Personal Prohibition

The percentage of American adults who say they drink alcohol has dropped to the lowest level in the 90 years that Gallup has been surveying this question.

The only time it has been lower is during the Prohibition period in the United States from 1920 until 1933 and the years immediately after. 58% were using alcohol in 1939 according to Gallup's initial survey on the subject.

Only 54% of adults say they are using alcoholic beverages in 2025.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/693362/drinking-rate-new-low-alcohol-concerns-surge.aspx

The number has plummeted in the last three years.

67% said they drank in 2022.

Drinking is down across all demographic groups but the biggest drops have been among women, whites, younger people, and those at the bottom and top of the income scale and Republicans.

The percentage of Republicans who say they drink has dropped 19 points in the last two years!

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/693362/drinking-rate-new-low-alcohol-concerns-surge.aspx

Not only are fewer people drinking but those who drink are consuming less.

The average drinker only has 2.8 drinks per week.

That is down from over 5 per week in 2003.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/693362/drinking-rate-new-low-alcohol-concerns-surge.aspx

The decrease in the use of alcohol seems to be driven by the perception that drinking (even in moderation) is bad for your health.

This view is particularly held by younger Americans.

However, this perception is seen across all ages and it seems to have gained momentum over the last ten years.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/693362/drinking-rate-new-low-alcohol-concerns-surge.aspx

 

Prohibition failed as government policy but it apparently is gaining favor as a personal choice.

(For some interesting historical information on how Prohibition came about you might want to read my blog post "People, Power and Prohibition" that I wrote a decade ago.)

In looking at the survey data on alcohol use I cannot help but also consider the survey data on sexual activity and wonder whether there is a connection?

Most surveys are finding that sexual activity is down as well.

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-sex-recession-the-share-of-americans-having-regular-sex-keeps-dropping

The trend is particularly apparent with younger adults.

Is this a coincidence or is there a connection?

Most explain the decrease due to the fact that young adults are marrying later and the declining socialization among younger age groups.

However, I would not discount the intoxicating effects of alcohol on love and sex in the overall equation.

An absolute truth through the ages is that potential partners jump one place on a ten-point scale with every drink you have.

The Student Loan Debt Scam

Charlie Kirk used to say that "college was a scam".

He wrote a book about why he believed that in 2022.

It was a natural thing for Kirk to say since he decided to forego college in order to found Turning Point USA which he built into a massive success.

I would not use as strong a word as "scam" to describe college.

However, the return on investment in higher education is declining.

The cost/benefit relationship is massively out of whack.

Despite this fact, more and more money is being borrowed to pay for higher education. It is simply not supported by the underlying fundamentals.

Millions are in college and funding those high costs through student loans. 

At least a third of those in college should not be.

For example, consider this graphic that shows the most underemployed college degrees.

This is defined as graduates with a college degrees that are employed in a position that does not require that credential.

Source: https://www.voronoiapp.com/economy/Most-Underemployed-College-Degrees--6047

Leading the list are Criminal Justice majors of which 67% are working in jobs that do not require a college

This does not necessarily mean that these graduates are flipping burgers somewhere.

However, it could mean that they are working as a security guard or as a police officer or other law enforcement position that does not require a degree.

Performing Arts is second on the list at 63%.  The college experience and degree are nice but Tom Cruise never attended college nor did Taylor Swift. 

Would they have been more successful if they had attended college?

Overall, 38% of college graduates are working in jobs that don't typically require a degree.

How have we allowed the cost of higher education to increase at multiples of the return on that investment in a college degree?

I came across an interesting article about a decade ago in The American Spectator by Bill McMorris that traces a big part of the student loan problem to a Supreme Court case in 1971 that is largely unknown to most people today. 

Source: https://spectator.org/how-the-supreme-court-created-the-student-loan-bubble/

In that case, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court ruled that jobs-based aptitude tests were potentially discriminatory as it could cause "disparate impact" when used by employers to assess and predict the performance of workers for promotion and advancement.

After World War II, aptitude tests gained favor with businesses after their wide use in processing hundreds of thousands of recruits into the right roles in the War effort. For example, my father was only a high school graduate at the beginning of World War II but he was assessed with high intelligence and trained as a cryptographer. He told me that he was one of the cryptographers who passed the top secret message to drop the atomic bomb.

Industry used the tests after the War to determine who would rise through the ranks based on whether someone had the aptitude to succeed rather than simply focusing on a college degree.  After all, only about one in eight returning people from the War went on to college in those days.

McMorris explains the impact of that decision on our society and, ultimately, on student loan debt.

The Griggs decision has made that organic rise through the ranks impossible, as disparate impact left businesses liable for those who failed to pass hiring tests.

Any minority denied a promotion due to a poor test score could generally sue unless it was shown that all minorities had their "share"of the better jobs. It was not enough to show that there was no racist intent. All one had to show was disparate results.

The solution for businesses post-Griggs was obvious: outsource screening to colleges, which are allowed to weed out poor candidates based on test scores. The bachelor’s degree, previously reserved for academics, doctors, and lawyers, became the de facto credential required for any white-collar job. 

After the Griggs decision, the colleges effectively had a nice gig as the golden ticket to the "good life". A college degree effectively became the route you had to travel to get ahead.

Colleges, aware of their newfound utility and the easy money pouring in from student loans and Pell grants, jacked up prices. 

Higher Education costs grew 701% over the last 40 years---more than 3 times the rate of overall inflation. 

Quite simply, college costs could not go up without a supply of money to pay for it. 

Student loans were supposed to make college more accessible and affordable for those who did not have the resources to consider higher education.

Instead, it made college less affordable for everyone and made student loans a necessity even for those who previously might have been able to avoid going into debt for college.

Just as is the case with health care costs, college costs have become heavily dependent on the flow of federal money into the system.

The average undergraduate student today takes out nearly $40,000 in debt to buy a ticket to the good life. 

Many would be better off taking that money and going to trade school or buying a Tesla and just faking the good life.

How bad is it?

42 million Americans have student loan debt.

Black Americans have a disproportionate share of of that debt. This is the very group that the Supreme Court in Griggs was worried about regarding disparate impact.

36% of Blacks have student loan debt compared to 20% of Whites.

Source: https://www.fool.com/research/student-loan-debt-statistics/

The Griggs decision was based on the theory of eliminating disparate impacts. 

In reality, the "government solution" just created a bigger problem.

The balance on all student loans, including those from private sources, is now over $1.8 trillion. 

For perspective, that is about the same as the total annual GDP of countries such as Australia, Mexico and South Korea.

Source: https://www.fool.com/research/student-loan-debt-statistics/

$1.7 trillion of total student loan debt is owed to the federal government which federalized the program in 2010 in order to fund Obamacare.

Yes, the "profits" from the interest on student loans was established as a source of funds in order to pay for the subsidies necessary for Obamacare in the original "Affordable Care Act" in 2010.

The same Democrats who took over student loans from the private sector then turned around a few years later and wanted to cancel all student loans.

The deception and duplicity of it all was diabolical.

Student loan debt is also not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That is one reason that a staggering 3.6 million Americans age 62 and over have outstanding student loan debts.

This debt has either been accumulated personally and not paid off for years or is the result of taking out Parent Plus loans for their children or grandchildren.

452,000 people who are receiving Social Security benefits are now at risk of having these benefits garnished to pay this debt since the pause on debt payments during Covid has expired.

For now, the Trump administration has stated that it will not use Social Security benefits to offset unpaid student loan debt that is in default as the law allows.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/social-security-benefits-student-loans-collection-garnishment-4404c2959609dbb4f0d8c7d5cc319164

However, that risk overhangs those Seniors in default.

192,300 Seniors were having their Social Security reduced by the federal government in 2019 to pay defaulted student loan amounts. In 2001, only 6,200 were having their benefit reduced through forced collection to pay student loans in default.

The bottom line is this.

College is not a scam but the student loan program feels like one.

It is yet another example that proves the truth of one of Ronald Reagan's most famous quotes.

Is Revival Necessary For Survival?

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has had a profound effect on a lot of people.

Some have even argued that it may fuel what already appeared to be a religious revival of sorts in the United States.

Link: https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1978456270622335016

Joel Kotkin recently wrote an article in Unherd where he makes the argument that a spiritual hunger is in evidence in the United States and it is driven in large part by young people.

Source: https://unherd.com/2025/10/why-god-came-back/

Nearly 60 years ago, Time magazine, then an important publication, posed a discomfiting question on its cover: “Is God Dead?” Yet today, a spiritual hunger grips America, with roughly two-thirds of religiously unaffiliated Americans still believing in God or a universal spirit, according to Pew. Overall, young people are drawing closer to a higher power, and new research reports that most Gen-Z teens are more interested in learning more about Jesus, often using the internet to find new commitments.  

(Hat tip to BeeLine reader RDB for forwarding me this article.)

Kotkin's assertion is supported by data from Barna that shows that Gen Z and Millennial church members are now more likely to attend church than their parents or grandparents. This is a complete reversal from historical trends, where the older you were the more likely you were to attend.

Source: https://www.barna.com/research/young-adults-lead-resurgence-in-church-attendance/

Kotkin also sees the nature of worship taking on a much more conservative character.

The data backs up Kotkin's observations.

Churches that have embraced progressive ideology are disappearing.

Traditional protest denominations are in freefall insofar as members are concerned.

The mainline Protestant sects which once made up 50% of all church members are now only around 10% of church goers in the United States.

This chart gives you an idea of how membership has fallen since 2000 with some of the mainline church denominations.

 

Source: https://readytoharvest.substack.com/p/the-decline-of-mainline-churches

More religiously conservative Evangelical Protestants are now the largest religious group in the United States.

Evangelicals outnumber Mainline Protestants by 2:1.

The conservative religious trend is also apparent in looking at other religious sects.

For example, the Amish have more than doubled their numbers in the last 20 years.

Source: https://readytoharvest.substack.com/p/the-decline-of-mainline-churches

It is another example that proves demography is destiny.

The fertility rate for Amish women is 6.0 compared to less than 2.0 for the general U.S.population.

We can expect the Amish population to double again in 20 years with this number of births.

The Amish are on their way to overtaking some traditional Protestant sects in numbers in the near future.

Holmes County in Ohio is on track to soon be the first majority Amish county in the United States.

In the United States, there has also been significant growth in Chabad within the Jewish denomination, which emphasizes strict adherence to traditional Jewish law while also being known for its outreach efforts to engage Jews of all backgrounds.

Source: https://momentmag.com/chabad-thirty-years-late

.

(From the picture in the above article it is nice to know that cell phone use is not prohibited under traditional Jewish law!)

The same trends can also be seen globally.

In Israel, the Orthodox Jewish population is growing the fastest.

Orthodox Jews made up less than 10% of the Jewish population of Israel in 1990. Today they comprise almost one-fourth of the Jewish population and almost 20% of the total population of Israel.

Again, much of this is driven by birth rates in which the fertility rate for Orthodox women is double (6.0) that of the population at large in Israel (2.9).

Of course, we have all seen the dramatic turn in the Muslim faith over the last 45 years to a strict view of Islam which has resulted in moderate Muslims being largely marginalized in many parts of the world.

The radical Islam we see today has its roots in what is called the "Salafi Movement" within Islam. Its followers believe in taking a very fundamental approach to Islam. They believe that Islam has strayed from its roots and has become decadent over the years. They reject any religious innovation and support the implementation of sharia law.

At current trends, driven largely by higher fertility rates among Muslims, it is just a matter of time before Muslims outnumber Christians in the world.

Globally, Muslims are producing more children than any other religious group.

Buddhists are losing ground every year due to low birth rates.

The situation is worse in Western Europe where the fertility rate difference is much greater than between Muslims and non-Muslims globally.

On average, Muslims are having one additional child than non-Muslims in Western Europe.

This projection shows the % of the European population that will be Muslim in 2050 based on this fertility differential and current migration trends.

The Muslim population will triple in 25 years.

Source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/08/which-european-countries-will-become-muslim-potential-tripling-by-2050.html

Sweden will be over 30% Muslim and Germany 24% in one generation.

As I have written before, unless there is a major change in the current trajectory, large parts of Europe will no longer be Europe within one or two generations.

Previous religious revivals were the catalyst for political change in the United States.

These have been referred to as "Awakenings".

The so-called First Awakening in the American colonies (1730's and 1740's) fostered individualism and anti-authoritarian sentiment. Church membership grew. The people started to distance themselves from the King and Church of England. This revival set the the desire for American independence in motion.

The Second Great Awakening (1790's-1840's) brought about a doubling of church membership with an emphasis on free will, personal salvation and moral reform. This revival led to the abolitionist movement that eventually culminated in the Civil War.

The Third Great Awakening (1850-1900's) emphasized urban revivals as America industrialized, personal piety and social reform. The Salvation Army and YMCA were founded during this period. The foundation for Prohibition was also set in motion during this revival period with the founding of the temperance movement in 1873/1874 and the Anti-Saloon League in 1890.

It remains to be seen whether a new revival period in the United States will lead to fundamental changes in society as was seen in the lead up to the American Revolution, the Civil War and the ratification of the 18th Amendment of the Constitution which made Prohibition the law of the land from 1920 until 1933. 

However, what is certain is that if the United States and (especially) Europe do not see a revival of some form in religious commitment, they may be in as much danger as traditional mainline churches.

Radical Islam shows no signs that it will be retreating

Revival may be necessary for the survival of Western Civilization as we know it.

Mamdani and the Melting Pot

A recent poll in New York City's mayoral election in November shows Democrat candidate and Marxist Zohran Mamdani ahead of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (running as an Independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

However, Mamdani is only favored by 43% of New York City's voters.

The majority of New Yorkers oppose Mamdani taking over the Mayor's office.

51% support one of the two other candidates.

However, the betting odds on Polymarket right now are that Mamdani has a 92% chance of winning the three-person race.

What is really interesting in looking at the underlying polling data is Mamdani would not be leading in the polling for Mayor but for the overwhelming support of foreign-born voters.

At the same time, he is only favored by about a third of native-born voters.

62% of foreign-born voters support Mamdani.

65% of native-born voters support Cuomo or Sliwa.

Source: https://patriotpolling.com/our-polls/f/new-york-city-mayoral-election

How is it possible that in America's largest city that the foreign-born can have this much power to influence an election?

Almost 40% of the population of New York City is foreign-born---3.1 million. 

According to New York City, these are the countries of birth of the ten largest foreign-born city residents.

Almost half a million were born in the Dominican Republic and 400,000 from China.

Source: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/MOIA-Annual-Report-2023_Final.pdf

It should be noted that all of the above numbers for foreign-born as of 2022 are probably understated today in light of the surge of illegals into the city in  2023 and 2024. 

New York City has always been a melting pot but the percent of immigrants living in the city is now nearly at the same percent it was in 1900 and more than double what is was in 1970.

To put the number of foreign-born persons in New York City in context, there are more foreign-born persons living in the city than the total population of Chicago (2.7 million), the nations' third largest city.

How confident are we that those foreign-born voters are actually U.S. citizens?

New York City passed a law in 2021 to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. The only requirement was that the individual had to reside in the city for at least 30 consecutive days.

This would have made 800,000 non-citizens eligible to vote.

To put that number in perspective, only 1.1 million voted in the last New York City mayoral election.

The New York State Court of Appeals struck down the law as unconstitutional in March, 2025 citing the New York State Constitution which explicitly reserves the right to vote for U.S. citizens. Even though progressives dominate the court, the vote was 6-1 denying non-citizens the right to vote in New York City elections.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/20/new-york-noncitizen-voting-blocked-00240007

However, New York City was undoubtedly allowing non-citizens to register to vote between 2021, when the law was passed, until earlier this year.

Does anyone believe that those illegal voters will be prevented from voting this year? 

Why would Democrats in New York City even pass a law allowing non-citizens to vote when the state constitution was so cut and dried that only U.S. citizens were eligible to vote?

Look at the polling above and you know the answer. 

All of this should also provide the answer as to why the Democrats have allowed millions and millions of illegal immigrants to enter the country over the last 30 years.

Eggs and Oil, Gold and Silver

Do you remember earlier this year just a month or two after Donald Trump took office and the chorus from the Left that complained that Trump was doing nothing to bring down egg prices?

We are not hearing much about that subject any more.

Oil prices have also been dropping. 

Crude oil is 25% lower than when Trump took office in January.

This is starting to show up at the gas pump.

This was the per gallon price for regular at my local Costco yesterday.

Trump may get $2/gallon gasoline.

Right now crude oil prices per barrel are about where they were 20 years ago.

In inflation-adjusted terms, crude oil is priced as if we were back in the Reagan years in the 1980's.

You would normally believe that these price declines in key commodities portends better news on inflation going forward.

However, at the same time that the prices of eggs and oil have been dropping, gold and silver prices have been on a tear this year.

Gold is up 60% since the first of the year.

Silver has done even better.

It has risen almost 70% year to date.

Over the last couple of months I have been looking at the price of gold and silver every day and the upwards action has been uncanny.

Prices were up almost every single day like clockwork.

This is what you would expect to see if inflation was out of control and investors were looking to flee to the most durable store of value we have known over the centuries.

You would normally think that if eggs and oil were decreasing in price so would gold and silver.

At a minimum, gold and silver prices would not be going through the roof.

What is going on?

I wish I knew.

Underlying all of this has to be fears that inflation will reignite as it did in the Biden years,
concerns about the staggering amount of global and U.S. debt or uneasiness with the fiat money system.

It most likely involves all three.

I share the same worries when we have to trust our government and central bankers to protect the value of our currency.

That is especially true when I think about the research that Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman did with Amos Tversky, Richard Thaler and Jack Knetsch in 1986 on how people judge fairness,

It is particularly relevant today.

It is also very troubling when you consider how easily the government authorities can use inflation to steal from the public without most believing it is the theft that it is.

The study tracked responses on whether respondents believed that certain outcomes were "fair" in economic terms.

The base case factual pattern was as follows.

A company is making a small profit.  It is located in a community experiencing a recession with substantial unemployment but no inflation.  There are many worker anxious to work for the company.  The company decides to decrease wages and salaries 7% this year.

62% of respondents judged this to be UNFAIR. 38% said it was ACCEPTABLE.

A second version of the question had a modification to the above with the identical facts with two small changes.

Instead of no inflation the facts were changed so that there was  "12% inflation" and the  company was said to decide "to increase wages only 5% this year".

Notice that in both cases the workers have lost 7% of their purchasing power in real money terms.

However, 78% said that the second version was ACCEPTABLE or FAIR and only 22% judged it UNFAIR.

The fact that they gained something in one pocket in the second version was all it took for them to ignore the fact that even more money was coming out of their other pocket. 

The study showed that most people are not able to consider the full second order effects beyond the immediate impact on their paycheck or bank account.

To put the issue another way, how do you think people would view these two scenarios involving Social Security?

One feels better. The other IS better.

Receiving a 2% social security increase when prices are rising 10% just doesn't feel as bad as having your social security payment cut by 5% when inflation is 2%.  

You are actually better off with the 5% cut from a buying power perspective. Most people just don't think or feel that that way.

I think of this study often as I see what is going on right now with inflation and where the United States may be heading in the future with almost $38 trillion in debt and a Federal Reserve that can print money at will.

Inflation is the easiest policy option for government to solve its debt problems.  It is also the easiest way to hoodwink the public. It just does not feel like you are losing if your wages are going up rather than going down no matter what else is happening.

It is akin to the frog that is put in the slowly heating pot of water.

What is the best explanation for why gold and silver are soaring in price?

I am not the only one who understands the easiest way for the United States and other governments around the world to get out of the mess they created.

More and more are hedging their bets by trading their paper money for hard assets that have proven to be a store of value for thousands of years.

A Pattern To Our Problems

A common theme with Democrats is that they create an enormous problem due to their policies and then scream the loudest when that problem compounds to become an even bigger problem.

They then blame the people working to solve the problem that THEY are the problem

The most obvious example is illegal immigration.

Democrats went all in supporting an open border policy over the last 25 years.

It reached insane levels during the Biden administration.

Millions entered the country illegally.

Remember when the Democrats said the problem could only be solved by new legislation that the Republicans were standing in the way of?

We just ended the federal government's fiscal year on September 30, 2025 with the lowest annual number of illegal border crossings in 55 years.

Bear in mind that this includes almost four months when the Biden administration was in charge!

Compare the Biden years with Trump's first year on the job in the data below.

We had months in which over 300,000 illegals were surging across the border under Biden.

Under Trump, less than 10,000 have been crossing the border illegally each month.

Source: https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1978633840236102129

All of those illegals over the years have put enormous pressure on our society and compounded other problems.

The immigration laws were designed to provide limits on how many entered the country each year so that there would be an orderly process and time to assimilate the additional people.

Liberals like to talk about SUSTAINABILITY. 

However, there is nothing that has harmed sustainability in our society more than the illegal immigration invasion.

Too many immigrants at one time puts too much strain on our resources. It puts unnecessary strain on everything in our society---our water, our sewer systems, our roads, the electric grid, our infrastructure and our environment. It contributes to congestion and urban sprawl.

The illegal invasion contributed to more crime on our streets.

It put enormous cost pressures on our health care and education systems.

It was responsible for housing and rental prices to spike.

If you don't think housing prices have been affected by immigration consider this chart that shows the numbers of FHA loan locks that were given to immigrants who did not have green cards or other authorization to stay in the U.S. permanently.

Demand vastly outstripped when 10+ million illegals and other immigrants entered the United States in the the last four years. Our FHA was helping to juice that demand.

Fortunately, President Trump banned the FHA from continuing this policy in May.

The FHA was providing taxpayer-subsidized loans to immigrants to buy houses who did not even have the right to be in the United States permanently? Insane.

President Trump was elected on a clear mandate to enforce our immigration laws and deport those who have violated the law.

However, the Democrats now scream that Trump and ICE are the bad guys.

Leftists doxx and threaten ICE agents who are doing their jobs so those law enforcement agents have to begin wearing masks to protect themselves and their families.

The Democrats then blame the ICE agents and demand that they go unmasked.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/22/nx-s1-5549165/california-passes-law-banning-ice-agents-from-wearing-masks-to-hide-their-identities

Of course, the ICE agents would not have to mask without the personal threats to their safety.

Do you see a pattern here?

The same pattern underlies the major issue that has caused the Democrats to shut down the federal government right now.

Their primary concern involves funding for Obamacare subsidies that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

Of course, I am old enough to remember when we were told that Obamacare was going reduce every family's healthcare costs by $2,500 per year.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

When it was passed by the Democrats in 2010 (not one Republican voted for the bill) the official title of the law was "The Affordable Care Act".

It should have been more properly titled "The Unaffordable Care Act".

Average family healthcare premiums are now over $25,000 per year.

In the chart below you can see that annual premiums actually accelerated after Obamacare was passed.

Source: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/2024-employer-health-benefits-survey/#e3efa8b3-48d2-458b-a2f7-c4d5add1983b--h-section-1-cost-of-health-insurance

This generally has also been accompanied by MUCH higher deductibles and out of pocket costs as well.

Obamacare was sold based on the argument that if everyone was covered by health insurance we would not have any uncompensated care that drives up the cost for everyone else.

Obamacare was designed to get everyone covered by expanding those eligible for Medicaid at lower income levels and subsidizing insurance costs for those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level for those not eligible for Medicaid.

Of course, this required federal revenues. It turned out to be a lot more money than projected (no surprise) and the Obamacare rules requiring additional coverages made the health care even more expensive which required even more subsidies.

To entice states to expand Medicaid coverage the federal government promised to pay 90% of the costs opposed to the usual 50-60%.

The Obamacare exchanges were struggling with high cost coverages from the outset.

They effectively made the individual health insurance market unaffordable without massive subsidies.

I experienced it in my own family.

Mrs. BeeLine needed a short-term policy for less than 6 months between expiration of group coverage and the start of her Medicare coverage.

An Obamacare policy for her cost $805/month. A catastrophic plan with a $1 million limit (still generous for 6 months) cost $173/month. 

A big difference in the cost is that open ended cost liability that the carrier assumes.  Obamacare made it illegal to buy the limited plan even though it perfectly fit my wife's needs. 

The irony is that the "catastrophic" plan actually had a lower deductible and out of pocket costs than the Obamacare plan. 

Subsidies had to increase every year to make the Obamacare plans barely affordable.

The high costs were getting to be a bigger and bigger political problem for the Democrats.

Therefore, Democrats took advantage in the Covid relief bill of 2021 to increase the subsidies TEMPORARILY until December 31, 2025.

The bill even allowed the subsidies to go to those making more than 400% of the poverty level. Households making up to $600,000 per year can actually quality for subsidies for their Obamacare health coverage under the Covid era laws that were enacted.

The national emergency is over. However, the political emergency for Democrats persists due to the failure of Obamacare to control health care cost premiums.

Consider what went on here.

The Democrats passed Obamacare in 2010 without a single Republican vote.

They passed the Covid Relief Bill in 2021 without a single Republican vote.

The Democrats were solely responsible for putting the December 31, 2025 expiration date for the additional Obamacare subsidies in the Covid bill. It was their design.

All that will occur on December 31 is that the Obamacare subsidies will return to the original intent and design of Obamacare.

The Democrats are now shutting down the federal government and blaming Trump and the Republicans because they will not extend the subsidies beyond the date of expiration that the Democrats established by themselves.

Democrat Senator John Fetterman lays this out as plainly as can be.

Link: https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1978633840236102129

How is it that Senator Fetterman, who had a serious stroke several years ago from which people were concerned whether he had the mental capacity to serve, is one of the few Democrats who can speak the truth and displays any common sense?

Beware the pattern to our problems.

You can see the pattern if you take a little deeper look at the reality of what is really going behind the headlines.

It appears that more and more people are able to see the pattern.

The latest Rasmussen poll released yesterday shows that Donald Trump has a higher net approval at this time in his Presidency (even with the government shutdown) than Obama did in his first or second terms.

Trump right now is also about 15 points better than Biden or in Trump's first term.

Source: Rasmussen Reports 

Blaming Trump for the government shutdown might not be the best strategy for the Democrats right now.

The Nobel Prize

Nobel Prizes were in the news last week.

The biggest headline was for the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Maria Corina Machado of Venezuela.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/nobel-peace-prize-oslo-41b6bff88e2d57af0917bcf778e132ad

However, most of the headlines in the mainstream media celebrated the fact that Donald Trump DID NOT WIN the Peace Prize.

Last month I was in both Oslo, Norway where the Peace Prize is given out, as well as Stockholm, Sweden where the other prizes are awarded.

Here is a photo of me in front of the Nobel Peace Prize Center in Oslo.

Mr. BeeLine displaying the peace symbol at the Nobel Prize Peace Center in Oslo

I did not expect Trump to win the Peace Prize this year for two reasons.

1. Nominations have to be made by January 31 for the year of the prize. That was only 11 days into Trump's term.

2. The Peace Prize is chosen by a committee of five individuals (the Norwegian Nobel Committee) selected by the Norwegian Parliament.

You can be sure that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is a little to the left of Donald Trump.

When I learned all of that while in Oslo I gave Trump 0% chance to win the Peace Prize this year.

Of course, that January 31 nomination deadline did not stop that same Committee from awarding Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

The official motivation explaining the award by the Committee was the following.

Source: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/

I am still wondering exactly what "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" Obama did in less than two weeks as President to be worthy of a nomination let alone winning the prize?

This tells you all you need to know about how political the Nobel Peace Prize has become.

It will be interesting to see if Trump will be considered to be worthy for the Prize in 2026 if the peace negotiation in the Middle East holds.

The Nobel Prizes were first awarded in 1901 when Albert Nobel, a chemist and engineer who invented dynamite and other explosives and armaments, left the bulk of his estate ($300 million in today's dollars) for the establishment of awards for work that has provided the greatest benefit to mankind in five fields---Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature and Peace.

An award for Economics was established in 1968 by the Swedish central bank to honor Albert Nobel's legacy.

Nobel never officially stated why he was motivated to establish these prizes.

However, a popular story is that Nobel read a premature unflattering obituary that branded him a "merchant of death".  It is argued that after seeing that obit Nobel was determined that he did not want to be remembered that way as his legacy.

Source: https://www.history.com/articles/did-a-premature-obituary-inspire-the-nobel-prize

What persuaded the “dynamite king” to devote his fortune to charity? Nobel never spoke publicly about the motivations behind the pledge, but many believe it was inspired by an earlier case of mistaken identity. In 1888, Nobel’s brother Ludvig had died in France from a heart attack. Thanks to poor reporting, at least one French newspaper believed that it was Alfred who had perished, and it proceeded to write a scathing obituary that branded him a “merchant of death” who had grown rich by developing new ways to “mutilate and kill.” The error was later corrected, but not before Alfred had the unpleasant experience of reading his own death notice. The incident may have brought on a crisis of conscience and led him to reevaluate his career. According to biographer Kenne Fant, Nobel “became so obsessed with the posthumous reputation that he rewrote his last will, bequeathing most of his fortune to a cause upon which no future obituary writer would be able to cast aspersions.”

This year's Nobel Prize winners will be honored at a dinner in Stockholm after the awards other than the Peace Prize are conferred in that city on December 10---the anniversary of Albert Nobel's death

The dinner is held at Stockholm's City Hall and from the looks of past events it is an evening you would not want to miss if you received an invitation.

Credit: https://www.instagram.com/p/DDZlWimtC_X/?img_index=1

Nine of this year's 14 Nobel Prize winners are from the United States.

Source: Grok

Since the Nobel Prizes have been in existence, the United States has been the home of more Nobel laureates than any other country. Almost half of the individuals (425/860) who have received the Nobel Prize have been from the United States.

Source: Wikipedia-List of Nobel Laureates by Country
The notes refer to individuals who won the Nobel more than once
( e.g. Three American have received two Nobel Prizes each)

Keep this in mind as you hear those on the Left claim that the United States is not great, nor has it ever been in the past.

The list of Nobel Prize laureates is objective evidence of American Exceptionalism. 

Note as well the other countries at the top of the list.

The three other countries that have been the cornerstones of Western civilization over the years---the UK, Germany and France---have had 338 other individuals receive Nobel Prizes.

On a per capita basis, the number of awards by these countries is in the same league as the U.S.

The United States and these three other countries have amassed almost 90% of all the Nobel Prizes ever conferred.

The world would be much, much worse off but for the contributions these countries have made to humanity.

However, there is no end to the complaints we hear about how the United States and Western Civilization  have been nothing but oppressive, white-dominated societies for time immemorial that have harmed the world.

For example, consider this X post from last year by the late Charlie Kirk where he showed Kamala Harris speaking in 2021 at the National Congress of American Indians which is aligned with her long-standing advocacy of replacing Columbus Day with "Indigenous Peoples Day".

Link: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1845847986397680073

Take a minute and consider how different the world would have been on Monday if Kamala Harris would have won last November.

Harris would have given a speech about Indigenous Peoples' Day and then retired for the day for a glass of wine or two.

By contrast, this is President Trump's schedule as he travelled to the Middle East to participate in the signing of the Middle East Peace Agreement on Monday.

It is doubtful Donald Trump will win the Nobel Peace Prize even if he ends the Russia-Ukraine War next.

He doesn't have the style, grace and demeanor that a diplomat or leader is supposed to have.

All he has is the resolve to get results and an indefatigable spirit that does not allow him to quit short of his goals.

Less than two years ago the Democrats did everything in their power to bankrupt Trump and put him in prison for life.

How many people in history have earned the redemption that Donald Trump has over the last year?

Without question, Trump has won that prize.