A new analysis by the Citizens Budget Commission illustrates a troubling trend. While New York nearly doubled its number of millionaire tax filers between 2010 and 2022, increasing from 35,802 to 69,780, its share of the nation’s millionaire households fell from 12.7% to just 8.7%.

That means wealth is still being created in New York, but it is growing much faster in competing states.

Florida provides the clearest example. During the same period, Florida increased its share of America’s millionaire households from 6.9% to 9.7%. Texas also gained ground, growing from 8.5% to 9.2%, while California expanded from 14.9% to 16.1%.

Meanwhile, New York lost four percentage points of its national share.

The Citizens Budget Commission estimates that if New York had simply maintained its 2010 share of millionaire households, the state would have collected approximately $10.7 billion more in personal income tax revenue in 2022 alone.

That represents schools, infrastructure, public safety, and other services that could have been funded, not through higher taxes, but by retaining more of the wealth already being created within the state.

The Competition Is Not an Accident

States like Florida and Texas did not attract affluent residents by chance.

They have aggressively competed for businesses and high-income earners through lower tax burdens, lighter regulatory environments, and policies designed to encourage investment and entrepreneurship.

New York, by contrast, has become known for some of the nation’s highest tax rates, increasing regulatory complexity, rising operating costs, concerns about public safety, and housing affordability challenges. While no single factor explains migration patterns, these cumulative policy decisions influence where entrepreneurs, investors, and employers choose to live and expand.

When wealth leaves, it rarely leaves alone.

Successful business owners bring employees. Investors bring capital. Companies lease office space. Families purchase homes. Philanthropists support local institutions. Their departure creates ripple effects throughout the broader economy.

New York Still Has Powerful Advantages

None of this means New York’s economy is collapsing.

Far from it.

New York City remains one of the world’s premier financial centers and continues to generate enormous economic activity. Artificial intelligence is also creating a new wave of investment.

Since the beginning of 2025, approximately 2.1 million square feet, or about 4% of all new office leasing, has come from AI and AI-related companies. Major firms continue to establish significant operations in Manhattan, reinforcing the city’s importance as a global innovation hub.

These investments demonstrate that New York still possesses unmatched talent, infrastructure, financial markets, universities, and access to capital.

A Warning for Other Blue States

New York’s experience should not be viewed in isolation.

Other blue states throughout the Northeast and across the country should pay close attention to what these numbers reveal. States such as New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, and others face many of the same policy debates over taxation, regulation, affordability, public safety, and the cost of doing business.

Every state has unique circumstances, and migration decisions are influenced by many factors. However, the data suggests that when businesses and high-income earners consistently find better opportunities elsewhere, states should carefully evaluate whether their policies are strengthening or weakening their long-term competitiveness.

Strength Today Does Not Guarantee Strength Tomorrow

The question is not whether New York can create wealth.

It clearly can.

The question is whether political leadership is creating an environment where that wealth chooses to stay.

Economic competitiveness is measured not only by how many successful people a state produces, but also by how many decide to remain, invest, hire workers, and build the next generation of businesses there.

The Citizens Budget Commission’s findings should serve as a warning. New York’s economy remains strong enough to generate extraordinary success, but competing states are increasingly capturing a larger share of that success.

For New York and other blue states facing similar challenges, this is an opportunity to reassess whether current policies are encouraging growth or unintentionally pushing it across state lines. The states that recognize these warning signs and adapt will be better positioned to attract investment, create jobs, and retain the people who drive economic prosperity.

The current talking point is that “affordability” drove voters left. That claim collapses under scrutiny. Prices soared under the prior administration while the progressive left either stayed silent or celebrated the very policies that produced the pain. The same voices now packaging Medicare for All, wealth taxes, and rent freezes as solutions were enthusiastic architects of the inflationary spending, energy constraints, and migration surge that made ordinary life more expensive. Affordability is the marketing slogan. The underlying project is power.

What actually opened the door was the party’s decision to treat Trump as an existential threat justifying any tactic. Russiagate fabrications, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, years of lawfare, constant fascist and Nazi analogies, and the casual tolerance of political violence created a permission structure. When establishment figures encouraged confrontation in the streets, threatened justices, and normalized the idea that democratic rules could be suspended for the greater good, younger activists took notes. They concluded the old methods were too timid and the old messengers too compromised.

In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, an open democratic socialist, captured the mayoralty and installed a governing agenda centered on free transit, rent freezes, universal childcare, and aggressive redistribution. In New Jersey, Analilia Mejia (former Sanders campaign operative) won a special election in the 11th District on a platform that includes abolishing ICE and Medicare for All. In the same state, Adam Hamawy, the Army veteran and surgeon, took the Democratic primary in the 12th District with endorsements from national progressives and a message that mixes healthcare expansion with sharp criticism of Israel. Both are positioned to join Congress from solidly blue seats.

The results are now visible far beyond any single coast or media market. This is not a New York or New Jersey phenomenon. It is a national pattern taking root in Democratic strongholds from the Northeast to the Mountain West, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest.

In Pennsylvania, DSA member Chris Rabb advanced in a Philadelphia-based House seat. In Colorado, Melat Kiros unseated a longtime incumbent in the Denver-area 1st District. In Washington, D.C., Janeese Lewis George, a self-described socialist, won the Democratic primary for mayor. In Seattle, Katie Wilson, who openly identifies as a democratic socialist, took the mayor’s office. Parallel gains have appeared in state legislatures, city councils, and local races across multiple states, while DSA-aligned or closely progressive candidates continue pressing in Michigan, Wisconsin, California, Maryland, and elsewhere.

The organization and its allies are converting deep-blue primaries into a reliable pipeline. Where the Democratic primary electorate has already been radicalized by a decade of anti-Trump fervor, these candidates win. The geography keeps expanding because the underlying conditions…party institutional capture of cultural institutions, open-border politics, identity grievance as governing principle, and the normalization of maximalist demands exist in blue strongholds nationwide, not just on the East Coast.

The establishment that spent a decade radicalizing its base now faces the consequence across the country. The new cohort no longer feels obligated to hide maximalist demands; open borders in practice, police abolition rhetoric, industrial-scale redistribution, and a foreign-policy posture that often slides into antisemitism, behind electability talk. They read the 2024 loss not as a warning against excess but as proof the party had not gone far enough. So they are replacing the messengers while keeping the more extreme elements of the message, state by state and city by city.

This is not a hijacking from outside the party. It is the logical next stage of a process the party’s own leaders accelerated. Once you declare the system illegitimate, normalize political violence as resistance, and treat compromise as betrayal, the people who take those claims most seriously will eventually demand the keys. Democrats built the conditions in every region where they dominate. The socialists are simply collecting the inheritance—and they show no interest in sharing power with the architects who now find the results inconvenient.

Voters outside the deepest blue districts will ultimately decide whether this experiment expands or collapses under its own weight. Inside those districts, from New York and New Jersey to Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington state, and beyond, the takeover is already underway.

Here are the entries that matter most.

January 26, 2020

Fauci writes: “Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier.”

The wet-market origin story that media and officials pushed for years was already dead in his private notes. The market was secondary. The origin was elsewhere.

February 1, 2020

The call that produced the “Proximal Origin” paper. Twelve scientists.

According to Fauci’s notes, only two concluded the virus was natural. “The rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible.” This was never a balanced scientific consensus. Most experts on the call saw lab involvement as plausible. The paper that later declared lab origin “implausible” came out of that room.

February 3, 2020

Fauci speaks with George Gao of China’s CDC. Gao confirms asymptomatic transmission. Fauci notes Wuhan officials “did not tell him this and he thus gave out false information,” a lapse that “likely allowed the outbreak to take hold.”

Nine days later, after briefing Congress, Fauci tells Larry Kudlow the economy is “OK for now.”

May 23, 2021

Fauci calls the lead author of Proximal Origin for reassurance about his own NIH grant. Diary entry: “I feel much better now that he is in total support of what I have been saying.”

July 7, 2021

At an NSC briefing, Fauci dismisses the FBI’s lab-leak conclusion (“the FBI has no idea what they’re talking about”) while calling the NSA’s natural-origin view “reasonable.” He claims an open mind, then immediately adds that two possibilities “does not mean that they are equally probable.”

The same day he points the NSC to Andersen, Holmes, Garry, and Rambaut. Those authors post a natural-origin paper. Fauci tracks the press coverage the next morning.

July 12, 2021

Fauci complains about “how many hours we are all wasting” answering letters from senators (including Rand Paul) that he labels “fundamentally driven by conspiracy theories.”

Asking who funded the research is not a conspiracy theory. It is oversight.

These are Fauci’s own contemporaneous notes, released by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The private record shows early recognition that the market story had serious problems, that most experts on the key call saw laboratory involvement as possible, and that the scientific and intelligence messaging was actively managed.

Americans were told for years that the lab-leak hypothesis was a fringe conspiracy. Fauci’s diary shows the people shaping the narrative knew better almost from the start.

This Wednesday, July 29, Fauci is scheduled to appear under subpoena before Paul’s committee.

After years of carefully parsed denials, destroyed records, and shifting stories, he will finally face questions under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and why the public version never matched the private one. Biden’s preemptive pardon does not cover new testimony. The American people deserve straight answers.

The full diary package is available at paul.senate.gov/readingroom. Read it yourself. Then watch the hearing.

The private record and the public record still do not match. It’s time they do.

This week, I had the privilege of meeting with Congressman Chris Smith and his staff. I walked away from that meeting reminded of something we’ve almost forgotten in American politics:

There is a difference between a politician and a statesman.

A politician thinks in election cycles. A statesman thinks in generations. A politician asks, “Will this help me get reelected?” A statesman asks, “Will this help the American people?”

Chris Smith has spent more than four decades answering that second question.

This week, the House passed two of Congressman Smith’s bills: H.R. 5160, reauthorizing the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, and H.R. 4348, reauthorizing the Kay Hagan Tick Act.

Most Americans usually never hear about them.

They won’t dominate cable news. They won’t become campaign slogans. They won’t generate millions of views on social media. But they will save lives.

And that’s precisely why they matter.

As I read Congressman Smith’s remarks in the Congressional Record, I was struck not just by what these bills accomplish, but by the history behind them.

For more than thirty years, Chris Smith has fought for Lyme disease patients. He described introducing comprehensive Lyme legislation decades ago, only to watch it stall repeatedly. Patients who knew something was wrong were too often dismissed. Physicians struggled with inadequate tools. Researchers fought for resources. Bureaucracies moved slowly while families waited.

Most politicians would have moved on to an easier issue.

Chris Smith didn’t.

He kept listening to patients. He kept working with researchers. He kept introducing legislation. He kept showing up.

Eventually, persistence began to win.

The same story can be told about his work on umbilical cord blood stem cell research. Years ago, umbilical cord blood was routinely discarded after birth. Today, because of legislation he originally authored and continued to champion, those stem cells have become a life-saving resource for patients battling leukemia, lymphoma, sickle cell disease, immune disorders, and dozens of other serious illnesses. Researchers continue exploring their potential in regenerative medicine.

That is what legislation is supposed to do.

It is supposed to solve problems.

Meeting with Congressman Smith also reminded me of something we’ve lost in modern politics.

Today, too many elected officials seem more interested in building personal brands than legislative records.

Politics has become performance. Every outrage becomes content. Every hearing becomes theater and every vote becomes an opportunity for fundraising emails.

Meanwhile, the unglamorous work of governing often gets ignored.

Chris Smith represents the opposite approach. He isn’t known for viral videos. He’s known for showing up.

For reading the details. For learning complicated issues. For working with anyone willing to solve a problem. For staying with a cause long after the cameras have disappeared.

Whether the issue is Lyme disease, human trafficking, international religious freedom, disability rights, or regenerative medicine, his career reflects a willingness to take on difficult fights that rarely produce instant political rewards.

That is increasingly rare.

How many members of Congress are willing to spend thirty years fighting for people they may never meet, on issues that may never make the evening news?

Chris Smith has.

That is the difference between occupying an office and honoring it.

The Constitution never promised us celebrity politicians. It entrusted us with representatives, people willing to carry the burdens of their constituents, even when the work is difficult, thankless, and painfully slow.

After meeting with Congressman Chris Smith, I was reminded that those public servants still exist.

We simply need more of them because men like him strive to leave the country better than they found it.

That, in the end, is what statesmanship looks like.

Learn more about Congressman Chris Smith and his work at ChrisSmith.House.gov

The Republican Party will never build the unity it claims to want if its answer to every disagreement is, “Sit down and shut up.”

Unity isn’t created by silencing people. It isn’t built by demanding blind loyalty to party leaders or elected officials. It comes from earning trust through open dialogue, accountability, and a shared commitment to principles over personalities.

The grassroots isn’t a threat to the Republican Party. It is the Republican Party. The volunteers knocking doors, making calls, attending meetings, donating their own money, and speaking up are the reason Republicans win elections, not polished insiders or donor-class consultants.

When party leadership treats independent voices as a problem instead of an asset, it doesn’t strengthen the party, it weakens it from within. Recent interactions with the NJGOP have made this dynamic painfully clear, but the same pattern repeats in too many states and at the national level.

Leadership isn’t measured by how effectively it controls people. It’s measured by how confidently it leads people who are free to disagree, debate, and hold leaders accountable to the America First principles that actually deliver results for the American people.

We’re no longer living in an era where a handful of party insiders control the conversation.

The new media landscape has fundamentally changed politics forever. Citizens, independent journalists, content creators, grassroots organizations, and local activists now have the ability to inform, organize, and mobilize voters without permission from political establishments.

That presents the GOP from national leadership to state parties across the country with a clear choice.

It can embrace this reality by working with the people who are investing their time, talent, and resources into advancing conservative principles. It can encourage independent voices, welcome honest criticism, and recognize that the strongest movements are built from the bottom up.

Or it can continue the same insider mentality that has too often led to division, distrust, electoral underperformance, and missed opportunities, shutting out the very people who care enough to show up, speak out, and fight for a better future for America.

Political parties don’t own movements. They either empower them or become disconnected from them.

The future belongs to leaders who understand that influence can no longer be controlled. It must be earned… through transparency, results, and genuine respect for the grassroots energy that powers this movement.

America First isn’t a top-down brand. It’s a bottom-up force. The GOP will either ride that wave or watch it pass them by.

The choice is yours. The American people are watching.

We’re told our roads aren’t more congested. We’re told our schools aren’t overcrowded. We’re told the housing crisis has nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of people entering our communities illegally. We’re told our emergency rooms, social services, and state budgets aren’t under strain.

Meanwhile, hardworking New Jersey families are working two and three jobs just to stay afloat.

Now, Assemblyman Paul Kanitra says his office has uncovered a staggering number: 100,000 illegal immigrants holding New Jersey driver’s licenses.

Let that sink in…

At least one hundred thousand people who entered or remained in this country illegally have been given a state-issued privilege that many citizens view as a reward for breaking the law.

New Jersey residents are fed up. They follow the rules. They pay their taxes. They obey the law. Yet they watch politicians continue to create incentives for people who entered the country illegally while the needs of their own citizens are ignored.

The Costs Are Real

Anyone being honest can see the impacts.

Housing costs continue to skyrocket as demand increases and supply remains limited.

Classrooms are becoming more crowded, forcing schools and local governments to stretch already limited resources.

Hospitals and emergency rooms are under pressure, and taxpayers are left footing the bill.

And every time an illegal immigrant commits a crime that could have been prevented by enforcing our immigration laws, another family is left asking why their government failed them.

New Jersey residents have seen tragic stories across the country involving crimes committed by individuals who were in the United States illegally. Every preventable tragedy raises the same question:

Why are our leaders refusing to enforce the law?

If someone is willing to ignore the laws governing entry into this country, many New Jerseyans ask:

Why should they be trusted to respect the laws of the road?

It’s a question that many politicians refuse to answer because they know the public is increasingly demanding accountability.

This isn’t about hating immigrants. America is a nation built by immigrants who came here legally, respected our laws, and sought the American Dream.

This is about the rule of law.

A country without borders isn’t a country at all. A state that rewards illegal behavior while burdening its own citizens with the costs is failing the people it was elected to serve.

New Jersey Deserves Answers

How much are taxpayers spending?

How many state resources are being diverted?

How many driver’s licenses have been issued?

How many benefits are being provided?

And perhaps most importantly:

Why are New Jersey citizens always expected to sacrifice while those who entered the country illegally continue to receive incentives that many struggling families can only dream of?

The people of this state deserve transparency. They deserve accountability. And they deserve leaders who put New Jersey citizens first.

Because the anger being felt across this state isn’t about politics anymore.

It’s about fairness.

And New Jersey residents have had enough.

The timing is impossible to ignore.

The image surfaced shortly after journalist Desiree Townsend released audio of emergency dispatch communications related to McConnell’s medical situation, raising even more questions about his condition and whether the public had been given the full truth.

At the same time, another detail has fueled public suspicion: reports that McConnell’s wife, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, traveled to China while he remained hospitalized.

Again, none of this proves wrongdoing. But it does raise serious questions, and questions deserve answers.

Instead of clarity, the public was handed a photograph that many online observers immediately began scrutinizing for signs of AI generation or digital manipulation. Community Notes users and independent investigators pointed to apparent anomalies in the image, citing concerns about lighting, text rendering, and other details they believe warrant further examination.

Whether the image is ultimately determined to be AI-generated, edited, or entirely authentic, one fact is undeniable:

The public doesn’t trust it.

And that’s the real story.

We’re living in 2026, not 2006.

You can’t simply release a picture, tell people to stop asking questions, and expect everyone to move on.

Artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed the information landscape. Millions of Americans now understand that images, videos, and even voices can be fabricated in minutes. Every piece of evidence released by public officials is immediately analyzed by thousands of people with access to forensic tools and collective intelligence.

The old playbook is dead.

You cannot run AI-generated psyops (or even communications that merely appear deceptive) and expect the public to accept them at face value.

Trust in government is already at historic lows.

Every time officials release information that appears incomplete, curated, or inconsistent with public concerns, they don’t put out the fire—they pour gasoline on it.

If Senator McConnell is recovering and doing well, the American people deserve clear, verifiable proof.

If his condition is more serious than has been disclosed, the American people deserve honesty.

If there is nothing to hide, then there should be no fear of transparency.

Because what Americans are demanding isn’t unreasonable.

They’re asking for the truth.

No carefully managed narratives. No selective disclosures. No contradictory stories. No obvious attempts at information control.

The issue here is bigger than Mitch McConnell.

It’s about whether our institutions still believe they can manufacture reality and expect the public to simply comply.

They can’t. Not anymore.

In 2026, the American people have become too informed, too connected, and too skeptical to accept narratives without evidence.

If our leaders want to restore trust, the answer isn’t another photo.

It’s transparency, honesty and proof.

Because in the age of artificial intelligence, authenticity isn’t optional, it’s the only thing that still has value.

The American people aren’t asking for perfection. They’re asking for the truth. And every time they’re given something that looks like a psyop instead of an answer, trust dies a little more.

I had one of the most interesting conversations today with the CIO of a university.

This is someone who has been around technology for a long time. She was involved in the early days of artificial intelligence when she was in school. She watched it develop from an interesting concept into the powerful tool that it is today.

And after all these years, she said something that really stuck with me:

“AI is making people dumber.”

Not because the technology itself is bad, because we’re using it to avoid thinking.

We’re creating a society where people don’t have to research anymore. They don’t have to problem solve. They don’t have to learn how to communicate, write, or critically think. They can simply ask AI to do it for them.

Even more concerning, it’s helping people look smarter than they really are.

People can sound like experts without ever becoming one. They can produce work they don’t fully understand. They can rise into positions they aren’t prepared for because technology is helping cover up the gaps.

Competence is becoming harder to distinguish from confidence.

And that’s dangerous.

Then she made another point that I found equally fascinating:

Universities aren’t thriving. They’re struggling.

I’ve talked about this before. I made a video years ago saying that higher education has become a business who cares more about profits and salaries over results.

And I still believe that.

Too many universities are run like corporations. Administrators pay themselves enormous salaries while students take on mountains of debt. Students are forced into classes they’ll never use, all while being told that if they don’t get a degree, they’ll never succeed.

We’ve sold an entire generation on the idea that a four-year degree is the only path to a good life.

Meanwhile, people graduate with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and enter a workforce that increasingly values skills over credentials.

The model is breaking. People are asking questions now.

Why does college cost so much?

Why are students paying for classes they’ll never need?

Why do universities keep adding administrators while tuition continues to rise?

Why are so many graduates underemployed?

And now comes AI.

The very thing many universities helped create may end up exposing just how broken the system has become.

Because if a machine can produce in seconds what took someone four years and six figures of debt to learn, then people are going to start asking what exactly they’re paying for.

Education should teach people how to think, not what to think.

It should teach people how to solve problems, challenge ideas, and become capable adults.

Instead, too often we’ve created a system that rewards credentials over competence.

And now we have artificial intelligence rewarding people for not thinking at all.

That’s a dangerous combination.

The future doesn’t belong to the people who can ask ChatGPT the best question.

It belongs to the people who can still think for themselves when the machine is turned off.

Unlike typic…

Read more

For most Americans, it probably meant nothing more than quantum technology.

For others, it meant everything.

Some of my closest friends are Q believers. People I genuinely love and respect. Good people. Intelligent people. Patriots who sincerely want to see corruption exposed and accountability restored.

That is why what I’m about to write is not meant as ridicule.

It’s reflection.

Because when I saw the White House embrace the letter “Q,” I couldn’t help but feel conflicted.

Part of me hopes they’re right.

Part of me hopes there really is a larger plan. That justice is coming. That the corruption so many Americans sense beneath the surface will eventually be exposed.

I pray the Trump team didn’t hoodwink an entire movement.

But another part of me couldn’t shake a scene from A Christmas Story.

Remember Ralphie and the decoder ring?

He spent weeks waiting. Anticipating. Believing he was about to unlock some incredible secret message.

Finally, the message arrived.

“Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.”

After all that anticipation, it was an advertisement.

And that’s what worries me.

Not because I want Q believers to be wrong.

Quite the opposite.

I worry because millions of Americans have spent years decoding messages, analyzing clues, trusting plans, and waiting for a grand reveal that never seems to arrive.

And now the White House drops a giant “Q” into a national initiative, fully aware that the symbol carries meaning far beyond the field of quantum technology.

Whether intentional or not, it raises an uncomfortable question:

Was Q a roadmap?

Or was it one of the most effective political branding campaigns in modern history?

To be fair, I think President Trump has done a lot of good things.

Compared to many recent presidents, I would even argue he’s doing a great job.

But that’s not the standard Q believers measure him against.

The promises made through years of Q messaging weren’t ordinary political promises.

They weren’t just about tax rates.

They weren’t just about border policy.

They weren’t just about cabinet appointments.

They were promises of a historic reckoning.

A Great Awakening.

Mass accountability.

The exposure of corruption on a scale the world had never seen.

And to be fair, I think one of those things has already happened.

An awakening occurred.

Millions of Americans who once blindly trusted government, media, intelligence agencies, pharmaceutical companies, academia, and other powerful institutions no longer do.

People are asking questions they never would have asked ten years ago.

They’re reading source documents.

They’re filing FOIA requests.

They’re attending local meetings.

They’re challenging official narratives.

They’re paying attention to government in ways they never did before.

Something changed.

In that sense, the awakening is real.

The question is whether awareness can ever become accountability.

Knowing about corruption and proving corruption are two different things.

Suspecting wrongdoing and prosecuting wrongdoing are two different things.

Talking about accountability and achieving accountability are two different things.

Many of the people who followed Q weren’t simply looking for information.

They were looking for justice.

They believed that one day the powerful people who abused public trust would face consequences.

That is the standard by which many of them will ultimately judge this chapter of American history.

And that is where I find myself torn.

Because I understand why people were drawn to Q.

Corruption exists.

Powerful institutions do lie.

Government agencies have abused authority.

Media organizations have hidden facts.

History is filled with examples proving that skepticism is often justified.

The public has been lied to before.

Repeatedly.

So when people say, “You expect me to trust the government?” I understand where that skepticism comes from.

What concerns me is something else.

My concern has never been that people ask questions.

My concern is that too many people stop asking questions once the answers become emotionally satisfying.

Question government.

Question media.

Question politicians.

Question intelligence agencies.

Question corporations.

Question institutions.

But also question the people telling you to “trust the plan.”

Especially them.

Because blind trust is dangerous no matter who is asking for it.

The truth is that symbolism is one of the most powerful tools in politics.

A slogan can mobilize millions.

A hat can become a movement.

A phrase can become an identity.

A letter can become a belief system.

And if a symbol already carries deep emotional meaning for millions of people, there is tremendous incentive to use it.

That doesn’t necessarily mean there is a secret plan.

It may simply mean there is a marketing strategy.

That’s not a comfortable possibility.

But it is one worth considering.

Believers will rightly point out that Trump’s final term isn’t over.

There is still time.

Perhaps they are right.

I don’t claim to know.

But by 2028 there will be no future Trump term to anticipate.

No next election to wait for.

No promise that the real action is still just around the corner.

If the accountability people were promised is coming, then we should know by then.

And if it doesn’t come, Americans will have to confront a difficult possibility:

That the awakening was real, but the roadmap wasn’t.

That the questions were valid, but the promises were not.

That millions of people correctly identified deep problems within our institutions but placed their faith in a narrative that could never deliver the ending they expected.

I sincerely hope America gets the accountability many people have been waiting for.

Not because of Q.

Not because of Trump.

Not because of a secret plan.

But because accountability is necessary for a healthy republic.

Freedom has never depended on secret saviors operating behind the scenes.

It has always depended on citizens willing to engage openly, think critically, and hold power accountable.

The awakening has already happened.

The question is whether accountability ever will.

The Senate Parliamentarian.

Now people across social media are demanding she be fired, blaming her for blocking parts of Trump’s agenda, and asking a very simple question:

“Why does this unelected person have so much power?”

The answer is act…

Read more

Hold the line. Protect a few seats. Hope the political winds change.

That mindset needs to die.

The 2026 general election is not about sur…

Read more

I saw it firsthand at a meeting with individuals closely aligned with the Trump administration.

The message was clear: if Republicans lose ground in the midterms, the blame will fall on the Epstein conversation, the podcasters, the independent media voices, and the grassroots su…

Read more

Read more

Here’s why.

On Saturday, President Trump posted on Truth Social blasting Boebert for campaigning with R…

Read more

But over time, after dealing with enough people like this, you start realizing something else is happening. Some people are not trapped by their pain. They are protected by it, because as long as they can position themselves as the victim in every situat…

Read more

Read more

With the uptick in chatter about the Hantavirus, I think it is important we explore pandemics throughout history.

There was a time when pandemics were once-in-several-generation events. Now they seem to arrive like clockwork.

Every few years there is a new global health emergency, a new fear campaign, a new demand for compliance, a new transfer of wealth, a new expansion of government power, and a new set of “experts” telling the public not to question anything.

And every single time, the people asking questions are treated like the real threat. The deeper I looked into the history of pandemics, the harder it became to ignore the pattern.

Look carefully at that chart.

Humanity became more advanced than ever before:

• modern medicine

• antibiotics

• genomic sequencing

• artificial intelligence

• real-time communication

• unprecedented sanitation

• surveillance systems

• vaccine technology

• global coordination

Yet somehow pandemics appear more frequent, more politicized, and more societally disruptive than ever before. That should at least provoke discussion.

Instead, questioning anything surrounding these events has become taboo.

The Real Problem Is Trust

Most people are not “anti-science.” They are anti-being-lied-to.

And governments, corporations, intelligence agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and media institutions have spent decades giving the public reasons to distrust them.

That distrust did not appear out of thin air.

People watched:

• narratives constantly change

• dissenting experts silenced

• censorship normalized

• pharmaceutical companies make billions

• emergency powers expand overnight

• politicians exempt themselves from their own rules

• fear used as a behavioral weapon

Then those same institutions acted shocked when skepticism exploded.

The public was told masks did not work.
Then they were told masks absolutely worked.
Then they were told multiple masks worked better.

People were told the lab leak theory was dangerous misinformation.
Now even federal agencies acknowledge it as a legitimate possibility.

People were told questioning mandates was irresponsible. Now many officials quietly admit some policies caused massive collateral damage.

None of this means every conspiracy theory is true.

But it does mean the public was not crazy for questioning official narratives.

Read more

But this isn’t ancient history or abstract comedy. As of April 2026, the dynamic Sears mocks has exploded into ugly, public reality. President Trump himself is now openly attacking former allies- Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Alex Jones, and others, for daring to complain about broken promises on endless foreign wars and elite accountability. And Dan Bongino, who served as FBI Deputy Director with zero prior FBI experience, left the bureau amid Epstein file controversies, returned to his podcast, and immediately began savaging critics as “grifters,” “frauds,” “bums,” and “doomers” for pointing out the very failures he once railed against.

This is the parasocial trap in action: one-sided emotional devotion to a leader that overrides every stated value. On one side, you have Americans anchored in conviction to principles; America First, no more foreign wars, drain the swamp, full transparency on elite crimes. On the other, a growing cohort driven by parasocial attachment; a celebrity-style bond where defending “the man” becomes the only principle that matters.

Sears’ video isn’t just entertainment. It’s prophecy. And the real-world call-outs from the President and his surrogates are turning satire into a national warning.

What JP Sears Exposed in the Skit

Sears’ character flips between wide-eyed interviewer and raging loyalist, forcing contradictions into the open with surgical precision. The laughs land because the hypocrisy is undeniable:

• Wars and “America First”: Under Biden, foreign aid and Ukraine involvement were treason. Under Trump, a new conflict with Iran becomes “as American Christians we should also be Jewish.” When called out on the broken “no new wars” pledge, the loyalist retorts: “He promised no new wars, plural. We started one new war—singular. Idiot.”

• Epstein Files: Once the ultimate red line. The loyalist’s old tweets demanded arrests: “Number one priority is to arrest the Epstein criminals.” Now? “Best for the country to just move on.” Context? “Words evolve with the times… it’s evolution.”

• Elite Corruption: Politicians getting rich off insider trading? “Lock ’em all up!” But when Jared Kushner becomes a billionaire negotiating with Iran, Trump’s sons’ net worth skyrockets 800%, and the President’s own fortune balloons from $1.4 billion to $6.5 billion? “The world’s a casino… don’t hate the player.”

• Yesterday’s Heroes: Tucker Carlson, MTG, Massie praised as patriots campaigning for Trump become “Nazis,” “Woke Reich,” “backstabbers,” and “foreign agents” the moment they refuse to move the goalposts.

The loyalist insists: “I haven’t changed my stance on anything.” That’s the tell. When reality conflicts with the attachment, reality gets rewritten.

Conviction to Values vs. Parasocial Attachment

Conviction to values is simple and brutal: Apply the same rules no matter who holds power. America First means opposing endless foreign entanglements whether it’s Biden’s Ukraine billions or Trump’s Iran escalation. Elite accountability means releasing Epstein files fully, no matter whose names appear. Anti-corruption means rejecting insider enrichment whether it’s swamp creatures or family members.

Critics like Tucker Carlson (who has publicly expressed regret and said he’s “tormented” by his past support) or MTG (who pushed discharge petitions for Epstein transparency even after Trump labeled her a “traitor”) are living this out. They’re applying the principles that won elections in 2024. Consistency isn’t disloyalty, it’s integrity.

Parasocial attachment is the opposite: a one-way emotional relationship amplified by rallies, Truth Social, podcasts, and years of “he fights for us” messaging. Psychology shows these bonds (common with celebrities or politicians) make followers extraordinarily forgiving of contradictions. Disagreement feels like personal betrayal. Former friends become enemies. Cognitive dissonance is resolved by attacking the messenger, not examining the message.

This isn’t new to politics, but social media supercharges it. Trump’s larger-than-life persona turned supporters into emotional stakeholders. When the leader wins, the attachment demands victory laps, even if the victories contradict the platform.

The Gross Call-Outs: From Satire to Presidential Reality

What started as JP Sears’ exaggerated comedy has become daily discourse from the highest levels.

President Trump has gone on the offensive, publicly branding critics as “low IQ,” “stupid people,” “nut jobs,” and “not MAGA.” Tucker Carlson, once hailed as a campaign hero, now gets the cold shoulder and public insults for opposing the Iran war and demanding Epstein transparency. MTG, who risked everything for Trump in prior years, was called a “traitor” and “disgrace” for refusing to drop her push for the files. Alex Jones and others face the same treatment.

These aren’t measured policy disagreements. They’re personal, emotional, and designed to shame and isolate. The message is clear: Question the leader = attack the movement.

Enter Dan Bongino. Appointed FBI Deputy Director in early 2025 despite no FBI background, Bongino entered amid promises of massive revelations on Epstein, the deep state, and past corruption. He hyped the files relentlessly on his podcast pre-appointment. Then reality hit: limited releases, suicide rulings reaffirmed, no “client list” bombshells, internal clashes with AG Pam Bondi. Bongino left the bureau in January 2026.

Now back on his podcast, he’s not reflecting on the broken promises. He’s raging at the critics. He calls figures like Thomas Massie “grifters,” “frauds,” “bums,” and “doomers” for demanding accountability on the exact issues Bongino once championed. He mocks them for “rage-posting” and prioritizes loyalty over the transparency he helped promise.

This is peak gross: A guy who spent years building his brand on “FBI is corrupt, trust no one” joins the FBI, accomplishes little on the marquee issues, exits, and then lectures the base for noticing the gap. It’s not leadership. It’s protection racket rhetoric dressed as patriotism.

The pattern is unmistakable. When principles conflict with power, the parasocial crowd doesn’t adapt the principles, they attack the principled.

Why This Matters: The Danger to the Movement

This rift isn’t minor drama. It’s existential.

Movements built on personality cults collapse when the personality disappointsbecause the attachment was never about ideas. Healthy political change requires ideas bigger than any one man. America First, limited government, anti-corruption, and elite accountability must survive any single administration.

Unchecked parasocial loyalty turns supporters into apologists. It erodes trust. It drives away independent thinkers. Worst of all, it hands ammunition to the left: “See? They’re just a cult.”

JP Sears’ satire stings because it’s true for some, not all. Millions of Trump voters remain principled, weighing trade-offs honestly. But the loudest voices demanding blind defense are revealing the trap.

The test of any movement isn’t loyalty when your guy wins. It’s whether you can criticize broken promises without being branded an enemy. Real patriotism demands the harder path: principles over personalities.

Ask yourself the uncomfortable question Sears forces: Are you defending ideas? or a man at all costs? The former built this country. The latter has destroyed movements before.

The choice is yours. History is watching.

Read more