The Advancing American Freedom Burrito Index is part mocking the point, part serious (they are conservatives themselves). It does show the varying retail cost of a Chipotle steak burrito from $14.10 in San Francisco to $11.35 in Des Moines. And if you order that burrito via one of the delivery apps, then it could easily cost $20. But the real crux of the problem? We can argue that instead of complaining about how much a delivered burrito costs DoorDashed from Chipotle, make that damn thing at home for a few dollars instead. But that is not the point.

As Ryan Bourne at the Cato Institute points out, consumer prices rose roughly 30-40% over the last six years. This price inflation is directly related to government money printing and excessive federal spending. Politicians argue about delivery apps to distract voters from bad monetary policy. The bottom line is that sound money and minimal state interference protect our bank accounts and keep inflation at bay. Deregulating the food supply chain and removing tariffs on imported ingredients will reduce grocery bills. These are the practical methods to bring high prices back to level ground.

You are in charge of how much you spend on your Taco Tuesday; you can go high-end, or you can make it yourself at home to conserve your finances. Convenience almost always comes with a cost, either to your wallet or your privacy. It’s up to you.

Simply put, Amendment 3 increases the homestead tax exemption. House Joint Resolution 1 places this on the ballot. It raises the non-school tax exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. After that, it indexes the homestead tax exemption amount to inflation starting in 2029. It also drops the assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10 percent to 5 percent. Small business owners also benefit from this amendment. The 5 percent cap protects commercial real estate from sudden tax spikes. When businesses pay less in taxes, they hire more workers and lower prices. This amendment strictly limits how counties and municipalities spend property tax revenue. Local governments must fund only core needs like public safety, education, and infrastructure. They lose the power to fund nonessential programs. This prevents the state from taking our earnings and forces local governments to operate with fiscal restraint. I value the right to own a home without paying endless rent to the government. We see the free market work best when we limit government intervention.

Next up with have Amendment 1: the Changes to Budget Stabilization Fund Amendment limits reckless government spending. It increases the amount of funds the state may retain in the budget stabilization fund from 10 percent to 25 percent of net general revenue. Surpluses often prompt politicians to invent new government programs. This amendment forces the state to save surplus money instead. A larger reserve fund protects individuals from future tax increases during economic downturns. It should be noted that there seems to be some confusion out there; this amendment applies strictly to “net general revenue collections” for the General Revenue Fund. I prefer a government that limits its own spending capacity over one that constantly extracts more wealth from individuals. Fiscal responsibility at the state level ensures greater economic stability for everyone.

And lastly, we have Amendment 2: The Exempt Tangible Personal Property Used for Agriculture or Agritourism from Property Taxes Amendment protects local farming. Farmers currently pay taxes on equipment and tools they use to produce food. Taxing the means of production increases the cost of food and harms agricultural independence. Removing this tax burden allows farmers to invest in their own operations. A strong local food supply requires market freedom. Government taxation creates an artificial barrier to entry for new farmers. I want a free market where individuals produce goods without state penalties. This exemption removes government interference from local agriculture.

I view these three amendments as practical steps toward individual liberty. They definitely do not go as far as other Libertarians, and I would prefer, but I can tell you that I will be voting YES on all three amendments this coming November. We improve our lives when we reduce the financial power of the state. Lower taxes allow individuals to build capital and provide for our families. Strict spending limits force the government to prioritize essential functions. I find hope in these ballot measures. We have a concrete opportunity this November to vote for smaller government and personal freedom.

I can only hope Trump is no longer listening to Pete Navarro. Navarro is one of the administration’s strongest tariff advocates. President Trump appointed him senior counselor for trade and manufacturing with the explicit mission to advance and promote tariffs as a revenue enhancement vehicle without Congressional approval. He has defended broad tariffs throughout both Trump administrations. In my opinion, Navarro is a complete imbecile, or as Elon Musk described him, “truly a moron,” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.” I agree, and sadly he has Trump’s ear.

Specifically, the USTR mandate impacts nearly 99 percent of all American imports. The government targets 17 countries, including Mexico and Bangladesh, with a flat 10 percent tax. They hit 38 other nations, including China and Vietnam, with a 12.5 percent tax. These are not stand-alone fees but stack on top of existing duties. For example, when a cargo ship arrives in Miami, the importer pays this tax immediately. The importer then passes the entire cost to the retailer. The retailer passes the cost to the customer. The government takes the money before the product ever hits the shelf. This is theft disguised as diplomacy. A tariff may arrive wearing a flag pin, and it still behaves like a tax.

Politicians use fear and outrage to expand their power. This time around, they are using the idea of forced labor in foreign countries to justify the Section 301 tariffs, whereas this has rarely been a concern for any presidential administration. While we all despise forced labor (after all, human freedom is our highest value), a blanket tax on 60 economies does not free a single worker. The government uses a moral crisis to extract more wealth from Americans. Libertarian Harry Browne often explained this trap. He explained that the government creates a crisis, offers a costly solution that the American public laps up, and then fails to solve the original problem. We do not need a federal tax to act ethically. Free individuals can boycott bad actors. Independent groups expose unethical companies. State interference strips citizens of moral choice and replaces it with a mandatory fee.

Government interference always hurts the working class the most. Wealthy politicians do not notice a 10 percent price hike on a pair of shoes. A single mother with limited income notices immediately. A Lyft driver notices the increased cost of car parts. A 10 percent tax on imported clothes and tools means less money for food and rent.

Federal Reserve researchers studying the 2025 tariffs found higher prices, reduced household spending, and a disproportionate welfare burden on low-income households. Middle-income households responded by buying more essentials, purchasing fewer discretionary goods, and trading down to cheaper products.

Consider forced labor in foreign supply chains. Washington fails to identify and block the guilty producers, then imposes broad tariffs on lawful imports. American consumers pay more, politicians claim moral progress, and the forced-labor networks often remain intact. Government creates the enforcement failure, sells a tax as the cure, and leaves the original abuse unresolved.

Or consider environmental policy. Government allows polluters to hide behind weak enforcement, then responds with broad taxes and regulations that raise energy and transportation costs for everyone. Families pay more, large corporations hire compliance lawyers, and the worst offenders often survive through exemptions and political influence. Ethical conduct does not require a federal tax. It requires clear property rights, honest information, and direct accountability for those who cause harm.

Proponents claim tariffs protect American jobs. That claim tells only half the story. Tariffs may shelter jobs in selected industries, but they raise costs for every American manufacturer that uses imported materials, machinery, or components. Federal Reserve researchers found that the small employment benefit from the 2018 tariffs was more than offset by higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs. Industries more exposed to the tariffs suffered relative reductions in manufacturing employment, higher producer prices, and no measurable increase in output.

The government’s own International Trade Commission found the same tradeoff. Steel and aluminum tariffs increased domestic production in those protected industries by a combined $2.2 billion in 2021. Yet higher metal prices reduced production among American businesses that use steel and aluminum by $3.5 billion. The tariff helped the politically protected supplier while imposing a larger loss on downstream American manufacturers.

A tariff does not make an American factory more efficient. It does not lower wages, energy costs, regulatory costs, or transportation costs. It raises the price of foreign goods so domestic producers can charge more without losing as many customers. Federal Reserve researchers estimate that tariffs imposed during 2025 raised core consumer-goods prices by 3.1 percent through February 2026, with the tariff cost effectively passed through into prices.

Tariffs do not produce cheap American goods. They produce more expensive choices. They protect certain jobs by taxing consumers and threatening jobs in industries that depend on imported inputs. Protectionism does not make America more productive. It makes competition more costly.

Free trade benefits individuals directly. I advocate for individual liberty because it works. When trade flows without government roadblocks, competition drives prices down. Companies must innovate to win business. Customers get better products. Workers keep more of their paychecks. Free trade treats people as adults. Individuals decide what to buy and where to buy it. The state has no moral authority to manipulate those choices through taxes. I see this locally. When we remove regulations in Florida, businesses thrive. People prosper. I apply this same logic to international trade. Freedom creates abundance. Tariffs create scarcity.

We can choose a better reality. A better approach eliminates the Section 301 tariffs. This would create an immediate 10 percent drop in the cost of imported goods. Families keep that money. They invest it. They spend it on their children. Open markets build peaceful relationships across borders. Trade reduces the threat of war. We do not need complex trade agreements. We need the government to get out of the way, as Ronald Reagan famously said.

Americans feel the pain at the cash register. When we remove the state from our wallets, we unlock human potential. I will keep writing, speaking, and organizing. I will work to replace federal control with personal freedom. The future belongs to free individuals.

Fight forced labor with evidence, enforcement, and individual accountability. Do not make American families finance another failed experiment in economic nationalism.

Activists like Cea Weaver and politicians like Zohran Mamdani demanding government property seizures are some of the worst ideas of taking wealth from the middle class and threatening the property we work to acquire. This is one of my big concerns about giving government too much power over our lives, yet many Americans seem all too happy to hand over control of their lives to the government.

Giving the government (whether federal or down to the local level) too much power harms our community, our families, and us individually.

On his show, Maher detailed the refusal of many politicians to acknowledge the economic success of free markets after the Cold War. Socialism always requires state force and restricts personal choice. Government control creates poverty by removing the incentive to produce goods and services. It’s weird how many want a government nanny state controlling their decisions, especially those who also want body autonomy. It’s an odd divergence from their ideology; or what is their ideology? I don’t think they have given these issues a tremendous amount of serious thought.

The DSA would like to brainwash Americans into the false notion that “Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.” This is not factual, as capitalism simply means voluntary exchange. You trade your skills for a wage you voluntarily accept. Democratic socialism hands that power to a collective authority. A majority voting to take your property is still theft. Free markets empower the individual. Collectivism crushes them. Choose freedom over socialism.

I pose that voluntary cooperation solves far more problems than state mandates and state force. Individual liberty and free markets allow individuals to improve their lives peacefully. Minimizing government interference protects families and allows local economies to grow without the burden of heavy taxation.

I would encourage you to support government policies that prioritize private property protections and economic freedom. Do not support political candidates or policies promising the opposite in exchange for “free stuff.”

Even though Florida is a closed-primary state, there is plenty for registered voters who are not Republicans or Democrats to consider and weigh in on. For example, all nonpartisan races (i.e., judges, school boards, port authority candidates) and all questions or issues in your local county are all eligible for you to vote on.

Judges hold immense power over your individual liberty, property rights, and serve as a protection from an overzealous Executive or Legislative branch of our government. That is why trial judges and circuit judges are nonpartisan races, and why you should vote your input--who to serve on the bench and who should not. It should not be about who has the largest sign on the road or for whom the “powers-that-be” give you a voter guide card, and you decide based on that. If you, as a registered voter, skip the primary, then you are perpetuating the power cycle most of us complain about.

In addition to judges, school boards and local referendums have a tremendous impact on a local community. From nonpartisan school board races to local tax questions, they decide how much impact it will have on the taxes you pay. They have a direct impact on how much of your income you keep or give away to a mismanaged, wasteful government.

Voting on August 18 is self-defense. It is your opportunity to vote “no” on new local taxes and “yes” to candidates who favor parental rights and fiscal restraint. There are bigger questions/referendums that will be on Florida’s general election ballot in November, but don’t miss out on having an impact on August 18th just because you are not a Republican or Democratic Party registered voter.

All registered voters should have just received their sample ballot in the mail. Each voter from different counties will have different candidates and issues on their ballot. Check your sample ballot today and look up the candidates and issues so you can have a voice and be an educated voter rather than someone who just goes along with what the establishment says is best.

Show up on August 18. Taking control of local governance is the first step in reclaiming our liberty.

I would be wary of anyone who says they know where Bicoin will be at the close of 2026 in USD. Right now, as I write this Bicoin is trading around $64,500, a bit off its most recent 2025 peak of $126,198. Oh, and by the way, I guesstimate the price of Bitcoin will be around $75,000 by year’s end. See what I did there?

Bitcoin has run into some headwinds after the tariffs caused a one-day $3billion outflow, including ETFs. The on-again/off-again war with Iran hasn’t helped matters.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is manipulating interest rates to manage the entire economy. History shows that government programs rarely solve problems. State intervention usually creates new crises. Central banking punishes savers and distorts critical market signals. Bitcoin offers an alternative based purely on individual liberty. Individuals control their own assets without government permission. Free markets function best without state interference. People find immense hope in sound money. They choose personal responsibility over total government dependence.

So, let’s get back to the pricing of Bitcoin in U.S. Dollars. Originally, Bitcoin was meant to be its own currency and early adopters did not like pricing Bitcoin in U.S. Dollars, but it was inevitable. As expected, the April 2024 supply reduction caused by ETFs buying Bitcoin, pushing the price up to its peak in 2025. The Law of Supply and Demand works positively and negatively on price.

Bitcoin promoter Michael Saylor declared the four-year cycle dead on April 4, 2026. Saylor argues institutional capital replaced programmed supply changes as the primary price driver. Galaxy Research disagreed in June. Galaxy maintains the cycle remains real but displays compressed amplitude. I watch the daily ETF data instead of the calendar. Millions of individuals allocating capital matter more than automated supply algorithms.

Bank analysts release wildly inconsistent forecasts. Standard Chartered lowered their 2026 target from $300,000 to $150,000, and recently to $100,000. Bernstein maintains a $150,000 prediction. JPMorgan suggests $170,000. Tom Lee expects prices between $200,000 and $250,000. Alex Thorn of Galaxy Digital notes options markets imply anything between $50,000 and $250,000 by December. These traditional institutions demonstrate massive uncertainty. They struggle to value an asset outside the central banking system, which we could get rid of at this point.

Individuals risking their own capital provide better data. Polymarket participants predict a 76.5 percent probability Bitcoin closes the year above $70,000. They see a 53 percent probability for $75,000 and a 35.5 percent probability for $80,000. The prediction markets show a 16.5 percent chance for $90,000. The market prices a $100,000 close at only 10 percent, and a $150,000 close at a mere 3.1 percent. Participants see a 48.5 percent chance prices fall to $55,000 and a 31.5 percent chance for $50,000. People allocating their own wealth avoid optimistic headlines. They demand realistic assessments and accept market reality.

Federal regulation remains completely stalled. The Senate delays the crypto market structure Clarity Act. Politicians resist free market innovation. Bureaucrats prefer maximizing state control and minimizing individual freedom. Passage of this act would increase institutional adoption and establish clear rules. Constant delays remove a significant positive driver for the second half of 2026. A truly free market requires no federal permission. State interference simply blocks economic progress and harms technological advancement.

I estimate a 2026 closing price between $72,000 and $82,000. I set the absolute boundaries at $55,000 and $100,000. A restrictive Federal Reserve restricts market liquidity through the third quarter. Corporate treasuries and ETF purchases provide steady underlying demand. If the Federal Reserve cuts rates and ETF purchases accelerate, the price could exceed $100,000. If central planners tighten policy during broader economic selloffs, prices could fall to $55,000 before any recovery begins.

I estimate a 2027 closing price between $85,000 and $110,000. The wider boundaries remain at $55,000 and $150,000. The next programmed supply reduction arrives in 2028. The 2027 market will follow global liquidity trends and Federal Reserve policy decisions. If analysts correctly identify Bitcoin as a macroeconomic asset, prices will recover as rate cuts resume. Anticipation for the 2028 supply reduction will build late in 2027. If historical cycles repeat, the price might consolidate between $55,000 and $85,000 before the next major upward movement. I consider both possibilities equally valid.

Bitcoin prices move fast, and single statements from central banks can cause massive price swings. Market shocks happen frequently. I trust the fundamental reasons behind these price movements more than exact numerical forecasts. Individuals build wealth through careful observation, clear thinking, and disciplined action. We secure our own futures when we reject state dependence. I focus on practical steps I can execute today. Sound money provides a realistic path to financial independence. We leave a powerful legacy when we embrace absolute economic freedom.

President Trump recently halted his proposed strikes against Iran in favor of regional diplomatic talks; he has the right instincts, and while this is the right thing to do- favor diplomatic talks and engage in free trade- he is under pressure by war hawks all around him. He’s been engaged in this “on again -- off again” war talk since February, at the behest of Netanyahu and Israel.

All of this is happening with little input from Congress, which has the power to give him the “go ahead” to engage in a war with Iran. It seems that, over the last several decades, Congress has abdicated its power to declare war, giving it up to the Executive branch so they do not receive flak from their constituents blowing up in their face. This unchecked authority given to Trump and prior presidents happens while everyday American taxpayers pay the financial and moral consequences.

Our Founders purposely gave sole authority to declare war on another country exclusively to the legislative branch (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). Why? Because the cost of war (financial and in American souls) is so high, it should be met with the highest possible bar and a strong consensus of the American people’s representatives. But these constant unauthorized “use of military force” (AUMFs) are a thin screen for declaring war on a country. It is just sad with serious consequences.

Besides the issue of just letting a president do what he or she wants, it gives too much power to one person or one political party to risk the lives of our American forces, risk global economic instability, and potential escalating things where World War erupts once again. Apparently, many presidents are persuaded by war hawk advisors that put our economy at risk as trillions of dollars are funneled into foreign military deployments, increasing federal budget deficits, compounding inflation pressures, and eroding the purchasing power of Americans here at home. This is unproductive spending that risks the disruption of global commerce and inherently makes Americans less safe as we create more enemies around the globe. This is not rocket science: if a foreign nation bombs and kills my family, you have created an enemy for life, many of whom will seek revenge.

A better option exists, and it is a principled, practical alternative to our perpetual military interventionism. We must return the power to declare war back to Congress so we are congruent with the Constitution. No American troops should ever be deployed abroad without a formal, constitutional declaration of war passed by the elected representatives of the people. America is not an empire, but a country that should possess the strongest of defensive abilities, protecting the country’s sovereignty, our constitutional liberties, and our borders. There is no need to manage or topple foreign regimes or police global trade channels at taxpayer expense. History has shown that mutually beneficial trade, voluntary economic cooperation, and diplomatic dialogue build strong, sustainable relationships with foreign nations; far better than attempting to bomb them into oblivion- which has never worked. You can’t bomb away an ideology. It may make you feel good in the moment, but long-term, it has never worked.

We should all only vote for and support senators and representatives who seek to reclaim their constitutional responsibility over war declarations.

What are your thoughts on restoring constitutional war powers? Join the discussion in the comments below, subscribe for daily liberty-minded analyses, and share this post with anyone passionate about constitutional freedom!

The federal government is spending $7 trillion, yet only collects $5 trillion. This $2 trillion annual deficit destroys the purchasing power of every dollar in your bank account. What is even clearer is that Washington politicians know no other way to get your vote than to buy it through reckless spending. This constant theft of your wealth is a major frustration of mine, and sadly, most Americans are too busy to take the time to understand the destructive effect on our nation’s future.

By October, our federal debt will hit $40 trillion, and both Trump and the Democrats are seeking to end any future debt ceilings—ridding the nation of any semblance of fiscal restraint. Both parties are to blame for this debacle, yet the American people continue to vote these buffoons back into office, year after year. Removing the debt ceiling will be another chip away from limiting the federal government’s power while ignoring our long-term destruction in order to buy your vote to remain in political power. The overspending happening in D.C. is causing the inflation you see every day in the grocery store, and limiting the federal government is the only practical solution.

Do you realize that the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield recently crossed over the 5% threshold? The first time since 2007. The credit rating of U.S. Treasuries has diminished over the years as credit rating agencies question the federal government’s ability to pay back the bonds. The government is already spending $1 trillion per year to pay just the interest on its current debt, and it ain’t getting any better. And rather than tighten the belt of federal spending, they want to end the cap on the debt so they can spend more!

A smaller government leaves more money in the hands of individuals to build real businesses and create actual wealth, rather than rely on government spending to keep the economy chugging along. Private business is a far better economic engine than government spending.

Understand how all these global pressures combine to cost you money in the grocery store. You may support Ukraine against Russia, tariffs, or the U.S. escalating things with Iran; but all these things have a net cost here at home. These foreign issues push energy prices higher. The rising costs of oil, natural gas, and agricultural fertilizer. These rising costs affect every product you buy. I argue that government interference in the energy market makes us weak. Government mandates force prices artificially high. A free market in domestic energy production would dramatically lower prices in most areas of the economy.

We must be advocates for, and only vote for, candidates who want to put an absolute cap on government spending and move toward a balanced federal budget, as is done at the state level. The government must stop printing money. This action would instantly reduce inflation. You know how to spend your money better than bureaucrats do.

Have you ever researched any of these old party candidates? They argue over who gets to spend our tax money. They argue over which state agencies should dictate our choices. Both major parties operate on a flawed premise. They believe politicians know how to run our lives better than we do. We should all reject that premise.

A better Florida can be accomplished by respecting Floridians to live freer and not under the thumb of government regulation and surveillance. The Florida government’s budget is atrocious, giving out corporate welfare. This fiscal year, Florida’s government is set to spend $117.6 billion.

Scott Jewett presents a practical alternative. He understands that free markets solve problems better than government mandates. When the state reduces regulations, small businesses hire more workers. When the state lowers taxes, families keep their earnings. We do not need permission from Tallahassee to prosper. We need Tallahassee to stop interfering in local markets.

I listen to my neighbors. People want lower property insurance rates. People want affordable housing. The two major parties caused these crises through heavy regulation and artificial market constraints. State mandates inflate construction costs. State mandates restrict housing supply. We must repeal these regulations to allow free enterprise to function.

We have a clear choice this November. We can vote for more state interference. We can choose personal responsibility. A vote for the Libertarian ticket is a vote for individual autonomy. We can keep our earnings and our rights, or we can continue to allow them to erode. We can create a prosperous and free Florida.

Which caused an onslaught of replies, including:

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright responded by quoting the post. He stated that the evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. You may remember Wright when he was “cancelled” for emphatically stating that there are only two sexes, and there is no such thing as a social construct when it comes to gender. Academic Wilfred Reilly also replied to Danny’s post, writing that the claim is not true. He asked if such views were returning to public discussion.

The replies were from all sides, one side holds that a literal reading of Genesis rules out evolution by common descent. Young-earth creationists take this view. They see conflict between the biblical account of special creation and the scientific account of species changing over deep time. Another side among Christians accepts evolution as the method God used. They find no necessary conflict between faith and the data.

The scientific side rests on multiple independent lines of evidence. The fossil record shows sequential changes in life forms across geological strata. Transitional forms appear in expected places. Genetic data reveal shared DNA sequences among species in patterns that match common ancestry. Lab experiments document observable changes. Bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. Insects shift host preferences. Viruses mutate and adapt under controlled conditions. Comparative anatomy and embryology supply further patterns consistent with descent with modification.

Surveys quantify the scientific consensus. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98 percent say humans evolved over time. Earlier Pew data put the figure for scientists at 97 percent. Working PhD scientists and active researchers reach 99 percent agreement that humans evolved. These numbers hold across biology, paleontology, genetics, and related fields.

Public views differ. Gallup polling shows roughly 37 percent of Americans hold that God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years. Another 34 percent accept evolution guided by God. Twenty-four percent accept evolution without divine involvement. Acceptance of evolution has risen among the public over recent decades, yet a substantial share continues to reject it on religious grounds.

The divide, therefore, remains. Empirical data from fossils, genes, and experiments support evolutionary change. Scriptural commitments lead some to reject that data for reinterpret. Both positions exist in open discussion. Neither side has erased the other.

I look at these exchanges and see a simple requirement. Examine the primary evidence yourself. Read the fossil sequences. Compare the genetic alignments. Review the lab results on microbial adaptation. Check the survey numbers from Pew and Gallup. Form your view on the strength of the data rather than on the volume of likes or the intensity of replies. That approach keeps the discussion grounded.

Quickly, Trump’s proposal hit a brick wall from banks, credit card issuers, the American Bankers Association, and …me! Why, you ask?

Because, put simply, it would have the opposite affect Trump promised. The promise was to give financial relief to those carrying interest on their credit card debt. But, in fact, it would harm those very people he was purporting to help. A common theme with many government programs.

If credit card issuers were forced to cap their interest at 10 %, they would need to close accounts on higher risk customers as they would become unprofitible, thereby restricting many Americans’ access to credit. And it wasn’t just because it didn’t make financial sense and violated free-market principles, it is an act that would need to be passed by Congress.

In light of this opposition, Trump pivoted to the idea of “Trump Cards” which would be a voluntary system of 10% interest rate credit cards. But guess what happened…the proposal was just as swiftly ignored.

Bipartisan proposals to mandate a 10% cap (such as bills pushed by Sens. Josh Hawley and Bernie Sanders, alongside Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) were introduced. And it continues to collect dust in D.C., it was mostly for posturing than reality.

Federal banking regulators (including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC) have taken no legal or administrative actions to compel lenders to lower rates, and it will remain the case.

As a result, average credit card interest rates remain near historic highs of 21–25%, and the 10% rate cap remains effectively stalled.

Now, this will be an interesting experiment. Similar tries of this nature have failed, but let’s see what happens when the reality of government-induced price fixing is implemented in NYC. You can bookmark this page to review in one to two years AFTER 2029 (as they claim it will take that long to open the five stores), as to the effect of this altruistic program. What Mamdani is setting in motion is to ignore the Law of Supply and Demand. It is a law, not a theory. What happens every time in this situation? Product shortages are the worst result of such a program. As these five government owned grocery stores will not need to pay income taxes, rent or property taxes like private businesses are forced to do. What happens rather quickly is that the operational costs of these government-owned grocery stores will be absorbed by those who actually pay taxes.

And what about the bodegas and small grocers in the area of these five government-funded stores? They go out of business because they are no longer able to compete with the unfair advantage of the government stores. Loved bodegas will retain customers for a while, but customers will ultimately leave for lower government-subsidized prices. This action causes fewer food options for residents in those neighborhoods, which the Mamdami purports to be helping.

If you look at the root cause of high food prices, you do not have to go further than government-force regulations and taxes—and yes, that includes tariffs. Look at New York City’s heavy commercial rent taxes, strict zoning laws, and severe regulations on food delivery trucks--to name a few. If the city removes these barriers, the cost of doing business drops. Private grocers can lower prices naturally.

A better path forward for Mamdani would be to allow the free market to flourish, offering NYC residents true abundance. Repeal the commercial rent tax for grocers. Eliminate the minimum parking requirements for neighborhood markets, as just a start. Freedom creates prosperity and affordable food without state interference.

The data reveals two main points. Individuals who received at least one vaccine dose showed a lower likelihood of dying from any cause. The hazard ratio dropped to 0.42 for the vaccinated group. The study also noted a higher rate of first hospitalizations for cancer among the vaccinated group. The hazard ratio stood at 1.23 for those with at least one dose after a 180-day lag. Colorectal, breast, and bladder cancers showed elevations. People online used these data points to claim the COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer. The uptick in those cancers should note that this is an observational study, and reading the full study context dispels this panic.

The cancer association reversed when the researchers extended the minimum time between vaccination and hospitalization to twelve months. Most solid tumors take years to develop. So we still do not know at this point if there is any causation. A short signal of months points to a difference in healthcare habits rather than a biological cause. Vaccinated individuals interact with the medical system more often. They participate in screening programs regularly. They find existing cancers sooner. The authors stated their findings are preliminary. They called for more research. They warned against assuming causation from an observational study.

This situation highlights the principle that we must rely on personal responsibility and free inquiry rather than state mandates. Libertarian presidential nominee Harry Browne often explained that government attempts to manage society create bad outcomes. When the state forces medical choices, it breeds public distrust. People suspect official narratives when they lack the freedom to make their own choices. The public panic over studies like this Pescara cohort analysis stems directly from that broken trust.

We solve these issues through individual liberty. Free individuals possess the ability to read the research. Free individuals consult their chosen doctors. The Italian study shows a reduction in overall mortality for those who chose vaccination. It also shows the importance of careful analysis over alarming headlines.

We build a healthier society when we trust citizens to evaluate risks and benefits. Open information allows medical professionals to debate findings honestly. We secure a strong future by demanding minimal state interference in our personal lives. I know we can build a strong community by taking ownership of our medical decisions and respecting the autonomy of others.

You’ll remember that President Joe Biden had issued a pardon for Fauci, but it only covers his past actions. It does not cover new false statements. If Fauci lies under oath this week, he faces prosecution for perjury.

Senator Paul released the Fauci diaries this week. I read the journals, and they reveal an official focused on celebrity and media praise. Fauci wrote during the 2020 lockdowns about interacting with Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Julia Roberts. He called himself the most credible scientist in the world. He filled pages with insults aimed at Donald Trump, calling the former president an idiot and totally nuts. I expect public servants to focus on public outcomes. Fauci focused on his television appearances and fame while individual freedoms were sacrificed and small businesses collapsed. Fauci's private diary reveals he estimated COVID-19's case fatality rate at 0.2-0.3% in February 2020. Weeks later, he told Congress (and the world) under oath that the virus had a higher mortality rate.

Fauci hid facts from the public for years. I watched him clash with Senator Paul over the last five years. During a 2021 hearing, Paul confronted Fauci about National Institutes of Health funding for gain of function research in Wuhan, China. Fauci pointed his finger and called Senator Paul a liar. Documents later proved the agency funded EcoHealth Alliance to conduct experiments on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. I note the deception continues today. A whistleblower named James Erdman III testified to this same committee in May 2026. Erdman stated that Fauci pressured the Central Intelligence Agency in 2021 to drop its assessment that the virus originated from a lab leak.

And let’s not forget the multitude of times Fauci claimed he had nothing to do with shutting things down, including the schools. But in his private diary, he boasts how he was able to convince NYC and California to shut down all of their schools. He states, “I had a similar call with Ann O’Leary, the COS of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. Ann said that based on my TV appearances today and yesterday, the Governor has decided to close the schools in California as well as the bars and restaurants."

And let us not forget all the fanfare he received from celebrities, falling all over themselves to be with him, interview him, many sending Fauci flowers. Just insanity.

Fauci manipulated national intelligence to protect his own reputation, all the while deceiving the American public as to his involvement and what a major screwup he made. Much worse than how he F-ed up the AIDS crisis, which was fictionalized in the hit Matthew McConoughy movie “Dallas Buyers Club.”

I view this upcoming testimony as a lesson in a core libertarian truth. Harry Browne often warned that government power always grows beyond its intended limits and destroys personal freedom. I see Fauci as one of millions of unchecked bureaucrats. He promoted policies that forced churches to close and mandated vaccines. I argue the state lacks the moral right to quarantine healthy citizens or micromanage daily life. True personal responsibility requires individuals to make their own medical decisions. When we give a single doctor the power of the state, we lose our rights.

I look forward to today with optimism. The system of checks and balances now restrains Anthony Fauci. Paul used his subpoena power to force this confrontation. I will watch a man who guided the American economy answer for his decisions under the threat of perjury. This hearing provides an opportunity for change. The truth becomes public today, and it helps us build a freer society.

This past weekend, the Independent Leadership Council met in West Virginia, headed by former Senator Joe Manchin, his daughter Heather Manchin, and Adam Brandon of the Independent PAC. They are working to get a small number of truly independent candidates elected in Congress in 2026 and 2028, not beholden to traditional party politics. In fact, they describe themselves as a “movement, not a party.” (so, not to be confused with the No Labels Party)

Voters want simple outcomes. People want to keep their earned income, control their own lives, and stop the government from micromanaging their daily choices. I view becoming an independent voter as a good first step toward self-reliance, allowing freethinking voters a choice away from the political theater put on by the two older parties. It is that independence that feeds educating oneself on the candidates and being a free thinker in the voting booth. It needs a firm principle of individual liberty to achieve real results.

The Libertarian Party offers the exact principle that independent voters need. Libertarians focus on a clear baseline with first principles thought: individual liberty, lower taxes, minimal government interference, and personal autonomy. The party does not seek to manage private lives or spend taxpayer dollars. Local and state libertarian candidates across the country offer immediate, actionable options on the ballot right now. Voting for a libertarian candidate converts general political frustration into a direct stand for smaller government.

I look forward to what, if any, effect the Independent Leadership Council has on the 2026 and 2028 elections, and I hope more voters move away from the stranglehold the Republican Party and the Democratic Party has on the political system in our country.

In the meantime, several candidates are already locked onto the November ballot and their names will appear regardless of the primary results:

• One Libertarian Party candidate: Scott Jewett of Palm Beach County

• The eventual Democratic and Republican nominees (still to be chosen in the August 18 primaries)

• Six independent candidates who have no party affiliation

These non-major-party candidates have already qualified, and their names will appear on the general-election ballot alongside the Democratic and Republican nominees. I for one, am glad the two old parties have a bit of competition. I only wish the mainstream media would cover all qualified candidates equally.

Scott Jewett brands his 2026 Florida Governor campaign as “Humanitarian Libertarianism.” He seeks to combine Republican economic principles with Democratic social values. Jewett said, “I’ve watched both parties spend years perfecting the art of the fight and forgetting the work of governing. Floridians aren’t asking for more outrage. They’re asking whether their kids can afford a house here, whether their insurance will hold, whether anyone’s actually steering. I’m running because those questions deserve an answer.”

Jewett wants the government to stay out of abortion decisions. He leaves this choice to individuals and their doctors. This aligns with the Libertarian principle of bodily autonomy. Jewett also insists on zero government involvement in religion. He views faith as a strict personal choice. This matches the Libertarian demand for the separation of church and state. Jewett pledges to reduce government spending and lower taxation.

He restricts the core government role to defending the nation and protecting personal freedoms. I also like that he is a strong defender of the Second Amendment. This mirrors the Libertarian goal of a minimal state footprint. Jewett attacks both Republicans and Democrats for encroaching on citizen freedoms. He positions his campaign as a defense against two-party state control. This echoes the core Libertarian critique of the political duopoly.

He has also stated, “Government should serve as a protector of personal freedoms, a lifeline for the disadvantaged, and a shield for national defense, while respecting individual autonomy in all other aspects of life. As your Governor, I will commit to reducing unnecessary government spending and taxation.”

There are a few areas where Jewett diverges from traditional Libertarian Party principles, and perhaps that will appeal to a wider audience, I don’t know. Jewett states he wants to increase personal accountability without disrupting needed social programs. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the phase-out of government welfare. True freedom relies on voluntary charity, rather than via government force.

He also plans to regulate private industry, promising to intervene in the Florida homeowner insurance market. He wants to stop companies from using contracts he deems unfair. Libertarians believe in free markets and voluntary contracts. State regulation of the insurance market could contradict with minimal government interference. Andthe masses seem to be clamoring for the government to do something about the cost of insurance in Florida.

Lastly, he distances himself from the party base. He calls historical Libertarian goals too extreme. He signals a willingness to compromise the non-aggression principle to appeal to voters. He commits to reducing taxes while seeking to keep the current tax structure intact to fund social programs.

All that said, even with these three deviations from the LP, I will most likely be voting for him in November, as he would definitely be a better governor than Byron Donalds or David Jolly on the freedom I seek here in Florida. Jewett aligns with the Libertarian Party on keeping the government out of medical decisions, gun rights, and religious freedom. Economically, he pitches centrism over Libertarianism.

Jewitt added, “This race isn’t about which party is worse. It’s about the fact that neither one is offering Floridians a plan. We’ve been handed division when we asked for direction, and talking points when we asked for the truth. I’m running to give this state something to build toward instead of something to be angry about.”

So, as the 2026 Florida gubernatorial campaigns move forward, we’ll have much more to discuss after the August 18, 2026, primary.

Musk made this observation just days after his July 23 interview with The Economist. He spoke for 90 minutes inside the lobby of the Tesla Gigafactory in Texas. The interviewer interrogated him. The reporter demanded to know if Musk held far-right views. Musk defended his positions clearly. He discussed his work to reduce government spending through the Department of Government Efficiency. He noted that legacy news organizations face trust issues. He reminded the interviewer that over 250 million people follow him on X because they want factual information.

I looked at the actual funding data to understand this media bias. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has distributed over 319 million dollars in grants to major media organizations. NPR alone took over 24 million dollars. The BBC, The Guardian, and CNN accepted millions more. Gates also funded local outlets like the Texas Tribune and international papers like Le Monde and Der Spiegel. These media outlets need this extra money coming in from Gates, as readers and reporters abandon these legacy media orgs. I do not expect reporters to question the billionaire who funds their paychecks. I also noticed last year, Gates gave interviews where he claimed Musk destabilizes political situations. The reporters who accept Gates Foundation money rarely challenge Gates on his own political influence. While Musk is partially responsible for eliminating the fraud and abuse of USAID, there is zero evidence “millions of deaths” that Musk is responsible for. This false mantra has been repeated in the media and social media ever since.

This funding dynamic reveals a problem with centralized power. Libertarian values teach me that true independence requires a free and decentralized market. When a foundation or a government agency bankrolls the press, the press serves the funder. The journalists lose their independence. They protect the establishment. They attack disrupters like Musk who operate outside their financial control and actively work to shrink the administrative state.

Individual liberty demands a free press. A free press cannot survive on centralized grants. When governments or foundations centralize funding, they centralize the narrative. I see propaganda instead of news. A libertarian approach solves this. In a free market, the media must earn trust from the individual. Journalists must deliver accurate information to survive, rather than pleasing a donor or a government agency.

I have reason to feel optimistic about the future of news. The public sees the bias clearly now. Millions of individuals choose to abandon legacy media platforms. I watch them seek out independent voices. I embrace platforms like X where individuals speak freely. I hold the power to reject narratives that billionaires buy, in favor of independent journalist and outlets like, here on Substack. I support independent journalists directly. I protect my individual liberty by seeking truth on my own terms. The era of the funded gatekeeper is ending. The era of the empowered citizen is beginning.

I judge politicians by their actions. Massie owns a consistent record of defending individual liberty and opposing foreign conflicts. He demands Congress follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires the legislature to declare war. Presidents from both parties routinely ignore this law. Massie fought them all. During the Obama administration, Massie backed resolutions requiring Congress to debate military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He opposed using the outdated 2002 Iraq authorization for new conflicts. He co-sponsored House Resolution 2456 to repeal that 2002 authorization. He also pushed War Powers resolutions to stop the United States involvement in the Saudi war in Yemen.

Massie maintained this exact standard during the Biden administration. He led bipartisan efforts to repeal the 2001 military authorization. He voted to limit executive war powers regarding Iran. He voted against funding foreign conflicts. Like many in America, Massie does not feel we should be sending money overseas to any country while we continue our reckless spending. Few but Massie seem concerned with our over 123% debt to GDP, which we haven’t seen since the pandemic, and before that, WWII. What Nick Shirley has uncovered is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

But Massie ruffled the feathers of the “powers that be” when he opposed spending taxpayer money for Ukraine and Israel. Rather than play along to get along, Massie sticks to the U.S. Constitution and his own principles when it comes to his votes, and he cannot be bought.

I view foreign intervention as the greatest threat to individual liberty. War requires the government to take wealth from citizens. War requires the government to control information and restricts our personal freedom. Peace allows individuals to build their own lives and communities. We cannot protect liberty at home while funding endless conflicts abroad. True freedom requires minimal state interference in foreign affairs. Our government must focus on protecting the rights of Americans. It lacks authority or the ability, quite frankly, to manage the rest of the world.

A government that funds global conflicts must print or borrow money to pay the bills. This printing causes inflation. Inflation steals wealth directly from working people. I talk to everyday people in Florida, and most feel the cost of these foreign policies and over-the-top government spending every time they buy groceries. They want leaders who prioritize American prosperity. Massie understands this connection. He votes to leave wealth with the people who earned it.

Massie demonstrates personal responsibility. He lives on a farm. He built his own home. He raises his own food. He relies on himself. This independence angers party leaders. They prefer politicians who depend on party structure and donor money. Massie refuses to comply. He votes against his party when leadership demands support for massive spending bills. Unlike most of his colleagues, Massie reads the legislation before he votes on it. He’s not a “we have to pass the bill so we know what’s in it,” kind of legislator. He defends the taxpayer. I want this level of personal accountability in the White House.

We need a presidential candidate who respects the limits of federal power. The executive branch possesses far too much authority. Our U.S.Congress surrendered its war powers decades ago. Massie wants to return that power to the legislature. This forces lawmakers to vote on record before sending Americans into combat. It requires public debate. It prevents presidents from launching secret operations and starting undeclared wars. He never apologizes for defending the Constitution. He never softens his message to please political donors or Trump.

As the 2028 election approaches, I will use my time to build support for candidates who share these libertarian values. We must reject the politicians who profit from war at the expense of Americans. We must support leaders who defend the U.S. Constitution. Massie proved his dedication to these principles in Congress—check out his voting record. A presidential run gives him the opportunity to bring this message to the entire country.

Sadly, this is true propaganda, and most Americans soak up the slop. Let’s look at facts rather than claims by government to have solved a problem. Law enforcement is using a failed strategy given to them by lawmakers. It is the Law of Supply & Demand that dictates human behavior, not arrests promoted on the evening news. People will buy what they want, regardless of any laws put in place. When the government bans a product, the demand remains. The supply shifts to unregulated networks—the black market. When our government creates a black market, violence follows.

I see this outcome in Daytona Beach and Orlando. Sellers cannot use the court system to settle disputes. They use violence instead. The state creates the conditions for this violence by pushing the market outside the legal free market system. This has proven to be a huge mistake.

A free market operates openly. Buyers and sellers transact without state interference. Businesses establish reputations based on quality and safety. If a legal business sells a dangerous product, customers sue the company. If an illegal dealer sells fentanyl, people die. Government interference removes accountability. The state claims prohibition protects citizens, but look at the data, and you will see the opposite. The federal government spends over 44 billion dollars annually on drug control. That is our tax money going down the drain every year. Drug overdose deaths still exceeded 100,000 last year in the United States. Prohibition guarantees dangerous products. Personal responsibility requires freedom. I own my body. I decide what I consume. The government lacks the moral authority to dictate my choices.

Politicians love to declare war on abstract ideas. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1964. The federal government spent trillions of dollars. Poverty persists. President Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs in 1971. The federal government spent trillions more. Fentanyl and methamphetamine exist today at cheaper prices and higher potencies. Operation Ice Breaker II required resources from five county sheriff departments and the Florida Attorney General. In a few days, new sellers will replace the 49 arrested individuals. The cycle continues. Bureaucrats fail because they ignore basic economics. They substitute state force for individual freedom.

I know a better path. I advocate choosing liberty over state force. I want to end the War on Drugs and legalize these markets. Legalization reduces violence. Legalization frees police to focus on property crimes and violent crimes. I believe in human capacity for personal responsibility. I do not need the state to protect me from myself. When communities accept freedom, residents create safer neighborhoods.

While I agree with Scott that AI will likely be the greatest information innovation since Guttenberg’s printing press, his solution is misguided. The last thing AI needs is the stagnation of a federal government bureaucracy. I thought we were closing down the U.S. Dept of Education, anyway; what happened to that notion? Seems like Scott’s bill is going in the opposite direction. A federal AI curriculum will fail as D.C. cannot regulate what it clearly does not understand.

Scott proposes to use Federal Block Grants which, of course, has federal strings attached to them. We should end funding our children’s education, wholesale. It should be up to private foundations, families, etc. to fund the education of our young, not government intrusions with state indoctrination. Though in Florida, such a measure would require a dramatic change to our state constitution, so I won’t be holding my breath for that happening anytime soon. Parents should be able to prioritize which subjects to focus, and how those subjects are taught to their children. But Scott’s proposed legislation does the complete opposite; he favors indoctrinating our kids with government speak.

The Safeguard Kids Act expands federal power. It wastes taxpayer money. It usurps parental authority. Florida voters must reject this federal overreach. I urge you to contact Senator Scott or the U.S. Senators in your state and oppose this bill.

It is parents, not government bureaucrats who create principled leaders. Families must manage technology risks in their own homes. The state must stay out of family decisions. Personal responsibility is the only valid and ethical solution.