Search the KHIT Blog

Thursday, July 11, 2024

Tha Age of Grievance

“Measuring misfortune is no strategy for living.”
2, A Good Word Spoiled

Not all grievances are created equal. I want to say that again. I want to be clear. And not all expressions of grievance raise identical concerns. Some don’t raise any at all. There are wildly disproportionate outbursts, mildly disproportionate outbursts, and ones scaled defensibly and even commendably to their trigger. There is January 6, 2021, and there is everything else. Attempts by leaders on the right to minimize what happened that day and lump it together with protests on the left are as ludicrous as they are dangerous.

What’s more, the fruits of the grievances on the left don’t match the fruits of the grievances on the right, and for all the talk about how illiberal both camps have become, it’s the right that currently poses the much greater threat to the country, both in terms of its disregard for democratic institutions—for democracy itself—and the behavior it provokes, sanctions, and sometimes even glorifies. The foiled plot to kidnap and possibly assassinate a prominent elected official, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, was hatched by right-wing terrorists. It’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, an enormously popular right-wing lawmaker, who’s infamous for statements such as one in a speech at a gala for the New York Young Republican Club in December 2022, when she made light of January 6 by saying, “I will tell you something. If Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention, it would’ve been armed.”

It’s Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, who lashed out at the federal bureaucracy and indulged the darkest fantasies about the dimensions and depravity of the “deep state” by saying that if elected president, he’d “start slitting throats on Day One.” It’s Kari Lake, the failed Republican candidate for governor of Arizona in 2022, who seemed to be emulating Greene (what a thought) when she reacted to Trump’s federal indictment for treating classified documents like a personal stamp collection in June 2023 by saying: “If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have to go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And I’m going to tell you, most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA.”

It’s Trump himself whose response to the far-ranging, grave legal predicament that he brought upon himself went beyond any sort of rebellion and resistance that a Democrat of comparable stature in modern times had called for. He waged an unfettered verbal assault on the American government and issued an unqualified vow to demolish certain American institutions. As the indictments rolled in, as the civil trials in which he was a defendant commenced, and as his fury pinballed from one courtroom and judge to another, his language grew ever darker, ever more dangerous. He labeled the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other byways of the federal bureaucracy in general and the Biden administration in particular “a sick nest of people that needs to be cleaned out immediately,” “fanatics,” “fascists,” and “sinister forces” who were engaged in “vicious persecution.” No, no, make that “demented persecution.” He called Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, a “monster” and, on the first day of his civil trial on the fraud charges that she’d brought against him, publicly stated that people “ought to go after this attorney general.” That chilling directive belonged to a lengthening sequence of violent musings, including his insinuation that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump’s presidency, should be executed for treason and his recommendation, during a speech to California Republicans, that shoplifters be shot as they left stores. His remarks increasingly amounted to sputtering thesauruses of thuggery with which he seemed to be pledging bloody payback. As Andrew Coyne, a columnist for the Globe and Mail of Toronto, wrote: “This is not the reaction of a normal person. It is not even the reaction of a mob boss. It is the reaction of a Batman villain.”

And that was before Trump used the occasion of a Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire in November 2023 to say that if he won the presidency anew in 2024, he would “root out” what he referred to as “radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” Challenged about the echoes of Nazism and fascism in that pledge, a Trump campaign spokesman defended it, exulting that the “sad, miserable existence” of its critics “will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.” The tenor of that vow matched the totalitarian fantasies of Trump, his advisers, and his allies, who envisioned and made plans for a federal workforce meticulously stocked with Trump loyalists and an army of federal prosecutors intensely focused on Trump’s enemies.

What’s more, there’s no left-wing analogue to Fox News, no media enterprise of commensurate reach that consciously pursued a commercial strategy of lying to its viewers, as Fox did about one of the most consequential matters of all: who won a presidential election in the most powerful country on earth. That’s what led to the settlement with Dominion, a maker of voting machines and the butt of hour upon hour of Fox programming that aired baseless claims—claims that Fox’s hosts and executives knew to be laughable: that those machines were rigged to switch votes from Trump to Biden.

But it’s also true that on both sides of the political divide, there’s a quickness to grievance, a tendency among many people to identify themselves and interpret events in terms of past, current, and looming hurts. There’s a psychological and emotional impulse—a way of approaching and assessing the world—that transcends partisan affiliation. It’s not so much bipartisan as it is pan-partisan or supra-partisan, and it’s getting worse. It exiles nuance. It rejects the kind of triage that a checks-and-balances government, which can deal with only so much so quickly, must do, even as it lengthens the odds of that government being able to do anything at all. It places personal over public interest. It turbocharges conflict.

That was one of the saddest revelations of the coronavirus pandemic, which posed a threat so universal and dire that it should have put the usual animosities on ice. At the start, I naively thought—or, more accurately, hoped—that it would. As we confronted a previously unthinkable shutdown of life as we knew it and fumbled our way through remote work, contactless grocery shopping, virtual family get-togethers, and the whole surreal rest of it, I wondered whether the suspension of normalcy would include an abnormal (but welcome!) discovery of the kind of solidarity that the country had experienced for a brief period after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when President George W. Bush suddenly had an approval rating north of 85 percent. (The intensely pitched debates about national security versus civil liberties and about the wisdom of invading Iraq came later.)

But much had changed in the nearly two decades between the shattering of the World Trade Center and the shuttering of all of New York City, and by 2020, national solidarity was a political yeti. Battle lines were quickly drawn. Rival camps promptly emerged: people who wanted to err on the side of epidemiological caution and those who felt that individual preference took precedence over any government edict, no matter how well intentioned, especially given how fledgling and fluid our understanding of the pandemic was; people who gave experts the benefit of the doubt and those who rebelled against what they saw as facile groupthink; people who instinctively admired Dr. Anthony Fauci and people who reflexively abhorred him; masking evangelists, some of whom muttered the wish that the virus would winnow the ranks of the reckless, and masking apostates, for whom all the shutting down and covering up was rank liberal opportunism…

Bruni, Frank. The Age of Grievance (pp. 13-17). Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition. 

So, I was randomly working away online yesterday when an Amazon book recommendation pinged into my inbox. Being long familiar with and a NY Times reader fan of Frank Bruni, I clicked.

About ten pages into the "look inside" preview. I'd seen enough. Notwithstanding that I already still have a good half-dozen fine books in play, this was/is too good to pass up. Download with 1 Click.

Do yourselves a serious favor. Read this book. In light of our most recent events, it could not be more timely. Beyond that, his writing style has me repeatedly, painfully laughing out loud. Dude, yer killin' me.
Peeps, didja all know that, if you are routinely successful at reining in your High Dudgeon Outrage Reflex, you are guilty of snooty Woke Liberal Grievance Able-ism.
Anxiously awaitng.
And, I would be fine with this.

More shortly...

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

Celine: “I Am”

 “You might think you have to give up, but you don’t. You don’t have to move a mountain, just keep moving...”
Amazon Prime documentary. 1 hr & 43 searing minutes of courageous candor. I am speechless.

Stay tuned. Cheryl and I lived in Las Vegas for 21 yeara. We are tight friends with a number of the musicians who staffed her Caesar's residency orchestra. For a number of years, I was the goto "20 feet from stardom" photographer. Never got to meet Celine. Hugs to you, sister.


2. The Profits of Paranoia

For a nation that emerged from history’s most destructive war with an unconditional victory over fascism and a rapidly growing economy, the America of the early fifties was strangely demoralized and apprehensive. Having brushed aside fear itself to overcome the Depression and the Axis, Americans were unable to resist the panic over communism that enabled the rise of McCarthy and his cynical henchman Cohn. The McCarthyites hyped the Red Menace for their own political and personal advancement, encouraging a wave of hysteria that long outlasted the Wisconsin Republican’s meteoric career. Every day, Americans were warned that rising communism threatened their way of life, not only overseas but everywhere, from the schools and universities to the churches, the military, and even the movies.

Looking back, it’s not easy to determine how much of this political offensive was spurred by genuine concern over the Kremlin’s attempts to subvert democracies. Very often, it was advanced by far-right forces aiming to discredit liberals, labor unions, minority groups, intellectuals, and anyone identified with the Democratic Party—and never mind that those liberals were far more effective in opposing communism, both at home and abroad, than their right-wing critics. When McCarthy publicly slandered General George C. Marshall—whose aid and reconstruction program had played a critical role in brushing back Europe’s Stalinist parties—as an instrument of the “communist conspiracy,” the petty partisan motive was plain. McCarthy was trying to smear not just Marshall himself but his boss, President Harry S. Truman—a zealous anti-communist whose “loyalty” programs were an assault on First Amendment freedoms.

Many of the prominent Far Rightists who promoted mythical plots in the postwar years were the same figures whose isolationism and hatred of the New Deal had aligned them with pro-Axis seditionists before the war. McCarthyism’s authoritarian bullying damaged America’s reputation, while providing a convenient propaganda topic for the Kremlin. Such strategic considerations never troubled the Right when there was money to be made.

Confrontations between East and West played out on the global stage, but by the time McCarthy gave his Wheeling, West Virginia, speech warning of Red conspirators in government, the communist movement in the United States was moribund if not dead. By 1950, the tiny cadre of Russian spies in Washington were apprehended and facing prosecution. The Communist Party (CPUSA) had been decimated by federal prosecution of its leaders during the late forties, in a spasm of legal repression that sent dozens to prison and menaced hundreds more with potential prosecution under the Smith Act. And as the monumental crimes of Stalinism emerged, an intense disillusionment gripped party members and sympathizers. The remnant of a few thousand diehards posed no threat to anybody but themselves.

Yet once launched, conspiracy theories tend to fester and spread, without respect to reality, as we have seen in recent years—especially when their cultivation still sustains a profitable enterprise. Decades before social media turned conspiracy-mongering into an online industry, the impresarios of the Far Right found many ways to monetize the “communist conspiracy,” as they exaggerated its dimensions beyond absurdity.

These “professional anti-communists” pioneered the exploitation of “fake news” and disparaged traditional news sources, spreading stories that overstrained credulity. They found the niche audiences that not only believed their far-fetched warnings of imminent doom but would spend good money to hear the bad news. For well over a decade, nearly any speaker who inspired dread of the Red Dawn would draw a paying crowd, no matter how implausible the tale.

In 1962, for instance, rumors quickly spread that Operation Water Moccasin, a military training operation run by the US Army in rural Georgia, was secretly a rehearsal for a United Nations plot to seize power in the US, spearheaded by “barefoot” African guerrillas. (The appeals to racial anxiety were never subtle.) The same nefarious scheme was also said to involve a huge contingent of Chinese Communist troops over the border in Mexico, where they eagerly awaited the signal to invade. Incredibly, the hysteria over this entirely fabricated scenario reached a crescendo across the South that forced the Pentagon to cancel the exercise entirely. A CBS News special investigation later found that panic over a UN takeover had begun when a radio evangelist started the rumor, which gained velocity after a far-right congressman from California, the aptly named James B. Utt, picked it up. By then, of course, the phony story had achieved its principal purpose: to intensify fear and alienation among the targeted audiences.

As a vocation, anti-communism had provided a substantial living and a measure of fame (or infamy) to a host of government informants, industrial consultants, writers, and public lecturers for many years, dating back to the first Red Scare that followed the Russian Revolution. But as the CPUSA declined, so did the prosecutions, congressional hearings, and other platforms that had sustained “experts” on communism, principally former party members who snitched on their ex-comrades. Opportunities in that once-flourishing field were evaporating by the early fifties. But a cohort of bold grifters with a fresh angle—“anti-communist education,” pitched to the suburban masses—was about to show up…

Conason, Joe. The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (pp. 25-27). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Among other things, goes to the topic of this book (cited here):

Also, how might Joe Conasson's work tie into our friends at "Project 2025?" Another huge grift?
More shortly...

Sunday, July 7, 2024

OK, time to get back to work

Unreal smarts, this young scholar.
My follow-on observation:
To use a DNA analogy, genomic diversity is “adaptive” precisely because–mixing my metaphors–“you can’t ever step in the same river twice.” apropos, see @brianklaas’s killer book “Flukes.” #LLM inbreeding is as maladaptive as genetic inbreeding. House of Windsor, anyone?
OK, I was not hip to her until reading a new Science Magazine review of her current book The AI Mirror. Bought her prior release as well (I have no life).

...[M]ost commercial AI systems today are powered by a machine learning model trained on a large body of data relevant to a specific task, then fine-tuned to optimize its performance on that task. 
This approach to AI has made rapid progress in widening machine capabilities, particularly in tasks using language, where we have the most data to train with. Indeed, since so many kinds of cognitive tasks are language-enabled, most experts now regard the term “Narrow AI” as outmoded, much like its predecessor label “Weak AI.” Very large language models, like OpenAI’s various iterations of GPT or Google DeepMind’s Gemini, can now do an impressively wide variety of things: answer questions, generate poems, lyrics, essays, or spreadsheets, even write and debug software code. Large image models can generate drawings, animations, synthetic photos or videos. While such models have a considerable speed advantage over human performance of these tasks, the quality and reliability of their outputs is often well below the peak of human ability. Still, some see evidence of progress toward AGI in their widening scope of action and the flexibility of a single base model to be fine-tuned for many new tasks. While a large language model (LLM) can’t solve a problem unless the solution is somehow embedded in the language data it is trained on, multimodal models trained on many types of data (text, image, audio, video, etc.) are expanding the performance range of AI models still further. 
Even if it no longer makes sense to call these tools “narrow” AI, they remain below the threshold of general intelligence—AGI. But it’s a mistake to explain that in terms of the problems they can’t yet solve. The true barrier to AGI is that AI tools today lack any lived experience, or even a coherent mental model, of what their data represent: the world beyond the bits stored on the server. This is why we can’t get even the largest AI models to reliably reflect the truth of that world in their outputs. The world is something they cannot access and, therefore, do not know. You might think there’s an easy fix: pair an AI model with a robot and let the robot’s camera and other sensors experience the world! But to an AI model, a robot’s inputs are just another data dump of ones and zeros, no different from image and sound files scraped from the Internet. These ones and zeros don’t organize themselves into the intelligent awareness of an open and continuous world. If they did, the field of intelligent robotics—including driverless cars, social robots, and robots in the service industry—would be progressing much faster. In 2015, fully automated cars and trucks were predicted to be everywhere by the 2020s. Yet in 2023, robotaxis piloted in San Francisco were still driving over firehoses, getting stuck in wet concrete, blocking intersections during busy festival traffic, violating basic rules of the road, obstructing emergency vehicles—even dragging a helpless pedestrian.4 It’s not just driving: the real-world performance of most twenty-first-century commercial robots has lagged well behind AI tools for solving language-based tasks. So, what’s the problem? 
A world is an open-ended, dynamic, and infinitely complex thing. A data set, even the entire corpus of the Internet, is not a world. It’s a flattened, selective digital record of measurements that humans have taken of the world at some point in the past. You can’t reconstitute the open, infinite, lived, and experienced world from any data set; yet data sets are all that any AI model has. You might say, “But surely this is true of the human brain as well! What more do we have than data streams from our eyes, ears, noses, and so on?” But your analog, biological brain remains a far more complex and efficient system than even the most powerful digital computer. In the words of theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, “Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe.”5 It was built over hundreds of millions of years to give you something no AI system today has: an embodied, living awareness of the world you inhabit. This is why we ought to regard AI today as intelligent only in a metaphorical or loosely derived sense. Intelligence is a name for our cognitive abilities to skillfully cope with the world we awaken in each day.6 Intelligence in a being that has no world to experience is like sound in a vacuum. It’s impossible, because there’s no place for it to be. 
We humans do inhabit and experience a world, one rich with shared meaning and purpose, and, therefore, we can easily place the outputs of our latest AI tools within that context of meaning. We call these outputs “intelligent” because their form, extracted entirely from aggregated human data, unsurprisingly mirrors our own past performances of skilled coping with the world. They reflect back to us images of the very intelligence we have invested in them. Yet accuracy and reliability remain grand challenges for today’s AI tools, because it’s really hard to get a tool to care about the truth of the world when it doesn’t have one. Generative AI systems in particular have a habit of fabricating answers that are statistically plausible, but in fact patently false. If you ask ChatGPT to tell you about me and my career, it usually gets a lot right, but it just makes up the rest. When my host at a festival I was speaking at used ChatGPT to write my bio for the live audience, the tool listed in a confident tone a series of fictitious articles I haven’t written, named as my coauthors people that I’ve never met, and stated that I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley (I have never studied there). 
Importantly, these are not errors. Error implies some kind of failure or miscalculation. But these fabrications are exactly what ChatGPT is designed to do—produce outputs that are statistically plausible given the patterns of the input. It’s very plausible that someone who holds a distinguished professorial chair at a prestigious world university received her degree from another prestigious world university, like UC Berkeley. This fabrication is far more plausible, in fact, than the truth—which is that, due to harsh economic and family circumstances, after high school I attended a local community college in-between full-time work shifts, and later received my bachelor’s degree from a low-ranked (but dirt-cheap and good-quality) commuter university that offered night classes. When I was offered a PhD scholarship at age 25, I became a full-time student again after eight years in the workforce. I first set foot in a college dorm in my 40s, as a university professor. My story isn’t common. And that’s precisely why ChatGPT selected a more “fitting” story for me; quite literally, one that better “fit” the statistical curves of its data model for academic biographies. Later, we’ll consider the cost of relying on AI tools that smooth out the rough, jagged edges of all our lives in order to tell us more “fitting” stories about ourselves. 
These systems can perform computations on the world’s data far faster than we can, but they can’t understand it, because that requires the ability to conceive of more than mathematical structures and relationships within data. AI tools lack a “world model,” a commonsense grasp and flowing awareness of how the world works and fits together. That’s what we humans use to generalize and transfer knowledge across different environments or situations and to solve truly novel problems. AI solves problems too. Yet despite the common use of the term “artificial neural network” to describe the design of many AI models, they solve problems in a very different way than our brains do. AI tools don’t think, because they don’t need to. As this book explains, AI models use mathematical data structures to mimic the outputs of human intelligence—our acts of reasoning, speech, movement, sensing, and so on. They can do this without having the conscious thoughts, feelings, and intentions that drive our actions. Often, this is a benefit to us! It helps when a machine learning model’s computations solve a problem much faster than we could by thinking about it. It’s great when an AI tool finds a new, more efficient solution hidden somewhere in the math that you’d never look for. But your brain does much, much better than AI at coping with the countless problems the world throws at us every day, whose solutions aren’t mathematically predefined or encoded in data...

Vallor, Shannon. The AI Mirror: How to Reclaim Our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking (pp. 22-26). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Dang. This old washed-up guitar player is majorly impressed.

I am briefly reminded of my June post "The Apple of my AI." Also, "The Coming Wave?"
Searching back through my blog turns up a lot of stuff under "Artificial Intelligence." Shannon would likely take issue with a lot of that stuff. 
One of my faves from a few years ago is "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence."


I like it.

Stay tuned. Tons to reflect upon here. Way more to come...

Saturday, July 6, 2024

OK, where do we stand now?

@NormOrnstein TwitterX thread, July 7th, 2024

Let me be clear: I don’t criticize our media for intense coverage of the health of the president and whether he can fill another term or stay on the ticket. Those are big stories. They are not the only stories. The fact that he is the incumbent does not excuse the inattention to the other major party candidate who was a former president, much less the dereliction of duty that comes with treating his abnormal behavior as normal.

Of course, Biden’s disastrous debate performance was the biggest news. But Trump’s serial lies was also really big, and brushed aside. The revelations from Jeffrey Epstein’s investigation, including the multiple trips Trump took with him, largely ignored. Far worse is what we know will be the consequences of another Trump presidency.

He completely ignored the question in the debate about deporting migrants. It is a clear responsibility of a free press to report on this, meaning the plans to put 12 million people in the United States in detention camps, people that he has called animals. His closest advisor and press secretary are tied directly to Project 2025. It was written in intimate connection withTrump‘s principaladvisors. That he lies openly about whether he knows anything about it no excuse for our press, largely ignoring it.

If Joe Biden has moments where he falters, there is a stellar team of top advisors and staff to keep this from becoming a policy catastrophe. As Liz Cheney has said, even if you don’t like Biden’s policies, the country regularly survives, presidents, whose policies and don’t like.

But as she says courageously and eloquently, we cannot survive the destruction of democracy and fundamental freedoms, which is openly in the game plan of Donald Trump. Trump talks about creating military tribunals to punish his enemies in an administration built around retribution. It is dereliction of journalistic responsibility beyond imagining that this gets shrugged off and not covered as if it were a four alarm fire.

The shocking decisions of the court, especially Chevron and immunity, have not been covered as front page above the full stories or as a runaway Court that will turn governance upside down. Much less Supreme Court that will end up with a 72 right wing extremist margin if Trump is elected, probably including replacing Thomas and Alito with justices at least as extreme and much younger.

Covering the deathwatch around whether Biden survives as a candidate, while ignoring the fact that this is truly an existential election, less about Biden and Trump, and more about whether our democracy survives , is simply not what mainstream press, much less everybody else, should make as their singular focal point. Don’t ignore it but please, please get a grip and make your focus what really matters.

Friday, July 5, 2024

Thursday, July 4, 2024

A Republic,

if we can keep it.
What part of the phrase "Explicit Contingent Threat of Violence" escapes you? What part of the phrase "Capitulate and Submit, or ELSE" escapes you?
  1. A week ago, Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation & architect of Project 2025, responded to Democrats plans to take on Project 2025. Roberts said, “Project 2025 will not be stopped,” & that Democrats are “more than welcome to try” to stop it.
  2. On Tuesday, Roberts was on Steve Bannon’s War room. It was minus Bannon, of course, because he’s in federal prison. Roberts told a guest host: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
  3. Is Roberts threatening people who speak out with violence? What if they protest? What if they vote? He’s saying it will get bloody. The more we learn about Project 2025 and the people behind it, the worse it gets.
  4. Roberts’ comments are not something we can just move on from. They must be taken seriously. It’s one thing for conservatives to like some of the policies Trump espouses. It’s an entirely different thing to suggest they’ll use violence against people who don’t agree. Roberts’ words come in a context and that context is Project 2025.
  5. This morning in my newsletter Civil Discourse we continue to look at Project 2025 & Roberts into, one quote from it is below. Come learn the facts for yourself. 
The Declaration of Independence famously asserted the belief of America’s Founders that “all men are created equal” and endowed with God-given rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” It’s the last—“the pursuit of Happi- ness”—that is central to America’s heroic experiment in self-government. When the Founders spoke of “pursuit of Happiness,” what they meant might be understood today as in essence “pursuit of Blessedness.” That is, an individual must be free to live as his Creator ordained—to flourish. Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought. This pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family—marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like. 
That stuff is single-malt Adrian Vermeule (aged on the truck and served neat), i.e. "Common Good Constitutionalism," wherein Our Moral Betters dictate to us how we ought think and behave.
Forcibly, should Kevin Roberts et al deem it necessary.
Ultimately, the Left does not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else. They don’t think any citizen, state, business, church, or charity should be allowed any freedom until they first bend the knee. [Foreword, pg 16]
Cue the violins.
I guess I'm one of the hated "Left."

Bring it (knowing full well you'll delegate to some Proud Boys for the actual dirty work).


Alabama Policy Institute

Alliance Defending Freedom

American Compass

The American Conservative

America First Legal Foundation
American Accountability Foundation
American Center for Law and Justice
American Cornerstone Institute
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
American Legislative Exchange Council
The American Main Street Initiative
American Moment
American Principles Project

Center for Equal Opportunity

Center for Family and Human Rights
Center for Immigration Studies

Center for Renewing America

Claremont Institute

Coalition for a Prosperous America
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Conservative Partnership Institute
Concerned Women for America

Defense of Freedom Institute

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Family Policy Alliance

Family Research Council

First Liberty Institute

Forge Leadership for Defense of Democracies
Foundation for Government Accountability

The Heritage Foundation

Hillsdale College

Honest Elections Project
Independent Women’s Forum

Institute for the American Worker
Institute for Energy Research

Institute for Women’s Health
Intercollegiate Studies Institute

James Madison Institute

Keystone Policy

The Leadership Institute

Liberty University

National Association of Scholars

National Center for Public Policy Research
Pacific Research Institute

Patrick Henry College

Personnel Policy Operations

Recovery for America Now Foundation
1792 Exchange
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Teneo Network

Young America’s Foundation
Be interesting to have a look at their respective annual IRS 990 returns where germane.

Wednesday, July 3, 2024