Feelings, Not Facts: The Politics of Consumer Sentiment Lies

 

Consumer sentiment polls are political mood rings—ask a Republican, get a rainbow; ask a Democrat, get a thunderstorm. Either way, it’s emotional weather, not economics. In plain English, the consumer sentiment data is just partisan gossip dressed in statistical drag—more politics than proof, more bias than balance, more illusion than insight.

If consumer sentiment were a birthday cake, it would be made of half-baked opinions, topped with a swirl of political frosting, and served with a wooden spoon of bias. People talk about consumer sentiment data like it's the second coming of Christ. The media worships it. Wall Street trembles at it. And the politicians? They spin it harder than a DJ at a Vegas nightclub. But here’s the dirty little secret they won’t tell you: consumer sentiment is not the voice of the people—it’s the voice of whoever still owns a landline phone and answers it.

I’m a statistician. I know the game. And the truth is, the way this so-called data is collected is nonsense. They call households that still have landlines—yes, landlines, those dusty relics from the 1990s—and they ask, “How do you think America’s economy is doing?” And then what happens next is not analysis, it’s theater. If the person who answers the phone leans left—a blue person—they’ll say, “Oh, it’s awful! We’re all doomed!” But if it’s a red person on the other end, they’ll gush, “It’s never been better!” The data that results isn’t an economic report—it’s a political tug-of-war disguised as statistics.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Consumer sentiment is not economics. It’s political mood polling in costume. Think about it: now that  Donald Trump is in office, consumer sentiment among Republicans was sky high—even when inflation ticked up and unemployment jumped. But when Joe Biden was in office, Democrats suddenly became optimists—until gas prices rose and Republicans declared an economic apocalypse. These swings have less to do with reality and more to do with the political weather forecast. When the rooster crows at dawn, it doesn’t mean he made the sun rise.

What you have here is not measurement; it’s manipulation. It’s the same kind of ridiculousness we see in college classrooms every semester. Every professor knows the dance. If students are passing, they give you glowing reviews. But if they’re failing—especially in classes like math or statistics—they log on to Rate My Professor and unleash their wrath. “She’s boring.” “He’s too hard.” “The test was unfair.” Never mind the fact that the student didn’t study or skipped half the lectures. It’s a blame game, not a fair rating. A drowning man will blame the river, not his own swimming.

So when I see economists and TV anchors waving around consumer sentiment scores as if Moses brought them down from Mount Sinai, I laugh. These numbers are fragile, reactive, and politically polluted. Even when consumer sentiment crashes, people still shop. Even when it soars, businesses still close. That’s because consumer sentiment is a mirror, not a window. It reflects feelings, not facts. And those feelings are soaked in the red and blue of America’s political divide.

Don’t forget how often these numbers contradict actual economic performance. In recent months, consumer sentiment plunged to some of the lowest levels in decades—even lower than during the 2008 financial crisis. And yet, the job market stayed strong, wages rose, and consumer spending remained steady. How does that make sense? It doesn’t. But it makes headlines, and that’s all that matters to the talking heads. If the drum makes noise, people dance—even if it’s out of rhythm.

The whole thing is a classic case of garbage in, garbage out. If your method of collecting data is flawed, then your results are worthless. And calling up a tiny slice of older Americans who happen to still have landlines is not just flawed—it’s laughable. Who exactly are we listening to? Grandma Edna in Kansas who watches Fox News all day? Uncle Jimmy in Portland who’s still mad Bernie didn’t win? These are the voices shaping our national economic mood? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I know what you’re thinking: “But haven’t they moved to online surveys?” Yes, some have. And guess what? That only added new problems. Now you’re dealing with internet bias—only those who are internet-savvy or who respond to random email surveys are included. That skews the data in a different direction. It’s like switching from AM radio to Bluetooth and thinking the signal is clearer. A cracked mirror still shows a broken face, no matter the lighting.

At the end of the day, consumer sentiment is a glorified opinion poll. It changes with the news cycle, political headlines, or even a bad tweet from a celebrity. Yet markets move because of it, policies are defended using it, and entire economic forecasts are based on it. That’s like betting on the stock market based on whether your horoscope said you’d meet a tall, dark stranger. Madness.

So when you hear that consumer sentiment has risen or fallen, remember this: it probably just means someone got mad at gas prices or loved the last presidential speech. That’s not economics. That’s emotion. And building economic policy around consumer sentiment is like building a house on a cloud—looks good from far away, but try standing on it.

Consumer sentiment surveys are not sacred texts. They’re more like Yelp reviews for the economy, left by angry customers and political fanatics. If we keep treating them like gospel, we’ll keep making foolish decisions. The economy is too important to be left to the emotional whims of whoever picks up the phone.

And if you still think consumer sentiment is reliable, I’ve got a dial-up modem to sell you.

 

Reckless, Ruthless, Ruinous: Senate Must Shut Down Trump’s Budget Bomb

If the Senate rubber-stamps Trump’s reckless tax cuts, America won’t just flirt with financial collapse—it’ll dive headfirst into a bond market inferno wearing blindfolds. In plain English, Trump’s budget is a scam wrapped in slogans. If the Senate refuses to kill it, the bond markets will crash the party—and the economy.

They say when you dig yourself into a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. But with Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill, Republicans seem to have mistaken a fiscal grave for a luxury bunker. The House of Representatives has already taken the plunge, passing this ticking time bomb by a single vote. Now the Senate stands at the edge of a cliff, shovel in hand, debating whether to jump in after them. Let me be clear: if they pass this bill, they won’t just be playing with numbers—they’ll be playing chicken with the bond markets, and when the crash comes, it won’t be pretty.

The bill is sold like a miracle tonic—more tax cuts, less government. But behind the curtain, it’s a fiscal disaster dressed in red, white, and delusion. At a time when the U.S. national debt is already hovering around 100% of GDP, this legislation would explode deficits even further. Net federal debt has tripled over the past two decades, and now the Treasury is preparing to spend more than $1 trillion a year just on interest. That’s right—more money on interest payments than the entire annual Medicare budget. Anyone who thinks that’s sustainable must believe the sky is held up by tax cuts and fairy tales.

Some Republicans claim the bill isn’t new spending. They argue that making Trump’s first-term tax cuts permanent doesn’t count. Others point to “temporary” cuts they swear will expire by 2028. Sure—just like the last “temporary” tax breaks that were supposed to sunset, but stuck around like a bad houseguest. These sunset clauses are nothing but a magic trick: now you see the cost, now you don’t. Even Houdini wouldn’t try to escape from this kind of budgetary insanity.

This tax bill also includes new gimmicks like tax exemptions for tips and overtime. On the surface, they sound like worker-friendly policies. In practice, they’re hollow sugar pills. They’ll cost billions, deliver minimal economic growth, and encourage wage reporting games. But more dangerously, they add to the illusion that these tax cuts are sustainable. Meanwhile, clean energy subsidies and Medicaid for low-income Americans are being gutted to help balance the books. That’s like robbing a hospital to pay for a tax break on bottle service at Mar-a-Lago.

Let’s call this bill what it really is: a budgetary illusion wrapped in patriotic packaging. A tax cut here, a sunset clause there, a little red ink spread over ten years like it’s just ketchup on a ledger. But the ketchup’s about to turn to blood. Moody’s just stripped the U.S. of its last triple-A credit rating, a warning sign flashing bright red. Interest rates on 30-year Treasuries have surged past 5.1%, the highest since 2007. That’s not just an economic metric—it’s a stress fracture in the bones of our fiscal house.

Remember 2011? Congress flirted with default, the credit rating was downgraded, and markets spiraled. This time, we’re not even pretending to fix things. We’re charging full speed into the same brick wall, this time with a smile and a campaign slogan. Trump’s supporters insist deficits don’t matter. But anyone with a wallet knows that borrowing has consequences. When the bond market loses confidence, the fallout is swift. Investors demand higher returns. Interest payments skyrocket. Inflation picks up. Growth slows. And then, like a card trick gone wrong, everything collapses.

Republicans are betting on economic growth to rescue them. But this bill won’t deliver it. Unlike Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which at least slashed corporate rates permanently, this new package is a grab bag of temporary giveaways. The exemption on state and local taxes mostly helps wealthy households, while the tariffs being pushed alongside it are already sending ripples through dollar assets. Protectionism and tax cuts do not make good dance partners—they step on each other’s toes and trip the economy.

The final insult? The bill includes a bizarre provision that could weaken the authority of the Supreme Court. Hidden among the budget tables and tax language is a clause that could let Congress challenge judicial oversight of federal spending. That’s not just budget manipulation—it’s constitutional vandalism. But hey, when you’re already torching the country’s fiscal credibility, why not take a match to its institutions too?

The truth is this: America doesn’t need more tax cuts. It needs a grown-up conversation about how to pay for the promises we’ve already made. We need to raise revenue, not fantasies. Cut spending where it makes sense, not where it hurts the most vulnerable. And stop pretending that every economic problem can be solved with a tax deduction. When politicians refuse to face reality, the bond market will force it on them—with interest.

If the Senate rubber-stamps this bill, they’ll be signing a promissory note with no plan to pay it back. They’ll be telling the world that the United States is a banana republic in denial, dressed up in stars and stripes. And when the reckoning comes, it won’t be polite. It will be swift, brutal, and deserved.

In a land where red hats outnumber red pens, and deficits are dismissed as myths, we shouldn’t be surprised when the economy crashes like a drunk cowboy riding a bull named “Trickle Down.”

 

Trump to Walmart: Eat My Tariffs—Even If It Bankrupts You!

 

When Trump tells Walmart to absorb his own tariff mess, he’s not making deals—he’s detonating the economy with a Big Mac logic and Whopper-sized ego. Simply put, only a delusional “businessman” blames Walmart for his tariff mess—Trump’s economics are like his tweets: impulsive, irrational, and destructive to everything in their path.

He’s supposed to be the king of the deal, but this time President Trump has served us a business bluff that tastes more like burnt toast than a bold bargain. When Trump told Walmart to “eat the tariffs” insteadof raising prices, he wasn’t making a business decision—he was making a mess. And for someone who boasts about making “huge” deals, he should know better than to pretend that companies can just swallow government-imposed costs like they’re Tic Tacs.

Let’s start with the obvious. Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States, with over 1.6 million American workers. Every week, more than 250 million people shop at Walmart. The company is not some luxury boutique with 300% profit margins. It’s a low-margin retail behemoth that survives on volume. So when Trump slaps tariffs on Chinese imports, he’s not hurting China—he’s punching Main Street in the face and asking Walmart to ice it with a smile.

Tariffs are taxes. Period. And when the government imposes taxes on imports, someone pays. That someone is not Beijing. It’s the American business bringing in those goods, and the American consumer buying them. The idea that a company like Walmart can simply “absorb” the cost of tariffs without passing it on is like telling a restaurant to serve steak at burger prices and “just deal with it.” Eventually, the menu disappears and the doors close.

Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon has made it clear: they can’t absorb all the tariff-related costs. Margins in retail are thin, and when the price of imported goods rises, those costs must go somewhere. Trump, of all people, should know that. He’s built his image on understanding how money works. But telling Walmart to eat the tariffs is like a magician yelling “abracadabra” and expecting the cost to vanish. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

Let’s not forget where the tariffs came from in the first place. President Trump imposed them during his trade war with China, aiming to force Beijing to play fair. But instead of a knockout punch, it became a self-inflicted wound. Businesses large and small scrambled to restructure supply chains. Prices for consumer goods climbed. American farmers needed bailouts. And now, years later, Trump’s back in the ring, still swinging with the same broken gloves.

It’s one thing to craft a tough trade policy. It’s another to be delusional about its consequences. The cost of tariffs isn’t paid by foreign governments; it’s paid by Americans. That’s not a debate—it’s economics. When Trump tells a company like Walmart to bear the burden of tariffs without raising prices, he’s not negotiating. He’s hallucinating. And when leaders start treating economic policy like a reality TV script, the real world pays the price.

Let me say it plainly: President Trump is gaslighting the American public and vilifying one of the very companies that helps millions of families stretch their dollars every week. Walmart is not perfect, but to tell a company that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans to just “eat the tariffs” is outrageous. It’s like setting a fire and then yelling at the firefighters for using water.

We can’t afford to pretend that Trump's approach to business is clever when it’s actually careless. You don’t need an MBA to know that if a company doesn’t manage rising costs—especially costs created by government policy—it risks failure. Walmart may be big, but even the strongest bridge will collapse under enough weight. Tariffs are not just numbers on paper. They are pressure points on the economy. And the more pressure Trump adds, the closer we move to a breaking point.

Blaming Walmart for raising prices is like blaming your umbrella for the rain. The tariffs didn’t fall from the sky—they were written and signed by the same man now pretending they don’t exist. Trump wants to act like the tariffs are invisible, but the checkout receipts tell a different story. Families feel it. Business owners feel it. And now even the largest retailer in the world is saying “enough is enough.”

So who do we blame? The business that’s trying to stay afloat and protect jobs? Or the man who created this artificial storm and now wants to blame the wreckage on someone else? It takes a special kind of arrogance to cause a crisis and then demand that others pretend it didn’t happen. When the cock crows in the morning, don’t blame the sun for rising.

And let’s not forget the timing. We’re still living with inflation fatigue, supply chain headaches, and economic uncertainty. Americans are already tightening their belts, and Trump wants to lecture businesses on how to run theirs? That’s not leadership. That’s lunacy wrapped in a red tie.

He claims to be the ultimate capitalist, but his behavior shows the economic instincts of a game show host. Real businesspeople understand trade-offs. Real businesspeople know that cost management isn’t a political stunt—it’s survival. When you impose a new cost on a business, and then tell them they can’t respond to it, you’re not helping the economy. You’re sabotaging it.

Trump has turned tariff policy into a political circus, and now he’s asking Walmart to perform without a net. But even the best acrobat needs a cushion, and when that cushion is pulled away by the very person demanding the trick, the fall becomes fatal. A monkey that pulls down the tree forgets that it too lives in the branches.

If Walmart folds under the weight of policy-created costs, it won’t just be the shareholders who suffer. It will be the workers, the families, the shoppers who depend on those low prices to make ends meet. Trump’s blind loyalty to his own economic fantasy is pushing America toward the edge.

So next time you hear him brag about his business sense, remember this: he’s the only self-proclaimed billionaire who thinks you can run a company by ignoring reality. And if you listen closely, you might just hear the sound of common sense packing its bags and leaving Trump Tower.

Tariffs don’t taste good, Mr. President. And no matter how much ketchup you slather on your business bluff, you can’t disguise the fact that your latest “deal” is a bad batch of baloney.

 

Corruption in Boots: Why Nigeria’s NYSC Should Be Buried, Not Reformed

 

The only thing NYSC unites is confusion and corruption. It is a fat, dying cow still chewing billions while the youth it was meant to help starve. In plain English, the only thing NYSC teaches is how to survive Nigeria’s dysfunction. One year in khaki, and you graduate with PTSD, unpaid stipends, and fake national pride.

If NYSC were a patient, it would be on life support, bloated from bad management, delirious from irrelevance, and hemorrhaging any hope of revival. I’m not here to massage its ego with sentimental hymns of 1973. I’m here to yank off the oxygen mask and say the thing everyone else whispers behind closed doors—Nigeria’s National Youth Service Corps is old, fat, incompetent, and must be scrapped.

Let’s not pretend. The scheme served its purpose after the Nigerian-Biafra War. It stitched broken walls, built temporary bridges, and offered a semblance of unity when we were reeling from bullets and blood. That was fifty-one years ago. Today, it is an embarrassing antique parading in uniforms sewn with corruption, wrapped in failure, and decorated with illusion.

Look around. In August 2023, eight NYSC members were kidnapped on the Funtua-Gusau Road in Zamfara while traveling from Uyo to Sokoto. A journey meant to promote unity became a one-way trip into captivity. The last of them was rescued in August 2024—after one full year in the hands of terrorists. One year. And what did the NYSC do during that time? Release weak statements, mislead the public, and continue deploying more corps members into unsafe zones like lambs to the slaughter.

This isn't a one-off tragedy. In July 2021, five corps members died in a crash en route to camp in Katsina. In 2016, corps member Okonta Dumebi, an orphan from Delta State, was shot dead while on election duty in Rivers. His blood watered the soil of a democracy that treats youth like disposable ballots.

And let’s talk numbers. Nigeria mobilizes about 350,000 to 400,000 corps members every year. Their monthly allowance? A laughable ₦33,000 ($20.61)  until July 2024 when President Tinubu announced an upward review to ₦77,000 ($48.08). But here’s the kicker—it wasn't implemented until March 2025. That's eight months of empty promises. Worse still, some received ₦777,000 due to payment blunders, while others received nothing. And what did NYSC say? Nothing. Just another quiet Tuesday in the empire of bureaucratic silence.

This is not a national service. It is national servitude. These graduates are being tossed into regions boiling with ethnic unrest and political violence under the flag of unity. But unity cannot be forced with a khaki and a pair of jungle boots. If it could, we would have achieved it long ago. If anything, this scheme has become a scam—a costly pretense draped in patriotic colors.

Parents no longer see NYSC as a badge of honor. They see it as a threat. That’s why they bribe officials and exploit connections to influence their children's postings. Nobody wants their child posted to the North-East or North-West. Nobody wants their child turned into a statistic. If the scheme truly promotes unity, why is everyone desperately trying to escape its reach?

And let’s not forget the corruption. The NYSC Foundation, created in 1998 to offer loans to ex-corps members, has become a bottomless pit of unaccounted funds. Corps members are forced to pay ₦500 as a so-called membership fee. Most of them never receive any loans. The foundation has refused to release its financial records to the public. In over a decade, it disbursed only ₦11 million in loans despite collecting hundreds of millions from graduates. If that’s not daylight robbery in uniform, what is?

Even the process of certificate issuance has been tainted by forgery and fraud. Remember the former finance minister, Kemi Adeosun? She skipped NYSC and bought a fake exemption certificate. She only resigned when her scandal broke. That’s what the NYSC certificate has become—a document you can buy at the right price from the right official. Unity through forgery? That’s the punchline in a very tragic joke.

At the camps, the story is worse. In Calabar in 2021, female corps member Fidelia Ezeiruaku was assaulted by a female soldier, Chika Anele, over an argument about food. She was slapped repeatedly and humiliated in public while wearing her uniform. That wasn't discipline—it was abuse, a snapshot of how this scheme has turned into a circus of humiliation.

When corps members are not being beaten, they’re being rejected by institutions where they were posted. They roam towns like unwanted guests looking for any place willing to accept them. This is not service—it is punishment. A government that cannot provide jobs is forcing its graduates to beg for unpaid labor.

And what about skill acquisition? They call it SAED—Skills Acquisition and Entrepreneurship Development. But most corps members report that the training is a joke. No equipment, no real learning, just noise. A glorified seminar that teaches nothing and equips no one. If I wanted to learn how to fail at carpentry or bake imaginary cakes, I’d sign up for NYSC.

I’ve heard people say the scheme helps some youths discover themselves. That's cute. You can also discover yourself by joining a dance troupe or watching Big Brother Naija. We cannot justify a failing federal program just because a few people had good experiences.

The truth is bitter, but so is expired medicine. The NYSC is a relic of a different Nigeria. Today’s Nigeria is fractured beyond pretenses. Ethnicity drives our politics. Religion defines our identities. Nepotism poisons our institutions. And the NYSC? It’s the government’s duct tape—trying to seal a leaking dam with a ribbon.

What we need is not a ceremonial parade of disillusioned graduates. What we need is real empowerment—training programs, tech incubators, vocational hubs, and small business grants. Take the billions wasted on NYSC and build something useful. Nigeria’s youth are not khaki mannequins. They are tired, angry, brilliant minds looking for a reason to stay in this country.

But instead, we ask them to die in accidents, get kidnapped in forests, or get slapped for asking for food—all in the name of a unity that only exists in official brochures. We send them out to fix a broken country with empty pockets and broken dreams. He who sends a child to fetch fire with bare hands should not curse him when he returns with blisters.

The NYSC is a fat cow that no longer gives milk. It is chewing national funds with loud incompetence and wagging its tail in the face of danger. It should have been slaughtered years ago and turned into leather for real development.

The only thing it’s currently serving is high blood pressure to parents, confusion to graduates, and a golden opportunity for fraudsters in government uniforms.

And if anyone still believes the NYSC promotes unity in Nigeria today, they probably believe NEPA still provides light or that politicians actually mean what they say.

Some institutions retire with honor. Others stick around, collect allowances, and fart into the future. Guess which one NYSC has become.

 

Escalate, Humiliate, Abdicate: Trump’s Foreign Policy in Three Easy Steps

 

President Trump's foreign policy and deal-making are just high-stakes roleplay: dress like a hero, talk like a boss, disappear when the villains return.

With all this chaos clanging like pots in a political kitchen, let me say it plainly: President Trump is brilliant at starting fires but hopeless at putting them out. He’s good at igniting negotiations with theflair of a game show host, but when it’s time to settle and seal the deal, hestammers, stalls, and eventually sulks. Nobody can deny his ambition and energy—he charges into conflicts like a bull seeing red. But his style of escalation-then-maybe-negotiation is turning America’s foreign policy into a yo-yo of anxiety. His wild swings of threat and charm might dazzle stock traders and flatter news cycles, but behind the scenes, world leaders are privately bracing for the inevitable flop. It’s the oldest show in Trump’s playbook: light a fire, pose for the photo, and walk away before the smoke clears.

We’ve seen this tactic play out on too many stages. Let’s start with Yemen. On May 6, he claimed to have brokered a ceasefire with the Houthis. Yet, beneath the puffery, the deal only protected American ships—barely a bandage on a bleeding artery. While Trump was boasting about “peace through strength,” the Houthis continued targeting Israeli vessels and threatening wider regional instability. His truce was like a screen door on a submarine: symbolic, leaky, and ultimately useless.

Just four days later, he flaunted a "victory" in securing a trade truce with China. Tariffs that had reached absurd heights—145% on Chinese goods—were dialed back to a “reasonable” 30%, but only for 90 days. That’s not strategy, that’s a stall. It's like a loan shark forgiving a week's interest before sending in the muscle. The core issues—cybersecurity, IP theft, economic coercion—remain unresolved. If Trump was hoping to look like a master negotiator, he ended up looking more like a dealer making change with counterfeit chips.

Now spin the globe to Iran. On May 11, his envoys met with Iranian officials in Oman to revive the nuclear deal—yes, the very one he shredded in 2018 with pomp and fury. And what’s back on the table now? A diluted version of the same deal, with uranium enrichment in the spotlight while missile technology and Iran’s militia funding conveniently escape scrutiny. Trump demolished a functioning agreement just to chase headlines. Now, after seven years of nuclear drift, he’s trying to sell us a hollow rerun with a new coat of paint. As the saying goes, “You can’t teach an old hawk new doves.”

Then there's the nuclear soap opera between India and Pakistan. After Pakistan rattled its nuclear saber on May 10, Trump leapt in, declared a ceasefire, and called it a win. But this so-called diplomacy came at a steep cost: America bowed to Pakistan's blackmail, glossing over its ties to terrorism. The result? India feels betrayed, Pakistan feels emboldened, and the whole subcontinent is now a ticking time bomb with a faulty alarm clock. In the Trump era, “diplomacy” seems to mean letting the most reckless player hold the steering wheel—while blindfolded.

Let’s not forget Ukraine. Trump pushed Russia and Ukraine into Istanbul peace talks, but who did Putin send? Bureaucratic seat-fillers—not diplomats, not generals, not real negotiators. Why? Because even Russia knows Trump’s talk is cheap and his promises expire faster than his Cabinet appointments. His offer of a 30-day ceasefire is an insult, not a solution. Long-term peace requires long-term deterrence. But Trump can’t see beyond the next news cycle.

We’ve watched this game before. In January, Trump claimed credit for a Gaza ceasefire. It lasted just 58 days. By March, the missiles were back. Why? Because Trump has no appetite for enforcement. He loves the stage, the cameras, the handshake—but not the homework. He doesn’t guarantee peace; he loans it out like a bad prom tux—worn once, then forgotten.

Even when his short-term tactics nudge the stock market upward, the long-term effect is corrosive. The S&P 500 may have bounced back after the April 2 tariff bomb, but the dollar remains jittery. Global investors are building risk premiums into everything from shipping to semiconductor production. Why? Because Trump’s erratic foreign policy has made American commitments as shaky as a tower of Jenga blocks in an earthquake.

The most revealing part of all this isn’t what Trump does—it’s how world leaders react. They flatter him in public and flee him in private. NATO allies are pouring money into their own defenses not out of loyalty, but out of fear that Trump will once again ghost them when the going gets tough. Middle Eastern leaders are signing transactional deals, but they’ve stopped seeing America as a stabilizing force. Trump’s track record is a ledger of broken pacts, retracted statements, and half-baked truces.

And yet, the Trump show goes on. His Gulf tour was greased with promises of artificial intelligence, warplane deals, and mineral investments. But none of it will matter if the foundations are fake. A deal built on threats and improvisation can’t last. It’s like balancing a skyscraper on matchsticks. He who builds his house on sand should not be surprised when the flood comes.

The sad truth is that Trump’s diplomacy isn’t diplomacy at all. It’s damage control dressed up as deal-making. It’s a game of chicken where everyone else learns to dodge while America drifts. Every crisis he “solves” is a problem he either started or escalated beyond recognition. And the price of his theatrics is real: weakened alliances, emboldened adversaries, and a world where no one trusts Washington to hold the line—or even remember what line it drew last week.

In the end, Trump’s foreign policy feels like an infomercial: lots of shouting, urgent promises, limited-time offers, and no refunds. America deserves a better bargain than a dealmaker who can’t close, can’t commit, and can’t be counted on when it matters most. Because if Trump is the world's negotiator, then maybe it's time someone took the pen away before he signs the planet into another mess—and throws in a set of steak knives just to sweeten the disaster.

 

Charity Hires: How DEI Insults Minorities and Rewards Mediocrity

 

DEI tells minorities, “You’re too weak to compete, so here’s a trophy for showing up.” That’s not empowerment—it’s racial infantilization disguised as equity. Simply put, DEI programs are modern-day plantations: minorities are the sharecroppers, corporations are the masters, and equity is the illusion that keeps them begging for validation.

The DEI industry has become America’s most expensive therapy session—only it keeps diagnosing confidence issues in people who never asked to lie on the couch. It was born out of a noble impulse: to help fix the generational consequences of racism, exclusion, and segregation. But somewhere along the way, the mission morphed into something less about opportunity and more about optics. And now, President Trump is wielding the executive axe, dismantling what his supporters call a performative and patronizing system—a system that treats capable minorities like fragile ornaments needing constant polishing.

Once hailed as a progressive bridge to equity, DEI—short for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—has instead cemented a new stereotype: that minorities need a leg up not because of past injustice, but because they supposedly can’t keep up. Trump’s bold reversal of these programs may read as controversial in elite media circles, but for many Americans—minorities included—it’s a breath of fresh air in a space long filled with toxic patronization. As the saying goes, when you help someone up a ladder, don’t chain them to it.

What began as a healing remedy has turned into an institutional crutch. In theory, DEI policies were meant to widen the gate for all. In practice, they built a side entrance labeled “Special Access,” and then forced minorities to use it. College admissions are one of the most glaring examples. A Black student gets accepted into Harvard, and whispers start flying: Was it merit… or mercy? The student, once excited, now bears the burden of proving they belong—not just to others, but to themselves. DEI, in effect, replaces one kind of discrimination with another: the assumption that your skin tone, not your skill set, got you through the door.

In the corporate boardroom, it gets even worse. A talented Latina is promoted to a high-level executive role, but the congratulatory smiles are thinly veiled suspicions. Was she the best… or just the brownest? What should be a moment of triumph gets buried beneath the weight of implied inferiority. Even when minority professionals earn their place, DEI policies warp public perception into seeing their success as a handout. It’s like giving someone a medal and whispering, You didn’t really win. We just didn’t want to look bad.

This phenomenon is not just limited to education or business. It bleeds into entertainment, public contracting, and even the military. Directors in Hollywood now scramble to diversify casts, checking demographic boxes rather than casting based on talent. Military officers rise through the ranks while skeptics question whether their stars were earned or granted by committee. Government contracts are increasingly awarded to minority-owned businesses under the assumption that inclusion is the endgame. But many competitors quietly ask, Was it the best proposal—or the right skin tone?

The irony is bitter. DEI was born from the ashes of Jim Crow, redlining, and school segregation. Back then, affirmative action was a necessary intervention—a fire extinguisher thrown into a house engulfed in racial flames. But now, the fire’s been out for decades, and we’re still drenching the ruins with gallons of policy water. Too much water drowns the seed, and instead of growing a stronger, self-reliant generation of minorities, DEI policies often soak ambition in suspicion and dependency.

Polls repeatedly show that Americans overwhelmingly prefer merit-based systems. A 2023 Pew Research study found that 74% of Americans—including a majority of Black and Hispanic respondents—believe race should not factor into college admissions. The landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling against Harvard confirmed what many had long sensed: that race-based preferences were no longer just unconstitutional—they were corrosive. When a rich Black teen from Beverly Hills is chosen over a poor White teen from coal country, it's no longer about righting historical wrongs. It becomes what Justice Roberts called “racial balancing for its own sake,” or as critics frame it, elitism wearing a dashiki.

Then there’s the paradoxical effect DEI has had on one of America’s most academically successful groups: Asian Americans. At elite institutions like Yale and Harvard, admissions policies have quietly penalized Asian applicants for being “too qualified.” These schools invented categories like “personality” to justify why straight-A students with near-perfect SAT scores were passed over. A 2018 investigation into Harvard admissions found that Asian applicants consistently scored lower in subjective ratings like likability, despite excelling in objective metrics. If excellence becomes a liability, then we’ve redefined fairness into fiction.

Corporate DEI programs are no less hypocritical. Google, for instance, funneled over $250 million into DEI initiatives. And yet, in 2021, several Black employees filed lawsuits alleging systemic discrimination and retaliation. One even described working at Google as a place where “diversity was preached, not practiced.” What good is a DEI consultant who charges six figures to preach about unconscious bias while doing nothing to address actual hostility in the workplace? It’s a case of treating the fever, not the infection.

Trump’s decision to dismantle DEI frameworks isn’t some act of revenge against progress. Rather, it is, in the eyes of supporters, a needed reboot. The argument isn’t that racism no longer exists—but that structural handouts are the wrong way to fight it. Empowerment doesn’t come from being pitied. It comes from proving people wrong. And countless minority Americans have done exactly that. Nigerian immigrants in the U.S. routinely outperform every other demographic in education and income. Oprah Winfrey, born into poverty, became a billionaire mogul without a DEI lifeline. Robert F. Smith built his investment empire through brilliance, not bias workshops. Justice Clarence Thomas, who fiercely opposed affirmative action, once said it “tells Black folks they’re not good enough.” That critique has aged like fine wine.

It’s not about colorblindness. It’s about clear-eyed confidence. DEI once served a purpose in an America still bearing the scars of segregation. But as the saying goes, a medicine that overstays its welcome becomes a poison. By continuing to implement race-based quotas, we risk convincing a new generation that their value is cosmetic, not intrinsic. When every achievement is viewed through the lens of identity politics, success itself becomes suspect. And that’s a tragedy no diversity seminar can fix.

So what’s the alternative? It’s not silence—it’s standards. The goal should be to lift everyone up by challenging everyone equally. That means quality education in poor neighborhoods, criminal justice reform, economic investment, and yes, rooting out real discrimination when it appears. But none of that requires a DEI officer with a six-figure salary and a checklist of buzzwords. It requires honesty, competition, and faith in human potential.

Trump’s critics will scream regression. But for many Americans—especially those who resent being viewed as charity cases—this is restoration. A resetting of the national thermostat after decades of identity-based climate control. It’s not “going backward.” It’s pressing forward on level ground.

Because in the end, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and DEI has become a pothole-riddled detour to nowhere. Let merit be the map. Let courage be the compass. And let all Americans, regardless of race, walk the same road—not because of who they are, but because of what they can do.

 

 

 

 

 

From Harvard to Hard Truth: How Trump Torched Harvard’s Temple of Hypocrisy

 

While Harvard lectures America on morality, Trump defunds their hate factories. He isn’t waging war on education—he’s saving taxpayers from funding intellectual fraud with fancy titles. In plain English, the media paints Trump as a brute, but he’s the only one brave enough to bulldoze Ivy League altars built to worship bigotry in disguise.

Harvard's halo has slipped—and no, it wasn’t Donald Trump who knocked it off. It fell under the weight of its own arrogance, hypocrisy, and ideological decay. And while liberal pundits and Ivy League defenders cry foul at Trump’s grant cuts and campus criticisms, the truth is as clear as a crimson diploma: Harvard has more problems than Donald Trump. The former president is merely the flashlight in the attic, exposing the dust, mold, and skeletons that Harvard thought it could hide behind ivy-covered walls.

Let’s start with the facts Harvard can’t redact. A 311-page report—yes, you read that right—311 pages of rot from the heart of Harvard’s own task force on antisemitism, revealed a campus so hostile to Jewish students that one undergraduate confessed, “I feel lucky I don’t look Jewish.” Another student was mocked on social media with the post: “She looks just as dumb as her nose is crooked.” This isn’t just mean-spirited banter; it’s targeted hate. A hate that has been institutionalized, intellectualized, and—worst of all—justified by faculty and courses that proudly claim to “deZionize Jewish consciousness.” At Harvard Divinity School, the gospel of grievance has replaced the gospel of grace.

One class at Harvard’s School of Public Health doesn’t even hide it: “The Settler Colonial Determinants of Health.” The syllabus reportedly sought to “interrogate” Zionism, antisemitism, and racism all in one breath, suggesting that being Jewish is somehow synonymous with being oppressive. The irony here is breathtaking—working-class Jewish students being labeled as oppressors of their richer, more privileged classmates. That’s not education. That’s indoctrination in high heels and tweed jackets.

Now, here’s where Trump, the so-called villain in this play, enters stage right. The former president and his administration have blocked billions in grants to Harvard and other elite institutions. His critics screamed censorship. But let’s be honest: federal money should not be funding antisemitism, racial scapegoating, or faculty-sponsored hate. If Harvard can’t police itself, maybe it’s time someone else did. It’s not tyranny; it’s called accountability.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon—yes, the same McMahon who once ran WWE with steel chairs and suplexes—body-slammed Harvard with a brutal letter that exposed not just antisemitism but plagiarism, hiring scandals, and the appointment of failed politicians like Bill de Blasio. The letter was a verbal piledriver that rattled Harvard’s ivory bones. And critics who snickered at McMahon’s wrestling past forgot one thing: it’s not the messenger that matters, it’s the message—and Harvard’s was long overdue.

Of course, Harvard’s defenders rushed to accuse Trump of using antisemitism as a political weapon. They pointed out his past remarks about “disloyal” Jewish Democrats and his failure to disavow fringe supporters. But those talking points only dodge the deeper question: Who is actually confronting antisemitism on campus? Trump may be controversial, but he’s doing what Harvard failed to do for over a decade—forcing a reckoning.

Some Jewish leaders on campus worry that Trump’s actions might trigger backlash. That’s understandable—but let’s not confuse cause with effect. The real backlash began years ago when Harvard allowed identity politics to replace intellectual rigor. The report noted a “shortage” of serious Middle East courses and an overabundance of slogans masquerading as scholarship. If that’s the curriculum, don’t blame Trump for pulling the fire alarm.

And let’s not pretend this began in 2023 with the Hamas-Israel war. Harvard has a long and ugly history of antisemitism, from admissions quotas in the early 20th century to the cold indifference many Jewish students now report feeling on campus. There was a time between the 1960s and 2010 that Jewish inclusion at Harvard flourished. But that golden age is over. The rise of the pro-Palestinian movement on campus has morphed from activism into outright hatred, smearing Jews with “collective guilt” over Israel’s existence. It’s not just sloppy thinking—it’s dangerous.

As the proverb goes, “The axe forgets, but the tree remembers.” Harvard may forget its role in spreading hate, but Jewish students live with the consequences every day. Trump’s so-called “political crusade” may offend the refined sensibilities of Harvard’s elite, but it’s forcing an overdue conversation. And let’s not ignore the fact that Columbia University and others are now scrambling to implement reforms. Why? Not because they wanted to, but because Trump cut off the golden pipeline of taxpayer cash. When the money dries up, suddenly the ears open.

Harvard’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over these grant cuts is a masterclass in deflection. Instead of fixing the cultural rot, the university is playing the victim. It’s arguing for academic freedom while refusing to admit that its own faculty normalized antisemitic rhetoric. That’s like setting your house on fire and suing the firefighter for showing up in boots.

Even Congress tried to help with a bill to define antisemitism for campus policy enforcement—but it stalled. Why? Senators argued over whether the bill might be used by one party against another. So while Harvard students chant hateful slogans and professors blur the line between critique and bigotry, Washington debates definitions.

What’s even more laughable is the idea that Donald Trump—accused of being anti-intellectual—has nothing to teach Harvard. But maybe that’s precisely the problem. Harvard doesn’t want to learn anything unless it’s wrapped in postmodern theory and tenured hypocrisy. The campus task force called for “pluralism” and for students to expect disagreements. But isn’t that what Trump represents? A viewpoint they don’t like but can’t silence?

At this point, let’s drop the pretenses. Harvard doesn’t hate Trump because he’s wrong. They hate him because he dared to expose their failures with a bullhorn instead of a peer-reviewed journal. He didn’t whisper behind closed doors; he put their sins on center stage. And now, the world is watching.

So the next time someone says Trump is the problem, I say look again. Trump didn’t invent antisemitism at Harvard. He didn’t create the toxic culture, the biased syllabi, or the elitist echo chambers. All he did was kick open the doors. Harvard’s problems aren’t new—they’re just finally out in the open.

As for the lawsuit, the protests, and the tenured tantrums, I’ll leave them with a fitting proverb: “When the music changes, so does the dance.” And right now, Harvard’s dancing to Trump’s tune—even if it’s offbeat, out of style, and completely unscripted.

Call it what you want, but if this were a Harvard ethics class, Trump would pass—while the university flunks its own honor code.