America's Lost Soul: Russell Kirk, the Decline of Tradition, and the Search for Meaning in a Fragmented Age
America's Lost Soul: Russell Kirk, the Decline of Tradition, and the Search for Meaning in a Fragmented Age
For decades, a profound and unsettling question has overshadowed the American experience: Has our nation lost its "soul"?
It is a philosophical query that transcends mere politics or economics, delving into the spiritual, moral, and cultural foundations of our republic. Few thinkers articulated this concern with greater clarity and greater urgency than Russell Kirk—the architect of modern American conservatism.
Kirk's diagnosis was stark: America’s vitality, its unique form of ordered liberty, and its very character were being eroded by a systematic abandonment of its founding traditions, its moral imagination, and the "permanent things" that anchor a healthy society. In a time of deep political polarization, rising societal anxieties, and a pervasive sense of meaninglessness, Kirk’s warnings—once deemed the pronouncements of a nostalgic traditionalist—feel acutely relevant today.
I want to delve into the core of Russell Kirk's argument, examine the concrete evidence that both supports and contradicts his thesis of spiritual decline, and explore the complex social indicators that define the difference between mere cultural change and genuine cultural collapse.
Russell Kirk's Arguments on America’s Soul: The Roots of Ordered Liberty
Russell Kirk (1918–1994), often called the "father of modern American conservatism," viewed the American experiment not as a radical political invention, but as the culmination of a centuries-old moral and cultural tradition. His work centered on the principle that the political order, enshrined in the Constitution, could only function effectively if it rested upon a robust, shared moral foundation—what he termed the "moral imagination."
The Moral Imagination and the Permanent Things
For Kirk, the moral imagination was the wellspring of civilization. It was the ability to perceive and appreciate the spiritual truths, historical continuity, and shared values that give life meaning and society cohesion. This imagination, Kirk argued, was nurtured not by state decree or political ideology, but by traditional institutions: the family, the church, the local community, and the literature and history passed down through generations.
He believed the American constitutional order was an expression of this moral imagination—a heritage of "right order in the soul and the polity." The genius of the Founding Fathers was not that they invented liberty, but that they secured the ordered liberty that had evolved organically from Western, particularly British, cultural, and religious traditions.
The Retreat from Tradition to Ideology
Kirk saw the seeds of America’s decline in the modern era’s radical rejection of tradition in favor of ideology, materialism, and moral relativism.
Ideology (in Kirk's specific sense) was the attempt to create a perfect society from abstract, rationalistic principles, stripped of history and practical wisdom. He was profoundly skeptical of all utopian schemes, whether of the left or the right, believing that the attempt to achieve heaven on earth inevitably leads to earthly tyranny and the destruction of the delicate social fabric. When tradition is jettisoned, he argued, politics becomes a fanatical quest for total societal control rather than a prudent exercise in maintaining peace and order.
Materialism was the belief that human happiness and societal progress are solely dependent on economic metrics and physical comforts. This focus, Kirk warned, hollows out the spiritual core, replacing meaning and purpose with consumption and self-gratification.
Moral Relativism completed the decline, undermining the shared religious and ethical framework necessary for citizens to exercise self-restraint and adhere to the rule of law. If there are no "permanent things"—unchanging moral and spiritual truths—then society has no anchor and its laws become nothing more than the temporary will of the powerful. In other words, might makes right.
The Signs of a Lost Soul
Kirk pointed to concrete social phenomena as evidence that America was losing its deeper spiritual and civic identity. Three specific ways he addressed this are in religious decline, the breakdown of relationships, and the rise of modern trends.
Religion — The waning influence of organized religion and the rise of secularism signaled a loss of the ultimate source of moral authority.
The Breakdown of the Family and Community — These foundational institutions, which transmit cultural memory and discipline, were fracturing. This leaves individuals rootless.
The Rise of Modern Trends — Kirk saw in various modern movements a self-destructive search for meaning detached from communal responsibility—a restless energy divorced from purpose. These movements prioritize individual desires over responsibilities to others. It also includes certain forms of political activism and/or consumeristic consumption that offer fleeting purpose while undermining lasting community bonds.
In short, Kirk warned that as the cultural memory and moral foundation are lost in a society, the spiritual vitality necessary for ordered liberty is extinguished. When this happens there is a great risk for the collapse of civil society itself.
His argument suggests that America's strength was never just in its documents, but in the character of its people. This is a character formed by tradition. It’s in this sense that society (which is inanimate and we are talking about abstract things here) can be said to have a soul because a society is living and breathing—like us each individually.
Is Russell Kirk Right?
Kirk’s powerful diagnosis of a “loss of soul” has been echoed by many contemporary commentators who point to a confluence of troubling trends. However, this perspective is vigorously challenged by critics who argue that what Kirk perceives as decline is merely social evolution, pluralism, and progress.
Evidence Supporting Kirk’s Thesis
Those who see the “loss of soul” argue that the measurable decline of core traditional institutions provides compelling evidence:
1. Social Fragmentation and Alienation
The erosion of communal bonds has left many Americans, particularly young American men, feeling profoundly isolated.
Rising Loneliness: Studies show measurable increases in self-reported loneliness and social isolation.
Declining Marriage and Birth Rates: These demographic shifts are seen as symptoms of cultural pessimism and a retreat from the family unit as the primary source of meaning and societal stability. The long-term decline in birth rates suggests a significant change in how Americans view the future and their role in it.
Meaninglessness and Self-Destruction: The tragic rise in suicide rates and addiction rates (particularly opioid abuse or the Opioid Crisis as we might read about in NYT/etc.) are cited as the most visceral evidence of a spiritual void. This void is a desperate attempt to fill the sense of meaninglessness left by the collapse of faith and community.
2. The Breakdown of the Traditional Family
The family, for Kirk, was the crucial unit for passing on the “moral imagination.” Data showing its transformation is a key pillar of the decline argument.
Fewer adults are marrying, and they are doing so later in life.
A higher percentage of children are being raised in single-parent homes compared to past decades, suggesting a weakening of the traditional family structure as the norm.
3. Religious Decline and Secularism
The spiritual core of America, rooted largely in a Judeo-Christian ethic, appears to be rapidly dissolving.
Polls consistently show a steep decline in the number of Americans identifying with a specific religion. The "Nones" (those claiming no religious affiliation) are a rapidly growing demographic.
Church attendance and religious engagement are also falling, indicating a broader withdrawal from organized moral instruction. Supporters of Kirk’s view see this as a nation drifting from its foundational moral compass.
4. The Crisis of Civic Trust and Unity
Kirk warned that without shared "permanent things," the country would fracture.
The current level of political and social discord is unprecedented in recent history. The inability to agree on basic facts or core values is seen as the direct result of abandoning the common traditions that once unified the nation.
Trust in major institutions—the government, the media, universities, and the courts—has reached historic lows. This civic distrust is interpreted as a consequence of abandoning the moral code that once held leaders and institutions accountable.
Evidence Contradicting Kirk’s Thesis
Critics of Kirk’s view do not deny the data showing social change, but they fundamentally challenge the interpretation of these trends as "decline." They argue that changes are better understood as progress, evolution, and a healthy increase in pluralism and autonomy.
1. Change Versus Decline: The Subjectivity of Metrics
Kirk’s argument, they contend, relies on a subjective, idealized standard of a past America that was not equally available to all of its citizens.
Changes in marriage patterns, family life, and attitudes toward religion can be interpreted as a positive shift toward greater personal autonomy and a healthier pluralism. Individuals are increasingly choosing their own paths rather than conforming to rigid, predetermined roles.
Critics suggest that while traditional institutions may be waning, new forms of community are emerging—whether through social movements, digital networks, or specialized interest groups—that provide meaning and social engagement.
2. Social Progress and Inclusion
Many of the cultural shifts lamented by traditionalists are celebrated by others as long-overdue moral triumphs.
The expansion of civil rights for racial minorities, women, and LGBTQIA+- individuals is seen as a profound moral advancement—a fulfillment of the nation’s founding promise of equality. To classify this movement away from restrictive, traditional norms as "decline" is to ignore the ethical imperative for inclusion.
Data often contradicts the most apocalyptic narratives. Life expectancy has increased (though current trends are complicated by addiction), and overall crime rates have generally fallen over the past few decades. On average, Americans are living longer, healthier, and more economically comfortable lives than in Kirk’s time.
3. Structural and Economic Forces
A major critique of Kirk's analysis is its heavy focus on cultural and spiritual explanations, often to the neglect of concrete economic and structural forces driving social problems.
Critics argue that social problems like delayed marriage and rising anxiety are more closely tied to stagnant wages, high housing costs, and rising economic inequality than to a loss of the "moral imagination." When young adults can't afford a stable life, they delay traditional milestones like marriage and children.
The forces of globalization, rapid technological advancement, and a shift to a knowledge-based economy have profoundly altered community structure and work-life balance, independent of any philosophical decline.
4. Critiques of Nuance
Kirk and his modern adherents are sometimes criticized for using broad-brush cultural claims. For example, "wokeness" and traditional family values. This leads to thinking that Kirk lacks policy depth or necessary nuance. These arguments, some contend, fail to account for the complex realities of modern life which include diverse family structures and inevitable cultural clashes inherent in a heterogeneous democratic republic. That’s a mouthful, but I think it’s an accurate view of how critics might view Kirk’s work.
The Metrics of Change: Interpreting Decline vs. Evolution
Ultimately, Kirk’s claim is less of a quantifiable fact and is more of a philosophical argument. The health of a society is inextricably linked to its cultural memory and moral identity. To assess his claim, we are forced to look beyond simple statistics and track social indicators (signs via data) that capture both the erosion of traditional values and the emergence of new forms of social engagement.
The best social indicators for this nuanced analysis track both traditional values and progressive forms of social engagement over time. This allows for a more complex analysis rather than a simplistic narrative of loss.
Indicators Often Used to Measure Cultural Decline
Traditional families religious affiliation, confidence in institutions, and patriotism or civic engagement are common indicators we use to measure decline. These indicators focus on the weakening of structures that have historically been central to American life.
Falling rates of marriage, rising divorce rates, and increasing proportion of children born outside of marriage.
Declining church/religious attendance, reductions in self-reported religious identification (the "nones"), and reduced belief in a universal moral authority.
Historic lows in public trust for institutions such as the government, the press, the legal system, and Congress. This signals a breakdown in the shared civic narrative.
Decreased importance placed on patriotism, lower rates of community activity, and a decline in volunteer work, suggesting a retreat from collective civic spirit.
Indicators Capturing Cultural Change (Not Decline)
Shifts in social values, secularization, self-expression, non-traditional sources, and arguments of nuance are all indicators that we use to say that our culture is progressing or changing or evolving—not declining. These metrics capture value shifts that critics of Kirk see as healthy evolution toward a more diverse, inclusive, and autonomous society.
Growing acceptance of gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial diversity. These reflect greater pluralism, autonomy, and acceptance rather than moral decay.
As charted by the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map (from the World Values Survey), societies often transition from "traditional" values to "secular-rational" and from "survival" to "self-expression" values. This can signal individual liberation and a move toward human rights, rather than cultural loss.
Increased value placed on non-traditional sources of meaning, such as intense engagement in hobbies, community organizations, and specialized digital communities, suggesting people are re-prioritizing what they consider meaningful.
Increased public criticism of powerful institutions can reflect a societal evolution demanding greater accountability, transparency, and inclusion, rather than simple cynicism or collapse.
The Difficulty of Interpretation
Scholars use longitudinal data to compare these trends across decades. As with most things these days, the significance of an indicator ultimately lies in its interpretation. A decline in religious attendance, for instance, might be seen as spiritual decay by Kirk’s followers, but as a sign of intellectual liberation and tolerance by his critics.
The core difficulty is that decline in one area could also coexist with progress in another. These things are not mutually exclusive.
A more pluralistic society (progress) may inherently lead to a loss of a singular shared moral imagination (decline). I don’t know for sure, but this is often suggested. This makes doing any kind of cultural evaluation inherently complex and it becomes deeply dependent on the chosen framework and the values that we as interpreters might prioritize.
Personally, I find Kirk’s analysis compelling because I hold a shared view of reality that assumes morality is not fabricated by us but is instead embedded in the cosmic order of all things. If I didn’t believe this, then I would fundamentally disagree with Kirk because we wouldn’t have a necessary shared value to be having this conversation.
For those uninterested or unconvinced in or by what I’ve said so far, a pertinent question those who’ve made it this far likely have is of course, so what?
Well, here’s the bottom line . . . Here is the so what.
Why Kirk’s Warning Should Matter to Us
Russell Kirk’s warning about America's lost soul is ultimately a challenge to the postmodern liberal democratic assumption that liberty can survive purely on political mechanisms and economic prosperity. He argues that freedom requires virtue, and virtue requires a shared cultural memory and a moral anchor.
Whether we agree with his full diagnosis, Kirk’s legacy compels us to confront the undeniable evidence of social and cultural upheaval in America today. We breathe the air of alienation, civic distrust, and are in a real crisis of meaning.
The national debate is not simply about politics or economics. That’s too shallow. If we consider deeper things what we must confront is a profound philosophical struggle over who Americans are and what Americans value.
The enduring relevance of Kirk’s work lies not in prescribing a rigid return to the past, but in reminding us that every society, no matter how materially prosperous, requires a soul—a shared story, a common morality, and an imaginative understanding of the "permanent things"—to sustain its liberty.
The question for contemporary Americans is whether we can rediscover (conservative) or forge (progressive) a new source for that collective soul before the foundational threads of our republic unravel completely. If this were to happen, then our nation would go the way of every predecessor—all of the ancient civilizations that have experienced similar ends. And have lasted much longer than ours has so far.
As we look to celebrate 250 year anniversary of our country next year (1776 CE-2026 CE)—whether we agree or disagree with Kirk—we should begin to cultivate something deeper than the polarized and fragmented chaos we see on the news everyday—and find something else.
That something else gave birth to our nation.
We would do well to search for whatever it is before it's too late.
Why California's AB 84 Has Me Deeply Concerned for Our Kids
What We Stand to Lose
I work alongside families, kids, and colleagues who are doing their best to make education work for every kind of learner. This is why I feel compelled to speak up about Assembly Bill 84 (AB 84), a proposal making its way through Sacramento right now. I believe this bill could do real harm to the diverse educational opportunities so many have worked so hard to build in California—especially for our most vulnerable students.
This isn’t political chatter. This is about real kids, in real classrooms, with real futures.
I've seen firsthand how different educational models can reach students who might otherwise struggle. That's why I feel compelled to speak out about AB 84, because from my perspective, this bill appears more like a significant step backward for California's diverse educational landscape than “progress.”
Assembly Bill 84 (AB 84) was authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi. The bill proposes sweeping changes that would impact non-classroom-based (NCB) programs such as flex and homeschool, virtual, and personalized learning models. Supporters of AB 84 claim the bill is designed to increase oversight and accountability, which sounds like a great thing until you look at the bill itself. Supporters argue that increased regulation is necessary to ensure public funds are used responsibly and that all schools meet consistent standards.
Let me explain why this legislation is so problematic and show what it is that we stand to lose.
Money Diverted From Where It Matters Most: The Classroom
Imagine if your child's school suddenly lost a chunk of its budget, not because of wasteful spending, but because the state of California decided to redirect those funds to more administrative layers. That's precisely what AB 84 threatens to do. It specifically targets funding for non-classroom-based (NCB) and flexible charter models, which are often lifelines for students with unique needs.
This will directly affect money that currently goes to paying our dedicated teachers, providing crucial student support services, and buying the instructional resources that kids need to learn. Under AB 84, some schools could see their oversight fees triple, jumping from 1% to 3% of their revenue. That may sound like nothing, but even for a school like Guajome Charter Public Schools in North County San Diego, this could mean nearly half a million dollars ($499,383.69) will be diverted away from classrooms and spent elsewhere. That's money that won't be invested in teacher salaries, student supports, or instructional resources. This fundamentally shifts precious resources away from direct student benefit and into what critics are calling a "bloated bureaucracy." Tragically, this is more of the same when it comes to California politics.
Our Most Vulnerable Students Will Pay the Price Through Steep Cuts and Restrictive Caps
This part of AB 84 is particularly distressing. The bill could slash per-student funding by up to 30% for many NCB charters. These schools frequently serve California's most at-risk (or as we say now, “at-promise”) youth. These are students with complex medical needs who require specialized support, and also for those who thrive in personalized or alternative learning environments that traditional schools just can't offer.
For example, these programs often serve students facing learning challenges, personal hardships, and/or safety concerns. Some reports indicate that 88% of students in personalized learning programs succeed, either graduating, returning to traditional schools, or pursuing college/careers, with 16% re-engaging strongly in traditional settings after time in a personalized program first. These cuts could dismantle programs that are vital for these students' academic engagement and success.
Additionally, the proposed enrollment caps that are tied to traditional district attendance will directly limit access for families seeking homeschool or hybrid options through charter schools. This restricts the ability for parents to choose the best educational path for their children's individual needs and learning styles. It pushes families towards a "one-size-fits-all" approach, despite the proven success of diverse models for specific student populations. For a state that is all about diversity, this is going in the opposite direction!
Less Innovation, With Fewer Options
A fundamental strength of the charter school movement is its capacity for innovation and its ability to offer diverse educational approaches. AB 84, however, threatens to stifle that. By restricting vendor-led instruction and mandating that all service personnel hold state credentials, the bill could severely limit valuable enrichment opportunities, real-world learning experiences, and important partnerships with community educators who bring specialized expertise into the learning environment. This could impact specialized programs in areas like nature studies, STEM labs, arts, and vocational training, which often rely on the flexibility charter schools currently have.
Studies from organizations like Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) https://ncss3.stanford.edu/insights/ show that charter schools are indeed bright spots for innovation. A 2023 CREDO study found that charter school students gained the equivalent of an “additional six days of learning per year in math and 16 days in reading.” For students in poverty, these gains were even more significant with “23 extra days in reading and 17 in math.” That’s incredible! This demonstrates that charter schools are not just offering school choice, but are often achieving superior outcomes too! AB 84 risks stifling these success stories and opts instead for the status quo.
More Red Tape With No Real Accountability
While the bill's supporters might talk about accountability, from my perspective, AB 84 seems to primarily create more bureaucracy without genuinely addressing fraud or waste. For instance, the bill makes changes to charter school audits, teacher qualifications, and teacher salary requirements. With nearly 1,300 charter schools in the state, even a modest increase of $500 per year per school for auditing could create $650,000 in new costs statewide, purely for administrative compliance with zero direct student benefit.
Instead, the bill risks imposing unnecessary administrative burdens and increased costs on well-managed schools. It complicates the process for opening new charter schools and introduces arbitrary criteria for compelling schools to change authorizers. Instead of focusing on the quality of oversight itself, this just adds layers of complexity without a clear pathway to genuinely improved oversight or a tangible reduction in wrongdoing. Critics argue it's a "power grab wrapped in red tape." It’s about control.
AB 84 ThreatenS Educational Freedom
For many families and educators familiar with the bill, AB 84 is perceived as a politically driven assault on school choice. They view it as a direct threat to educational freedom, potentially leading to the closure of schools that provide essential alternatives for students who do not thrive in traditional settings. These charter schools often represent a critical option for students who might otherwise struggle academically or disengage entirely. As one concerned parent put it, "It tells parents like me: 'You found something that worked and was outside the traditional system—but now your child will get less.'" Limiting these options for political reasons is, in my view, unacceptable and undermines a fundamental right of parents to choose the best educational path for their children.
What Can You Do? Contact Your Representative ASAP!!
This legislation is not yet finalized, but time is of the essence. As an educator, I'm urging you, as concerned citizens, parents, and community members, to make your voice heard. Our state legislators need to fully understand the real-world implications AB 84 will have on our students and schools across California, including right here in Escondido.
Here's how you can make a difference and protect our students' futures:
Find Your Legislators: Type in your address on the official California State Legislature website to identify your representatives.
Contact Them Immediately: A concise, respectful, and clear message is most effective. Explain that you oppose AB 84 because it diverts essential funding from classrooms, harms vulnerable students, restricts educational choice, and increases bureaucracy without meaningful accountability improvements. Reference the specific potential impacts and statistics I've shared if you want. Phone calls are often impactful, but emails are also important.
Share This Information: Talk about concerns you have about this education bill with your friends, family, and neighbors. Help raise awareness about why this bill is so problematic. Use the hashtag #KillBillAB84 on social media if you post online.
Let's collectively impress upon our representatives that genuine accountability means investing in our students and fostering diverse educational options, not strangling them with bureaucracy and funding cuts.
The future of California’s education depends on it.
Wait…Why Are Our Tax Dollars Funding Protests?
Why Are Our Tax Dollars Funding Protests?
This is a fundamental question that should concern every taxpayer, no matter your politics: Why is our money being used to fund protests!?
This isn’t just a hypothetical question. It’s a question tied directly to this cultural, political moment. In Los Angeles, real taxpayer dollars—millions of them—have been funneled to organizations that organized and supported the anti-ICE protests we have seen video clips of.
One of the key players, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles (CHIRLA), received over $34 million in government grants, including state and federal funds. On top of that, they pulled in $45 million from state and local taxpayers just last year.
Let that sink in: over $79 million in public money went to a group that helped organize protests around the country, some of which turned violent.
Now, let’s be clear—I’m not saying that the protesters themselves were handed envelopes of cash with taxpayer dollars inside. There’s no direct evidence of that and it’s not what I’m saying took place. But what is confirmed is that public money helped to pay for the infrastructure and logistics behind these events. This means that taxpayer-funded groups were actively supporting protests against a federal law enforcement agency. That should never happen, no matter the cause.
It’s Not About Left or Right—It’s About Right and Wrong
This isn’t a left vs. right issue. If a conservative organization received government money and used it to help organize pro-life protests or Second Amendment rallies, many people would (rightfully) raise hell about it. And they should!
The principle is simple: public money should never be used to fund political protests—no matter the cause. It’s unethical, it’s unfair, and it’s fundamentally undemocratic. There may be no greater threat to democracy than staging a political revolution to create a “crisis.”
We’re all entitled to our own opinions. In this country, we are also all given the right to peaceful protest. But we are not entitled to make our neighbors pay for our politics through their taxes. That should never happen and is completely absurd.
The Government Shouldn’t Pick Political Winners and Losers
This situation raises a bigger issue. When government officials direct public funds toward politically active nonprofits, they’re not being neutral—they’re choosing sides. That’s not just bad policy—it’s a betrayal of public trust in service of “We the people” that politicians are supposed to represent.
Taxpayer money is supposed to go toward services that serve everyone: improving schools, roads, public safety, basically all infrastructure. Not political mobilization. Not organizing marches. Not creating chaos in the streets under the banner of “activism.” This stuff should freak us out more than anything else. It’s Orwell’s 1984 playing out right in front of us.
When a government funds political protests—especially ones that spiral into violence—it stops being a neutral public servant and starts acting more like a regime that manufactures chaos in order to justify its own power.
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power… Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
— George Orwell, 1984
This is how control of the masses works: create the problem, stir division, and then present yourself as the only one who can fix it. Whether it’s funding protests that target federal agencies or enabling unrest that justifies more surveillance, the pattern is the same. The government plays both arsonist and firefighter—and we, the taxpayers, foot the bill. How sickening is that!? We should all be protesting this together!
We should demand better. Demand transparency. Demand accountability. Demand that our money go toward building up our communities, not tearing them down under the banner of “activism.”
And let’s not forget—some of these protests didn’t stay peaceful. More news articles are reporting the chaos. Some turned ugly. Property was damaged. Law enforcement was targeted. And it was all enabled, at least in part, by money taken from people who never asked to be part of it in the first place!
We Deserve Accountability
Right now, congressional and federal investigations are looking into just how far this goes. That’s good—but it shouldn’t have taken this long and who knows if anything will actually come from it. I have a feeling we won’t learn our lesson and the corruption will continue.
The fact that public funds were even allowed to be used this way is a failure of leadership and oversight, and fundamentally a misuse of hard earned money from “We the people.”
It’s time for real guardrails. If a nonprofit accepts public funds, those funds should be off-limits for any political organizing. Period. Full stop.
Final Thought
You have the right to protest peacefully. So do I. I do not, you do not, and we do not have the right to make taxpayers pay for it. I shouldn’t have to make you pay for my protesting, either.
Can we keep our tax dollars focused on the things we all rely on and that don’t further the divide between us? I’d love for California’s roads to not have so many potholes. That would be a welcome Way to spend millions. NOT on pushing political agendas that divide us.
If a movement can’t stand on its own two feet without government funding, maybe it’s not as “grassroots” as it claims to be. Just a thought. It’s a good thing to think about, at least while we still can…
Sources used to check the money trail:
Fox News | NY Post | Reform California | Yahoo News | KFI AM 640