William Martin probably knew he was in deep trouble when he boarded the plane to President Lyndon Johnson’s Texas ranch.

As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he had just warned that the US economy was overheating—and that the boom could end in a crash.

But he probably didn’t expect the visit to end in a physical altercation, with the President of the United States literally shoving him against a wall and shouting: “Boys are dying in Vietnam, and Bill Martin doesn’t care!”

It was 1965. The Vietnam War was raging. Johnson was desperate to keep funding the war effort and his expansive “Great Society” domestic programs. He needed low interest rates to keep the borrowing cost manageable and the economy growing.

Martin refused to play ball. So Johnson resorted to raw, personal pressure. He couldn’t fire the Fed Chair, but he could humiliate him, bully him, and try to bend him to his will.

That wasn’t even the first time a US president went to war with the central bank. The tradition goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, who practically fought to the death against the Second Bank of the United States—and even believed an assassination attempt on his life was connected to his war against the Bank.

Now, here we are again.

Like Johnson, President Trump is a big personality with a big agenda. He wants to stimulate the economy. But more importantly, he wants to bring down the federal government’s interest expense, which is $1.2 trillion this fiscal year.

And rather than physically assaulting Jerome Powell, Trump has been figuratively shoving him around on social media, hammering the Fed for keeping rates too high, too long.

He’s also been turning to the hundreds of thousands of pages of US regulatory code to find ‘cause’ to oust sitting Fed officials—and replace them with loyalists committed to the cause of lower interest rates.

I predicted this two weeks ago.

And just a week later news broke that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook had allegedly committed mortgage fraud. Today Trump attempted to fire her.

Suddenly it makes sense why another Fed official, Adriana Kugler, resigned without notice or explanation. The White House immediately filled her seat with a trusted insider: Stephen Miran, a Trump economic advisor and vocal advocate for a weaker dollar.

I also predicted the Fed would cave quickly under this pressure.

And after Chairman Powell’s speech on Friday at Jackson Hole, that capitulation is now a fait accompli. He didn’t cut rates yet. But he opened the door to a rate cut as early as next month.

But cutting rates won’t be enough. If the goal is to bring long-term interest rates—and with them, the average cost of federal borrowing—down to 2%, the Fed is going to need Quantitative Easing.

With a lot of help from Grok, we calculated the Fed would have to create roughly $10 trillion in new money to achieve that target.

And as we’ve argued many times before, that level of monetary expansion will be very inflationary.

But inflation doesn’t always show up the same way.

For example, from 2008 to 2015, the Fed printed trillions… and yet retail price inflation remained muted. Food, rent, and gas prices didn’t spike dramatically. Instead, we saw asset price inflation—stocks, real estate, crypto, even fine art soared to record highs.

Then came 2020 to 2022. The Fed printed again—this time even faster—and we got both asset inflation and retail inflation. Grocery bills skyrocketed. Rent exploded. Insurance premiums multiplied. All while stocks and housing hit new peaks.

And if you look back to the 1970s, monetary accommodation triggered mostly retail price inflation, while stocks languished for a decade in real terms.

So the big question now is: what kind of inflation are we going to get this time?

That’s what we explore in today’s podcast.

We make a strong case that the Fed’s capitulation, rate cuts, and monetary expansion will continue—and we examine whether that will lead to asset price inflation, retail price inflation… or both.

We discuss:

In short, it’s a complex picture—but the strongest case points to real asset price inflation leading the way.

You can listen to the full podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC4G8nMb02w

You can access the podcast transcript here.

Few people understand how the Federal Reserve actually works— and frankly, I’m not sure the President or Treasury Secretary are among them.

That’s not an insult, just based on what they say. Let me explain.

Most people think the Fed sets “the interest rate” for everything—mortgages, car loans, 10-year yields. But that’s not how it works. The Fed only sets a very narrow rate—the overnight lending rate between banks.

Everything else, from your mortgage to the government’s long-term borrowing costs, is determined by the bond market. And as America’s debt spirals past $37 trillion, the bond market—not the Fed—is in control.

This misunderstanding matters. Because when Treasury Secretary Bessent says he’s going to “get rates down,” what he really means is printing money.

That’s the only lever left: the Federal Reserve creates money electronically and uses it to buy government bonds.

The consequence of that is inflation: more money in the system means higher prices. Sometimes it shows up in financial assets—stocks, bonds, real estate—can also surge to record highs as a result of inflation. Other times inflation hits the grocery store, your utility bill, or your insurance premiums.

Lately, it’s been both. Inflation is everywhere.

But this administration is also openly floating the idea of a sovereign wealth fund—borrowing billions (or trillions) and putting that money directly into the stock market. Intel. Nvidia. Strategic stakes in American companies.

It’s not socialism, and it’s not free markets. It’s something in between: a blending of state and corporate power. Call it National Capitalism.

If that sounds far-fetched, remember—they’re already talking about taking a stake in Intel. Why would they stop there?

This administration is full of people whose entire background is borrowing massive sums of money at low interest, pouring it into enormous projects, and pocketing the spread.

There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what they know. That’s what they do. Trump is a very successful real estate developer who has personally borrowed billions of dollars throughout his career.

So of course when they look at the economy, their instinct is to repeat the same playbook on a national scale—borrow cheap, buy big, and hope the gap between cost and return pays for everything.

But when the government itself becomes one of the biggest stock buyers, what happens to markets? They explode higher.

And you’re going to want to own assets when that happens.

This is the subject of today’s podcast.

We dive into:

And we wrap up with a quick look at Total Access—our highest level membership built around forging lasting relationships with other members in extraordinary settings. It combines world-class networking and internationalization strategies with unforgettable, once-in-a-lifetime travel experiences.

Right now, Total Access membership is open for a limited time. You can learn more here.

And you can listen to the full podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g22tNN5YNo

The podcast transcript is available here.

I was still just a kid as the US headed into the 1992 US Presidential election, but I remember the excitement around my home town as Ross Perot entered the race as an independent candidate.

Perot was from Dallas, where I grew up. And he was one of the first tech billionaires, long before the dot-com boom.

Like Elon today, Perot knew that America was heading down a dangerous fiscal path. At the time, the US government was spending about 28% of its annual tax revenue just to pay interest on the national debt.

It wasn’t because the debt was so vast. Actually back then it was just a fraction of today’s debt.

The real problem was that sky-high interest rates from the 1980s (15%+) had pushed the government’s borrowing costs and annual interest bill to the moon.

So Ross Perot decided to run for President under a promise to fix the deficit.

Few people understood anything about the deficit back then. So Perot used his vast fortune to buy TV time where he would explain the problem in hour-long presentations. I remember  learning things from him that I’d never even heard about before– Treasury markets, bond yields, government accounting, mandatory spending, and more.

Perot single-handedly dragged America’s deficit issue to the front page and started a national conversation; so even though Bill Clinton ultimately won the election, Perot succeeded in making deficit reduction a top priority.

It was interesting times politically. Clinton was rocked by scandals, impeached, and deeply hated by the other party… quite similar to the situation today. They didn’t have social media back then, but ‘talk radio’ pundits raged 24/7 with the same ferocity of today’s Twitter mob.

Yet even with such conflict and division, Congress and the White House managed to work it out. And over the next decade, interest costs fell from 28% of tax revenue down to 18%. And by the end of the 1990s the government was posting strong budget surpluses.

How did they do it? It wasn’t rocket science or black magic. They simply took a common sense approach to spending– they held spending increases to minimal levels, all while tax revenue soared thanks to a tech-fueled economic bonanza.

Over the ten-year period between 1991 and 2000, government expenditures only rose by 35%. Adjusted for inflation that’s just 5.5% over the entire decade.

Meanwhile tax revenue nearly doubled over the same period. Poof. Problem solved. And America stormed into the 21st century with a record budget surplus, and its interest costs and national debt under control.

Could this happen today? Maybe. There are a lot of similarities. The US government currently pays roughly 22% of tax revenue just to cover the annual interest bill on the national debt, and this amount is growing rapidly. Not to mention, interest costs plus mandatory entitlements (like Social Security and Medicare) already consume 100% of tax revenue.

If they don’t solve this problem, America is going to be looking at a major fiscal crisis in the coming years.

Unfortunately few people in power seem to be taking this seriously. The White House is far more focused on tariffs and trade rather than the obvious problem– excessive spending. And when it comes to deficit reduction, their approach is to seize control of the Fed to push through interest rate cuts.

Congress, meanwhile, seems completely oblivious to the problem.

One of my major concerns is that American voters tend to oscillate from one side to another. So if the guys in power now don’t solve this problem now, voters could swing hard to the Left in 2028, quite possibly to a card-carrying socialist.

There are certainly a lot of socialists emerging in American politics. And they all see deficits as a “revenue problem” and believe that higher taxes will fix every challenge.

Well, we did the math in today’s podcast: “taxing the rich” won’t make a dent in the deficit problem. Neither will wealth taxes, or any of the other idiotic proposals that socialists come up with.

The only way to fix this is to cut spending… and to spend the money much more responsibly.

Fingers crossed that they see the light. And soon. But I wouldn’t hold my breath just yet on major fiscal reform… which is why it’s so critical to have a Plan B.

Listen in to today’s podcast, in which we cover:

The bottom line:

Confiscating more from the productive economy doesn’t fix the problem; it fuels it. The only real solution starts with cutting waste and ending the government’s addiction to spending.

Until that happens, individuals need their own Plan B—whether it’s hedging against inflation with real assets, diversifying internationally, or building networks with like-minded people who see what’s coming.

That’s exactly why we built our Total Access community. Over the years, it’s become more than just an exclusive group—it’s sparked friendships, partnerships, and a global network of people who are prepared, connected, and two steps ahead. After 15+ years in this business, it’s the thing I’m most proud of.

Listen to the full breakdown here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDaLYkmgW4

And you can access the podcast transcript here.

To the surprise of absolutely no one today, the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee chose to do nothing at the close of its two-day meeting.

The White House is furious about the decision; the President believes that the Fed should be slashing rates, and that the current “high” rate of interest is costing the US government hundreds of billions of dollars each year in excess interest.

(I put “high” in quotes because interest rates are still well below historic averages…)

Now, I am no fan of the Fed. Quite the opposite— the organization is a total failure.

Just consider that section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act (passed in 1913) states that the Fed is supposed to maintain a stable currency. Yet the US dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power under the Fed’s stewardship over the past 112 years.

Personally I think it’s difficult to find another organization that has been so terrible at its core mission for so long.

Yet even with that scathing criticism in mind, it’s still not the Fed’s job to bail out the US government’s finances.

If Congress and the White House want to pay a lower interest rate on the national debt, then they can make the hard decisions to cut spending, balance the budget, and attract foreign investment by acting like responsible adults.

Unfortunately none of that seems to be in the cards.

So instead there seems to be a clear plan being hatched: Project “Hijack the Fed”.

Let’s start from the basics:

In order to fund its roughly $2 trillion annual budget deficit, the US government has to sell debt (bonds) to investors to plug its funding gap. And this responsibility falls to the Treasury Department.

Ordinarily, Treasury would sell a mix of US government bonds, ranging from ultra-short-term 28-day T-bills, to very long-term 30-year bonds.

Lately, however, the Treasury Department has been focused on selling mostly short-term bonds… simply because those rates are lower. The yield on a 12-month T-bill, for example, is just 3.86%, whereas the yield on 10-year Treasury is almost 5%, so it’s a difference of roughly 1%.

In some ways it’s sensible to take the lower rate. But it’s a risky strategy.

If interest rates suddenly rise, then the US government could wind up paying even MORE interest in the next few years, just to save 1% today.

So clearly the Treasury Department must have some confidence that rates won’t be going higher… and will probably be headed lower.

Last month Secretary Bessent even said this out loud: “What I’m going to do is, I’m going to go very short-term. . . Wait until this guy [Fed Chairman Jerome Powell] gets out, get the rates way down, and then go long-term.”

In other words, he’s going to keep selling the lower-interest short-term debt. Then, once Jerome Powell’s term as Fed Chairman ends next year, the Treasury Secretary thinks that HE will be able to “get the rates way down”, at which point he’ll start selling long-term debt to lock in lower rates.

This is a stunning admission that the Treasury Secretary (and by extension the White House) think that they will be able to steer interest rates much lower through their new Fed pick next year.

Coincidentally, Treasury Secretary Bessent also happens to be on Donald Trump’s shortlist to be the next Fed Chairman.

So let’s skip over the obvious legal and reputational issues involved in such a move.

The bigger problem is that there’s only one way for the Fed— even if Secretary Bessent becomes Chairman— to “get the rates way down”… and that is by expanding the money supply, i.e. what we often refer to as printing money.

And just as we saw during the pandemic when the Fed printed $5 trillion, large-scale money printing can easily lead to some nasty inflation.

Why it matters:

We’ve been talking about the next inflation cycle for a while, explaining why 2033 is the key date to keep in mind; this is when Social Security’s major trust fund will run out of money, prompting the Fed to print trillions of dollars and trigger inflation.

But given the Treasury Department and White House’s plan to hijack the Fed, it’s possible that the next inflation cycle could start up again as early as next year.

This isn’t a foregone conclusion. But it makes sense to pay close attention to what they’re doing, because it’s starting to look pretty obvious that they plan to print a lot of money starting next summer.

Today’s podcast:

I want to stress that I’m not predicting some imminent doom. The end of the world is not upon us. There is no reason for rational people to panic.

But it is becoming increasingly obvious where this trend will lead. The Treasury Secretary of the United States of America is flat-out saying that he’s going to “get the rates way down” as early as next summer. And it would be foolish to ignore the inflationary consequences of his plan.

We discuss all of this in depth in today’s podcast episode, including:

You can listen to today’s episode here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI28A1nfk38

You can access the podcast transcript here.

The US owes a LOT less money to China today than it did a few years ago.

As recently as three years ago, for example, China held $1.3 trillion worth of US government bonds. Today they’re down to around $750 billion.

In other words, China’s government has decided to cut back on its US dollar Treasury holdings by more than 40% over the past three years.

And at first, that might sound like a good thing— HOORAY! More independence from foreign creditors! America is better off without that Chinese money! Right?

But in reality this is a huge problem. Because it’s not just China.

Why it matters:

The US Treasury relies heavily on foreign capital to fund the federal government’s gargantuan (~$2 trillion) deficits. So if foreigners’ appetite to buy US government debt is waning— at a time when federal deficits are exploding higher— where will the Treasury Department come up with the money?

There are essentially two answers. Either (1) the Federal Reserve will “print” the money, or (2) domestic investors within the US economy will buy government bonds and fund the deficit.

But both of those options come at a significant cost.

Consequences of the Fed funding US government deficits:

Consequences of the US economy funding government deficits:

Why China is first to ditch US government bonds:

The bottom line:

The shrinking foreign appetite for US debt is a glaring red flag. It signals waning confidence in US fiscal credibility and could lead to a capital squeeze at home — or nasty inflation spiral if the Fed fills the gap.

Many Americans might cheer the idea of being less reliant on Chinese or other foreign money. But in reality, foreign investment in government debt is the closest thing to a ‘free lunch’ in economics.

It means that foreigners are financing federal deficits, meaning less inflation at home, and allowing private capital to invest directly in the US economy.

Losing this benefit is a bad thing for America.

You can listen to my full thoughts on the matter in this brief Podcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iytXWF37cQ

You can access the podcast transcript here.

Bitcoin today is trading at around $120,000. If you’re willing to pay double the price, i.e. $240,000, please contact me immediately. I’ll happily sell you some of mine.

Why would anyone do that? I don’t know. But that’s exactly what investors are doing when they buy shares in “Strategy,” formerly known as MicroStrategy.

The company currently holds about 580,000 Bitcoin, worth roughly $69 billion. But the market values the company at more than $124 billion. In other words, investors are paying nearly double just for the privilege of owning Bitcoin through a corporate intermediary.

Crazy, right? Yet Strategy’s Executive Chairman and co-founder Michael Saylor has managed to convince legions of investors to do just that— pay 2x the Bitcoin price.

He does so by presenting a bunch of made-up metrics to investors— terms like “Bitcoin Yield”, “Bitcoin Multiple”, “BTC $ Income”, and my personal favorite, “Bitcoin Torque”.

One of Saylor’s most clever ideas was to borrow money from investors to buy Bitcoin; the company issued billions of dollars of corporate bonds (which are supposed to be a ‘safe’ and stable asset), then used all the money to buy Bitcoin— an extremely volatile risk asset.

And this is why I think Michael Saylor should be the next Treasury Secretary— or at least be tapped to save Social Security.

I’m only half joking. Because Saylor’s idea to borrow money to buy Bitcoin might be one of the only ways to save Social Security without a serious tax hike or other financial pain.

Let me explain—

The Social Security system was built on a simple formula: workers and businesses pay taxes into the system, and those taxes fund the retirement checks to beneficiaries.

For decades, Social Security ran a surplus—more payroll tax revenue coming in than benefits going out. And that surplus was parked in a giant trust fund.

Unfortunately, though, Social Security’s trust fund was only allowed to invest in one thing: US government bonds.

The result? Pitiful returns averaging a measly 2%.

Now Social Security is running a deficit— the monthly benefits are exceeding payroll tax revenue. So the program’s administrators make up the difference by dipping into the trust fund.

The Social Security Administration officially estimates the fund will be fully depleted by 2033. And when that day comes, benefits will be automatically slashed by about 25%.

Cutting Social Security benefits would be political suicide. So the most likely solution is a major increase to the payroll tax.

But there may be another way.

What if the government were to borrow a bunch of money to start a Sovereign Wealth Fund… And that fund could invest in a diversified, real-world portfolio run by America’s many talented investment managers. Real estate. Commodities. Equities. Precious metals. Crypto. The kinds of assets that can actually grow.

This is exactly what Michael Saylor did. He borrowed heavily from the bond market to buy risk assets. Maybe the US government should do the same.

If the fund could manage, say, 9% annual returns over the past few decades— they could easily pay 6% to bond holders and pocket the extra 3%. Mathematically it works— such a return would reverse Social Security’s looming insolvency if the fund were of sufficient size.

There’s obviously risk in the plan, which is why I’m half-joking. But Social Security is in dire enough shape that all options ought to be considered.

Coincidentally, Congress is discussing setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund this week… Though I’m not holding my breath on this, let alone any meaningful reform on Social Security.

Peter and I both believe that the inevitable outcome here is that the Federal Reserve will step in to print money and bail out both Social Security AND the Treasury Department.

In fact the White House is already identifying potential candidates to replace Fed chairman Jerome Powell when his term expires next year, as well as other members of the Fed’s board.

It’s pretty clear they want people at the Fed who will cut rates, print money, and bow to the President. So there’s a very good chance that, next year, the Fed will become much more subservient to the White House.

Such a Fed would not hesitate to engage in ‘quantitative easing’ (i.e. ‘money printing’) to the tune of trillions of dollars in order to save Social Security, or to finance massive US government deficits.

The end result will almost certainly be a major bout of inflation— probably similar to 1970s style stagflation.

It’s why we continue to assert that real assets are very sensible investments because they tend to perform so well during inflationary times.

You can hear my complete thoughts on this wild idea in today’s short video, which you can watch here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUxx6zFHeH8

You can access the podcast transcript here.

It’s “Crypto Week” on Capitol Hill with all sorts of crypto legislation on the docket— including the so-called GENIUS Act that aims to regulate stablecoins.

I’m not sure the GENIUS Act is in fact genius, but it might be a pretty clever given its potential benefit to the Treasury Department and government bond market.

On its surface, the bill aims to provide a formal regulatory framework for anyone who wants to issue stablecoins, i.e. digital assets that are typically pegged to the US dollar to maintain a “stable” value.

But beneath the surface, the GENIUS Act is a way to funnel more money into US government bonds.

I’ve written about this many times before: the US government is hopelessly addicted to irresponsible spending. Multi-trillion-dollar deficits are no longer the exception—they’re the baseline.

And these massive deficits require the Treasury Department to borrow more money from the bond market.

Problem is that some of the biggest buyers of US government debt securities— specifically foreign governments and central banks— are starting to lose their appetite to invest more money in Treasury bonds.

So Uncle Sam is feverishly trying to drum up more lenders.

Enter the GENIUS Act— which requires stablecoins to be backed by “safe” assets, like… US government bonds!

The Treasury Department is probably hoping that some of the crypto wealth tied up in Bitcoin’s latest all time highs will flow into stablecoins… and thus into the US Treasurys backing them.

But if they think this is the silver bullet to fix America’s fiscal mess, they should think again.

Unlike traditional long-term bond buyers who help lock in funding for decades, stablecoin issuers (according to the GENIUS Act) will only be able to buy the shortest term US government debt, like 90-day T-bills.

This means that the Treasury Department will face constant pressure to refinance a major chunk of its debt every few months.

We discuss this in today’s podcast— where we also answered some reader questions about stablecoins.

One reader, for example, asked if stablecoins are a good way to diversify out of the US financial system.

My answer? Not really.

Once the GENIUS Act passes, most of these stablecoins will be issued by US-based companies and regulated by US government agencies. And over time, more and more agencies will likely encroach into the stablecoin industry— the SEC, IRS, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, etc.

That means if the government wants to restrict, freeze, or confiscate your digital dollars, they won’t even need to break a sweat. It just takes a phone call and a compliance letter.

More importantly, even if the coin maintains its 1:1 dollar peg, it’s still tied to the dollar. And if the dollar loses value due to inflation—which it is and will almost certainly continue to do—then your stablecoin will depreciate right alongside it.

Bottom line— holding a stablecoin doesn’t matter if the underlying currency is unstable. You’re not really diversifying any sovereign or currency risk.

If you’re looking for real diversification—something that actually hedges against the US dollar and protects your purchasing power—stablecoins aren’t the answer.

Gold, productive assets, other crypto, foreign stocks and financial accounts… those are the tools for genuine financial diversification.

If you want to hear my full thoughts on the GENIUS Act, stablecoins, and the implications to the US Treasury market, listen to this short podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isApDBrYwp4

You can access the podcast transcript here.

Many of our readers know that I was an Army intelligence officer, and so I want to start by clearing up some basic terminology.

When people talk about intelligence work, they often confuse terms like asset, agent, and operative.

An asset is someone who provides intelligence—intentionally or not—to an agency. Even a guy who’s bragging in bed to some woman he doesn’t realize is part of a honeypot intelligence operation. He’s spilling secrets and doesn’t even know it. That’s an asset.

An agent, by contrast, knows what they’re doing. They’re actively, willingly working with an intelligence agency. They’re recruited, trained, and they know who they’re talking to.

And an operative is someone actually doing the work—on the ground, collecting the data, running the missions. When people say “CIA agent,” thinking of a James Bond style spy, what they probably mean is an “operative.”

Which brings us to Jeffrey Epstein.

Is it plausible that Epstein was in the intelligence business, either as an agent or even an operative? Of course. It is extremely likely.

This was a guy with deep access to powerful people in politics, finance, science, and media. He was inside every major institution and had personal relationships with celebrities, billionaires, royalty, and heads of state.

Clearly the intelligence community would take an interest in someone like that. Epstein had access, influence, dirt, connections—and he knew how to use them. Combine that with his ability to blackmail people who committed the most vile crimes imaginable and you’ve got leverage more powerful than aircraft carriers and nuclear warheads.

And that may be why no real information has been released.

If Epstein was working with US intelligence, the implications are beyond horrifying.

We’re talking about the federal government—funded by your tax dollars—knowingly enabling a long-term blackmail operation built on the exploitation of children.

If they admit Epstein was one of theirs, they’d be admitting that senior officials knew what he was doing, who he was abusing. They let it happen, and they used it as a tool of statecraft.

That kind of admission would light a match to the powder keg that is American distrust in government. And they know it.

There’s also the possibility, that Epstein worked for a foreign intelligence service— and the US intelligence and law enforcement establishment didn’t even realize it.

Which would mean the entire US intelligence community—the CIA, FBI, DOJ, NSA—missed the fact that a foreign service was running a massive blackmail operation on US soil, targeting US officials, abusing children… and they did nothing about it.

That’s not just a failure. That’s catastrophic incompetence.

And their motivation to cover that up would be similar to the UK “Grooming Gangs” cover-up that I recently wrote about.

In the UK, grooming gangs operated for years while the government and media looked the other way. Why? Because investigating them might have been politically incorrect. It might’ve been an admission that mass migration and multicultural policies went horribly wrong.

So instead, they gaslit the public, censored speech, and criminalized dissent.

The same pattern is happening here. A massive scandal implicating the highest levels of government, media, academia, celebrity, and global finance is being buried—because admitting the truth would mean admitting failure on a colossal, nation-destroying scale.

I ask a couple other questions in today’s brief podcast, such as:

Where are the investigative journalists? Do you remember the clowns at ProPublica who got their hands on Warren Buffett’s tax returns and paraded them like it was the scoop of the century?

Why haven’t they gone after Epstein’s hedge fund, his financials, his filings? Where’s the Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé?

Same with The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the self-righteous media establishment. These were the same outlets that spent years on the Russia hoax—yet they can’t be bothered to find out who funded a billionaire trafficker with mysterious money inflows and deep ties to intelligence?

Let’s believe, for a moment, there is no “client list.” What about the IRS data? The FinCEN filings? There’s NOTHING? If there were really no evidence, why did they even bother arresting the guy to begin with? How were they going to convict him?

Or perhaps, did the Trump administration look at what Epstein had and decide to weaponize it for national leverage?

Maybe the files are being used to squeeze foreign leaders into signing trade deals, backing US policy, or bending the knee on global negotiations. That kind of leverage could be seen as a strategic asset in the cold calculus of geopolitics.

But if that’s the play, then I’d expect the President to level with the American public. If you’re going to make the morally repugnant decision to use evidence of unspeakable crimes as a tool of statecraft rather than bring the perpetrators to justice, then admit it. Own it.

Ironically, the clearest voice of reason I’ve heard on this came from Rob Schneider. Yes, the actor from Deuce Bigalow.

He said, “Release all the Epstein files, no matter the consequences. This is America. We’ll deal with whatever happens.” And he’s right.

The fact that they are not releasing any information makes me believe that the truth is so bad,  the consequences of doing so would be truly Revolutionary— with a capital R.

You can listen to my complete thoughts on the matter here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf63XL35ZQY

You can access the podcast transcript here.

In today’s podcast, we take on a provocative question from a reader: What is the single root cause behind America’s decline?

You might think it’s overspending, or the Federal Reserve, or career politicians. But what if it’s something even more fundamental… like letting just anyone vote?

Should someone be allowed to vote if they don’t understand basic concepts like what a deficit is, or how the government even works?

This episode digs deep into the consequences of letting uninformed masses steer the ship of state — and why it leads, predictably, to disaster.

We also address:

Click here to listen to the full episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-pON0_L0Yc

You can access the podcast transcript here.

In our latest podcast, we dissect one of the most toxic patterns in American governance: total abandonment of principle the moment it’s politically inconvenient.

In 2022, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan criticized the idea that a single lower court judge could block an entire federal policy from taking effect across the whole country—saying it “wasn’t right.”

But last week, she voted to preserve them… because they could be used to block Trump.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans—once furious over Pelosi’s “zero-cost” fantasy math—are now pushing their own trillion-dollar bill using the same fake arithmetic. Lindsey Graham, as Senate Budget Committee chairman, even called himself Zeus, the “King of the Numbers.”

When no one on either side sticks to principles, the result is:

In this episode, we also cover:

Click here to listen now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DcYri_yx14

The podcast transcript is available to you here.