“I’m the only Democrat in my family. I grew up in a conservative part of Pennsylvania,” he noted during a NewsNation Town Hall while wearing a hoodie.

“I would never compare anybody, anybody to Hitler, and those things,” Fetterman declared.

Such “extreme rhetoric” will make it “more likely” that there will be “extreme … outcomes and political violence,” he suggested.

Pointing to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Fetterman said, “let people grieve, give people the space. I’m not gonna use that terrible thing … to make my argument and try to put out my views. It’s like, my God, you know, he’s a father that had his neck blown out by a bullet.”

The senator also pointed to the near-assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania last year.

“We really gotta turn the temperature down,” he said.

Trump has floated the prospect of potentially supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, and Fetterman indicated he would strongly support such a move.

“I enthusiastically support this. President Trump could help end this war and bring peace to Ukraine. Ending two awful wars is what the Nobel Peace Prize was designed for,” the senator noted in a post on X, which also included the Ukrainian and Israeli flag emojis.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania said that he knows and loves individuals who voted for President Donald Trump, noting that “they are not fascists” or “Nazis.”

“I’m the only Democrat in my family. I grew up in a conservative part of Pennsylvania,” he noted during a NewsNation Town Hall while wearing a hoodie.

“I would never compare anybody, anybody to Hitler, and those things,” Fetterman declared.

Such “extreme rhetoric” will make it “more likely” that there will be “extreme … outcomes and political violence,” he suggested.

Pointing to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Fetterman said, “let people grieve, give people the space. I’m not gonna use that terrible thing … to make my argument and try to put out my views. It’s like, my God, you know, he’s a father that had his neck blown out by a bullet.”

The senator also pointed to the near-assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania last year.

“We really gotta turn the temperature down,” he said.

Trump has floated the prospect of potentially supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, and Fetterman indicated he would strongly support such a move.

“I enthusiastically support this. President Trump could help end this war and bring peace to Ukraine. Ending two awful wars is what the Nobel Peace Prize was designed for,” the senator noted in a post on X, which also included the Ukrainian and Israeli flag emojis.

Alex Nitzberg, Fox News

Since the launch of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, the rate of those living in poverty, as defined by the US government, has stubbornly persisted. Yet before that, the American poverty rate was dropping fast. It was around 32% in 1950, but postwar prosperity and a booming job market lifted thousands out of destitution, bringing it to 12.8% by the time the War’s programs took effect in 1968. Yet in the intervening half-century, it has never dropped below 10%. This is not for lack of effort. Per capita government spending on the poor has gone from $2,701 at the outset to $29,214 today (adjusted for inflation).

Some point out that standards of living among the poor have risen, if you consider welfare benefits, which the official poverty measure excludes. While they are correct—material well-being has improved—there is ample reason to understand that poverty persists as a real problem, rather than a data artifact.

Case in point: About 34% of children born in poverty will remain there throughout their lives. For no substantial portion of their lives will they produce enough economic value to provide for themselves without subsidy. Furthermore, many of the maladies associated with chronic poverty are worsening:

• Social connectedness is much lower for people with lower incomes.
• Poor children are significantly less likely to benefit from the “two-parent privilege.”
• 65% of working-age people in poverty did not work for a single week in 2023; only 10% worked full-time, all year long.
• So called “deaths of despair” from suicide and substance abuse are at record highs.

These facts suggest an alienated socio-economic class mired in hardship despite the upward mobility of the middle class. This is bad for our republic, as well as for the individuals entrapped. And yet, massive spending on everything from direct cash transfers to college grants has failed to budge the numbers.

To charity practitioners who know many of these people, there is no mystery. They know if you’re currently taking full advantage of economic opportunities in America, chances are someone invested in you—not necessarily with money, but by forming your character, influencing your sense of purpose, and bridging connections that served you well.

These intangible assets like grit, integrity, faith, and reliable friends are critical not only to escape poverty, but also to live a flourishing life in ways that can’t be measured in dollars.

Federal programs ignore most of these deficits. Their theory of change is that if enough financial benefits are transferred to the poor, recipients will figure everything else out on their own. Not only has that approach proven ineffective; it often provides perverse incentives like marriage penalties and benefits cliffs.

Enter civil society. With its personal relationships and motivating purpose of care, civil society is best adapted to help people grow, thrive, and get back up when they fall.

To understand the forgotten magic of civil society (voluntary associations like churches, charities, and families), we must understand its role alongside the parallel spheres of the government and the market.

The government, with its monopoly on violence, is good at providing for the common defense and protecting people from fraud and abuse. No country has made a dent in poverty without law and order to secure private property and enforce contracts.

When the rule of law is established, the market uses the profit motive to generate wealth. Individuals leverage economic multipliers like voluntary exchange, division of labor, the price mechanism, and technological innovation to grow the pie for everyone.

And yet, even where opportunity abounds, people can remain mired in addiction, hopelessness, or idleness. Dysfunction often passes intergenerationally in a toxic brew of low aspirations, minimal connections, and underdeveloped talent.

put it another way: government constrains humans at their worst, markets transform self-interest into common good, and civil society calls forth the best elements of humanity.

In the context of poverty alleviation, this takes the form of charity: the voluntary rendering of aid to people in need. For systemic reasons, families, friends, clubs, churches, and charities can render better service to people in poverty than government agents could.

People closer to home have inside knowledge about the individual—and the autonomy to act on it. That allows them to discern whether someone needs a pat on the back, a gift of cash, or some tough love. Conversely, federal programs are uniform by statute, so eligibility tests and asset limits often result in “one-size-fits-none.”

In addition, stories of effective service to the most vulnerable and sympathetic generate the greatest donor contributions. This provides a helpful incentive to charities to allocate the resources to those least able to control their circumstances and most invested in their own solutions. Contrast that with the government’s incentives to fund programs with electoral results in mind (which often includes third parties, like the soda industry).

Charities’ competition for donor funds also drives innovation, something sorely lacking in federal programs whose particulars were originally hammered out on manual typewriters.

Civil society wields a scalpel sharp enough to cut to the heart of the matter. A friend, pastor, or case manager can speak to issues of meaning and purpose, model virtue, make useful introductions, and coach people as they blaze their own path out of poverty. They can leverage reciprocity and engage people’s capacity and talents. Effective charity isn’t business; it’s personal.

Can voluntary charity really replace the federal welfare state? Not if you simply tally up all the federal expenditures and assume donors must replace them dollar for dollar. But similar to how SpaceX can launch a rocket at less than 4% of NASA’s cost, civil society is primed to perform poverty alleviation functions at a dramatically lower cost.

The biggest impact would come when many of the 13 million non-working beneficiaries (only considering people between 18–64 years old) lose perverse incentives and decide to enter the labor force.

As well, other low impact programs captured by special interests would never be funded by private donors. Government cheese would end up on the chopping block.

That’s not all. Others would be helped without dollars changing hands. Family ties would strengthen as a safety net. Where that’s not an option, we’d no doubt see a renewed interest in informal social insurance through mutual aid societies, civic clubs, and faith communities—all of which were more common in the period of our history when poverty fell rapidly.

The good news is that we don’t have to wait for a major shift in public policy to start making an impact. As an ordinary American, I can’t point to a single government policy that I have changed, but I know many individuals I have impacted with my voluntary assistance.

That’s why we shouldn’t believe that our efforts to help people in need pale in comparison to the impact of the state. The lion’s share of solutions for the poor has always come from individuals who care enough to get to know them—and then provide real help of lasting value. The facts speak for themselves.

And it’s time to listen.

Nathan Mayo, Foundation for Education (FEE)

The Libertarian Party has announced The Parity Project, a ten-year plan to grow its membership and visibility to rival the Democrats and Republicans. The effort draws inspiration from past membership drives, including the 1990s-era Project Archimedes.

In an October 15 letter to members, Libertarian National Committee Chair Steven Nekhaila outlined a plan to “equalize” the party by targeting Americans who already identify with libertarian principles. Citing research from “eleven different studies,” he estimated that 30 to 60 million Americans either identify as libertarian or hold mostly libertarian views. Nekhaila noted that many of these voters currently cast ballots “defensively” for Democrats or Republicans and that activating this base could significantly expand the party’s reach.

“The two old parties each have about 68 million Americans who identify with them. Both of those parties also have universal visibility,” Nekhaila wrote. “The LP has almost no visibility. Finding and activating dormant libertarians will change that. If we developed 30–60 million libertarians with little visibility, imagine what universal awareness could achieve.”

Nekhaila pointed to the United Kingdom’s multiparty system, which operates under a similar winner-take-all structure, as evidence that a three-party America is possible. “If you gain attention in London, the rest of Britain follows, but America requires heavy investment in hundreds of large population centers,” he wrote. “The only way to fund that is to locate and recruit the people who already see themselves as libertarians.”

Unlike past initiatives that focused on converting non-libertarians, Nekhaila said the project will follow a “discovery before persuasion” strategy prioritizing those who already agree with the party’s principles. He described this as “taking yes for an answer,” with the goal of building resources and momentum before expanding persuasion efforts. Nekhaila also introduced a subsidiary effort called “Operation Everywhere,” aimed at making libertarian candidates and ideas visible “to everyone, everywhere, every day.”

The project will begin by expanding an existing internal database of one million contacts, updating it with new information acquired from public resources, email appeals, and social media advertising. Respondents will be asked to affirm whether they identify as libertarian or libertarian-leaning, if they’d like to see the Libertarian Party on equal footing with the two major parties, and whether they’d be willing to help. The party plans to measure its success on a monthly basis, with donations funding further outreach and visibility.

According to the plan, each new supporter, donor, or increase in visibility will be treated as an “increment of success.” Nekhaila argues that even modest gains could eventually translate into electoral successes, with the long-term goal of giving the party enough prominence to influence governance “long before it achieves a majority.”

The project is being led by strategist Perry Willis, who previously designed Project Archimedes in the 1990s under then-chair Steve Dasbach. That effort produced record membership and revenue for the party at the time, with Nekhaila first alluding to its potential revival in remarks during an LNC meeting earlier this year. “Project Archimedes used only direct mail,” Nekhaila added. “What was done before on a small scale can now be done in a large way.”

Willis will work with advisor Jim Babka and the firm Iron Light, which will oversee data enhancement and advertising placements.

The party is seeking $48,000 in initial funding to launch the project, with half allocated to Iron Light for data enhancements and the remainder to cover email and advertising costs. Nekhaila said sustained growth in supporters, donors, and visibility will be critical to maintaining momentum.

“We aim to make our numbers constantly grow in the following areas, month after month […],” Nekhaila added. “Do that for a few years and we’ll achieve the ultimate goal, full parity with the Democrats and Republicans.”

Jordan Willow Evans

By Jeremy Egerer

Because of slavery and Jim Crow and too many movies like The Help, there was a point where I genuinely cared about the plight of black Americans in general.

But these days I’m a little picky.  When people say “Black Lives Matter,” I like to ask, which ones?  Because Black Lives Matter already pretended “all of them,” and if we’re being honest, it felt a lot like No Lives Matter.

How can you say lives matter, for instance, when you don’t care how they live?  And how can you say “people are important” without asking them to take themselves seriously?  What we found was that BLM wanted something more than just life: They demanded a total suspension of basic justice.  They wanted to suspend the very laws of cause and effect and physics.  If there was a crazy demand, they wanted you to just give in.  If a criminal was attacking women, they wanted you to just back off.  Evidence?  No time for that, I’m afraid.  If you had a counter-argument, they wanted you to shut up.  If you worked harder and did a better job at your job, they just wanted you to lose the promotion.  And if you won, they wanted you to hand over the extra money.

No voice — no rights — no self-esteem?  Call me crazy, but it sounds as though what Black Lives Matter really needed was slaves.

There were shirts printed all over the country that said “QUIET, A BLACK WOMAN IS SPEAKING,” and they meant it.  They said white history is too white, so they wanted a history that’s all black.  They said they didn’t want to see your models on TV or billboards or magazines — they wanted their own models on everything instead.  Your movies?  Last place at the Emmys.  Your music?  Last place at the Grammys.  Was their stuff any good?  Didn’t matter, so long as they won anyway.

And let’s not mistake the obvious.  They weren’t even fighting to be rid of “white supremacy.”  They didn’t give a damn about any other races’ movies or music or safety.  This was an unabashed fight for black supremacy.  And the people who paid most, in the end, were black people.

This was because, ironically, the movement didn’t really care about all black people.  If you were a robber, or a rapist, or any black scoundrel, really — they were there to defend your life.  Not so much if you were a black baby.  Not so much if you were a black policeman.  Not so much if you were a black business-owner, or a soldier, or a good man just minding his business.

If you were killed by a black cop, they’d call it “white supremacy.”  If you were killed by a black thug, they’d ignore you.  If you burned down a black business, they’d pay for your bail.  If your once-successful business burned down, nobody would be coming to save you.  There was no such thing, during this period, as an innocent or upstanding black life that mattered.  During this period of anarchy and bedlam, the only person who mattered was the person who shouldn’t.

What Black Lives Matter missed is that the only kind of racial supremacy that works — and I don’t mean “is morally right,” but “the kind that actually turns into a livable society,” like modern-day Japan, or Apartheid South Africa, or even the Nation of Islam — is one where, even if you loathe everyone else, you at least have respect for yourselves.  And that was the one thing Black Lives Matter lacked.  That and an average I.Q. above 75.

Thus, they didn’t want skill.  They wanted degrees and diplomas.  They didn’t want to build successful businesses.  They wanted prestigious seats at the board, and money.  They didn’t want good neighborhoods.  They wanted “affordable housing.”  Worst of all, they didn’t want liberty.  They wanted license.  That’s because you don’t have to earn or build the latter of any of these.  You just have to fight for them.  You just have to steal them.

Every single thing they aimed for was the dumber, cheaper, impossible version of some tangible good.  Thus, they paid in blood and tears and totally forgot about sweat.  They thought you could win without being a winner, and that the big struggle in life is against “the enemy” — that’s people with standards, in case you missed it! — instead of against the worse parts of yourself.  In other words, that the hard won, time-consuming, sleepless-night climb from infancy into mastery could be taken from people who earned it and handed to people who didn’t.  And even dumber than this, the idea that robbers can keep it.

They were wrong.  Boy, were they wrong.

They were so wrong that the first thing that happened when Black Lives Matter “succeeded” was black lives ending.  A lot of them.  Everywhere black people were in charge most, in fact.

Chicago blew up.  Memphis blew up.  New York City blew up, and Tulsa, and the Bay Area.  Everywhere Black Lives Matter succeeded, everything else failed.  The violent crime rate for a short while was a nightmare.  Their own businesses, the engine to climb out of the ghetto, were burned down.  They defended so many shoplifters that Walmart moved out of some cities and now Democrats are complaining about “food deserts.”  The Republicans won the next election in a landslide, and the police are back in popular demand.

The end result is that black lives aren’t safe — overwhelmingly due to other black people.  They also aren’t freer.  They’re also poorer.  And I think the people in Black Lives Matter deserve it.

I only wish they hadn’t dragged so many innocent people — of all colors — down with them.

Jeremy Egerer is the author of Prejudices — a collection of questionable essays on Substack.

Oct 14, 2025

The Democratic Party is collapsing before our eyes. You can see it in the polls. You can see it in their internal panic. You can see it in the way their message shifts from week to week as they desperately grope for something—anything—that resonates with the American people.

Now they’re shutting down the government because they want to fund healthcare for illegal aliens.

Why you ask?

For two reasons: one, because they need to continue to create a new demographic for political power by keeping the illegals here on our social welfare programs to shore up Democrat Party power. Second, they’re doing it because their far left base demands it and if party leadership were to have even hesitated on it, they knew primaries in 2026 were coming (and still might be).

But let’s be clear on the overall dynamics: this isn’t just about a political party losing ground. It’s about the machinery that has sustained that party for decades—the bureaucratic class, the media cartels, the NGO ecosystem, the “deep state” that pretends to be apolitical while carrying water for one side. They’re collapsing, too.

And they all know it.

For years, Democrats told themselves they were the “natural majority party.” They believed demographics, academia, the press, and Silicon Valley would guarantee their dominance for a generation. But they forgot something critical: once you stop delivering results for ordinary Americans—once your only purpose is power to manage decline—the people turn on you. And that’s what’s happening now.

Look at the numbers: Democratic voter registration is shrinking: there’s now a 4.5 million shift in registrations to Republicans advantage since 2020, with seismic shifts taking place in battleground states; in 2016, Democrats held over a 600,000 voter registration advantage in North Carolina. Today, just over 7,000.

Democrats’ approval ratings have cratered. Their leaders—Schumer, Jeffries, Newsom, Whitmer—look tired, brittle, and completely out of touch. Even their own activists are restless, with younger Marxist progressives openly mocking the geriatric leadership class. The base senses weakness, and the ruling class knows it.

So what’s left? Fear and force.

When Democrats can’t win arguments, they turn to their deep state allies: never forget that the Democrat Party and the Administrative State are allies. And the State acts as a backstop for Democrats when they lose elections: bureaucrats slow-walk Republican reforms. Intelligence agencies leak and smear. Federal prosecutors chase enemies while ignoring allies. It’s the same playbook they’ve used for decades, only now it’s obvious to everyone. The weaponization of government is not a conspiracy theory—it’s the last gasp of a massive political machine that can no longer survive on persuasion.

This is the moment of opportunity—and danger. Because Leviathan doesn’t die quietly. It thrashes. It lashes out. It uses every tool left to preserve itself. Expect more lawfare, more indictments, more manufactured crises. Expect bureaucrats to sabotage legislation, courts to invent obstacles, the media to howl about “democracy dying.” This is what collapse looks like: confusion, not graceful surrender, but chaos and desperation.

The lesson for Republicans and for the New Right is simple: do not mistake Leviathan’s weakness for harmlessness. A cornered beast is dangerous. Victory requires not just winning elections, but dismantling the networks of power that prop up the Democratic Party long after its political mandate has expired.

The Democrats are crumbling. Their deep state enablers are exposed. The question is whether Republicans will do what must be done: hold power long enough, and wield it effectively, to finish the job. This isn’t about firing 4,000 bureaucrats. This is about firing 400,000 of them and razing buildings to the ground.

Leviathan will not give up power willingly. It never has. It never will. This will only happen by force of will and the ruthless use of political power by Republicans.

American Leviathan

Which economic system is best for America?”

The options: capitalism or socialism.

87% of respondents voted for capitalism.

13% voted for socialism.

Stunning that 13% are that ignorant/corrupt. One has to ask what demographic represents 13% of the population, as well. Regardless, that’s 13% too many people allowed to vote, reproduce, breathe, etc.

One of the most blasphemous lines in Dilexi Te comes under the chapter heading titled, “Accompanying migrants.” It reads: “Mary and Joseph flee with the child Jesus to Egypt. Christ himself, who ‘came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him’ (Jn 1:11), lived among us as a stranger. For this reason, the Church has always recognized in migrants a living presence of the Lord…”

The author then misappropriates the Holy Family to argue for open-borders. Clearly, the Bible and the Catholic Church have always opposed chaos on national borders, as the true God is a God of order. But manipulating the Holy Family’s desperate flight to Egypt is also a trick of the leftists so predictable that I wrote against it even months before Dilexi Te was released.

In US Bishops and Their Moneymaking Borders, I wrote: “Liberal ‘Catholics’ might even describe Jesus and Mary and Joseph as ‘refugees,’ purposely ignoring the fact the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt crossed the Roman Empire legally. They also ignore the fact St. Joseph was obedient enough to the State in registering with the census as seen in Luke ch. 2.”

Another misleading line in Dilexi Te is: “For Augustine, the poor are not just people to be helped, but the sacramental presence of the Lord.” Fr. Kevin Cusick exposed this goofy idea by writing: “Saint Augustine was neither a modernist, nor a heretic. He sought clarity, for the sake of truth, not confusion to plant a false gospel. The poor are sinners as are we all, and all in need of sacraments, without the grace of which none can be saved.”

Frank Walker then added on his Rumble channel: “Think about how arrogant this is to say ‘The poor, the poor, the poor!’ and that’s what they do to all sorts of victim groups… Everyone is victimizing them constantly… But to call them ‘God’ is such a terrible thing to do.”

Frank is correct. Marxists always pretend to deify the poor without evangelization or sacraments. Leftists always use this fake-deification to treat the poor as slaves.  Obviously, this causes chaos and keeps them out of the Catholic Church, for they are seen as “projects” instead of immortal souls who need Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church to get to heaven.  And trust me as someone who has served on five continents:  The poor know when they are being treated as projects instead of people.

Msgr. George F. Dillon was an Irish priest living in England in the second half of the 19th century and he wrote extensively about freemasonry infiltrating Europe in his celebrated book, The War of the Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. It is also called “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked” and I highly suggest reading either of those. Of course, Msgr. Dillon never could have imagined such evil possessing the Vatican back in the 19th century. But he did already see in the 19th how freemasons were weaponizing the poor for their own advance.

Msgr. Dillon wrote in War of the Antichrist with the Church about how Italian freemasons viewed the poor: “In Italy, for instance, this class of Freemasons have had supreme power in their hands for over a quarter of a century. They obtained it by professing the strongest sympathy for the down-trodden millions whom they called ‘slaves.’ They stated that these slaves—the bulk of the Italian people in the country and in the cities—were no better than tax-paying machines, the dupes and drudges of their political tyrants. Victor Emmanuel, when he wanted, as he said, ’to liberate them from political tyrants’ declared that a cry came to him from the ‘enslaved Italy,’ composed of these down-trodden, unregenerated millions.”

What he describes Victor doing there is the narcissist DARVO technique.  That is: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.  Similarly, leftists (including liberation theologians like the author of Dilexi Te) deny trying to use the poor for violence but then attack anyone who stands against open-borders. This reverses the victim and the offender. DARVO is an especially effective tactic if Marxists can frame themselves as the real victims—simply there—trying to help the poor fight against an open-market.

One of the most blasphemous lines in Dilexi Te comes under the chapter heading titled, “Accompanying migrants.” It reads: “Mary and Joseph flee with the child Jesus to Egypt. Christ himself, who ‘came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him’ (Jn 1:11), lived among us as a stranger. For this reason, the Church has always recognized in migrants a living presence of the Lord…”

The author then misappropriates the Holy Family to argue for open-borders. Clearly, the Bible and the Catholic Church have always opposed chaos on national borders, as the true God is a God of order. But manipulating the Holy Family’s desperate flight to Egypt is also a trick of the leftists so predictable that I wrote against it even months before Dilexi Te was released.

In US Bishops and Their Moneymaking Borders, I wrote: “Liberal ‘Catholics’ might even describe Jesus and Mary and Joseph as ‘refugees,’ purposely ignoring the fact the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt crossed the Roman Empire legally. They also ignore the fact St. Joseph was obedient enough to the State in registering with the census as seen in Luke ch. 2.”

Another misleading line in Dilexi Te is: “For Augustine, the poor are not just people to be helped, but the sacramental presence of the Lord.” Fr. Kevin Cusick exposed this goofy idea by writing: “Saint Augustine was neither a modernist, nor a heretic. He sought clarity, for the sake of truth, not confusion to plant a false gospel. The poor are sinners as are we all, and all in need of sacraments, without the grace of which none can be saved.”

Frank Walker then added on his Rumble channel: “Think about how arrogant this is to say ‘The poor, the poor, the poor!’ and that’s what they do to all sorts of victim groups… Everyone is victimizing them constantly… But to call them ‘God’ is such a terrible thing to do.”

Frank is correct. Marxists always pretend to deify the poor without evangelization or sacraments. Leftists always use this fake-deification to treat the poor as slaves.  Obviously, this causes chaos and keeps them out of the Catholic Church, for they are seen as “projects” instead of immortal souls who need Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church to get to heaven.  And trust me as someone who has served on five continents:  The poor know when they are being treated as projects instead of people.

Msgr. George F. Dillon was an Irish priest living in England in the second half of the 19th century and he wrote extensively about freemasonry infiltrating Europe in his celebrated book, The War of the Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. It is also called “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked” and I highly suggest reading either of those. Of course, Msgr. Dillon never could have imagined such evil possessing the Vatican back in the 19th century. But he did already see in the 19th how freemasons were weaponizing the poor for their own advance.

Msgr. Dillon wrote in War of the Antichrist with the Church about how Italian freemasons viewed the poor: “In Italy, for instance, this class of Freemasons have had supreme power in their hands for over a quarter of a century. They obtained it by professing the strongest sympathy for the down-trodden millions whom they called ‘slaves.’ They stated that these slaves—the bulk of the Italian people in the country and in the cities—were no better than tax-paying machines, the dupes and drudges of their political tyrants. Victor Emmanuel, when he wanted, as he said, ’to liberate them from political tyrants’ declared that a cry came to him from the ‘enslaved Italy,’ composed of these down-trodden, unregenerated millions.”

What he describes Victor doing there is the narcissist DARVO technique.  That is: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.  Similarly, leftists (including liberation theologians like the author of Dilexi Te) deny trying to use the poor for violence but then attack anyone who stands against open-borders. This reverses the victim and the offender. DARVO is an especially effective tactic if Marxists can frame themselves as the real victims—simply there—trying to help the poor fight against an open-market.

Father David Nix

“I hope the whole nation understands how incredibly proud they should be of their President,” said Marco Rubio, lU.S. Secretary of State.

The whole nation? Sadly, somewhere between one-third and half the nation loathes America, detest freedom and probably hate themselves. In another generation, those numbers might be worse. The majority who voted for President Trump are indeed proud of him and of the general direction America is trying to head. But evil and irrationality are on the march as never before, as Charlie Kirk’s murder most recently demonstrated. Believe me: more is coming.

I am saying this not to be negative, but in the interest of grasping, naming and facing reality. Because in the long run, well beyond President Trump’s amazingly courageous and heroic efforts, facing the truth is the only way good can triumph over evil.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Psalm 62:1 (King James Version) Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.

It is impossible to overstate the size of Trump’s accomplishment with the Israel/Gaza peace agreement. One week after the Swedish brat was going to Gaza to stir up unrest and blame Israel for more atrocities, Trump is signing the agreement for peace. This is truly remarkable by a remarkable man who has spent his entire life prepping for this moment. The man who has been vilified more than anyone since Christ while showing why the Founding Fathers wanted successful part time politicians rather than career pols like Biden, Pelosi, and Clinton. The only people in the world who were not surprised was MAGA.

Last week Antifa Brown Shirts were chanting From the River to the Sea and today there is peace throughout the Mediterranean and the only war is in Portland. If only the entire country was filled with MAGA men there would be peace here too. Perhaps MAGA can start chanting from Sea to Sea America will be Free?

The Trump Peace Agreement is an example of what happens when you have businesspeople in charge rather than bureaucrats. Never mind the Drag Show you had with Slow Joe, every administration has been filled with career hacks who could not make a decision without at least five push polls telling them what to think. Trump has highly successful people who know how to negotiate and make decisions without putting a finger in the air.

This is far more efficient than centralized gummits where every detail has to go up the chain and back down wasting valuable time. These guys simply found what the sticking points were and told them they would get it fixed and did. Trump gave them the goal and parameters of what success looked like putting everyone on the same page and he was the closer when the details were negotiated.

Communists work just the opposite. All of Biden’s cabinet were out of the closet and more interested in flaunting their victim status than accomplishing anything. There is no value in accomplishment for Dims since they are only interested in destroying things. Since they could never do anything as risky as ending a war by horrific monsters let alone helping Judah, so they simply supported the Mooselips to destroy Israel and America. This made it a twofer so they could call both countries evil.

Speaking of Portland, has Antifa Kotek congratulated President Trump for making peace in Gaza? Has she axed Trump to see if he can bring it to Oregon, From the River to the Sea? Trump settles eight wars plus the DOJ war on Trump and she cannot settle a two-block war between some wimpy beta males and hundred-pound girls against ICE. They are so pathetic they had to order extra small bike seats for their naked bike ride. Do these old hippies think people want to look at their pale flabby bodies? Did they still have training wheels?

Antifa Kotax is the perfect example of a lifelong politician who accomplished zero in the real world and built on nothing in the corrupt Party. Once she moved out to Oregon from Philly she/it moved up the ladder using victimhood and virtue grandstanding on her homosexuality exploitation. It is the shortest path from white privileged to victimhood giving you an advantage in the Democrat Communist Party. Like Bootiejudge, Bawny Fwank, and most of Biden’s cabinet, it is a resume enhancer but a results eliminator as was seen in the Trashcanistan withdrawal. That day made the Vietnam exit look like a Swiss watch. How many men can you have hanging on the outside of a plane?

President Trump is the among the Big 3 Presidents and has a good argument as the best. Washington, Hamilton, and Lincoln were all outsiders and so is Trump. No President has turned around America politically, economically, and morally as dramatically as Trump. No President has had such a massive change in the world as Trump, in nine months he has completely changed the direction of the world in the same way he has changed America. There is an America movement being fueled by young men worldwide.

He has made America the leader of the world again. The world benefits more than America when she is powerful. If America’s economy is powerful the entire world’s economy benefits. Trump knows this and is an economic genius doing what genius’ do. He is a President like Reagan who understands the most important job of the CIC is to be the head cheerleader. He makes it fun to be an American again rather than ashamed.

Today, Israel and Gaza had some fun with America’s Cheerleader in Chief. This is what happens when you use high achievers rather than no achievers.

Shalom Israel

Monday was a festive day, with the whole world seemingly celebrating the dawn of peace in the Middle East and hailing President Trump for bringing it about. The president himself, while speaking about the release of the hostages in his speech to the Knesset, promised a bright new world unencumbered by past hatred and animosities: “After two harrowing years in darkness and captivity, 20 courageous hostages are returning to the glorious embrace of their families. Twenty-eight more precious loved ones are coming home at last to rest in this sacred soil for all of time. And after so many years of unceasing war and endless danger, today the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a Holy Land that is finally at peace.”

Trump proclaimed not just the end of the present war between Israel and Hamas, but of an entire era of war: “This is not only the end of a war. This is the end of an age of terror and death, the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God.” He said that the cessation of hostilities heralded ” a very exciting time for Israel and for the entire Middle East,” and added that “the forces of chaos, terror and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.”

Swept up in the excitement of the occasion, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said: “You, President Trump, are a colossus who will be enshrined in the pantheon of history. Thousands of years from now the Jewish people will remember you. We are a nation that remembers.”

It is likely that President Trump will indeed be remembered thousands of years from now, for he is a transformative figure who has reshaped national and international politics. Whether he will be remembered, however, as the man who brought about “the end of an age of terror and death” and “the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God,” however, is another question altogether.

During his Knesset speech, Trump touted his ability to make deals, and he has certainly demonstrated that ability in bringing about the current ceasefire. But the best dealmaker in world history would not be able to make a deal that would end the Islamic jihad imperative.

Imagine some bizarro alternative where some future president of the United States was pro-murder, pro-theft, and pro-adultery, and desired accordingly to stamp out the Ten Commandments. Even if this rogue president were able to find Jewish and Christian leaders who would sign his agreement banning the Ten Commandments, other Jewish and Christian believers would continue to hold them and act upon them.

This imperative will remain, no matter what Hamas has agreed to with President Trump. The bellicosity coming out of Gaza as they celebrate what they claim is a victory over the last few days is clear enough evidence of that. Even if Hamas ceases to exist as an organized group, another jihad group, or a multiplicity of them, will take its place.

The requirement to wage jihad against unbelievers and bring them under the hegemony of Islamic law, which ensures that Islam will dominate and not be dominated, has just that status among Muslims: it comes from the supreme being. It is neither to be questioned nor negotiated away. Those who grant this point but insist that jihad is primarily, if not solely, the spiritual struggle within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of Allah are credulously accepting the apologetic half-truths and distortions that Islamic spokesmen have propagated in the West in order to foster complacency and cast resistance to jihad as “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

The reality is that jihad in the Qur’an is clearly martial, with repeated exhortations to kill those who do not believe (2:191; 4:89; 4:91; 9:5; 47:4) and the stipulation that the Muslim warrior must give a fifth of his war booty to the messenger of Allah (8:41). In an interior spiritual struggle, there are no spoils of war.

This is not to say that Trump should not have acted to rescue the hostages, although the price — the freeing of 250 jihad terrorists, many of whom will certainly go back to work — was extremely high. Maybe the relief of their families after two years of heartache, and of the hostages themselves after two years of torment, is worth any price. But amid the euphoria, let’s not get carried away. The jihad is not over. This is no time to deceive ourselves into thinking that it is, and let our guard down accordingly.

Robert Spencer, Front Page Magazine