APRIL 16, 2026

Maggie Thatcher’s Timeless Wisdom

In the second half of the 20th century, she already had prescient insights into America, circa 2026.

BY:          Vince Coyner, The American Thinker (April 11, 2026).

Maggie Thatcher, easily one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, was a no-nonsense woman. She became Prime Minister of the UK in 1979 and would rescue her nation from the economic quagmire her leftist predecessors had created.

Maggie was the daughter of a merchant. And as one might expect from the daughter of someone who had to deal with customers and vendors and regulators, all the while making sure there was something left in the bank at the end of the month, she was a straightforward and pragmatic leader.

For someone born almost exactly 100 years ago, she had a vision of government and culture that we could use more of today. She was something of a combination of Nostradamus, Mark Twain, and (rather sadly) Cassandra rolled into one.

Her thoughts and observations provide an extraordinary insight into many of our problems today.

The clarity began even before she was Prime Minister. In a series of campaign speeches before her historic election, she repeatedly stated a variation of this principle: “If a Government can’t protect citizens and their property against violence, vandalism, and theft, there is little point in having a government at all.” If anything resonates with Americans today, it’s the fundamental failure of government to do exactly that.

In blue cities and states across America, we see examples of career criminals (including illegal aliens) regularly unleashed on their communities, only to kill or rape innocents. From suddenly being found not competent to stand trial to having their sentences slashed because of their age or background, American blood is spilling because Democrats care more about the “rights” of criminals than they do about the lives of innocent citizens. Thatcher cared about innocent citizens: “I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live.”

She also had a clarity on the economics of leftism, saying,

Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.

Maggie clearly understood what most American politicians don’t, namely, that government can spend only as much as citizens produce. Only through taxes or IOUs can the government spend a single penny. Given that our national debt is almost $40 trillion and our unfunded liabilities are approaching $100 trillion, financed by a GDP of $30 trillion, another of her quotes drives home the reality:

We are told that the present Government have learned from their mistakes. I say that they have not learned. They still believe that you can spend your way out of recession and that you can create jobs by inflation… and that is the road to ruin. … You can’t tax and spend your way into prosperity. Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.

(This is more commonly remembered as “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”)

As a merchant’s daughter, Thatcher understood what so many of our career politicians don’t, because so many of them have never had private sector jobs or been part of an enterprise that actually created wealth – and just to be clear, lawyers rarely if ever actually create wealth or anything else of value. A common paraphrase of her remarks about such people is “We have been ruled by men who live by illusions … the illusion that there is some other way of creating wealth than hard work and satisfying your customers.”

Thatcher hit the bullseye with this idea, too, summed up in a common paraphrase: “The patronage state is an arrogant state. It assumes it can spend your money better than you do. Yet it expects you to work for it in the first place.”

Along those same lines, Thatcher anticipated the evolution of the left’s political MO beginning with the ascent of Barack Obama, where every critique, criticism, or disagreement was labeled racism, then expanded to every element of American politics: Homophobic, Islamophobic, Sexist, etc. She clearly recognized the tactics: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

The Iron Lady addressed what would become one of America’s biggest problems when someone like Donald Trump, who is not a creature of the Swamp and wanted to upset the apple cart, came into office:

Whether it is in the United States or in mainland Europe, written constitutions have one great weakness. That is that they contain the potential to have judges take decisions which should properly be made by democratically elected politicians.

If there’s anything that characterizes America in 2026, it’s the army of black-robed judicial activists who think they have the power to transform themselves into the Executive. These leftist judges are making a mockery of our Constitution, and sadly, Congress and the White House are allowing them to do so.

And she understood that the left was not only a danger at home, but was an equally dangerous threat on the world stage. Her frequent speeches about Marx have resulted in this paraphrase: “To the extent that the West is to blame at all for the ills of the Third World, it is to the extent that the West created Marx and his successors, among whom must be numbered many of those who advised the Third World leaders in post-war years.” From the UN to the EU to the Democrat party, Marxism has almost certainly caused more death and destruction across the country and around the world than any other philosophy in all of human history.

And particularly resonant today is the fact that Thatcher understood what it meant to be an ally. After allowing Reagan to use US bases in the UK to strike Gaddafi, while other European allies wouldn’t allow him to use their airspace, she is reputed to have said the following, although it’s a paraphrase of several speeches, not a quotation:

It had the effect of cementing the Anglo-American alliance. What’s the good of having bases if when you want to use them you’re not allowed to by the home country. It made America realise that Britain was her real and true friend, when they were hard up against it and wanted something, and that no one else in Europe was. They’re a weak lot, some of them in Europe you know. Weak. Feeble.

There were many other jewels, of course. These are two of the best:

“Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.”

“Being powerful is a lot like being a woman: If you have to tell someone that you are, invariably, you are not.”

Maggie Thatcher had a clarity of vision and an understanding of the nature of man and the nature of government that few Americans (or Brits for that matter!) appreciate today, and sadly, even fewer politicians.

____________________________________________________________________

Democrat Kings Want Our Heads

What is the real point of these ‘No Kings’ rallies?

BY:          J.B. Shurck, The American Thinker (March 31,2026).

American leftists held another “No Kings” rally last weekend.  Democrats and their ideological allies gathered in city parks and town squares to tell the rest of us how awful we are.  They screamed obscenities and called us “fascists” and “Nazis.”  They demanded President Trump’s removal from office.  Some even brazenly wished for his death. 

To non-leftists, these things are cringeworthy spectacles.  The participants look loony and behave immaturely.  They are not serious people.  Their messages make no sense.  How are they able to protest so vocally if they are living under the yoke of tyranny?  How are they able to call for President Trump’s death if he is truly a malevolent king?  Such riddles are never asked or answered.  We are expected to treat their hurt feelings as reasonable justification for their demands to overthrow the government.  

Democrats’ tantrums resemble nonsensical petitions listing infantile grievances, such as: (1) Hillary really won!  (2) Russia, Russia, Russia!  (3) Don’t forget Epstein!  (4) Trump incited an “insurrection” on January 6!  (5) Biden should have imprisoned Trump!  (6) Kamala really won!  (7) The War in Ukraine is good; the War in Iran is bad!  (8) Trump is attacking the press!  (9) Trump is raising oil prices!  (10) Trump has lost his mind!  (11) Trump will never leave office!  (12) Trump must leave Venezuela and Cuba alone!  (13) Israel controls Trump!  (14) We’re all going to die from “climate change”!  (15) Trump wants to bring back slavery!  (16) Trump is committing “violence” against “trans” kids!  (17) Trump is intentionally dividing the country!  (18) “Undocumented” immigrants are Americans!  (19) The votes of “undocumented” voters must be counted!

This “writ of grievances” sounds as if it came from the addled minds of a bunch of nutters hopped up on amphetamines.  Leftists want to overthrow the government but insist that Trump should be in prison for trying to “overthrow” the government.  They think Biden was of sound mind but that Trump has lost his marbles.  They ignore all of Epstein’s ties to Bill Clinton and other Democrats, while insisting Trump did something nefarious.  They call for “hate speech” and “misinformation” to be prosecuted as crimes, while denouncing Trump’s “attacks” on free speech.  They want Trump’s “monarchy” to impose “climate” regulations that would increase fuel costs, while condemning Trump for causing gas prices to rise.  They accuse Trump of fomenting “division,” while organizing nationwide protests fomenting division.  They insist that Trump’s speech represents “violence” but that their violence is protected “speech.”  It’s all very crazy.  If you are incapable of bending over and sticking your head up your own derrière, then you probably can’t make sense of anything they say.

One social media guru named Yogi beautifully lampooned the “No Kings” protests: “The modern left’s definition of fascism: You love your country?  Fascist.  You want to enforce the border?  Racist.  You think parents should raise their kids?  Bigot.  You want to know who’s voting in your elections?  Jim crow.”  Yogi then pointed out how ridiculous leftists are for ignoring all the aristocrats who have been ruling over them for decades: 

“Congress has a 15% approval rating.  80% of Americans disapprove.  97% of incumbents got re-elected.  Chuck Schumer.  46 years.  Longer than Stalin.  Steny Hoyer.  45 years.  Longer than Mao.  Mitch McConnell.  42 years.  5x more than Napoleon.  Nancy Pelosi.  39 years.  Longer than Henry VIII.  Maxine Waters.  35 years.  Longer than Mussolini.  Bernie Sanders.  35 years.  Triple Hitler’s entire reign.  Trump.  5 years and 3 months.  Won the popular vote and the electoral vote.  But Trump is the king.”

Online and in the streets, leftists call for violence against anyone who disagrees with them.  They bully young conservatives.  They target Republicans at their places of business.  They dox ICE agents.  They vandalize churches.  The corporate news media almost entirely ignore these threats to Americans.  Democrat politicians are rarely asked whether they condone such intimidation and violence, but when they are asked, Democrat officeholders go out of their way to paint the aggressors as “victims” and the victims as “aggressors.”  In this upside-down world, Democrats can commit all kinds of crimes and never be punished, while Republicans are prosecuted for made-up crimes.

This two-tiered “justice” in the United States is leading to disaster.  It is no longer possible for the non-leftist half of the country to ignore the fact that leftists commit crimes with impunity, while abusing the court system to target conservatives.  The Trump administration must find some way to hold accountable those who have caused the most harm, while restoring balance and impartiality to the “justice” system.  So far, little has changed.  

The Russia Collusion Hoax nearly took down a sitting president.  Hillary Clinton and her campaign team fabricated a dossier to frame Donald Trump as a Russian agent.  Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Comey, and so many other major players within the American Intelligence Community conspired to push rank disinformation upon the American people that would somehow justify the fact that the FBI and CIA were spying on the Trump campaign (and every other 2016 Republican primary candidate, for that matter).  We endured unethical lawyer Andrew Weissmann’s two-plus-years investigation of President Trump, and the whole thing was a scam meant to cover up Deep State crimes.  The corporate news media played their role as propagandists by treating the fake scandal as the most important story in the world.  To this day, the country is completely divided over the Russia Hoax.  Democrats have been brainwashed to believe both that the Russian Federation got Trump elected and that Trump secretly works for Vladimir Putin.  When close to half the country has been indoctrinated to believe such outrageous lies, someone important must go to jail!  Instead no-one has been held accountable.  

Similarly, non-leftists watched Democrats and their allies burn down cities during 2020’s Black Lives Matter riots.  Leftists caused billions of dollars in property damage, and several dozen people were killed.  Nevertheless, Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats raised money to bail out anybody arrested.  The corporate news media ignored all the violence and destruction and instead framed the country’s costliest riots as some glorious “victory” for civil rights.  

Six months later, however, every American who showed up in D.C. to protest 2020’s election fraud was treated as a violent criminal.  Establishment politicians and corporate news propagandists immediately framed the three-hour frolic through the Capitol as an “insurrection.”  The FBI spent the next two years raiding the homes of Americans with no criminal records.  Prosecutors and judges shamelessly conspired to depict the election protest as an organized attempt to “overthrow the government,” even though none of the protesters carried firearms.  Nancy Pelosi convened a congressional show trial to drum up charges of “sedition” and “treason” against President Trump and his MAGA voters.  Only Trump voters were killed on January 6.  A Capitol Police officer shot and killed unarmed Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt.  Nevertheless, politicians (including installed “president” Joe Biden) and news propagandists continue to lie to the public by claiming that J6 protesters “murdered” police officers that day.  Congress even put up a plaque honoring the same Capitol Police who felt the need to kill unarmed women.

Tina Peters sits in jail for fighting election fraud in Colorado.  Social media platforms still censor conservative voices.  A leftist assassinated Charlie Kirk.  Other leftists have repeatedly tried to assassinate President Trump.  And leftists continue to call us “fascists.”  

Until leftist criminals who promote violence against the rest of us are held accountable, America will continue to descend into madness.  Until prominent Democrats are prosecuted for serious crimes, two-tiered “justice” will remain.  President Trump takes his constitutional oath seriously.  It is the Democrat Party that is filled with lawless, bloodthirsty kings.

________________________________________________________________

The ‘Consent of the Governed’ Myth

Politicians like to use the phrase “consent of the governed” to explain the policies that regulate our lives. 

BY:          Jim Cardoza, The American Thinker (April 1, 2026).

Politicians like to use the phrase “consent of the governed” to explain the policies that regulate our lives. They do not merely suggest passive acquiescence to actions of government but an active, informed agreement between the people and the policymakers. Yet, the phrase has obviously become detached from observable reality. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the state of California.

To say that California’s government operates with the “consent of the people” requires us to believe that millions of workers, families, and small business owners have knowingly and enthusiastically chosen a set of policies that, taken together, impose some of the highest costs of living in the United States while simultaneously eroding long-standing norms of accountability, public safety, and parental authority.

First, consider taxation. California consistently ranks among the highest-taxed states in the nation, with steep income taxes, sales taxes, and a growing array of regulatory costs that function as taxes by another name. These regulations are not abstract burdens borne by some distant class of the wealthy; they are embedded in the price of housing, utilities, food, and fuel. For government at this scale to be considered consensual, one would have to imagine that Californians were clamoring to surrender a greater share of their income than residents of nearly every other state.

The same can be said of energy policy. California’s gasoline prices are routinely among the highest in the country, driven not only by global markets but also by state-specific taxes, regulations, and fuel formulations. Moreover, policymakers press forward with plans to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of electric alternatives, even though the market clearly demonstrates most folks don’t want these cars. To explain this as an expression of popular demand is absurd. After all, if people wanted electric vehicles, they would simply buy them rather than insisting on banning the more desirable alternative.

Food costs offer another illustration. When minimum-wage mandates for fast-food workers rose dramatically, the resulting price increases were predictably passed along to consumers, many of whom are themselves of modest means. As a result, more than 1,000 fast-food restaurants had closed as of September 2024, according to Google Maps data, and the price of a cheeseburger is up 13 percent. If this too reflects “consent,” then we must believe that Californians are actively seeking higher prices for everyday goods. 

Public safety policies raise even more serious questions. Cashless bail systems, reduced penalties for certain offenses, and a broader “decarceration” philosophy have been presented as reforms aimed at equity and fairness. But these policies also carry serious consequences — rising concerns about theft, repeat offenses, and diminished deterrence. To describe such outcomes as consensual is to assume that the public has weighed these trade-offs and concluded that the trade-offs are not just acceptable; they are desirable.

Similarly, sanctuary policies and expanded benefits for those residing in the country illegally. These approaches are unavailable elsewhere for very good reasons. For such policies to be the product of consent, one must believe that Californians have explicitly requested to have their confiscated tax dollars spent not to improve their own lives but rather used as a magnet to attract lawbreakers.

The same pattern appears in the realm of firearms regulation. California enforces some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. One must ask, does the breadth and intensity of these restrictions reflect a clear, informed consensus among the populace — or the preferences of a narrower set of policymakers and interest groups?

Education policy provides another striking example. Reports of schools withholding certain information from parents — particularly on sensitive issues involving students’ identity or well-being — raise fundamental questions about who ultimately bears responsibility for children. If parental authority can be set aside by institutional policy, how can it be argued that the resulting system reflects the considered consent of those parents?

Likewise, the debate over “medical” interventions for minors touches on deeply contested ethical terrain. For government to facilitate or fund such procedures is not merely a political decision; it is a profound statement about values, risk, and responsibility. To describe this as consensual governance requires a level of public agreement that does not exist.

Then there is the matter of infrastructure and public spending, exemplified by the state’s high-speed rail project. Originally presented to voters as a modern, efficient transportation solution, it has since become an icon for cost overruns, delays, and shifting objectives.

When the reality of a project diverges so sharply from its initial presentation, the notion of consent morphs into little more than a bad joke. Consent, after all, depends on accurate information. If what was promised is not what is delivered, then the will of the electorate was never really in play.

Few, if any, candidates campaigned on a promise of making their state the most heavily taxed in the nation, restricting consumer choices, raising the everyday cost of food, hiding information from parents, or transferring cash from the wallets of taxpayers to those of illegal aliens. These outcomes are all leftist pipe dreams — the imposition of one-party rule — not reflections on the will of citizens.

When campaign rhetoric is routinely deployed in order to deceive and misdirect, it is little wonder that the concept of “by consent of the governed” rings hollow to California citizens. 

GFK