Defusing the debt bomb: 'We're almost out of time,' warns watchdog



“The entire world's economy is on the top of a soup bubble. There has never in history been a failure of this kind of magnitude. All of the money in the world is gone. Where did it go? Who knows, but it's gone.”

It’s been almost a decade and a half since conservative commentator Bill Whittle — railing against the Obama administration’s orgy of federal spending — offered this dire prognosis on national debt.

'A default is an economic breakdown. It's for real. We may never reclaim America’s position in the world.'

And those were the good old days — when America was a paltry $15 trillion in the red. By the time President Barack Obama left office in January 2017, the number had climbed to just shy of $20 trillion — $8.6 trillion more than when he took office in 2009.

Since then, we’ve experienced three administrations and the chaos of the COVID pandemic. The virus alone cost $4.7 trillion in total budgetary resources for the federal government.

As of October 21, the national debt now sits at an astounding $38 trillion, and all indications are that it will only continue to grow, with current projections suggesting it will hit $39 trillion by March 30.

A post-default world

Mark Minnella is the co-founder of the National Association of Christian Financial Consultants and the host of the faith-based radio show "Financial Issues." He tells Alignthat America may be getting closer to a “point of no return” and warns that the path to a debt default will be painful and destructive.

“If the treasury of the country fails to pay creditors and obligations, or if interest payment goes unpaid, what you see is that trust immediately goes away in the currency. Markets panic. Interest rates rise," says Minnella. And that's when the real trouble begins:

When the world stops trusting our currency, the dollar loses its position in global trade as the global reserve. Then other nations will step into that vacuum, like the Chinese and Russians. That will erode American influence and leadership. Internally, we would see inflation as the dollar loses its trust. We’ll see the government having to print money to stay ahead. We’ll see a surge in the cost of mortgages and business loans, a decline in spending, housing, and companies failing. We’ll have serious economic pain. It’ll self-correct over time, but we’d lose our position as world leaders.

As is often the case, those clinging to the bottom rung of the economic ladder will get hit hardest, warns Minnella. “Especially for those people who are the weakest and most vulnerable, our most impoverished people will be hurt the worst. It hurts them more than anybody else because they don’t have a little more to spend.”

More than political theater

The recently ended government shutdown has given many Americans a painful preview of what happens when the money spigot turns off. Hundreds of thousands of employees have gone unpaid, government services have been limited, and SNAP benefits have been threatened. Even for those not directly affected, financial insecurity looms and the future looks uncertain.

But to Minnella, a debt default would make the last 40-something days look like a vacation.

“I don’t think [default] looks like a government shutdown. That looks like inconvenience and political theater," he tells Align.

"A default is an economic breakdown. It's for real. We may never reclaim America’s position in the world. The shutdown wasn’t really a danger. The danger is a Congress that refuses to stop spending.”

Minnella is far from alone in his fears. Just last week, noted economist Kent Smetters predicted that the U.S. could hit a breaking point with interest payments as soon as 2045 and offered this grim observation: “Almost every empire has been taken down by debt." Even JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has raised alarms, warning in September, “Like most problems, it's better to deal with it than let it happen.”

Bipartisan boondoggle

While President Trump has made some noise in addressing the debt through DOGE cuts and tariff dividends, it hasn’t curbed federal spending enough to make a difference. He did declare on Monday that tariff income would be used to “SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT,” but this year’s tariff revenue is just $195 billion, and the majority of that money is set to go to $2,000 taxpayer dividends. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act also cost $3.4 trillion in spending.

According to Minnella, the skyrocketing national debt is a shared disgrace for both major political parties, neither of whom have the will to explain federal belt-tightening to their constituents.

“It’s not Republican or Democrat,” he says. “It's Washington in general. And as much as it's a problem, it's also part of the solution."

RELATED: The right needs bigger ideas than tax cuts

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Spines wanted

Unfortunately, those in power — whether the MAGA right or the socialist left — seem unlikely to rise to the occasion.

"We don’t have adults in Congress anymore who care about our nation," says Minnella. "We have politicians who care about their careers. They don’t want to cut any spending that might cause somebody to vote against them. They want to encourage as much spending as possible."

Which means fiscal responsibility is ultimately up to voters.

"We need to start electing people with a spine who aren’t there for themselves. We need to vote them out and hold them accountable," says Minnella.

“We need to speak the truth ... that we’re almost out of time," he continues. "American citizens need to take back their power and force out people who will not listen.”

Trump’s crime plan can’t repeat his first-term mistake



President Trump is right: It’s a disgrace that violent criminals and gangs roam freely through the nation’s capital — even in neighborhoods housing top government officials. Federalizing control over D.C. law enforcement and deploying the National Guard makes sense. But the deeper rot isn’t a lack of police presence. It’s the collapse of deterrence through weak sentencing and a revolving door for repeat offenders, especially juveniles.

If Trump truly wants to make Washington safe — and follow El Salvador’s tough-on-crime model — he must break from the “criminal justice reform” movement he once embraced. Those same policies have turned D.C. into a carjacker’s paradise.

The bipartisan experiment with leniency has failed. The bipartisan demand for safety is loud and clear.

No cherry-picked statistics can hide the reality: Lawmakers, staffers, and high-ranking officials fear walking around parts of the city, including Capitol Hill, even during the day. The recent attack on DOGE official Edward Coristine by a pack of 10 juveniles attempting to steal a woman’s car says everything. In 2023, D.C.’s carjacking rate hit 142.8 per 100,000 people, up 565% since 2019. Juveniles committed 63% of those crimes, with guns involved in more than three-quarters of cases.

The crime wave wasn’t random. In 2018, the D.C. Council passed the Youth Rehabilitation Act Amendment, allowing most offenders under 25 to get reduced sentences and sealed records. Repeat armed carjackers face little risk of long-term prison time. Even FBI agents have been victims. Mayor Muriel Bowser admitted some juvenile carjackers have six or seven priors — and still walk free.

Other “reform” laws stacked the deck. The Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act allowed resentencing for crimes committed before age 18. The Second Look Amendment of 2020 expanded that leniency to criminals sentenced before the age of 25 — prime time for violent crime. These measures all but erased the deterrent effect of sentencing.

And this isn’t just a problem for left-wing dystopian cities and states. Republican lawmakers in red states have pushed softer juvenile laws, too. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) had to veto several leniency bills. He remains one of the few willing to confront the bipartisan jailbreak agenda.

Over the past decade, leaders in both parties have embraced the “decarceration” canard. They’ve reduced sentences, ignored parole violations, and wiped criminal records — all in the name of shrinking prison populations.

The result? Predictable chaos.

RELATED: The capital of the free world cannot be lawless

TheaDesign via iStock/Getty Images

President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime saw it coming four decades ago: “Juveniles too often are not held accountable for their conduct, and the system perpetuates this lack of accountability.”

Trump himself backed the First Step Act, which released dangerous offenders early. One of them — Glynn Neal, with a long record of violent crime — walked free just one day before stabbing a staffer for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky).

Troops on the street can help. But this is more than a policing problem — it’s a policy problem. Trump’s second term should reject the leniency consensus and restore deterrence, starting with nullifying D.C.’s soft-on-crime laws.

If he wants to win the public’s trust on crime, he must trade “criminal justice reform” for criminal justice enforcement. The bipartisan experiment with leniency has failed. The bipartisan demand for safety is loud and clear.

If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control



Once the domain of science fiction, artificial intelligence now shapes the foundations of modern life. It governs how we access information, interact with institutions, and connect with one another. No longer just a tool, AI is becoming infrastructure — an embedded force with the potential to either safeguard our liberty or quietly dismantle it.

In a deeply divided political climate, it is rare to find an issue that unites Americans across ideological lines. But when it comes to AI, something extraordinary is happening: Americans agree that these systems must be designed to protect our most basic rights.

Voters from both parties recognize that AI must be built to reflect the values that make us free.

A new Rasmussen poll reveals that 77% of likely voters, including 80% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats, support laws that would require developers and tech companies to design AI systems to uphold constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. Such a consensus is practically unheard of in today’s political climate.

The same poll found that more than 70% of voters are concerned about the growing role of AI in our economy and society. And that concern isn’t limited to any one party: 74% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans say they are “very” or “somewhat concerned.”

Americans are watching the AI revolution unfold, and they’re sending a clear message: If we’re going to let these systems shape our future, they must be governed by the same principles that have preserved freedom for generations.

Why it matters now

That concern is more than hypothetical. We are already seeing the consequences of AI systems that reflect narrow ideological agendas rather than broad constitutional values.

Google’s Gemini AI made headlines last year when it produced historically inaccurate images of black Founding Fathers and Asian Nazi soldiers. This wasn’t a technical glitch. It was the direct result of ideological programming that prioritized “diversity” over truth.

In China, the DeepSeek AI model was trained to avoid any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. Ask it about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and it refuses to give you an answer at all. When models are trained to serve power rather than seek truth, they become tools of suppression.

If left unchecked, agenda-driven AI systems in the United States could soon shape what news we see, what content is amplified — or buried — on social media, and what opinions are allowed in public discourse, thereby conforming society to its pre-programmed ideals.

Biased AI systems could even influence public policy debates by skewing public opinion toward "solutions" that optimize for social or environmental justice goals. These constitutionally unaligned AI systems may quietly reshape society with complete disregard for liberty, consent, and due process.

Regulation for freedom’s sake

Some conservatives bristle at the word “regulation,” and rightly so. But what we're talking about here isn’t micromanagement or bureaucratic control. It’s the same kind of constraint our Founders placed on government power: constitutional guardrails that prevent abuse and preserve freedom.

When AI is unbound by those principles, it doesn’t become neutral — it becomes ideological. It doesn’t protect liberty; it calculates outcomes. And in doing so, it can rationalize censorship, coercion, and discrimination, all in the name of “progress.”

RELATED: Eyes everywhere: The AI surveillance state looms

hamzaturkkol via iStock/Getty Images

This is why Americans are right to demand action now. The window for shaping AI's trajectory is still open, but it won’t remain open forever. As these systems become more advanced and more embedded in our institutions, retrofitting them to respect liberty will become harder, not easier.

Don’t let the opportunity slip away

We are living through a rare moment of political clarity. Voters from both parties recognize that AI must be built to reflect the values that make us free. They want systems to protect speech, not suppress it. They want AI to respect human conscience, not override it. They want AI to serve the people, not manage them.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a moral one. And it’s an opportunity we must seize before the future is decided for us.

AI doesn’t have to be our master. But it must be taught to serve what makes us free.

‘Time To Get Back To Building’: Dem Rep. Josh Harder Uses GOP Policy Points To Form Anti-Red Tape Caucus

A new Democratic-led Congressional caucus focused on energy and housing appears to have employed multiple frequently-used GOP policy points in its introductory press release Thursday. The bipartisan Build America Caucus‘ creation was spurred in part by its chair, Democratic California Rep. Josh Harder, and some other Democrats’ efforts to fix their “post-2024 message” and recognize […]

Cenk Uygur experiences leftist intolerance firsthand after volunteering to help Trump admin



Cenk Uygur of "The Young Turks" appears to have undergone a rapid metamorphosis in recent weeks. Months after calling the once and future president "an actual fascist" and a "mad king," Uygur asked to join the incoming Trump administration.

Leftists immediately attacked Uygur over his willingness to serve at the pleasure of a Republican he just days ago characterized as "unstable and unhinged." Some fellow travelers suggested that the progressive host was an insincere turncoat, while others concluded he was just another opportunistic talking head.

Ultimately, Uygur was provided with a clear demonstration of the left's intolerance and the right's relative openness.

Uygur — whose interest was evidently piqued by the promise of Trump's Department of Government Efficiencytweeted Monday, "Hey @elonmusk, put me in charge of the Pentagon. I'll slash $400B easy. That'll get you 20% to your goal of $2T, right out of the gate. I went to Wharton three years before you. I own a media company, so I know how to run a business. If you really want to cut, put me in, coach."

Elon Musk, whom Uygur attacked on Election Day, responded, "Specific suggestions are welcome."

Afforded the opportunity to chime in — something Uygur later noted no Democratic leader had ever asked him to do — Uygur recommended precluding generals from acquiring jobs with defense contractors for 10 years, noting, "They authorize so much wasteful spending because they're going to get hired by those same companies."

Donald Trump Jr., magnanimous despite Uygur having viciously attacked his father for years, tweeted, "This is a great idea that has been discussed."

'Knock it the f*** off.'

The positive engagement stunned Uygur and enraged his fellow travelers.

Emma Vigeland, a former fan of Uygur who hosted "TYT Politics," was among the leftists who couldn't stand the thought of her former boss cooperating with the Trump administration, writing, "Why does your assessment of politics change based on who pays attention to you, specifically a billionaire?"

"Holy s***. This ain't it. You're talking about the 'lock her up,' 'retribution' guy?" wrote Joanne Carducci, the host of "Are You F'ng Kidding Me? with JoJoFromJerz." "Do not obey in advance, Cenk. Knock it the f*** off."

Another leftist podcast host tweeted, "Amazing to watch some of these life-long progressives line up, one after the other on bended knee to kiss the ring."

'Now, which side seems more open and inclusive?'

Even Uygur's nephew, Hasan Piker — a radical who justified the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks and insinuated the terrorists' civilian victims were "criminals" — lashed out, writing, "This is preferring someone to lie to you rather than one who doesn[']t even do that."

Uygur suggested that effective pragmatism was better than political impotence.

"While the left is yelling at me not to work with MAGA, here's @DonaldJTrumpJR saying we should limit generals from working for defense contractors," wrote Uygur. "That's a policy we've been pushing for and gotten nowhere with Democrats on. Who cares who does it as long as it gets done?"

"A little common sense never killed anyone," wrote Donald Trump Jr.

"Now, which side seems more open and inclusive? Which side seems more welcoming and which side tries really hard to drive you away if you disagree even a little with orthodoxy? Which side is asking for suggestions and which one is demanding compliance and obedience?" added Uygur.

While numerous liberals criticized the progressive media host, Uygur was flooded with messages of welcome from Trump supporters and other right-leaning populists.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republicans Can’t Afford To Elect Another Mitch McConnell As Senate Leader

Senate Republicans cannot be led by someone who is openly hostile to the agenda of their party’s president and the base who elected him.

Following Blaze Originals documentary, senators from both parties reach deal to ban congressional stock trading



U.S. senators from both parties announced on Wednesday that they had created a bill that would ban congressional stock trading, an issue so important that Blaze Media created a Blaze Originals documentary — entitled "Bought and Paid For: How Politicians Get Filthy Rich" — about it earlier this year to put pressure on federal lawmakers and keep our audience in the know.

While the STOCK Act, passed in 2012, technically requires members of Congress to be more transparent about their stock trades as well as those of their spouse, it has done little to curtail the seemingly rampant shady stock trades from members of both parties that "Bought and Paid For" exposed.

According to a University of Maryland poll, fully 85% of Americans want to ban stock trades for members of Congress.

Now, four senators — Democrats Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Jon Ossoff of Georgia, and Gary Peters of Michigan and Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri — have developed new legislation with heftier penalties that may finally resolve the problem once and for all.

Their plan is called the ETHICS Act, and if passed, it would prevent members of Congress from buying or selling stock or similar investments beginning 90 days after the bill is signed into law. It would further prohibit congressional spouses and other members of their immediate family from purchasing stocks as of March 2027.

Violations of the law would result in a fine of either a month's salary or 10% of each asset's value, whichever is greater.

According to a University of Maryland poll, fully 85% of Americans want to ban stock trades for members of Congress. Between the countrywide consensus regarding the issue and the bipartisan nature of the legislation, supporters of the ETHICS Act are hopeful that it may in fact pass, despite the contentious election season and the failure of similar legislative efforts in the past.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is already scheduled to begin considering the bill on July 24.

Meanwhile, members of Blaze Media are already celebrating the bill as a major victory following the release of "Bought and Paid For" in April. James Poulos, host of "Bought and Paid For" as well as the editor at large of Blaze Media and the editorial director of its RETURN division, is particularly encouraged by this turn of events.

"Members of Congress can get rich on stock trades thanks to their special access to information ordinary Americans don’t have — and many do just that, because wrongdoing is so hard to prove in court and current congressional rules are so lax," he told Blaze News.

"Americans across party lines agree this practice should be brought to an end, and cracking down boasts bipartisan support on the Hill. It’s heartening to see a new group of senators take a fresh swing at a solution that’s long overdue."

The trailer for "Bought and Paid For" can be seen below. To view the entire 30-minute program and other Blaze Originals documentaries like it, click here to become a BlazeTV subscriber.

TRAILER: Bought And Paid For: How Politicians Get Filthy Rich | Blaze Originals youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!