The Cheap Political Tract

The Web of Institutional Control in Southwest Missouri

Part One Link Above

This investigation reveals a more troubling picture of how Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) are a critical control mechanism. The Community Foundation of the Ozarks has $427M in assets and $58M in annual revenue. The CFO also operates DAFs and Legacy Trusts, allowing them to influence current and future charitable giving in the community and assess how people think now and far into the future. 

While DAFs technically give donors "advisory privileges" over charitable giving, the Foundation shapes these decisions through a sophisticated institutional control system. A system is created where the families or boards need a narrator to help guide them. In this case, the CFO is favorable to their self-generated Focus Report, so they will focus on charities that fall within their guidelines. 

The Focus Report, developed with the help of the Chamber of Commerce, cannot be criticized or questioned by the media--it must be accepted at all costs because it will be the framework for all the progressive architecture done in the community by the CFO and its partners during 2024. The Springfield Daily Citizen is not a newspaper but a significant public affairs firm for Springfield’s charitable organizations. It is a cheap political flyer like the one you receive in your mailbox during election season. It is written with the same intent and purpose: to influence every citizen's vote and way of thinking daily. It’s programming you subtly to change your point of view to vote their way, to give their way, and to support their radical opinions without even realizing what has happened.  

They need a relatively cheap political tract since they can't always trust the Springfield News-Leader's agenda to match their own. Their current assets are $427M, which means if they can get donations and grants from other organizations to help pay for it, they are out even less. The ROI for what they spend on SDC (about $1M) makes it a relatively cheap way to:

• Control community narrative

• Protection of funded initiatives

• Directed public opinion

• Cover for institutional decisions

• Appearance of independent journalism

For less than .25% of their total assets, or 1.71% of their annual revenue, the SDC becomes efficient and cheap political propaganda for every progressive group in Southwest Missouri. At the same time, they can paint any opposition to their goals as nefarious or dangerous. The SDC is some of the cheapest marketing an organization their size could pay for—especially when they can get other donors to subsidize it. 

The propaganda doesn't benefit the CFO alone. It affects every local Chamber of Commerce, which needs positive news stories about the Schools and Libraries so that voters will pass Tax Bonds. Tax Bonds lead to millions of dollars in interest payments over twenty years for each taxing entity and vendor dollars for the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in contracts for goods and services.

Each community is indebted to banks, sometimes foreign banks like STIFEL, and without the incoming funds, the Chamber of Commerce would struggle to operate. The CoC needs positive reports from news organizations about Tax Bonds so that Real Estate values and Taxes will increase, and their specialized interests will make their community sound enticing to investments from banks, new families, and new businesses. It’s all about permanent growth and building wealth. 

Negative news kills the scores given to community rankings. They want to ensure all news amplifies how fantastic the community is, so their rankings are padded and statistics are ignored. Let’s ignore crime and pay attention to how safe Springfield is. Let’s ignore poverty and celebrate all the wealth in our community. Let’s celebrate our Humanitarians of the Year despite their progressive histories. Let’s whitewash all of our crimes.

The Long Shadow of Chamber Control

The Springfield Chamber's grip on local power didn't happen overnight. I outline this in this article, but I’ll do so again here. Since 1999, the Chamber has systematically influenced who sits on the City Council and who becomes Mayor, including Tom Carlson, who served a second stint from 2001-2009. 

Their strategy evolved through multiple vehicles - first through direct endorsements, then through their Good Government Committee (GGC), formed in 2010 in partnership with the Home Builders Association. When public scrutiny grew too intense, they shifted tactics, shuttering the GGC and announcing they would stop endorsing school board candidates. But this wasn't a retreat—it was a strategic pivot to their Committee for the Future (CFF), focusing on ballot initiatives while maintaining their influence through less visible channels.

The funding mechanism was simple: 10% of member dues went directly to political activities. When this became controversial, they adapted again. Now we see former Chamber leadership, like Jim Anderson (who ran the Chamber from 1988 to 2014), co-chairing new organizations like United Springfield alongside Gail Smart, wife of MSU President Clif Smart (both donors to Springfield Daily Citizen). Gail is running for Springfield Public School Board this April.

The stated mission of the United Springfield PAC is to counter what they call "partisan" and "dark money" groups–in other words, to fight against parents spending their own money to protect their children from radical ideologies in schools. Yet, if you follow their actions and money, Gail and Clif Smart are the holy saints of partisan dark money.

This shape-shifting ability to maintain power while appearing to respond to criticism exemplifies the Chamber's sophisticated control apparatus. When one method draws too much attention, it simply rebrands and restructures while maintaining its core influence. They've moved from direct candidate endorsements to ballot initiatives, from obvious political action to subtle institutional pressure. The faces change, the organizations get new names, but the underlying power structure remains intact.

The brilliance of their current strategy lies in its apparent retreat from politics while deepening its influence through institutional partnerships, Focus Reports, and coordinated community initiatives. They're no longer just endorsing candidates but shaping the framework within which local decisions are made. This isn't just about elections anymore; it's about controlling the metrics by which our community measures success, always aligned with outside standards from entities like the World Economic Forum rather than local values. Using boards through non-profits like the CFO and propaganda firms like SDC is just their newest way of shaping the agenda of the Chamber of Commerce to get people in Springfield to adopt their radical and progressive views. Yet the pressure doesn’t just apply through the news. They shape how donors give money to organizations and non-profits by shaping the narrative at the CFO.

Funneling Funds to the SDC

The system's sophistication appears in the details. How does the CFO manage to continue to direct funds toward the SDC? There are multiple ways they can, but by examining the donor list, you can see one type of connection. 

The Prater family, for instance, appears both in the Legacy Society and as DAF donors, while the Daily Citizen operates through institutional support that masks its actual operational costs. The Foundation maintains plausible deniability through technical donor advisory privileges while, in practice, directing funds toward preferred initiatives and organizations. 

A donor-advised fund acts in many ways, like a stockbroker for a family, giving advice on which charities (stocks) are the best picks, have the best track record (performance), and will be the best investment of their money. This is a trusted relationship for the family and allows them to avoid creating a board to manage the funds left behind by a loved one. It can be a time-consuming task choosing worthy nonprofits out of the tens of thousands in operation every day. A DAF gives some of that responsibility to the Foundation. If they act in the best interests of everyone, then it’s a good relationship. If they have an ideological bent, choosing and picking winners, then the family is often unaware.

Keeping Money in the Family

For the family, donor-advised funds are marketed as vehicles for charitable giving; savvy families have discovered they're also powerful tools for maintaining control of wealth while reaping significant personal benefits. The playbook is elegant in its simplicity: Convert taxable assets into "charitable" funds, then leverage the structure to keep the money working for the family.

Here's how it typically unfolds: A family transfers millions in appreciated assets into a DAF, immediately claiming a hefty tax deduction and avoiding capital gains taxes. But rather than rushing to distribute the funds to charities, they maintain control through "advisory privileges" – a soft term for what amounts to de facto control over the money.

The real magic happens in how families extract ongoing value. They'll place family members in paid positions managing the fund or serving as "expert consultants." The DAF's assets conveniently find their way into family-connected investment vehicles, generating management fees. Meanwhile, the power to recommend grants becomes a form of social currency, building political capital and influence in the community.

The beauty of this arrangement is its technical compliance with nonprofit rules. While direct self-dealing is prohibited, the indirect benefits flow freely. The family reduces their tax burden, keeps their money under their influence, generates ongoing income streams through various fees and salaries, and shapes their community through strategic grant-making—all while maintaining the appearance of charitable giving.

In essence, DAFs offer wealthy families a way to have their cake and eat it, too: converting private wealth into charitable assets while retaining control and extracting value in ways that may honor the letter of the law, if not its spirit.

Following the Money: How DAFs Benefit Their Managers

Behind every donor-advised fund stands an institution, like the Community Foundation of the Ozarks, quietly building a lucrative business model. While these foundations present themselves as charitable facilitators, they've discovered a remarkably stable revenue stream in managing other people's philanthropy.

Consider a typical community foundation that oversees hundreds of millions in donor-advised funds. For every $1 million a donor places in a DAF, a foundation collects annual management fees—usually between $5,000 and $10,000. These fees compound as the funds grow through investment returns, creating an ever-expanding revenue base. The foundation's incentive becomes clear: the longer money stays in DAFs and the more it grows, the more fees they collect.

The real power lies in investment control. When a wealthy donor places $10 million in a DAF, the foundation decides how that money is invested. They can direct it to preferred investment partners, potentially receiving additional benefits or fee arrangements. By pooling multiple DAFs, they gain access to exclusive institutional investment opportunities typically reserved for major players.

This dynamic creates a form of perpetual capital. Take the case of a community foundation with $427 million in assets. If just a quarter of that sits in DAFs, they're collecting over $800,000 annually in management fees alone—before considering any additional investment-related income. Since donors typically recommend grants slowly over time, the principal largely remains invested, generating fees year after year.

For these institutions, DAFs represent the perfect marriage of charitable purpose and financial self-interest. Every new DAF they attract, every dollar of investment growth, directly benefits their bottom line—all while maintaining their charitable status. They've effectively turned philanthropy into a sustainable business model, where managing other people's giving becomes a reliable path to institutional wealth.

Often, nonprofits are forced (groomed) to follow the ideological whims of the donors who demand the platforming of ideas such as diversity, equity, and inclusion before a nonprofit is even considered. Foundations can change the ideological views of nonprofits or families participating in the Donor Advised Funds.

The combination of DAFs, Legacy Trusts, coordinated media coverage, and institutional partnerships creates a self-reinforcing power structure that shapes community decisions while maintaining the appearance of neutral charitable giving. One has to wonder if DAFs and their managers are stock brokers rather than charities–hiding tax burdens for wealthy families under a thin guise of charity and using their wealth and clout to further progressive ideas.

The CFO curates the appropriate charities and picks winners and losers. The CFO’s progressive policies and radical ideas benefit these winners and losers.

Gemini (Google’s AI) clearly outlines how closely the Springfield Daily Citizen is tied to the Community Foundation of the Ozarks. The CFO might as well be the SDC’s parent organization. 

The Power of Philanthropic Inertia

An article like this will expose the connections, but it will take the public’s awareness and actions to impact a foundation as large as the CFO. $427M is money on a scale that is hard for me to fathom. How do you even change the direction of that much inertia? The progressives have, but it took them a century of corrupting churches, seminaries, and universities. 

SDC has kept its sources anonymous. We discovered a $250,000 gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2019—it was their only gift ever to the CFO, marked for "Public Analysis." Two years later, they found the SDC with a former mayor who hasn't amounted to much. But now they are flush with this cash while hiding their donors. Why are they hiding their donors unless they fear admitting who is bankrolling them? Has the Gates Foundation continued to help fund them?

Is the guy who went to Epstein Island and also who wants to vaccinate us all through our food helping to control the news in Springfield, MO? We have a right to know that, but because the SDC is hiding it, we don’t know. They have unique protection as a 501(3)c, and no one can Sunshine Request anything from them.

It’s strange that the Community Foundation of the Ozarks received this one-time gift of $250,000 for Public Awareness and Analysis. It is also odd that a fledging non-profit is hiding its donors. Money attracts money in grantmaking. It’s one of the most crucial rules in grantmaking for a new organization. 

Conservatives need to understand that they must serve on these boards. However, the people who serve on these boards are the powerful and elite. The bigger the board, the more elite the people are. Brian Fogle, who stepped down from leading the CFO, was the father of Betsy Fogle, the progressive Democratic state rep, who won eastern Springfield (despite being a very Red City) because of money from the CFO's connections.

Progressives have learned you don't need the government to control people. You can use these charitable organizations to control people. And they do less good. In many ways, they do far more harm than government services of a welfare state. Their socialism only enriches themselves and impoverishes everyone around them. 

From Nickson’s Recent Article, “It’s Over Lefties: Even the High-End Escorts Have Abandoned Davos.”

Their radical progressive values take money away from families struggling to buy groceries when their initiatives focus on the SDC or DEI (as I will demonstrate in a few paragraphs)–nor does the CFO’s impoverished righteousness provide food stamps. The government, as incompetent as it is running a welfare state, at least gives back something after it takes because it has to be held accountable by the voters. Organizations like the CFO throw out a few food banks, but that $427M stays locked up, growing into even more astronomical amounts rivaling local governments. They, the progressives, tell those who are impoverished that it's business owners who are at fault for causing the poverty. They encourage the poor to take from the rich but exclude themselves because they are the professional class that generates wealth not from building anything but from managing money. They are isolated from criticism and taxes as a non-profit while they point to the creation of their “charities” as proof of their magnanimity. 

To consider the scale of their power, let’s compare them to Queen City. Springfield, MO's budget is $650 million. While the city must provide actual services with public oversight, voting, and transparency requirements, the CFO operates with hidden donors and private decision-making while controlling assets equivalent to about 66% of the entire city's annual operating budget. 

The CFO’s focus on progressive needs in the community does even less good because their chosen minority communities have small footprints requiring smaller amounts of resources. An LGBT chapter might only have 100 members. However, a food bank may need to serve 10,000 families. By meeting the "needs" of the LGBT group by setting up a blood drive (and getting donations for it), they minimize how much they have to give away for the food drive. 

For example, I found an SDC article in which the CFO gave away $120,000 in DEI resources. Yet, Springfield, MO's population is 85.2% white, with a total minority population of less than 15%. In a city of roughly 170,000 people, that means these DEI resources were ostensibly directed at serving about 25,000 people—while poverty affects a much more significant portion of the population (42,500 in 2022 or 25% from the CFO’s own report) regardless of race. Any resources directed at this issue aren't about solving racism in our community but an attempt to give away money towards something that won't drain their resources year after year.

This strategic approach allows them to appear progressive and engaged while minimizing actual resource distribution. They can maintain their progressive credentials and generate positive press while avoiding addressing costly systemic issues—all while their endowment continues growing beyond the scale of local government resources.

A perfect example of how this fascistic system [private organizations working in collusion with media and government to control the populace] operates through charitable structures appears in a 2024 Springfield Daily Citizen "opinion" piece about PrideFest. The story begins by framing conservative Greene County as the antagonist: "As if sponsoring Ozarks PrideFest was not difficult enough in conservative Greene County." 

Before we even get to the actual news—that a registered sex offender attempted to volunteer at a church booth—the narrative is already established. The community, not the lack of vetting procedures, is positioned as the problem.

The author then bizarrely connects this incident to last year's drag show controversy: "Back in 2023, if you recall, some folks were outraged there was a drag show on the main stage at PrideFest." Why include this? It has nothing to do with a sex offender attempting to volunteer. But it serves to paint any community concern, whether about drag shows or sex offenders at festivals, as equally unreasonable. This isn't journalism—it's narrative manipulation funded by the CFO, which gave the GLO Center $21,000 for their "inclusion project" while also supporting the Daily Citizen.

Follow the money and messaging: CFO funds GLO Center→CFO supports Daily Citizen→Daily Citizen writes an "opinion" piece protecting GLO Center while attacking community values. 

Rather than asking hard questions about vetting procedures or public safety protocols, the article focuses on hypothetical "public-relations nightmares" and community intolerance. The actual news–that organizations successfully prevented a sex offender from volunteering at a festival–gets buried under ideological messaging. When foundation dollars control organizations and media coverage, public safety concerns become less important than protecting progressive narratives and funded entities. That's not journalism or charity—it's fascism wearing a philanthropic mask called propaganda or psyops. 

The Global Blueprint

In her article, Local Control highlights the links between the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and The World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF frames childcare as an "$11 trillion opportunity." At the same time, NonProfit Quarterly declares, "Women were forced to leave work in those numbers [4.2 million] due to cultural factors, such as disproportionate care responsibilities." Language and the choice of words are everything for the ruling intelligentsia: family choices become "cultural factors" that need fixing. In contrast, childcare becomes an “opportunity”–not for families, but for institutions.

This re-purposing of language is reinforced by UNICEF's warning that "the pandemic is making a global childcare crisis even worse," creating urgency for institutional solutions while dismissing traditional family and community care structures. The message is clear: family-based childcare is a problem; institutional childcare is the solution. Families cannot be allowed to care for their children despite what human history has allowed for all of human history. We must use public-private partnerships to save children from their families. 

This isn’t about Child Care. This is similar to removing children from their parents, as we see in The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud, to prevent religious “neurosis” from developing by replacing it with something else. To think that the UN, WEF, CoC, or non-profits are genuinely concerned with education and poverty is wholly naive. There are “cultural factors” at play and money to be made, while at the same time erasing the bond between parent and child so the child becomes a malleable resource of the State.

The Chamber Network: Creating "Consensus"

This global agenda flows through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce network. The Hill reports that the National Chamber spent "more than $1.2 billion on lobbying, making it by far the nation's largest lobbying organization." Their president, Tom Donohue, revealed their actual function when he stated that the Chamber's role is to provide "reinsurance" to companies for positions that "aren't publicly or politically palatable." Further, Donohue points out that the Chamber can “do the dirty work for its members without them leaving their fingerprints behind.” If this is true at the national level, it seems true at the state and city level.

The machinery moves down to the state level, where the Missouri Chamber manufactures urgency from startlingly thin evidence–a survey of just 312 people in a state of 6.1 million. As Local Control MO observes: "The Chamber and progressive lawmakers are yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre. It's irresponsible and potentially dangerous."

The Chamber benefits directly from this collusion, even if their values are conservative. They build the libraries and schools purchased with tax bonds. The new “Child Care” crisis means billions, not millions, of dollars in new construction over the next twenty years as each school must develop preschools and early childhood centers. Each of these schools must hire new teachers, which means the Universities will gain new programs and new students to train. 

The subsequent businesses that will develop or benefit include Special Education Law to Disability insurance for teachers to Curriculum, which means trillions, not billions of dollars, to be moved from the Tax Payer to the Government and then back to the Businesses that profit. The Chamber of Commerce has learned how to take from taxpayers through moral conviction and social intimidation as quickly as the threat of an IRS agent. What’s insidious is they use non-profit propaganda from non-neutral news organizations like the Springfield Daily Citizen to convince you to vote for it so they can take the money by social moralizing.

Nonprofit Sector: Legitimizing Control

NonProfit Quarterly's framing reveals how charitable institutions legitimize this control: "When women become parents, they see their pay drop by 30 percent, while men see a 20 percent increase in pay." Rather than questioning this disparity or supporting family choice, they advocate for institutional solutions: "Until Congress passes robust funding increases for child care, states will be left to fill the funding gap." There is no further examination of why this occurs, but to state that there is inequality in the job marketplace for men and women. 

The Quarterly doesn’t dig deeper but parrots numbers as if they are facts without evidence to back them up from the National Women’s Law Center, a left-of-center social policy non-profit. In other words, they are an advocacy group that doesn’t need to get their facts right to tell a story. 

Not because they are left-of-center but because they are an advocacy group. Essentially, they are a lobbyist group aiming to change policy. I wouldn’t trust my math from a lobbyist group seeking to influence policy. Yet, this is how it works. Data is created, then data is shared, and then data is parroted by everyone as if it is true without anyone considering or testing if it is.

The Local Implementation Machine

In Springfield, three institutions work in concert to implement this agenda:

1. The Chamber's Focus Report lists childcare as a key challenge requiring immediate action, echoing their parent organization's priorities.

2. The Community Foundation of the Ozarks ($427M in assets) directs funding toward preferred solutions, using Donor Advised Funds to shape community priorities

3. The Springfield Daily Citizen launches their "Child Care Crisis Project" with coordinated coverage:

•   "Child care waitlists are crazy long"

•   "Desperate parents seek help"

•   "Gov. Parson proposes boosting child care subsidies"

•   “Springfield leaders discuss child care crisis and its effect on workforce"

Each article title reinforces government and institutional solutions while ignoring family-based alternatives. Can we not solve these issues on our own or without government assistance? Are we not capable of surviving without the government? As Local Control MO notes: "They are only pushing for Business Tax Credits. Nothing to help the parents that choose to stay home with their children for the formative years."

The Bipartisan Facade

The system works through both parties, demonstrating this isn't partisan politics but institutional control. Former Republican Governor Parson championed business tax credits while Democratic lawmakers pushed for subsidies. The Springfield Daily Citizen announces: "Missouri child care crisis a top priority for the governor, a bipartisan group of lawmakers."

To run for Governor, Mike Kehoe skipped grassroots Republican events but received favorable media coverage. The Springfield Daily Citizen gave Kehoe a chance to attack his opponents. Bill Eigel was Kehoe’s most prominent opponent, yet they criticize Eigel for wanting a policy for illegal immigration. 

Never once in the interview does the SDC challenge Kehoe. He is given the best interview and the best light possible. Kehoe can praise himself unabashedly. SDC even points out how large Kehoe’s war chest was before the primary without questioning where that war chest came from (Steven Tilley and Rex Sinquefield). It reveals how the system selects and promotes politicians who advance institutional priorities regardless of party label.

Republicans and Democrats work together because Republicans control Jeff City, but the Democrats control the universities, the nonprofit boards, NGOs, city governments, and many corporations. 

Cindy O’Laughlin, Senate Pro Tem, addressed the Senate yesterday, January 10th, 2025, making Childcare a priority for this year’s budget. 

Jon Patterson, who bought the Speaker of the House seat through his expensive donations to the House Republicans Campaign Committee (HRCC), also spoke about how vital childcare is on the day he was elected. 

Other unfinished business, Patterson said, is legislation to encourage businesses to provide on-site child care and expansion of existing child care centers.

“Missouri’s families continue to be burdened with trying to find childcare spots that are too hard to find and too expensive,” he said.

In the Senate, O’Laughlin set an agenda focused on issues affecting children, including the foster care system, education, and health. 

“When families and communities are strong, when children are well nourished and well educated and when our streets are safe, Missouri thrives,” she said.

Between Kehoe, O’Laughlin, and Patterson (they hold arguably the three most powerful political offices in the state of Missouri), I don’t think you could find a single conservative policy. They have aligned almost perfectly with the same progressive policies that we see espoused by the Springfield Daily Citizen and the Chamber of Commerce. So much so that when Patterson was installed as the Speaker, all 52 Democrats voted for Patterson instead of voting for their own Democrat Speaker after the Democrat candidate, Ashley Aune dropped out in a grand spectacle to endorse Patterson. This is the perfect alignment between media, government, and non-government organizations on a manufactured crisis to socially engineer us. 

Yet, is there a crisis?

Surprisingly, there is, but it isn’t the one they are claiming it is. To admit to the real crisis (falling birth rates), they would have to fight abortion, which the three of them have done their best to enshrine this past year as a constitutional amendment. The three of them will make sure abortion remains a constitutional amendment for up to 9 months with some of the most radical language in the entire country. We are not a Supermajority of Conservatives. Fascists captured us and claimed they were part of a Constitutional Republic.

The Birthrate Crisis

First, you need to understand that the leading cause of death throughout the entire world is Abortion. From surgical abortion to the Plan B pill, we are aborting children at an unimaginable rate. 

In January 2024, Worldometer, a live statistics website, reported that 44 million elective abortions were performed in the year 2022, thereby making abortion the leading cause of human death.

According to Worldometer, the second leading cause of death in 2022 was communicable diseases, causing almost 13 million victims. Deaths attributed to infectious diseases and cancer accounted for more than 8 million deaths, while smoking caused approximately 5 million deaths. Alcohol contributed to 2.5 million deaths, and AIDS resulted in around 2 million deaths. All these combined still fall short of the number of lives lost due to abortion in 2022.

Legalized Abortion in Missouri will see our State’s birth rate fall tremendously. It is already precipitously low. 

In ten years, our birth rate has dropped from 75,400 children a year to 68,954 children a year. Our population has increased from about 3M in 1910 to about 6.2M in 2020. For the last 10 years, our population has been relatively stable, without much change. We’re not increasing or busting at the seams with new children. 

The push for easy abortions is having an effect. Fewer and fewer individuals are coming up through the school system. You can see the immediate impact Roe V. Wade had on the age group about 50 years ago. There are far fewer people in the age group of 45-49 than in any other group. That’s my age group. We were aborted eagerly by our parent’s generation for their Free Love. We should be furious. Look at what’s happening to the youngest group under 5. They are being aborted, too. 

Why do politicians talk about it like it’s a childcare crisis then when fewer children need childcare? They see that the largest group is preparing to leave high school schools across the nation, which are going to look empty, and one of the largest unions in the country will have teachers who aren’t employed. 

This isn’t about the children. This is about keeping jobs and Union dues up. This isn’t even about keeping teachers employed. This is about the influence that Unions will have over policy decisions. This will be about the School Bonds that won’t be passed or the new buildings that won’t be built. Schools will sit empty if they don’t act now. Billions of dollars will not be spent on interest payments. International banks will not fill their coffers with easy, dependable US taxpayer money collected from the wealth of personal and real estate taxes across our nation. 

Kehoe, O’Laughlin, and Patterson are participating in the fascistic enslavement of us and our children because they don’t have the backbone to say that it is wrong to abort children even as a national policy, much less as a moral issue.

To attempt to save a broken and bloated system, they are forced to capture more children in the dysfunctional entrapment system we call Public Schools. Our children will be destroyed and oppressed even earlier by a mind-numbing loss of creativity and autonomy to produce and serve the state.

Modern Fascism: The Partnership of Power

This demonstrates modern fascism's evolution—the merger of corporate and institutional power happening not through direct government control but through seemingly benevolent organizations:

1. Global institutions set the agenda (WEF, UNICEF)

2. National organizations create the framework (US Chamber, Biden administration)

3. State actors manufacture the crisis (Missouri Chamber's survey)

4. Local institutions implement control:

   - Chamber shapes priorities through Focus Report

   - CFO directs funding ($427M in assets at their disposal)

   - SDC provides media coverage ($1M annual budget)

   - All while maintaining the appearance of independent action

In the video linked to this X post by Wall Street Apes, an EPA employee talks about the $50 billion they have madly funneled away to NGOs and Nonprofits so that the EPA employees can have jobs when they leave. This will guarantee that NGOs and Nonprofits continue the work of the EPA employees of the Biden administration through the Green New Deal, fighting against the Trump Administration until they can be redeployed by a friendly administration sympathetic to their radical and progressive views. This is how the circle of life works for Nonprofits and NGOs now–feeding on American Taxpayers like a bloated tick until it falls off and seeks out its next target, not caring that it has weakened its host or that it’s one of thousands feeding off the same defenseless target. 

The "Cultural Factors" Weapon

The weaponization of the non-profits occurs when they redefine family choices as "cultural factors" that need institutional correction. When NonProfit Quarterly talks about "cultural factors" forcing women from work, they create a problem only institutions can solve. Cultural Factors are too complex for a family to solve. How can a family solve cultural factors when raising their children? Families need something much grander than themselves. Traditional family structures become barriers to overcome rather than choices to support.

This explains why the childcare "crisis" focuses exclusively on institutional solutions:

• Government funding

• Corporate tax credits

• Institutional childcare

• Workforce participation metrics

• Never family support or community-based solutions

The Result: Institutional Control

The outcome is a system where:

1. Global agendas become local policies

2. Family choices face institutional pressure

3. Media amplifies preferred narratives

4. Funding flows to institutional solutions

5. Opposition appears backward or selfish

This is a massive coordination in plain sight, documented through their own words and actions. The question isn't whether this institutional control exists but whether we'll continue accepting it because it comes wrapped in charitable giving and community good.

The system works because it's not partisan—it's class-based. Elite interests transcend party lines, using both Republican governmental power and progressive institutional control to achieve their goals while maintaining the illusion of a democratic process. This explains why addressing it solely through electoral politics fails—the real power operates through seemingly benevolent private institutions working in concert with government actors of both parties.

The Machinery of Modern Tyranny

What we've uncovered in Springfield reveals a sophisticated system of control that operates through seemingly benevolent institutions. The Community Foundation of the Ozarks, with its $427M in assets, the Chamber of Commerce, hiding its true membership, and the Springfield Daily Citizen, their curated media voice, work in concert through the Focus Report to shape community life. This isn't random–it's a carefully orchestrated effort to reach into the home of every "good" Springfield citizen and nudge them toward predetermined conclusions.

The genius of this system is its invisibility. The Chamber (which keeps its true membership hidden) works hand-in-glove with the CFO and SDC, using the Focus Report - whose origins and accuracy remain conveniently unexamined—to set Springfield's agenda year after year. Through DAFs, institutional partnerships, and coordinated messaging, they create the illusion of organic community consensus while advancing agendas that often counter local values.

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley got it wrong. 

It wasn't the government we needed to fear but the do-gooder. CS Lewis had it right instead when he said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." In this system, the do-gooder’s ally is the church. 

The CFO, the Chamber, the SDC, and even Second Baptist are precisely the moral busybodies that Lewis warned us about. They utilize the mechanisms of government control without its visibility, creating a fascistic tyranny so subtle many don't recognize its existence. Through their coordinated efforts, non-profits, charities, and good-doers have done more to advance Marxist ideology in our rural communities over the last twenty years than any direct political movement could have achieved.

Even the traditional churches are in on their shell game of progressive politics. This is why Second Baptist Pastor Dr. John Birchett supported Sheila Michaels, an outspoken progressive liberal for CFO’s Humanitarian of the Year. Not only did the crown jewel of the fundamental Baptist Church in the Missouri Baptist Convention support her, but so did Kings Way Methodist Church and the Council of Churches of the Ozarks. They co-opt the church, who are either willing participants in the corruption of Springfield or they are ignorant participants.

The CFO, the Chamber, the SDC, and even Second Baptist are precisely the moral busybodies that Lewis warned us about. They utilize the mechanisms of government control without its visibility, creating a fascistic tyranny so subtle many don't recognize its existence. Through their coordinated efforts, non-profits, charities, and do-gooders they have done more to advance Marxist ideology in our rural communities over the last twenty years than any direct political movement could have achieved. They've nudged our Churches away from Christian Acts of Charity toward secular humanism, introduced ancient and hateful theologies, and secured a stranglehold on our education, our minds, and our children.

We are not dealing with our better angels but confronting individuals and organizations who hide in the darkness and seek to manage our lives, controlling our actions and benefiting from the production of our wealth. They can’t trust us to make our own decisions without their input. 

Their tyranny is more insidious because it comes wrapped in charitable giving and community good, making resistance appear selfish or backward. While we've been watching for government overreach, these institutions have quietly constructed a system of control that operates through tax-exempt donations, grant-making, and carefully managed public discourse.

The power to challenge this propaganda begins with recognition. This web of control isn’t unbreakable because it is thinly constructed. We can start to resist only by understanding how these systems work–how DAFs direct money, how Focus Reports shape priorities, how media coverage controls the narrative, and how it serves global rather than local interests. The question isn't whether we live under tyranny but whether we'll continue to accept it dressed in charitable clothing.