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 entitlement 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://t.me/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.

I'm building a database of NGOs where foreign policy officials come from. Did I miss anyone?

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 / 𝗡𝗦𝗖 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀

CSIS (Center for Strategic & International Studies); EIN 521501082
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP); EIN 130552040
Atlantic Council; EIN 520742294
Wilson Center (congressionally chartered); EIN 521067541
RAND Corporation; EIN 951958142
CNAS (Center for a New American Security); EIN 208084828
Center for American Progress (CAP); EIN 300126510
Stimson Center; EIN 521640938
USIP (U.S. Institute of Peace); EIN 521503251
New America; EIN 522096845
Hoover Institution; EIN 941156365 (Stanford)
American Enterprise Institute (AEI); EIN 530218495
Hudson Institute; EIN 131945157
Foundation for Defense of Democracies; EIN 134174402
WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy); EIN 521376034
CFR (Council on Foreign Relations); EIN 131628168
Brookings Institution; EIN 530196577

𝗨𝗡 / 𝗡𝗬𝗖 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀

International Peace Institute (IPI); EIN 030213226
NYU Center on International Cooperation (CIC); EIN 135562308 (NYU)
Stimson Center (again); EIN 521640938
Carnegie Council (Ethics in International Affairs); EIN 131573954
Stanley Center for Peace and Security; EIN 426071036
International Crisis Group (ICG); EIN 525170039
Center for Global Development (CGD); EIN 522351337
Peterson Institute (PIIE); EIN 521226967

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰/𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻/𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀

Transatlantic/European hubs (shape NATO/EU language picked up by State/UN)

Chatham House (RIIA); EIN 980036091
International Institute for Strategic Studies; EIN 522335215
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI); EIN 721374719
German Marshall Fund (GMF); EIN 520954751

𝗣𝗿𝗼-𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝘀𝗶-𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗡𝗚𝗢𝘀

NED; EIN 521344831
NDI; EIN 521338892
IRI; EIN 521340267
CIPE; EIN 521398742
American Center For International Labor Solidarity; 521984713
IFES; EIN 521527835
CEPPS; EIN 521943638
Internews; EIN 943027961
Freedom House; EIN 521095113

𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀

Inter-American Dialogue; EIN 52-1830369
AS/COA; EIN 132569185
Middle East Institute; EIN 530204608
Asia Society Policy Institute; EIN 133234632

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀

Aspen Institute; EIN 840399006
Salzburg Global Seminar; EIN 042200147
WEF; EIN 980459408