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

This year’s midterm elections aren’t just about who wins in November; they’re about who wins fights over gerrymandering taking place right now. Nowhere is the battle fiercer than in Virginia, a state where voters just six years ago approved a constitutional amendment to take partisanship out of congressional redistricting.

Now Democrats want to make an exception to the rule Virginia voters approved by a nearly two-thirds majority in 2020: They want this year’s congressional map to be drawn up by their own state legislators, erasing the districts set up by the bipartisan board established by the amendment just a few years back.

It’s no surprise when a state like Texas or California that leans overwhelmingly toward one party indulges in partisan gerrymandering. But Virginia is a purple state, and its congressional representation—six Democrats, five Republicans—currently reflects that.

Yet, if Democrats get their way on April 21, they’ll be able to seize 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional seats for themselves, in the most brazenly unjust reapportionment seen anywhere in decades. This isn’t about making a blue state bluer or a red state redder; this one’s an effort to manufacture a virtual monopoly for one party, depriving millions of the other party’s voters of their representation.

One thing the sheer audacity of this move suggests is that Democrats nationwide aren’t quite as confident as they pretend to be about winning the midterms fair and square. If they expect voters coast to coast to repudiate Trump’s GOP in a landslide, why resort to such extreme measures in a place like Virginia?

Either Democrats are more worried than they let on, or they want to do more than just win—they want to annihilate their competition. They’re proving far more ruthless than Republicans, who balked at the opportunity last year to redraw Indiana’s congressional map from a 7-2 partisan split to a 9-seat GOP sweep.

What Democrats are attempting in Virginia is tantamount to legalized election theft, if voters are unwise enough to approve the amendment they’re pushing. There’s a political cost for this attack on small-d democracy: Gov. Abigail Spanberger, for one, is paying a price in her polling.

She was elected by a whopping 15-point margin last year and was soon touted as the Democrats’ new face of moderation, which is why she was the party’s choice to respond to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address this year. Yet her approval ratings are already poor, with a Washington Post survey at the end of March finding 47 percent of those polled gave her a passing grade, while 46 percent disapproved of her performance in office so far.

The numbers are similar to polling on the amendment to give Virginia’s Democrat-controlled legislature the power to draw the congressional districts for the midterms: 50 percent say they approve, 47 percent disapprove. The amendment can pass with a simple majority, but if the polls are right, Democrats have no margin to spare, and early voting reports so far indicate there’s particularly strong turnout in Republican areas of the state.

The early vote is outpacing early voting in last year’s gubernatorial election, too. Arguably, the amendment shouldn’t be on the ballot at all: it’s faced several legal challenges, with the state Supreme Court ultimately deciding the April 21 election can proceed even while doubts about its legality remain to be settled later.

The very wording of the amendment is illegal, Republicans contend, since state law specifies the text accompanying the measure “shall be limited to a neutral explanation,” while the amendment itself is tendentiously worded as an attempt to “restore fairness.”

Who wouldn’t vote to restore fairness?

The campaign for the amendment has been a master class in deceit and manipulation, with even news outlets in the deep-blue D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia noting the copious use of “pink slime” techniques by the “Yes” side. Those techniques involve propaganda disguised to look impartial—like a made-to-purpose publication branded as The Virginia Independent, which the Arlington-based news site ARLNow.com describes as “a partisan newspaper advancing Democrats’ arguments.”

That slime has been flooding into voters’ mailboxes, including mine. Maybe my blue suburb hasn’t been a target of whatever efforts the Republicans are making—though the other possibility is that the GOP just isn’t trying as hard.

Texas kicked off the latest wave of redistricting ahead of the midterms, as Republicans there looked to widen their advantage over the Democrats. Yet as the divergent examples of Indiana and Virginia show, it’s the Democrats who are more hellbent on winning, even if they have to turn state constitutions into confetti to do it.

Politics is a test of wills-and if Republicans fail this one, they’ll almost certainly fail in November, too.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

April 6, 2026By Daniel McCarthy

Source: Virginia: A New Extreme in Gerrymandering – Chronicles

‘Mental Heath’ And Progressive Propaganda: A Deeply Controversial Agenda In Schools That Should Alarm All Parents

Illinois lawmakers’ obsession with getting in children’s minds is getting creepier, with multiple controversial bills in the legislature this session targeting students in the state.

From mandated “social-emotional” indoctrination to more forced “mental-health education,” Big Pharma-funded lawmakers appear to believe that doing more of the same thing will somehow achieve different results for Illinois children. It will not.

The initiatives are disguised as efforts to improve the social, emotional, and mental wellbeing of children. But in reality, the bills are yet another foundational step toward a national system for psychological conditioning and manipulating children’s attitudes, beliefs, and worldview. The language being used to support the rollout is merely a mask to conceal a deeply controversial agenda that should alarm all parents.

SEL Indoctrination

One of the schemes, HB 4855, purports to require that every school district in Illinois force every child to receive direct instruction in “social and emotional learning” (SEL) throughout the year.

Introduced by Democrat State Rep. Janet Yang Rohr, the legislation amends the Children’s Mental Health Act to force SEL into everything. First, it mandates direct SEL instruction four times per year. But it also forces teachers to reinforce the SEL programming by intentionally integrating it into curricula and classroom activities.

Under the bill, school districts are required to provide “professional development” to help educators align their teaching with SEL principles. The SEL indoctrination, which focuses on giving children government-approved attitudes and beliefs on a wide range of issues, must be aligned with the Illinois Learning Standards for Social/Emotional Learning.

Those SEL standards were developed in partnership with the Bill Gates-funded Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). The organization has publicly boasted about using SEL to turn children into “global citizens” and activists for “social justice.”

But perhaps even more troubling, CASEL admitted on its website that the whole idea came from a New Age institution deeply tied to the occult known as the Fetzer Institute. The institute’s leading luminary on SEL, Professor Linda Lantieri of Columbia University, has openly acknowledged in webinars getting insights from spiritual beings she claims to communicate with.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Utah considered a bill to ban SEL in government schools. The legislation did not pass. But many more bills are expected nationwide next year.

“Mental Health Education”

Another bill being considered by Illinois lawmakers, HB 2960, orders schools to incorporate “mental health” instruction into their “health education” courses. The legislation includes a broad range of required topics, including “symptoms” of alleged mental problems, supposed “services” to deal with those problems, and more.

Introduced by State Rep. Laura Faver Dias, a Democrat whose campaign was lavishly funded by Big Pharma interests, the legislation will mainstream Big Pharma’s highly profitable understanding of “mental health” among students. The bill also brings in all manner of progressive propaganda on race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and more.

Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry

Even a brief analysis of the effort reveals the unchallenged assumption that the secular Big Pharma-backed view of “mental health” is unquestionably true and good. But even many leading psychiatrists and psychologists have rejected that notion as absurd. Legendary Harvard-trained psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, whose work exposing everything from lobotomies to Prozac has led to profound changes in the industry, blasted the schemes of Illinois lawmakers.

There is a long history of collaboration between “organized psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry” to “make a market out of children” by reaching them through schools, he explained.

The bills come as government schools prepare to begin mandatory “mental health” screenings of all children soon as part of an edict passed last year.

“The idea of screening school children for mental problems is equivalent to screening them for the drug market,” Breggin said when the bill was being considered. “This will stigmatize increasing numbers of children, lead many of them to taking dangerous psychiatric drugs, and push some into a lifetime ‘career’ as mental patients.”

“Nothing is worse than telling a child they have a mental problem, first because it demoralizes them, and second because the problem, if there is one, is corrected by improving how we relate to them,” added Breggin.

Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry have “much too narrow an approach” to dealing with children’s problems, he told IFI. Instead of pushing drugs and social engineering on the children via “mental health” programs, Dr. Breggin argued for other approaches. “Their ‘problems’ may disappear with a different teacher or a different school,” he said, adding that many so-called “mental problems” are really spiritual or emotional in nature.

Mental Health Crisis?

It is true that there is a so-called “mental health crisis” afflicting not just Illinois students, but children across America. In fact, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), some 40 percent of high-school students report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness.

Even more alarming: one in five U.S. students in public schools “seriously considered suicide,” and about 10 percent actually attempted suicide just in the last year. Perhaps even more insidiously, children in Illinois are being used as props to advance the Big Pharma’s “mental health” agenda.

“I think something that we’re seeing on a day-by-day basis throughout middle and high schools is that education is unable to address this issue,” argued Abhinav Anne, an Illinois high-school student who is supposedly involved in pushing the legislation.

“Bullying, anxiety, how to combat depression,” continued Anne. “We teach students how to recite tables and memorize every state and country on a map, but we’re not really teaching students these fundamental issues…we’re seeing this gap in knowledge.”

Just this month, the Illinois Senate Behavioral and Mental Health Committee unanimously approved a bill to promote a deeply controversial “suicide prevention” hotline to students. The hypersexualized “hotline” has become infamous for promoting LGBT ideology and for grooming children, even directing children to the horrifying “Trevor Project.”

Ironically, the mandatory “suicide prevention” demanded under the bill has been known to plant seeds in children’s minds.

Big Picture

The state and its schools are aiming to sideline and ultimately replace parents on these critical issues. It is true that children are suffering badly today. But it is not due to a lack of SEL and “mental health” schemes. In fact, for centuries, children were thriving without any such programming. What they had was faith and family.

Remember, the government’s own data prove its schools cannot even teach reading, writing, or math properly. Clearly, government and its “educational” institutions are not cut out to serve as parents, therapists, mental health counselors, or anything of the sort.

Even if well intentioned, lawmakers should recognize the danger of these SEL and “mental health” schemes.

Children need God, truth, parents, and families — not occult-themed SEL, dangerous “mental health” indoctrination, and psychotropic drugs. Unfortunately for those still in government schools, that is not an option.

Alex Newman is an award-winning international journalist, the Founder of Liberty Sentinel, and a Contributor to Harbinger’s Daily.

Source: ‘Mental Heath’ And Progressive Propaganda: A Deeply Controversial Agenda In Schools That Should Alarm All Parents – Harbinger’s Daily