On September 30, 2025, a swaggering Secretary of Defense (“War”), Pete Hegseth, delivered his “warrior ethos” lecture to the 800 top generals and admirals of the American military, whom he had assembled for a command performance.
One year later, an assessment is called for.
“The military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things… we became the ‘woke’ department,” he said. We must “remove the social justice, politically correct and toxic ideological garbage,” he fulminated, adding that “serving with fat or unfit or under-trained troops” is a violation, in effect, of the Golden Rule. (You wouldn’t want to share a foxhole with a fat person, so don’t be fat yourself). Henceforth, the “highest standards” must be met. He told his audience that it is “completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals.”
Was our first president and commander-in-chief too “woke” for Secretary Hegseth?
Secretary Hegseth would see to it that “grooming standards” would be strictly enforced. “No more beardos!” He wants a “lethal department of war.” Furthermore, “words like bullying and hazing and toxic have been weaponized and bastardized… basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough, and disciplined.”
“We’re empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future war fighters are forged… and yes, they can put their hands on recruits.”
In what way has Hegseth’s tough training regimen been helpful in the country’s pursuit of its war with Iran? Probably in no way. A drone operator obviously requires different skills from a WWI or WWII infantryman.
Finally, in his oration, Hegseth announced, “We don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement.” That particular point raises serious questions, discussed later. (The questionable legality of the Iran War itself cannot be discussed in this limited space.)
In his blustering speech, Secretary Hegseth either ignored or was unaware of important critiques published shortly after WWII. During that war, a team of social psychologists conducted for the Research Branch, Information and Education Division of the War Department, an extensive study, consisting of numerous opinion surveys, on the attitudes of American fighting men. It was an attempt to discover the motivations that made men fight. This four-volume study, edited by Samuel A. Stouffer and published in 1949, is known as The American Soldier: Combat and its Aftermath.
The study debunked the myth that discipline will crumble in combat in the absence of terror in training. It further debunked the myth that glorification of trivia (grooming and “spit and polish”) increases combat proficiency. It also shattered the illusion—prevailing in the officer corps at the time—that Black soldiers would prefer to serve under white officers rather than under Black officers.
In 1946, another in-depth military study, known as the Doolittle Board, issued even more striking assessments of officer-enlisted relations in the armed forces. Among other proposals, it recommended that the social distinctions between enlisted soldiers and officers be greatly eased.
Secretary Hegseth’s machismo, his atavistic and simplistic notions of warrior ethos, clearly drive his policy preferences. If he were aware of the Stouffer study or the Doolittle Board, he would likely deem their recommendations as too “woke.”
And yet, they were in step with the American military’s original philosophy of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline. For hundreds of years, army manuals have exhorted officers to recognize the intimate relationship between discipline and morale. Even Baron von Steuben, the Prussian military theorist whose codes were adopted wholesale by the American revolutionary army, realized the importance of morale in armies that reflected the caste systems of 18th-century Europe. These, for example, are some of von Steuben’s “Instructions for the Captain”:
His first object should be, to gain the love of his men, by treating them with every possible kindness and humanity, inquiring into their complaints, and when well founded, seeing them redressed.
The baron’s “Instructions for the Sergeants and Corporals” convey the same message:
In teaching the recruits, they must exercise all their patience, by no means abusing them, but treating them with mildness…
George Washington relied on Baron von Steuben’s manuals. Was our first president and commander-in-chief too “woke” for Secretary Hegseth?
There is an aspect of Hegseth’s bombastic oration which is even more problematical, his proclamation that henceforth, “we… don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement.” This dangerous notion has impelled Hegseth to launch policies which, in the opinions of many lawyers, military and civilian, have led to American officials and military personnel committing murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—both in the war against Iran and in the campaign to execute without trial suspected drug traffickers in small boats in the Caribbean.
Although military subordinates must obey all lawful orders or be subject to court-martial for violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), they must disobey unlawful orders. What makes an order illegal? When an order is “so manifestly beyond the scope of the superior officer’s authority and the order is so obviously and palpably unlawful as to admit of no reasonable doubt of its unlawfulness,” there is actually a duty to disobey it. (U.S. v. Kinder, 14 CMR 742, 1953). “I was just following orders” in such a case is no defense. Examples of obviously illegal orders are those to target civilians; or abuse trainees; or torture or kill detainees; or otherwise to violate federal law or the Constitution. The prosecutions of Americans for their cruel actions at Mai Lai in the Vietnam War and Abu Ghraib in the Iraq War are situations where the defense of “just following orders” was not successful. In those situations, crucial rules of engagement were not followed. The bottom line: The law requires American soldiers to be reasoning agents, not unquestioning robots. Scaring trainees into unquestioning obedience does not prepare them for modern warfare.
Violations of international law, as embodied in the Geneva Conventions, can also subject a civilian or soldier to criminal prosecution. At least since 1949, the Geneva Conventions have prohibited “cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Since his speech, Secretary Hegseth has announced that under his regime, American troops should “give no quarter,” meaning show no mercy, even to surrendering or disarmed combatants. This policy was applied to the drug-trafficking suspects in the Caribbean who, under Hegseth’s orders, were killed by American military personnel. The excuse given by him and President Donald Trump, is that the drug-runners are combatants in a “war,” which is nonsense. Trump and Hegseth claim they were given legal cover by an official opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel. That classified opinion—which purports to justify the killing of drug traffickers without legal proceedings—is strongly disputed by human rights organizations and many others. Unfortunately, it remains classified to this day. In my opinion, like the memo written by John Yoo purporting to render lawful the waterboarding of terrorism suspects during the Iraq War, it will someday be discredited. And the perpetrators of the Caribbean killings might find themselves indicted.
The hard-nosed approach by the Trump administration and Secretary Hegseth toward the training and deployment of American armed forces is not only unwise and counterproductive. It is a disgrace to the reputation of the United States
Here’s a blog version that keeps the frustration and the perspective of watching America from abroad, while sharpening the argument around the midterms and election trust.
News From Afar
Being on an extended work trip through Latin America and now Europe has given me a somewhat unique perspective on the American presidency and the state of our country.
Sometimes you see home a little more clearly when you’re standing somewhere else.
And right now, from over here, America looks strange.
Americans are dealing with rising prices. Inflation remains stubbornly above the Federal Reserve’s target, with tariffs and the war with Iran among the pressures being felt in the economy. (AP News)
Families notice it at the grocery store. Businesses notice it when they order supplies. Travelers notice it. Everyone notices it.
Meanwhile, the President of the United States seems laser-focused on…other things.
His ballroom.
Renovating Washington.
Putting his name on things.
Gold trim and presidential seals.
And now, apparently, renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America.”
Yes. Really.
President Trump signed an executive order today directing the federal government to call Lake Ontario “Lake America.” Of course, Canada is under absolutely no obligation to call it that. (Reuters)
And neither, frankly, is anyone else in normal conversation.
No one is going to call it that, Donald.
And while we’re talking about executive orders, can we talk about the way Trump signs them? Every signing ceremony ends the same way. He holds up the document with that enormous black-marker signature and displays it to the cameras like a kindergartener who has just finished his latest masterpiece. “Look what I made!” Very nice, Donald. Beautiful use of the Sharpie. We’ll put it right on the refrigerator next to the finger painting and the macaroni picture. The only difference is that when a five-year-old proudly shows you his artwork, it usually hasn’t just changed federal policy.
There is something almost comical about all of this—until you remember that there are some decidedly unfunny things happening at the same time.
The one I am watching most closely is the attack on mail-in voting.
Don’t be fooled into thinking this is simply about mail-in ballots.
It isn’t.
Trump’s executive order would significantly expand federal involvement in determining who receives mail ballots and how states administer them. The Postal Service has now begun implementing new requirements while states are challenging them in court, just weeks before voting begins in the midterm elections. (Reuters)
And remember: Trump himself has voted by mail.
So I don’t believe the real objective is eliminating mail-in voting.
The objective is distrust.
Create doubt about the system.
Tell people repeatedly that elections are insecure.
Tell them voter rolls cannot be trusted.
Tell them mail ballots cannot be trusted.
Tell them election officials cannot be trusted.
Then, if November doesn’t go your way, the groundwork has already been laid.
“The election was stolen.”
We have seen this movie before.
What concerns me now is that this time Trump is not simply a candidate complaining about an election system from the outside. He is the sitting President of the United States, with the machinery of the federal government at his disposal.
That makes this different.
The Constitution gives states—and, in federal elections, Congress—central roles in setting election rules. That is precisely why Trump’s attempts to impose new national voting requirements through executive power have generated such significant constitutional challenges. (The White House)
My greatest concern isn’t merely that Trump will complain that another election was “stolen.”
We’ve already lived through that.
My concern is what happens after he makes that claim.
What happens if the midterms go badly for Republicans?
What happens if control of Congress changes hands?
What happens if the President declares some results illegitimate?
What happens if federal agencies are pressured to intervene?
What happens if we reach a point where Americans aren’t arguing about who won an election, but whether the government will accept the results of one?
That is the line we cannot cross.
And here’s the uncomfortable perspective you get when you spend significant time outside the United States:
People are watching us.
I talk to people in Mexico, Italy and elsewhere in Europe. They read our news. They follow our elections. They ask questions about what is happening in Washington.
And sometimes I don’t have a very good answer.
For most of my life, Americans grew up hearing that the United States was the envy of the world.
The stable democracy.
The economic powerhouse.
The country with institutions strong enough to survive political disagreements.
The place where presidents come and go but the system endures.
We shouldn’t assume that reputation is permanent.
It isn’t.
From afar, some of what is happening in America doesn’t look powerful.
It looks petty.
A president feuding with Canada while renaming a shared Great Lake after America. A $400 million White House ballroom project caught up in litigation over presidential authority. Political fights over whose name gets carved into buildings. (Reuters)
These are the things occupying our national conversation while Americans worry about the cost of living, housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure and their children’s future.
And while the basic machinery of our democracy is being questioned again.
The United States used to be the unquestioned envy of much of the world.
Today?
I’m sorry.
It isn’t.
That doesn’t mean America is finished.
Far from it.
But patriotism isn’t pretending everything your country does is wonderful. Patriotism is caring enough about your country to recognize when it is falling short of what it claims to be.
America has always been an unfinished project.
Every generation inherits it.
Every generation gets a chance to improve it—or damage it.
Right now, we need to decide which generation we are going to be.
Yesterday I flew back from a work trip in Iceland.
One of the interesting things about traveling internationally is that people inevitably ask questions about America. They ask about our politics, our economy, our culture, and increasingly, Donald Trump. This wasn’t the first time I’ve found myself trying to explain the Trump administration to people overseas, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
The question is usually some variation of the same thing:
“How can Americans allow this to happen?”
It’s a fair question.
The uncomfortable answer is that many Americans aren’t allowing it. Millions of us have voted against it repeatedly. Millions more have protested it, written about it, organized against it, and warned about it. But our system was designed with checks and balances that require institutions to do their jobs.
Right now, Congress largely isn’t.
The founders envisioned Congress as a co-equal branch of government capable of checking presidential power. Instead, it has become increasingly polarized, increasingly dysfunctional, and increasingly unwilling to challenge presidents from its own party.
The growth of executive power didn’t start with Donald Trump. Every administration since Reagan has expanded the authority of the presidency in one way or another. Democrats did it. Republicans did it. Congress often stood by and watched.
Trump simply took that trend and put it on steroids. Like everything he does, he turned it up to 11.
On the flight home, I was looking for something to have on as background noise while finishing some work on my laptop. I settled on All the President’s Men, the classic film about the Watergate scandal.
I hadn’t seen it in more than a decade. As the movie played, I found myself thinking something I never expected to think: Watergate almost looked cute.
Not because it wasn’t serious. It was. Nixon’s operatives infiltrated the Democratic Party, engaged in political espionage, and attempted to manipulate an election. The cover-up ultimately brought down a president.
At the time, Americans were horrified.
Republicans and Democrats alike eventually concluded that what Nixon had done was unacceptable. Members of his own party confronted him. The institutions worked. The rule of law prevailed.
Now compare that to where we are today.
A sitting president lost an election and spent months spreading lies about voter fraud. Those lies culminated in a violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. A mob assaulted police officers, smashed windows, hunted elected officials, and attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power that has defined American democracy for nearly 250 years.
FILE PHOTO: Police release tear gas into a crowd of pro-Trump protesters during clashes at a rally to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, U.S, January 6, 2021. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo
Think about that for a moment.
Watergate involved burglars breaking into an office building. January 6 involved thousands of people attacking the Capitol itself!
Yet somehow, in today’s political environment, the latter is treated by many as a partisan disagreement rather than an assault on democracy.
Many participants were investigated, prosecuted, and convicted. Then Trump returned to office and pardoned them! That is INSANE! Not just because I do not agree with it. BUT A SITTING PRESIDENT WHO TALKED ABOUT LAND AND ORDER PARDONED PEOPLE WHO ASSAULTED POLICE OFFICERS. Now Trump and his allies have even discussed mechanisms to compensate participants for what they describe as unjust prosecutions.
You can’t justify that to your neighbor here. Can you imagine explaining that to someone in Iceland? How can the generation who lived through Watergate explain it to themselves?
The alarming reality is that the scandal that brought down Nixon would barely survive a single news cycle today. I find that terrifying.
The corruption isn’t just the actions themselves. It is the normalization of behavior that previous generations would have found unthinkable.
Conflicts of interest that would have triggered investigations are now shrugged off.
Attempts to pressure institutions are dismissed as politics.
Open attacks on judges, prosecutors, journalists, and civil servants have become routine.
The outrage has been exhausted.
The public has become numb.
That may be Trump’s greatest achievement—not convincing Americans that corruption is acceptable, but convincing many that it is inevitable.
I don’t believe that. I cannot accept that.
I still believe most Americans, regardless of party, want honest government. I still believe most Americans value the Constitution more than any politician. I still believe most Americans understand that loyalty to a country must always come before loyalty to a leader.
But belief isn’t enough.
The institutions that protect democracy only work when the people inside them have the courage to defend them.
Congress was designed to be one of those institutions.
Right now, it is failing that test. And until it finds the courage to act like a co-equal branch of government again, Americans will continue finding themselves overseas, trying to explain the unexplainable.
Trying to answer a question that becomes harder every day:
How did we get to the point where Watergate looks small?
More importantly, what are we going to do about it?
Congress must start acting like an independent branch of government again, not a cheering section for whichever party happens to hold power. Lawmakers of both parties need to remember that their oath is to the Constitution, not to a president, a party leader, or a political movement. Oversight is not optional. Accountability is not partisan. Defending democratic institutions is the job they were elected to do.
And for the rest of us, the responsibility is just as real.
We cannot afford to reward cowardice. We cannot keep sending politicians back to Washington who remain silent when principles are tested. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or something else entirely, demand more from the people who ask for your vote.
Vote for people with the backbone to tell their own side when it is wrong. Vote for people who will defend the rule of law even when it is politically inconvenient. Vote for people who put country before party and Constitution before career.
Because if enough Americans do that, then maybe someday the question people ask overseas will change.
Instead of asking how Americans allowed this to happen, they might ask how Americans found the courage to stop it.
The growing concentration of power in the presidency will not be solved by the White House alone—it requires Congress to step up and fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. This fall, voters have an opportunity to demand that change. If you are unhappy with the direction of the country, make your voice heard at the ballot box. As I travel, I find myself increasingly frustrated trying to explain the state of American politics. I remember when conversations about the United States centered on its innovation, opportunity, and democratic ideals. Today, too often, those discussions are overshadowed by concerns about political dysfunction, corruption, and a government that seems unable or unwilling to address the challenges facing the nation.
But let’s start by being honest about what actually made America great in the first place.
It wasn’t slogans. It wasn’t hats. And it certainly wasn’t loyalty to one man.
America was great because we stood up for what was right—even when it was hard.
We passed laws for moral reasons. We struck down laws for moral reasons.
We waged a war on poverty—not a war on poor people.
We invested in each other. We cared about our neighbors. We believed that when America succeeded, it was because all of us were pulling in the same direction.
We built big things—dams, highways, universities, research institutions.
We made astonishing technological advances. We cured diseases. We explored the universe.
We cultivated the greatest artists, the greatest scientists, and the most dynamic economy the world has ever seen.
We reached for the stars.
And we were able to do those things because we respected knowledge.
We aspired to intelligence. We didn’t belittle it. We didn’t fear it. We didn’t treat education or expertise like some kind of enemy.
And we didn’t scare so easily.
Today, that spirit is under attack.
Donald Trump and the people who enable him have replaced patriotism with grievance. They have turned politics into a loyalty test to one man instead of a commitment to one country.
They mock intelligence. They undermine truth. They divide Americans against each other.
And now, once again, they have entangled the United States in another Middle East conflict—one that makes Americans less safe, not more.
That is not strength.
That is recklessness.
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.
And right now, we have a problem.
America is not the greatest country in the world today—not when we tolerate corruption, cruelty, and ignorance in our leadership.
But here’s the good news:
We can fix it.
Because greatness doesn’t come from slogans. It does not come from rage. It does not come from lies. It does not come from bullying the weak, demonizing immigrants, attacking education, or turning patriotism into a costume.
It comes from courage. From sacrifice. From intelligence. From decency.
From citizens who are willing to stand up and say:
We can do better.
If we truly want to make America great again, then the first step is simple.
STOP saying YES to Donald Trump and the politicians who enable him. STOP voting for the unserious members of the GOP whose only goal is to get invited to Mara Lago.
And then let’s get back to the work that actually made this country great in the first place.
Building. Inventing. Discovering. Learning. And taking care of one another.
The Mandate of Accountability: Defending the American Idea
It is time to say out loud what too many people are whispering: this is not normal governance. What we are witnessing is an organized abuse of power.
I have spent more than 30 years running a business. I have served on my city council. I have coached athletes who wore “USA” across their chests. I understand what accountability looks like, I understand budgets, and I understand the sacred responsibility one has to the people they serve.
What we are watching right now from the Trump administration is the opposite of responsibility. It is corruption wrapped in a flag.
A Pattern of Abuse
We must be clear about what this corruption looks like in practice. It is a systematic dismantling of our norms and rights, including:
• Weaponizing ICE: Agencies unleashed with minimal training and maximum intimidation.
• Trampling Constitutional Rights: This includes arrests for speech, warrantless raids, and the ignoring of due process.
• Subverting Justice: A Department of Justice bent to serve one man’s personal grievances while Capitol rioters who beat police officers are released.
• Retaliation: Open defiance of court orders and attacks on universities, law firms, and critics.
• Direct Harm: Citizens killed and subsequently slandered to justify the state’s actions.
This corruption is so blatant that even conservative commentators are beginning to sound the alarm.
The Shadows of the Epstein Files
Remember the promise? There was a loud commitment to expose the global crimes of “the elite” and tear down the powerful who abused children in the shadows.
Instead, they are protecting those shadows.
They stall, they redact, they “lose” documents, and they slow-walk disclosures. They claim transparency while hiding the very evidence they once screamed about. This failure has exposed the truth: they don’t want accountability; they want control.
The Strategy of Chaos
If you feel overwhelmed, it is because you are meant to. By creating chaos everywhere at once—in the courts, the press, and our foreign policy—the goal is to exhaust the public and make outrage feel pointless.
Criminals rely on silence and fatigue. But Americans are at our best when we decide we have finally had enough.
The Call to Action
We must anticipate that there will be attempts to manipulate future elections, as we saw in 2020, because criminals repeat behaviors that yield no consequences. To stop this, we must:
1. Organize and Vote: Show up both locally and nationally to protect election integrity.
2. Demand the Truth: Insist on the full, unredacted release of the Epstein files, regardless of who is implicated.
3. Defend the Constitution: Support candidates who prioritize our founding documents over the interests of one man.
4. Refuse to Normalize Corruption: We must pay attention and volunteer.
America is not a man, a party, or a cult—it is an idea. That idea only survives if we have the courage to defend it.
Love of country is not blind loyalty; it is the courage to say we can do better. Register, volunteer, and vote like the Constitution depends on it—because it does.
Big Ag Has Corrupted Our Food System. Here’s How We Can Rebuild — An Introduction
There are certain truths in this country that cut across party lines, geography, and ideology. One of them is this: our food system is broken.
For decades, Big Agriculture has consolidated power, squeezed out family farms, degraded our soil and waterways, and flooded our communities with highly processed food that is cheap at the checkout counter but devastatingly expensive to our long-term health. Meanwhile, small farmers struggle to survive, rural communities hollow out, and consumers are left wondering why food is both unaffordable and lower in quality than ever.
This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because policy choices — made in Washington and echoed in statehouses across the country — consistently favored consolidation over competition, scale over sustainability, and corporate profit over public health. When a handful of massive companies control seed, fertilizer, processing, and distribution, the system stops serving people and starts serving shareholders.
As a business owner, I understand efficiency. As a city councilor, I understand budgets and infrastructure. But as someone who cares deeply about community health and long-term resilience, I also understand that a system designed purely for short-term profit is not sustainable. Not for farmers. Not for consumers. And certainly not for the next generation.
Rebuilding our food system isn’t about nostalgia for some imagined past. It’s about creating a modern, resilient, and fair system that supports local agriculture, protects our environment, and ensures that the food on our tables actually nourishes the people eating it.
The following piece lays out how Big Ag helped create the mess we’re in — and, more importantly, how we can begin to fix it.
Big Ag Has Corrupted Our Food System. Here’s How We Can Rebuild.
Austin Frerick explains how eaters and farmers can unite to fix our broken food system
I first came across Austin Frerick inThe American Conservativein 2019.His story,“To Revive Rural America, We Must Fix Our Broken Food System,” with its plain-spoken, factual description of how Big Ag conglomerates have held hostage and defrauded farmers for generations, was an awakening.
Not since Osha Gray Davidson published his 1990 Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural Ghettohad I read someone who could break beyond a liberal audience to expose our country’s failed agricultural policy and its impact on rural communities. Both Frerick and Davidson help those from rural places understand what happened to us over the last half-century under the influence of “get big or get out”—the advice Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz gave U.S. farmers in 1973
Like Davidson, Frerick delivers a warning that transcends the politicization of farming: Big Ag monopolies, and the policies that allowed them to thrive, have failed our rural communities and country’s food system, leaving them vulnerable to epic failures. The urgency of that message has even spooked the government officials and powerful industry leaders who helped create the farming crisis we face today. On February 3 former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials from the Bush and Reagan administrations, as well as former heads of industry groups representing corn and soybean farmers,sent a letter to Congresswarning of “a widespread collapse of American agriculture” should current economic conditions and Trump administration policies continue.
But Frerick also sees bold possibilities to disrupt the Big Ag status quo. In his conversation withBarn Raiser, Frerick considers ways to dismantle monopolies and solutions to transform food policy to support small farmers. He invites us to entertain what is possible if we face the crisis in agriculture with strategic action instead of apathy.
Frerick, a seventh generation Iowan, is an expert in antitrust law and agricultural policy. He’s lead projects at the Open Markets Institute and he’s published research and analysis for tax journals, theNew York Times, and at the U.S. Department of Treasury. He served as a co-chair on the Biden campaign’s Agriculture Antitrust Policy Committee. His 2024 book,Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industryexposes the families who control America’s agricultural monopolies.
This is the first of a two-part interview with Frerick.
The last time I talked to you was back in September when the Arkansas farmers were raising alarm bells. At a hearing with the House Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources subcommittee, Arkansas lenders and farmers warned that1 in 3 farms could closewithout federal aid because of how Trump’s tariffs had upended export markets. How are you making sense of the moment we find ourselves in?
What’s happening with farmers says everything about this moment. Last week, theNew York Timesran a story saying farmers are going to let theircrops rotbecause the prices are so bad. At the same time, we’re having a food affordability crisis. That juxtaposition captures how broken our food system is, where farmers are letting crops rot and they’re barely getting by as Americans are paying more and more for food in the stores.
On January 1, the U.S. Department of Agriculture began implementing a new rule requiring that “Product of U.S.A.” labeling on meat only apply to livestock born, processed, finished in the United States. Is this a win for farmers and eaters?
No, and here’s why. I’m so sick of giving gold stars for doing basic things. When Americans buy meat that says “made in America,” it should mean made in America. This debate has been going on for more than a decade. To me, this is a good example of the incompetency of the USDA: You don’t get a reward for doing your job.
It’s embarrassing more than anything that it took them this long to make the “Product of U.S.A” label mean something.
The scariest thing to me right now in the beef market is this: Normally in moments like this where prices are high and herd populations are low, ranchers expand the herd. But they’re not doing that. We’re not seeing herd expansion.
And what this is telling me is these markets have been so tight for so long. They don’t trust the USDA to police these markets and they don’t think they’ll get a good price in the future. So they’re essentially letting the American herd shrink. That means more and more of our beef will have to be imported. What’s going on in the beef markets is a good example of just how hard it is to farm in America anymore.
I want to talk about pricing for a second. In 2019, the cost for a pound of hamburger was just under four dollars. Today it’s more like six and a half dollars. Many eaters can’t afford hamburger anymore. So, who’s making the money for the last seven years?
The Big Four meatpackers (Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef). R-CALF USA is a great cattlemen’s organization and they have a chart I love to show in my presentations. For the longest time, what Americans spend for beef and the dollars ranchers get in return has been closely correlated. What happened in 2015 is a significant divergence started to occur. Today that gap is wider than ever. And that to me is a story of monopoly. You’re seeing Americans spend record prices for beef, but that’s not going to the farmer. It’s all going to the four largest meatpackers.
The largest meatpacker in America (JBS) is owned by a cartoonishly corrupt Brazilian family, the Batistas. They were also Trump’s largest inauguration donor. So it’s all going to them.
Think of what this means for rural communities. You’re seeing the wealth of rural America being hollowed out. Farmers are producing the most they’ve ever produced, but that wealth is not staying in their community. And so Americans are paying more and a secretive family, whether it is the Cargills of Cargill or the Batistas of JBS, is capturing all that.
And on top of it, you’re seeing a lot of corners being cut. Beef imported from Brazil is just not as good. Something I realized in the last few years is this whole system is making bad tasting food.
I get chicken through a local farmer right here in southwest Virginia. When you start eating locally, like chicken that’s raised on a normal farm, the difference is amazing compared to the Tyson chicken you buy in a chain store. Eaters have no idea.
It’s also that the farmer doing it right, managing their operation locally, is not playing on a level playing field. The local farmer is not getting government subsidies. These industrial big corporations are. It’s just not fair.
My favorite example to illustrate this is butter. Butter in America is awful. It’s white. It’s hard. It doesn’t spread well.
Most of the butter in America now comes from Bakersfield, California. It’s cows on a feedlot next to an oil rig, being fed corn. On the other hand, Kerrygold is now the second largest branded butter in America. Irish butter. People love it. Here’s the thing: That’s the way butter used to be in America. But now it’s a premium. Now it’s only for the yuppie class, which just shows you how many corners are being cut.
We’ve chosen to subsidize this really bad system. And most of the subsidies are just being captured by a few rich oligarchs or robber barons.
Tyson Foods announced in January that they’re cutting 5,000 employees in their industry. They cut a line in Amarillo, Texas, with about 1,700 employees losing their jobs. And then in Lexington, Nebraska, they’re closing a whole beef processing plant. That’s 3,200 employees who are losing their jobs. Lexington, in Dawson County, has a population of 10,348. So about a third of the whole community is facing unemployment. But for Tyson, this is just business as usual.
The reason Tyson gave is it expected to lose $250-$500 million in its beef segment, so they are deciding to scale back operations. Yet the United States right now is not producing enough beef to meet demand. What is happening here, and why is Tyson closing domestic processing plants?
It’s a few things. As I mentioned earlier, our beef supply chain is moving offshore. But Tyson’s also in a weird pickle. Other big beef packers like JBS are state-backed monopolies. Tyson doesn’t have these Brazilian operations like they do.
You also can’t deny the climate crisis here.
A lot of former beef packing regions are getting too hot and the aquifers are getting too low. A few years ago, in western Kansas, thousands of cattle died because of a heat wave.
At the same time the ethanol mandate has essentially pushed a lot of cattle ranchers off the land. Ranchers are in this weird pickle where they have less land because of the climate crisis, but then corn being grown from ethanol subsidies is taking over a lot more land too. They just can’t compete for land against ethanol. And on top of it, margins are getting tight because of the price squeezes they’re getting from the big meatpackers. And a lot of them ranchers are just saying it’s not worth it.
When you look at the situation in Lexington, Nebraska, is a disaster for a small town and rural area around it. When these corporations come in, they sell an area on job creation, they invest and that increases the tax base, and then they up and close, they leave. It’s like a death sentence. Can you talk about that?
My perspective on this is shaped by Newton, Iowa. Newton used to be home to Maytag appliances, where the company was founded in 1893. The town even used to be called the “Washing Machine Capital of the World.” Maytag’s last factory closed in 2006. I went to college down the road in Grinnell, Iowa, and Maytag’s closing was like watching a slow death. Because you don’t realize it overnight.
What tends to happen is you can’t sell your home when these things close, and your home is everything in America. That’s your wealth. Some people just take a loss, try to restart elsewhere. Others start doing long commutes. So in the case of Newton, people start driving like an hour to Des Moines for new jobs, making a fraction of what they used to.
Think about what that does for the local community of Newton, Iowa. People have less time to be active in their communities. On top of it, they have less money. This is how the slow decay of the community begins. Don’t get me wrong, Newton has tried really hard since to recreate itself. The town has tried to get back on its feet, but it’s not the same as it used to be. What was unique in Newton’s case is they also lost a white-collar workforce. A lot of the workers in Maytag would live in the town, like the ad people, and all that’s gone.
The scary thing in the case of Tyson closing its plant in Lexington, Nebraska, is it’s pretty remote. There’s not a lot of job options nearby. And so I think it’s going to hurt the community even more because you just can’t drive two hours for a job. Some people might, but a lot of people will probably just take a big financial hit and try to restart somewhere else. I think an underappreciated thing of consolidation are all the towns that are hollowed out because of it.
Austin, you’re an expert in antitrust law. What do you see as the future of antitrust legislation and the enforcement?
First of all, fun little fact: The first antitrust laws in the world come out of Iowa. It was Iowa farmers mad against the railroads and grain elevators. So they organized the Iowa legislative body to pass the first antitrust laws in the world. Then a few states copied it. And then eventually D.C. copied it as well. I love telling this story because it’s ingrained in me the notion that D.C. is always the last to know. Change in America always starts locally.
The New Deal didn’t just happen in D.C. A lot of the New Deal actually came out of Wisconsin, where the state legislature created several measures that have now been called the “little New Deal.” These ideas are always incubated in small towns and states in America. And it’s also part of the Iowa culture of fairness. The joke is that usually the richest person in Iowa is an old farmer in the back with overalls on.
There’s a humbleness I’ve always respected. And I think that’s why a lot of Iowans gravitate towards anti-monopoly stuff.
But to your question in the future of antitrust. Honestly, the reason why I love antitrust issues the most is it’s one of most bipartisan things right now in America. Everyone’s feeling like they’re being shortchanged for different reasons, and it’s unifying.
My whole thing is: Don’t blame the immigrant, blame Tyson. People have a right to feel their anger, but we need to redirect it to productive means. I also view this whole thing as cyclical. The goal of any corporate executive is monopoly. That’s where profits are.
Corporate people don’t want competitive markets. Government wants competitive markets because that’s good for innovation, it’s good for workers, it’s good for farmers. So you have a natural tension between the two. We’re at a new laissez-faire moment in American history where business has captured government and things have gone too far. We need to usher in a reform era.
So what should we do? What should a well-regulated meat market look like? You can only be angry for so long. I really want to focus on articulating hope, what things could be.
The beauty of a family farm a diversified operation because it makes you resilient. Diversity breeds resiliency. The system we have now pushes people to one or two crops, which makes you very fragile. One bad thing happens and it can wipe you out. It also makes it really expensive.
Look at bird flu, for example. When you have that many genetically similar cows living in the same confined area, you’re just asking for trouble.
And then we have this expensive, fragile, broken system that makes bad tasting food.
How do we think about antitrust enforcement as our food production moves international? Does legislation like the Packers and Stockyards Act, which was meant to reign in meat monopolies, apply?
That is the key question here. The short answer is: No.
Trade agreements, have essentially moved our produce system offshore, especially anything that’s labor intensive. Look at California. California used to produce a lot of produce. Today, it’s mostly nuts, because that’s more mechanical work. The second agriculture production moves offshore, labor and environmental standards collapse. In Barons, I talk about Driscoll’s. Driscoll’s is my berry baron. They sell one in three berries globally.
A lot of their berry production has now moved to Baja, California. These are essentially modern-day plantations. And it’s very, hard to inspect them. As a journalist, you’re putting yourself at risk if you want to go investigate them. And on top of it, the USDA’s Food Inspection Service has been gutted by the Trump administration, which would inspect food imported to this country. So it’s a Wild West. You cannot compete on price against a berry picked by a child in Latin America. And it undermines the growers doing it here domestically.
Going back to the issue of taste: When your produce is coming from Chile, it’s not going to taste good. That produce is engineered for durability, not for taste.
I’ve followed your work for a few years, and I see you navigating some polarized political scenes concerning agriculture and farming. On the one side, Barons received good reviews from publications like The American Conservative. And on another end, you’re also speaking at events like the Real Organic Project at Churchtown Dairy, in Hudson, New York. Do you see agriculture as a polarized issue in today’s politics?
In the same month this past summer I keynoted one of the largest cattle conferences and I also keynoted one of the largest vegan food festivals. I love being able to tell people that. I’m a big believer that things get done when you have a big tent approach and weird bedfellows get together.
Because who isn’t happy after a good meal? I always like to redirect the conversation there.
Neither party really has a vision here. An undercurrent in Barons is my dislike of Tom Vilsack [the former Iowa Governor and Secretary of Agriculture under Obama and Biden].
To me, there’s nothing worse for a democracy than when a politician pretends to be your friend, and they undermine you. A lot of people over the years have been galvanized in Iowa fighting these industrial animal facilities, fighting these Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) wanting to break up Big Ag. A lot of farmers went on a limb, testified. Not only did Vilsack not do anything, he made all the situations worse. That’s how people lose their faith in government.
How do we get out of the situation we’re in? We actually know what to do here. We’ve addressed the concentration crisis in the meat packing before, such as with policies like the Packers and Stockyards Act. The question right now is political courage.
When We Become the Bad Guys: A Nation’s Soul in Crisis
Today, in Minneapolis, yet another life was taken at the hands of federal immigration enforcement. A 37-year-old man — a human being with a story, with a life, with loved ones — was shot and killed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during a crowded federal operation.
This comes on the heels of the tragic killing of Renée Good earlier this month — a 37-year-old Minneapolis mother who was fatally shot by an ICE officer during an operation that reverberated in protests across the country.
This is not about left vs. right. It’s not about bumper-sticker slogans. This is about the humanity of our nation and the values that we claim to hold dear.
We Have Crossed a Line
When federal agents — agents of our government — kill people on the streets of an American city, it is not just a legal question. It is a moral one.
We must ask ourselves: Who have we become?
Are we a country that responds to people with violence? A nation where citizens and residents can be shot and killed in broad daylight under federal authority — and where the narrative is immediately about enforcing policy before establishing facts?
Are we a people who have so normalized force that the blood of our neighbors barely registers beyond the headlines?
This Is About Humanity — Not Politics
Let’s be clear: this is not a political rant — it is a cry from the heart. It is about how we treat one another as human beings.
We are at a moment where hurt people hurt people. But that does not excuse it. If anything, it demands a deeper reckoning. Violence breeds more violence, distrust sows division, and the value of a life — especially one taken in the streets of our cities — cannot be reduced to a talking point or justification.
When “Law and Order” Becomes Another Excuse for State Violence
Too often the language of security and enforcement is used to mask the reality of power and control. When your own government agents are perceived by everyday people — across the political spectrum — as threats, something profound and tragic has shifted.
Conservatism, at its core, should mean prudence, restraint, respect for life, and localism. Populism should aim to uplift the people, not subjugate them. But when these policies result in more trauma, fear, and bloodshed — policies justified in the name of “law enforcement” — we are not being conservative … we are being reckless.
This is no longer popular policy. This is suffering inflicted upon ordinary people.
MAGA, Militarization, and Loss of Moral Compass
Whatever else you want to call it, what we are witnessing feels like a nation losing its moral compass:
Armed federal agents policing our streets. Lives ended in moments that should never have happened. Families left to mourn while official justifications rush to defend the indefensible.
What was once fringe has become institutional. What was once unthinkable has become permissible.
A Message to Fellow Americans
If you voted for the policies that led us here — out of hope for better times, a stronger economy, or safety — I hear you. I forgive you. You were lied to. You were told one thing and delivered something else.
You are a person of conscience trying to navigate an impossible moment.
But if you continue to support this trajectory — not as a critique, but as endorsement — I will say clearly: may God have mercy on your soul.
Because this is not the United States as it was meant to be. This is not the land of justice and liberty for all. This is not a people united in compassion.
What Must Happen Next
We are called not to surrender to despair, but to wake up. To insist that:
Human life is sacred. State violence must be limited and accountable. No person should live in fear of those meant to serve and protect. Our leaders — of every political stripe — must be held accountable.
Every politician who supports the normalization of deaths like these should face the accountability of the ballot box.
This is about the soul of America.
It is time to confront the reality that when the government becomes a source of fear instead of safety, we have failed each other.
We can do better. We must do better.
For the sake of every mother, father, child, and neighbor — for all of us.
Trump repeatedly said he would keep the United States out of foreign entanglements and end “endless wars.”
Done:
• Expanded drone strikes dramatically
• Authorized airstrikes in Syria
• Assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, nearly triggering a regional war
• Bombed Venezuelan vessels and openly threatened regime change
• Increased U.S. military presence in the Middle East at multiple points
⸻
“America First” (Not Billionaires First)
Promised:
Trump claimed he would fight for working Americans and stop elites from rigging the system.
Done:
• Passed a massive tax cut where the largest benefits went to corporations and the wealthy
• Oversaw record stock buybacks instead of wage growth
• Left working families with temporary tax cuts while corporate cuts were permanent
⸻
“Drain the Swamp”
Promised:
Trump vowed to eliminate corruption, lobbyists, and insider politics in Washington.
Done:
• Appointed more former lobbyists to senior roles than previous administrations
• Installed family members in powerful White House positions
• Used the presidency to enrich Trump-branded properties through official events
⸻
“Law and Order”
Promised:
Trump said he would restore respect for the law and uphold American institutions.
Done:
• Pressured the Justice Department to investigate political opponents
• Pardoned political allies and donors
• Encouraged disregard for court rulings and legal norms
• Undermined trust in elections without evidence
⸻
“Protect Social Security and Medicare”
Promised:
Trump repeatedly said he would not cut Social Security or Medicare.
Done:
• Proposed budgets that reduced Medicare spending
• Supported payroll tax changes that threatened Social Security funding
• Backed Republican efforts to privatize or weaken entitlement programs
⸻
“Support the Troops”
Promised:
Trump said he would be the strongest president for the military.
Done:
• Diverted military funds to build a border wall
• Reportedly disparaged fallen service members
• Politicized the armed forces for domestic purposes
⸻
“Bring Manufacturing Back”
Promised:
Trump claimed factories and jobs would return to American soil.
Done:
• Manufacturing entered recession before COVID
• Trade wars hurt farmers and manufacturers alike
• Jobs lost to automation and outsourcing were not replaced
⸻
“Fix Health Care”
Promised:
Trump promised a “better, cheaper” health care plan that would cover everyone.
Done:
• No replacement plan was ever produced
• Attempted repeatedly to repeal the ACA without a viable alternative
• Millions remained uninsured or underinsured
⸻
“Respect the Constitution”
Promised:
Trump swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Done:
• Attacked the free press as “the enemy of the people”
• Threatened to suspend parts of the Constitution
• Encouraged efforts to overturn certified election results
⸻
“Unite the Country”
Promised:
Trump claimed he would bring Americans together.
Done:
• Governed through division and grievance
• Used race, immigration, and fear as political tools
• Deepened distrust in democratic institutions
⸻
The Pattern
Trump’s presidency was not defined by broken promises due to complexity or compromise.
It was defined by saying one thing and doing the opposite — often loudly, often proudly.
⸻
“Strong Leadership” (Also Known as Mandatory Praise Night)
Promised:
Trump promised strong, decisive leadership surrounded by “the best people.”
Delivered:
A federal government run like a televised loyalty audition.
• Cabinet meetings looked less like policy discussions and more like an episode of America’s Got Talent: Authoritarian Edition
• Secretaries took turns thanking him for the honor of being allowed to sit at the table
• Praise was not optional. It was survival
• Facts were negotiable. Ego was not
• Competence was secondary to enthusiasm
At one point, senior officials were practically tripping over each other to say, “Thank you, Mr. President, for your historic, visionary, unmatched leadership.”
If you closed your eyes, you couldn’t tell whether you were watching the U.S. Cabinet or North Korean state television.
This wasn’t confidence.
It was insecurity with a microphone.
⸻
The Cult, Not the Cabinet
In a healthy democracy, advisors challenge the president.
In Trump’s White House, they praised first, governed second.
• Tell the truth? Fired.
• Disagree politely? Labeled “weak” or “disloyal.”
• Break the law for him? Congratulations, you’re “very brave.”
The message was crystal clear:
Your job was not to serve the country. Your job was to serve the man.
⸻
When leaders demand flattery, bad news stops traveling upward.
Warnings get buried.
Reality gets filtered.
That’s how you get:
• Policy made on impulse
• National security decisions driven by cable news
• A government afraid of telling its boss he’s wrong
Strong leaders don’t need applause.
Authoritarians do.
⸻
We didn’t watch a president command respect. We watched grown adults audition for approval.
And the scary part isn’t that it happened.
It’s how many people are pretending it was normal.
⸻
I honestly feel sorry for many of our neighbors who voted for Trump—not out of condescension, but out of empathy. They were promised prosperity, safety, and stability, and their hopes were real and understandable. Instead, we all lived through chaos, division, and a constant sense that the country was one impulse away from crisis. Our communities weren’t made safer, our costs didn’t go down, and our lives didn’t suddenly get easier. What was sold as strength turned out to be spectacle; what was promised as protection delivered uncertainty. Being misled is not a moral failure—but pretending the damage didn’t happen is how we ensure it happens again.
When “Kill Them All” Meets “Refuse Illegal Orders”
In the last week we’ve watched two stories collide in a way that should make every American deeply uneasy.
On one side, we have reporting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly ordered U.S. forces to “kill everybody” on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. After an initial strike near Trinidad destroyed the vessel on September 2, 2025, two survivors were reportedly seen clinging to the wreckage. According to multiple sources, a second strike was ordered specifically to ensure there were no survivors.
If that reporting is accurate, this isn’t just a “tough on drugs” policy. It is the deliberate killing of people who are hors de combat—no longer actively engaged in hostilities and no longer a threat. Under international humanitarian law, that is the textbook definition of a war crime.
You can read some of the coverage yourself:
Washington Post: “[Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: ‘Kill them all’]” (paywalled for some)
Daily Beast:“[Pentagon Pete in Legal Peril Over ‘Kill Them All’ Orders]” Overview of the strikes: “[2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers]”
Hegseth and the Pentagon have tried to explain this away as debris removal or routine targeting in an anti-narcotics campaign. Members of Congress, military lawyers, and human rights experts aren’t buying it. Some have openly said that, if the facts hold, this was murder ordered from the top.
Maggie Goodlander and the “Illegal Orders” Firestorm
Goodlander and five other Democratic lawmakers — all with military or intelligence backgrounds — released a short video reminding U.S. service members of something that has been drilled into them since basic training: you can, and must, refuse illegal orders.
Their message was simple:
“You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
For stating what every JAG officer teaches and what military law already requires, they’ve been accused of “sedition,” threatened with execution on social media by the President, and now face FBI interviews.
Some key coverage:
NHPR:“[Goodlander stands by video urging service members to refuse illegal orders]”
InDepthNH: “[FBI Investigates Goodlander, 5 Dem Lawmakers For Video Telling Troops Not To Obey Illegal Orders]”
FactCheck.org:“[Experts Say Democratic Video Not ‘Seditious,’ as Trump Claims]”
Legal experts are nearly unanimous: reminding troops not to commit war crimes is not sedition. It’s literally defending the rule of law.
This Is Exactly What They Were Warning About
When Goodlander and others said, “You have no obligation to follow illegal orders,” many on the right screamed that they were undermining the chain of command.
But look at the Hegseth episode and ask: Isn’t this exactly the scenario they were talking about?
If a Cabinet-level official orders a second strike on two people flailing in the water, that’s not a gray area. That’s not a complicated split-second battlefield call. That’s an order to execute survivors — an order that any reasonably trained professional should recognize as unlawful.
If that’s what happened, then it’s not just Pete Hegseth who may face legal jeopardy. The officers who relayed the order and the personnel who pulled the trigger on that second strike may be exposed as well. “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg. It doesn’t work under U.S. military law either.
And that is the heart of Goodlander’s message: obeying an illegal order is its own crime.
Were We Ever the “Good Guys”?
Growing up, many of us were taught that the United States were the “good guys.” We believed — or wanted to believe — that our country tried to do the right thing, even when we fell short.
But you can’t square that self-image with:
A Defense Secretary allegedly saying “kill them all” about a group of suspected traffickers on a small boat. A second strike launched to finish off survivors who were clearly no longer a threat. A President who labels lawmakers “traitors” for reminding service members to follow the law, then calls for them to be prosecuted or worse.
If we accept that as normal, we are not the “good guys” anymore. We’re just another country that talks about freedom while quietly giving the green light to kill whoever is in the way.
Here’s what accountability should look like:
A full, independent investigation into the Caribbean strikes, with all relevant intelligence and targeting data made available to Congress and, as much as possible, the public. Clear legal analysis, made public, explaining how this operation was supposedly lawful — or admitting that it was not. Accountability up and down the chain of command if the facts confirm that survivors were deliberately targeted. That includes the person who gave the order and those who carried it out. Protection, not persecution, for lawmakers who are reminding our troops of their duty not to commit war crimes. They are defending the Constitution, not attacking it.
Maggie Goodlander’s point was simple: Service members are not required to surrender their moral judgment, their legal obligations, or their oath to the Constitution just because someone powerful barks an order.
If the reports about Pete Hegseth are accurate, then this is precisely the kind of illegal order our troops should refuse.
If we want to be the “good guys” again — or maybe for the first time — we have to prove it. Not with slogans. Not with flag pins. But with the courage to say:
Killing survivors is wrong. Ordering it is a crime. And no one, no matter how high their office, is above the law.
Sure, it was a huge bummer that they cut funding for fixing the streets in our town. We enjoyed going places. But, overall, it’s worth it for the tax cuts we expect any day now. I mean, at least we owned the libs. Libs love streets. Did you see that video of Trump dumping shit on libs marching in the streets? Got ’em!
Ah, dang. Groceries have never been more expensive. We really thought this was something Trump might be able to help us with. But the high cost of food is worth it so a transgender teen in Idaho can’t use the school locker room. Libs aren’t cheap to own, but the price is more than fair.
Wait, when they said they were going to dismantle the Department of Education, they were talking about, like, America’s Department of Education? The one that funds our schools? Shoot. Our kids will have to learn how to read from the back of cereal boxes. But at least the cereal doesn’t have Red Dye No. 2 in it. And as we all know, the libs are OBSESSED with Red Dye No. 2. Owned!
Owning the libs all the way into a measles outbreak? That’s called “keeping the narrative spicy,” and it’s NOT a bad thing.
Yes, we liked that restaurant. Yes, it would have been better if they hadn’t shut down, but half their staff got deported, so what are you going to do? At least all those dumb woke libs in LA and New York can’t eat at this Mexican restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, either.
Our cousin lost his soybean farm. We really thought the tariffs would help American farmers, but it turns out other countries just stopped buying our stuff. Stupid woke CCP. But you know what you can’t repossess? An ideological victory. I mean, except every four years, when the presidency changes hands. Whatever. The libs have been owned so hard they don’t even know what hit ’em.
So when they said they were axing “federal government jobs,” we just assumed they meant jobs in MARXIST blue cities. This is an unwelcome surprise. But you know what? This annoying liberal girl I knew in college cried in her IG story on election night. And we’ll ride that all the way to the bank (where they’ll hopefully give us a loan).
The water’s been brown for three weeks. It’s a drag, but I bet there’s an Ivy-educated lib walking around Bushwick in a really bad mood right now. So it’s totally worth it.
Huge bummer: Our health insurance got cut. We kept hearing Republicans say that lazy good-for-nothings and illegals would stop receiving Medicaid checks every month. And we thought, “Yeah, we’re on Medicaid, but they never send us checks.” So we didn’t think it would affect us. Anyway, in the meantime, we’ll take comfort in the knowledge that the libs probably can’t see doctors either. I mean, all the hospitals in rural areas are shutting down, and coastal elites are famously concentrated in… look, whatever, they’ve been owned, okay?
All right, well… we can’t pretend this has turned out the way we imagined. But you know what? We heard that a gender studies department in Vermont had its funding reduced by 12 percent. And the video of our great president wearing a crown I posted to my knitting group’s Facebook page really pissed off all the libs on there. And that, in the end, is what matters most.
