington DC, and now globally.
Until we get rid of them, we’re not going to get rid of inflation.
New Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor told several news outlets, most recently the New York Times, that the federal workforce will drop from 2.4 million to 2.1 million employees, largely as the result of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts.
In a lengthy interview this week with Washington, DC, station WTOP, Kupor said that up to 80 percent of the reductions come from federal workers choosing to access buyouts or another program that paid them while they looked for other work.
“I think the team that designed those did as much as they could to be appropriately generous and give people as long of a runway as they could to go transition into something,” Kupor told the station.
The other 20 percent were fired, Kupor told Reuters in a previous interview. The total reduction amounts to a 12.5 percent decrease in the federal workforce of approximately 2.3 million.
President Harry S. Truman reduced the civilian federal work force by 1.3 million following World War II, largely in the defense industry. Other presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, made substantial reductions, though theirs, unlike President Donald Trump’s, took multiple years to accomplish.
CNN has featured a tracker of employee reductions implemented by the Trump administration. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) dismissed some 10,000 employees when it was dismantled entirely.
Others, as Breitbart News reported, include more than 20,000 employees reportedly cut or accepting buyouts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Some 7,300 have been dismissed at the Internal Revenue Service, according to the CNN tracker.
Kupor told theTimes he doesn’t expect any significant new layoff announcements this year, Forbes reported.
Kupor, confirmed to his position in July, comes from the private sector, where he was a managing partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm.
He told the TV station he’s well aware of the personal consequences for some of those who no longer have federal jobs.
“I recognize and understand we’re talking about very serious things. Anytime we do layoffs or reductions, you know, that impacts people’s families, it impacts people’s friends, it impacts their ability to be contributing members to their community,” he said. “And look, we need to recognize and understand that is a difficult thing for people to live through.”
Contributor Lowell Cauffiel is the best-selling author of Below the Line and nine other crime novels and nonfiction titles. See lowellcauffiel.comfor more.
“We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door,” a Kamala ally said after the election even as her campaign was still sending out texts to donors begging them to send more cash.
“Hi Team, It’s Kamala, The election isn’t what we wanted, but I will never give up the fight,” a post-election text message solicited donors to replace all the money that went out the door. In Jan 2025, even as President Trump was preparing for his inauguration, the ‘Harris Fight Fund’ was still milking recurring donations even though there was nothing left to fight for anymore.
Whether or not Kamala was giving up the fight, she certainly wasn’t giving up fleecing donors.
Kamala Harris didn’t get much done, but she did manage to get $1.5 billion in 3 months out the door. Her new book, 107 Days, frames her limited campaign as an accomplishment and an excuse. As she prepares a soft launch for 2028, she’s suggesting to supporters that she could have gotten a whole lot more done in more days. But there are two things she did get done.
She raised and spent record amounts of cash while suffering the worst Democrat defeat in 20 years. Where did the money go? It didn’t go to field offices or local campaign operations, which by some accounts were badly neglected, millions went to Kamala friends and allies, and $20 million more to the Kamala Harris Fund for Meeting Underprivileged Celebrities.
While the campaign couldn’t figure out minor matters like a platform or a slogan, it rounded up all the celebrities it could find anywhere in the country to put in appearances at Kamala rallies.
Kamala spent $2.5 million on an event with Oprah including a $1 million payment to the celebrity talk show hostess’ production company. Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, Katy Perry, Jon Bon Jovi and Lady Gaga were among the other celebrities who also came out for Kamala. While Kamala did not pay the celebrities directly, as with Oprah, Lady Gaga and Beyonce, her campaign sometimes made payments to their production companies, and most intriguingly, nearly $100,000 to Renegade44, an Obama company, to supposedly cover their ‘expenses’.
Al Sharpton, a former racist hate group leader with blood on his hands, who had come to be seen as for sale, got $500,000 from the Kamala campaign through his organization. Areva Martin, a Los Angeles lawyer and Kamala pal who had threatened that black women would “blow the party” if it didn’t choose her, got a $200,000 payday to act as a ‘consultant.
Millions of dollars kept going out the door to consultants, some qualified and some not, and while Kamala and her people might want to blame some of the dubious payments on the rushed schedule after Biden dropped out, but her Senate campaign had worked the same way (on a smaller scale) dispensing a shocking $600,000 to 19 consultants in a barely contested race.
During her Senate campaign, Kamala squandered the haul on luxury hotels and first class airline tickets, during her presidential campaign she spent $2.6 million on private jets in just the final weeks of the campaign after spending $12 million on jet travel in total.
“Kamala demands a life of luxury,” a former aide revealed. “She treats the campaign like a personal checking account to fund a lifestyle she aspires to,” another aide warned. “Staff has always worried about Kamala’s spending, but she is adamant about using campaign money as she wants,” that aide on her former Senate campaign said.
But all this was chump change compared to the $690 million spent on campaign ads with $2.5 billion in total media spending by the campaign and its political allies. A good deal of that spending revolved around Future Forward, a PAC founded by Obama vets and funded by Big Tech, which became the single biggest election PAC in the 2024 campaign.
In the first two months of Kamala’s campaign, Future Forward funded 655 trial ads vetted by a “close-knit network of Ph.D.s” while taking in over $100 million in dark money, but like so much of the political ad business, the Obama group turned out to be a self-serving operation paying millions to companies controlled by its founders.
While the Kamala campaign’s baffling decision to spend $900,000 to spotlight her head and the slogan “A New Way Forward” on the Las Vegas Sphere got a lot of attention, it was just a fraction of hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spending that were vetted and approved by an insular secretive operation whose leaders had figured out how to cash in on ad spending.
Menu
“Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”—David Horowitz
Kamala’s $1.5 Billion Money Laundering Operation
“We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door.”
[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]
“We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door,” a Kamala ally said after the election even as her campaign was still sending out texts to donors begging them to send more cash.
“Hi Team, It’s Kamala, The election isn’t what we wanted, but I will never give up the fight,” a post-election text message solicited donors to replace all the money that went out the door. In Jan 2025, even as President Trump was preparing for his inauguration, the ‘Harris Fight Fund’ was still milking recurring donations even though there was nothing left to fight for anymore.
Whether or not Kamala was giving up the fight, she certainly wasn’t giving up fleecing donors.
Kamala Harris didn’t get much done, but she did manage to get $1.5 billion in 3 months out the door. Her new book, 107 Days, frames her limited campaign as an accomplishment and an excuse. As she prepares a soft launch for 2028, she’s suggesting to supporters that she could have gotten a whole lot more done in more days. But there are two things she did get done.
She raised and spent record amounts of cash while suffering the worst Democrat defeat in 20 years. Where did the money go? It didn’t go to field offices or local campaign operations, which by some accounts were badly neglected, millions went to Kamala friends and allies, and $20 million more to the Kamala Harris Fund for Meeting Underprivileged Celebrities.
While the campaign couldn’t figure out minor matters like a platform or a slogan, it rounded up all the celebrities it could find anywhere in the country to put in appearances at Kamala rallies.
Kamala spent $2.5 million on an event with Oprah including a $1 million payment to the celebrity talk show hostess’ production company. Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, Katy Perry, Jon Bon Jovi and Lady Gaga were among the other celebrities who also came out for Kamala. While Kamala did not pay the celebrities directly, as with Oprah, Lady Gaga and Beyonce, her campaign sometimes made payments to their production companies, and most intriguingly, nearly $100,000 to Renegade44, an Obama company, to supposedly cover their ‘expenses’.
Al Sharpton, a former racist hate group leader with blood on his hands, who had come to be seen as for sale, got $500,000 from the Kamala campaign through his organization. Areva Martin, a Los Angeles lawyer and Kamala pal who had threatened that black women would “blow the party” if it didn’t choose her, got a $200,000 payday to act as a ‘consultant’.
Millions of dollars kept going out the door to consultants, some qualified and some not, and while Kamala and her people might want to blame some of the dubious payments on the rushed schedule after Biden dropped out, but her Senate campaign had worked the same way (on a smaller scale) dispensing a shocking $600,000 to 19 consultants in a barely contested race.
During her Senate campaign, Kamala squandered the haul on luxury hotels and first class airline tickets, during her presidential campaign she spent $2.6 million on private jets in just the final weeks of the campaign after spending $12 million on jet travel in total.
“Kamala demands a life of luxury,” a former aide revealed. “She treats the campaign like a personal checking account to fund a lifestyle she aspires to,” another aide warned. “Staff has always worried about Kamala’s spending, but she is adamant about using campaign money as she wants,” that aide on her former Senate campaign said.
But all this was chump change compared to the $690 million spent on campaign ads with $2.5 billion in total media spending by the campaign and its political allies. A good deal of that spending revolved around Future Forward, a PAC founded by Obama vets and funded by Big Tech, which became the single biggest election PAC in the 2024 campaign.
In the first two months of Kamala’s campaign, Future Forward funded 655 trial ads vetted by a “close-knit network of Ph.D.s” while taking in over $100 million in dark money, but like so much of the political ad business, the Obama group turned out to be a self-serving operation paying millions to companies controlled by its founders.
While the Kamala campaign’s baffling decision to spend $900,000 to spotlight her head and the slogan “A New Way Forward” on the Las Vegas Sphere got a lot of attention, it was just a fraction of hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spending that were vetted and approved by an insular secretive operation whose leaders had figured out how to cash in on ad spending.
By the end, Kamala had not even been told the campaign was in debt so that the spending spree of $100 million a week would continue until the final days and hours until her defeat.
Fundraising worked the same way. Raising a lot of money was the campaign’s claim to fame. The campaign broke massive fundraising records, and that fundraising prowess was treated as a validation of Kamala’s popularity, but it actually reflected the amounts of money and resources that the campaign was spending on fundraising.
The Biden and Kamala campaigns raised $2.15 billion in total, not because either one of the candidates was popular, but because the Democrats had built a fundraising operation that excelled at milking and sometimes outright defrauding its donors with warnings about Trump.
The Kamala campaign spent $111 million just on online ads soliciting donations and another $70 million on direct mail. The campaign set a record for fundraising in one quarter, but it wasn’t raising money to run a better campaign, but raising money to make money by raising money.
What looked like a political campaign had really become a money laundering operation.
Kamala can once again plead that she only had 107 days to figure it all out, but her first presidential campaign ended the same way, impressive fundraising followed by even more impressive spending. After burning through $40 million during the primaries, her campaign couldn’t even afford to buy Facebook ads during the 2020 Democrat primaries.
“Where did the $35 million go?” CNN quoted someone “close to Harris”.
Except that this time it wasn’t $35 million, it was $1.5 billion. Where did it go?
The campaign pros lavished millions on Kamala’s personal appearances, spending $100,000 just for a podcast set, surrounding her with celebrities, and ferrying her around on private jets, to distract her from what was really happening to much of that $1.5 billion campaign war chest.
This wasn’t a normal campaign. Not because it had to take place within 107 days, but because the professionals didn’t bother with doing any of the things a serious campaign tries to do.
Kamala came to the Democratic National Convention with a platform that still talked about Biden, not her, the campaign couldn’t settle on a slogan or manufacture lawn signs, but it could raise and spend huge amounts of money because it didn’t expect Kamala to win anything.
The Kamala-Walz 2024 campaign wasn’t fought to win, but to profit. Kamala’s book pitching her new campaign shouldn’t be called 107 days; it should be called $1.5 billion dollars. Anyone can campaign for 107 days; no one else could waste $1.5 billion while doing it.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism. Daniel became CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2025
We saw great news earlier with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell hinting that interest rate cuts will be coming. Then, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that tariffs on foreign countries will likely reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the decade. Those stories likely helped to send the stock market soaring, with the Dow Jones hitting its all-time high.
Now there’s more positive news. President Donald Trump and Canadian leader Mark Carney had a phone call on Thursday on trade issues. As a result, Carney announced on Friday that Canada would be dropping most of its retaliatory tariffs on the United States. After all the anger the liberals whipped up, Carney had to explain that they would remove tariffs on goods covered under the USMCA agreement.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announces that Canada will be DROPPING their retaliatory tariffs against the US and removing tariffs on US goods covered by existing trade deals.pic.twitter.com/Y9ONDpOk1g— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 22, 2025
Carney said Canada will now match the US by ending its tariffs on goods compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA). He said that would “re-establish free trade for the vast majority” of goods that move between the two countries.
The decision will go into effect on 1 September, Carney said. [….]
In a statement to the BBC’s US news partner CBS, the White House said it welcomes Canada’s move, adding that it is “long overdue” and that the US looks forward to continuing discussions with its northern neighbour about trade and national security.
Trump confirmed that, and it sounded like they made a lot of progress.
Translation? Canada can posture all it wants. However, the bottom line is: we have the leverage, and they had to cave. They rely on us, even for national security. Trump knows it and can push them. That’s why Carney had to explain to the Canadians why their deal is better than that of other countries, and how important the relationship with the U.S. is.
They’re still working on the questions around steel, aluminum, and autos.
Canada, for its part, has placed 25% tariffs on American steel, aluminium and autos. Those will remain in place for now, Carney said.
Economists have warned that US tariffs on steel and aluminium are “hugely disruptive” to Canada, as it is a major supplier of both metals to the US. Canadian companies have already reported cutbacks and contract cancellations as a result.
Expect Canada to bring that down, too, after they talk again.
That’s more winning on the day, with likely more to come.
President Trump’s administration is actively reviewing a proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and a decision on rescheduling is expected within the next few weeks.
Rescheduling would officially recognize medical use and remove cannabis from the same federal control category as heroin and other dangerous drugs.
Key benefits for the cannabis industry include elimination of IRS 280E tax penalties, improved access to banking and capital, and accelerated medical research.
Vicente LLP recommends cannabis operators seek legal and policy guidance to navigate possible regulatory changes and compliance risks.
President Donald Trump has confirmed that his administration is “looking at” a proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), with a decision expected “over the next few weeks.”
This is the first time the president has spoken publicly about cannabis rescheduling since taking office. His remarks follow reports from CNN and The Wall Street Journal that the White House is actively reviewing agency recommendations on the matter, which is a development with major implications for the cannabis industry and federal marijuana policy change in 2025.
Trump’s Comments on Cannabis Rescheduling
During an August 11 White House press conference, President Trump described marijuana reclassification as “a very complicated subject,” stating that “some people like it, some people hate it,” and noting he has “heard great things” about medical cannabis but “bad things” about other uses, according to Cannabis Business Times. He said the administration will “make a determination over the…next few weeks, and that determination hopefully will be the right one.”
The president’s remarks echo a Trump campaign pledge to support rescheduling, although Monday’s comments appeared more cautious than his prior endorsements.
Acknowledge medical use for the first time in 50+ years: Officially recognize cannabis’ medical benefits and lower abuse potential compared to Schedule I and Schedule II drugs, removing it from the same category as heroin and PCP.
Legitimize cannabis in the medical community: Federal recognition will strengthen credibility for doctors, patients, and researchers, with far-reaching benefits across healthcare.
Accelerate cannabis research: “Existing research indicates cannabis holds tremendous promise for a wide range of medical and therapeutic uses, including pain and opiate use disorders, which have reached epidemic levels in recent years. Yet clinical trials are limited in comparison to other treatments. Schedule III will not lift all barriers to research, but it may contribute to the advancement of urgently needed research, which should be prioritized and vigorously pursued,” Vicente partner Shawn Hauser explains in a Marijuana Moment op-ed. This, along with recent legal changes supporting cannabis research, such as the HALT Fentanyl Act, can significantly advance this much-needed research.
End 280E tax penalties: Eliminating the IRS rule preventing cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary expenses could potentially save operators hundreds of thousands or millions annually.
Improve access to banking and capital: Reduce legal risk for lenders, potentially increasing credit, loans, investment activity, and mergers & acquisitions across the industry.
Reinforce current enforcement trends: Federal enforcement against compliant state-licensed operators has historically been low; rescheduling could further solidify that stance, though formal DOJ guidance is not guaranteed.
Increase momentum for broader reform: Recognition of cannabis’ medical use and rescheduling may embolden policymakers and advocates to push for further medical changes, positioning Schedule III as the first step rather than the finish line.
What Schedule III Marijuana Would Not Do
Rescheduling maintains marijuana as a controlled substance under the purview of DEA and commercial cannabis products are not FDA-approved products. It does not legalize marijuana. Even under Schedule III cannabis classification:
Make cannabis fully federally compliant: Sales under state programs would still violate federal law.
Open interstate commerce: Transporting cannabis across state lines would remain illegal.
Allow dispensary products in pharmacies: Whole-plant cannabis and cannabis products would not suddenly become available at pharmacies without FDA approval.
Prevent FDA enforcement: Rescheduling does not change marijuana’s illegality as a consumer good under the FDA (excepting certain approved drugs). However, it’s possible that rescheduling may increase FDA scrutiny of cannabis products, especially around false or misleading health claims, as seen in the FDA’s approach to hemp.
Falls short of imminently needed criminal justice reform: Cannabis arrests and convictions could still occur. Rescheduling does not remove potential criminal penalties, expunge past records, free those incarcerated for marijuana offenses, or address ongoing disparities in enforcement.
Replace the need for descheduling: The industry would still face challenges tied to the controlled status of cannabis, including patchwork compliance burdens and limits on federal reform until cannabis is removed entirely from the CSA. However, rescheduling and acknowledgment of marijuana’s medical use and relatively low abuse potential are critical incremental progress for the industry.
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a term used to discuss people who dislike Donald Trump so intensely that they are willing to abandon all logic and reason that goes against this criticism. It is a term used by Trump himself and other Republicans to negatively describe those who are against his politics in America, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, and other Democrats formerly in office.
The term Trump Derangement Syndrome has been used to describe individuals who oppose Trump and larger organizations that speak against him, such as The Washington Post. It is a particularly polarizing topic today as emotions are still fresh after the 2024 presidential election and in a political climate that could be described as tense at best.
Furthermore, because TDS as a cultural phenomenon grows particularly strong during election periods, people standing on all sides must have safe mechanisms for coping. In some instances, this can mean seeking professional treatment for political obsession or a related disorder.
Understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome
When talking about Trump Derangement Syndrome, it is important to understand the origin of the term and what it represents for those who use it.
The Origins of the Term
TDS is a pejorative, or derogatory, term that is most often used by Trump supporters to describe his opponents and people who dislike him. It describes people who are negative and critical towards Donald Trump but who are also described as being irrational or insane in their dislike for him.
So how did the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” come about? The term originated out of the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” which was coined by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political columnist, during the presidency of George W. Bush. It was first adapted for Trump during his 2017–2021 presidency.
What TDS Represents
TDS is not an actual diagnosed condition, however, and is a representation of political obsession and polarization, both of which can be very dangerous.
Political obsession, sometimes referred to as political obsession disorder, refers to someone so obsessed and engaged with current politics that it is negatively affecting their daily life. Political polarization, on the other hand, occurs when people veer towards ideological extremes in their political beliefs.
When political obsession and political polarization are found together within the same individual, it can be a scary and dangerous combination.
Symptoms of Political Polarization
Political polarization can result in symptoms that include intense emotional reactions, especially during political topics or when discussing Donald Trump. These emotional outbursts can result in strained relationships with loved ones and even cause people to withdraw socially from family and friends.
Withdrawal and isolation can present further dangers in that they can lead the person suffering from political obsession to overly consume media that is related to Donald Trump in any way.
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a term used to discuss people who dislike Donald Trump so intensely that they are willing to abandon all logic and reason that goes against this criticism. It is a term used by Trump himself and other Republicans to negatively describe those who are against his politics in America, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, and other Democrats formerly in office.
The term Trump Derangement Syndrome has been used to describe individuals who oppose Trump and larger organizations that speak against him, such as The Washington Post. It is a particularly polarizing topic today as emotions are still fresh after the 2024 presidential election and in a political climate that could be described as tense at best.
Furthermore, because TDS as a cultural phenomenon grows particularly strong during election periods, people standing on all sides must have safe mechanisms for coping. In some instances, this can mean seeking professional treatment for political obsession or a related disorder.
Understanding Trump Derangement Syndrome
When talking about Trump Derangement Syndrome, it is important to understand the origin of the term and what it represents for those who use it.
The Origins of the Term
TDS is a pejorative, or derogatory, term that is most often used by Trump supporters to describe his opponents and people who dislike him. It describes people who are negative and critical towards Donald Trump but who are also described as being irrational or insane in their dislike for him.
So how did the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” come about? The term originated out of the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” which was coined by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political columnist, during the presidency of George W. Bush. It was first adapted for Trump during his 2017–2021 presidency.
What TDS Represents
TDS is not an actual diagnosed condition, however, and is a representation of political obsession and polarization, both of which can be very dangerous.
Political obsession, sometimes referred to as political obsession disorder, refers to someone so obsessed and engaged with current politics that it is negatively affecting their daily life. Political polarization, on the other hand, occurs when people veer towards ideological extremes in their political beliefs.
When political obsession and political polarization are found together within the same individual, it can be a scary and dangerous combination.
Symptoms of Political Polarization
Political polarization can result in symptoms that include intense emotional reactions, especially during political topics or when discussing Donald Trump. These emotional outbursts can result in strained relationships with loved ones and even cause people to withdraw socially from family and friends.
Withdrawal and isolation can present further dangers in that they can lead the person suffering from political obsession to overly consume media that is related to Donald Trump in any way.
The Psychological Impact of Political Obsession
Political obsession can not only affect people on the surface and in their personal relationships and professions, but it can have deep psychological implications as well.
Emotional Overload
Political obsession can easily turn into emotional overload, especially during an election year or shortly after when coverage of the candidates is still going strong. This can result in extreme anxiety, anger, or frustration, especially during political events or when discussing them.
To make matters worse, people who are in the throes of political obsession may actively seek out encounters and situations that are known to trigger strong emotional reactions. One study conducted in 2017 found that the stress associated with politics can be equivalent to, if not worse than, the stress associated with an alcohol use disorder.
Social and Familial Strains
Differing political views can put strains on social and familial relationships, especially when people have strongly opposing views that they are both very passionate about. Someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome could find it difficult to hear the viewpoints of others.
In some instances, the strain can be so strong that family members completely avoid each other or refrain from speaking to or seeing each other. While it may be easier said than done, family members may want to set boundaries for each other in terms of discussing politics and making sure to put family first.
Broader Cultural Implications
The broader cultural implications of TDS are multifaceted and reflect the deep political polarization in the United States.
Some of these broader cultural implications include:
Increased polarization: TDS highlights the growing divide between political factions. It underscores how political discourse has become more emotionally charged and less focused on policy and facts.
Impact on public discourse: The term is used to discredit critics of Trump, suggesting that their opposition is based on irrational hatred rather than legitimate concerns. This can stifle meaningful debate and reduce the quality of public discourse.
Social division: TDS can contribute to social division, as individuals become more entrenched in their beliefs and less willing to engage with opposing viewpoints. This can lead to increased conflict and a breakdown in social cohesion.
Media and perception: The media plays a significant role in shaping perceptions of TDS. Pro-Trump media outlets often use the term to dismiss criticism, while anti-Trump media may highlight the term’s use as a tactic to avoid addressing important issues.
Rise of echo chambers: An environment where a person only encounters information or opinions that agree with or reinforce their own opinions and feelings. Not only can this create misinformation, but it can also distort a person’s viewpoint so that they cannot listen to or consider other perspectives.
Broader Lessons on Political Polarization
One significant benefit of political polarization is the broader lessons it imparts, revealing deep societal divisions and prompting critical discussions about governance, cooperation, and compromise. By exposing the challenges of ideological conflict, polarization underscores the necessity of long-term solutions that promote stability, inclusivity, and sustainable progress.
Recognizing the Humanity in Opposing Views
Political polarization such as TDS provides an opportunity for people to recognize the humanity in opposing views and try to build empathy through mature dialogue. This often requires specific strategies for productive conversations and can be easier said than done, but is possible when both sides are ready to move forward.
5 Strategies for productive political conversations include:
Make a point to truly listen to one another
Stay professional and respectful
Assume that both sides have good motives
Avoid rumors, gossip, and conspiracy theories
Be able to recognize when the conversation should end
The Role of Media Literacy
It can be difficult to find media that you know to be completely true and honest, and it can also be hard to avoid sensationalism. Political polarization is a great tool for bringing attention to the importance of being critical of all the news you consume.
For this reason, you may want to use only news sources that you know to be reliable and unbiased, including the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, Bloomberg, and C-Span.
Long-term Solutions for a Divided Society
Experts agree that one key solution for a divided society is to enhance education on civic engagement and critical thinking, equipping individuals with the skills to navigate complex social and political issues. Another effective long-term approach is fostering community-building initiatives that promote dialogue, mutual understanding, and social cohesion.
Some examples of ways this can be done include:
Attending local town halls or other government meetings
Volunteering for political campaigns or candidates that you support
Joining local advocacy groups or creating a new one
Running for a local office position
Writing letters to local newspapers or publications
Attending community service or volunteer events
Attending peaceful protests or demonstrations
Seeking Treatment and Building Resilience
properly licensed and experienced. Not only that, look for therapists who have specialty experience in issues like anxiety management, mindfulness, and conflict mediation. If they have additional experience in treating patients with political anxiety or political obsession, this is a bonus.
Reviews and Recommendations
While researching facilities you should read reviews and testimonials from past clients, if available. You can also seek referrals and recommendations from friends or colleagues that you trust who have had similar experiences.
Accessibility and Affordability
Make sure that the facility that you are interested in accepts your health insurance or offers other means of financial assistance, such as sliding fee scales, payment plans, or discounts.
The facility should also be in close enough proximity to you so that it is realistic for you to attend, especially in terms of outpatient treatment. If you are not able to attend sessions in person, the facility should offer virtual options for you.
How to Find a Treatment Center for Trump Derangement Syndrome
In today’s highly charged political climate, finding and maintaining emotional balance is more crucial than ever for individuals on both sides of the spectrum. This makes self-awareness essential, as it enables people to recognize when they need support and develop healthy coping mechanisms to navigate difficult times effectively.
Moreover, reducing political polarization requires a collective effort, with individuals, communities, and organizations all playing a role in fostering understanding, dialogue, and unity.
For assistance in finding a treatment center that addresses Trump Derangement Syndrome and other forms of political obsession, contact RehabNet.com via our contact form or call us today.
By nature’s curious design, I was born an optimist — though in some obscure recess of my soul a cynic curls and whispers his dry, inconvenient truths. I believe neither in immaculate conceptions nor second comings, and certainly not in the benevolence of Russian rulers. The fragile hope entertained by some, that they might one day act with reason, springs from a naïve faith in miracles, and miracles stand at odds with both nature and common sense. At all times, under all tsars, commissars, and the latest Kremlin grotesques, Russian rulers, with rare exceptions, have acted not for the benefit of their people but against it and against the peace of neighboring lands.
These summer days find the sensible world intoxicated with hope, almost giddy with expectation. There is talk, wistful and bright-eyed, of Trump’s extraordinary plan: that he might, by sheer force of his strong will, summon Ukraine’s Zelensky and Russia’s Putin to one mythical table where reason will descend like a dove and the guns will fall silent. And afterward, so the dream goes, Europe will stand shoulder to shoulder, guardians of a fragile new peace against Russia’s future temptations.
Sweet dreams indeed — but somewhere deep within me, the cynic stirs and scratches, begging to be heard, so let us give him his say.
A word, first, about Trump, a man of magnificent contradictions where virtues and vices twist like strands of the same golden thread. Judging by the results of his first seven months in office he tips toward the positive; his strengths outweigh his flaws.
He has a fierce love of country, a restless capacity for work, a quick, darting intelligence, a faultless memory, remarkable personal courage, a stubborn will, bold generosity, compassion and an instinctive grasp of the delicate machinery of economics.But flaws, too, gather around him like moths to lamplight: a narcissism without borders, an unshakable belief in his own infallibility, a poor grasp of world history, a coarse, almost theatrical brusqueness with his opponents, and a failing–perhaps his gravest–in understanding the psychology of cultures unlike his own.
Trump, a shrewd and successful businessman, mastered the craft of negotiation with those who, like him, see every bargain in terms of material gain. It is the classic logic of the Western deal maker: offer a carrot sweet enough, brandish a stick big enough, and any opponent will eventually yield. It is here his trouble begins.
As recent failures abroad such as his inability to sway Hamas and his vain attempts to force Putin’s hand have shown, the carrot-and-stick philosophy falters when faced with men for whom material gain means nothing. It does not move the zealot, the fanatic or the dictator whose singular aim is to cling to power until his final breath. Against such men, Trump’s diplomatic engine grinds and stalls.
This is the unspoken heart of Russia: almost every ruler it has known (save, perhaps, for the brief and tragic apparition of False Dmitry in the seventeenth century) has treated the will and welfare of its people as faint abstractions if not outright inconveniences. Compassion finds no foothold there. The entire machinery is designed to secure power, not to share it.
Putin is no different, save that he hides his wealth more cleverly. Some whisper he is richer even than Elon Musk, though his treasures are buried beneath a labyrinth of cutouts. His true passions, however, are not counted in gold. They are three, and they are absolute: to hold power until death, to prolong his life and to carve his name into history as the restorer of the Russian Empire.
Misunderstand this, and you misunderstand everything. To dream of peace with Ukraine is to dream against Putin’s nature, against his hunger, against the architecture of his soul. The war does not threaten his wealth or his health, but peace — peace imperils everything. Peace steals his legend; it risks his throne. He will conjure endless war if endless war serves him. There have been long wars before — the Hundred Years’ War, the War of the Roses, Russia’s own Caucasian campaigns 200 years ago that stretched for nearly half a century. Why should this one be any shorter?
When optimists speak of negotiations, my faith withers like flowers in late August heat. Even should he fail to prevent such talks, Putin will choke them with impossible demands, twisting every promise into a deadlock.
A meeting with Zelensky will end in a stalemate. I do not wish to play Cassandra, whispering calamity into the wind. And yet in the quiet of the night, my cynic leans close and murmurs: there will be no peace.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.
“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.” (Ayn Rand)
New York City — at one time, mankind’s greatest city — seems poised to commit suicide.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 