It makes perfect sense that Democrats freaked out when DOGE started following the money. Look at what they’ve been up to all these years.

There’s a reason Al Capone spent a few years in Alcatraz for tax evasion: Money is harder to hide than bodies.  Any thug can take a few bucks from someone weaker.  But when used, money leaves a trail.  The key to criminal success is making ill gotten booty look as though it’s not ill gotten.  That’s way easier said than done.

This brings me to the Democrat party’s current woes.  It is a political organization in the same sense that Tony Soprano was a garbage collector.  In both cases, their organizations are or were merely tools to fleece the public.  But as noted above, stolen money must be laundered to be useful.  One can’t attract the attention of the taxman while spending money one shouldn’t have without acquiring an unwashed roommate with “flexible” sexual preferences, that is.  The cash from a criminal enterprise must appear legit, or it’s worthless.

In the Netflix series Ozark, white-collar criminal Marty Byrde solves that problem by maintaining the appearance of middle-class normalcy, while methodically laundering money for a vicious drug enterprise, the Navarro Cartel.  In the program, Marty funnels truckloads of cash through front companies, casinos, and foreign accounts, until its origin is a complete mystery — as in, can’t be tied to drug-trafficking.  Only then can the cartel use it for boats, planes, mansions, and payoffs without attracting the unwanted attention of law enforcement.

If you substitute “Democrat party” for “Navarro Cartel,” Ozark could be the story of the donkey party’s approach to financial solvency.

Tulsi Gabbard recently learned that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were being sent to Ukraine as green energy grants.  But the money didn’t build windmills or solar farms.  The Ukrainians planned to send it back to America and launder it through a maze of NGOs, eventually to land back in the control of the Democrat party.  The Dems would then use our hard earned money to fund Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, and probably the First Son’s “ho and blow” habit.  That Hunter Biden (D-Hazelden) was pals with the Ukrainians was just a coincidence — wink, wink.

The list of suspicious Democrat interactions with money goes on and on:

• DOGE uncovered a mountain of government grants from USAID funding non-profits that secretly funneled campaign contributions back to Democrat party operatives.  It was the classic Marty Byrde scheme — which was designed to fool humans, not A.I. engines, much to their chagrin.
• San Fran Nan (D-Tent City) amassed something north of a quarter of a billion bucks of personal wealth by outperforming the world’s best investors.  Supposedly, there’s no link between her wealth and the fact that she and her husband made it while trading on companies that she regulated.
• Robert Menendez (D-Boardwalk Empire) was convicted after investigators discovered gold bars hidden in his sock drawer, with no accompanying 1099 forms.  He should have taken notes watching Ozark.  Instead, he’s spending a few years behind bars, learning group showering etiquette.
• Ilhan Omar (D-Northern Somalia)’s net worth surged 3,500 percent in one year, to over 30 million bucks.  On a salary of $174K per year, the math seems suspicious to me.
• Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Hanging Chad Land) has been indicted for embezzling 5 million dollars of FEMA funding and laundering it through family members, for use on bling and campaign expenses.  She screwed up when she started sporting jewelry she couldn’t afford on a government paycheck.  A criminal’s downfall is always her spending.
• Power Forward Communities went from an almost empty bank account to a 2-billion-dollar grant just after making Stacy Abrams (D-Federation of Planets) one of its leaders.  I wonder how much of our money she got as her taste.
• And of course, the financial shenanigans of the Clintons (D-Epstein Island) and Bidens (D-La-la Land) are too numerous to cover in any article shorter than War and Peace.

Can we finally admit the obvious?  The Democrat party isn’t a political organization competing to represent the American people.  It is a crime syndicate, using a political party to loot Americans on a scale that makes the Sinaloa Cartel look like pikers.

Our country has amassed an astronomical $39T of debt.  (I had to use a “T” because the required number of zeros didn’t fit on one line.)  Given what we’ve learned in the last year, would it surprise anyone if much of that mountain of cash landed in the hands of Democrat party launderers operators: foundations, non-profits, NGOs, politicians, propagandists, and such?

Suddenly, it makes perfect sense that the Dems freaked out when DOGE started following the money — something they didn’t think anyone would or could do.  But Elon Musk and his merry band of A.I. jocks turned out to be adept at unraveling the maze of money transfers that took taxpayer funds and illegally transferred much of it back to campaign and personal coffers, after siphoning off an appropriate taste processing fee, of course.

For as long as I can remember, the Dems have had an almost insurmountable funding advantage over Republicans — which they’ve used to mobilize radicals and gaslight voters.  But for the first time in decades, the Dems are going into a campaign season with less cash than their opponents, and a mountain of debt left in the wake of the Kamala Harris train wreck.  Is it possible their financial woes are tied to the exposure of their NGO money-laundering complex?

John Green is a political refugee who escaped Minnesota, writes for The American Free News Network, and is a state content writer for Convention of States Action.  He is an engineer with 40+ years of experience in systems and organizational development.  He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Source: It’s Always the Money That Gets Them – American Thinker

In the second half of the 20th century, she already had prescient insights into America, circa 2026.

Maggie Thatcher, easily one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, was a no-nonsense woman. She became Prime Minister of the UK in 1979 and would rescue her nation from the economic quagmire her leftist predecessors had created.

Maggie was the daughter of a merchant. And as one might expect from the daughter of someone who had to deal with customers and vendors and regulators, all the while making sure there was something left in the bank at the end of the month, she was a straightforward and pragmatic leader.

For someone born almost exactly 100 years ago, she had a vision of government and culture that we could use more of today. She was something of a combination of Nostradamus, Mark Twain, and (rather sadly) Cassandra rolled into one.

Her thoughts and observations provide an extraordinary insight into many of our problems today.

The clarity began even before she was Prime Minister. In a series of campaign speeches before her historic election, she repeatedly stated a variation of this principle: “If a Government can’t protect citizens and their property against violence, vandalism, and theft, there is little point in having a government at all.” If anything resonates with Americans today, it’s the fundamental failure of government to do exactly that.

She also had a clarity on the economics of leftism, saying,

Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.

Maggie clearly understood what most American politicians don’t, namely, that government can spend only as much as citizens produce. Only through taxes or IOUs can the government spend a single penny. Given that our national debt is almost $40 trillion and our unfunded liabilities are approaching $100 trillion, financed by a GDP of $30 trillion, another of her quotes drives home the reality:

We are told that the present Government have learned from their mistakes. I say that they have not learned. They still believe that you can spend your way out of recession and that you can create jobs by inflation… and that is the road to ruin. … You can’t tax and spend your way into prosperity. Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.

(This is more commonly remembered as “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”)

Thatcher hit the bullseye with this idea, too, summed up in a common paraphrase: “The patronage state is an arrogant state. It assumes it can spend your money better than you do. Yet it expects you to work for it in the first place.”

Along those same lines, Thatcher anticipated the evolution of the left’s political MO beginning with the ascent of Barack Obama, where every critique, criticism, or disagreement was labeled racism, then expanded to every element of American politics: Homophobic, Islamophobic, Sexist, etc. She clearly recognized the tactics: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

The Iron Lady addressed what would become one of America’s biggest problems when someone like Donald Trump, who is not a creature of the Swamp and wanted to upset the apple cart, came into office:

Whether it is in the United States or in mainland Europe, written constitutions have one great weakness. That is that they contain the potential to have judges take decisions which should properly be made by democratically elected politicians.

If there’s anything that characterizes America in 2026, it’s the army of black-robed judicial activists who think they have the power to transform themselves into the Executive. These leftist judges are making a mockery of our Constitution, and sadly, Congress and the White House are allowing them to do so.

And she understood that the left was not only a danger at home, but was an equally dangerous threat on the world stage. Her frequent speeches about Marx have resulted in this paraphrase: “To the extent that the West is to blame at all for the ills of the Third World, it is to the extent that the West created Marx and his successors, among whom must be numbered many of those who advised the Third World leaders in post-war years.” From the UN to the EU to the Democrat party, Marxism has almost certainly caused more death and destruction across the country and around the world than any other philosophy in all of human history.

And particularly resonant today is the fact that Thatcher understood what it meant to be an ally. After allowing Reagan to use US bases in the UK to strike Gaddafi, while other European allies wouldn’t allow him to use their airspace, she is reputed to have said the following, although it’s a paraphrase of several speeches, not a quotation:

It had the effect of cementing the Anglo-American alliance. What’s the good of having bases if when you want to use them you’re not allowed to by the home country. It made America realise that Britain was her real and true friend, when they were hard up against it and wanted something, and that no one else in Europe was. They’re a weak lot, some of them in Europe you know. Weak. Feeble.

There were many other jewels, of course. These are two of the best:

“Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.”

“Being powerful is a lot like being a woman: If you have to tell someone that you are, invariably, you are not.”

Maggie Thatcher had a clarity of vision and an understanding of the nature of man and the nature of government that few Americans (or Brits for that matter!) appreciate today, and sadly, even fewer politicians.

Vince Coyner | April 11, 2026

Source: Maggie Thatcher’s Timeless Wisdom – American Thinker