Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Recently, Gov. Newsom weighed in on the Trump administration’s efforts to undo the last four years of border destruction, when an estimated 10-12 million illegal aliens entered the U.S. unlawfully—among them thousands with criminal records.

Of the recent Los Angeles efforts of ICE to detain those who entered and reside here illegally, the governor proclaimed:

“Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel. Donald Trump’s chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America’s economy.”

Dissect that statement, and almost everything Newsom said was either not factual or misleading.

“Chaotic?” What is chaotic is allowing 12 million unaudited migrants into the U.S. ahead of those waiting years for background checks and legal permission.

The current antidote to a truly chaotic, nonexistent border was to bring some legality and order back to immigration—and not to perpetuate a wild-west border, drug smuggling, cartel profiteering, and child trafficking and abandonment, which were the Biden-era norms.

Chaotic is 1,000 rioters in southern California swarming ICE officers, endangering their safety and lives—and then being contextualized, excused, or even supported by the governor of the state, who supposedly is an upholder of our laws and their enforcement.

Each time Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom side with violent protests and the intimidation of ICE officers, the greater the chance that an officer will be seriously injured or killed—and the violence will spike. Apparently, both think they are riding a wave of public support, when in fact the latest CBS poll found 54 percent of Americans support such deportations.

California’s elected officials seem clueless that the optics of illegal immigrants torching autos, attacking law enforcement, or pelting bystanders, while waving Mexican flags, are terrible. What is the logic of waving the flag of the country to which one is violently opposed to returning, while assaulting the officers and infrastructure of the very nation in which one is demanding to remain?

“Arbitrary arrest quota?” Consider the math. In just four years, Biden allowed between 10–12 million illegal entries, or 2.5–3 million a year, or somewhere between 200,000–300,000 per month, or between 7,000–8,300 a day.

Trying to find, audit, and deport even 10–20 percent of that daily figure, or 800–2000 a day over four years, is not an “arbitrary arrest quota.”

It is instead a formidable but often vain effort to return illegal immigration numbers to where they were before Biden’s systemic lawlessness.

In other words, with the current level of deportations, ICE cannot possibly reduce the population of illegal aliens back to the pre-Biden range of 10–12 million resident illegal aliens before the additional and contrived 10–12 million four-year influx.

In Newsom’s world, how many million breaking the laws and swarming the border are acceptable? Ten, twelve, or twenty million?

“Reckless?” What is reckless is destroying the southern border. Reckless is also allowing an unchecked amount of cartel fentanyl, disguised as prescription or less toxic illicit drugs, to kill 70,000–100,000 Americans per year.

Reckless is empowering the cartels with lucrative trafficking fees for facilitating illegal immigration across a destroyed border.

Reckless is drumming out of the military 8,500 American soldiers who balked at the experimental mRNA vaccine while allowing more than 10 million illegal aliens to flood the border without any medical or inoculation scrutiny.

Reckless is demanding 2–3 forms of independent IDs from U.S. citizens to qualify for the required “real ID” to fly, while allowing tens of thousands of illegal aliens to be exempt from even rudimentary identification.

Reckless is a governor leveling the highest income tax rates in the U.S., the highest gas taxes, among the highest aggregate sales taxes, and still ending up with annual multibillion-dollar deficits.

Reckless is driving 200,000–300,000 middle-class taxpayers out of the state every year, who cannot afford sky-high California prices and receive so few services in return for such high state taxes.

“Cruel?” Cruel is overtaxing state social service facilities with hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals, whose sheer numbers imperil the health care of California’s own beleaguered citizen population.

As far as ‘cruel’ governance, perhaps it is defined as the highest gas prices in the nation while sitting atop some of the largest gas and oil reserves in the country. Cruel is watching poor people in Fresno or Tulare County buy gas in increments of $30 in cash rather than filling up their pickups at a prohibitive cost of $130.

Cruel is the California high-speed rail boondoggle that has wasted nearly $30 billion without a single foot of track rail installed and may well be abandoned—its concrete overpasses now testaments to our modern Stonehenge monoliths.

Cruel are the state’s ossified “freeways”—especially the 101, the 99, and I-5—that have remained unchanged for the last half century and record some of the deadliest traffic statistics per mile driven in the U.S.

Cruel is what the state and city of Los Angeles did to their own residents during the recent fires.

Cruel is a derelict mayor—shamelessly attacking those who are trying to enforce federal law—junketing in Ghana of all places at the height of the fire season. Mayor Bass has about as much concern over violent protestors burning cars in Los Angeles as she did for neighborhoods burning while she junketed in Ghana.

Cruel was the Los Angeles deputy mayor (tasked with public safety, no less), who was arrested and convicted for reporting fake anti-Israel bomb threats.

Cruel was the Los Angeles water and power director who allowed a life-saving reservoir to remain abandoned and empty.

Cruel was the fire chief who obsessed over DEI hiring while leaving scores of fire hydrants across the city inoperative.

Cruel were state directives that prevented sane clearing of brush kindling that guaranteed plentiful fuel to ensure an inferno among Pacific Palisades homes.

Cruel were the Coastal Commission and the city of Los Angeles that make it almost impossible to rebuild burned-out homes promptly.

Cruel are destructive regulatory policies that have driven out of the state everything from Tesla to refineries to insurance companies, ensuring that the struggling and vanishing middle classes cannot afford the staples of life.

Cruel are the roughly 40,000 annual traffic accidents in Los Angeles County, after which the culpable drivers often flee the scene of the accident. Does the governor or mayor ever ask why that is so, or worry over the some 8,000 victims who are killed or injured?

Cruel are the state’s “renewable energy” mandates that have skyrocketed the cost of electricity and impoverished state residents—one in four of whom now default on their monthly power bills.

Cruel is the boutique leftism of a generation of elite multimillionaire Bay Area politicians—from Jerry Brown to Nancy Pelosi to Gavin Newsom—whose wealth, office-holding, influence, and zip codes ensured that they were never subject to the baleful consequences of their virtue-signaling ideologies that fell only on distant and vulnerable others.

Trust? Who could trust the state of California, which has become a bifurcated medieval society of the very rich and the subsidized poor, with a complete disdain for the struggling middle class who cannot afford houses, power, fuel, or insurance?

“Undermining?” Undermining is better defined as a governor and mayor deliberately ignoring or nullifying federal law in neo-Confederate fashion and siding with violent protestors, while offering the offenders implicit assurances of impunity.

As we've previously noted, the shift toward "better-for-you" consumption is well underway, whether fueled by the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement or the increasing adoption of miracle weight-loss drugs suppressing appetites. Either way, the inflection point for U.S. restaurants has arrived.

Redburn Atlantic analyst Edward Lewis became the first in recent memory to downgrade McDonald's, cutting the stock from "Buy" to "Sell" on the premise that GLP-1 weight-loss drugs will suppress consumer appetites.

Lewis now stands alone among the 41 analysts tracked by Bloomberg with a bearish stance on McDonald's. He set a Street-low price target of $260, well below the $332 average and the stock's most recent close of $304.78.

Key reasons for the downgrade:

• GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are curbing appetites and pose a long-term structural threat to the fast-food industry.

• Lewis argues these drugs will trigger broad behavioral shifts, impacting group dining and reducing habitual demand, especially among lower-income consumers.

• He warns that what looks like a "1% drag" today could compound into a 10%+ hit over time.

Additional concerns:

• U.S. consumers are fatigued after years of menu price inflation.

• Rising tariffs are squeezing brands with limited pricing power.

Also noted: 

• Initiated coverage on Domino's Pizza with a sell rating.

• Rated Chipotle as neutral.

• Upgraded Yum Brands to buy, citing a more reasonable valuation, conservative expectations, and strong international exposure.

Separately, last month, we reported that Goldman analysts Leah Jordan and Eli Thompson informed clients that early indications suggest consumers are shifting and seeking "better-for-you options" at the supermarket.

"Softer snacking demand with outperformance in better-for-you options," Jordan said. 

On Monday, Jordan downgraded General Mills and Conagra Brands due to several headwinds, "including increasing cost pressures (raw materials, tariffs, A&P investments) along with tepid volume demand amid ongoing consumption shifts toward fresh and increasing competition from private label and smaller brands." 

Let's hope these healthy consumer shifts are here to stay amid a nationwide health crisis.

DoD contracts hit $609.2 billion across U.S. states in 2023, up $50.5 billion over the year.

Overall, Texas outranked Virginia as the leading recipient of Department of Defense spending—largely concentrated in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Over the past decade, Texas’ share of defense spending has increased by 10% while Virginia’s has remained fairly stable.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows the top 10 U.S. states receiving defense spending, based on data from the U.S. Department of Defense.

Texas Receives the Biggest DoD Contracts

Here are America’s leading states for defense contracts and related spending in fiscal year 2023:

With $71.6 billion in spending, Texas ranks first overall, fueled by an $8.9 billion annual increase.

Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s largest arms companies, operates several factories in Texas, including an F-35 assembly plant. Meanwhile, RTX Corporation and General Dynamics run facilities across the state.

Following in second place is Virginia, home to 247,214 Department of Defense personnel. Strikingly, more than 228,000 acres of land are managed by the Department of Defense across the state. Along with the Pentagon and Marine Corps Base Quantico, it houses the world’s largest naval base.

In third spot is California, with $60.8 billion in spending. With more than 30 military installations and 161,000 active-duty military personnel, California plays a critical role in America’s military and national security operations. Together, defense and security activities contributed 5.1% to California’s GDP, equal to an estimated $196.7 billion in 2023.

To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on military spending around the world.

Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

Imagine it’s late 2025, and you’re at the grocery store, but your digital wallet’s throwing a tantrum. “Transaction denied: You questioned the climate mandate on X.” Your punishment? No organic kale for you, science denying, conspiracy theorist.

Welcome to the New World Order’s fever dream, where autonomy is as outdated as a VHS tape. We’ve all been shouting into the void about this globalist circus since 2022. Since then we’ve dealt with this geopolitical mess through the trade wars, the CBDC obsession, the wars in Europe and the Middle East, the threat of more scamdemics, all building to a 2025 power grab that will make dystopian novelists jealous.

But we don’t sip the Kool-Aid. This article rips apart the NWO’s playbook, exposes its psychological dirty tricks, and hands you a toolkit to stay free. Ready to outsmart the overlords? Let’s roll.

If 2024 were a movie, it’d be a geopolitical thriller with too many plot twists. Elections swept through Africa, the Americas, and beyond, flipping alliances like pancakes. Populists surged in Europe, nationalists flexed in Asia, and the U.S. election had everyone clutching their popcorn. Meanwhile, U.S.-China tensions simmered, Russia played energy czar, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) kept cooing about “global resilience.” The IMF reports trade restrictions tripled since 2019, splintering the world into economic fiefdoms. The U.S. dollar still holds court—over 80% of trade finance—but China’s e-CNY (China’s digital currency) is strutting onto the stage, and sanctions are pushing countries to ghost SWIFT like it’s a bad Tinder match.

This isn’t just chaos; it’s psychological warfare. Constant upheaval—will food prices soar? Will borders lock down?—keeps you jumpy, ready to grab any “stable” lifeline, even if it’s a globalist leash. The NWO feeds on this fear, dangling supranational solutions like the UN’s “Pact for the Future” or WEF’s Great Reset as humanity’s only hope. It’s a classic trick: scare people witless, then offer a saviour. Hey, we’re smarter than all that, eh? Dig into alternative sources like The Kingston Report or Off-Guardian, question every headline, and champion local governance over Davos pipe dreams. The NWO wants you rattled; stay sharp and sovereign instead.

Trade in 2024 was less “global marketplace” and more Hunger Games with extra tariffs. The U.S. hammered China with tech bans, the EU doubled down on protectionism, and supply chains buckled under post-Ukraine energy shifts. Russia, now the world’s gas station, tightened its grip on critical minerals, while inflation had folks rationing their coffee. Canada’s trade spats with the U.S. over lumber didn’t help, and developing nations scrambled for scraps as rich countries hoarded resources. These disputes aren’t just about money; they’re about control.

Psychologically, economic pain is a compliance machine. When your bank account’s crying and the shelves are empty, you’re more likely to nod along to promises of universal basic income or digital ration cards—complete with fine print that says “obey or starve.” You and I see the game: trade wars are a feature, not a bug, designed to funnel power to global elites while leaving us dependent. Remember 2022’s supply chain chaos? It’s back, and it’s wearing a new outfit. We need to fight back by going local. Hit farmers’ markets, barter with your neighbour for eggs, and tell global trade czars to shove it. Your autonomy’s worth more than their imported widgets.

Now, let’s talk central bank digital currencies—CBDCs, or the NWO’s shiny new shackles. By mid-2024, 134 countries, covering 98% of global GDP, were deep in CBDC fever. China’s e-CNY clocked $986 billion in transactions, paying for everything from school fees to hospital bills. The EU’s digital euro is slated for 2025, Brazil and India ran pilots, and even the Bahamas has a digital sand dollar.

Sounds like progress, right?

Nope. These are digital chokeholds. Programmable money lets governments play dictator with your wallet: buy approved goods, fine; fund a protest, no dice. X posts call it a “totalitarian nightmare,” and they’re spot-on. China’s already linking payments to social credit, and the Atlantic Council smirks about “managing privacy” (translation: torching it).

The psychological hook is insidious. CBDCs normalize surveillance, cooing, “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear,” until you’re fine with Big Brother auditing your smoothie budget. Worse, they make money a privilege, not a right, tying your purchases to compliance. Imagine a world where your vaccine status dictates your grocery budget—Canada’s 2022 bank freezes were a sneak preview. Tell me about it, I experienced this firsthand. Don’t fall for the digital bait. Stick to cash, dive into decentralized cryptos like Bitcoin or Monero, and keep your transactions off the grid. The NWO wants your wallet wired; cut the cords and stay free. Of course, we all already know all this.

Let’s channel Carl Jung for a minute, because the NWO’s endgame is a full-on assault on your psyche. Geopolitical chaos, trade wars, and CBDCs are a triple whammy against your inner “self.” Fear from global instability kills critical thinking—think 2020’s pandemic panic, but on steroids. Economic desperation breeds conformity; when you’re broke, you’re less likely to rock the boat. Digital money enforces compliance, turning dissent into a financial death sentence. Together, they’re a psychological cage, designed to make you a docile cog in the globalist machine.

Look at China’s social credit system, where a bad score means no train ticket. Or Canada’s 2022 trucker crackdown, where bank accounts were frozen for waving the wrong flag. These aren’t glitches; they’re blueprints. The NWO wants you scared, dependent, and silent, your autonomy swapped for a pat on the head. I think most of you reading this are built a bit different. Let’s reclaim our psyche with mindfulness to stay grounded, critical thinking to sniff out lies, and community to fight the loneliness trap. Form a book club, start a garden co-op, or just chat with a neighbour who gets it. The NWO thrives on isolation; you thrive on connection.

So, what’s 2025 and 2026 cooking? If 2024’s trends are any hint, brace for digital IDs, CBDC-controlled economies, and trade barriers that make self-reliance a fairy tale. The NWO’s endgame is a world where your every move is tracked, your money’s on a leash, and dissent is a museum piece. But shrews (us dissenters) don’t play dead. Here’s your 2025 battle plan:

1. Stay Informed: Ditch the mainstream noise for The Kingston Report, Off-Guardian, The Corbett Report, or X’s raw takes. Truth is your superpower.

2. Protect Privacy: Hoard cash, use encrypted apps like Signal, and embrace cryptos that don’t bow to banks. Your data’s not their toy.

3. Build Community: Form local networks for bartering, support, or just griping about the WEF. Shrews are a tribe, not a flock, or a herd.

4. Speak Out: Share your insights, whether it’s a blog post or a snarky meme. Every voice cracks the narrative.

The NWO’s 2025 power grab isn’t a conspiracy; it’s a neon sign flashing “control.” Geopolitical shifts, trade disputes, and CBDCs are the scaffolding, built on your fear and surrender. But you’re a shrew, not a sheep. You see through the psychological smoke, and you’re not here to clap for your chains.

The NWO bets on compliance, so bet on defiance. Stand firm, think critically, and take back your freedom in 2025. The endgame’s coming, but shrews write the rules.

Authored by Susan Brynne Long via RealClearPublicAffairs,

On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose before Congress and performed an about-face. The founder who had opposed the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution conceded to pressure from advocates of adding amendments to protect Americans against abuses of government power. He gave a speech in which he defended amendments he never wanted.

Madison understood that in the critical moment of the nascent republic, compromise was necessary to move the country forward. His example of moderation amidst hostile rhetoric on both sides is a timely reminder in our present moment of division.

Why did Madison not think a bill of rights was necessary in the American political context?

The framers, led by Madison, codified a reversal of the political order that existed in the British colonial system. The people, not the monarch, were the source of all governing authority in the new republic. Under the Constitution, the people delegated – but did not surrender – their authority to the government. According to many pro-Constitution Federalists, Madison among them, this made a bill of rights superfluous.

The issue over adding a bill of rights originated in the state constitutions. The Virginia Bill of Rights pronounced that all power “derived from the people” before enumerating the protected rights of Virginians. Opponents maintained that this was paradoxical, because it presumed the government’s authority to infringe upon the people, which was declared in the same document to be the source of all governing authority. Nonetheless, many Americans felt that such declarations of their rights were essential.

Speaking in support of this perspective, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on interference.” Similar sentiments forced legislators in North Carolina to add a bill of rights to their constitution after their first convention did not draft one.

Madison was ultimately persuaded to change his position on the necessity of a bill of rights by those of Jefferson’s position. In a March 15, 1789, letter answering Madison’s opposition to the protectionary amendments, Jefferson implored his fellow founder that “the good in this instance vastly outweighs the evil.” Madison had posited that an exhaustive list of individual rights was impossible to achieve. Jefferson answered that “half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”

Madison went further than changing his mind: he became an opponent of his own position.

Addressing his fellow delegates to the Constitutional Convention in a steamy Independence Hall, Madison rebutted popular arguments raised against a bill of rights and acknowledged his change in position. “I will own that I never considered this provision … essential to the Federal Constitution,” he noted. But he conceded that the amendments were “neither improper nor altogether useless.”

Answering the argument that a bill of rights was irrelevant to the new American political order, Madison vilified the Constitution’s admission of discretionary authority. The document empowered Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for the execution of its enumerated powers. A bill of rights, Madison contended, would offer a protection against abuse of this power.

The founder confronted the most formidable argument against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. By enumerating the rights of the people, would the proposed amendments not “disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration?”

To critics raising such opposition, Madison pointed to his proposed amendments, which included careful language. The rights enumerated “shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution.” The Bill of Rights was not an exhaustive list, but rather an additional bulwark against possible abuses by the national government.

Ending his speech, Madison made an eloquent political appeal: “it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquility of the public mind, and the stability of the Government” to add a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Madison could have stopped his argument there. Instead, he called for moderation in political rhetoric going forward.

The ratification debates had been fraught with vitriolic language and accusations. Madison took aim at his Antifederalist opponents who had charged Federalists with wanting to “lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism” by reordering the American government. Calling for compromise, Madison asked the Federalists to follow his lead and approve the Bill of Rights. This would prove that “they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government” as their opponents.

Madison’s commitment to cross-party compromise, and his appeal to temper political rhetoric, are relevant to our present moment. Democrats and Republicans alike often use dire, inflammatory language when discussing a range of contemporary issues. The impending financial shortfall of Social Security could cause a devastating recession. President Trump’s 2024 election signaled “the end of democracy” in America. Over 200 years ago, similar rhetoric spurred James Madison not to greater indignation, but to a political sacrifice that led to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Between ideology and national unity, and even survival, Madison chose the latter. Modern lawmakers would be wise to reflect on his example.

Susan Brynne Long, Ph.D., is a historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History and a fellow with the Jack Miller Center.

AI is no longer a theoretical tool, only accessible in research labs. Today, it is a ubiquitous technology being adapted across every industry, driving intense global competition and spurring innovation.

For the second story in the AI For All series, Visual Capitalist partnered with ACT | The App Association to provide a global perspective on AI innovation.

A World of AI Innovation

With a healthy global spread of AI companies providing computing and foundational models, there is a robust competitive environment driving innovation.

Incumbents in the largest markets, who have the lead in the AI race, face fierce competition from scrappy AI startups around the globe.

It’s not just the vast U.S., Chinese, and European markets that are making advancements in AI. Innovators around the world, including from lower-middle-income nations (according to World Bank classifications) such as India, are thriving and competing on an equal footing.

Regulation or Innovation

Some policymakers are eager to regulate AI.

Rapidly evolving technology often prompts government overreactions, and when regulation overreaches, it risks stifling innovation

When balancing innovation and regulation, policymakers must ensure that the benefits they create outweigh the costs they impose.

A heavy-handed approach to AI regulation only strangles innovation or forces innovators into jurisdictions with less regulation. In either case, both consumers and competition suffer.

Are you looking for more insights into the world of AI?

The App Association will release its comprehensive guide on June 12th, 2025, examining how premature or overbroad antitrust action could jeopardize AI innovation and outlining a policy approach better aligned with the realities of emerging technology.

But if you can’t wait until the 12th, you can learn more about the AI economy here.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

After thirty days under Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the contours of his government are becoming clearer. From an economic policy perspective, the diagnosis is sound—but the treatment will worsen the disease.

Those who remember the Bundestag battles between then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) and his fiery rival, opposition leader Friedrich Merz, recall a man who once wrapped his rhetoric in the cloth of classical liberalism. Back then, Merz championed free enterprise where the state overreached, demanded tax cuts where the middle class was burdened, and called for deregulation to unleash growth. Had the "Milei chainsaw" existed in his time, Merz would have snatched it up with pride.

But those sweet days of opposition are long gone. Today, the spirit of the old CDU-SPD “grand coalition” has returned—with Merz sounding more like a budget manager than a reformer.

Big Promises, Hollow Delivery

Merz began his term promising to reignite the “power of the social market economy.” But across Berlin, there’s hardly anyone who knows how to make good on that vision. He spoke of liberating the economy, cutting red tape, recommitting to Germany’s constitutional debt brake, and ending the green-socialist central planning that’s throttled growth.

Yet skepticism is warranted. His campaign promises already lie in shambles, not least on migration. Germany's border crisis continues under the fig leaf of federal police presence—a familiar pantomime. The Merz-led CDU bears sole responsibility for blocking real reform by childishly excluding the AfD from any policy alignment. This exclusion has sabotaged a possible political pivot. The “traveling chancellor,” who’s spent more time abroad than at home, will eventually crash headlong into immigration reality.

Style Over Substance

Merz’s zigzag course on the debt brake illustrates his preference for optics over substance. Instead of defending the constitutional limit on borrowing—a cornerstone of conservative fiscal thinking—he caved to his new left-leaning allies. Exploiting extra-budgetary “special funds” to circumvent the constitution is fiscal malpractice. The debt brake, once a firewall against runaway spending, is now exposed as a paper tiger.

Merz seems more inclined to avoid conflict than to defend the future. He trades tomorrow’s prosperity for today’s consensus. But real political discourse requires conflict—especially with those partners who uphold the so-called firewall against the AfD. In the moralizing echo chamber of the mainstream, real fiscal debate has no place.

Rising welfare costs due to recession, labor market erosion, and uncontrolled immigration will be patched over with increased payroll taxes and federal transfers. And as absurd as it may sound, the government’s solution is a trillion-euro “investment package” intended to give the illusion of forward momentum. Real reforms—on pensions or health care—remain off the table. Public debt is set to surge from 63% to 95% of GDP, pushing Germany into the middle tier of Europe’s debtor nations. But as long as social peace (or coalition harmony) is preserved, the price is deemed acceptable.

Fantasy Tools for a Real Crisis

Berlin bets on baby steps: a slight cut to corporate taxes, a reinstated degressive depreciation rule. These micro-measures are bundled under the marketing slogan “investment booster.” Familiar buzzwords return—cutting bureaucracy, speeding up permits, digitalizing the administration. Merz talks of a “business-friendly climate” but offers little more than old slogans in new wrapping.

Even his flagship idea—“growth ateliers”—to simplify bureaucracy for small firms is more linguistic inflation than serious reform. No ministries have been eliminated. The civil service continues to grow unchecked, the last booming “sector” of the economy. Businesses now bear €146 billion annually in administrative costs. In today’s Germany, entrepreneurs serve as fiscal prey.

Had Merz been serious about reviving Germany’s economy, he would have acted swiftly to reduce both living and production costs. Abolishing the CO₂ tax, scrapping the solidarity surcharge, or reopening the door to nuclear power would have been powerful signals. But nothing of the sort will happen. The list of rational reforms grows the deeper one ventures into Berlin’s political jungle. Merz needed a chainsaw. He won’t even pick up a paring knife.

Empty Words, Heavy Consequences

Given the crisis in Germany’s key industries—especially automotive—one might have expected a bolder course. Ending Brussels’ and Berlin’s war on combustion engines would be a start. The construction sector remains flatlined. Yet no serious attempt is made to roll back overregulation or the self-destructive climate laws. ESG mandates won’t be repealed. The “Heating Act,” the green centerpiece of the last government, will remain in place—merely “reformed.” Translation: pretend to change, preserve the core.

So far, the new government’s trajectory mirrors that of its predecessor. Merz frequently invokes Ludwig Erhard, the father of the social market economy, but betrays no real commitment to his principles. As the U.S. turns up the pressure in the trade war, Merz will face a decision: side with Brussels in building Fortress Europe, or begin dismantling the regulatory stranglehold on the Eurozone economy.

Either way, he’ll do it with a straight face. For like his predecessors, Merz too wants to go down in history as a “climate chancellor.”

* * *

Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A plane with as many as 20 people on board crashed in Tennessee on Sunday, leading to several people being airlifted to hospitals, the state highway patrol confirmed.

A plane with as many as 20 people on board crashed in Coffee County, Tennessee, on Sunday, officials say. Tennessee Highway Patrol

“Initial reports suggest 16–20 people were on board. Some have been airlifted to nearby hospitals,” the Tennessee Highway Patrol wrote in a post on social media platform X, adding that the plane went down in Coffee County, around 60 miles south of Nashville.

In a post on Facebook, the highway patrol said that several people have been flown to hospitals. Others are being evaluated on-site, it added.

“This remains an active and developing situation,” said the law enforcement agency. “Tullahoma first responders and Coffee County EMS are leading response efforts. Please avoid the area to allow emergency crews room to operate safely. They will share more updates as information becomes publicly available.”

Based on the two social media posts, no fatalities have been reported as of Sunday afternoon.

Video footage released by the highway patrol on social media show the aircraft appears to be a small plane, which was broken in half.

The Epoch Times has contacted the City of Tullahoma, where the crash took place, for comment.

A spokesperson told CNN there were no fatalities, saying that the incident occurred at the Tullahoma Regional Airport. Federal Aviation Authorities officials are en route to assist in the investigation, the spokesperson added.

More details about the victims, the injuries, and information about what led up to the crash or how it occurred were not immediately available.