Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Démarche to Europe: The Harder You Push Us, the More We Push Back


Newsflash to my European friends -- the more you criticize America and the more you marginalize Americans, the quicker you will push the U.S. away from the global stage and closer towards a new form of isolationism and nationalism.

One of the sad facts of life today is that many people in many countries have decided that America is no longer their friend, no longer a reliable partner in NATO and is willing to desert its allies in times of need.

Some are even calling America a rogue nation that is cannibalizing its own Constitution and is on a path towards a dictatorship with a megalomaniac narcissist at the helm.

Here in Europe, where I am, every day, the media in several European nations bring out their "America experts" who routinely characterize the U.S. as an example of everything that is wrong with the world.

They portray the country as anti-family because it won't enact laws to promote paid family leave for men. They say it is racist because it chooses a meritocracy over racially-biased hiring policies. They don't understand why the U.S. won't levy massive taxes on entrepreneurs and risk-takers and they really don't know why Americans are concerned about protecting their free speech.

In short, they feel that America refuses to adopt a host of policies that only "enlightened societies" (like theirs) see as inviolate.

Unfortunately, many of these same experts tend to be products of universities that have long-standing institutional views on the dangers of working too hard, being too ambitious and too devoted to creating a society based on the power of the individual and on the right of the majority to decide matters of national importance.

Some of these countries' priorities seem to be rooted in perpetuating their own status quo that aims to protect and preserve their own beliefs that they -- and they alone -- have all the answers and solutions to society's problems and challenges.

While this is not unusual for any country that wants to safeguard its own values and ideals, it can seem arrogant to other countries, especially when these views are promoted with missionary-like zeal, accompanied by a wagging finger.

Such is the case in the current situation with the United States. It must be said, however, that the U.S. has also been guilty of pushing its views of what constitutes an ideal society onto other countries, especially smaller ones. This has created a long-standing, frustration and simmering anger toward Americans, and this anger has now reached the boiling point after the election of Donald Trump.

His views, remarks and actions, the latest of which is the imposition of massive tariffs which many are calling the first battle of World Trade War I have created widespread animosity and fear among European nations.

Europeans are boycotting American products and are encouraging their national pension funds to disinvest in American companies and to seek out alternatives. Nothing American is safe from attack. Local and national governments are being told by angry constituents that it's time to throw effective and affordable American software systems like Microsoft products on the dust heap and, instead, find European alternatives. 

America-hate has also infected some countries' defense purchases. Major American defense suppliers are feeling the pushback and are being forced to defend not only the effectiveness of their equipment but also assure Europeans that they will not hit the "kill switches" on sophisticated F-35 aircraft on a whim.

Tourism, too, is taking  a hit. Foreign tourism to the U.S. is down, and this is the result of a "culture war" that is playing out, which, in my opinion, is linked to the trade war and that is robbing the dollar of its value, siphoning off industry's profits and is serving to push America into a corner.

Yet, as everyone knows, when Americans are cornered, they generally fight back. Surrender has never been an option, so what then are the next likely steps if both wars continue simultaneously and apace?

Barring any monumental event or policy change, I would submit that the end result will be an America that chooses to go its own way, effectively taking the country back to the last century when isolationism was a powerful force for Americans. The thought being, "If the rest of the world doesn't want us, doesn't like us or our products, fine. We can live with that, but they shouldn't have our number on speed dial if they want our help." For globalists, this is the worst possible scenario, today.

The eight decades of friendship that followed the end of the Second World War could be erased quickly, leaving the world's countries to adopt an "every man for himself" industrial policy.

Without the United States, NATO would collapse or be severely diminished. Bilateral agreements between countries would proliferate, leaving multilateral agreements worthless. Larger predator countries could feel emboldened because of the new disintegration of the old world order that was guaranteed by such multilateral agreements. We could see extra-territorial military incursions be used as test probes to see if other nations would rally to their neighbors' defense. Current military capabilities of E.U. nations, for example, are insufficient to push back on an advance of say, Russia, against Latvia, which would probably justify its incursion to "protect the Russian-speaking minority" in that country.

Europe could be fighting on multiple "fronts," some physical like military confrontations and others that are trade-related as countries ramp up domestic production of old industries that have been resurrected to replace the offensive American imports.

Tourism to the U.S. would shrink, dramatically, as would technical, academic and scientific collaboration and other forms of personnel exchange. Visa cooperation between the U.S. and 20 European countries that now enjoy visa-free travel would be suspended. The U.S. tourism industry would survive because of its highly developed destinations and tourism infrastructure, but European tourism would be dealt an expensive blow. U.S. participation in "save the planet" or international energy organizations would be non-existent.

It's death by a thousand cuts, all because of a lack of understanding.

The unvarnished truth about the reasons for our current troubles with Europe for example, is that the Europeans do not understand what makes America or Americans "tick."

For many years, they were happy watching America turn towards socialism under eight years of Barack Obama and four years under Joseph Biden. After all, those two presidents and their administrations were more "European-like" and they figured this trend would continue because they thought that most Americans wanted a more social democratic state like their own.

They were wrong.

There are two Americas and anyone who has lived there knows that. Those that haven't rely on their national news media to paint them a picture that the mostly left-leaning European media believes that its consumers must have in order to perpetuate strongly-held national beliefs in the righteousness and validity of their values.  Instead of using a magnifying glass to really see the United States for what it truly is, European media have given their viewers and readers a mirror and an echo chamber that has only strengthened their national bias.

Maybe a trial separation is necessary so that both the U.S. and its allies can truly determine what's wrong with the relationship(s).

What we must keep in mind, however, is that every separation has real, long-lasting consequences, and depending on the length of the separation, the consequences can be minimal or significant.

Today, our trade patterns are on the table. Tomorrow it could be anything or everything. If we are to move forward and preserve that relationship we must accept the fact that we are different as people and societies, but that those differences should not lead to our downfall. We must work through them and learn why we are who we are and why we do what we do and embrace introspection and eschew condemnation. This is one of those times when Occam's Razor cannot be employed … at least not until we know more about each other and stop viewing our differences as impediments to progress.



X22, And we Know, and more- April 29 (100 days!)

 



‘Made in America’ is a matter of national security and longevity


Since the 1960s, children have been told that they must go to college to get ahead. Vocational and manufacturing jobs have been devalued, and to facilitate attendance in traditional colleges, the government made loans and grants very easy to secure.

Colleges have taken advantage of this captive audience and continually jacked up the price of tuition much faster than inflation, especially by bulking up administrative costs. No matter how much they raised their costs, more and more students took out loans. There were no questions asked and no pressure to reduce costs. Graduate students can essentially spend the money on whatever they want.

Here is the cost of Harvard as an example, using information easily found:

In 1970, tuition at Harvard was $2,600, and average room and board was $3,219, for a total cost of $5,819—the average wage of Americans was $6,186.

(The inflation multiplier for the period 1970–2025 is 7.2422.)

So, if the cost of Harvard went up by the rate of inflation, the current cost would be $42,142—but the actual total cost is over $90,000, revealing that the price has increased more than double the rate of inflation. The average wage has increased to $53,490. As Harvard and other high-priced schools disproportionately raise their rates, it gives other lower-priced schools an excuse to raise theirs.

The more the government subsidizes anything, whether it is health care or college costs, the more the prices rise. The subsidies do not make things more affordable; they just change who pays for them.

Now, Democrats think it is a great idea for the people who borrowed the money, and the colleges that benefited from the borrowed money, to be free of any obligation to pay it back. It is a disgusting policy to make those who didn’t attend college, and those who paid for their own college, to be financially responsible for paying off loans of those who benefited from the loans. Even more so when you consider how little value many of these college graduates actually bring to the market.

What does bring value though are specialized workers, like plumbers and electricians, or manufacturing works. Yet, here is a graph of how manufacturing jobs have deteriorated since 1970.

Author

Image: Author-compiled table

Civilian employment data can be found here, while a manufacturing chart can be found here.) 

If manufacturing employment today were the same percentage of jobs as there were in 1970, there would be 37.5 million, not the 12.8 million we have today. At what point would the media and other Democrats say we must bring back manufacturing jobs since today’s pathetically low numbers apparently aren’t low enough?

While factories have disappeared, and towns and cities throughout the U.S. have been decimated, the power and money spent in D.C. has soared. Federal expenditures in 1970 were $195 billion; adjusted for inflation the amount in 2025 would be $1.4 trillion. Then, an additional 1.7 multiplier would have to be included to adjust for population growth, and that brings the amount to $2.4 trillion. Today, the actual budget is around $7 trillion, or triple what it would be based on 1970 numbers. Yet when Trump tries to address the massive bloat, the media and other Democrats squeal like pigs. They never have enough.

Democrats always talk about the greed of the private sector, but never about the greed of the government. Why are 13 of the wealthiest counties in the United States located around D.C. a place that produces nothing but regulations and laws?

When Biden took over, he set out to destroy many industries related to energy. When Trump took over, he focused on bringing jobs back:

SBA Manufacturing Loans Skyrocket Under Trump Administration

WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced a major surge in manufacturing loans during the first 90 days of the Trump Administration. Compared to the same period during the Biden Administration, the number of SBA 7(a) loan approvals for small manufacturers has increased by 74%.

We see a lot of tear-jerker stories about jobs lost at the federal government, but rarely any concern when a factory closes and a small town is destroyed. Here is a story about a factory in Indiana that is closed after 132 years, causing 300 people to lose their jobs in a town of 4,200. 

The Casualties of America’s Loss of Glassware Manufacturing to China

Children should be taught that vocational, manufacturing, mining, and many other jobs are as valuable or more valuable than many jobs that currently demand spending massive amounts to go to college.



Whatever Happened to Kilmar?


You have to laugh. Democrats made Kilmar Abrego Garcia into the cause of the moment just a couple of weeks ago, which liberal Member of Congress after Liberal Member of Congress making a pilgrimage down to El Salvador for the express purpose of doing media hits where they are seen as simply being there. Now, the whole thing is pretty much done. Democrats have moved on to new shiny objects in a desperate attempt to turn people against President Donald Trump.

Abrego Garcia was always the wrong cause for Democrats to get behind. Two immigration judges had determined there was enough evidence that he was a member of MS-13 to declare it to be. There was never any question as to whether or not he was an illegal alien; he was, and there was no dispute over whether or not he should be deported – he was ordered to be.

The only issue was whether or not he could be deported back to El Salvador. 

Very late in the process, likely as a desperate ploy to avoid deportation, he claimed he was afraid for his life from what is described as a “rival gang” that was threatening his grandma’s tamale stand. 

What’s interesting here is the use of the word “rival.” For there to be a “rival” gang for someone, that someone must be in a gang themselves. Individuals can’t have rival gangs, only a gang that wants to do them harm. Maybe this is an issue with bad reporting, but it always struck me as odd to use that word. If you tell me a rival gang, the Sharks, want to kill you (or have a dance-off with you, as the case may be), I’m going to take that as a passive confession that you’re a Jet (and a Jet all the way).

Whatever the case with Kilmar, the “rival gang” he was allegedly afraid of no longer exists – El Salvador has wiped them out. While it would have been in keeping with all court orders that said he needed to be booted out of the United States and sent anywhere but El Salvador because of that fear for his life. With that fear gone, who cares where he goes as long as it’s not here?

But when President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, and with courts declaring Abrego Garcia a member of that gang, all bets were off. There’s a different set of laws for dealing with members of terrorist organizations.

Still, Democrats elevated him to hero status. They were desperate for anything, and he presented what they saw as an opening. They rallied to him like he had the cure for what ails them. Rational people would not have done this. People with something to offer the American people would deliver it, not scramble to embrace anything their opponent opposes.

Abrego Garcia, it turns out, has all sorts of baggage. His wife accused him of multiple instances of domestic violence; he was caught in a situation that sure seemed like human smuggling while driving a car, apparently registered to a human smuggler, and so on.

It’s like no Democrat thought to look into Kilmar’s background, as none of this was hidden. It was enough that Donald Trump was on one side of the issue, and that’s all that mattered.

How’d that work out?

It seems not so great. Kimlar has faded from the Sunday shows, and MSNBC-13 barely mentions him. I don’t know if there are any Democrats currently camping in a ditch outside his prison in El Salvador or even any Democrats still in El Salvador, but the fact that I don’t know is a reflection of how, even if there were, no media outlet cares to have them on. 

We’ve gone from a constant barrage of choppy, streaming videos from hotel rooms filled with breathless pledges to “bring him home” to Twitter silence and little interest in his fate. 

After weeks of declaring Kilmar our moral superior, his fate no longer matters. They wanted their picture taken with him or his wife, more than a Swiftie would love to get a selfie with Taylor and Travis, and now he’s Harvey Weinstein.

That doesn’t mean his saga is over; it just means that, after a huge pile of evidence was exposed, Democrats realized exactly what they stepped into. They went from conquering hero to worrying about whether or not they were working to get Nicole back together with OJ. I don’t know where the truth lies, but the way Democrats are acting now makes me think they do, or at least heavily suspect.



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


The New York Times Downplays ActBlue’s Suspect Behavior To Run Cover For Democrats


‘NYT and other outlets of left-wing opinion … used to care about campaign finance violations, especially if foreign money may be involved.’



When President Donald Trump directed the DOJ to investigate the Democrat cash machine ActBlue, The New York Times was quick to paint it as partisan — claiming it “steps up Republicans’ effort to cripple their opponents’ political infrastructure.” But Trump’s direction is based on evidence that suggests the platform could be breaking federal law.

Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 24 to “investigate and take appropriate action” regarding allegations of “‘straw’ or ‘dummy’ contributions and … foreign contributions” to American elections through ActBlue and similar services. As The Federalist previously reported, concerns about loopholes and potentially illegal activity have led to multiple probes into the platform.

The Times interviewed Scott Walter, president of Capital Research Center, as one of the few voices defending Trump’s call for investigation in the recent article. He “suggested that the memorandum was about compliance with election law, and was not an effort to undermine Democrats’ electoral prospects,” according to the outlet, though it buried his statement near the end of the story and quickly dismissed his points.

Walter also told The Federalist he was “disappointed the New York Times, in … recent stories on ActBlue and other left-wing infrastructure groups, has failed to include crucial facts about ActBlue its own reporting put on the record.”

Covering For Democrats

ActBlue is a massive fundraising platform for Democrats that has fallen under legal scrutiny in recent years. When then-President Joe Biden was booted from the party’s 2024 ticket, his replacement, Kamala Harris, raised a staggering $310 million in less than one month, as The Federalist previously reported. The Harris campaign’s haul drew attention to “potentially illegal” activity on the ActBlue platform, and Republicans launched various investigative efforts

The NYT article fear-mongered about concern “across the Democratic Party” that “any entity that has used ActBlue could soon find itself enmeshed in an investigation from a hostile Justice Department.”

In a March 5 report, the Times documented the “internal chaos” plaguing ActBlue, “with at least seven senior officials resigning [in February] and a remaining lawyer suggesting he faced internal retaliation.” The piece claimed to break reporting on a letter sent by ActBlue unions, in part calling on the organization’s board to “hire an outside counsel to take ‘investigatory actions to better understand the current state of the organization'” and “evaluate” its CEO amid the turmoil. The unions also “expressed particular worry about the departures of staff members who are experts on legal and compliance issues,” according to the March 5 report.

The Times briefly acknowledged the unions’ expressed concerns about the state of the organization in its Thursday piece on Trump’s direction to the DOJ, but failed to explicitly mention the letter’s call for investigation. Walter said this detail was also omitted from a March 19 Times report that paints the Trump administration’s apparent efforts to investigate ActBlue and other leftist “institutions” as politically motivated.

“[T]he paper’s two recent stories were so keen to defend the group amid investigations by Congress and the administration that they failed to include prior reporting that ActBlue’s own unions have called for an outside investigation,” Walter said. 

In its Thursday coverage of Trump’s call for investigation into ActBlue, the Times also brushed aside concerns that the platform “allows straw and foreign donations,” which are illegal under federal law, claiming such concerns are “thus far unsubstantiated.” The piece also highlights an ActBlue spokeswoman’s comment characterizing the organization as “vital” and “strictly” law-abiding.

But, according to an early April interim report from the House Committees on Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform, ActBlue internal documents reveal the organization itself has “in recent years … detected at least 22 significant fraud campaigns” — nine of which had foreign ties.

“ActBlue’s internal documents and communications paint a damning picture: despite repeated instances of fraudulent donations to Democrat campaigns and causes from domestic and foreign sources, ActBlue is not demonstrating a serious effort to deter fraud on its platform,” the report reads. 

According to the report, ActBlue’s conduct could potentially fall in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. These findings helped form the basis for the recent federal investigation. 

According to the House interim findings, ActBlue stopped accepting “all donations made using gift cards” in September, but, despite such policy changes, “major gaps in ActBlue’s fraud-prevention practices remain.”

In October, CRC Investigative Researcher Parker Thayer said he donated through the platform with a gift card, suggesting a potential security gap.

Notably, ActBlue only began requiring the safeguard of a card verification value, or CVV, with donations last year following heightened scrutiny, as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton indicated.

The House committees’ report was released less than a month after a group of Republican congressmen sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressing concern about “fraud and evasion of campaign finance law by individuals exploiting online contribution platforms, especially ActBlue.” The lawmakers requested access to certain reports “containing the term ‘ActBlue'” related “to money laundering, counterfeit credit/debit card, credit card or debit card fraud, false statements, wire transfer fraud, or identity theft.” The April interim report cited other recent probe letters lawmakers sent to ActBlue amid the House committees’ larger effort to investigate the platform.

Walter suggested the Times’ recent reporting on ActBlue reveals misplaced priorities.

“It and other outlets of left-wing opinion … used to care about campaign finance violations, especially if foreign money may be involved,” he told The Federalist, “but apparently the big questions about ActBlue’s compliance mustn’t be investigated by the normal authorities.”



Understanding the Age of Assassination

Understanding the Age of Assassination

Christopher Chantrill for American Thinker


Experts were shocked, shocked, by the assassination of healthcare executive Brian Thompson on December 4, 2024, for which a certain young white male Luigi Mangione is accused. But then the pollsters got busy and found that, on the Left, there was significant support for assassination. Zack Dulberg and Max Horder wrote all about it in City Journal.

We found that nearly one-third of Americans surveyed -- and around half of those identifying as left-of-center -- believe that the murder of certain public figures is at least somewhat justified.

Put me down as one who is not surprised. Why? Because I am a student of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt and his Concept of the Political. Schmitt writes that

The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be traced is the distinction between friend and enemy.

He continues:

[The enemy] is just the other, the stranger, and it is sufficient to his nature that he is existentially different and foreign in a particularly intense way, so that in extreme cases conflicts with him are possible.

Curtis Yarvin, who put me on to Carl Schmitt, makes it Real Simple. “There is no politics without an enemy.”

What do you do to an enemy? You assassinate him.

It is the conceit of moderns, according to Schmitt, to believe that if only society is properly ordered according to the right -- usually “liberal” -- principles, then war and enemies and assassinations will go away: peace. So we talk not of wars but of “pacifications,” and “peacekeeping missions.” Not to mention the war to end all wars.

But nothing has changed. When humans lose the race of economic competition, we often deride the winners as evil. And if that doesn’t do the trick we decide that corporate leaders are the enemy. If a healthcare provider disallows a vital medical procedure, there’s your enemy.

When everything is copacetic, then humans live in the economic world of being useful. But if things go wrong we decide that evil is abroad. And if things really go south then we are talking about enemy action.

Ordinary people aspire to the Hobbit way of life of getting along in The Shire. But our liberal friends know better. They know that with the proper application of political power in the hands of the right kind of people, we can create a perfect society of justice and peace, and anyone that disagrees is the enemy. In other words, they reduce the vast complexity of human life to politics and the fight against the enemy.

That’s why our liberal friends teach the kiddies Activism at the university -- from Protest Signs 101 to Protest Chants 101 to Protest Organization 101 to Protest Funding 101 -- that the first and only way to live as a human is as an activist changing the world in peaceful protest against the racist-sexist-homophobic enemy. If peaceful protest doesn’t work, then maybe assassination is the best option: two attempts on Trump and one health-care executive killed.

Steven Miller brings the receipts on the last eight years of liberal enemy politics, from abuse of the intelligence system to criminalizing protests by the peasants, to “persecuting President Trump, his family, his aides and his supporters” and even raiding Trump’s home, to flooding the country with invaders.

The depth of the problem surfaced last week with three, count ‘em, three judges accused of criminal actions helping illegal aliens avoid the law.

Notice the real problem on the judge front. It is not that there are corrupt Democrat-adjacent judges cynically tipping the scales towards the Democrats. It is that too many Democrat-adjacent judges out there believe -- really believe -- The Narrative and think they are doing the Lord’s work by helping criminal illegal aliens -- helpless undocumented migrants -- dodge the law and avoid deportation.

Now, I believe in a better world, in which the eternal politics of warring ruling classes since the Dawn are dialed down to create space for ordinary human cooperation and thriving. But first we have the problem that male humans, like male chimpanzees, are programmed to defend the border and compete for access to females.

The problem was partly solved when agriculture enslaved human males into plowing, because managing a horse and plow is too hard for human females. And the cubicle economy has liberated human females into world-conquering girlbosses. That’s progress, according to the experts. Only, our educated ruling class seems to require world wars to prove its manhood. Think of World War I, World War II, the Cold War, World War COVID, World War Woke, and World War Climate.

Probably, as J.R.R. Tolkien prophesied, the present crisis will require a hero Hobbit like Frodo to capture the Progressive Ring of Power and have Elon Musk transport it to the Sun in Starship Sauron.

The first Starship mission to Occupy Mars will mark the end of the Age of Assassination.


Serving the Servants: Ending ‘Stakeholder’ Government

Serving the Servants: 

Ending ‘Stakeholder’ Government 


Earlier this month, over 1,400 “Hands Off!” mass-action rallies, organized by a nationwide coalition of left-leaning activist groups, were held around the country to protest President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Prominent among the organizers’ list of demands was “an end to the billionaire takeover and rampant corruption of the Trump administration,” including layoffs of federal workers and the closure of several governmental agencies.

In his first term, President Trump did little more than pay lip service to reimagining the federal government. But such efforts have long been with us: from ending “waste, fraud and abuse” with President Reagan’s Grace Commission, to “reinventing government” under President Clinton, the notion that an increasingly sprawling, complex government is in desperate need of reform and renewal isn’t a new one, nor has it been seen as a particularly partisan issue.  While such past attempts at restructuring the federal bureaucracy have enjoyed a mixed record of success, who could stand against the concept of a more efficient government, delivering better outcomes at a lower cost?

“Stakeholders,” that’s who.

Washington’s inexorable growth and ever-expanding reach into our daily lives deftly illustrate that the dream of taxpayer dollars being spent wisely has historically been more talk than action. What the “Resistance 2.0” in Trump’s second term is responding to is this administration’s sustained efforts to eliminate entire governmental departments and significantly reduce federal employee headcount.  Prominent in the narratives advanced by anti-Trump activists (those protesting at the “Hands Off!” rallies and elsewhere) is sympathy for federal employees laid off in connection with the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) audit of various governmental agencies, departments, and programs.

The hysteria directed at efforts to downsize and restructure government has been a surprise to many of those who view such initiatives as an undisputed good — to spend fewer tax dollars to achieve the same outcome, or apply the same amount of money to achieve a better one, are concepts so ingrained among the practically-minded that it jars to consider what might animate those opposed to them.

Considering who the government is designed to serve provides a clue. As a standalone statement, asserting that the government serves the taxpayers who fund its operations is uncontroversial. To whom else might it conceivably also be responsible?

That a government’s primary duty might not be to those who sustain it financially is a concept imported directly from “stakeholder capitalism,” a business philosophy averring that companies should prioritize the interests of all “stakeholders,” including customers, vendors, employees, and the wider community, not solely those of shareholders. Stakeholder capitalism contravenes the more traditional fiduciary concept of companies (and those who control and manage them), giving primacy to shareholder value maximization.

Stakeholder capitalism had been in the ascendant across the West over the last 15 years, partly in reaction to the purported “short-termism” associated with shareholder primacy. While not a new concept, the emergence of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability movements, along with widespread revulsion at the lack of accountability associated with the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-9, renewed interest in a private sector organizing principle not focused only on optimizing the “bottom line.”

Stakeholder capitalism arguably achieved its apogee in 2019 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying association comprised of the CEOs of major American companies, reversed its prior positions favoring shareholder primacy and endorsed its tenets.

While stakeholder capitalism, along with other ideologies deemed overly “woke,” began to lose purchase in the private sector during the later years of the Biden administration, it has found an enduring and comfortable home within the public sphere. As public sector employee job security at all levels (partly through the strength of public employees’ unions) has increased over time, popular sentiment regarding the size and power of the federal government has moved in the opposite direction: Gallup reports that 65 percent of those polled count themselves as “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied currently, as compared to 39 percent in 2002.

Notwithstanding widespread discontent with the government, federal employees and their advocates have been successful in generating considerable pathos for those downsized, exploiting the public’s natural sympathy for fellow Americans put out of work by job cuts.

Thus, we have the protestors’ purposeful invocation of “billionaires” and “corruption” — and by averting citizens’ gaze from government’s failings, activists can obscure DOGE’s objectives and exploit class envy in service of those having long extracted the unearned economic rents of above-market pay, job security, and generous benefits in exchange for limited accountability and subpar employment performance.

Particularly insidious in the application of stakeholder principles to the public sector is that, without the discipline of private-sector outcome maximization, governments can “fail” yet still remain in business.  Shifting governmental departments’ purpose from achieving their commonly conceived desired outcomes — or “bottom line” — to directly benefiting stakeholders results in the government absorbing yet additional resources. Which, in the government’s case, are not revenues generated through the sale of products and services in an exchange for value in a competitive marketplace, but rather citizens’ tax receipts — the flow of which is unremittingly increased as value leaks away from its proper purposes in favor of parasitic stakeholders.

There are, of course, innumerable federal employees who provide significant value for the services they provide in competently dispatching their job responsibilities. And perhaps the best argument in opposition to federal reductions in force is that eliminating talented human capital undermines such agencies’ mission. But by deploying classic interest group tactics — seeking special treatment for a favored group, with the costs of that dispensation spread so widely (in this case, among all taxpayers) as to blunt concerted opposition — federal employees are achieving some success in eliciting public support for their retention of what are in too many cases make-work jobs of little value.

DOGE and the Trump administration broadly would do well to remind voters at every opportunity that our government is, as President Lincoln expressed in the Gettysburg Address, “of the people, by the people, (and) for the people,” not primarily for those manning it.


These Mega-Corporations Are Pulling Out of Financially Supporting Pride Month

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall

In a significant shift from previous years, several major corporations have scaled back or withdrawn their support for Pride Month events. Companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Diageo, and Comcast have cited budget constraints and a challenging political environment as reasons for their decisions not to donate money to Pride groups ahead of Pride Month, a monthlong event celebrating LGBTQ+ people despite them claiming they don’t want to be treated any differently. The retreat follows a broader trend of businesses reevaluating their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs amid increasing scrutiny and backlash from the Trump administration. As a result, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and event organizers face financial shortfalls and logistical challenges, highlighting the growing divide between corporate strategies and grassroots activism. 

According to reports, major cities like San Francisco, Washington D.C., and St. Louis face significant funding gaps for their 2025 Pride events. San Francisco alone is reportedly short $200,000 after sponsors—including Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, Diageo, and Benefit Cosmetics—pulled their financial backing.

“Will we be able to keep the doors open?” San Francisco Pride Executive Director Suzanne Ford said. “You know, that's what I'm most concerned about now.”

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Federal contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, a previously committed sponsor for the Capital Pride Alliance (CPA), has also withdrawn its financial support. The corporation was responsible for hosting the city’s World Pride event. Deloitte, Comcast, and Darcars Automotive Group have also decided not to fund the event. 

St. Louis is also facing a significant funding shortfall leading to Pride Month. It is reportedly facing a $150,000 shortfall after Anheuser-Busch halted its support. 

Andi Otto, Executive Director of Twin Cities Pride, slammed corporations that refuse to donate to Pride Events. 

“We spend our money as a community in these corporations, and I want them to give back,” he said. “They should give back.”

Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, said “conservative scrutiny” is the leading factor behind recent corporate shifts, pointing to a study he conducted showing that 60 percent of companies blame pressure from the Trump administration for their policy changes. Meanwhile, 40 percent of companies say fear of backlash from conservative consumers and activists is influencing their decisions—an effect felt even more strongly among consumer brands, where over 75 percent report it as a significant factor. 



Trump Tariffs Causing Serious Problems for Swiss National Bank (and Globalists)

Hat Tip to friend of the Treehouse, Zurich Mike

Switzerland is in a conundrum. More specifically, the Swiss National Bank is stuck betwixt two points that are also playing out in other stable western countries.  Exports to the USA account for over ten percent of the Swiss manufacturing base.

The Trump tariffs are putting pressure on Switzerland to drop the value of their currency as an offset to retain competitive pricing.  However, simultaneous to the tariffs, the Swiss Franc is being purchased by global investment groups and sovereign foreign countries as a safe harbor due to the stability of the currency, which is driving up the value of the franc.

The Swiss Franc is now at the highest point against the U.S dollar in decades. One franc is worth 1.21 dollars.  This makes their exports cost even more.  The Swiss government desperately needs to lower the value of their currency.  The Swiss central bank has already dropped interest rates to 0.25% and is now contemplating negative interest rates as a result.

SWITZERLAND – […] That is why many are speculating on a reaction from the Swiss National Bank (SNB). SNB Director Martin Schlegel could weaken the currency by selling the Swiss franc against the dollar and euro in order to support the export-oriented economy.

But this could provoke a backlash from Trump if he perceives the SNB’s intervention as currency manipulation. Even during Trump’s first term in office, Switzerland was on the US list of suspected currency manipulators.

[…] Interest rate cuts in the key interest rate are considered a diplomatically safe measure to control the franc. It defines the interest rate at which commercial banks can borrow money from the SNB. “If the SNB is dissatisfied with the strong franc and remains limited in foreign exchange interventions, lower interest rates are the only option,” says Francesco Pesole of Bank ING.

Interest rates have already fallen sharply recently. It was only at the end of March that Schlegel lowered the key interest rate to 0.25 percent. The market currently expects a probability of around 80 percent that the key interest rate will fall to zero at the next meeting in June. Yields on short-term government bonds have already fallen into negative territory in recent days. (read more)

If interest rates go into negative territory, savers will be required to pay the bank for storing their money. “Until 2022, various Swiss banks required their customers to pay negative interest on their accounts.”

Meanwhile in other news from Europe, as the Chinese economy contracts, heavy industrial equipment -once again- becomes useless, the Europeans are worried that China will dump cranes and other industrial equipment into their economy.

BRUSSELS, April 28 (Reuters) – The European Commission said on Monday it had imposed duties of up to 66.7% on imports of Chinese machines that lift construction workers after concluding that the producers were benefiting from unfair subsidies and selling at artificially low prices.
The extra duties on Chinese mobile access equipment (MAE) will range from 20.6% to 66.7%, the Commission said, as it sought to protect domestic producers in the EU market worth more than 1 billion euros ($1.14 billion) per year.
The tariffs are the latest in a series of EU anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties focused on Chinese imports, including a high-profile investigation into Chinese-built electric vehicles, which culminated last October.
The EU executive, which conducted the investigation, said Chinese MAE producers had benefited from preferential financing, grants, state provision of inputs at below-market rates.  (read more)
.