By Taylor Lewis 

Lost and heartless in the Water Temple. Needled dead on the dusty field of Blood Gulch. Axe-hacked by Steve on the pale-green isometric plains. Doused by Hydro Pump from your rival’s Blastoise. Headshotted in the Vietnamese brush from an M16.

Plummeting into the black void after a mistimed jump over a walking mushroom, complete with a jingly coda marking your death.

The Democratic Party has suffered all these ignominious deaths at the tapping thumbs of the male American electorate, especially those whose main hobby involves pwning noobs on PlayStation in the small hours. It’s game over for the party—a blue screen of death. Cast off, out of power, belittled, humbled, humiliated, licking their wounds, icing their bruises, rubbing their lumps, ointmenting their scars—Democrats look like Glass Joe after three pummeling rounds with Little Mac.

Worse, few if any donkey-pin bearers grasp any of the above video game references. They realize their damage bar is depleted, and that the player (your average red-blooded Yankee) has tossed the joystick and moved on. Polling bears out this bro boredom.

So how does the rainbow-pronged party fight a multifront war, after it’s sustained heavy losses and is only making slogging headway with a dying demographic? More particularly, how can the purple-haired mare woo back the virile stallion?

First, by doing the most feminine, liberal, bureaucratic things possible: throwing millions at consultants to construct a PowerPoint detailing the proclivities of young men. The same brain trust that gifted the country the can-can dandy Tim Walz is having its pockets stuffed even more to win back Uncle Sam.

Second, and possibly most important, an acronym for said endeavor must be coined. The DNC’s annual calendar has every month marked with a skin-and-sex abbreviation appreciation. Democrats, who almost entirely staff the laptop-job industry, think in abridged terms so as to lasso in every outré identity. (Can the El Capitancompute just how long the LGBTQ formula extends before every last kink is included?) On its andros-grasping schema, the Dems have settled on SAM: “Speaking with American Men.” The project is, of course, doomed from its first letter. If there’s one thing guys have an innate revulsion for, it’s someone speaking.

Third, if men are to be prompted in sharing their feelings—already an abortive task—the question is, who will be the kind, open, generous, and receiving soul to do the prodding? Certainly, the professional Democrat apparatus, stacked to the gills with donor dollars and data-driven trends analysts, won’t employ a walking bullhorn for the most caterwauling progressive causes. Right…? *ERRRRRRRRR.* Meet Olivia Julianna, a “queer, plus-size, disabled Latina” (her words) who is graciously advising her side how to attract the more libidinous sex, despite her sapphic predelicitions.

The signal problem is, besides looking like she spent prom night crying in a Wendy’s parking lot, Julianna only has one suggestion for the Democrats’ lack of juevos: it’s a non-issue. How she womansplained the nugatory predicament: “I spend a lot of time on college campuses… I love young men. I love frat guys, and in that I realize, even the ones who identify as conservative are almost always pro-choice. Almost always pro-gay marriage. You’d be surprised at the number of them who supported Black Lives Matter. I feel like people kind of just lump them into this box when the truth is, again, a lot of them are with us on the issues.”

Hear that fellas, you’re woke libtards and don’t even know it! If there’s anyone with a ruched sausage link on the pulse of soused-out fifth-year-seniors, it’s a Stay-Puft schoolmarm whumping her stumps over mail-order misoprostol.

Now, hairy-chested honor demands I acknowledge Ms. Julianna (Is it Ms. or Zis? One can never keep abreast of the pronoun police’s dictates.) has denied any coordinated effort on converting dudes into Dems. But, she insisted, to her Instagram followers, she’ll continue to “advocate for young men to get the policy agenda that they deserve.”

Frankly, she’d be better off streaming “Grand Theft Auto V,” cruising for trulls and beating them into sanguine pixels, than lecturing guys on the public policies “they deserve.”

The Democrats’ official plan to take back testosterone isn’t a whole heaping lot better. SAM, which is sitting snug on $20 million, was constituted by an abortion non-profit founder, a Gen Z pollster, and a former Tennessee Titans linebacker who was bested in a statewide race by the most-hated, most Canadian senator. Losers, uterus vacuums, and clipboard questioners—a mucho macho combo! SAM’s findings are, in simili modo, worded in therapeutic parlance: young, American gents are “stressed, ashamed and confused over what it means to be a man in 2025.”

Such a telescopic diagnosis couldn’t be more off the mark. Few, if any, men are “ashamed” or “confused” about their chromosome count. (That worrying is exclusive to freakazoid autogynemphiliacs like Dylan Mulvaney.) Whatever feelings of dejection they have are reactive to their perceived abjectness. Consider the gauntlet the American male has traversed in the past decade, from university inquisitions into intimate life, to pushy skirted teachers screeching demands of compliance, to being suspected of harboring murderous misogyny, to the undermining of tactical labor for the benefit of service work. Which political party is most wedded to the “it’s her turn” philosophy? Not the one that crushed Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris.

SAM’s only other counsel is “buying advertisements in video games,” which wouldn’t be the worst idea unless the Democratic Party hadn’t already chopped its log off last fall by featuring Gov. Walz playing Rep. Ocasio-Cortez in Madden over Twitch, only for the former assistant football coach to infamously gush between his sagging jowls that his opponent “could run a mean pick 6.”

That remark alone will guarantee the family jewels stay safely tucked within the GOP for at least another decade. Live by the longhouse, die by the longhouse.

Free the People publishes opinion-based articles from contributing writers. The opinions and ideas expressed do not always reflect the opinions and ideas that Free the People endorses. We believe in free speech, and in providing a platform for open dialogue. Feel free to leave a comment.

By Connor Vasile

Despite promising DOGE cuts and draining the Swamp, Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ looks to increase spending in a maneuver that makes you think: “Are there any real Conservatives left?”

Like tens of millions of Americans, I voted for the presidential candidate who promised to drain the Swamp, put money back in our pockets, bring peace, and honor our Constitution.

Trump 2.0 has delivered on promises; from addressing Biden’s migrant crisis, to combating wokeness, to spearheading DOGE investigations, there is no doubt this administration is taking a hands-on approach. However, I notice that a lot of what we’ve seen in the past 130-plus days has been noise, with very little change.

After Trump’s March 4th speech to Congress, I was hopeful for Republicans’ plan to cut wasteful spending, protect Americans, and prioritize our country. After four years of a Biden administration persecuting citizens, fumbling foreign policy, and gaslighting us on a failing economy, this was a breath of fresh air.

But between the ad nauseum TV appearances and Cabinet meetings heaping praise on Trump like no tomorrow, change is taking a backseat to optics. I was hoping for that new era of liberty countless people once prayed for after fleeing dictatorships—my family included.

Unfortunately for us, the Republicans’ ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ won’t make that dream a reality.

Politicians are more concerned with optics than with creating change.

Since January, Trump has signed 157 (and counting) Executive Orders on issues like the economy, border security, tariffs, and women’s sports. Meanwhile, less than twenty bills have been signed into law—a drop in the ocean compared to how many EOs are left exposed to revocation.

In the same breath, the Republicans’ new ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ does little to actually promote conservative values; it does however add to our crippling national debt and expand federal powers Republicans once strongly criticized as tyrannical.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) called out the Bill as a “ticking time bomb,” that represents “Biden-level spending and increased deficits,” that utterly fails to repeal the ‘Green New Deal’ forced through by the last administration. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) says the Bill would increase the deficit by around $22 trillion over the next ten years.

While House Speaker Mike Johnson touts the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ for cutting $500 billion in funding for ‘Green New Deal’ schemes and transgender surgeries, the Bill does little to roll back Biden’s unconstitutional policies. While conservative estimates calculate that the Bill would increase the cost of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) energy tax subsidies by $582 billion between 2026 and 2035, the CATO Institute predicted that costs could amount to $4.7 trillion over the next 25 years. That’s billions of our taxpayer dollars going to fund more ‘Green New Deal’ and Obamacare initiatives every single year.

What happened to taking a sledgehammer to the corrupt establishment? What about the Swamp?

There has been much talk on Capitol Hill to codify Elon Musk’s DOGE spending cuts, potentially saving Americans hundreds of billions in bloat discretionary spending. Trump himself has called for “radical transparency” regarding wasteful government spending. Yet despite only needing a simple majority to rescind discretionary spending, Republicans are incapable of living up to their promises; 26 GOP Senatorshave voted against a reconciliation bill codifying DOGE cuts to programs like USAID and foreign spending. It doesn’t seem we are going to drain the Swamp anytime soon, even with Republican control.

Republicans are failing fiscally, and socially.

Instead of bringing bills to Congress that actually conserve our rights or repeal federal agency overreach, politicians are too busy entertaining laws that would imprison Americans for their speech. A bipartisan-sponsored bill, the IGO Anti-Boycott Act, was set to be voted on in early May, and would have expanded existing, unconstitutional anti-boycott law by making it a federal crime for Americans to participate in internationally-led boycotts against Israeli goods. The punishment? Up to $1 million in fines and up to twenty years imprisonment. Thankfully, the bill was pulled after national outrage from private citizens and politicians alike.

Besides this little bump in the congressional road, there hasn’t really been much action on Capitol Hill to strengthen our constitutional rights and to bring power back to the people.

Since the Republican-led Congress is uninterested in acting on its promise to expand rights like the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, it’s probable that a Democrat-held Congress could soon sweep in to undo what little progress was made. Deep Blue California and Colorado are already moving to criminalize free speech; when will that be introduced nationally?

While I definitely don’t want a 2024 election do-over, I’m disappointed. From backtracking on a speedy Ukraine ceasefire, to increasing military spending by hundreds of billions, to giving up on draining the Swamp, the Republican establishment has proven itself to be just another big government party.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have the answer. Libertarianism does.

With Republicans eagerly moving to expand federal powers for their own means, imagine what would happen when a Democrat inevitably retakes the White House. Who will stand up for “the little guy” then?

Everyone is happy to hold onto power—if they can get their hands on it. But when it comes to doing the proper work, of shrinking federal bloat and trimming fiscal fat, our politicians get squeamish, and are quick to forget what made America great in the first place. Gone are the days of leaders who honor the Founding Fathers’ vision of a country where man could determine his own destiny and live his life as he saw fit.

Nowadays, our politicians are trapped in a political rat race where our major parties vie for absolute control while the American taxpayer is forced to foot the bill, no matter the cost. Not sure whether your tax dollars should go to fund forever wars or bloated federal spending? With our Democracy™, you can pick both! If the last eight years have taught us anything, it is that Democrats and Republicans are merely different sides to the same exact coin.

It’s about time Americans realized that no politician is going to save them, no matter the slogan, the catchphrase, or the empty promise. The federal government exists for itself, and the only way out of this mess is with less government intervention, not more.

As Ronald Reagan said: “the heart of my philosophy is much more Libertarianism… the conservative, so-called, is the one that says less government, get off my back, get out of my pocket, and let me have more control of my own destiny.”

What I’d give to have a little less government, and a little more freedom… Since neither Republicans nor Democrats seem interested in making that a reality, Libertarianism is starting to look like our last hope to make America great again.

Free the People publishes opinion-based articles from contributing writers. The opinions and ideas expressed do not always reflect the opinions and ideas that Free the People endorses. We believe in free speech, and in providing a platform for open dialogue. Feel free to leave a comment.

By Taylor Lewis 

Between you and me, perceptive reader, I don’t think this Joe Biden fella has the mettle to be president. Sure, he has the CV for the job. Plenty of White House time, a long Senate record, party stalwart, Obama-adjacency, vague labor union appreciation, and donor schmoozer. But consider the camera factor: his age. His stilted mannerisms, awkward phrasings, obvious memory gaps bleeding into cringeworthy gaffes—what voter will go for a pudding-cup president? And a chief executive in his 80s? With the ascendant authoritarianism of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Ayatolla Khamenei, and whatever tinpot baddie the Wall Street Journaleditorial board feels like tossing in its Axis-of-Evil pottage? Sure, Ronald Reagan disarmed the Soviet Empire well past his Medicare-eligible date. That was qualitatively different: the Gipper packed those secret American weapons of a sun-shiny demeanor, a Hollywood smile, Kodachromes wearing a Stetson and spurs, and a generous credit line.

What I’m saying is that I don’t think a silver-sprouted dodderer like Joe Biden is up for the stresses of the presidency. He’s hardly a spring chicken. Nor is he a summer pullet, an autumnal cockerel, or even a winter bantam. His withered features, ungainly stride, and vacuous pupils more resemble a crisped bird yanked from Colonel Sanders’s fryer. Should he run, and somehow win, his shaking, skeletal hand grasping loosely onto a solid victory, the White House will become a Shady Acres, and his aides will be less policy gurus than Visiting Angels. It would be the gerontocracy’s ultimate triumph—a far greater feat than refusing to leave price-inflated multi-bedroom homes in good neighborhoods while cashing Social Security checks paid for by millennials living in bedsits too cramped for a queen-size mattress.

The above description has multiple timestamps, and could just as easily apply to 2024 as five years earlier, when the former vice president unexpectedly reached for his baseball cap, convinced he was wearing one, only to toss some dust motes and peeled skin flakes into the ring. His startled look at his own empty hand mirrored the horrified expression of pundocrats. “Really?” the commentariat wondered when Biden tripped over his tongue, all but announcing his intention to campaign for the White House in March of 2019. The solecism-prone, enfeebled Veep is going to take on Trump?

The resulting campaign, then administration, was one gigantic visual dissemblance. Joe Biden’s obvious—“obvious” as an adjective doesn’t do justice to how clear of a scatty cooter Joe Biden really wass—impairment was sheened as much as possible by staffers who themselves were fooled into thinking they’d been yanking the government’s levers only to find out their roles were reduced to that of a glorified stage crew. Biden wasn’t a president as much as he was a daily reality show in an age of digital voyeurism.

The production is now finally addressed by its main players in the form of a mega-selling book: Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, authored by Axios reporter Alex Thompson and CNN anchor-scold Jake Tapper. The work is being marketed as a scandalous tell-all about how a close-knit West Wing troupe played at the appearance of a functional presidency. But because our politics is all meta-gotcha-ism and catchpenny public relations, the tract serves a dual purpose: that of a let-off-the-hook apologia issued by the very people who perpetuated a half-decade hoax.

You see, to take Tapper’s and Thompson’s contention at its face, you have to evenly swallow the preposterous notion that the Washington press corps was undisturbed by Biden’s long list of dementia-doings, including incoherent mumbling, calling on dead colleagues, wandering aimlessly at public events, frequent onset catatonia, failing to recognize George Clooney’s dashing mug, being arm-leashed by the Easter Bunny, and divulging his cancer diagnosis due to oil slicks on windshields.

(The latter is a particularly grim admission, with news “breaking” that Biden indeed suffers from advanced prostate cancer—a diagnosis only the most credulous, Politico-reading, Le Dip-frequenting, condo-renting, Sunday-show watching Beltway creature has a hard time believing was just chanced upon.)

Of course, nobody beyond the I-495 loop is ingenuous enough to buy the line that our intrepid media minders, so perspicacious in unshoveling decades-old perjorative-laden Facebook posts from Republican grandpas, missed the eerily translucent President meeting every camera and spectator with the same vacant stare behind a sagging, celluloid masque. They knew. And lent their various mastheads and chyrons to the narrative of whippersnapper Joe burning the midnight oil long after his blue-plate special.

But say our nature vaulted the animal urge to ridicule. And let’s go further than the saints, and extend magnanimity to the same cable-news hosts so eager to browbeat skeptics who didn’t accept Joe Biden was any less sharp than Ben Shapiro’s voice playing at 1.5x speed. Must we, for the sake of remediating our pestiferous press, swear off any indictment, offering amnesty to those who deliberately cast wool over our eyes?

“If you punish people for admitting they were mistaken, they will not admit they were mistaken. These dunks are counterproductive,” tweeted Washington Postcolumnist Megan McArdle. What may sound like a kindhearted plea for kid-glove treatment is actually an appeal to what Christopher Lasch called “therapeutic morality.” To McArdle, the journalists who indulged in covering the President’s clear infirmity shouldn’t be regarded too harshly, otherwise they’ll dig further into the practice of treating progressive canon as a neutral perspective from which to gauge events.

To wit, I say, with all the learned articulation of an Oxford dean, screw ‘em. St. Aquinas defended the bitter feeling of being hacked off on the basis that anger serves as a motivator to exacting “reasonable retribution.” Far be it from me to argue with such a pious heavyweight!

We were lied to. Millions of voters were defrauded as to the President’s well-being. And while Joe Biden did the country a great service by showing that America requires no prepotent president, his handlers proved how easily those with power propagandize to keep their clutch on the wheel, all with the abetting of lickspittles cosplaying as Walter Cronkite.

The verbal beatings must continue until the media elite improves. Or newspapers are shuttered and reporters laid off en masse. Whichever comes first.

Free the People publishes opinion-based articles from contributing writers. The opinions and ideas expressed do not always reflect the opinions and ideas that Free the People endorses. We believe in free speech, and in providing a platform for open dialogue. Feel free to leave a comment.