Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children

Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children: A Critical Examination of Gender-Affirming Care Practices

The issue of gender-affirming care for minors, particularly those who have experienced trauma such as sexual assault, has sparked intense debate. Critics argue that the medical industry sometimes exploits vulnerable children by promoting irreversible gender-affirming treatments without adequately addressing underlying psychological issues. This perspective is highlighted in discussions like those on The Glenn Beck Program, where detransitioner Claire Abernathy shared her experience of being rushed into hormone therapy and surgery at age 14, following trauma from sexual assault and bullying. Below, we explore this complex issue, focusing on the concerns raised about the medical industry’s approach to gender dysphoria in children, the role of trauma, and the need for balanced, evidence-based care.

The Case of Claire Abernathy: A Detransitioner’s StoryClaire Abernathy’s story, as discussed on The Glenn Beck Program, illustrates the concerns of those who believe the medical industry may exploit vulnerable youth. Abernathy began identifying as transgender at age 12, following a sexual assault and severe bullying. She describes how adopting a trans identity provided a new social network and a way to distance herself from her trauma. However, when she sought help, her therapists and doctors—practicing at a well-funded children’s hospital—allegedly dismissed her trauma as irrelevant to her gender dysphoria. Her parents were told that without hormone therapy and surgery, she was at high risk of suicide, a claim that pressured them into consenting. By November 2018, Abernathy was on testosterone, and by June 2019, she had undergone surgery, all before completing high school.Abernathy later detransitioned, citing a lack of informed consent. She was not told about permanent side effects, such as infertility or the inability to breastfeed, nor was she informed that many children with gender dysphoria eventually desist if given time to process their feelings. Her experience raises questions about whether the medical industry, driven by ideology or profit, may be too quick to affirm a child’s gender identity without exploring underlying issues like trauma.The Medical Industry’s Role: Protocols and PressuresGender-affirming care for minors typically involves a combination of social transition (e.g., using preferred pronouns or names), puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in rare cases, surgeries. Organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) set guidelines that emphasize affirming a patient’s self-identified gender, often citing reduced psychological distress and suicide risk. However, critics argue these guidelines are applied inconsistently, especially for vulnerable children.In Abernathy’s case, doctors allegedly ignored her history of sexual assault and bullying, focusing solely on her gender dysphoria. This aligns with concerns raised by psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman, who argues that some medical professionals treat gender dysphoria as a standalone condition, neglecting co-occurring issues like trauma, depression, or anxiety. Grossman notes that adolescent psychiatric units may even “create transgender children” by affirming identities without thorough evaluation.The pressure to affirm can come from multiple sources: medical institutions, advocacy groups, and even social dynamics. Abernathy mentioned therapists recommended by peers who shared her identity, creating an echo chamber that discouraged skepticism. Parents, like Abernathy’s, are often framed as abusive for questioning rapid medical interventions, adding emotional coercion to the decision-making process. This dynamic raises ethical questions about whether the medical industry prioritizes patient outcomes or adheres to ideological trends.The Role of Trauma in Gender DysphoriaSexual assault and other traumas can profoundly impact a child’s sense of self, sometimes leading to gender dysphoria as a coping mechanism. Abernathy’s story suggests her trans identity was partly a way to “become a new person” untainted by her assault. Yet, her mother’s attempts to address the trauma were dismissed by doctors, who insisted it was unrelated to her gender identity.Research supports the link between trauma and gender dysphoria. A 2018 study in JAMA Surgery found that transgender youth are more likely to have experienced adverse childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, compared to cisgender peers. However, some medical protocols, like those endorsed by WPATH, prioritize affirmation over trauma-focused therapy, potentially overlooking root causes. Critics argue this approach risks misdiagnosis and irreversible harm, especially since studies, like a 2021 review in Frontiers in Psychiatry, show that up to 80% of prepubescent children with gender dysphoria may desist naturally by adulthood if not medically intervened.The Medical Industry’s Incentives: Profit and IdeologySkeptics of gender-affirming care point to financial and ideological incentives within the medical industry. Gender-affirming treatments, including hormones and surgeries, generate significant revenue. For example, a single course of puberty blockers can cost thousands of dollars annually, and surgeries like mastectomies or vaginoplasties can range from $10,000 to $50,000. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from lifelong hormone prescriptions, as highlighted by Dr. Grossman, who warns that some youth become “consumers of pharmaceuticals the rest of their life.”Ideologically, the push for affirmation may stem from advocacy groups and medical bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which endorse early intervention despite limited long-term data. The WPATH Files, leaked in 2024, revealed internal concerns among WPATH members about the lack of evidence for pediatric gender-affirming care, yet public guidelines remain unchanged. This discrepancy suggests a disconnect between scientific caution and clinical practice, potentially driven by social pressures or fear of backlash.Ethical Concerns and the Need for ReformThe experiences of detransitioners like Abernathy highlight ethical lapses in gender-affirming care for minors. Key issues include:

• Informed Consent: Minors, especially those with trauma, may not fully understand the permanent consequences of treatments like hormones or surgery. Abernathy was not informed about infertility or the high rates of desistance among youth.
• Trauma-Informed Care: Failing to address underlying issues like sexual assault risks misdiagnosis. Trauma-focused therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, could resolve dysphoria without medical intervention.
• Parental Rights: Parents are sometimes sidelined or pressured, as seen in Abernathy’s case, undermining family involvement in critical decisions.
• Long-Term Outcomes: Data on the long-term effects of pediatric gender-affirming care is sparse. A 2022 study in The Lancet found mixed mental health outcomes for youth on puberty blockers, with some showing no improvement in suicidality.

Critics, including former LGBT activist K. Yang, argue that the medical industry’s approach resembles “social engineering,” with children being nudged toward trans identities through schools, media, and healthcare settings. Yang, who once worked at an LGBT nonprofit, notes that the concept of a “trans child” was virtually unknown a decade ago, yet now, a 2019 CDC survey reported 1 in 50 high school students identifying as trans—a sharp rise attributed to cultural shifts rather than inherent prevalence.A Path Forward: Balancing Compassion and CautionTo address these concerns, reforms could include:

1. Mandatory Trauma Screening: Require comprehensive psychological evaluations to identify trauma or co-occurring conditions before any medical intervention.
2. Stricter Age Guidelines: Limit irreversible treatments like hormones and surgeries to those over 18, as some European countries like Sweden have done.
3. Enhanced Informed Consent: Ensure minors and parents are fully educated about risks, including infertility and desistance rates.
4. Support for Detransitioners: Provide resources for those who regret their transitions, addressing physical and psychological harm.

The medical industry must balance compassion for gender-dysphoric youth with rigorous, evidence-based care. While some children may benefit from gender-affirming treatments, cases like Claire Abernathy’s suggest that trauma survivors are particularly vulnerable to being rushed into irreversible decisions. By prioritizing holistic care and addressing underlying issues, the industry can better serve these children without exploiting their vulnerabilities.ConclusionThe story of Claire Abernathy, as shared on The Glenn Beck Program, underscores the need for scrutiny of the medical industry’s approach to gender-affirming care for minors, especially those with histories of sexual assault or trauma. While the industry claims to act in patients’ best interests, financial incentives, ideological pressures, and inadequate protocols may lead to harm. By fostering open debate, prioritizing trauma-informed care, and ensuring informed consent, we can protect vulnerable children from being taken advantage of while supporting their mental and physical well-being.Note: This article draws on Claire Abernathy’s interview on The Glenn Beck Program () and related discussions (,). For further details, see www.glennbeck.com/radio/glenn-interviews-detransitioner-deceived-doctors and www.glennbeck.com/detransitioner-theres-no-trans-child. Always approach such topics with critical thinking, as media sources may carry biases.

Musk’s Fury Over the “Big Ugly Bill”: Why America’s Spending Addiction Risks a Greek-Style Collapse

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 7, 2025

Elon Musk is livid, and it’s not because the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit for Tesla was axed in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” He’s calling it the “Big Ugly Bill” for a reason: while Congress pats itself on the back for “bipartisan” deal-making, the bill’s massive spending hikes—loaded with subsidies for corporate giants like Boeing and Intel—wipe out the hard-won savings Musk delivered through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Worse, this spending spree puts America on a path toward a Greek-style economic collapse, like the one I warned about over a decade ago. The media, predictably, is obsessed with the supposed Musk-Trump feud, ignoring the real crisis: runaway government spending, especially on a broken healthcare system, that threatens to bankrupt the nation. What will it take to wake America up?

The “Big Ugly Bill” and Musk’s Rage

Musk’s anger isn’t about Tesla losing a tax break—it’s about the hypocrisy of a government that cuts one subsidy while shoveling billions to other industries. The bill, passed in early 2025, extends corporate welfare to companies like Boeing ($14 billion in subsidies), Intel ($8 billion), and others Visual Capitalist, while ballooning spending on programs that perpetuate inefficiency. Musk, who spent 130 days leading DOGE—often working seven days a week and sleeping at the White House—delivered $180 billion in claimed savings by June 2025, including $244 million from axing 81 “perpetual” contracts that lingered far beyond their intended terms. Independent estimates, like Reuters’, peg verified savings at $5 billion, but even that’s a start. Yet, the “Big Ugly Bill” nullifies these gains with new spending, estimated at $200–$300 billion over 10 years, on top of existing deficits.

Musk sees the writing on the wall: this isn’t just bad policy—it’s a step toward fiscal ruin. As I wrote in 2012, Greece’s collapse was a warning for America. A decade ago, Greece faced a debt-to-GDP ratio of 177%, crippled by overspending on pensions, healthcare, and public sector bloat. Austerity measures tanked the economy, sparking riots and 27% unemployment. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now 120% and climbing, with $35 trillion in debt. The “Big Ugly Bill” adds fuel to this fire, ignoring the five reasons government shouldn’t spend recklessly: it crowds out private investment, fuels inflation, distorts markets, rewards cronyism, and burdens future generations.

Healthcare: The Spending Black Hole

The biggest driver of America’s fiscal mess is healthcare, a system so decoupled from market principles it’s been broken for decades. Federal healthcare spending (Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies) eats up $1.8 trillion annually—nearly half the budget—and grows faster than inflation. Price controls, bloated bureaucracies, and lack of competition drive costs skyward, with no improvement in outcomes. For example, U.S. per capita healthcare spending is $12,500, double that of comparable nations, yet life expectancy lags. DOGE’s cuts barely touched this beast, and the “Big Ugly Bill” adds new healthcare subsidies, further entrenching a failed system. Reforming healthcare—through market-based pricing, deregulation, and ending subsidies—could save $5 trillion over 10 years, but Congress lacks the spine.

DOGE’s Savings Wiped Out

Musk’s DOGE targeted “perpetual” contracts—defense, IT, and NGO deals that auto-renew due to lobbying or inertia. DOGE claimed $180 billion in 2025 savings, with $100 billion potentially recurring from contract terminations, workforce cuts ($40 billion), and fraud reduction ($10 billion). Dynamic scoring, like that seen with Reagan’s tax cuts, could add $71 billion in revenue from economic growth, totaling $221 billion over 10 years. But the “Big Ugly Bill” obliterates this with $200–$300 billion in new spending, plus $415 billion in costs from DOGE’s cuts (e.g., $250 billion in lost IRS revenue, $100 billion in economic losses from reduced research). Net result? A $194 billion deficit increase over 10 years, even with optimistic growth effects.

Trump may argue he got all the cuts possible given a divided Congress, but that’s cold comfort when the bill subsidizes everyone but Tesla. Is this resignation, or is the Musk-Trump “feud” just political theater to push for more cuts, as I suggested? Either way, Musk’s frustration is justified: why cut one industry’s incentives while handing billions to Boeing, Intel, and healthcare cronies?

The Greek Warning

Greece’s 2012 collapse—driven by runaway spending and debt—should haunt us. I warned then that America was on a similar path. Greece’s debt crisis led to austerity, economic contraction, and social unrest. America’s $35 trillion debt, plus $1 trillion annual deficits, risks a similar fate if spending isn’t slashed. The “Big Ugly Bill” ignores this, piling on subsidies and programs while the media fixates on Musk vs. Trump drama, not the fiscal cliff. As I wrote in 2013, we can’t keep paying for everything—especially how with Biden we had 8,000 daily illegal crossings adding $150 billion annually in costs.

Trump’s Reagan Moment

Trump wants to emulate Reagan, whose 1981 tax cuts sparked 3.5% GDP growth and doubled revenue by 1989, shrinking deficits as a share of GDP. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts boosted revenue to $3.5 trillion by 2019, despite CBO’s dire predictions. New tax cuts and tariffs could add 0.5–1% to GDP growth, generating $500 billion in revenue over 10 years. But to truly “pull a Reagan,” Trump must pair this with deep cuts:

• Eliminate Departments: The Department of Education ($800 billion over 10 years) and USAID ($500 billion) are prime targets. Education outcomes have worsened since 1979, and USAID often funds corrupt regimes.
• End Corporate Welfare: Cut $100 billion in subsidies to Boeing, Intel, and others, leveling the playing field Musk demands.
• Secure the Border: Save $1 trillion by curbing illegal immigration costs, this is maybe the ONE thing he has going right.
• Reform Healthcare: Market-based reforms could save $5 trillion, dwarfing DOGE’s efforts.

Total potential savings: $7.4 trillion over 10 years. Subtract $415 billion in costs, and net savings could hit $7 trillion, slashing the deficit-to-GDP ratio. This is the Milei-style purge America needs.

Waking Up America

The media’s obsession with Musk-Trump drama distracts from the real issue: spending addiction. While Democrats’ corruption, like Hunter Biden’s CEFC deals, gets a pass, Trump and Musk are vilified. The “Big Ugly Bill” proves Congress won’t act without pressure. As I wrote in 2011, government spending fails because it distorts markets and rewards inefficiency. Americans must demand their representatives slash departments, end subsidies, and reform healthcare before we face Greece’s fate.

Call to Action: Contact your senators and representatives. Demand they reject the “Big Ugly Bill” and support Trump’s tax cuts, DOGE’s mission, and Milei-style cuts to Education, USAID, and corporate welfare. Share this article and my 2012 warning about Greece. Wake up, America—our economy depends on it.

Harvard’s Funding and Foreign Influence: Taxpayer Subsidies Fueling Anti-Semitism, Communism, and Jihadism?

 By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 6, 2025

Harvard University, one of the wealthiest academic institutions in the world with an endowment exceeding $50 billion, has come under scrutiny for its reliance on taxpayer-funded grants and foreign donations, raising questions about its priorities and influence. Recent reports and public discourse suggest that Harvard’s financial ties, particularly with entities like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), may be linked to broader issues, including the promotion of ideologies such as anti-Semitism, communism, and jihadism on campus. This article explores these connections, drawing on recent developments and critical perspectives to question whether taxpayer money is indirectly subsidizing harmful agendas.

Harvard’s Financial Landscape: Billions in Endowments and Taxpayer Support

Harvard’s endowment, reported at over $52 billion, provides the university with unparalleled financial security. Yet, it continues to receive substantial federal funding—approximately $2.6 billion in research grants until recent freezes by the Trump administration. Critics argue this reliance on taxpayer money is unnecessary given Harvard’s wealth. As one observer noted, “No research is worth funding affirmative action, antisemitism, DEI, and plagiarism” when the university already has billions at its disposal.

The Trump administration’s decision to freeze or redirect these grants, as reported by multiple outlets, stems from concerns over Harvard’s handling of campus issues, including alleged anti-Semitism and discriminatory practices. The administration has called for reforms, such as terminating diversity programs and screening foreign students for views deemed hostile to “American values.” This move has sparked debate about whether Harvard’s financial model prioritizes ideological agendas over academic integrity.

Foreign Funding and Chinese Influence

Harvard’s financial ties to foreign entities, particularly China, have raised alarms about potential compromises to academic freedom and national security. Since 2012, Harvard has received over $1.1 billion in foreign funding, with significant contributions from Chinese sources. For instance, in 2014, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was renamed following a $350 million donation from a Chinese donor, raising questions about the influence of such gifts. Additionally, a $150 million pledge from a Chinese real estate company, Country Garden, reportedly influenced Harvard’s shift in stance on the origins of COVID-19, moving from supporting the lab-leak hypothesis to the wet-market theory.

More recently, Harvard partnered with a Chinese Communist Party influence group flagged by the U.S. government for subverting institutions to promote Beijing’s policies. Critics argue these financial ties create “strings attached” that enable espionage and ideological influence, particularly through Chinese researchers operating under Harvard’s umbrella. Such connections fuel concerns that Harvard’s academic environment may be shaped by foreign agendas, potentially fostering ideologies like communism that clash with American values.  Especially right after Chinese Students were caught RED HANDED smuggling a deadly fungus that could absolutely DEVASTATE American staple crops.

Allegations of Anti-Semitism, Communism, and Jihadism

The Trump administration and others have accused Harvard of failing to address anti-Semitism on campus, prompting actions like the formation of a DOJ task force led by Leo Terrell to target alleged anti-Semitism and foreign student enrollment issues. Harvard’s own “Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism” outlined demands for policy changes, including ending DEI programs and screening foreign students for anti-Semitic or terrorism-supportive views. Critics, including Harvard alumnus Jonathan Harounoff, argue the university prioritizes fighting these demands over addressing anti-Semitism itself.

Beyond anti-Semitism, concerns have emerged about the promotion of communism and jihadism. The Trump administration has explicitly stated that redirected federal funds would support institutions free of “wokeness or jihadism.” Posts on X have linked Harvard’s foreign funding, particularly from China, to the presence of faculty collaborating with China’s military-civilian research centers, suggesting a deeper infiltration of communist ideologies. Additionally, the smuggling of biological materials, such as fungus, into the U.S. by Chinese entities—potentially facilitated through academic channels—raises national security concerns.

Connecting the Dots: A Broader Agenda?

The convergence of Harvard’s financial practices, foreign ties, and campus environment suggests a troubling pattern. Taxpayer subsidies, through federal grants, have indirectly supported an institution accused of fostering anti-Semitism, communist influence, and even jihadist sympathies. The university’s resistance to reforms, as seen in its legal battles against the Trump administration, has only intensified scrutiny. Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, has defended the need for federal funding to support research, but critics argue this is a pretext for maintaining unchecked influence.

The case of Chinese smuggling, as highlighted in recent articles, underscores how academic institutions like Harvard may serve as conduits for foreign agendas. The smuggling of biological materials, combined with Harvard’s partnerships with CCP-linked groups, suggests vulnerabilities that extend beyond ideology to national security.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

Harvard’s vast wealth and foreign funding raise serious questions about its reliance on taxpayer subsidies. As the Trump administration pushes to defund the university, citing anti-Semitism and other ideological concerns, the public must demand transparency. Are taxpayer dollars inadvertently supporting anti-Semitic, communist, or jihadist influences under the guise of academic research? The evidence suggests a need for greater oversight to ensure universities like Harvard prioritize academic integrity and national interests over foreign money and ideological agendas.

Trump and Musk’s Feud: Political Theater to Wake America Up to the Debt Crisis

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 6, 2025

Is the explosive public spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk just another act in the grand political theater? As Timothy Hopper has argued before in his article, “Trump 2 and the Dawn of the Era of Strategic Chaos” Trump thrives on disruption, using controversy to steer the narrative. Now, with Musk lobbing insults at Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” and Trump threatening to gut Musk’s government contracts, the drama feels oddly familiar—like the 2015 clash between Trump and Megyn Kelly, which The Guardian covered in “Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents” Back then, their feud dominated headlines, only for Kelly to emerge years later as a vocal Trump supporter. Could this Trump-Musk rift be a calculated ploy to shine a spotlight on America’s ballooning $36.2 trillion national debt—a crisis the media barely covers and most Americans shrug off?

The Debt: A National Emergency Ignored

Let’s cut through the noise: the U.S. national debt is a ticking time bomb. Nonpartisan estimates, like those from the Congressional Budget Office, peg Trump’s recent tax-and-spending bill as adding $2.4 trillion to $5 trillion to the debt over a decade. Yet, as I pointed out in “Why Congress Loves Spending Your Money,” lawmakers on both sides have a vested interest in kicking this can down the road. Real spending cuts—especially to sacred cows like Social Security, Medicare, or defense—require political courage Congress simply doesn’t have. The mainstream media, meanwhile, buries this crisis under clickbait headlines about celebrity feuds or the latest culture war flare-up. Most Americans, lulled by normalcy bias, don’t grasp the urgency. Enter Trump and Musk, two masters of spectacle, possibly staging a high-stakes drama to force the issue into the open.

The Trump-Musk “Feud”: Too Perfect to Be Real?

The timeline of this so-called feud raises eyebrows. Musk, fresh off his stint leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), slammed Trump’s bill as a “disgusting abomination” that “massively increases the already gigantic budget deficit.” Trump fired back, calling Musk “disloyal” and hinting at slashing his companies’ government contracts. Musk upped the ante, suggesting Trump’s impeachment and even tossing out baseless Epstein-related jabs. The X platform lit up, with some users speculating this rift is “orchestrated to build bipartisan support and frame the national debt as a critical security issue.”

Sound familiar? It’s the same playbook Trump used with Kelly in 2015. Their clash, which I analyzed in “When Trump and Kelly Clashed,” seemed personal but ultimately served to amplify Trump’s brand while letting Kelly rebrand as a conservative darling. Here, Trump and Musk—both “political pugilists with sizable egos,” as Reuters put it—might be playing parts to jolt Americans awake. Musk’s DOGE promised $1 trillion in savings, yet his actual cuts barely scratched 0.5% of federal spending. Trump’s bill, meanwhile, pushes tax cuts and defense spending while slashing programs like Medicaid, adding trillions to the debt. By publicly clashing, they’re forcing the conversation: Musk plays the fiscal hawk, Trump the dealmaker, and the debt crisis gets prime-time exposure.

Why Political Theater Makes Sense

Bill Maher’s recent take on Trump, after visiting him, nails it: Trump is “playing the role of a crazy person” to keep the spotlight on his agenda. Maher's argued Trump’s chaos is deliberate, “Trump’s Chaos Strategy.” Musk, with his 220 million X followers and $250 million spent backing Trump in 2024, is no stranger to spectacle either. Their feud, erupting just as the Senate debates Trump’s debt-heavy bill, feels timed to perfection. It’s not about personal betrayal; it’s about making the debt impossible to ignore. As one X user put it, this could be a “manufactured crisis” to push for "radical solutions."

Consider the stakes. Musk’s DOGE cuts, while disruptive, can’t touch the real drivers of the deficit—Social Security, Medicare, and defense—without congressional action. Trump’s bill, despite its “beautiful” branding, faces pushback from fiscal conservatives like Sen. Ron Johnson, who called it a “distraction” from the “forest that’s on fire.” By staging a public brawl, Trump and Musk could be pressuring Congress to confront the debt head-on, knowing full well that lawmakers prefer “wimpy and anemic” cuts to avoid voter backlash.

The Bigger Picture: Forcing America to Care

The average American doesn’t lose sleep over the national debt. Why? Because the media doesn’t cover it with the urgency it demands, and Congress keeps passing bloated budgets. As I wrote in “Why Congress Loves Spending Your Money,” politicians thrive on short-term wins, not long-term fixes. Trump and Musk, with their outsized platforms, are uniquely positioned to change that. Their feud—whether genuine or staged—puts the debt front and center, framing it as a national emergency. Musk’s X posts, like “America is in the fast lane to debt slavery,” hit hard, while Trump’s defense of his bill keeps the debate alive.

This isn’t their first rodeo. Trump’s history of turning feuds into leverage—think Kelly, Cruz, or even McCain—shows he knows how to use conflict to dominate the narrative. Musk, with his knack for viral provocations, is the perfect sparring partner. Together, they could be orchestrating a wake-up call: the debt is a crisis, Congress is failing, and Americans need to demand action now.

What’s Next?

If this is theater, the next act is crucial. Will Musk back off, as he did with his Dragon spacecraft threat? Will Trump pivot to deeper cuts to win over fiscal hawks? Or will they escalate, using their platforms to rally voters against a do-nothing Congress? One thing’s clear: the debt crisis isn’t going away, and neither is the Trump-Musk show. As I argued in “The Debt Ceiling Farce: A Political Circus That’s Bankrupting America,” we’re on a collision course with economic disaster unless leaders act. If Trump and Musk are playing roles to force that action, it’s a risky but brilliant move.

Stay vigilant, patriots. The debt clock is ticking, and this drama might just be the spark to finally make America listen.

Follow NoSocialism.com on X @NoSocialism for more no-nonsense takes on saving America from socialism and fiscal ruin.