Many of us on the political right once held a principled aversion to telling the ultra-wealthy how to spend their money. Confiscating private wealth sounded un-American. If billionaires wanted to build libraries, fund symphonies, or throw lavish parties, fine — they were reinvesting in society, directly or indirectly.
But that was before the rise of the modern “philanthropath”: a new breed of sociopathic billionaire using inherited or self-made fortunes to re-engineer civilization from the top down. These aren’t benevolent stewards. They’re ideological crusaders waging war on tradition, prosperity, and truth.
These are not patrons of progress — they’re funders of decline. And their wealth has become a weapon.
George Soros spent millions installing radical, pro-crime prosecutors in cities across the country. Bill Gates bankrolls schemes to block the sun in the name of climate alarmism.
At least Soros and Gates earned their fortunes. Increasingly, the most aggressive philanthropaths are heirs — trust-fund radicals who never worked a day to build the wealth they now use to tear society apart.
Earlier this month, Walmart heiress Christy Walton made headlines for bankrolling the No Kings anti-Trump protests. Hyatt heir and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) used his $3 billion inheritance — and famous last name — to push transgender surgeries on minors. After President Trump’s 2024 election, Pritzker promised to turn Illinois into a destination for confused parents seeking to chemically sterilize and mutilate their children.
His sibling Jennifer Pritzker (born James) proudly funds transgender medical interventions, calling it “a continuation of my family’s tradition of putting personal philanthropy into service for the public good.”
As I’ve documented before, the eco-vandal group Just Stop Oil — responsible for throwing soup on van Gogh paintings and blocking roads across Europe — draws funding from Abigail Disney, Aileen Getty, and Rory Kennedy. These aren’t anonymous donors. They’re members of America’s closest thing to a royal class. Getty even defended funding the group in the Guardian, writing, “I fund climate activism — and I applaud the van Gogh protest.”
I don’t support an inheritance tax. These taxes hit middle-class families hardest — especially family farms and small businesses. The IRS doesn’t care how long your grandfather worked the land; it just wants a cut.
But the more the ultrarich use their fortunes to fund antihuman ideologies, the harder it becomes to defend that wealth politically. They are making the moral case for confiscation easier by the day.
Market trader and television commentator Jim Iuorio recently wrote, “There is no moral or economic argument in favor of inheritance tax ... it should obviously be zero ... making it more than zero is rooted in petty jealousy.”
Fair enough. But if I had to argue in favor of an inheritance tax on moral grounds, I’d just start naming names: Alex Soros. Melinda Gates. JB Pritzker. Christy Walton. Aileen Getty. It’s not envy — it’s damage control.
RELATED: Billions go in, billions come out — guess who benefits?
We don’t need to confiscate wealth to fight philanthropaths. But we do need a strategy. Here’s a start:
Trustbusting: Break up corporate monopolies. This won’t empty the bank accounts of people like Gates or Zuckerberg, but it could dismantle the ideological machines they built — and send a message: America won’t tolerate ideological empires built on tech monopolies.
Lawfare: Conservatives have long avoided weaponizing the law. But that restraint has allowed the left to prosecute its enemies with impunity. State attorneys general and DAs should investigate tax-exempt foundations. Are these groups funding organized criminal activity? Are they operating as unregistered lobbying arms? If so, they’re fair game.
If the ultra-wealthy refuse to stop using their fortunes to undermine Western civilization, we must treat their fortunes as what they are: weapons.
These billionaires aren’t just funding protests. They’re promoting a post-human future. In the name of “climate justice,” they want to ban meat, take away your car, outlaw carbon-based energy, and impose synthetic food alternatives on working families.
They aren’t asking politely. They’re demanding submission — or else.
World Economic Forum guru Yuval Noah Harari said the quiet part out loud in 2022: “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population.” I assume he doesn’t mean himself. He means you. He means your family.
When elites embrace mass depopulation as policy, don’t expect me to argue over tax brackets. I’m not interested in theory. I’m interested in survival.
So yes, I’m more open to separating sociopathic billionaires from their wealth than I once was. I still believe in economic liberty. But liberty doesn’t mean allowing radicalized aristocrats to fund our destruction.
Because if we don’t stop them now, they won’t just take your gas stove — they’ll take your future.
The Innocence Project has long been lauded by activists for helping those who were wrongfully convicted find their freedom again — but after a closer look, the project appears to have a habit of undermining true justice in the interest of social justice.
“A man who was released from prison because of the efforts of the Innocence Project has now been arrested for the possession of child sex abuse material,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey begins. “This is just the most recent example of criminals who have been advocated for by the Innocence Project who have gone on to reoffend.”
“And actually, the Innocence Project has a very long history of defending those who beyond a reasonable doubt have committed heinous crimes, including the rape and the murder of children,” she continues.
The case of Robert Roberson, another one that’s been taken on by the Innocence Project, features an autistic man who was convicted for the death of his 2-year-old daughter in 2002.
His daughter, Nikki, had been sick, and she was alleged to have fallen from her bed and later become unresponsive.
While the Innocence Project claims Roberson wasn’t responsible, he not only was reported by the hospital to be unemotional about his child’s injuries but also became very angry with his girlfriend, Teddie, when she asked Roberson to watch Nikki, since she was in the hospital.
It was the first time Roberson was ever left alone with his daughter.
“The next morning, Teddie ... was discharged from the hospital, and she called Robert to ask for a ride from the hospital. He responded, reportedly, that he probably needed to come to the hospital anyway, because their daughter, Nikki, wasn’t breathing,” Stuckey explains.
“Teddie testified that Roberson wasn’t upset at all about the situation. He didn’t seem flustered. He didn’t seem like he was in a hurry. He didn’t even pull up to the front door of the hospital. Instead, he took the time to find a parking spot,” she continues.
Medical exams following Nikki’s death painted the picture that her “brain swelling was so severe that her brain had shifted from the right to the left” and that the injuries had to be “intentionally inflicted.”
And for some reason, it appears there are very powerful people who want Americans fighting these convictions.
“The Innocence Project is also backed by the usual left-wing billionaires and left-wing political donors. They receive millions, no surprise, from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and radical leftist philanthropist MacKenzie Scott,” Stuckey explains.
“If there were any doubt about the Innocence Project’s ideological bent, they’re not just some apolitical organization that’s trying to exonerate innocent people,” she continues. “It’s about partisanship. It’s about undermining law and order, rewriting history, changing the facts, advancing a radical leftist — often racialized — agenda under the guise of compassion and empathy and justice.”
“They turn criminals into victims and the justice system into the oppressor. They distort reality and erode the very foundation of accountability and lawfulness in America,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
As the 2025 fiscal cliff approaches, key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire — triggering one of the largest planned tax hikes in U.S. history. If Congress fails to act, the hardest hit won’t be billionaires or Wall Street elites. It will be working- and middle-class Americans who will get hammered.
For years, the left has pushed a false narrative about the TCJA, passed in 2017 under President Donald Trump. They claim it was a “giveaway to the rich.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even labeled it a “wealth transfer” from working families to millionaires and billionaires. That claim is flatly untrue. The data from the Internal Revenue Service tells a very different story.
Democrats say they care about working families. If that’s true, why are they standing in the way of the very law that lowered the tax burden on millions of middle-income Americans?
A new policy study from the Heartland Institute, which I co-authored, analyzed IRS data from 2017 through 2022 to evaluate the real impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the law passed in 2017, it didn’t take effect until 2018. Using the most recent available tax year (2022), we compared data before and after the law took effect to determine how much taxpayers saved across each IRS income bracket.
Since IRS data for 2023 and 2024 isn’t available yet, we used historical averages to project savings for those years.
The results are clear. The TCJA cut personal income tax rates across the board. But the biggest winners — by percentage saved — were working- and middle-class Americans earning between $30,000 and $200,000 a year. Over the period studied, these families saved thousands.
Here’s the breakdown: From 2018 through 2024, we project that households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 saved around $6,300 in federal income taxes. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 saved about $8,300. And families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 saved nearly $13,500.
That’s not a giveaway to the rich. That’s real relief for working families.
While high-income earners benefited too, their relief was modest compared to the savings middle-class families received.
In 2022, filers making between $5 million and $10 million saw their federal tax bills fall by just 2.3% compared to 2017. Meanwhile, households earning between $40,000 and $50,000 saved nearly 19%. That’s not trickle-down economics — that’s targeted relief for working Americans.
Overall, the income groups that saw the largest percentage tax cuts were those earning less than $75,000. Within that group, even the lowest-performing bracket — households making between $50,000 and $75,000 — still saved a little over 16% in 2022 compared to pre-TCJA levels. Every other bracket in the under-$75,000 range saved at least 18%.
Perhaps most striking of all, our study shows that the TCJA actually made the federal tax code more progressive. It shifted more of the income tax burden onto high earners while easing it for working families — the very opposite of what critics have claimed.
The IRS data from 2017 to 2022 shows a clear trend. After the TCJA took effect, households earning less than $200,000 paid a smaller share of all personal income taxes, while households earning more than $200,000 picked up a larger portion of the national tab.
This contradicts a favorite claim of the left — that the Trump tax cuts would drain federal revenue and explode the deficit. Yes, the deficit has worsened since the TCJA took effect, but not because tax revenues collapsed. The truth is just the opposite.
In 2017, the IRS collected about $3.5 trillion in total taxes. By 2022, that number had jumped to nearly $5 trillion. Personal income tax collections alone reached $2.13 trillion in 2022 — up half a trillion dollars since the TCJA became law.
The TCJA didn’t starve the Treasury. Federal income tax revenues have grown significantly since 2017. What has fueled the national debt and deficit is not a lack of revenue, but out-of-control government spending.
Middle-class tax relief is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. If Congress fails to act, the fallout will be severe. Many middle-income families could face tax hikes of 18% or more, costing them thousands of dollars over the next few years. Higher earners would face even steeper increases — an economic drag that would ripple across the entire country.
Democrats say they care about working families. If that’s true, why are they standing in the way of the very law that lowered the tax burden on millions of middle-income Americans? Why are they trying to undo the progress that helped working people climb the economic ladder?
The answer is plain: politics. Democrats have opposed the TCJA from the beginning — not because it failed, but because Donald Trump signed it into law.
But the facts don’t lie. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act worked. It lowered tax rates, fueled economic growth, and helped everyday Americans keep more of what they earned.
If Congress doesn’t step in soon and make the cuts permanent, the middle class will once again be left holding the bill.
Americans have largely rejected the left’s silly, childish push for communist ideology over the past 15 years or so. But some of these folks refuse to move on.
In a recent post on X, Melanie D’Arrigo, the executive director of the Campaign for New York Health and vice president of legislation at the New York National Organization for Women, repeated several long-debunked talking points:
If we capped wealth at $999,999,999 we could invest almost $5.9 trillion into improving our country.
And if you’re upset at transferring wealth down, why are you ok with how we pass laws to transfer wealth up— from the working class to billionaires?
Billionaires shouldn’t exist.
Since this is the equivalent of a toddler’s rant, I thought I would provide a toddler’s guide to why billionaires should, in fact, exist.
Mommy, why are there billionaires?
The label of “billionaire” is nothing more than an accounting of the net worth that someone has. But most billionaires aren’t swimming around in a room full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck (which would be impossible anyway). They have most of their net worth tied up in owning a valuable business.
Typically, billionaires have established businesses that employ other people and provide goods and services that others want. Because consumers find those goods and services worthwhile, the business becomes more valuable. Based on the value at any point in time, the founder or manager’s share of that business could be “worth” a billion dollars or more. If it stopped providing value, it could be worthless.
Why should you or anyone else get to decide that someone has 'too much' wealth?
Billionaires exist most of the time because they created a lot of value for others, as well as themselves.
But aren’t billionaires bad?
Creating value is never a bad thing. Generating jobs and providing essential goods and services play a crucial role — arguably more important than most of what the government does these days!
Why can’t we just take away their money?
Taking someone’s money away is theft. Theft is wrong and a violation of your property rights, honey. Someone can’t just come in here and say you have too many toys and take some of them away. One can’t say that your room is too big and others need shelter, so you have to let strangers sleep in your room.
As Thomas Sowell said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” It sounds like you are the one being greedy, sweetie!
But why can’t we just cap their money at $999,999,999?
You just made up that number. And the word you’re looking for is wealth. Why should you or anyone else get to decide that someone has “too much” wealth?
Also, incentives drive outcomes, so if you cap wealth, you limit the incentives for others to make investments, to innovate, and to provide important value to the world.
That money could help other people!
Wealth isn’t just other people’s money. In many cases, it isn’t money at all. Businesses provide value that benefits others.
More government funding hasn’t led to better results. Spending has increased over time, yet the only clear beneficiaries are government cronies!
America remains one of the most generous nations, donating more to charity than any other country in the world.
But it’s almost $6 trillion!
If you tried to take away billionaires' business stakes, the value of those businesses would go down, so you would never see the $6 trillion, and it would hurt the wealth of middle-class Americans whose pensions and 401Ks are invested in the stocks of those companies.
Also, the U.S. government spent almost $7 trillion last year, so taking that money wouldn’t fund the government for even a year, and then where would the government get money the next year?
Your arguments truly make no sense — which I guess is understandable since you are a toddler.
I don’t care! Billionaires shouldn’t exist!
Adults who use toddler logic shouldn’t exist, but here we are. Now, go eat your vegetables.
I hope this guide proves useful when Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, Melanie D’Arrigo, or someone else presents a toddler-level argument about billionaires.
Parents, teachers, philanthropists, and students aren’t waiting for American higher education to fix itself. They’re pioneering new colleges and universities now.
www.theblaze.com