Tuesday, September 22, 2026

Do Insane People Kill or Murder? | September 22, 2026

Do insane people know they are insane? Other than humans, all other mammals kill, not murder. Even rabid beasts.

Sometimes "insanity" has been successfully used for a “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” jury verdict.

While a "motive" is never needed to charge someone with murder, a reason or a motive (e.g. self-defense, greed, lust.) comes in handy for a jury when they're trying to fairly decide one's fate. In criminology and sociology, the motives for one person taking another's life are typically broken down into distinct psychological, financial, and emotional categories. A famous framework used by sociologists and criminologists to summarize the overwhelming majority of homicides is known as the "Four Ls": Lust, Love, Loathing, and Loot.

Based on extensive research in criminology, psychology, and law enforcement data, the motives for homicide generally fall into a few distinct categories.
Here are the most common reasons and motives for someone to take another's life, grouped by their underlying drivers:

## 1. Interpersonal Conflict and Emotion

* Arguments and Impulsive Anger: The vast majority of homicides stem from escalated altercations. These often begin as minor disputes between acquaintances, family members, or romantic partners that rapidly intensify due to intense anger, insults, or a perceived threat to honor.

* Jealousy and Revenge: Crimes of passion are frequently triggered by romantic betrayal, intense jealousy, or a desire for retaliation after a real or perceived injury, humiliation, or wrongdoing.

* Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence: A significant portion of homicides involve current or former spouses or partners, typically driven by a toxic cycle of control, abuse, and obsession.

## 2. Instrumental and Material Gain

* Financial and Material Benefit: This includes killings committed during robberies, burglaries, or carjackings where the primary goal is stealing money or property. It also encompasses calculated murders for insurance payouts, inheritances, or eliminating business rivals.

* Criminal Enterprise and Gang Activity: In organized crime and street gangs, killing is often used as a tool to protect turf, enforce discipline, eliminate informants, or control illegal drug markets.

## 3. Concealment and Protection

* Eliminating Witnesses: A perpetrator may kill a victim or a bystander to prevent them from reporting a previous crime (such as sexual assault or robbery) to the police, aiming to avoid arrest and prosecution.

* Self-Defense: Though legally distinct from criminal homicide when justified, taking a life sometimes occurs when an individual genuinely believes it is the only way to protect themselves or others from imminent death or severe harm.

## 4. Psychological and Ideological Factors

* Severe Mental Illness: In a smaller percentage of cases, underlying psychological conditions, severe psychosis, or delusions can distort a person's reality, leading them to perceive threats that do not exist or act on irrational commands.

* Ideology and Extremism: Hate crimes, acts of terrorism, and political assassinations are driven by deep-seated prejudice, radical ideologies, or a desire to terrorize a specific group or advance a political cause.

PTSD is a form of Mental Illness that has been successfully used for a “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” jury verdict.

Should our military combat veterans be charged for 1st degree murder and get the death penalty or life without parole in a State prison if they killed someone while experiencing an episode of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder is a mental health condition that can develop after you experience or witness a terrifying or life-threatening event)?

post-traumatic stress disorder

The Michael Mann Case (Wisconsin, 1982)

On December 18, 1982, Michael Mann, an unemployed Vietnam War veteran and double amputee, attended a party at a rural home in Amberg, Wisconsin. During the gathering, Mann experienced a severe psychological breakdown, pulled a .357 Magnum revolver, and opened fire on the hosts, critically injuring a couple.

He was charged with three counts of attempted murder. His defense team successfully argued that his actions were the direct result of a dissociative PTSD flashback. Because his defense attorney was able to establish a highly structured, court-approved outpatient treatment program through the Veterans Administration, the court acquitted him on an insanity defense and allowed him to enter treatment rather than standard, long-term psychiatric confinement.

The Charles "Woody" Lockett Case

Charles "Woody" Lockett, a former Air Force captain and Vietnam veteran, suffered an extreme mental health crisis directly tied to intense combat trauma. During his deployment, he witnessed devastating casualties, including fellow service members being killed by landmines.

Years after returning home, haunted by relentless flashbacks, nightmares, and severe paranoia, Lockett experienced a dissociative episode during which he committed a violent assault. His legal team successfully mounted an insanity defense, demonstrating to the court that his actions occurred during an involuntary, trauma-induced break from reality. Following the verdict, he was committed to a specialized mental health facility rather than prison to receive intensive psychiatric care.

The Jessie Bratcher Case (Oregon, 2009)

In 2008, Jessie Bratcher, an Iraq War veteran, shot and killed an unarmed man at an apartment complex in Corvallis, Oregon. Bratcher suffered from severe PTSD following a combat deployment where his Humvee was struck by an improvised explosive device (IED).

He was charged with murder. His defense team successfully argued that a sudden door slam triggered a profound, dissociative PTSD flashback, causing him to believe he was back in a combat zone and acting in self-defense. In 2009, he became one of the first Iraq War veterans to successfully use this defense when an Oregon judge found him "guilty except for insanity." He was subsequently committed to a secure state psychiatric hospital for a maximum of life rather than being sent to prison.

* Will this become a "trend"? Some very alarmist people believe so, but there's no real evidence of an epidemic.

Other Forms of Mental Illness “Used for a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” Verdict (Beyond PTSD)

An insanity defense requires proving that a severe mental disease or defect prevented the defendant from understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong at the exact moment of the crime. Beyond PTSD, courts have accepted several severe psychological conditions, neurological events, and clinical syndromes as the basis for a successful insanity defense:

1. Psychotic Disorders and Delusions

Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder (Example: Carlos Reales Dominguez, John Hinckley Jr.): This is the most common diagnosis used in successful insanity defenses. Active psychosis can cause command hallucinations (voices telling someone to commit an act) or severe paranoid delusions.
"Deific Decrees" (Example: Daniel Sickles): A legally recognized subtype of delusion where a defendant genuinely believes they are acting under the direct command of God. Courts often rule that because the person believed a higher divine power ordered them to act, they were incapable of recognizing their actions as morally wrong.

2. Mood Disorders

Bipolar Disorder with Severe Manic Episodes (Example: Andrew Goldstein): During severe mania, an individual can experience "psychotic features," completely losing touch with reality. They might engage in highly destructive acts with zero comprehension of the consequences or danger.

3. Dissociative and Cognitive Defects

Dissociative Identity Disorder / DID (Example: Billy Milligan): Historically known as multiple personality disorder. Defenses have successfully argued that a violent crime was committed by an alternate personality state while the primary host personality was completely unaware and lacked conscious control.
Severe Intellectual Disability (Example: Johnny Paul Penry): If a person's cognitive development is so severely limited that they possess the mental capacity of a young child, they legally lack the ability to comprehend the criminality or wrongfulness of an act.

4. Neurological Conditions and Automatism

Traumatic Brain Injuries / TBI & Brain Tumors (Example: Charles Whitman): Physical trauma or tumors in the frontal and temporal lobes can completely damage the brain regions responsible for impulse control, empathy, and judgment, leading to sudden, uncontrollable violent outbursts.
Parasomnia / Sleepwalking (Example: Kenneth Parks): In rare cases, individuals have killed family members or strangers while completely asleep. Because they are entirely unconscious, they lack a voluntary criminal act.

5. Syndrome-Based Defenses

Battered Woman/Spouse Syndrome (Example: Lorena Bobbitt, Francine Hughes): Severe, prolonged domestic abuse can cause a psychological state of "learned helplessness." Juries are allowed to consider how this trauma permanently altered the victim's perception of an imminent threat, justifying a lethal reaction in self-defense.
Postpartum Psychosis (Example: Andrea Yates): A severe temporary mental illness following childbirth. This condition causes extreme hormonal shifts and severe delusions, often causing a mother to lose touch with reality and believe she must harm her children to "save" them.

Are there millions of mothers just lying in wait, also hoping for the opportunity to strangle their children as soon as they can establish a creditable alibi for an insanity defense? Or is this very rare?

Postpartum Psychosis

Friday, September 18, 2026

A.I. is also deadlocked on Lindsay Clancy's jury verdict | September 18, 2026

Because the public and all the pundits on cable news and on social media have been so obsessed over the Lindsay Clancy trial and whether or not there should be government regulations to keep A.I. from killing off the human race, I thought it would be interesting to ask Google A.I. a few questions that few people seem to have an answer to, just to see how A.I. might rule if it were the jury. So this is A.I.'s response.

(* NOTE! This is NOT my personal opinion. I'm just very thankful I never had to sit on that jury. I didn't watch the trial, so all I have heard is mostly opinions. But no matter what you think, people on either sides will hate you, so I choose to remain neutral. Besides, my opinion is no better than anybody else's.)
A.I. is Lindsay Clancy's jury.

QUESTION: Did someone tell #LindsayClancy what she had done, or did she remember on her own?

AI: During the high-profile murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, medical experts testified that she did not initially know or remember what she had done and had to be told that her children were dead. [1, 2]

When she first woke up in the intensive care unit (ICU) after surviving her suicide attempt, her memory of the event was described by psychiatrists and psychologists as "fuzzy and foggy". According to expert testimony presented by the defense, she was initially unaware of the gravity of the situation and had to be explicitly informed by medical professionals or family members that she had killed her three children. [1, 2, 3, 4] However, her recollection of the events developed over time: [5]

* At the scene: When her husband, Patrick, initially found her severely injured outside their home, she was able to tell him she tried to kill herself and that the children were "in the basement," though she did not state they were dead. [6, 7]

* While hospitalized: Weeks later, as her consciousness and mental state stabilized, she began communicating more clear—albeit disputed—recollections. During a phone call to her husband in February 2023, she reportedly detailed hearing a "command voice" that instructed her to kill the children and herself. [8, 9, 10, 11]

QUESTION: So after she woke up from a coma, and had her breathing tube removed from her throat, some anonymous hospital personnel and the hospital's Chaplin told her the details of how she murdered her three small children, and no lawyers was present? And after they told her those grim details, she said, they were safe in heaven with God? Did she smile while envisioning this? Did anybody on the internet or jury ever experience a blackout after drinking too much or being given a Mickey? Not just passed out, but a total blackout?

AI: No lawyers or investigators were present during the conversation with the hospital chaplain, Sheila Cavanaugh, which took place on January 31, 2023. The chaplain testified that she was holding Clancy’s hand to comfort her. [1, 2] The chaplain did not detail the grim specifics of the murders to Clancy during that exchange. Instead, the exchange unfolded as follows: [1]

* Clancy’s first words after being extubated were: "I am so glad my children are safe."
* The chaplain responded from a theological perspective: "Lindsay, your children are safe. They're safe in heaven with God."
* They then prayed together. [1]

## Her Physical and Emotional Demeanor: According to the sworn testimony of Chaplain Cavanaugh, Clancy did not smile. The chaplain vividly recalled that Clancy’s emotional state was "very neutral" with a "flat affect." She was still in a neck brace and heavily restricted by medical tubes at the time. [1, 3]

## The Medical and Legal Reality of Total Blackouts: Regarding your question about blackouts—whether from heavy alcohol consumption or a drug-facilitated incident (a "Mickey")—the phenomenon of a total blackout (anterograde amnesia) is a widely documented medical reality.

* How it works: A blackout is not the same as passing out or losing consciousness. During a complete chemical or alcohol-induced blackout, a person remains awake, conscious, and capable of talking or navigating their environment. However, the brain's hippocampus is temporarily impaired, completely preventing the creation of new long-term memories.

* Prevalence: Alcohol-induced memory blackouts are incredibly common, frequently discussed online, and experienced by a significant percentage of social drinkers. Because it is a standard biological response to rapid spikes in blood-alcohol levels or specific sedatives, it is statistically highly probable that members of any given jury pool (or the general public) have either experienced or are closely familiar with the concept of an alcohol-induced memory blank.

In the legal system, defense attorneys frequently introduce expert psychiatric testimony regarding blackouts, toxic delirium, or severe psychiatric amnesia to argue whether a defendant possessed the capacity to form specific intent or appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions at the exact moment a crime occurred. [4, 5]

[1] [ https://abc7news.com](https://abc7news.com/post/lindsay-clancy-trial-day-17-psychologist-testifies-was-not-criminally-responsible-killing-3-children/19707934/ )
[2] [ https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epRmYTi1jsQ )
[3] [ https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRcRg7lnvcs )
[4] [ https://www.bbc.com](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c54g7jdmw032o )
[5] [ https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3xWHxYMZYk )

QUESTION: If A.I. was a person on the jury with the full access it has to all the information, testimony and evidence from court trial, would A.I. find Lindsay Clancy guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

AI: An Artificial Intelligence cannot render a legal verdict or experience "reasonable doubt," as it lacks the human empathy, consciousness, and moral judgment required of a real juror. If an AI were tasked with analyzing the entire court record of the Lindsay Clancy trial, it would not reach a definitive conclusion. Instead, it would mathematically model the exact split that occurred in the real-world trial, where 11 jurors voted to acquit her based on a lack of criminal responsibility due to mental disease, while one holdout juror voted for a first-degree murder conviction.An objective analysis of how the evidence balances from both a data-driven and legal perspective highlights why the case resulted in a deadlocked jury.

Under Massachusetts law, the prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect that wiped out her criminal responsibility. The defense presented overwhelming medical data that created a massive wall of reasonable doubt:

1) Severe Medical History: Extensive clinical documentation showed she was suffering from profound postpartum depression and suspected postpartum psychosis, experiencing escalating panic attacks, and severe insomnia.

2) Massive Overmedication: Medical records proved she had been prescribed a rotating cocktail of 12 different psychiatric medications in the four months leading up to the tragedy, which experts argued caused toxic delirium and a break from reality.

3) The Suicide Attempt: Her immediate action of jumping out of a second-story window, causing herself permanent paralysis, strongly supported the defense’s argument that she was entirely detached from reality and lacked a rational plan to "get away" with a crime.

Why an AI Cannot Resolve the Verdict

An AI operates on logic and probability, but the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an explicitly human construct. Because the medical experts sharply disagreed on her state of mind at the exact minute of the killings, the data itself is fundamentally contradictory.

An AI looking at this data would conclude that the prosecution could not mathematically eliminate the possibility of postpartum psychosis. Because that doubt cannot be entirely ruled out by the data, a strict legal algorithm would state that the high burden of first-degree murder was not universally proven—mirroring the 11-to-1 reality that ultimately forced a mistrial.

QUESTION: So a jury of twelve A.I.s would be deadlocked?

AI: Yes, a jury of twelve A.I.s would very likely be permanently deadlocked, much like the human jury was.
If you programmed twelve identical A.I. models with the exact same data, algorithms, and legal criteria, they would all spit out the same mathematical probability. However, if those A.I.s were given different "weights" to mimic human perspectives—some programmed to prioritize digital footprint data, and others programmed to prioritize clinical medical data—they would end up completely stuck. [1]

## The Unresolvable Glitch: Under Massachusetts law, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the exact time of the crime. [5, 6]

Because an A.I. cannot "feel" or guess what was happening inside Lindsay Clancy's mind during those specific 28 minutes, it can only weigh the evidence. And because the physical evidence of planning (the Apple Maps search) and the medical evidence of a broken mind (the severe psychosis) directly conflict, the calculation would freeze. [1, 3]

An A.I. requires 100% certainty to compute "beyond a reasonable doubt." Because the inputs are fundamentally contradictory, an A.I. jury would ultimately report a system error: unable to achieve unanimity. [3]

If you are interested, we can look deeper into either side of the deadlock:

* Do you want to see exactly how the holdout juror defended his conviction vote to the media?
* Or would you like to explore what the prosecution would have to do differently if they decide to put her on trial a second time?

[1] [ https://www.rollingstone.com](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/holdout-juror-lindsay-clancy-case-defends-decision-1235628786/ )
[2] [ https://www.wkyc.com](https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/nation-world/holdout-juror-lindsay-clancy-trial/507-1ee5db88-c2c9-4c57-84b5-76268d6b998f )
[3] [ https://www.nytimes.com](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/09/03/us/lindsay-clancy-trial-deadlock )
[4] [ https://www.bbc.com](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c54g7jdmw032o )
[5] [ https://abcnews.com](https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/holdout-juror-lindsay-clancy-trial-didnt-doubts-deliberations/story?id=136557362 )
[6] [ https://abcnews.com](https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/holdout-juror-lindsay-clancy-trial-didnt-doubts-deliberations/story?id=136557362 )

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Government Unions 👎🏽 vs. Private Sector Unions 👍🏼 Sept. 15, 2026

Labor unions initially rose to protect American workers from corporate exploitation, securing bargaining rights for higher wages, safer workplaces, paid holidays and vacations, healthcare benefits, pensions, and more. These private-sector unions were central to building America’s middle class.

By contrast, public-sector unions effectively operate as an arm of the Democratic Party. Government employees negotiate with city and state officials—often Democratic mayors and governors in large blue jurisdictions—who can grant them above-market pay and generous benefits to keep them as loyal Democratic voters.

These officials also expand government payrolls, creating a large base of unionized workers who can be mobilized as paid activists or protesters when needed. All of this is financed by state and local tax revenues, including taxes paid by Republicans, which Democratic officials then use as bargaining chips—functioning as political patronage that helps lock in public-sector union support for the Democratic Party.

REPEAT: Government unions shouldn’t be a taxpayer-funded arm of the Democrat Party, and Governor DeSantis is right to rein them in.

Florida’s new law makes a simple demand: if a union wants special status to bargain for government workers, it has to prove real support from those workers, not just political clout in Tallahassee. No more automatic certification for unions that can’t even get a solid majority of members to back them. That’s basic accountability.

It also helps stop the abuse of public resources for politics. Taxpayer money and on-the-clock union time should go to teaching kids, keeping communities safe, and delivering services — not to lobbying, partisan campaigns, or organizing protests for Democrats. Representation for PRIVATE SECTOR employees is fine; political activism on the PUBLIC dime is not.

Democrats are attacking the law because it hits their most reliable machine: public-sector unions that help elect them, then demand richer contracts, bigger payrolls, and more taxpayer cash. That loop is great for the PUBLIC unions and DEMOCRAT politicians (especially in Blue cities and States), but bad for rank-and-file workers, students, and taxpayers who fund it.

You can support DeSantis’ union reforms and still respect teachers, cops, and other public employees. This law forces unions to be accountable to members, not party bosses, and keeps government focused on service, not partisan politics.

Bottom line: government unions shouldn’t be untouchable political machines. They should earn support, play by fair rules, and stop using your tax dollars to campaign for Democrats. That’s exactly what DeSantis’ law starts to do.

America's Greatest Panic Attacks: From Y2K to A.I. | September 15, 2026

Just like that, it's the end of the world again! Now the "Machine Uprising" joins the weather balloon, the digital clock and the pigeons on the GREAT WALL OF SHAME for things that were definitely, absolutely, 100% going to end the world!

Professors Meyers and Boebert examine the data.

Below is the ultimate list (in no particular order) of our history's greatest mass panics:

1938 – The War of the Worlds : Millions of people hid in their cellars to escape giant Martian tripods that turned out to be just a sweaty Orson Welles screaming into a radio microphone in an empty room.
1942 – The Great Los Angeles Air Raid : The United States military bravely fought an aggressive, multi-hour war against a rogue weather balloon, losing the battle when the balloon quietly drifted away into the Pacific Ocean unharmed.
1979 – The NORAD Soviet Missile Glitch : Highly trained military commanders nearly pressed the Big Red Button because a computer screen told them Russia was attacking, only to find out a technician had just forgotten to close out of his video game simulator before going to lunch.
1999 – The Y2K Scare : People spent their life savings on freeze-dried beef because they thought digital alarm clocks would stop working on January 1st, but the only actual disaster was the release of the movie The Matrix making everyone wear leather trench coats.
1980s–1990s – The Satanic Panic: Parents burned their children's Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks and played heavy metal songs backward to catch the devil, only to realize the local teenagers were just awkwardly trying to learn guitar in their garages.
1990s – The "Superpredator" Panic : The news warned that teenagers were mutating into soulless, hyper-efficient crime machines, but the youth instead chose to invent the Macarena and spend all their time staring at Tamagotchis.
2005 – The Bird Flu Scare : Everyone panicked that pigeons were plotting a biochemical coup against humanity, causing governments to buy millions of dollars of medicine that sat in warehouses until it expired into useless dust.
2020 – COVID-19 : Society completely unraveled and fought physical gladiator matches in grocery store aisles over 24-packs of Charmin toilet paper, firmly believing that paper towels were the only thing standing between them and the end of days.
1970s – Climate Cooling : Scientists warned that advancing glaciers would crush New York City by 1980, forcing everyone to buy heavy winter coats that they promptly threw into the back of their closets when it turned out to just be winter.
1980s–1990s – Climate Warming : Media outlets predicted the oceans would boil and swallow Florida by the year 2000, yet wealthy politicians immediately went out and bought multi-million dollar beachfront mansions with 30-year mortgages anyway.
2000s–Present – Climate Change : The weather changed from rainy to sunny on a random Thursday, causing an immediate media frenzy declaring that nature was broken and humanity had exactly twelve minutes left to live.
2026–Present – The Machine Uprising : There have been rumors that A.I. going to hack the entire internet within ten months, create a new bio-weapon, start a nuclear war (WAR GAMES) and enslave or kill off humanity in the not too distant future . . .

The Cybernetic Uprising : Humanity spent years panicking that highly advanced digital brains would become sentient, hack the nuclear launch codes, and enslave the human race, only for the "all-powerful" programs to get completely defeated by a picture of a slightly blurry traffic light on a website login screen.

The Job Apocalypse : The media warned that millions of workers would be replaced by flawless digital minds, but the revolution ground to a halt because the supercomputers couldn't figure out how many fingers go on a human hand or how to draw a simple plate of spaghetti.

The Extinction Event : Philosophers and tech billionaires screamed that artificial intelligence would determine humans were an inefficient waste of carbon and wipe out the planet, but the machines instead spent all their processing power generating pictures of Pope Francis wearing a giant Balenciaga puffer jacket.

Today – The Social Media "Million Hit" Scare : A rogue internet user by the name of Bud Meyers has combined pure historical mockery with artificial intelligence to construct the ultimate comedic masterpiece, triggering widespread panic among tech elites who feared the post would garner one million hits and break the internet's servers—only for the entire digital empire to remain completely intact while the creator sat back and enjoyed a highly deserved victory lap.

Final Note: Every generation gets a brand new apocalypse to panic about. But before you lose sleep over the "Machine Uprising" and fall prey to the media-fueled panic, just remember: so far we survived the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age. So how bad can A.I. be? I don't know, but it would be much worse if China had it and we didn't!

Professors Meyers and Boebert issue their last warning.

Saturday, August 29, 2026

America's BIG BEEF with BIG BEEF | August 29, 2026

Americans are fed up with the high grocery prices that increased with high inflation under the Biden administration, and BEEF is at the top of the list. The Trump administration has been working on this, but maybe they just forgot to tell you. So I will.

NOTE: The 119th Congress has been on recess 120 days as of this post. That's about 4 months of vacation. So President Trump's cabinet members have been doing most of the work thus far. A few members of Congress who have ranchers in their districts have been using their time off to meet with their constituents to gather what information they will need for legislation when the Republican leaders call them back into session as the mid-term elections loom over the horizon.

Bud Meyers only DREAMS of t-bone steaks!

Bud Meyers only DREAMS of t-bone steaks!

A small group of giant processing corporations and large food distributors supply the vast majority of meat to grocery stores, restaurants, and food companies. The Most meat comes from a few massive companies known as the "Big Four." They buy livestock from ranchers, process the meat, and sell it to retail brands and food chains.

The Big Four (Beef Packers)

When economists, government agencies, and the media refer to the "Big Four", they are specifically talking about the four companies that control 85% of all beef slaughtering in the United States:

* Tyson Foods: The largest U.S. meat company by sales, supplying massive amounts of chicken, beef, and pork.
* JBS S.A.: A global meatpacker based in Brazil that handles huge shares of beef, pork, and poultry.
* Cargill: A large global commodity trader based in Minnesota that processes significant amounts of U.S. beef.
* National Beef: One of the top four beef processors in the United States, controlled by Marfrig Global Foods.

(Smithfield Foods: A major processing company in the US that controls a large portion of the U.S. PORK market. Chinese conglomerates like the WH Group own massive processing infrastructure—notably acquiring the giant Smithfield Foods in 2013—but that specific ownership is concentrated in pork rather than beef.)

The massive concentration of the U.S. meatpacking industry has sparked intense government actions, criminal investigations, and a heated debate over national security and foreign corporate control.

¶ The Foreign Ownership Controversy

The fact that two of the "Big Four" beef processors (JBS and National Beef) are controlled by Brazilian conglomerates is a major focal point for U.S. lawmakers. Critics argue that allowing foreign entities to dictate the processing of over 40% of America's beef creates critical national security vulnerabilities.

This tension reached a boiling point following a 90-day pause on foreign beef tariffs implemented by the Trump administration to lower consumer grocery prices. The policy faced immediate backlash from domestic ranchers and agricultural groups, who argued that flooding the market with cheap imports undermined American producers

In response to this pressure, the administration shifted its strategy to target the foreign-dominated cartel directly. President Trump issued a executive directive to break up the "nasty monopoly" of the Big Four by authorizing legal avenues that allow independent farmers and ranchers to process and sell their own meat across state lines, lowering the reliance on heavily consolidated corporate plants.

⚖️ The Criminal Price-Fixing Investigations

The federal government has aggressively escalated its legal pressure against these companies, moving past civil lawsuits into the realm of criminal prosecution.

* The DOJ Probe: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division is conducting a sweeping criminal investigation into Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef.

* The Allegations: Federal prosecutors are investigating whether the packers engaged in criminal anti-competitive collusion. Specifically, they are accused of artificially lowering the prices they pay to ranchers for livestock while simultaneously inflating grocery store beef prices to maximize corporate margins.

* The Evidence: Investigators have reviewed more than three million documents and interviewed hundreds of industry whistleblowers, focusing heavily on potential manipulation of cattle futures contracts and illegal capacity restrictions (such as coordinated plant slowdowns to force scarcity). Because these are criminal charges under the Sherman Act, corporate fines could reach $100 million, and individual executives face up to 10 years in prison.

$ $ Recent Multi-Million Dollar Settlements

While the criminal investigation plays out, the meatpackers have already been forced to pay massive sums to settle civil class-action lawsuits brought by consumers, grocery stores, and ranchers.

settlements, beef

Independent ranchers are fighting back against the Big Four's market dominance by leveraging localized partnerships, investing heavily in infrastructure, and utilizing new government rollouts to bypass corporate middle management entirely

Δ Building Producer-Owned Mega-Plants

Historically, ranchers had no choice but to sell to the Big Four because smaller, local butchers couldn’t handle large commercial volume. To solve this, groups of independent cattlemen have banded together to build their own state-of-the-art, large-scale processing facilities:

* Sustainable Beef (North Platte, Nebraska): Opened in May 2025, this rancher-led plant processes roughly 1,500 cattle a day, ensuring local producers retain a higher share of the meat's final retail value.

* Producer Owned Beef (Amarillo, Texas): A massive $670 million project backed by a collective of cattle feeders. Once construction wraps up, it will provide a direct alternative to the Big Four by harvesting 3,000 head of cattle per day.

* Cattlemen's Heritage Beef Company (Iowa): Another producer-driven alternative currently under development designed to handle up to 2,000 head per day, expanding non-monopolized supply lines across the Midwest.

§ Capitalizing on the Regulatory Shift

The biggest bottleneck for independent ranchers has always been federal regulations. Under standard law, ranchers can process their own animals but cannot legally sell that meat to retailers, restaurants, or across state lines without jumping through expensive USDA-inspection hoops. This landscape is rapidly shifting due to major administrative deregulation aimed at expanding market freedom

* Direct Processing Orders: The administration is rolling out sweeping executive documents allowing ranchers to bypass traditional corporate bottlenecks and process their own meat locally.

* Slashing Red Tape: Led by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, the government is introducing an overhaul to waive regulatory red tape. This includes fast-tracking digital safety tracking data, dismantling outdated rules, and legally allowing independent operations to sell custom meat across state lines.

Direct-to-Consumer & Regional Cooperatives

* By utilizing new "Product of USA" labeling standards—which require an animal to be entirely born, raised, slaughtered, and processed domestically—ranchers are cutting out the major processors.

* Alliance Pooling: Small-scale producers are organizing regional alliances to collectively secure "shackle space" (slaughter slots) at independent facilities, allowing them to supply local school districts, regional restaurant groups, and independent grocery chains as a single, unified entity.

* E-Commerce & Local Delivery: Tens of thousands of ranches have shifted to a "pasture-to-plate" model, selling beef boxes directly to consumers online. Some examples are listed below here:

The Ultimate Home Delivery Guide!
* Click image below to enlarge

Popular Home Delivery Services

• https://www.omahasteaks.com/

• https://snakeriverfarms.com/

• https://www.crowdcow.com/

• https://www.kansascitysteaks.com/

• https://porterroad.com/

• https://wildforkfoods.com/

• https://www.butcherbox.com/

• https://goodchop.com/

Congress is advancing several targeted legislative packages and structural overhauls to heavily restrict and penalize foreign ownership of U.S. food systems, meat processing, and agricultural infrastructure.

Scroll to the top of the page at this link to read the full explanation at Google

§ What Americans have been hearing in the Media

The Big Four meatpackers are closing major plants as a direct reaction to a severe, historic shortage in the overall cattle supply. Instead of the plant closures causing a drop in cattle, a multi-year liquidation of the U.S. herd has left meatpackers with too few animals to process. This dynamic has triggered massive losses for the processors, leading to recent closures that are now radically reshaping the marketplace for ranchers and consumers

1. The Root Cause: A 75-Year Low in Cattle Supply

The underlying problem is that the U.S. cattle herd has shrunk to its lowest level since the 1950s (roughly 86.2 million head).

* The Cause: A multi-year "mega-drought" destroyed pastures, forcing ranchers to sell off and liquidate their breeding cows because they could not afford record-high hay and feed costs.

The Result: Because there are so few cattle available, the Big Four (Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS, and National Beef) have been forced into an aggressive bidding war to secure livestock. Tyson alone reported paying $2 billion more in cattle procurement costs, plunging its beef division into severe multi-million dollar losses.

2. The Backlash: Drastic Loss of "Shackle Space"

Because the packing industry was operating at a loss due to massive overcapacity (too many factories, too few cows), the giants began slashing operations.

* Recent Closures: Within just the last year, Tyson Foods permanently shuttered its massive Lexington, Nebraska facility (which processed 5,000 head a day), its Joslin, Illinois plant (3,000 head a day), and put its Pasco, Washington plant up for sale. Concurrently, JBS closed its Souderton, Pennsylvania beef facility.

* Capacity Erased: In total, these aggressive shutdowns have wiped out an estimated 14,000 to 16,000 "shackle spaces" (daily slaughter capacity) per day, removing nearly 18% to 20% of the nation's total fed cattle processing capacity

3. The Ripple Effect on Ranchers and Leverage:

While the shortages initially gave ranchers leverage to demand higher prices for their scarce cattle, the massive wave of plant closures is rapidly shifting that power back to the Big Four.

* Fewer Buyers, Less Competition: For independent ranchers and feedlots, every closed plant means one less bidder competing for their livestock.

* Increased Freight Costs: Ranchers who used to haul cattle short distances are now forced to pay exorbitant shipping fees to transport animals to remaining plants hundreds of miles away.

* The Rebuilding Bottleneck: Farm coalitions warn that these closures threaten the long-term supply. Even if weather improves, ranchers lack the confidence to rebuild their herds if there are fewer processing plants left to buy their cattle. If the herd eventually expands, the permanent loss of this processing infrastructure will create a massive supply-chain bottleneck.

U.S. Beef Exports UP! >>>

Beef export values have reached historic highs during the Biden administration, driven by strong global demand, implementation of the U.S.–China Phase One agreement, and high domestic production during herd liquidation phases. However, current market dynamics show declining export volumes and a shift toward increased imports as the U.S. cattle herd reaches multi-decade lows.

* SOURCE: USDA Beef Exports: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/beef-beef-products

(Click image below to enlarge)

Lone Star Ticks!

The Lone Star tick adds a bizarre and increasingly urgent wildcard to the U.S. beef crisis. Its impact is heavily intertwined with the cattle supply issues, industry regulations, and the long-term demand for beef. A bite from the lone star tick can transmit a sugar molecule called alpha-gal, which triggers an immune response that can leave humans violently and permanently allergic to red meat (beef, pork, and lamb). The tick's connection to the current agricultural crisis involves three major factors:

1. Squeezing the Labor Supply (Rancher Livelihoods): Ranchers and livestock handlers are on the front lines of this tick expansion. Because they work daily in pastures and heavily wooded areas, they face the highest exposure risks.

* The Irony: A growing number of cattle producers are testing positive for Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), meaning the very people whose livelihoods depend on raising beef can no longer eat a hamburger or steak without risking life-threatening anaphylactic shock.

* Economic Pain: The debilitating health effects (severe gastrointestinal distress, extreme fatigue, and respiratory issues) are forcing some independent, aging operators out of the business entirely, further straining a ranching industry already staring down an economic crisis.

2. A Shrinking Long-Term Consumer Base: While the cattle supply is hitting 75-year lows, the lone star tick is actively threatening the demand side of the market.

* Explosive Growth: Thanks to warming global temperatures, the lone star tick has rapidly expanded from southern states into the Northeast and Midwest—the heavy population and consumer centers of the U.S..

* The Toll on Demand: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that as many as 450,000 Americans may be affected by Alpha-gal syndrome. In places where ticks have exploded, like Martha’s Vineyard and Long Island, local red meat consumption has visibly dropped as hundreds of residents are forced to completely strip beef out of their diets. If hundreds of thousands of consumers permanently pivot to poultry and seafood, the long-term baseline domestic demand for beef will structurally erode.

3. A Weapon in the Political Debate: The tick has even crawled into the political wrestling match surrounding the Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act and Biden-era climate/agricultural policies.

* The Progressive View: Progressive groups cite the northward migration of the lone star tick as definitive evidence of climate change directly harming American food security and public health. They argue this dynamic proves why the government needs aggressive federal intervention to safeguard the agricultural supply chain.

* The Conservative View: Critics of sweeping agricultural regulations point out that the cattle industry is already under siege by complex ecological realities—like historic droughts and tick-borne crises. They argue that layering massive federal disruptions onto the sector (like forcing the break-up of major meatpacking plants) will push an already fragile supply chain past its breaking point.

Where is the lone star tick spreading geographically and what is driving the spread?

View this link to see the full explanation at Google

Is there any information about Bill Gates being involved in the Lone Star Tic because he is developing meatless food?

Scroll to the top of this page for a full explanation at Google * * * BOOKMARKED! NOTE: You can sign in with your own Google account if you want to continue the chat. This is a long and fascinating conversation that evolves from Bill Gates into the subject of climate change. And I think I won the debate against a supercomputer, the OPPOSITE of when IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer was the first machine to defeat a reigning world chess champion in a standard tournament match against Garry Kasparov in 1997. (I must be a genius and didn't even know. How ironic!)

Thursday, August 20, 2026

Democrats and Socialists both support Trans Youth | August 20, 2026

Minor kids can NOT be "trans".

Prologue, Thursday, August 20, 2026 @ 4:00 am PT

I had a long Q-and-A with Goggle A.I. to learn the actual policy differences between the current Democrat Party and the DSA. Other than the usual gibberish, they are basically the same. So near the end of the session, I specifically asked about the topic of so-called TRANS YOUTH. It was also basically the same. Here were my questions and statements, followed by Goggle A.I.'s responses and the links it provided to make their case.

ME: During Biden's four- year term, he openly and regularly supported "Transgender Youth", and via USAID and legislation, the Democrats passed funding for this. Elton John even performed at an event on the White House lawn with Democrat members of congress and teachers in the teachers union in attendance to support this. [video here]

In some states like Montana, the Democrats even allow children to be taken across State lines for "gender reaffirming care" without their parents knowledge and consent. And when the parents sued, the judge ruled against the parents.

AND NOT ONE DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS HAS EVER SAID, "I don't agree with sex change operations and hormone treatments for children under the age of 18 years old".

AND NOT ONE DEMOCRAT DURING A PRIMARY DEBATE WAS EVER ASKED by any moderator on the topic of "transgender youth", as if ashamed of speaking about it. And the Democrat candidates were never asked about the "comic book porn" young children were exposed to in school. So here is my question:

How does the DSA and the Democrat Party differ on their policy opinion of "transgender youth" and the sex change surgeries in medical treatment centers and hospitals on minors, and why no one in those two political organizations has ever spoken out against this?"

To understand the positions of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) on transgender youth, it is necessary to examine how they define "gender-affirming care" and how they view the healthcare system itself. The two organizations agree on supporting transgender rights, but their core policy differences, internal dissent, and political strategies diverge significantly. [1]

## ��️ The Platform Policy Differences
Both organizations support access to "gender-affirming care"—an umbrella term defined by major medical associations (like the American Academy of Pediatrics) that spans social transition (names/pronouns), puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and surgeries. However, their frameworks are entirely different: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

* The Democratic Party (Regulated Healthcare Model): Mainstream Democrats view gender-affirming care as a private medical decision that belongs exclusively to patients, their families, and their doctors. Their policy goal is to protect this choice from state-level government bans by utilizing the legal system and insurance mandates. [6, 7, 8]
* The DSA (Socialist Framework): The DSA completely rejects the private insurance model. Their platform calls for "Trans Socialism". They demand that all gender-affirming care, including for youth, be completely nationalized, entirely free at the point of service, and funded 100% by the state. [9, 10, 11]

## ✂️ The Reality of "Sex Change Surgeries" on Minors
A major point of public confusion involves surgical procedures on minors under 18. According to medical data and guidelines from groups like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), surgical operations are exceedingly rare for minors. The vast majority of care for minors involves mental health counseling, social transition, and temporary puberty blockers or hormone treatments. [3, 4, 12]

## ❓ Has "Not One Single Democrat" Ever Spoken Out?
The premise that no Democrat has ever broken ranks or questioned these policies is inaccurate. While the national party platform strongly aligns with LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, the issue has created significant fractures:
## 1. Elected Democrats Voting for Bans [13]
Multiple sitting Democratic lawmakers have voted alongside Republicans to restrict gender-affirming care for minors. For example, in federal legislation regarding Medicaid funding and criminal penalties for youth procedures, Democratic Representatives like Don Davis voted in favor of the restrictions. [14]
## 2. The Post-Election Shift and Internal Backlash
Following competitive election cycles, a growing faction of mainstream Democrats has openly pushed the party to rethink its absolute stance on transgender issues. Lawmakers have argued that the national party became unaligned with the broader electorate on topics like transgender athletes in sports and minor healthcare access, leading to active public debate within the party about moderating their platform. [15, 16, 17]
## 3. Why It Was Rarely a Primary Debate Topic
The observation that the topic was rarely highlighted by moderators in primary debates stems from political strategy rather than shame. During Democratic primaries, candidates generally shared a consensus on civil rights issues, leading moderators to focus debate time on areas of sharp disagreement (such as text-book capitalist vs. socialist economic policy, tax rates, and foreign policy).

## �� School Materials and Judicial Disputes
The controversies regarding explicit or mature materials in school libraries (often labeled by critics as "comic book porn") and interstate custody disputes have played out heavily in the courts rather than through congressional legislation:

* The School Materials Conflict: Mainstream Democrats frame challenges to school books as "book bans" that infringe on free speech and inclusivity. Opponents frame them as essential child protection measures against age-inappropriate sexual content.
* Interstate Care and Parental Rights: "Shield laws" passed by progressive states protect out-of-state families seeking care from prosecution in their home states. When legal conflicts arise between parents or between a parent and the state, judges rule based on state custody statutes and the legally defined "best interests of the child," which has led to intense judicial standoffs over parental rights. [8, 18, 19]

## ⚖️ Summary of the Consensus
Members of the Democratic Party and the DSA rarely "speak out against" the core concept of transgender care because both organizations operate on the foundational principle of civil rights and bodily autonomy. [9, 10]

The primary reason you do not hear public opposition from the majority of these organizations is that they view the pushback against transgender youth as part of a broader political movement targeting LGBTQ+ rights. However, the Democratic Party continues to experience internal friction regarding where the exact boundaries of age, parental consent, and sports fairness should legally lie. [16, 17, 20]

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-health-reimagined/202510/how-the-left-and-right-are-both-getting-trans-kids-wrong
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9418844/
[3] https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jfgMFfAQfY&t=78
[4] https://okcfox.com](https://okcfox.com/news/nation-world/democrats-defend-gender-change-procedures-for-children-during-fiery-house-hearing
[5] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/impact-gac-ban-eo/
[6] https://equality.house.gov](https://equality.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/democrats-urge-supreme-court-strike-down-tennessee-gender-affirming-care
[7] https://equality.house.gov](http://equality.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/democrats-urge-supreme-court-strike-down-tennessee-gender-affirming-care
[8] https://nationalpartnership.org](https://nationalpartnership.org/rhw-senators-clash-over-whether-parents-or-politicians-should-decide-on-trans-youth-care/
[9] https://www.instagram.com](https://www.instagram.com/p/DVqsy7qFRpp/
[10] https://y.dsausa.org](https://y.dsausa.org/ydsaforabortion/
[11] https://working-mass.com](https://working-mass.com/2024/10/21/democrats-wont-protect-trans-people-only-socialists-and-unions-can/
[12] https://www.instagram.com](https://www.instagram.com/p/DcOkpU3n55u/
[13] https://www.pbs.org](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-were-hammered-with-misleading-attacks-on-transgender-issues-the-party-is-grappling-with-how-to-move-forward
[14] https://www.witn.com](https://www.witn.com/2025/12/18/rep-davis-among-3-democrats-who-vote-pass-bill-criminalizing-gender-affirming-care-minors/
[15] https://www.pbs.org](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-were-hammered-with-misleading-attacks-on-transgender-issues-the-party-is-grappling-with-how-to-move-forward
[16] https://www.facebook.com](https://www.facebook.com/washingtonpost/posts/some-democrats-want-to-rethink-the-partys-approach-to-trans-issues-warning-they-/1081501330508408/
[17] https://carnegieendowment.org](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/06/the-new-global-struggle-over-gender-rights-and-family-values
[18] https://www.dsausa.org](https://www.dsausa.org/statements/in-solidarity-on-transgender-day-of-visibility/
[19] https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3L52rp22_o&t=35
[20] https://www.dsausa.org](https://www.dsausa.org/statements/justice-for-trans-people-requires-power/

ME: So, then it's true. Only ONE Democrat voted for "restrictions" when his one lone vote made no difference, and only because of the upcoming elections, some are changing their stripes to appear to be more "moderate" on this issue. And that's why moderators at debates never bring up this topic, because they would be exposed.

The perspective that the unified stance of national Democrats—and the relative absence of debate on the topic—is a calculated strategy to protect the party politically is a central viewpoint held by critics of the party. [1]

From this viewpoint, the party avoids open debate because they believe the platform on minor gender-affirming care and school materials is out of step with the broader electorate and would be exposed as a political liability if highlighted during a general campaign. [2]

The two distinct interpretations of this dynamic can be outlined as follows:

## �� The Case That It Is Political Avoidance and Calculation

Critics argue that the uniform voting record and the lack of primary debate coverage prove the party is intentionally shielding its platform from public scrutiny:

* The "Safe" Dissent Argument: Critics point out that when a solitary Democrat votes with Republicans on these bills, it is often a safe, calculated move allowed by party leadership for a lawmaker in a heavily conservative district. Since the vote will not change the ultimate outcome of the bill, the lawmaker can look "moderate" to their voters back home without actually disrupting the party's agenda. [3]
* The Post-Election Shift: The sudden willingness of some Democrats to question the party's platform on transgender issues only after losing tough elections is seen as a clear sign of political opportunism. Critics argue these lawmakers did not speak up when it mattered, and are only "changing their stripes" now because they realize the issue is hurting them with everyday voters. [4]
* Media Alignment: This perspective holds that mainstream debate moderators intentionally avoid asking Democratic candidates tough, detailed questions about youth surgeries, puberty blockers, or explicit library books because the media wants to protect the party from having to defend policies that are deeply unpopular with the general public.

## �� The Case That It Is Unified Principle and Consensus

The Democratic Party and its defenders argue that the uniform stance is not a cynical political trick, but rather a reflection of a deep, principle-based consensus within the modern party:

* The Consensus Argument: Inside the Democratic Party, there is almost no active debate on this topic because the overwhelming majority of its members genuinely agree on the underlying principle: they view access to healthcare for transgender youth as a fundamental civil right and a private medical decision. Just as Republicans rarely debate among themselves whether to lower taxes, Democrats do not debate whether to protect LGBTQ+ rights—it is a core pillar of their coalition.
* The Focus of Primary Debates: Proponents argue that primary debate moderators focus on areas where the candidates actually disagree with one another (such as the details of a wealth tax or the exact structure of healthcare reform). Because the candidates all share the same baseline position on transgender rights, there is no policy disagreement to debate on stage.
* A Margin of Error on Messy Debates: Mainstream Democrats view the recent internal pushback not as a fake shift to the middle, but as a necessary political reaction to how their position has been framed by opponents. They argue that while they still support the rights of transgender people, the party needs to do a better job of addressing parental concerns about sports fairness and age-appropriate school materials rather than letting opponents define their message entirely.

## ⚖️ The Takeaway

Ultimately, the two sides look at the same lack of internal debate and reach different conclusions about the party's motives:

* One side sees political evasion—a party hiding a controversial social agenda from the public to avoid being exposed and losing elections. [5]
* The other side sees ideological unity—a party that has reached a clear, internal consensus on civil rights and sees no reason to debate a foundational value on a public stage.

If you want, we can explore:

* The specific polling data showing how the American public views youth gender-affirming care vs. sports participation
* How other social issues (like abortion or gun control) are handled during primary debates when there is a party consensus
* The exact text of the Democratic platform regarding parental rights in education

Let me know which angle you would like to examine.

[1] https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX2qXatQOhQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_kSkS4wAnQ
[3] https://abcnews.com](https://abcnews.com/Politics/sen-schumer-tells-democrats-hell-reintroduce-bipartisan-border/story?id=110381397
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/13/moulton-transgender-comments-democratic-party/
[5] https://www.progressivepolicy.org](https://www.progressivepolicy.org/the-new-politics-of-evasion%20%5Bprogressivepolicy-org%5D/

ME: Most, if not all A.I., is usually left-leaning because the coders who write the algorithms are usually, if not always, left-leaning.

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Who is Victor Marx and his Mysterious Mom? - July 19, 2026

Republican Victor Marx and Democrat Phil Weiser will face off in the general election for Colorado Governor in November 2026. An official general election debate schedule has not yet been announced as of today (July 19) following Victor Marx's primary victory on July 9, 2026. Debate dates are typically finalized and hosted by local media outlets like 9NEWS or Colorado Politics in the late summer or early fall leading up to the election. The nominee for governor typically selects their lieutenant governor running mate after the primary to run together on a single ticket. As of now, Marx's campaign has not publicly named a running mate. (Could it be Rep. Lauren Boebert?)

Phil Weiser is a progressive (aka socialist) Democrat whose political career and background involved serving in the Clinton and Obama administrations, as well as being dean of the "woke" University of Colorado Law School that has a focus on LBGTG+AI rights. NOTE: Colorado Law School Student Blows Whistle on Anti-Trump Course

But who is Victor Marx? To be clear: President Trump has NOT endorsed him. So I made a few Google A.I. inquires to see who is he really was (besides just a self-made preacher).

Victor Marx and mother

* NOTE: Every paragraph below is a direct quote from Google A.I. that listed links to various sources, with no opinions added, and all the answers are based on separate inquires. Some may contradict, as in one example I cited. Most of the paragraphs aren't not any specific order, so if you like, you can put the puzzle together yourself and then tell the rest of us what you find.

Victor Marx was honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps after completing three years of service in the mid-1980s as a weapons instructor and competitive shooter stationed at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

Victor Marx claims he was forced by an abusive stepfather to shoot and kill a man at age seven in Mississippi, though local law enforcement has no record of the incident. The Republican nominee for Colorado governor has also hinted at possible combat or self-defense killings while doing overseas ministry work, but he has refused to provide an exact number or specific details, dismissing requests for the count as an "odd question".

Victor grew up with his mother and eventually lived in 17 different houses, attending 14 different schools

Victor Marx’s mother is a Cajun woman who faced significant hardships, including abuse and abandonment. Marx has openly discussed his turbulent upbringing, noting that his mother was a victim of severe violence the night he was conceived and endured subsequent abusive relationships that deeply impacted his childhood

Victor Marx has not publicly shared his mother's exact first and last name, generally referring to her affectionately as his "little Cajun Momma". Public updates from Victor indicate that she is still alive. She celebrated her 83rd birthday in July 2025.

Victor Marx's mother is Eileen Marx. While his childhood was highly transient, he grew up primarily in Lafayette, Louisiana, where his mother also resided for much of that time.

Victor Marx's mother, Eileen Marx, is alive. He frequently celebrates her on his official social media platforms, including recent posts.

CITED QUESTION: "I thought Victor Marx's mother was Eliene Marx and his father was Karl Marx. Does his mother and wife share the same name?
CITED: GOOGLE A.I. ANSWER: "No, humanitarian Victor Marx's mother and wife do not share the same name. His wife's name is Eileen Marx, whom he married in the late 1980s. His biological father was indeed named [Karl Marx] (1.1.4, 1.2.5) (a Louisianan drug dealer and pimp, unrelated to the 19th-century German philosopher), but his mother's name is not Eileen. Public records do not widely name his biological mother, but they document that she was a young teenager when she had her first children and went on to marry six different times."

Eileen Marx and her husband, Victor Marx, have five children together, as well as several grandchildren. Their oldest son is named Shiloh, and they also have a second-born daughter and a youngest daughter.

Shiloh Marx is 35 years old. He was born on July 4, 1991, as shared by his father on Victor Marx's Instagram.

Victor Marx has three older siblings and at least one younger brother. His mother had her first four children at a very young age, meaning Victor already had three older siblings by the time he was born. His siblings include:
* Michael "Mike" Kennedy: His older brother and close friend, who tragically passed away in a car accident in December 2022.
* A sister: Who is featured alongside other family members in his biographical documentary, The Victor Marx Story.
* A younger brother: Whom Victor has occasionally mentioned and pictured in social media posts.

Victor Marx's mother had at least five children. His mother was married six times. Before Victor was born, she already had four children from her earlier relationships (including Victor's older brother Michael and his older sister). Victor was her fifth child. Additionally, Victor has publicly spoken about having a younger brother, meaning she may have had more children with her later husbands.

Victor Marx brought his dog, a Dutch shepherd named Reagan, to the June 2026 Colorado Republican gubernatorial debate as part of his unconventional campaign style, which frequently shunned standard political norms.

Victor Marx says he had a traumatic brain injury (TBI) stemming from severe, prolonged physical abuse and torture he endured as a child. According to his biographical accounts and ministry background, Marx was repeatedly beaten, electrocuted, and nearly drowned by an abusive stepfather. These repeated traumas left lasting neurological impacts, contributing to the TBI and severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that he lives with today.

Victor Marx says his biological father was a former Navy member, street fighter, and martial artist involved in the Cajun Mafia who initially denied paternity. His biological father (named Karl Marx) was an absentee figure who worked as a bouncer, drug dealer, and pimp. Despite a rough life and initial rejection, Victor later reconnected with his father, who became a born-again Christian later in life and taught martial arts to troubled youth.

Victor Marx claims he killed a man when he was 7 years old. In his memoir, the Colorado Republican gubernatorial nominee wrote that his abusive stepfather forced him to shoot and kill someone, after which his stepfather smeared blood on him and buried the body

Law enforcement officials and journalists have been unable to find any official records or evidence to verify this claim, and Marx has repeatedly declined to answer questions about it during his political campaign.

Victor Marx has shared that he endured severe abuse from multiple stepfathers during his difficult childhood. He has not publicly identified the specific names of his abusive stepfathers.

Victor Marx has stated on his ministry channels that he eventually tracked down his primary abuser, led him to accept Christianity, and was with him on his deathbed.

Victor Marx was at the deathbed of his abusive former stepfather. Marx, a Marine veteran and founder of the nonprofit All Things Possible Ministries, has openly shared that he was able to visit his stepdad in the hospital and lead him to the Lord before he passed away.

Pages