Thank you for the support. My situation with the Deaf is so bad that many are afraid to associate with me for the fear that they'll be cancelled. I don't talk about it often, but needless to say, it's not an uplifting place to be in the middle of that.

But maybe with your support, this is an "only Nixon could go to China" situation. Maybe this Administration can recognize that.

The two official languages of America should be English and American Sign Language.

Here's my take:

Previous to the Obama years, Republicans and Democrats largely agreed on the necessity of democracy-building: Republicans through a national security lens (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Democrats through a more humanitarian lens (Arab Spring, color revolutions).

Many conservatives believed in the ability of those efforts to suppress Communism - a holdover from Cold War.

But then Communism was no longer a threat by the Obama years. Conservatives got disillusioned with our ability to convert the Middle East to democracy as our spending surged, surged, surged -- going to all kinds of projects. And Obama began utilizing that spending to destabilize our country, and imposing wokeness upon corporations accepting federal money (which by now was many of them).

And so the first serious non-interventionist movement since William G. Harding was born.

But the problem with being against "democracy-building" is that you cut off the taxpayer money spigot to corporations, NGOs, academics, contractors, and so on. And so every single institution rained their full wrath on Trump and their supporters.

I keep warning my followers. It has not gone away. It will not end with Trump. They have written about party suppression, taking away universal suffrage, disinformation, mass arrests. Populism represents a true existential threat to the ruling class addicted to our money.

Putting together the villain origin story of George Soros today and why he’s so destabilizing in a way that NED, Rockefellers etc aren’t. The book is going to be lit.

Hello Mr. Favreau,

@matt_vanswol asked me to give a Scriptural rebuttal to this, so I will.

When progressives quote this verse against conservatives, they usually mean it as a mandate for government welfare: Christ’s command is fulfilled once the state redistributes enough resources to feed the most people. But that interpretation misreads both the passage and the Gospel itself.

First, Scripture never presents mercy as a numbers game. When the crowds pursued Jesus only for food, He refused to continue multiplying loaves:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves… Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life" (John 6:26–27, ESV).

In other words: Christ Himself stopped feeding people when it became ennoscriptment without faith. That should trouble anyone who treats His words as a blank check for leftist-style state redistribution.

Second, the Bible teaches that suffering is not to be eradicated by policy fiat but endured. When Mary anointed Jesus with perfume worth nearly a year's wages, Judas objected that it could have been sold and given to the poor. Jesus replied: "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me" (John 12:8, ESV). If maximizing relief for the poor were the highest good, Judas would have been right. But he is not.

The point is clear: charity is commanded not to maximize relief but to conform the giver to God. Otherwise, using your own standard, invoking Christ to sanctify state redistribution condemns not conservatives, but Christ Himself.

I urge you to repent, return to church, and practice the kind of charity that transforms the giver as well as the recipient.... not the empty virtue of spending other people's money while sneering that no Republican knows Christ.

Untangling the globalist network is impossible if you carry a view that people have to be good or evil, grifters or altruists.

Ideologies are evil. Everyone else is caught up in a continuum.

Hello, Mr. Newsom.

When you post a clip of the Vice President running after his child, all you really prove is that you can’t separate parenthood from partisanship. A man chasing his kid is called being a father.

If that looks like weakness to you, it says more about your judgment than his character.

Oh, speaking of fatherhood... do you remember when ICE busted drug operations in your state for having employed child labor? Have you followed up on those children at all? Or were you simply content to let that pass away to background noise for the sake of your dealers?

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1957469944339124423?t=xJXSze3PVOq730Ywx6-hcA&s=19
Great debunking piece by @DOGE . I can confirm the statistics here; a lot of it had been distorted by COVID-19 where many awards and contracts got cut abruptly.

Let's get those rescissions passed!

We all want to be part of something bigger than ourselves. What approaches will help you get there? 🤔⠀
⠀
A person with a growth mindset sees success as the result of hard work, and it is! While innate abilities are important, these abilities can also be improved. 💡⠀
⠀
If you want to change and build your future, investing is the tool that will make you successful. 🛠
Join us now! 👇👇👇👇
https://news.1rj.ru/str/DataRepublicanofficial

Me, trying to explain:
"So, Soros's reflexivity theory has two parts: the perception function and the cognitive function. The reflexive bit is that each feeds back into the other, creating contradictions, feedback loops, bubbles, crashes, blah blah blah..."

My husband, cutting through:
"So everything’s a Ponzi scheme?"

Me:
"...Yeah. That’s actually the cleanest summary of reflexivity theory I’ve ever heard."

My head is overflowing with research today, so forgive the philosophical mood.

What everyone keeps asking, implicitly, is whether there exists some hidden Leviathan; a single Rockefeller-style manifesto that lays out the master plan for one world order. That's how people expect ideologies to work: communism gave us its manifestos, its "scientific truths," its cults of personality. Monolithic systems are easy to trace because they tell us what is the "truth" and demand obedience.

But globalism is of a different species. It is pluralistic by design, self-consciously so. Karl Popper spoke of the "open society" as a Pantheon; no one has a monopoly on truth, everyone contributes their piece. Soros echoed this: nobody holds absolute knowledge, so institutions must be designed to keep multiple truths in circulation.

So if we extend the metaphor: how would such a Pantheon of gods govern?

They would not issue a single manifesto. Instead, they would agree over time to build common institutions: temples, rules of ritual through which their collective will could be enacted. Those temples are the IMF, NATO, the UN, the WTO, the OSCE. Each god retains individuality, but each also consents to empower the Pantheon as sovereign.

The unspoken covenant is: whatever disagreements they might have, every god advances the authority of the Pantheon itself. Bush, reluctant in Bosnia, still upheld the system. Albright, more zealous for intervention, pushed it forward. Soros was a disruptor who accelerated the Pantheon rule.

Freedom exists for common people, but only within this sacred order. You may worship freely, so long as you worship within the Pantheon's terms. To reject the gods entirely is to be autocratic -- because to reject the Pantheon is to reject pluralism.

And because it is pluralistic and dynamic, the Pantheon naturally evolves and strengthens once in place. Institutions accumulate power. Each generation of gods adds new layers, from Cold War containment to post-Cold War enlargement. The vocabulary shifts, but the structure grows more durable.

The paradox is that over time, the Pantheon hardens into the same monolithic tyranny it claimed to transcend. What began as a pluralist coalition ends as a self-justifying orthodoxy. To question the Pantheon, to question the legitimacy of NATO expansion or "democracy promotion," is to brand oneself a heretic, an enemy of "democracy."

In short: the open Pantheon has become its own closed Leviathan.