Why Republican victories keep delivering Democratic policies



Conservatives often imagine that winning statewide elections means gaining control over the machinery of government. But this is wrong — and dangerously so. For far too long, red states have confused the two. The assumption that political victory automatically confers political authority is one of the chief falsehoods circulating on the right. It is the reason Republican states often look like Democrat ones, only with different bumper stickers.

This is an uncomfortable but necessary message for conservatives to hear: Red states are facing a major crisis of governance.

Red states have built conservative brands on progressive machinery.

The State Leadership Initiative’s new “Index Report” lays out the evidence in extensive detail. By the most basic measures of lean, accountable, and ideologically grounded government, red states are failing. Many of the policies their representatives are voting for and their governors are signing into law are profoundly out of step with the wishes of voters. Bureaucracies are bloated, universities multiply administrators faster than scholars, schools have fewer teachers than administrators, New York-style regulations pile up in red states like Texas, and seven of the 10 most federally dependent states wear the Republican label.

The key takeaway is not just that red states are doing poorly — it is that red states are almost indistinguishable from blue states on the metrics that matter.

This is not conservative governance. It is branding atop the chassis of managerial progressivism. Governors may cut a ribbon, sign a bill, or post a slogan, but beneath the surface, the operating code of their states is indistinguishable from California’s.

How can this be the case?

The bureaucratic cartel

The deeper reason for this unfortunate reality is explored in the State Leadership Initiative’s second major publication, the “Shadow Government Report.” It shows how state bureaucracies have been colonized — quietly, methodically — by a cartel of national associations and professional guilds no voter ever approved. These groups wield more influence over daily governance than most state legislatures, yet they are invisible to the public, untethered from electoral accountability, and drenched in progressive orthodoxy.

These associations are neither think tanks nor trade associations in the old sense. Yet they wield massive powers: They write standards, provide training, host conferences, and broker grants. These guilds credential personnel and tell agencies what “best practice” means.

Because legislators rarely read the fine print in the legislation they pass, the blueprints crafted by these associations become the law of the land by default. When the public wonders why every state suddenly adopts the same jargon, the same metrics, and the same “tool kits” on climate, equity, and inclusion, the answer is almost always because the same group of associations decided it.

The depth of ideological capture in these associations is astounding. The examples border on parody. The National Association of State Treasurers insists that environmental, social, and governance investing is a fiduciary duty and trains treasurers in diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The National Association of Medicaid Directors declares equity — not health outcomes — the “foundational principle” of Medicaid reform and pushes race-based service priorities.

The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials maintains that “structural racism” is a public health emergency and coordinates messaging on abortion, climate, and even online speech with the White House.

The National Association of State Procurement Officials encourages states to embed race- and gender-based scoring rubrics into contracting, turning neutral bidding into an ideological loyalty test.

The National Governors Association, which is supposedly a bipartisan forum of executives, functions as a relay for the left, peddling DEI and ESG tool kits like a traveling salesman.

These examples are far from exhaustive.

National associations operate outside democratic oversight while having a greater influence over shaping state policy than most legislatures. They are the Trojan horses of managerial progressivism. While legislators debate property-tax rates or curriculum, these associations push a suite of prepackaged policies — procurement guidelines, Medicaid waivers, regulatory thresholds — that heavily favor the status quo.

Protecting progressives

Civil service rules protect progressive careerists from political oversight. University boards rubber-stamp DEI because accreditation bodies — another arm of the cartel — say so. Procurement officers copy and paste National Association of State Procurement Officials templates. Medicaid directors take their orders from the National Association of Medicaid Directors rather than the governor.

The bureaucrats Republican governors inherit have been trained in association doctrine, are credentialed by association certifications, and are acculturated in association conferences. Even the vocabulary their agencies use — “resilience,” “inclusion,” “climate readiness,” “public-private partnership” — is imported from slide decks in Washington, D.C.

Our adversaries built the shadow government that now runs the states. The only question is whether conservatives will summon the courage to challenge it.

You may elect a conservative governor. But if his health agency still sends staff to Association of State and Territorial Health Officials trainings, his Medicaid office still uses National Association of Medicaid Directors templates, and his treasury department still follows the National Association of State Treasurers guidelines, the day-to-day governance is leftist by default.

Even if personnel are swapped out, the new trainees will be accepting “best practices,” model regulation, and training seminars from supposedly neutral industry experts. But this neutrality is a farce.

The result is a peculiar kind of political theater. Voters think they have chosen a government. Governors think they are in command. But the machinery hums along, indifferent to election returns and guided by national bodies whose values are taken from the faculty lounge and the federal bureaucracy. It is government by autopilot — and the autopilot was programmed by the left.

Rooting out the cartel

The cartel of leftist national associations needs to be dealt with in order for red states to prosper. The remedy is not tinkering around the edges but an aggressive structural overhaul.

First, states must begin by auditing and restricting association membership. Every agency should disclose its dues, trainings, grant pipelines, and template adoptions. Sunshine is a good disinfectant.

Second, agencies should be barred from importing association policies without legislative approval. If a procurement office wants to adopt National Association of State Procurement Officials rubrics, let it defend that choice in front of elected representatives in open hearings.

Third, association-led DEI trainings should be prohibited outright; they are not professional development but bureaucratic catechism.

Fourth, rival associations must be built, as the State Financial Officers Foundation has already done, to provide training and credentials aligned with republican self-government.

Finally, and most importantly, political leadership must penetrate the bureaucracy — more appointed positions, stronger sunset rules, and the restructuring of state agencies that resist accountability.

Some will protest that this sounds radical. It is not — it is the work of self-government. The radicalism lies in the present arrangement, in which anonymous guilds in a faraway capital dictate to sovereign states what their procurement contracts should look like or what principles guide their Medicaid systems. The radicalism lies in states whose constitutions enshrine republican rule yet whose daily operations are outsourced to entities their people cannot name.

This reform in red states is not optional if conservatives mean to govern.

Changing the machinery

The Index reveals the failures; the Shadow Government Report reveals the cause. Paired together, they teach a crucial lesson: Red states have built conservative brands on progressive machinery. They talk like Jefferson but regulate like Albany. They thump their chests about liberty while paying dues to organizations that smuggle equity quotas into their hiring manuals.

RELATED: The deep state is no longer deniable — thanks to Tulsi Gabbard

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

To continue on this path is to win hollow victories, mistaking campaign slogans for statecraft. It is to send governors into battle armed with speeches while the other side controls the maps, the supply lines, and the ammunition. The work ahead is not to shout louder but to actually govern — to tear down the scaffolding of association rules and build institutions that are faithful to the people they’re supposed to serve. Until that is done, every red state risks being a blue state in disguise.

Governance is not automatic. It is not the inevitable byproduct of winning elections. It is the patient, disciplined, steady construction of institutions aligned with the people’s will. Our adversaries have known this for decades. They built the shadow government that now runs the states. The only question left is whether conservatives will summon the courage to challenge it.

Editor's note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

World Economic Forum anoints BlackRock CEO after investigation into Klaus Schwab goes nowhere



German economist Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in 1971 with the aim of engaging "the foremost political, business, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agenda."

During his tenure, the WEF founder made no secret of his desire to radically reshape the world, pushing for a "Great Reset" of capitalism, pressuring businesses to commit to eliminating carbon emissions, grooming a network of future politicians, and characterizing "misinformation and disinformation" as two of the greatest threats facing humanity.

'You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors.'

Under Schwab's leadership, the WEF also informed the masses in 2018, "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy."

After five decades in the role, Klaus Schwab announced on April 1 that he was stepping down as chairman.

The WEF originally indicated that Schwab would complete his departure by January 2027; however, he stepped down on April 21 after his organization launched an investigation into allegations that he engaged in financial and ethical misconduct.

The forum announced on Friday that the investigation found "no evidence of material wrongdoing by Klaus Schwab" as well as who would replace him: Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, and André Hoffmann, vice chairman of the Swiss drug company Roche. The billionaire duo will serve as co-chairs.

RELATED: 'Dystopian nightmare': AFT boss Randi Weingarten announces curriculum partnership with World Economic Forum

Brian Kaiser/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"This moment marks a pivotal transition for the World Economic Forum. The board will now focus its attention on institutionalizing the Forum as a resilient International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation," the forum said in a statement. "This next chapter will be guided by the original mission developed by Klaus Schwab: Bringing together government, business, and civil society to improve the state of the world."

Schwab's mission might be easier to accomplish with Fink at the helm, given that he also runs the world's largest asset manager, which reported $11.58 trillion in assets under management in the first quarter of this year and has offices in 30 countries.

Fink, like his predecessor, was an early champion of handcuffing investing to liberal environmental, social, and governance agendas and has evidenced a willingness to socially engineer human behavior.

'What's emerging now is globalization's second draft.'

When discussing the imagined importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in a 2017 interview, Fink said that "behaviors are going to have to change. This is one thing we’re asking companies. You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors."

Years later, Fink vowed in a letter to shareholders to "embed DEI into everything we do."

While BlackRock dropped its DEI goals earlier this year, citing "significant changes to the U.S. legal and policy environment related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) that apply to many companies," the WEF could afford Fink another vehicle to push the divisive agenda abroad.

Fink also apparently shares Schwab's globalist outlook.

Fink noted in a recent op-ed in the Financial Times that "globalization is now coming apart," thanks in part to the Trump administration's "backlash to the era of what might be called 'globalism without guardrails.'" The BlackRock CEO, evidently not a fan of nationalism, expressed cautious optimism that "what's emerging now is globalization's second draft."

Fink suggested in a joint statement with Hoffmann that the need for the forum is greater than ever and that it "can serve as a unique catalyst for cooperation, one that fosters trust, identifies shared goals, and turns dialogue into action."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A New Tax Provision Supposedly Targeting Junk Lawsuits Actually Imperils Conservatives

Trial lawyers and the left deserve a good thrashing (policy-wise), but that isn’t what these bills do.

BlackRock and friends may soon control your digital wallet



America is on the edge of a financial cliff, and Washington’s so-called “solution” is yet another clever ploy that could further centralize power and lead to a reduction in freedom.

The latest scheme is a bipartisan bill dubbed the Genius Act. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on Tuesday by a vote of 68-30. The bill now moves on to the House, where its prospects are less clear.

It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty.

Supporters of the law claim it will modernize digital finance by issuing new regulations for stablecoins, shoring up assets currently used by millions of people worldwide.

But the legislation comes with serious threats to liberty as well. It could ultimately become a backdoor way to create a digital dollar, one that offers minimal privacy protections and is easily controlled by massive institutions unaccountable to voters.

What is the Genius Act?

Officially named the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act,” the Genius Act aims to bring order and credibility to the booming stablecoin market.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies tied to supposedly “stable” assets like the U.S. dollar. USD Coin and Tether — two of the most widely used — circulate more than $200 billion combined.

The bill creates a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, allowing them to operate under either state or federal supervision. Lawmakers believe this approach will boost credibility with consumers and financial institutions.

The legislation also forces issuers to disclose their reserve assets, submit to public audits, and comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. That law requires financial entities to implement know-your-customer protocols and anti-money-laundering measures — rules that many stablecoin issuers currently avoid.

Most importantly, the Genius Act would force issuers to back their coins with liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars and Treasury securities. For example, for every USD Coin distributed, the issuer would need to maintain $1 in reserves or Treasury bills of equivalent value, ensuring that users can always exchange their stablecoins for dollars.

The Genius Act has drawn broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers from both parties praise its regulatory ambitions. But behind the applause lie serious risks.

Programmable money vs. financial freedom

The bill lays the foundation for a programmable digital currency system — one that lacks basic protections for privacy and liberty.

By granting stablecoins federal recognition and placing them under strict oversight and reserve rules, the Genius Act effectively turns them into government-blessed digital dollars, even if the federal government doesn’t issue them directly.

That might sound like progress — if the bill actually protected consumers. But it doesn’t.

The legislation includes no safeguards to prevent stablecoin issuers from linking usage to social credit systems, such as ESG scores, or restricting legal but politically disfavored transactions. These programmable currencies could easily reflect the ideological preferences of their creators.

RELATED: A brutal wake-up call from America’s most powerful banker

Photo by Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Want to donate to a political cause that a stablecoin company opposes? Expect a digital roadblock. Want to buy red meat, a gas-powered car, or anything else that fails to meet an ESG benchmark? Your money might simply stop working.

That’s not science fiction. That’s the likely outcome if Congress fails to add robust consumer protections to the Genius Act.

A forced hand

No one needs to use stablecoins — at least not yet. The Genius Act doesn’t eliminate traditional dollars. For now, consumers still have alternatives. But that could change quickly.

Stablecoins regulated by the U.S. government offer clear advantages over traditional currency. They move instantly, cost little or nothing to send, and operate around the clock. Because they’re digital, they require no physical infrastructure to create or distribute.

In nearly every respect, government-regulated stablecoins outperform paper money. Once the U.S. government legitimizes them and guarantees their safety, adoption will surge.

As usage grows, demand for traditional dollars could shrink. The companies issuing stablecoins would gain enormous control over economic life. Financial institutions could even begin phasing out physical currency, leaving those who resist digital money with no practical alternative.

That’s why Congress must include strong protections for individual liberty in any bill that accelerates stablecoin adoption. Without those safeguards, Americans may one day wake up to find their economic freedom coded out of existence.

A boon for Treasurys

One of the primary reasons so many in Washington support the Genius Act is that it would increase demand for Treasury bills, which helps the federal government finance its massive debt.

The Genius Act would require stablecoin issuers to back their currencies with cash or U.S. Treasurys. Of the two options, Treasury bills often make more sense for the companies issuing stablecoins. Why? Because Treasury bills pay interest.

Washington is drowning in red ink. With over $36 trillion in national debt and counting, the government desperately needs someone to keep buying its IOUs. Stablecoins could offer a trillion-dollar solution. By 2028, the Treasury Department estimates that stablecoin issuers could hold up to $1 trillion in Treasurys, so long as legislation like the Genius Act becomes law.

The Genius Act isn’t primarily about innovation. It’s about bailing out a bankrupt government.

Who’s pulling the strings?

Even more troubling is who stands to benefit. Major players behind these stablecoins include BlackRock, Fidelity, and other financial giants with deep ties to the globalist ESG agenda and organizations like the World Economic Forum. These aren’t neutral actors. They are ideological enforcers with an appetite for control.

Are these the people we want managing the digital currency of the future?

Are these the institutions we trust to safeguard our freedoms?

It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty. If we do not act now, we may soon find ourselves in a nation where every transaction is tracked, every purchase scrutinized, and every dollar you “own” is merely rented from a system that can revoke your access with the flick of a switch.

Trump Admin Throws Weight Behind Lawsuit Alleging Wall Street Embraced ESG To Shut Down Coal

The Federal Trade Commission is throwing its weight behind a high-profile federal lawsuit led by 12 Republican-led states accusing three of the world's largest asset managers—BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard—of artificially constricting the coal market in violation of U.S. antitrust laws, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The post Trump Admin Throws Weight Behind Lawsuit Alleging Wall Street Embraced ESG To Shut Down Coal appeared first on .

Bill Targets Indiana Treasurer Who Stops Banks From Canceling Christians, Gun Owners

Indiana's treasurer helped push banks to back down on canceling conservatives, and now a banker-backed bill would strip his office's powers.

AmeriCorps Is Being Used to Indoctrinate Participants With DEI In Violation Of Trump’s Executive Order

Training programs to enter AmeriCorps have been indoctrinating participants into having an anti-American worldview.