I was thinking about this today (08/27/25) because of something Phisto Sobanii wrote on Substack.

This got me thinking.

Do we need "leaders?" Why is everyone waiting on said leaders? I think that might be part of what's missing in all this--not the leaders themselves--but the idea that leaders are needed to effect change.

There is often no “ruler” on the right. The true right (not what leftists call "right," which is actually tyrannical).

Those on the right tend to be free-thinking people, who are less likely to rally around a “ruler.” This is why the right is not rallied in the same way that those on the left are. Those on the right tend to be problem solvers.

This is also why those on the left (at least the followers, not those at the top) actually think that Trump is a dictator. They don’t understand the Constitution, and how it’s meant to be applied. If they did they would never have supported leftist leaders in the first place, as leftist leaders are always trying to circumvent the Constitution.

Those on the left would argue that Trump is a ruler/dictator. But most of the people I’ve run into like what Trump is doing—not particularly his “leadership,” not what he’s telling other people to do (because, for the most part he’s not). No, most people like results.

Once people see those results, then they start to rally behind someone.

There are plenty of people online that don’t bring results. That’s not to say that they don’t have good ideas. And good ideas can spread. Good ideas are needed. Good ideas bring people hope. Good ideas can inspire people to take action.

The best news I’ve seen is that younger people are trending more to the right. Because they are acting on what they’ve seen or experienced—not what they are told.

It’s the generations before them that are looking for nostalgia, and still believe that there are those in Washington who are looking out for their best interest. There are not. However, there might be those in Washington whose current goals align with some of ours. And we should take advantage of that situation.

Up to, and until, enough people start doing what’s necessary (within their own lives) to turn things around, we’ll continue to slide further and further to the left.

There are no true “leaders” on the right. There are however, those who inspire others, and that’s what we need to keep things headed in the right direction.

The American Revolution was not fought by “leaders”—it was fought by those who were inspired by leaders.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There was a hidden gem in the OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act).

I admit, I wasn't holding out much hope in the OBBBA aside from making the Trump Tax Cuts permanent, but there's one more thing that hits home for me.

The removal of fines related to federal CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. CAFE standards were an albatross around the next of automobile industry since 1978 (when the rules went into effect).

The CAFE standard rules are still there, but there are no fines imposed for violating those rules. It's basically the same thing they did for the Obamacare insurance mandate. It's still there, but there are no taxes/fines if you violate it.

For 50 years, the federal government has been forcing fuel economy standards on auto companies. If the average fuel economy of the cars sold in a year exceeded a federal standard, the companies had to cough up enormous penalties.

Passed in 1975 as a way to deal with an energy crisis (that was caused by government price controls), “corporate average fuel economy” (CAFE) standards – required the fleet of cars sold by an automaker to achieve an arbitrary miles-per-gallon goal. If they missed the goal, they paid hefty annual fines.

From the beginning, these standards were a disaster, forcing automakers to radically downsize their fleet, which research showed cost thousands of lives because, all things being equal, smaller, lighter cars are less safe than larger ones.

In fact, a 2002 National Academy of Sciences found that these fuel economy standards not only boosted the cost of cars, but may have caused as many as 2,600 more traffic fatalities just in 1993.

The standards, which were ratcheted up year after year, also wildly distorted the car market. To meet them, automakers had to sell more small cars than consumers wanted to buy, which meant heavily discounting them, and then making the cost up by jacking up prices on the bigger cars most buyers wanted or needed. Carmakers routinely paid extravagant fines for failing to meet the standards. Last year, Chrysler had to write a check to Uncle Sam for more than $190 million.

Chrysler didn't have to pay more than $190 million in fines -- their customers did. But it wasn't just Chrysler -- it was pretty much every major car manufacturer in the world -- for a total of $105 billion in fines paid.

CAFE standards were never about increasing efficiency, that was the lie that was told to the public. Check this out from 2012.

The latest "corporate average fuel economy" (CAFE) standards will require the average fuel economy of all the cars an automaker sells to almost double to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Automakers largely back the new standard. Lots of fuel-saving technologies exist today, with more in the offing, they say. But the industry also admits the mandate will require significant change in the kind of cars automakers build and sell.

"Electric vehicles will play a huge role in getting there," Wade Newton of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers told IBD. That's because traditional gas-powered cars today come nowhere near that 2025 goal. And whether they ever will isn't clear.

Even the tiny Smart car gets just 36 miles a gallon. And no hybrid on the market today meets Obama's mileage goal. Plus the rules will require every car, large and small, to dramatically improve its fuel economy.

The Honda Fit would need to get 61 mpg by 2025, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That's double what it gets today. How Honda can possibly close that gap is anyone's guess.

In contrast, the EPA gives electric cars huge "miles per gallon equivalent" ratings. The all-electric Nissan Leaf gets a 99 "mpge" rating, the Volt a 60.

How many people out there knew that their 2025 vehicle, whatever that might be, should get 54.5 MPG? Even the newest hybrids "meet the standard" in estimated MPG. But it's doubtful that they would live up to it in real-world scenarios. And the Honda Fit, no way it's going to 61 MPG with an ICE engine. But then, it was never supposed to, Americans were supposed to be forced into ever more expensive hybrid and EV options -- because of Climate Change. Never mind that we were supposed to reach the "critical warming point" -- for the last 40 years -- and it just keeps getting moved forward every 10 years or so.

The idea was to have the public think that CAFE standards were about making ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) more efficient -- but that was never the goal. The true goal was to have ICE engines effectively outlawed through legislation. Legislation that the vast majority of the public was unaware of.

The honest truth is that none of this has anything to do with the environment. If it did, real solutions would be championed -- but they're not -- only hair-brained schemes that result in money changing hands are offered as "solutions." A lot of that money is in the form of government subsidies (read tax dollars).

Isn't it funny how when the government subsidies are axed, the demand for eco-friendly products immediately goes down?

Remember the government program "Cash for Clunkers?" That's where the government ordered dealerships to destroy millions of fully functioning automobiles and effectively collapse the used car market.

I wrote about Cash for Clunkers (3) times in August of 2009, here, here and here.

Cash for Clunkers was a nightmare because it removed all of the cheap used cars from the market, cars that sell for cash. You know the kind, the ones that people just starting out might buy.

Government interference in the economy is like Rumpelstiltskin. There's always a price to pay for messing with the economy.

Sure, you might sell more new cars, but you'll sell them to people who can't really afford them. Stopping those people from advancing economically, and that's never a good thing.

Now that the $105 billion in additional cost which was added to the US car market has been alleviated, perhaps car prices will come down a bit.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

For decades there have been large demonstration with thousands of people showing up to protest this or that. But were they truly "grass roots?"

Yuri Bezmenov in the famous interview with G. Edward Griffin, in 1984 said this:

"It's not grass roots. It's not what most people want. Most people are completely sick & tired by it.

"No political movement is grass roots. Every one is the product of a highly organized & well-funded group of political activists." - Yuri Alexandrovich

There have been many instances where crowds of people have been proven to be Astroturf. The one that always comes to mind with me involves Andrew Breitbart. Glen Beck was speaking at an event in Hoffman Estates 2010. There were protesters chanting usual nonsense like "Stop the Hate!"

When Breitbart went out to confront the protesters, things got very strange.

Isn't it interesting how the whole operation was funded. There were union signs -- with union printing on the back -- just for good measure.

Long story short, they were primarily Astroturf, frauds. People paid to be there -- not legitimately concerned citizens.

Thanks to DOGE and "DataRepublican (small r)" on X, we now know that USAID has funded many of these "grass roots" organizations through various NGOs to disguise the source of the funding. Here is a brilliant breakdown of how all of this money moves around through NGOs to make its way into the hands of leftist organization here in the US.

Grand Total: $1,952,938,001 in taxpayer funds!

➡ NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY (521344831) Taxpayer Funds ($362,047,237)
➡ INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION (131624046) Taxpayer Funds ($257,092,498)
➡ NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR (521338892) Taxpayer Funds ($167,610,102)
➡ CONSORTIUM FOR ELECTIONS & (521943638) Taxpayer Funds ($165,142,739)
➡ GLOBAL COMMUNITIES (520846183) Taxpayer Funds ($155,240,485)
➡ PACT INC (132702768) Taxpayer Funds ($149,717,276)
➡ INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE (521340267) Taxpayer Funds ($130,689,289)
➡ American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education (366110299) Taxpayer Funds ($114,242,128)
➡ FREEDOM HOUSE (131656647) Taxpayer Funds ($93,979,673)
➡ INTERNEWS NETWORK (943027961) Taxpayer Funds ($93,974,716)
➡ INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ELECTORAL (521527835) Taxpayer Funds ($58,684,285)
➡ CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL (521398742) Taxpayer Funds ($49,782,402)
➡ ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC (133615533) Taxpayer Funds ($27,306,551)
➡ EAST-WEST MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC (133586432) Taxpayer Funds ($25,060,024)
➡ THE CARTER CENTER INC (581454716) Taxpayer Funds ($22,531,458)
➡ SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND (521257425) Taxpayer Funds ($20,758,888)
➡ THE RHODE ISLAND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION (222604963) Taxpayer Funds ($12,502,500)
➡ INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT (521818273) Taxpayer Funds ($10,638,679)
➡ INSTITUTE FOR WAR & PEACE REPORTING-US (431962561) Taxpayer Funds ($9,842,659)
➡ CIVICUS WORLD ALLIANCE FOR CITIZEN (521847010) Taxpayer Funds ($7,882,463)
➡ INTERNATIONAL CITYCOUNTY MANAGEMENT (362167755) Taxpayer Funds ($7,390,615)
➡ DELAWARE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC (222804785) Taxpayer Funds ($5,886,448)
➡ OUTRIGHT ACTION INTERNATIONAL CORP (943139952) Taxpayer Funds ($3,184,871)
➡ MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL USA (930783096) Taxpayer Funds ($1,411,393)
➡ Silicon Valley Community Foundation (205205488) Taxpayer Funds ($150,000)
➡ INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S MEDIA FOUNDATION (521648942) Taxpayer Funds ($138,622)
➡ UNITED CHARITABLE (204286082) Taxpayer Funds ($50,000)

DataRepublican (small r) shows through charts and graphs where this money is funneled or laundered. There is a seemingly never ending list of "official sounding" NGOs to which money can be given in the form of government grants. Where the money goes after that becomes much harder to track.

But that's by design. NGOs are (Non-Government(al) Organizations) as a result of their non-government status, you can't file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to find out where the money is going.

Where does that bring us today? Well, over the weekend an event was held to show solidarity with Steven Colbert, the late-night TV show host that was fired by CBS.

A Big Apple rally in support of on-his-way-out “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert drew fewer than two dozen people Sunday — with even the NYPD cops on scene quickly calling it a day since most of the demonstrators left after just a few minutes.

Organizers said the “We’re With Colbert” gathering outside the CBS Broadcast Center on Manhattan’s West Side said it was meant to be part of a nationwide call for “integrity.”
...
CBS said declining viewership and diminishing profits led to its decision to end the show in May 2026, effectively firing the 61-year-old talk-show host Colbert — but critics claim the network bowed to pressure from Trump.

The left has been up in arms over the firing of Steven Colbert with some even claiming that Trump was behind it.

But that's not the case. The show was losing money, and the sad protest -- without being propped up and funded -- is the perfect illustration of why Colbert was let go.

Of course, this is one example of a protest or coming together event that slumped, but it's not the only one.

How many people showed up for the No Kings Protests?

The American Civil Liberties Union, part of the coalition that organized the demonstrations, said in its statement that more than 5 million people participated in over 2,100 rallies and protests nationwide.

Political organizing group Move On, a partner in the "No Kings" rallies, also shared the five million-person estimate in a fundraising email.

Jeremy Pressman, the co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium — a Harvard University and University of Connecticut project that estimates political crowds — told USA TODAY on June 15 that it will take "some time" to complete an estimate on the "No Kings" rallies.

5 million people in 2,100 locations would average at 2,381 people per event. In reality some cities would have more, others would have less. 5 million people is a "guesstimate" by the organization that spearheaded the protest. They wouldn't overestimate now would they? Remember the Biden rallies?

However, let's consider their numbers at face value. In the 2024 presidential election there were roughly 157 million votes cast. Trump won 77,284,118 and Harris won 74,999,166. Only around 6.7% percent of Harris voters turned out for the No Kings Protests? Keep in mind, that's not counting for the people who didn't vote at all, and still went to the protests.

5 million sounds like a lot, but considering all the people who were supposedly backing Harris, that's not very many people.

The pictures from the No Kings Protests are what got me. Most of the No Kings protesters look like they're protesting by day, and rubbing rabbit's feet at Bingo by night. There were older people at these protests than in the past. It looked like a bunch of old hippies getting together for one last "Fight Back Against The Man" outing.

I believe we're seeing the effects of the USAID money drying up. Not only with the No Kings Protests, but also with the Steven Colbert event. What's becoming abundantly clear is that there was never a large left-wing groundswell. It was manufactured, and it took billions of dollars to keep the illusion afloat.

After all, it's not easy to convince people to take up sides with those who are openly working against their own interests -- which leftists are nearly always doing.

What will happen to all those involved in the tax-payer money laundering operation? Nothing, they just move along to the next grafting operation. Keep in mind, this was all legal, just unethical. These mechanisms were put in place over decades by people who are retired, dead, or otherwise unable to be held accountable because of the statute of limitation for such things.

Now that these efforts are being exposed and shutdown, perhaps a much more accurate visualization of the American population will become visible.

It's going to be very hard for those on the left to explain away why "grass roots" protests, more or less disappeared, when government grant money dried up.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There is a tactic that progressives/leftists employ. It's the ratchet effect.

Many people have written about this subject, but few get into precisely how they achieve the effect. It's not that they convince anyone per se, what they do is offer future examples of what they wish to achieve -- nearly always at the extreme end of the spectrum.

Take Zohran Mamdani for example, he's proposing things that are extreme, like city-run grocery stores, and taxing the people of New York City based on their race. Nobody takes these things seriously, and that's the giveaway.

Bernie Sanders was the Democrats' candidate to run against Hillary Clinton -- but he was never going to be allowed to win the nomination. He was only there as a place holder, he was there to gather the attention of those on the far end of the progressive/leftist scale. He was there to get all of his "Bernie Bros" to throw their vote behind Hillary Clinton. Only in that particular case it backfired because Hillary was just such an unlikable candidate, the usual voter base manipulations couldn't overcome that fact.

Another example of the ratchet effect is the proposal of legislation to restrict gun rights, offered every few years by some Democrat politician. The idea is never to get these laws passed, because they are often over-the-top and would immediately cause legal issues for large swaths of the population who own guns.

The idea is to pass something much more watered down, then Republicans can say, "See, this is common sense gun legislation, not the draconian restrictions the Democrats wanted..." Meanwhile our Second Amendment rights are still slowly being eroded.

But back to the New York City mayoral race.

Zohran Mamdani might not win the general election, and that's just fine with the Democrats. They have two other candidates that can win, Eric Adams (the incumbent mayor) and Andrew Cuomo (which are Democrats running as Independents).

Once in office, Adams, or Cuomo can sign off on legislation that's 1-2 clicks to the right of what Zohran Mamdani was proposing, and claim it's less extreme. They will say, "Just imagine how much worse it could have been for New York City businesses if Zohran Mamdani would have won the election."

Meanwhile, they are going to keep moving the political atmosphere further and further to the left, and eroding people's rights along the way.

If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, but they'll do it very slowly, so hopefully you won't notice.

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There’s that word again! Remorse. It keeps creeping up every time I hear about Marxism/communism. "Guilt" is good for tricking people into doing your bidding – in the short term – but for long-term results, you'll need "remorse."

There are notable differences between "guilt" and "remorse."

Guilt and remorse are two emotions often experienced in response to wrongdoing or regrettable actions. While they are closely related, there are subtle differences between the two. Guilt is typically associated with a sense of responsibility for one's actions, often accompanied by feelings of shame or self-blame. It is a more cognitive emotion, focusing on the recognition of one's wrongdoing. On the other hand, remorse is a deeper emotional response, characterized by genuine regret and sorrow for the harm caused to others. It involves a greater level of empathy and a desire to make amends. While guilt may be fleeting, remorse tends to linger and can lead to personal growth and a commitment to change.

We've all heard the saying, "Pack your bags, because you're going on a guilt-trip." Well, this same kind of manipulation bleeds into the political realm as well – and it's very effective on those unwilling or unable to recognize it.

I use AOC as an example – because she's particularly bad at making people feel remorse or guilt. She's just not believable, and she tries to scold people – but she looks too young to be doing it – it’s not very effective.. People like AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) don’t believe in anything they are selling. We know this, because they are literally complaining – about how they became successful. If she wasn’t here [in the US] she couldn’t complain about “being a minority in a racist country” – that elected her to high office.

However, all of this is carefully scripted. AOC was chosen to make people feel not just guilty, but remorseful. Always with the remorse. “See, you have it so much better – and you should feel bad about it – you must atone for your sins, and relinquish power to the elites, so they can level the playing field. Because, let’s face it, you’ve had it good for ‘long enough.’”

That’s the entire message of AOC wrapped in a bow. “Lay down and surrender you greedy capitalist scum. Oh, excuse me, I’ll have another mimosa.”

All of this staged nonsense is insulting to those who see it for what it is. It's like slight of hand, when performed by a bad magician.

It’s the precise reason that Netflix and Disney have to make every White character Black and oppressed. It’s not to reflect any kind of reality – it’s to enforce a false sense of reality. As young minds soak up all this propaganda, that false reality becomes “normalized.” When older people (like me) tell them that it’s nonsense, they say, “You just don’t understand what it’s like.” Only we do, because we grew up before it was cool to whine constantly about fake oppression.

What’s that phrase, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” These clowns are trying to create an entire generation of suckers! And it has gained quite a bit of traction – now that it’s racist to point out reality. To quote Joe Biden, “We choose truth over facts.” That’s code for, “Believe what we tell you, not what you see with your own eyes.” It was not a mistake, or a gaffe, other than he said it out loud.

Consider, most of the people in the US, who are whining about oppression – are not oppressed – they’re oppressing themselves. They’re wasting their life for someone else’s cause. Someone that doesn’t care whether they live or die, because those heading the cause are the manipulators – and the manipulators don’t feel any remorse for people too stupid to figure out that it’s all a game – they’re just directing the suckers. The term "useful idiots" comes to mind.

Now that Barack Obama is no longer president, what has he done for “the African American Community” – other than brow beat Black men because they don’t want to vote for a half-Indian fraud for president – even though she, “...grew up in a middle-class family.”

Barack Obama is still complaining about racism – after he was elected – because his election was largely associated with "White guilt," which could better be described as "White remorse." Obama knew, or at least believed, that his election was the result of manipulation, and it's for that reason that he was constantly complaining about racial tension, because he didn't feel that he was elected on merit. Obama didn't earn it and you can sense that he feels that way.

Hopefully people will start becoming more attuned to actual reality, and start dismissing these people, like AOC, Kamala Harris, and Barack Obama as the frauds they are. They were literally chosen to make people feel bad about themselves and their heritage, with the idea in mind that they can be manipulated, so as to vote for candidates who don't have their best interests at heart.

Have you ever seen a White candidate who has effectively pushed the oppression (remorse) narrative?

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"