Author: Papa Giorgio

Oligarchy Malarkey (Plus Other Democrat Mantras Refuted)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an update to an older post. Some of it predating 2010 (2006/2009) and much of it refuting the myths in the propaganda when they were fomented. (I did update the “old/young divide” portion when comparing Democrats and Republicans – mainly because I was curious how the demographics have changed. As well as the 2016, 2020, and 2024 election/richest counties stats.) So some of the links may be bad. I apologize.

A VICTOR DAVIS HANSON’S  OLIGARCHY MALARKEY UPDATE:

(This is via TWITCHY and my upload to RUMBLE)

Political commentator Victor Davis Hanson says the Democrats’ anti-oligarchy stance makes no sense. Why? They are the party of the wealthy class. They are the billionaires’ party. Instead, he says the party is using the ‘oligarchy’ term to go after billionaires who have left the Democrat Party. Democrats don’t hate billionaires, they just hate the ones they no longer control and who are no longer on their side.

“They don’t tolerate apostates” | VDH tears the Democrat “Oligarchy” narrative to absolute SHREDS:

“They use this term to castigate the relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.”

“The ten wealthiest people in the US until recently were all lavish donors for the Democrats….So why are they so angry at the “oligarchs” when they were synonymous with Democrats?”

“They don’t tolerate apostates, so they are angry. They are angry they don’t have a lock on the oligarchs.”

“They demand absolute loyalty…any defections or apostates causes them to go ballistic…that anyone would doubt their ability to control big money in the United States.”

— WESTERN LENSMAN

RICHEST COUNTIES UPDATE:
(Jump to OBAMA STATS)

2016 ELECTION

… Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election, but won the balloting in regions that generate nearly two-thirds of the American economy, a new analysis shows.

According to the Brookings Institution analysis, the less-than-500 counties Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015, the Washington Post reported.

The more-than-2,600 counties President-elect Donald Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.

With the exceptions of the Phoenix, Ariz., and Fort Worth, Texas, areas, and a large part of Long Island, N.Y., Clinton won every large-sized economic county in the country, the researchers found. ….

(NEWSMAX)

2020 ELECTION

… President Donald Trump carried 2,497 counties across the country that together generate 29% of the American economy, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution. President-elect Joe Biden won 477 counties that together generate 70% of U.S. GDP.

Republicans represent a far greater number of smaller counties with less-educated, more-homogenous workforces that, on average, tend to rely on manufacturing, agriculture and mining. …

(CNBC)

2024 ELECTION

… In America’s 15 wealthiest counties by median household income, a total of 3,863,906 people voted for either Trump or Harris. Other candidates, of course, received a handful of votes, but this analysis excludes them.

Of those 3,863,906 voters, 1,368,528 voted for Trump, compared to 2,495,378 who voted for Harris. In other words, voters in America’s 15 wealthiest counties chose the former vice president by a margin of nearly 30 percentage points (64.58-35.42).

As massive as that margin appears, however, it only begins to tell the story.

For instance, the top six counties on that list all have something in common. Namely, they are located either in Silicon Valley (#2 Santa Clara, California; and #3 San Mateo, California) or in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. (#1 Loudoun, Virginia; #4 Falls Church, Virginia; #5 Fairfax, Virginia; and #6 Howard, Maryland).

Of course, Big Tech and connections to the federal government account for concentrations of wealth in those counties.

In 2024, 2,013,974 people in those six wealthiest counties voted for Trump or Harris. The president received 612,587 votes compared to 1,401,387 votes for the former vice president, a margin of nearly 40 percentage points in Harris’ favor (69.58-30.42). …

(WESTERN JOURNAL [ARCHIVE])

OLDER POSTS:
Rich Get Poorer | Poor Get Richer (+More Mantras Destroyed)
May of 2015

A JOHN STOSSEL UPDATE:

I changed the very beginning of this Yahoo News article to include both the headlines of the NYTs:

…The New York Times headline of Oct. 26 even more dubious and deceptive, “Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds”. The subhead announces “The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades,” but readers must make their way to the sixth paragraph to find that the referenced “report” is actually a historical analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, covering a 28-year span between 1979 and 2007, and pointedly concluding before the economic meltdown of 2008.

Figures from the IRS, however, demonstrate that since the recession began the rich hardly got richer:  the number of Americans earning $1 million or more fell a staggering 40 percent between 2007 and 2009 (declining to 236,883), while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50 percent—a vastly greater loss than the 2 percent drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less. Could anyone make a plausible case for how a massive reduction in the number of top earners (with nearly 200,000 fewer million-dollar incomes) could conceivably benefit the economy, or count as good news for anyone?

Nevertheless, the Times chose to stress the inflammatory finding that in the 29 years preceding the Great Recession the top 1 percent of earners (those pesky millionaires and billionaires) boosted their average, inflation-adjusted, after-tax income by 275 percent. 

Surely worried readers might conclude that such “obscene” enrichment by the greediest would inevitably impoverish the neediest, leaving only miserable crumbs for the beleaguered middle class. But the CBO numbers actually showed that big gains for top earners did nothing to prevent simultaneous (if more modest) improvements by every other income group. For instance, the middle class (the 60 percent of the population in the 21st through 80th percentiles), raised their average inflation-adjusted, after-tax household income by a healthy 40 percent. Even the bottom 20 percent of the population moved ahead during the Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush booms, lifting their earnings 18 percent….

…read it all…

Here is another visual help:

This next section shows that when Presidents are in office that support unions, the income disparity gap-widens.

Investors Business Daily makes some key points that are hard to ignore:

Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton

…But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980…

[….]

As University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes, while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: “There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently.”

A similar analysis found that income inequality has fallen among individuals since the early 1990s, but risen among households due to factors such as more marriages of people with similar education levels and earnings potential.

Others argue that income mobility matters more than equality.

One study found that more than half of the families who started in the lowest income bracket in 1996 had moved to a higher one by 2005. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 57% of families fell out of the top 1%.

…read more…

Another smaller post points out nearly the same:

BUSTING THE 1% VS. 99% MYTH

…The left says current levels of income inequality echo the late 1920s and the Gilded Age. They’ve zeroed in on the richest 1%, citing Census Bureau data showing these top earners “grabbing” more income than the bottom 90%.

But the census stats are misleading.

For one, they are a snapshot of income distribution at a single point in time. Yet income is not static. It changes over time. Low-paying jobs from early adulthood give way to better-paying jobs later in life.

And income groups in America are not fixed. There’s no caste system here, really no such thing even as a middle “class.” The poor aren’t stuck in poverty. And the rich don’t enjoy lifetime membership in an exclusive club.

A 2007 Treasury Department study bears this out. Nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.

Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.

So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.

…READ MORE…

The Republicans are the Party of the rich, and run by old, rich white guys who like to say “no” all the time.

Thinking through leftist mantras:

✪ Average age of Democrat’s in the House (average age): 74

“I could run 20 years from now and still be about the same age as the former Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) is right now” ~ Rep. Governor Scott Brown

✪ Average age of House Republicans? 53

Seven of the top ten richest people in Congress are Democrats. The top five donors to unrestricted super PACs reads like a billionaire boys club and are Democratic donors/supporters. Here is more:

(Politifact)

Nor are we the party of “NO”

ERGO:

the Democratic Party are run by old,
rich, white, obstructionist, men.
“Not the Republican Party.

AS AN ASIDE… I wrote the above years ago when these accusations were all the rage. TODAY the stats are pretty even ~ as of January 2025:

  • Overall, the median age of House Democrats is 57.6, while the median age of House Republicans is 57.5.  
  • In the Senate, the median age of all Democrats is 66.0, a bit higher than the median for Republicans (64.5).

In fact, the richest 8-of-10 counties voted for Obama… and consistently when the states are separated by red-and-blue, the most charitable states are red, the most stingy (greedy) are blue states. And the richest Congressmen are typically Democrats.

Here is a partial reproduction of an old series I did on this site… the USPS driver for the warehouse I use to work at was a Leftie but would bring me small articles from a “local” small magazine. He enjoyed reading my rebuttals I presume. The author of the “Concepts” articles has passed away many years ago.

(You can enlarge the article by clicking it.) This is a local, small town magazine, and John Van Huizum writes a regular piece that I will critique here-and-there. Here is my first installment:

I wish to write a response to a recent Concepts article by John Van Huizum, entitled “What Does ‘Free’ Mean?” There are a couple issues worth responding to or in-the-least offering a differing viewpoint on. The first of Mr. Huizum’s positions that needs de”concept”ualizing is the idea of “greed.” Mr. Huizum spoke of history, something Dr. Sowell reminds us of in the telling of Richard Sears ferocious greed in wanting to overtake Montgomery Ward.[1] This type of greed leads to lower prices. Alternatively the Fords, Rockefellers, and the Carnegies found ways to offer goods at lower prices. This type of greed leads to Carnegie — for instance — becoming a “prodigious philanthrop[ist] – building more than 3,000 public libraries in 47 states…, founding Carnegie-Mellon University and the Carnegie Institute of Technology (C.I.T.), establishing Carnegie Hall in New York, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and much more.”[2]

In a wonderful response to Donahue’s 1979 challenge to Milton Freidman on the issue of greed and if greed has ever caused Dr. Friedman to doubt capitalism. Milton Friedman responded that “the world runs on individuals pursuing their own interests, the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory from an order of a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of the grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and free trade.”[3] So I wish to proffer another history that maybe, just possibly Forbes is taking into account and Mr. Huizum is not.

Another point worth politely rejecting is the definition given to Forbes by Mr. Huizum on freedom: “free from ANY government regulation.”[4] This is a fallacy of straw-man.[5] Mr. Huizum does not show a full knowledge of Forbes understanding on this matter. Nor does the facile dealing with this complex issue and the putting forth of a false definition as if-it-were Forbes do this topic justice.

One last point, the most important. Unlike big business when it makes mistakes, big government cannot go out of business. Unlike corrupt government, corrupt business cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency. Businesses cannot coerce you by force (tax liens, garnishing of wages, or armed IRS officials, etc) into an action. So the “greed” of the corporation pales in comparison to the greed of government.[6] Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).

Footnotes:

[1] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004), 361.
[2] Michael Medved, The 10 biggest Lies About America (New York, NY: Crown Forum, 2008), 132; see also, “What Did He Get for That Money?”
[3] youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
[4] John Van Huizum, Agua Dulce/Acton Country Journal, Vol. XXII, Issue 21 (May 26, 2012), 19.
[5] a) Person A has position X; b) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X); c) Person B attacks position Y; d) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
[6] Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2012), 35-36.

DEI Is Dying | John Stossel w/ Robby Starbuck (Dennis Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATED!
(Original Post Below This Update Dated Aug 17, 2024)

For years, major corporations bragged about their wonderful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. They’re good for business and morally correct, they said. So why are they now cutting those programs?

Read more here:

President Donald Trump ended federal DEI programs.

Even before, companies were having second thoughts.

Victoria’s Secret changed “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” to “inclusion and belonging.”

Now, even woke Disney, despite squandering 270 million shareholder dollars on a moronic new version of “Snow White,” joined the mob of companies dropping DEI programs.

Why? Diversity, equity and inclusion sound good.

The problem is that DEI programs were captured by activists who obsess about victimhood. They divide people more than they empower.

“Diversity, equity and inclusion,” says activist Robby Starbuck in my newest video, “don’t mean what they pretend to mean.”

Before Trump ended federal DEI programs by executive order, Starbuck ended them at some companies merely by using the power of speech. His strategy: warn companies that he’ll tell his social media followers what stupid things they do.

Remarkably, that worked!

After he criticized John Deere on Twitter for encouraging “preferred pronouns” and holding woke diversity trainings, John Deere quickly dropped those policies.

Toyota, Target and Harley Davidson did, too.

“Why did they listen to you?” I ask. ….

… CON’T ….

ORIGINAL POST:

(Tue, Aug 6, 2024) Dennis talks to conservative activist, Robby Starbuck. He’s leading a campaign against the wokeism at, of all places, Harley Davidson. (More links at video description)

Trump Needs To Go Back To Fascism School

Published by Papa Giorgio

Trump is the only dictator I know of that has or is shrinking government.

  • Just to clarify for those reading this and not picking up what was just laid down. The larger the government the more control over the individual; the smaller the government the larger the individual. In other words, a dictator, fascist, “Pharoah” type would want a means to control the population more easily. In history we see this always as said “dictator” increasing government size, regulatory control, and the like. The opposite is happening under Trump.

Trump Becomes First Fascist In History To Reduce Size Of Government (BABYLON BEE):

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump has just become the first fascist in the history of humankind to use his despotic powers to reduce the size of the government.

While most other fascist leaders throughout history have used their power to increase the scope of government influence in their respective countries, Trump has broken with tradition to become the very first fascist with a focus on dismantling his own government’s overreaches.

“Only time will tell, but Trump must have something extremely nefarious up his sleeve if he’s doing his fascism by making government smaller,” said Lee Glyde-Jennings, who teaches several classes on the history of fascism at Harvard. “It’s entirely unlike every other fascism in history to this point — I’m just waiting to see how he’s going to wind up instituting a fascist dictatorship by carefully picking apart the government bureaucracy.”

“You know who else gave up power and was a fascist?” said Martyn Rogers, a Yale professor. “Hitler. Hitler was a fascist who gave up his power at the end of World War II. Be afraid of Trump. Be very afraid.”

At publishing time, several Democrats had also warned that Trump would soon start World War III by making peace with other nations.

What I wrote under the above picture I embedded on this sites FACEBOOK:

Trump is the only dictator I know of that has or is shrinking government. [Just to clarify for those reading this and not picking up what was just laid down. The larger the government the more control over the individual; the smaller the government the larger the individual. In other words, a dictator, fascist, “Pharoah” type would want a means to control the population more easily. In history we see this always as said “dictator” increasing government size, regulatory control, and the like. The opposite is happening under Trump.]

GUTFELD

So, let’s delve into this issue with some partial past posts of mine discussing the main issue I see between levels 1 and 2 and those of 3 and four. (So I am cutting the pyramid in half essentially.) Here is the main idea via an old post that originally appeared in August 2007 on my old blog, but that eventually got imported and updated to my .com:

WHAT “IS” FASCISM [adapted for this post]

…. Let us look at what we are told is suppose to be the political landscape if it were to be put into a line graph.

Really this is misleading. For one, it doesn’t allow for anarchy, which is a form of governance (or lack thereof). Also, it places democracy in the center… as if this is what one should strive for, a sort of balance. (The most popular — college level graph — is wrong and misleading as well):

However, the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a democracy no matter how many times a New York Times editorialist or you’re teacher says we are in one:

  • James Madison (fourth President, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the father of the Constitution) Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general; been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
  • John Adams (American political philosopher, first vice President and second President) Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
  • Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration): “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”
  • Fisher Ames (American political thinker and leader of the federalists [he entered Harvard at twelve and graduated by sixteen], author of the House language for the First Amendment): “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will provide an eruption and carry desolation in their way…. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.”
  • Governor Morris (signer and penman of the Constitution): “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. Democracy! Savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”
  • John Quincy Adams (sixth President, son of John Adams [see above]): “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
  • Noah Webster (American educator and journalist as well as publishing the first dictionary): “In democracy there are commonly tumults and disorders.. therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”
  • John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence): “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
  • Zephaniah Swift (author of Americas first legal text): “It may generally be remarked that the more a government [or state] resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

The Founders obviously knew what a democracy was, which is why in Article IV, Section Four of the Constitution, it says:

  • The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.

The following graph includes all political models and better shows where the political beliefs lie e.g., left or right is the following (take note, this graph is from a book I do not support nor recommend… but these visual insights are very useful):

In actuality, during WWII, fascism grew out of socialism, showing how close the ties were. I would argue that the New Left that comprises much of the Democratic Party today is fascistic, or, at least, of a closer stripe than any conservative could ever hope to be. I will end with a model comparing the two forms of governance that the two core values (conservatism/classical liberalism versus a socialist democracy) will produce. Before you view the below though, keep in mind that a few years back the ASA (American Socialist Association) on their own web site said that according to the voting record of United States Congressmen and Women, that 58 of them were social democrats. These are the same that put Hitler and Mussolini in power.

Which Do You Prefer?? Liberal Democrats want more government control, Conservative Republicans want less. In a discussion, I exemplified that minimally “fascism” is growth of government in this way:

[….]

To expand a bit on the Rummel book mentioned above… he shows that both the citizenry and free countries are dealt heavy hands and dedath in greater numbers as the government grows larger. Conservatives want to decrease governments size. Progressives want to increase the size of government.

Which is why I shake my head when I hear about people talking about the libertarian Koch Brothers influencing politics. They are for same-sex marriage as well as wanting to make government smaller, in other words, MORE CONSTUTUTIONAL. When people like billionaire coal magnate Tom Steyer gives millions of dollars to Democrats to increase the size of government, he is praised as a hero. The same goes for George Soros.

The bottom line is that leftist billionaires/millionaires who support more control by government over the affairs of men [like Tom Steyer, George Soros, Bill Gates, etc] are participating in the exponential growth in the chance of it’s citizenry to be killed in order to implement all these new legislative laws and powers that go along with the growth of government. By growth of government the ease to nationalize things becomes easier. Like Obama’s Harvard professor pointed out, above.

Here is a more Constitutional look (clip) at government:

So we see that there is a misunderstanding at the core that doesn’t account for the top half of the pyramid wanting a socialist form of government like Mussolini or Hitler set out to accomplish, versus, the “right” in America that wants a small government and voting brought back to the electorate through what the Constitution clearly enumerates in statehood.

So let us go through the bottom half a bit.

FIRSTLY, I cross out the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY (JBS) and INFO WARS for a few reasons. I was heavily influenced by JBS through an old bookstore in North Hollywood back in the day. Lots of conspiracy books and VHS documentaries, yada-yada. While many authors and writers for JBS made great points and had insights into communism and the Left… there was a stream of conspiratorial views that I eventually rejected, and thus stopped following the society as a whole. I discuss this a bit in a chapter from my book:

In fact, even though these “conspiracy writers” may drop the ball on some historical facts and their connections, insights — like I said — are still admirable. For instance, some of the graphs I have already used above come from such a book: None Dare Call It Conspiracy, By GARY ALLEN. I wouldn’t recommend the book to a young mind just starting out in parsing good political theory from bad… but I would recommend it to someone who can rightly parse good history from bad…. as there is worthwhile thoughts to glean from such a book. Especially with the World Economic Forum topic and the George Soros‘ of the world.

And my site makes it plain I am no fan of Alex Jones and  all he touches. Many on the right glom on to him as some sort of truth teller, when he is anything but. For instance, just one linked story from my site:

And I will admit I feel bad for conservatism proper that so many “of my people” follow such a clown. I also wish to not defend the tactics or actions taken by Patriot Prayer of Proud Boys… also in the bottom half of the pyramid. But I do not cross them out as may of their goals are maligned/distorted by the media and the left.

 I also have some recent notes on this idea that the Left maligns everyone who is violent as “white supremists.” Here is my personal thoughts on the matter:

When “White Supremacists” Attack (UHaul Edition)

This has been bugging me for quite some time, and I wish to opine. Some here may know my biography a bit… but to catch you up a tad: Thirty-plus-years ago I was incarcerated a few times, mainly for 3-felonies. During my two longest stints in various L.A. County jail system (from Biscailuz, to H.O.J.J., to Super Max and Mira Loma – etc.). My first couple weeks in were a steep learning curve, as are most young persons. But in all my time in the system – about a year and a half – I never met a “white supremacist person of color.” Having met many actual Aryan Brotherhood members, Nazi Low Riders, white pride guys, and other white purists (like an Odinite I met), and the like. Not one was Mexican, Black, Indian (from India), yada-yada.

I also met many racist cult members other than the ones already mentioned who were likewise part of prison gangs, like: Black Guerilla Family (BGF), Barrio Azteca, Mexican Mafia (La Eme), and the like. While there is some cooperation between Whites and Hispanics at times in jail… I slept in what was called the “wood pile.”

I loved [even then] to talk politics and categorize things. The reason, for instance, I was removed from Biscailuz detention center was in my dorm I was asking all the Hispanic, Blacks, and White’s their set or gang affiliation or one’s they knew of. I had a very long list on two double sided legal paper notepad. Well… One guy said I was doing this because I was an undercover “po-po.” THAT caused a BIG problem, and I was removed before I was beaten to a pulp.

In my very long list – ironically confiscated by the Sheriff’s removing me – and although I am sure the Sheriff gang unit were/are aware of them all, maybe I got a sub-set they were not. So, the accusation was a self-fulfilling prophecy by the guy who initially accused me. Lol.

All that to say, studying quite a few religiously racist cults years later and racist origins/history…. I have never, ever met a non-white white supremacist.

Ever.

The cults I have spent some time investigating are [to name a few]:

  1. Christian Identity [defunct for the most part];
  2. the KKK [5,000 members];
  3. British Israelism;
  4. the Nation of Islam [NOI];
  5. Black Hebrew Israelites;
  6. and the Five Percent Nation of Gods and Earths

My studies have included getting original source materials from the founders of these movements, and watching copious amounts of members descriptions of their beliefs.

And in all that, the only time I hear about “white supremacist people of color” is from the “new-new” Democrats and the Left.

In other words, they do not exist outside of hyperbole the Left realizes keeps a voting block scared and in their pocket.

Period.

I have met and studied a lot about anti-Semitism in my time in jail and my studies. Anti-Semites come in all colors, creeds, and historical movements…

But never a black or brown white supremacist.

~ RPT

So the origin of the Proud Boys (PB) is a bit more innocent than they are painted to be. That doesn’t mean that people in any of these groups do not have people in them (like any group) that abuse the stated goals of these groups. And the “boys” [in America at least], are small government advocates. As are John Birchers as well.

Which brings me to the upper half of the chart. Three and four.

I note on my site, after years of studying racist movements, that all these groups (black or white) almost always vote democrat. Here, for instance is another excerpt from a post of mine detailing this:

Some Trump Sized Mantras

First, in the broad sense this has to be true… that is… somewhere in this nation I am sure a racist supports Donald J. Trump. Even if we assume the Klan all voted in unison, he would have gotten 8,000 votes at most! Nationwide.

HOWEVER, as you will see, even the above hypothetical is more complicated than most assume it to be. Let’s just clear the air first on this past charge of Trump not disavowing David Duke (a “famous” racist and past KKK leader) during the run-up-to the nomination: Trump clearly disavowed David Duke’s endorsement. As we will see, the truth about David Duke is more complicated than we often hear. Okay, moving on.

After Trump won the election the media and Hollywood types as well as comedians and Democrat Senators and Representatives all started saying there was a backlash of old-racist-white-men that came out in force and voted for Trump. This just isn’t the case. You can see from just a few of the bullet points from my “Blacks, Hispanics and Gays are Sexist, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Racist” post that this attack on American voters is just a maligning of each and everyone of those peoples character:

  • …Thirteen percent of Muslims voted for Trump, triple the amount that voted Romney, are they are Islamophobic, bigoted, xenophobic, and racist?
  • Eight percent of blacks voted for Trump, seven percent more than Romney — not to mention the black men and women who didn’t vote for the president at all in a higher percentage. These same men and women previously voted twice for Obama. These persons of color… if I understand my detractors correctly, are racist bigots?
  • A higher percentage (almost 30%) of Hispanics voted for Trump, more in fact than voted for Romney. These Hispanic and Latino men and women, like the others, are xenophobic, bigoted, and racist?
  • One hundred-and-ninety-four counties that voted for Obama once switched to GOP in the 2016 election. And, two-hundred-and-nine counties that voted for Obama twice switched to GOP. Many of these people are union members as well as life-long Democrats. Am I now being told that these Democrats who voted for Obama are: racist. sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted?

So you can see from the above and the graphic below that the people who really pushed Trump into the “win” section of the electoral count were minorities and voters who previously voted for Obama either once or both times prior to voting for Trump.

I refer to this with a euphemism from a previous election as

“they were NOT racist before they WERE.”

In other words, according to people I dearly love, these people are now magically racists… but weren’t when they voted for Obama.

Most of these flipped voters were/are Democrats… am I now being told Democrats are racists?

Do you see the dilemma?

Even Michael Moore opined on this:

  • “They’re not racist,” Moore said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, “They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America you live in.”everything-is-racist-spongbob-380

However, let us delve into this even more to dispel commonly held myths.

Got your big-boy-pants on?

I have studied four racist cults in-depth: the Nation of Islam, the Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity, and the Five-Percenters — known also as the Nation of Gods and Earths.

Two of the above four racist cults are both telling their followers to vote for Trump… the KKK and the Nation of Islam. Christian Identity as a cohesive movement is all but dead… and the 5% when they do vote always vote Democrat. IN FACT they all primarily vote Democrat.

A quick history point that is important for the next paragraph:

After the triumph of the civil rights movement and the introduction of a series of civil rights laws, the Klan broke up into various subgroups. Previously these KKK members were Democrats and they continued being so after.

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

People do not realize why these groups, especially the KKK, vote Democrat. For instance, out of the four leaders in the “white-power” movement (the KKK subculture) with the most followers, three told their peeps to vote Democrat (Actually, then it was them telling their followers to vote for Obama in 2008).

Here you see some higher ups in this white racist movement telling their people (3-of-the-4) to vote Democrat for the election in 2008:

➤ Tom Metzger: Director, White Aryan Resistance; Career Highlights: Was Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan in the 70s; won the Democratic primary during his bid for Congress in 1980…
➤ Ron Edwards: Imperial Wizard, Imperial Klans of America; Career Highlights: Sued in 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center for inciting the brutal beating of a Latino teenager; building the IKA into one of the nation’s largest Klan groups by allowing non-Christians to join.
➤ Erich Gliebe: Chairman, National Alliance; Career Highlights: Turning white-power record label, Resistance Records, into a million-dollar-a-year business juggernaut; an 8-0 record as a professional boxer under the nickname, “The Aryan Barbarian.”
➤ Rocky Suhayda: Chairman, American Nazi Party; Career highlights: Being widely quoted bemoaning in the fact that so few Aryan-Americans had the cojones of the 9/11 hijackers: “If we were one-tenth as serious, we might start getting somewhere.”

Yes, most racist groups — INCLUDING THE KKK — voted for a black nominee.

The next question should be, Why?

Reason One
One reason is that these racist white groups are typically socialists. And socialism is a political system that wants the government to run health-care, business, increase central power, etc. Here is a most basic graph of this concept (see to the right – click the graph to go to my combined post on the matter).

“We are socialists, we are ene­mies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Hitler

John Toland, Adolph Hitler: The Definitive Biography (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1976), 223-225.

Reason Two
Another reason a lot of racist whites vote Democrat is they are very poor and use heavily the social services they support ideologically. This was even evident when less than the typical 80% that vote straight Democrat still voted straight Democrat in their respective states but did not vote for Obama.

The other Black Nationalist cults vote heavier [percentage wise] Democratic.

This year is different. You have both Louis Farrakhan telling his followers to vote for Trump, and you have more people in the disjointed KKK telling their people to vote for him. Why this change? I think it is because he has many similar views on issues with Bernie Sanders, as an example,

  • Forty-four percent of Sanders supporters surveyed said they would rather back the presumptive GOP nominee in November, with only 23 percent saying they’d support Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. And 31 percent said would support neither candidate in the likely general election match-up. (THE HILL)

Keep in mind those are voters in the state that put Sander’s into the Senate!

Here is the kicker though regarding the Nation of Islam (NOI). This cult, unlike the KKK, is VERY structured under a single leader. So what Farrakhan says is followed “religiously” by his adherents. Whereas, in the KKK, these leaders are not looked to in the same way Farrakhan is, as some sort of “messianic” figure. So you might have slightly more vote for Trump in the Klan on the recommendation of their leaders. This is different in the structure of the Nation of Islam, the percentages would be almost unanimous in their “lock-step.”

Many will continue to vote straight Democrat the rest of the ticket, in all groups mentioned.

“Racists Vote Republican,” or, “Republican’s Are Old Racist White Men” may be a convenient (actually evil) political narrative to scare a few voters away from the GOP, surely. But the maligning of every Republican nominee since Nixon just is not factually true.

DON’T accept the comparison. Take their arguments and return them packaged in a nice little bow.

Editor’s Aside:

Democrats want to fundamentally change America. I don’t love my wife if I want to fundamentally change her. Black Life Matters protesters teach their children to burn American flags or march down the street CHANTING “What do we want?!” “Dead Cops!” “When do we want them?!” “NOW!” They argue America was founded on nothing but slavery and greed. Hillary Clinton backed this group even going as far as far as saying (at the NAACP) that “systemic racism” needs to be eliminated. Months later calling Americans all racists: “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other and therefore I think we need all of us to be asked the hard questions ‘why am I feeling this way?’”

Democrats think I am an imperialist white supremacist Christian cisgender capitalist heteropatriarchal male. Apparently however, these many demographic changes across the board [noted above] seem to agree that Trump’s slogan was acceptable, “Make America Great Again.”

One reason many of these hate groups (black and white) are voting for Trump is for border control. A) There is an animosity towards illegal aliens for racist reasons, and B) reasons related to economics as well. A great example would be this video “CHICAGO’S INNER-CITY POOR BLACK COMMUNITY ABANDONING OBAMA’S LIBERAL AGENDA“

To continue this point, one woman said this:

  • A resident of the Austin community, Jean Ray, says after 40 years of Democratic party control over the black community, the policies “are hurting,” and if there were Republicans willing to do the right job in her community, she would vote for them. (More at BREITBART)

So a good reason that black racist groups would have voted Trump includes practical economic concerns, i.e., jobs. Which is why we saw a 7% jump in blacks voting for the Republican candidate… but most likely even they voted Democrat the rest of the ticket.

Reason Three
They HATE (H-A-T-E) Israel, and this is a reason they tend to support Democrats. For instance, on his YouTube, David Duke endorsed Charles Barron for Congress (video on the left). Another endorsement for Hillary was from a KKK leader here in California (right video).

So attributing racism to the GOP is silly, because as a whole, the almost 8,000 KKK members nation wide vote Democrat. AS DO ALL THE OTHER RACIST CULTS IN AMERICA (*booming megaphone affect in a cave*). NOT TO MENTION where all the hub-bub is when all these hate groups vote for Democrats in years past?

In other words, WHY is it only “newsworthy” when they vote for Republicans and not for Democrats?

I smell something fishy here.

I can continue, but this post is already long enough. On the racial issues, I suggest my page entitled: U.S. RACIAL HISTORY. This page deals with the supposed party switch by racist Democrats to Republicans, slavery, American Indian narratives, some VERY PROUD BLACK HISTORY in our country… and the like.

Recap
Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:

  • They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).

This is why a majority STILL supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. She is a socialist at heart, wants a big welfare state, and does not like Israel as much as Trump, who has kids practicing the Jewish religion. Thee ONLY issue a racist could want to vote for Trump on is his immigration policies… hardly a racist position. It has only now become an issue of bigotry and racism because the Left has moved the goal post in the use of language. Racists no longer means “genetically superior,” rather, it mean you disagree with a Democrat and/or hurt their feelings. Otherwise, these people would be RACISTS!

So the bottom line is that the top half of the pyramid has more in common with Leftist ideals of a larger government, and should be in a pyramid that includes ANTIFA and the beliefs of Michael Loadenthal.

So, as far as I can tell there are complete idiots at the FBI that follow the bad thinking of places like the Southern Poverty Law Center that further polluting the ideas that are soo easily refuted.

Here are just a couple examples of how the Left distorts reality:

THE SPLC!
An example of this infectious disease

The Southern Poverty Law Center bills itself as a watchdog of hate groups. But is this just a cover for its true aims? Journalist and author Karl Zinsmeister explains.

It is SHOCKING that the FBI works with this political cult!

MORE SPLC RADICALISM

GAY PATRIOT [now defunct, sadly] notes the radical attacks from Leftist organizations:

The Southern Poverty Law Center was, perhaps, once a civil rights organization. Then extremists spent its core assets – in this case, SPLC’s good word and reputation – until they were gone. SPLC now routinely mislabels conservative and/or Christian groups as so-called “hate groups”, emptying the term of meaning and making the SPLC a bad joke.

Most famously, SPLC mislabelled the Family Research Council a “hate group” for its stance against gay marriage, and in 2013 that prompted an attempted mass-murder by a gay activist, Floyd Lee Corkins II.

SPLC is still going. Most recently, they mislabelled the D. James Kennedy Ministries:

[…..]

The DJKM plan to fight back with a defamation suit. It will be interesting to see how it goes. I expect it to fail; “that’s our opinion” is a workable defense in many instances, and many in the law profession have a blind spot for the SPLC.

But I didn’t think Trump would win, either…..

(READ IT ALL)

Stossel!

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER goes after the partisan hate-group with this excellent article:

Newsrooms were on fire this week with terrible news: The number of hate groups in the United States has soared to record highs under President Trump.

There are most certainly hate groups in the U.S., and even one is one too many, but I’d encourage everyone to approach the numbers reported this week with calm and caution. There’s nothing partisan operatives would love more than for you to panic and to believe them when they suggest that the problem can be solved by expelling “the other team” from power. That the figures cited by newsrooms come via the decidedly unreliable and hyper-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center also doesn’t help anything.

The New York Times reported, “Over 1,000 Hate Groups Are Now Active in United States, Civil Rights Group Says.”

“Hate groups ‘surge’ across the country since Charlottesville riot, report says,” reads the headline from the Miami Herald.

“Trump ‘Fear-Mongering’ Fuels Rise of U.S. Hate Groups to Record: Watchdog,” U.S. News and World Report said in a headline that sort of gives the game away.

First, let’s keep things in perspective. Remember, for example, that the rise in the number of hate crimes is attributable in some way to the fact that there are more reporting agencies ( hundreds, in fact!) than ever before. It’s easy to say, “Oh, it’s all because of President Trump,” pointing to incidents like his disastrous Charlottesville statement. But the problem of bigotry is far older and deeper than the current administration. That the Trump White House isn’t helping anything is one complaint, but don’t fall for the suggestion that it’s the main driver.

Second, while we’re on the topic of taking things seriously, it’s important to remember that the SPLC is not an organization whose declarations should be taken seriously or treated as fact. As I’ve written before, much of its “hate group” reporting is trash.

In 2015, for example, the group put Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” citing the one-time presidential candidate’s “anti-LGBT views.” Later, in 2016, the SPLC labeled women’s rights activist, female genital mutilation victim, atheist, and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslim extremist” because she opposes Islamic extremism. The British activist and extremist-turned-counterextremist Maajid Nawaz was placed in the same category. The SPLC lumps pro-family and pro-Israel organizations in with actual neo-Nazis.

The SPLC is not in the business of exploring and addressing racial and ethnic bigotry. IT’S IN THE BUSINESS OF CRUSHING ANYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

As for the report the SPLC just released this week, IT CONCEDES THERE IS AN UPTICK IN THE NUMBER OF BLACK NATIONALIST GROUPS SINCE 2017, BUT IT DOWNPLAYS THIS FACT BY CLAIMING THOSE GROUPS “HAVE LITTLE OR NO IMPACT ON MAINSTREAM POLITICS AND NO DEFENDERS IN HIGH OFFICE.” I must’ve just imagined noted-anti-Semite and frequent Democratic guest Louis Farrakhan.

[….]

Hate groups are real. Hate crimes are real. The SPLC is not. It exploits hate groups to raise money and further political interests unrelated to the problem of hate. Don’t fall for the SPLC’s lies.

(emphasis added — read it all)

</

Charlie Kirk Defending the Unborn Against a College Student

Published by Papa Giorgio

Some of my previous posts this should be paired with:

And this post is perfect for her ending argument about educational and financial reasoning for an abortion:

Founding Statute of Dept of EDU | Glenn Beck and More

Published by Papa Giorgio

The first 4-minutes is Glenn Beck discussing and reading from 20 USC 3403: Relationship with States. After the first 4-minutes are some examples of how this idea is violated.

  • “Trumpian incompetence will provoke a counterreaction” — David Brooks, New York Times columnist

I hate to break it to Mr. Brooks, this is the counterreaction.

Here is the statute (JUMP TO APPENDIX)

Partial Transcript:
 Via GLENN BECK

[….]

GLENN: Listen to this.

It is the intention. This is the founding document passed by Congress. It is the intention of Congress in the establishment of the Department of Education to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Just that! Are they operating within the law, that was set by Congress?

STU: Because I think you could convince me, that that was a good idea. Right? That sounds great.

GLENN: Right. So let me read that again.

The intention of Congress, in the establishment of the Department of Education, to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions, in the area, of educational policies, and administration of programs. And to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions, over their own educational programs and policies.

Did you hear the second half of that?

To strengthen and improve the local and state administration, and — and the control of their own educational programs and policies.

That is not what the DOD is doing. Not even. Listen to the next line!

The establishment of the Department of Education, shall not, increase the authority of the federal government over education. Or finish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. And the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states!

Wait.

This is not what the Department of Education is. At all.

So when they say, well, he can’t accomplish the department of he had. No. They abolished the Department of Ed.

The Department of Ed isn’t that! Because like you just said, I wouldn’t have necessarily a problem with that!

STU: I would have some questions.

GLENN: Yeah, I wouldn’t want it.

STU: As a direction, protecting local rights over education, is exactly kind of what I want.

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly right.

B, no provision of a program, administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department, shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control, over the local curriculum.

Any program of instruction or administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection and content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials. By any educational institution or school system.

Except to the extent authorized by this law.

STU: Hmm. I mean, it seems there’s all sorts of limitations on it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, if you just go back to this: If he just reset it to this, do you know how many problems would go away?

STU: I know. This is really common too. But we mentioned the same thing with the Patriot Act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The guy who wrote the Patriot Act. There’s a bunch of these things about to go.

I can’t believe the Patriot Act would do this. I wrote it. It’s not supposed to do that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: That’s not what it’s supposed to do at all.

It always grows. It always evades. And the initial — the limiting principles put on it, by the law itself.

LOUDER w/CROWDER

President Donald Trump has kicked out 50% of the Department of Education. Good. And before you accuse us of hating teachers, it’s not teachers who are getting cut. It’s administrators. Keep cutting. Let’s see if we can get rid of the whole thing. (Click for this shows resources)

REDACTED NEWS:

Good summaries of the info…

now for the statute:

APPENDIX

20 USC 3403: Relationship with States

Text contains those laws in effect on March 21, 2025

From Title 20-EDUCATION

CHAPTER 48-DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SUBCHAPTER I-GENERAL PROVISIONS

(a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions

It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.

(b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.

(c) Funding under pre-existing programs

The Secretary shall not, during the period within eight months after May 4, 1980, take any action to withhold, suspend, or terminate funds under any program transferred by this chapter by reason of the failure of any State to comply with any applicable law requiring the administration of such a program through a single organizational unit.

( Pub. L. 96–88, title I, §103, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 670  )

Paul Washer: Freedom In The Gospel (Part 6) | Mississippi Prison

Published by Papa Giorgio

Part 6 of 7 from a prison in Mississippi. Paul Washer shares seven messages that take you through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One message of the series, “Freedom In The Gospel”, will be released every week starting Friday, January 24th, only on our YouTube channel and website.

“Moral” Zealotry Fueling the Left’s Violence | Luigi Mangione

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Political Left will get more and more violent.

  • The Left is learning they have built a monster; one that will be impossible to appease or placate. The more they surrender, the more emboldened the monster becomes. — Gay patriot [Many years ago]
  • Democrats defend illegal alien gang members while trashing Teslas and are shocked their approval is at 29% and sinking faster than Biden’s coherence. — Hot Air

FLASHBACK — ME:

My other thoughts for here is something I have said for quite a while now: “leftism” eats itself. It always has. We have seen socialist groups fight for their agenda to be paramount (thinking of Russian and German historical hegemony that led to many deaths to accomplish this goal… before the end result of the power structure and well-known leaders took power — which caused even more deaths).

Because of the flag issue, already there is talk of the Jefferson Memorial (the founder of the party running around from activist issue-to-issue ~ they do this because they replace the God shaped vacuum with politics)… banning Gone with the Wind (even though a black woman [the first time in our history] won “Best Supporting Actress)… etc.

The hubris of the left can be seen as well in thinking that they [politicians] can control weather (the sun) by legislation. Or changing gender by the stroke of a pen. Pride predates the fall.

[….]

ALL THAT BEING SAID… there is a dangerous aspect to this. As the left eats itself, they have historically looked for scapegoats. Jews and Christians are typically the fall-guy… especially in the 20th and 21st Century.

The left “KNOWS” its goals are well meaning, and so find acknowledgment that they are true and society “NEEDS” them ~ again, based on the “well meaningful’ness.”

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human persons in God’s image.”  

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292 (Full text).

So, in the West as these “well-meaning” ideals works themselves out, expect more legal, cultural, and violent expression against those who hold to a historical, conserving theology and expressing this in public life…

(READ MORE)

Combine moral zealotry with increasingly blurred lines between political speech and violence long enough, and the outcome is predictable.

TRANSCRIPT:

Deny, Defend, Depose: The Murder of Brian Thompson and the Rise of Political Violence

United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot dead on a New York City sidewalk. Inscribed on three bullets found at the scene: “Deny,” “Defend,” “Depose.” The suspected killer, Luigi Mangione, has since gained a fervent online fanbase. Comedians like Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Burr joked about his looks, while social media influencers hailed him as a symbol of rage against a broken healthcare system.

What fueled this reaction? Mangione, a former valedictorian with a bright future, suffered a devastating back injury and, allegedly, was denied treatment. His manifesto blamed the insurance industry, echoing the themes of Deny, Defend, Depose, a book exposing insurer practices. Many saw his actions as a twisted form of justice, and prominent figures, including former Washington Post and New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz, justified the public’s lack of empathy for Thompson.

A Growing Divide on Political Violence

Polling reveals a disturbing trend: 41% of Americans under 30 say Thompson’s killing was “acceptable.” More young people view Mangione favorably than unfavorably. Yet, paradoxically, most Americans—particularly those under 30—report being satisfied with their own healthcare. So why has Mangione become a folk hero?

The answer lies in shifting cultural norms around speech and violence. For years, activists have argued that harmful speech is itself a form of violence. Now, the logic extends to institutions: If denying healthcare is violence, then retaliation—even murder—is justified.

This philosophy traces back to the 1960s and Herbert Marcuse’s concept of “repressive tolerance.” Today, it manifests in widespread acceptance of censorship, deplatforming, and even political violence. Nearly half of college students believe it’s acceptable to block or shout down controversial speakers, while a third say violence is a justified response to offensive ideas.

The Truth About Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione

Lost in the rhetoric is the reality that neither Thompson nor Mangione fit neatly into the roles of hero or villain. Thompson, a father of two, was a self-made executive who oversaw billions in emergency healthcare funding during the pandemic. Mangione, the privileged son of wealthy parents, spent his final months before the murder vacationing in Hawaii. There’s no evidence he was ever denied treatment by United Healthcare; in fact, he received back surgery and advised others online on how to get insurers to cover it.

Despite growing sympathy for political violence, the majority of Americans still reject it. But history shows that a radicalized minority can wreak havoc if left unchecked. The 2020 riots, justified under similar moral arguments, proved how dangerous this mindset can become. Now, some politicians, like Rep. Seth Moulton, are distancing themselves from the activist wing of their party, recognizing that extremism is a losing strategy.

The celebration of Brian Thompson’s murder is a warning sign. If we continue blurring the lines between speech and violence, more tragedies will follow. Political change requires debate—not bullets.

Paul Washer: Freedom In The Gospel (Part 5) | Mississippi Prison

Published by Papa Giorgio

Part 5 of 7 from a prison in Mississippi. Paul Washer shares seven messages that take you through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One message of the series, “Freedom In The Gospel”, will be released every week starting Friday, January 24th, only on our YouTube channel and website.

The Closure of the Dept of Education Draws Nigh

Published by Papa Giorgio

ARMSTRONG and GETTY read from this article by, Kimberley A. Strassel

Trump’s School Choice:
The Department of Education needs to be abolished to get kids learning again.
(WSJ)

President Trump is reported to be mulling an executive order to begin dissolving the Education Department. Let’s hope, as that’s the game-changer necessary to halt decades of education decline and an overdue Trump embrace of one of the boldest conservative movements already under way.

Never has a department been more deceptively titled. To listen to this week’s wailing, the federal Education Department is the beating heart of our nation’s schools, its demise a straight line to an illiterate nation. The reality: Our federal education bureaucracy takes no part in the daily, hard-fought grind of teaching. It doesn’t step in classrooms, interview teachers, or debate pedagogy. It doesn’t meet with parents, coach sports or set bus schedules.

The department’s only job is to act as the keeper of the education treats. Every year these federal masters get some $80 billion to dispense on “good” behavior. They hive off a dollop for their own salaries, while the rest they dispense as if rewarding a pet. Good state puppies—those that roll, fetch and fill out paperwork in triplicate—get grants called IDEA funds. Bad puppies lose their school lunch money.

Thus today’s inane system, in which kids from Taos to Tallahassee are held hostage to a counterproductive maze of federal rules that dictate dollars yet waste resources and stymie local innovation. Schools stage bingo nights when staff coach parents to minimize their salaries on forms so that a school qualifies for Title I (low-income) funding. Parents fight to get their kids labeled “special needs” to score an individualized education plan and extra federal resources. (IDEA stands for Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act.) In recent years, the threat of losing federal funds also sent districts scurrying to comply with Joe Biden’s transgender directives.

Need extra bucks? Concoct a need for teacher development (Title II), tot up non-English speakers (Title III), bulk up on shop classes (Perkins V grants), show a plan for “well-rounded education” and “safe and healthy students” (Title IV, Part A). Money will flow, though only after studies, evaluations, assessments, surveys, training, certifications, complete exhaustion and total submission to a one-size-fits-all federal formula for success. That formula has sent $1 trillion to schools since 1979, producing a perfect inverse correlation of plummeting education scores. 

Yet note what these federal funds have in common. The money, ostensibly for “the children,” all goes to the adults—to hire more counselors and special-ed teachers for those IEPs, more administrators to run programs, legions of staff to input data. And guess what? Most of those adults belong to a union local of the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. Because the keeper of the treats was, is, and always will be Jimmy Carter’s thank you for teachers union endorsements. Randi Weingarten controls the clicker.

A head-scratcher of this hard-charging administration has been the afterthought nature of education so far. Yes, Mr. Trump has taken action to eradicate critical race theory and transgender ideology from the classroom and sports fields, and in January he issued an executive order directing the Education Department to favor school-choice programs in grant programs, a huge shift in direction. 

But he didn’t mention school choice in his address to Congress this week, and has yet to devote major time to the topic. For a president who in his first term called school choice “the civil rights issue of our time,” that failure to elevate education reform is a bizarre missed opportunity—on both practical and political grounds.

Republicans are already on offense—and winning. School choice is exploding across the states, those laboratories of democracy innovating on scholarships, vouchers, savings accounts, charters. A new generation of conservative leaders are embracing next steps—accountability in standards, merit pay for teachers, reviving vocational education. This is proving a potent issue for parents, newly re-engaged after the Covid pandemic, keen on voting for reformers. The parents movement played a big role in recent Republican electoral successes.

Yet the wins are fledgling, and as the nation’s dismal report card proves, there are miles to go. Claiming this is a state issue is a joke: states haven’t controlled their education destinies for decades—thanks to the feds. Hammering the message that the Education Department is the source of decline—a giant bar to states truly innovating and competing for education gains—is a huge first step. And while congressional action is needed to abolish the department, lawmakers need presidential leadership to turn it into a movement-wide objective.

Short of that goal, Mr. Trump has a unique opportunity to work in lockstep with reform-minded governors to devolve as much education power as possible back to where it belongs—local, local, local. It’s past time to acknowledge that Washington’s stomp into education has been a massive failure—a union perk at the sacrifice of our kids—and needs to end.

Democrat Fundraising Collapses Overnight | DOGE

Published by Papa Giorgio

Democrat Fundraising ACCUSED OF FRAUD
ActBlue COLLAPSES, Democrats In Shambles

HAT-TIP to The Renegade Institute for Liberty at Bakersfield College

TWITCHY has a response to the above via BASTE RECORDS X that says:

  • ActBlue isn’t just funding protests—they’re bankrolling chaos. The real election interference is happening in plain sight. Time to follow the money.

Yep.

PJ-MEDIA notes that the timing of ACT BLUE’s “woes” couldn’t be more suspicious… why? Because the spigots are being shut off via US AID and other avenues that seem to be signs of a giant money laundering system to get Democrats money to run or maybe pay off cronies.

It looks like the left’s golden goose lays rotten eggs. ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred fundraising platform that has funneled over $16 billion to progressive causes since 2004, is experiencing what we can only describe as a total meltdown. And the timing couldn’t be more suspicious.

In just three weeks, at least seven senior officials have jumped from the sinking ship. We’re not talking about low-level staffers here — these are heavy hitters, including their top legal officer, chief revenue officer, and veterans who’ve been with the organization for over a decade. When people like this are running for the hills, something big is happening.

The mass exodus kicked off last month when both the customer service and partnerships directors — each with more than ten years at ActBlue — bailed. Former VP for customer service Alyssa Twomey tried spinning her departure as simply needing “rest” after 14 years, but she’s not fooling anyone.

Congressional Republicans and 19 state attorneys general started investigating ActBlue for potential fraud, foreign donations, and suspicious contribution patterns, and the organization’s last remaining lawyer got locked out of his email after posting about whistleblower policies. Coincidence? Please. 

This is not garden-variety turnover. In fact, according to the New York Times, “The exodus has set off deep concerns about ActBlue’s future.”

Last week, two unions representing the group’s workers sent a blistering letter to ActBlue’s board of directors that listed the seven officials who had left. The letter described an “alarming pattern” of departures that was “eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization.””

Even ActBlue’s own unions are sounding the alarm, sending desperate letters to the board about “eroding confidence” in the organization’s stability. They’re demanding an independent investigation and questioning CEO Regina Wallace-Jones’ leadership. When your own progressive workforce starts questioning your progressive leadership, you know things are bad.

But here’s where things get really interesting. The timing of the departures is already suspicious, but if you need more proof that something big is going on, read this:

As these people left, Zain Ahmad, who was the last remaining lawyer in the ActBlue general counsel’s office, wrote in an internal Slack message on Feb. 26 that his access to email and other internal platforms had been cut off and that other messages he had posted in Slack had been deleted, according to a screenshot obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Ahmad is now on leave from ActBlue, according to a person briefed on the group’s staffing.

“Please be advised that we have Anti-Retaliation and Whistleblower Policies for a reason,” Mr. Ahmad wrote.

So here we have the Democrats’ most successful fundraising platform, which has been under a dark cloud of scandal for years over suspicious and illegal donations, suffering a mass exodus of key people, and now, apparently, there’s a whistleblower problem? Yikes.

This may well be the most devastating news for the Democratic Party since Trump’s victory in November or the demise of USAID. Its most successful fundraising platform may be going under, which would severely damage its ability to launder straw donations into its campaign coffers.

SEE ALSO:

  • ActBlue Fundraising Platform in Turmoil As Executives Resign and the Last Lawyer Has His Email Shut Off (RED STATE)
  • ActBlue Is Toast? (HOT AIR)
  • BREAKING: Democrat leading fundraising arm CRASHING and BURNING (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • DATA REPUBLICAN (Small r) has a thread on X
  • Exposed: Secret Pact Between 14 Blue States, Left-Wing Groups, and NYC Law Firms (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
  • REVEALED: Secret Resistance Agreement Between Blue States, Left-Wing Groups and NYC Law Firms to Conduct Coordinated Lawfare Against DOGE and Elon Musk (GATEWAY PUNDIT)

JAMES O’KEEFE has some great work on the issue at hand: