Trump's Economic Impact Over His First Year

Donald Trump commenced his second presidential term exactly one year ago. It has been a whirlwind, with ne'er a day without some controversy. Everyone has a view on Trump and will readily voice their support or opposition to one or more of his edicts. He has done more, much more, than any other President, certainly in recent history. Given this is a critical year with the mid-terms due in less than 11 months, we can look at his impact on the key drivers of November's vote.

I have gathered the following graphs from a recent article on The Epoch Times titled Trump's First Year by the Numbers

_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Adelaide Writers' Festival Cancels Itself

Once again, cancel culture has devoured one of its own — and this time, I’m not shedding a tear.

The Adelaide Writers’ Festival, long a comfortable home for fashionable left-wing causes and anti-Israel rhetoric, has imploded in spectacular fashion. What began as a belated attempt at moral clarity ended with mass walk-outs, the resignation of its director, and the cancellation of the entire event. It would be hard to script a better example of progressive self-destruction.

The controversy centred on Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, a long-time anti-Israel activist who had been scheduled as a featured speaker. Following the Bondi massacre — in which 15 Jews were murdered in an Islamist terror attack — festival organisers quietly removed her from the program, citing “cultural sensitivity concerns.”

Those concerns were hardly imaginary.

As HonestReporting documented in a recent presentation, Abdel-Fattah had mocked Israelis fleeing the Nova music festival on October 7 while Hamas terrorists were still rampaging through southern Israel. The following day she made an image of Hamas paraglider terrorists her social-media cover photo. More recently, she was filmed teaching Australian schoolchildren to chant “Israel is a terrorist state” and “From the river to the sea.”

Let’s be clear: that isn’t education. It’s ideological indoctrination and the normalisation of hate.

These were more than sufficient reasons to conclude that she had no place on a public literary platform, particularly only weeks after Australian Jews were massacred on their own soil. Yet the moment she was removed, a predictable backlash erupted.

Other writers rushed to her defence. Zionists were blamed. “Cancel culture” was invoked. The removal of a Hamas apologist was framed as censorship rather than basic moral hygiene. Incredibly, the protesters portrayed her as the victim — not the Jewish community that had just buried its dead.

The protest escalated into a boycott by participating writers. Under mounting political pressure — including from South Australia’s Labor Premier — the festival director folded. The result? A mass walk-out, her resignation, and the cancellation of the entire festival.

And then came the final insult: the organisers rescinded their original statement and announced that Abdel-Fattah would be reinvited for next year’s festival.

You couldn’t make this up.

This was never about “cultural sensitivity.” It was about whether an institution funded by the public should platform someone who openly glorifies terrorists, mocks massacre victims, and teaches children to chant genocidal slogans. The real question is not why she was removed — it’s why the Adelaide Writers’ Festival ever thought she belonged there in the first place.

For years, the festival had no problem hosting anti-Israel speakers. It even “uninvited” a pro-Israel speaker in the past after pressure from activists. So when, for once, it showed the faintest flicker of moral awareness, its own ideological tribe turned on it.

The result is poetic justice.

Either you believe in open dialogue and pluralism — or you don’t. Either all opinions are allowed — or only the approved ones. The Adelaide Writers’ Festival tried to straddle both worlds. In the end, it chose none.

Good riddance.

If this is what passes for “literary culture” in 2026 Australia — censoring one side, platforming terror apologists, and collapsing into hysterics the moment minimal standards are applied — then perhaps the country is better off without it.

I will include the HonestReporting video below this post. It’s worth watching. It documents, in grim detail, how a supposedly enlightened cultural institution managed to disgrace itself in record time.

Sometimes cancel culture doesn’t just cancel speakers.

Sometimes it cancels itself.

https://youtu.be/fwzrJs3dTvc?si=Ya-8pS7iP4lmmRKR

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 4 of 2026

 

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• Perverse Incentives: How Good Intentions Go Bad
• Iran Revolts. The Media Turn Away.
• Why Aren't They Marching for Iran?
  
• UN Censoring Criticism of Climate Agenda

• A Normal Day in 2040 and How Robots Made It Better
  
• Adelaide Writers' Festival Cancels Itself
  
• Trump's Economic Impact Over His First Year
  

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb 

A Normal Day in 2040 — And How Robots Made It Better

Much of the public conversation about humanoid robots is framed in fear. Jobs will disappear. Humans will become obsolete. Society will unravel.

It’s a familiar pattern. We said the same about tractors, washing machines, personal computers and the internet. In every case, technology didn’t end work — it changed work. And it made everyday life better.

So instead of dystopian speculation, let’s imagine something far more radical: an ordinary day in the life of an ordinary family in 2040.

---

6:30 AM — A Calm Start to the Day

Mark and Sarah wake up to a quiet house. No frantic rushing. No piles of laundry. No sink full of dishes from the night before.

Their household robot — a standard, affordable humanoid assistant now as common as a dishwasher once was — has already done the overnight maintenance. It folded clothes, cleaned the kitchen, charged itself, restocked groceries ordered automatically the previous evening, and prepared breakfast.

Coffee is ready. Toast is warm. The kitchen is spotless.

Sarah skims the news while eating. Mark checks his schedule. Neither of them has lifted a finger yet — and that’s the point.

---

8:00 AM — Work, Still Human

Mark still works — just not in a factory or warehouse. He’s a project coordinator for a renewable energy company, managing teams, planning infrastructure upgrades, and solving problems that still require human judgment, creativity and accountability.

Sarah is a speech therapist, working with children who have learning difficulties. No robot can replace empathy, nuanced communication, or the trust built between a therapist and a child.

The robots didn’t eliminate meaningful work. They eliminated drudgery.

Both parents leave the house knowing it will remain clean, secure and running smoothly all day without human effort.

---

9:00 AM — Education, Transformed

Their two children, Emma (12) and Leo (9), start school — a mix of in-person classes and individualized learning supported by AI tutors.

The robots don’t teach values or replace teachers. They handle repetition, pacing, practice drills and personalized feedback. Human teachers focus on critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and emotional development.

Homework no longer means frustrated parents or late-night meltdowns. The kids work through lessons with a patient, adaptive tutor that never gets tired or irritated.

---

1:00 PM — Care for the Elderly, With Dignity

Mark’s mother lives nearby. She’s 82 and still independent, but needs help with mobility, medication and daily routines.

Her humanoid assistant helps her get dressed, prepares meals, reminds her to take medication, and monitors her health in real time. If anything unusual happens, Mark and Sarah are notified instantly.

She still has human carers visit for companionship and medical checkups — but the robot ensures she’s safe, supported and never alone.

This alone has transformed aging from a crisis into a manageable, dignified stage of life.

---

5:30 PM — Dinner Without Stress

The family arrives home.

Dinner is ready. Not frozen meals or synthetic paste, but fresh food cooked to their preferences. The robot adjusted the menu because Sarah mentioned she felt like Italian that morning.

There’s no arguing about whose turn it is to cook. No mess. No cleanup afterward.

The kitchen stays clean while the family eats together.

---

7:00 PM — More Time to Be Human

Instead of collapsing onto the couch exhausted, the family goes for a walk. They talk. They laugh. They play a board game.

The robot quietly handles the evening chores in the background.

This is the real revolution: time.

Time for relationships.
Time for health.
Time for creativity.
Time for rest.

---

The Bigger Picture

Humanoid robots didn’t replace humans. They replaced unpaid labor, repetitive work, physical strain, and logistical chaos.

They didn’t destroy jobs. They shifted them upward — toward roles that require judgment, compassion, creativity, and responsibility.

They didn’t make people lazy. They made them freer.

Cleaner homes.
Safer streets.
Better care for the elderly.
More personalized education.
Lower costs for basic services.
More time for living.

---

A Different Kind of Future

The future with humanoid robots isn’t Blade Runner.

It’s closer to something far more radical and far more threatening to pessimists:

A calmer, healthier, more humane society.

And when people look back at 2025 and ask why we were so afraid of machines that fold laundry, cook dinner and help grandma walk safely down the hallway, the answer will be the same as it always is.

We were afraid of change.

And we were wrong.

UN trying to Censor All Criticism of the Climate Agenda

The United Nations likes to present itself as the guardian of truth, scientific integrity, and the common good. Its leaders talk grandly about peace, prosperity, and shared global challenges.

But a shocking whistleblower reveal suggests something very different: that the UN — in partnership with other global elites — is now actively trying to censor criticism of the climate agenda, shutting down debate rather than fostering it. (Gatestone Institute)

The claim comes from Desiree Fixler, a former member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Responsible Investing and a sustainability officer at a major bank. According to Fixler, during her time inside climate policy circles, she saw firsthand how dissenting views are not just dismissed — they are effectively suppressed. What’s more, she argues that power brokers within the UN and the WEF have no interest in debating the assumptions underlying climate policy — because the narrative serves broader agendas of control. (Gatestone Institute)

At the COP30 climate conference in Brazil in 2025, leaders pushed a “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change,” billed as an effort to fight misinformation. On its surface, that sounds reasonable — who could oppose accuracy in science?

But the problem is deeper than accuracy. According to the whistleblower, this effort is less about truth and more about controlling what people can hear, read and think about climate change at precisely the moment when some platforms like Meta are rolling back heavy-handed “fact check” censorship. (Gatestone Institute)

Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, warned that when taxpayers are asked to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on poorly conceived climate policies, there should be open debate, not suppression of dissent. Yet this is exactly what appears to be happening. (Gatestone Institute)

Fixler didn’t mince words in describing this environment. She said people who raise objections to the prevailing climate narrative are often dismissed as “denialists” without engagement with their arguments. They are not encouraged to present evidence; they are shut down. (Gatestone Institute)

She has argued that the global push for “net zero” emissions and the broader climate agenda is not merely about protecting the planet — it is also about consolidating power through mechanisms like stakeholder capitalism, a WEF concept that mixes corporate and state influence in ways critics say erode traditional free-market principles and democratic accountability. (Gatestone Institute)

According to Fixler, the people most affected by climate policy — ordinary citizens struggling with high energy costs and stagnant economies — are nowhere to be found in these discussions. Instead, the debates are dominated by elites who repeatedly claim authority based on consensus lines written into speaking notes rather than on robust, independent engagement with evidence from the real world. (Gatestone Institute)

Meanwhile, the UN continues to push the narrative that “the science compels climate action,” with leaders like Secretary-General António Guterres reiterating calls for dramatic emissions cuts and accelerated transitions — assertions that carry moral weight precisely because alternative views are being sidelined. (Gatestone Institute)

This is not a small disagreement among experts. It is a problem of incentives: when powerful institutions become arbiters not just of policy but of acceptable thought, dissent is no longer just unwelcome — it is excluded.

That’s not debate.
That’s censorship.

Whether one agrees with Fixler’s conclusions or not, the underlying issue she raises demands scrutiny: who gets to decide what counts as acceptable climate discourse, and why should a single international body have the authority to shape that decision for the entire world?

In a free society, even unpopular or uncomfortable ideas should be debated openly. When powerful institutions try to suppress questions instead of engaging them, the real casualty isn’t climate science — it’s trust in the institutions that claim to lead us.