Trump’s Economy Is on the Verge of a Major Boom

 

I’d like to talk very briefly about the current economy. We’re in a very Orwellian situation when everybody’s talking about affordability, and they have legitimate concerns to do so because prices are pretty high, and they’ve risen higher in the last few years than wages.  

But here’s my point. If you look at the actual economic data, the economy is on the edge of a boom. I’ll give you an example of what I mean. In 2022, affordability was an issue. Eighty percent had polled that in that midterm year they were upset with Joe Biden, whose positive polls had dropped—likability, performance, etc.—all the way from 52% before the August Kabul skedaddle down to 40% during the 2022 midterms.  

But here’s my point. All the economic indicators were much worse in 2022 than they are now, whether you’re talking about inflation three times higher, median income thousands of dollars lower, stock market about 20,000 points lower than it is now. Gas prices roughly the same. They had gotten up to $5 in 2022, except—etc. You can go through every single indicator. The only one, that GDP was lower. Unemployment was a little bit better, but mostly the same.  

And yet the red wave didn’t materialize. So, there’s something going on in the way that the blue wave did materialize with a more robust economy.  

And what I’m getting at is everybody talks about the tariffs causing inflation. The inflation rate right now is 3.7%. 3.7. It was 2.7 in the first term. That’s still well below the average of the Biden administration, 5.1%, the aggregate 21% inflation, and the record of 9.1% in 2022, which was the midterm year, and it apparently didn’t do Biden very much damage.  

But what I’m getting at is the problem with the economy is essentially there was a 21% price hike under Joe Biden that was given to the Trump administration, and they did lower the inflation rate almost by half, from 5.1 to 2.7. This year, because of oil, it’ll be about 3.7, still much lower than 5.1.  

But you cannot reduce that rat in the snake, that big hump. We have to work through it by lowering the rate of inflation and increasing living wages.  

But look at the other indicators where we are right now, at a period of Donald Trump’s greatest unpopularity and a historic wipeout of the Republicans: 

Unemployment: 165 [thousand] new jobs. Of course, we all use the word unexpectedly. Wall Street Journal said that because the doom and gloomers said it would be a dismal 70,000 creation. And remember, these are not government jobs. It’s not Joe Biden padding the workforce at the federal level. We have lost 270,000 federal jobs due to the DOGE cuts, so the unemployment rate should be sky-high, but it fell this October from 4.2; it’s down to 4.1. 

GDP, we were told it’s a dismal two point—it’s been revised to 3.4. It may get up to 4.4. So inflation is just a third, a little over a third, that it was under Biden. GDP is strong.  

The poverty rate has never been lower. It’s 10.2, a point and a half lower than the Biden administration. The per family median income is $87,000. It’s thousands of dollars higher than it was during the Biden administration.  

Until the Democratic takeover of the midterms, their big win, which has now been recorded in a huge stock market loss because investors are worried about some of the things they’re talking about—higher taxes, more regulation, even confiscations, attacks on Elon Musk, etc. Even with that, the stock market is 20,000 points higher than it was under Biden.  

If you look at any other indicator, foreign investment, it’s triple what it was during the Biden midterms of 2022, and it’s double what, gone, the highest year that Joe Biden had foreign investment.  

If you look at U.S. companies and all of the emerging technology, even with the war on AI centers that we’re seeing here, AI companies worldwide by terms of use of AI or market capitalization, eight out of the 10 are American. Digital media, nine out of the 10 are American. Software, nine out of the 10. 

Space launches, almost 9 out of 10 are SpaceX, or Elon Musk, that’s being demonized and attacked. He launched more American satellites this year than the world put together, and now he has launched more American satellites than all the satellites launched in the world.  

So, what am I getting at? We’re getting … And if you want to talk about energy, no country in the history of civilization has pumped per year as much gas and oil as the United States will in 2026. Not Russia, not Kuwait, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not—none of them, not Venezuela, none.  

So, if you look at the building blocks of an economy—unemployment, inflation, GDP, stock market, per family income, poverty rate—everything is going good.  

So, why is this important? There were other reasons why the Republicans got wiped out. The price of gas because of the Iran war had spiked, yes, and that’s the first thing everybody feels, and diesel fuel is the blood of the American circulatory system, and that was high.  

There was also, and we don’t even talk about it, there was furor over corruption. There was a feeling that there were people that had contacts with the administration that were making money in double-dealing or influence peddling or grifting in the Middle East while people were hurting, and that got people angry.  

There was also the idea that some of the candidates on the Republican side were very weak, especially Ken Paxton in Texas. I could go on, but it doesn’t serve any purpose other than just to say they were weak, and I think people agree with them.  

There was also anger that the United States—there was anger with the, I don’t know how you call, the Tucker Carlson base that they had defined no optional wars: not as [Qasem] Soleimani, not as taking out [Abu Bakr al] Baghdadi, not in the first term destroying ISIS, not destroying the Wagner Group, not last year’s necessarily bombing for 25 hours and eliminating most of the nuclear capability—not all, but a lot of it—or the Maduro raid, but a 38-day bombing.  

And most importantly, the war is gonna be over next week. No, two weeks, three weeks, the stopping and the bombing. They don’t say that, but if you look at the polls, they say people oppose the war from the beginning. No, the Republicans did not. They did not. They did not oppose the Iran war until we got into a talk, talk, talk, talk, talk for six months with people who cannot be trusted.  

What am I trying to say? The economy is just about to boom. All of the indicators say that. A Dr. Furman, one of the chief Obama economists, what did he say yesterday? He’s a staunch Democrat, partisan, no fan of market, the free market, libertarian economics. What did he say? He says, “An economy doesn’t get much better than this.” He was amazed at what’s going on.  

I don’t know what’s going to happen, but one of two things I think could happen. One, as this economy starts to boom, there will be people who will fall in line and say Donald Trump brought amazing prosperity, and the usual time it takes to rectify a huge tsunami, as we saw in the midterms, is usually three election cycles. But it could be reversed as quickly as two years if we go into the 2028 presidential elections with 4.0 GDP and 2% inflation and 2 or 3% unemployment. And so that’s a likelihood.  

There’s also a likelihood that there’s going to be people in the Democratic Party that are not completely crazy, and they are going to try to tell the Islamicist, socialist wing, just be quiet and let’s take credit.  

Let’s say as we go into 2027, it was all because of us that we got inaugurated on Jan. 3, even though they hadn’t done anything, and they will try to push the Green New Deal, more regulation, more taxes, but they will try to leapfrog and claim as they go into the 2028 that the Congress brought us a reprieve.  

That’s not true, and it probably won’t happen, but there are people in the Democratic Party that see that possibility.

Charlie Kirk Was MAGA’s Secret Weapon—and the Midterms Proved It

 person 1: person 2, yesterday, as I sent you last night, a topic. It was an article by Christopher Rufo in City Journal, and it had some thoughts about Charlie Kirk and that he feels that Charlie Kirk’s murder and his death marked, I’m quoting him here, “the shattering of the American right.” 

I’m just gonna read this a little. “The immediate consequence of his murder was an epistemological collapse. Charlie Kirk was a political operator and never shy about using provocation, spectacle, and controversy as part of his method, but he was always tethered to political reality and oriented toward political success. 

“He was sensitive to public opinion and kept in touch with an unbelievable number of people in the world. At his best, he tried to discipline elements of the right, steer them away from delusion and conspiracy theories, and focus them on winning.” 

Chris has said much more on this. But now also, and I’ll shut up in a second, coincidentally, last night, Dave Chappelle, the very, very popular comedian, was giving a performance at Madison Square Garden in New York City, and he said, “Ever since that Charlie Kirk got murdered, and I shouldn’t say this publicly, but I feel better.” 

And this is Dave Chappelle, who was himself rushed at on the stage and threatened. So, anyway, there’s a lot of Charlie Kirk talk. I wonder what your take is on the consequences of his death, your thoughts on what Chris Rufo said, and any commentary you want to make about Dave Chappelle. 

person 2: I think everybody’s sick of it. I really do. One thing about Charlie Kirk: He would go on these campuses, and his whole mission in life … And he didn’t—he was an autodidact. He tried to learn and speak, and he did two things that people keep forgetting. He said: I’m going—I don’t believe that higher education is worth the money as it’s presently constructed, and I’m going to listen to Hillsdale videos, or I’m gonna take online courses. I’m gonna educate myself. 

He called me a couple times and asked, “What should I be reading?” And he was very sincere. And then he said, “I will go into places like the Oxford debate society, where we supposedly have the smartest people in the world, and I’ll go head-to-head with the president of the Oxford debating society.” 

If you watch that debate, he wiped them off the floor. And he would debate anybody. He didn’t care about the degree. He was trying to tell people that education is education. It doesn’t have to be synonymous with an ideologically tainted universe. And if it is, that ideologically tainted universe needs to be reformed. 

So, he tried to reform it. And No. 2, he told young people, your anger at college and the way you’re being indoctrinated, your anger at the way the new green deal and all of the open borders stifle economic prosperity, that is OK. You are it. The conservatives are not old fuddy-duddies. They are the counterrevolution party. 

Just like your grandparents in the ’60s thought it was hip and cool to question the establishment, so now it is hip and cool for you to question the establishment because the establishment is Hollywood, entertainment, professional sports, the media, the administrative state, K-through-12, academia. That is the establishment. 

So, you are completely right to be a youthful critic of that. And that was a new message, and it had enormous effect.  

And he just wasn’t an abstract podcaster like I am or a philosopher like some people think they are. He was a pragmatic person. I think if you take him away from the swing states and the voter registration and get out the vote, then you get something like the midterms. 

I think his loss was not completely responsible, but it had an effect in this election. And he was talking about affordability before the Left was, about housing and debt and things like that to young people. So they thought that he was an existential threat. 

And we talked last time that I guess it’s that podcasting duo of Jennifer Welch and Anne Sullivan who said that they wanted to dig up the remains of Charlie Kirk and shoot him again, or that they praised somebody who said that. 

And then Dave Chappelle said, you know what? You just said he felt better when he was dead. That’s who—when you look at the midterms, that’s what is in control of this country. And the worst thing about it is, those two podcasters then say they’re socialist and they’re radicals, but they’re capitalist. 

And they make a lot of money from their advertisers. So, their advertisers, who are left-wing, said to them, we’re gonna get a hit from this, so we want you to retract it. So, then they wrote this pathetic I’m sorry, just like that Brazilian. Remember her? Isis something. She came here with her parents, very wealthy. 

She goes to a Turning Point, I guess it was a Charlie Kirk, post-Charlie Kirk’s life event, and she reads a poem where she says, “This is the Kirkiversary, and we’re all celebrating his death.” And then she makes reference to the wound in his neck. Then she tells the host, “You’re very brave to be here without a neck protection brace,” meaning you’re worthy of being killed, too. 

And then, just like these two reprehensible podcasters, she’s worried that she has violated the terms of her visa that say visa holders are not supposed to publicly advocate violence, and she did. And so, when word came that the State Department might question her visa, what did she do? She wasn’t all made up and tan-looking and confident and arrogant and brash. 

She was weepy, shaken, and then she gave this pseudo-apology that her lawyer wrote, obviously. But these people are insincere, and that’s who the Left is dealing with. And if you don’t think that we’re dealing with these people, [Abdul] El-Sayed is now the senator from Michigan. He said yesterday that Dearborn is the capital of Arab America. 

What is Arab America? I don’t know what that—I’ve never heard that term. I don’t know any of my Hispanic friends who say Fresno is the capital of Mexico America or Mexican America. What do you mean? What do you mean by that? I’ve heard terms like Irish town and Chinatown for neighborhoods, but what is Arab America? 

And [Hasan Piker’s uncle] was the creator of that ad that said that the Jews, who make up 1% of foreign aid and 1/20th of 1% of the budget, were responsible—Israel, Zionists, da-da-da, our aid to Israel and the people who support it—for the price of eggs and bananas. 

And when you do that, you then lead to what was happening now, as I speak on the 8th of November, a Kristallnacht celebration, the worst episode in the history of the West and the Western trajectory up to World War II in Germany. 

What I mean by that is, you read “Mein Kampf,” or what Hitler said he was going to do to the Jews, and it was more abstract. But on Nov. 10 and 11 of 1938, as we said last time, they became concrete, and they killed hundreds of Jews. They locked—they imprisoned thousands. They destroyed their property. And it’s always seen as the first big step of openly, with the SS and the SA saying, “We don’t care what people think. We’re going to go after Jews.”  

And from Kristallnacht to the doors of Auschwitz was not that long. It was about five years, six years. And then the camps were … 

So, now we have people who look at that date, and they’re celebrating it by going into Philadelphia. They have no idea whether the Jewish restaurants and stores that they’re going to target for something—to protest or to ostracize or to stop their bike ride and insult them—they have no idea whether they support Israel or not. 

They’re just picked out for one reason: They’re Jewish. And we don’t hear anybody. Where’s Hakeem Jeffries? He always talks about morality. He’s the new Speaker of the House-elect. What did he say the other day? He used a very unfortunate metaphor because he’s ignorant and he doesn’t know any history. 

I take that back, Jack. His uncle was Lionel Jeffries, and when young Hakeem was in college, he wrote letters endorsing Hakeem Jeffries’ views, which were that white people are genetically inferior and they’re ice people, and sun people have melanin in their skin and they’re morally superior. 

And I don’t blame anybody for their youthful indiscretions, but he should be very careful about his language given his uncle’s pernicious role in race relations in this country. And what did he say? That Stephen Miller, before he’s even opened his mouth as the new chief of staff—and the chief of staff, remember, is the president’s prerogative. 

So, he says, and the chief of staff will be working with Congress, he says that he’s a tumor, what, to be excised or to be removed? A tumor. Who said—where do we get the idea that a particular group of people were a cancer that had to be removed from the body politic? Which movement gave—along with rats and insects and things—but who said they were cancer and tumors? 

Couldn’t be the Third Reich, could it? So here you have Kristallnacht reenactment basically coming up, and here you have all of this antisemitism and an ad which nobody really in the party has opposed who meant anything, who had any authority. And what does the new speaker of the Democratic House say? 

He uses a Third Reich image of cancer that has to be removed about an individual who hasn’t even done one thing yet as chief of staff. So, hold on, everybody, get your seat belts, ’cause this is what we voted for. Not we, us, but these people voted for. They didn’t just vote for affordability. They voted for this stuff, and it’s gonna get pretty, pretty strange. 

person 1: Yeah. Back on Charlie Kirk, person 2, along the same lines, you see these various social media photographs and videos, the T-shirts now with the blood running down, and groups of teachers taking … Feeling so confident that as teachers at a school X, they can have a group photo glorifying his murder. 

It’s a very, very— 

person 2: I saw white women, 65 years old, Jack, teachers who were protesting with that T-shirt. It’s not some crazy young person. And you know— 

person 1: Can you imagine, person 2, if you were wearing a T-shirt glorifying the death of Michael Brown or George Floyd, what would happen? 

person 2: You’d be killed. 

person 1: Yeah. 

person 2: You’d be killed. And this is growing, everyone, because we saw it with Luigi Mangione. They made a little mini symphony or opera or something in San Francisco glorifying him. We had that terrible interview with the ex-Washington Post reporter who said he was good-looking and handsome. 

And he became a star because he murdered a middle-class kid who worked himself up to be the CEO of UnitedHealth, and he’s now a folk hero.  

And so, there is something deeply wrong in this socialist leftist movement. It reminds me of the Robespierre brothers who hijacked the anti-monarchist parties in France in 1792, and then from their rhetoric to the guillotine was about five months. 

And so when you see people like Sen. [Elissa] Slotkin say you’re going to go after people who are going to work for [President Donald] Trump, who are going to work in Congress or work in the administration, or Susan Rice saying we’re going to go after CEOs, or today in, I think it was The Wall Street Journal, it was reported that there are people who are going to go after the Trump—or maybe it was another venue I just read this morning. 

They’re going to go after the Trump family, which, if they’ve done anything wrong, they need to be held accountable, but as a way of going after CEOs. And you can see what already happened. The governor of Texas was warning Elon [Musk] that she’s going to take measures that are going to make it very hard for him to do business. 

And then the Europeans said today that they’re going to be taxing him huge fines. And he said, “Fine, then I’m canceling all of the rocketry data that’s needed that you use from my satellites.” 

And basically, then they said, “We’re going to do this and this to you.” And then he said, “Try sending a five-ton package into space from Europe with your capability.” 

And of course, what he was saying was, “My SpaceX launched more satellites last year than the entire world put together, and it was about 10 to 1.” And so, we’re headed for some very strange things.  

When they say we’re going to go after these people, they mean it. They really do.

Your 401(k) Just Met the New Congress

 

Wall Street gave Democrats a standing ovation on Wednesday and a dose of reality on Thursday. After Democrats won both chambers of Congress, flipping more than two dozen Republican-held House seats, the Dow jumped 3 percent, its best post-midterm day since 1982. Then Thursday arrived. At the close, the S and P 500 had fallen 4.36 percent, or 334.89 points, and the Nasdaq Composite 5.52 percent, or 1,421.52 points. The VIX, Wall Street's fear gauge, jumped 68 percent to 27.46. That is the worst second day after a midterm in nearly a century, well past the 2002 low of 2.3 percent. More than $2 trillion in value evaporated from pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k) plans.

I won't pretend one election explains one bad Thursday. The AI trade was already under scrutiny. The Nasdaq-100 closed in correction territory on Monday, more than 10 percent below its October 6 record. That came on the heels of an October 30 sell-off that erased more than $1 trillion in tech value on doubts about AI spending. Thursday's focus shifted to what a Democrat Congress could mean for the AI buildout. In 30 years of pricing risk, I've learned that investors charge for uncertainty about taxes, regulation, and investigations the same way they charge for a shaky balance sheet. Here's where I land: a Democratic Congress will pull Washington toward the California model, and Republicans handed over the keys by leaving their own agenda unfinished.

I moved to California in 1990, when the mood was upbeat, and the economy was on an upswing. I raised three sons there and made a life for my family. Democrats have since held both legislative chambers for nearly three decades and now hold 29 of 40 Senate seats and 60 of 80 Assembly seats, a two-thirds supermajority in each. Add it up: a 13.3 percent top income tax rate, the highest in the nation, a steady stream of businesses leaving, and regular gas at $5.84 a gallon against a national average of $4.10. Costs are up, crime is up, housing is unaffordable and our educational system is failing our kids. Watching Washington copy that script feels like Groundhog Day, except Bill Murray eventually escaped Punxsutawney.

Texas shows how fast the model travels. The state has more data center capacity operating and under construction than any other, and Bloom Energy projects it will hold nearly 30 percent of U.S. capacity by 2028. Voters just replaced Texas Gov. Greg Abbott with Gina Hinojosa, who promised a ban on all data center approvals until the Legislature acts. Abbott had already paused approvals for audits. Still, a rising technology powerhouse just elected a governor who wants to shut the front door. Thomas Sowell wrote in Is Reality Optional?: "The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." Power and water are scarce, and a ban doesn't make either one less so.

Ayn Rand wrote that man is "not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see." Legislators can evade arithmetic for a decade or two, and California has. Markets extend no such courtesy. Thursday's tape was reality sending an invoice, and it arrived before a single bill had passed.

This reaches well beyond Wall Street. Gallup finds 62 percent of American adults own stock, directly or through a 401(k) or IRA. Thursday's losses landed on teachers, nurses, and contractors saving for retirement.

Republicans earned their share of this. They held the House, the Senate, and the White House, then spent the time arguing with each other. The White House pulled more than 50 nominees in 2025, the most in a single year in decades, many after Republican senators balked. When President Trump demanded an end to the filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, a senior GOP aide told Time that 15 of the 20 Republican senators summoned to the White House were a hard no. I respect the 60-vote rule as a brake, and I'd defend it. But a party can't hold every lever, refuse to pull any, and act surprised when voters hand the levers to the other side. Vice President JD Vance now says the party lost because of the Iran war and cost-of-living worries.

Calm has a case, and it's a fair one. Gridlock usually soothes investors. The S and P 500 has risen an average of 15.5 percent in the six months after the last 14 midterms, going back to 1970, according to Edward Jones. Democrats lack a filibuster-proof Senate majority, and the president can veto what they pass. Wednesday's rally priced exactly that.

A veto stops bills. It doesn't stop subpoenas. Rep. Robert Garcia will chair House Oversight and plans to investigate corporate corruption alongside the Trump family business. Sen. Elissa Slotkin told a University of Chicago audience she wants prosecutions of Trump's enablers to carry "that deterrence message" to graduates weighing administration jobs. A party that wants to look to the future shouldn't spend it on investigations and on frightening young staffers. UBS economist Jonathan Pingle notes that Democrats must now approve any new Fed governors.

Republicans have three moves left. They control both chambers until the new Congress is seated, so they should confirm the qualified nominees in the queue and pass whatever can clear now. Governors who still want the AI buildout should win it, because data center policy is set largely at the state and utility-commission level, according to LPL Research's Jeff Buchbinder, and predictable permitting and power will beat a federal fight. Savers should control what they can: the savings rate, the allocation, and the urge to sell at the bottom. After 30 years managing money for families, I can tell you the last one costs the most.

Margaret Thatcher put it bluntly in a television interview: socialist governments "always run out of other people's money." California has spent three decades testing that theory and keeps finding new pockets. Republicans have until January to prove they understand what they hold, and voters will render another verdict in 2028. Wall Street needed two days to price the risk. Californians needed nearly 30 years. The rest of us should skip the wait.

One Nation, Under Judgment? Spiritual Implications of the Election Results

America should not be surprised that our nation, largely existing in flagrant rejection of God’s Word, is reaping the consequences of its own rebellion.

The 2026 midterm elections, with the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress, have delivered painful setbacks for Republicans and a significant political shift in Washington. The larger question confronting America is not simply which political party wins elections. It is whether our nation is experiencing the consequences of turning away from Almighty God.

From a Biblical perspective, there is a sobering likelihood that the United States of America is a nation under judgment by God.

Throughout Scripture, God holds nations accountable for their conduct. Proverbs 14:34 declares, “Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” When a society celebrates what God condemns, marginalizes biblical morality, disregards the sanctity of human life, and increasingly substitutes government dependency for personal responsibility, it cannot expect God’s blessing indefinitely.

The Inconvenient (but Very Relevant) Question

American Christians must confront a question: Where have our pastors been?

The great failure of the American evangelical church is the reluctance of many pastors to address the moral and spiritual implications of political issues. Sunday after Sunday, congregations hear sermons about personal relationships, forgiveness, generosity, and platitudes about Christian living. Those subjects are important. But where are the sermons condemning abortion, supporting the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, constitutional government, and the moral foundations upon which a free society depends?

Where are the pastors’ sermons condemning transgenderism, vocally supporting Israel, denouncing antisemitism, and saying that Muslims are spiritually lost and in need of Jesus? Answer: You’ll never hear sermons on these topics in your local church. Why? Because sermons like these come from pastors with courage. Today’s pastors do not realize that biblical faithfulness does not exist in a context of political silence.


When Scripture speaks clearly about the sanctity of life, sexual morality, honesty, justice, and personal responsibility, pastors have an obligation to teach those truths, even when they become politically controversial.

Malachi 2:1-9 contains a sobering warning to spiritual leaders who fail in their responsibility to teach God’s law faithfully. The Lord rebukes priests who have turned aside from their calling and caused others to stumble through their instruction. 2 Peter 2:17 similarly warns about false teachers, describing them as wells without water. These passages should remind every pastor that spiritual leadership carries an enormous responsibility. Silence, compromise, and the abandonment of biblical truth are not harmless.

A Matter Deserving Far Greater Attention From American Pulpits: Voting As Stewardship

The privilege of voting is not merely a political convenience. It is a responsibility. Christians have been entrusted with opportunities, freedoms, and civic privileges that believers in many other nations do not enjoy. Those privileges should be exercised thoughtfully and prayerfully.

A Christian’s faith should influence every area of life, including decisions made in the voting booth. If the Bible teaches that human life is sacred, that truth cannot suddenly become irrelevant when evaluating public policy. If Scripture teaches personal accountability, honesty, sexual integrity, and justice, those convictions should inform our understanding of candidates and their platforms.

Indifference is not an acceptable option for Christians. James 4:17 reminds us that knowing to do good and failing to do it is sin. Christians should seriously examine whether political apathy, unwillingness to become informed, or refusal to participate in the public square amounts to neglecting responsibilities God has entrusted to them.

Voting is a matter that deserves prayerful moral examination. Christians should not casually excuse positions that contradict fundamental biblical teachings simply because a candidate belongs to a favored political party. Every candidate must be evaluated against principles of righteousness, truth, justice, and human dignity.

The Democratic Party’s embrace of policies that conflict with biblical teachings should be a matter of serious concern. Christians need pastors willing to explain issues that are not mere political disagreements but issues on which the Bible has unequivocally spoken.

America’s present political circumstances should therefore provoke more than frustration among conservative Christians. They should provoke repentance, prayer, renewed commitment, and action.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is not simply that America is changing politically. It is that so many churches have failed to prepare their congregations to understand the moral and spiritual stakes involved.

We need pastors who will courageously preach the whole counsel of God. We need Christians who understand that citizenship carries responsibilities. We need families who teach their children that religious liberty, constitutional government, personal responsibility, and the sanctity of human life are worth defending.

And above all, we need a spiritual awakening.

Political victories cannot save America. Only God can bring genuine national repentance and spiritual renewal. But ungodly policies can definitely harm America for generations.

2 Chronicles 7:14 still offers a timeless prescription: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Perhaps it is time for America’s pastors to stop worrying so much about offending people and start worrying about offending God.

A nation needs courageous leaders. But it also needs courageous pastors. And the American church must decide whether it will faithfully proclaim God’s truth or remain silent while the nation drifts further away from Him. 

Trump’s Second Term—the Counterrevolution Explained

 

But the second half of that rise is what is he actually doing in his first years of presidency, and what is the point of it?

In the prior video, as I said, he wanted to address the progressive revolution, how they took power without being elected. By that, I mean control of the institutions even when they did not have the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the presidency.

So, he said, “This time I’m not gonna complain about the symptoms. I’m going to look at the causes.”

So, he wanted to have zero immigration, zero immigration that was illegal, and cut back on immigration from countries where people were coming antithetical to the values and traditions of the United States, not assimilating, not acculturating, and not integrating, and often being very critical of the country that was so generously their host on the first day they set foot into it.

So, he revolutionized immigration. For the first time in about 50 years, we did not have more immigrants than Americans being born. It’s the first year that immigration will fall until we can properly integrate people into the American tradition.

He also said, “If we do what Europe does with green energy, and the Biden and Obama administrations have put us on that disastrous pathway, we will be a third-rate nation.”

Solar and wind are good auxiliary sources of power. They cannot be subsidized at forty cents a kilowatt, like here in California, to provide reliable twenty-four-hour power. They will not work.

We have enough natural gas and oil to be, if we are wise, to be the greatest producer of both in the history of civilization. And indeed, that’s where we are today.

He greenlined new leasings, the construction of new pipelines, and, of course, encouraged fracking. In addition, he’s encouraging nuclear power, smaller decentralized nuclear power, more hydroelectric, more everything.

The third thing is he said, we hollowed out the interior of the United States. We just simply said they’re losers. We offshored. We outsourced. The coasts got wealthy.

They had a global audience for their media, their lawyers, their executives, their CEOs, their insurance, their academics of seven billion people.

The people in between, often the muscular classes, fell short under globalization. I’m going to tell the world that one way to reduce their huge surpluses, we have over a trillion dollars in trade deficits. If they come to the United States and they build plants and they invest in our superior Constitution, our superior legal system, our cheap energy, they will make money, and they will hire Americans.

And already we have somewhere between $10 and $15 trillion in the pipeline of foreign investment.

He also said that we have too many regulations and we have too many people working for government. He let go 270,000 federal employees. We forget about that.

He looked at the military and said it’s been creeping for a long time, insidiously so, DEI programs. The Left likes the military because there is no discussion. There is no vote. There’s no argumentation about DEI. Once you get to the Pentagon, and you tell them we want DEI or else in a Democratic administration, then it’s the chain of command, and change happens like that.

And the results are we have about 50,000 recruits short. Donald Trump said his first year in office, and we’re going to get rid of DEI. And, of course, what happened? 50,000 Americans showed up. We’ve had the best recruiting years in a decade. We’ve got the highest energy production in a decade. We’ve got the most job creations from foreign investment probably in a decade.

He did. He wanted a couple of other things as well. He wanted American preeminence in the world in the broadest sense of the word. He increased the defense budget. He changed the idea from a few defense contractors with very expensive platforms, $160 million for an F-22, $90 million for an F-35. They’re great planes. $14 billion for a carrier.

We can shift a little bit now that we have those investments into quantity as well as quality. Why not build a million drones a year? We’re trying to build 350,000. Why not have 20,000 Tomahawks produced a year?

He also said that he was going to promote American companies, sort of like the War Production Board of FDR. FDR was a leftist. The corporations in World War II were rightist. But he brought in William Knudsen from GM, Henry Kaiser, Henry Ford, and said, “Go to it. I’m not going to regulate you. Produce, produce, produce, and we’ll win the war.”

Donald Trump was just the opposite. He was a rightist, and the companies were mostly in Silicon Valley, especially leftists. He brought them all in and he said, “If you make America preeminent in software, digital media, space launches, satellite launches, bioengineering, artificial intelligence, what’s gonna determine who leads the world in the next 50 years, I’m gonna protect you from Canadian regulation, from European arbitrary fining, from Chinese patent and copyright theft, as long as you put your country first.”

And what are we looking at now? If you look at those categories I just delineated, American companies are eight to nine of the top 10 in AI, in digital media, in satellite launches. Elon Musk, by June this year, has launched more satellites than all the satellites in history. In history. So we are dominating all the new fields.

He also said the world has taken advantage of us, or at least sized us up as ossified, calcified, asleep, and the result is American power and prestige is waning throughout the world.

I’m gonna go down to Latin America. I’m gonna get the Chinese and Russians, if I can, out of Venezuela. I’ll stop the Maduro communist spread of countries. I’ll get the Chinese out of Panama. Instead of having 28 of the 32 Caribbean nations anti-American, for the most part, anti-capitalist, anti-Western, we’ll flip them.

And as we speak today, all but four or five countries in Latin America are pro-U.S. and pro-capitalist, with the exception maybe of Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua.

He also said we have to look at the Middle East. We have an existential problem. Iran is getting closer and closer to getting a nuclear weapon. We had a one-day strike. Apparently, we didn’t get all of the nuclear materials.

So, on Feb. 28th of 2026, in a very controversial move when the economy was going very well, oil prices were near historic lows, he took on the 93-million-person Iran, and he said that I will bomb their infrastructure but not their dual-use infrastructure. I do not want to destroy their oil sector. I do not want to destroy their bridges, their highways, their factories. I want the Iranian people to have an infrastructure when they get rid of this odious regime.

It’s a very hard thing to do. There were certain taboos. He said no ground troops. No dual-use targeting like Barack Obama did in Libya and Bill Clinton did in Serbia.

And here we are into our ninth month. People are unhappy about the war. Oil has gone up over $100 a barrel, even though more oil is leaving the Gulf through the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman, and the Hormuz Strait than before. But we have sort of a bottleneck with distilleries.

People are very angry. It may cost Donald Trump the midterms, people are predicting. But the point of this is that if you can strangle the Iranian regime, strip away its money, strip away its nuclear threat, strip away its missiles, strip away its subordinates, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, from their source of income, the entire Middle East will start to change.

And again, he’s not nation-building, no boots on the ground. No, we’re gonna make a democracy here or there. No, what he’s saying is that Shia minorities and terrorist groups are funded by Iran, and they make it impossible to have a stable pro-Western Middle East. I’m going to address not the symptoms, but the cause of this.

I’d like to finish with, very quickly, Europe. Trump is not critical of Europe in the hostile sense, nor is his administration. What they envision is a partnership, but that’s impossible right now because European fertility is about 1.35. They have open borders. They have, in some European nations, 15% of unassimilated immigrants, mostly from the hostile Middle East. And when you count first- and second-generation, that number can get up in some countries to 30% or 40% of the population.

In a democratic society, they’re captive to that very powerful constituency. Until recently, they were pretty much disarmed. Even 2% of GDP, which they have just achieved, is pretty meager.

They have made disastrous choices on energy and shut down their fossil fuel industry for all practical purposes and are paying for highly subsidized, highly inefficient wind and solar, especially in places like the United Kingdom and Germany.

I could go on and on, but what I’m getting at is it makes them weaker than they should be for a 500-million-person EU with a $20 trillion GDP. We want them to be strong. Remember, we have about 100, we have about 340 million people. They have 500 million, and our GDP is $10 trillion larger.

So, what we want is Europe to be confident and armed and a partner and to resist the Russia-China axis, not in a hostile way, just a rivalry. But when you’re failing economically, and you have these open borders, and there’s a threat that under your system that these immigrants will get a very powerful voice in your government, then you get insecure. And when you get insecure, you get angry and envious.

And we can’t be partners when we’re not equals. And they are not equal to us economically or militarily, and they can be ’cause they’ve done it before.

So, what Trump is trying to say in this counterrevolution, as it applies to foreign affairs: Be strong, be a partner, take half the responsibility, and we will get along better than ever.