AARP EXPOSED: The Radical Leftist Roots of the ‘American Association of Retired Persons’ How older generations unwittingly prop up the far-Left agenda.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

When my parents (who were part of America’s so-called “Greatest Generation”) were in their 50s, they seemed much older than the 50-plus people I know today. American society was not so youth conscious then; there were no nubile Calvin Klein faces in magazine ads because teenagers and people in their 20s had not yet been enshrined as humanity’s ideal age.

In my parents’ era, older people looked and acted very old, and they dressed very old.

The men – except for the occasional dandy – had little taste in fashion. While they may have used lotions like Vaseline Hair Tonic, the men in the 1950s and ‘60s looked 45 by the time they were 26. They wore baggy trousers, smoked and drank to excess, and rarely exercised outside of playing golf or backyard croquette. The women of that era followed a similar course with their fox fur wraps, mink coats, and pillbox hats with netting in the front.

Baby boomers – the children of the ’60s who gifted the world with the sexual revolution and Woodstock – revolutionized the idea of what it means to be older. As most glitzy magazines would have us believe, boomers normalized the use of vitamins, plastic surgery, Botox, Viagra, and regular workouts at home or in gyms, thereby causing many to believe that 60 is really the new 40 and that 70 is the new 50, and so forth.

The mostly liberal Democrat-leaning Boomers also came up with the concept of ageism as a form of discrimination. Ageism joined racism and sexism as major societal sins.

Ageism, of course, is defined as discrimination or negative stereotyping based on chronological age. The concept was mainstreamed with the help of Maggie Kuhn (1905-1995), the founder of the Gray Panthers, an organization devoted to the rights of the elderly. Kuhn founded the Gray Panthers after being forced to retire from a job when she turned 65. That experience led to Kuhn becoming a leader in the fight against age discrimination.

And fight she did, especially with her motto, “Age and Youth in Action,” a philosophy that encouraged older (usually widowed) women to have relationships with much younger men. Kuhn herself lived with a young man in his twenties while in her eighties in the Germantown section of Philadelphia.

After Kuhn’s death, the Gray Panthers gradually dwindled and disappeared from the scene. In the 1970s it had over 100,000 members in more than 30 states. It was a time when Kuhn made regular appearances on programs like The Phil Donahue Show and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.

A recent New York Times piece on Kuhn put it this way:

Kuhn and the Gray Panthers have been so forgotten that it’s almost difficult to recall a time when advocacy groups for older people pursued a broader vision of a just society. But the need for intergenerational alliances not just to save Social Security, but also to achieve health care for all, to battle climate change, to combat race- and gender-based violence, to defy ageism and to push for a more equitable and humane economy is urgent. Old people have been organized radicals before; they can be so again.

The Times’ comment pretty much summarizes why the Gray Panthers faded into obscurity: the organization did itself in because it embraced a host of umbrella leftist causes.

Climate change and gender-based violence have nothing to do with the problems of aging.

Or do they?

According to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), they do. AARP, founded in 1958 as a non-partisan non-profit, claims it is non-partisan because it does not donate directly to the Democrat party. Yet the organization explicitly supports causes embraced by progressive Democrats, including the far-out notion that climate change is responsible for the rise of infectious diseases worldwide.

In 2012, AARP endorsed Obamacare. The Wall Street Journal at that time called attention to this fact and reported that at least 71 emails were exchanged between AARP and the White House.

Most people who join AARP do so because of the organization’s hotel and motel discounts and are blithely unaware of its alignment with progressive causes. In the Biden era, of course, these progressive causes have been pushed so extensively that most of them appear to be thoroughly mainstream and uncontested.

While conservative alternative organizations to AARP exist, like the Association of Mature American Citizens, AARP is the federally-funded market standard bearer. Yet one could also say that AARP is the direct descendent of Maggie Kuhn’s Gray Panthers, although dressed up a little differently and mainstreamed for maximum potential.

Maggie Kuhn’s work undoubtedly helped change some of the language surrounding age. One thinks how outdated refrains like “old geezer,” “old fogy,” “old maid and, to a much lesser extent, “dirty old man” have fallen out of the official lexicon. All of these words point to negative stereotypes and negative connotations. (Why, for instance, is it any worse to be a dirty old man than it is to be a dirty young man?)

Scientists say that by the middle of this century, we may see 20- to 40-year leaps in the average life span, thanks to advanced drugs, biotherapies, and the cure of many degenerative diseases. While that may be good news to many, what does that mean in terms of quality of life issues?

What sense would it make if the world were full of healthy 90-year-olds walking around with nothing to do? Living longer in a world where the national economy continues to worsen and where personal finances plummet, would be a gamble.

Bioconservatives like Daniel Callahan and Leon Kass take a dim view of biotechnological progress that could increase the human life span to 150.

Callahan believes that “There is no human social good coming from the conquest of death.” Kass, the controversial former head of President George W. Bush’s Council on Bioethics, says that “the finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual, whether he knows it or not.”

San Francisco author Lillian Rubin, who died at age 90 in 2014, wrote that she was sick of the mainstream media singing the praises of the joys of old age. In her book, 60 On Up: The Truth About Aging in America (Beacon Press), Ms. Rubin writes that because people are living longer they are possibly facing 35 years or more of retirement.

“And it ain’t all gonna be a walk on the beach,” she insists. “I can hardly remember a time getting together with friends in their late 60s and older when they weren’t talking about getting tired, bored with what they were doing, what they were going to do in retirement…”

As for the ads in the ubiquitous AARP magazine that most Americans begin receiving on their 50th birthdays, Ms. Rubin says they are among the worst offenders, “featuring thin, barely wrinkled, happy gray-haired couples on the beach. Come on,” she wrote, “this is not life!”

In AARP’s world, it may be a life, especially if that gray-haired couple are card-carrying Democrats.

Avatar photo

Thom Nickels

Thom Nickels is a Philadelphia-based journalist and the 2005 recipient of the AIA Lewis Mumford Award for Architectural Journalism.

Times Square Stabber Made His Intentions Clear; No One Cares

NYPD’s counterterrorism top dog: Time Square jihadi ‘is not representing, you know, the Islamic religion’


Ball Test - Times Square New Year's Eve 2023 Celebration

Thomas Galati, the department’s chief of intelligence and counterterrorism, was quoted as having told ABC News in an interview….”He is not representing, you know, the Islamic religion but rather, you know, a very, very small percentage of people that get radicalized,” Galati added….

Times Square Trevor Bickford , 19, of Wells, Maine was on an FBI "watchlist". After he was radicalized, he vowed to fight in Afghanistan. His brother is in the US Army.

Robert Spencer on OAN on the Times Square jihadi being on the FBI’s radar for weeks



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

19-year-old Trevor Bickford stabbed two cops with a machete in Times Square on New Year’s Eve, and authorities are scratching their heads and wondering why. According to the UK’s Daily Mail, “an investigation was underway to pinpoint a motive for the attack.” That investigation, however, may be more the result of officials not wanting to recognize Bickford’s obvious motive, rather than a matter of his real intentions being unclear. Bickford himself left behind a “manifesto” in which he made his perspective and intentions quite clear. But since neither he nor his attack fit the establishment media/Biden regime narrative about the “white supremacist” terror threat, they’re unlikely to get much attention.

The New York Post reported Sunday that when he was arrested after the stabbings, Bickford had a handwritten note in his backpack, asking his family to “please repent to Allah and accept Islam.” The backpack also contained a “collection of religious material” that was unlikely to have been gospel tracts. Bickford wrote: “To my family — specifically, mother —  I’m sorry for not having been a good enough son.” But then he gets down to brass tacks: “I fear greatly that you will not repent to Allah. And therefore I hold hope in my heart that a piece of you believes so that you may be taken out to [sic] the hellfire.”

Bickford addressed the same hope to his brother: “To Travis. Of anyone I’ve known who I have felt is closest to faith — it’s you. Of anyone I’ve ever wanted to accept Islam with me — it’s you. Please repent to Allah and accept Islam. I fear for you.” To his other brother, who is reportedly in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bickford wrote: “To Devon, there was a time when we were close, but that time has passed. You have joined the ranks of my enemy. And for that, I can give you no kind words – return to Allah.”

The New York Post also noted that Bickford wanted to attack “a uniformed officer” or “someone with a gun,” as he believed such people to be an “enemy of the state.” Which state? The New York Post, as willfully ignorant as the rest of the establishment media, shows no curiosity about this question. But clearly, Trevor Bickford, after he converted to Islam, was no stalwart American patriot. He wanted to target a uniformed officer as an enemy of the Islamic state. He had no kind words for his brother Devon because Devon had joined “the ranks of my enemy,” that is, the U.S. military.

How did Trevor Bickford come to think this way? According to the Daily Mail, he “appeared to be a typical, all-American teenager” who “once made the school honor roll, won awards for his artwork, and was a member of the championship football team in his hometown of Wells, Maine.” Then, however, his father died of a drug overdose, which must certainly have been deeply traumatizing, and Bickford converted to Islam. If authorities really want to understand Bickford’s motive, they should study carefully what they are almost certainly ignoring, such as the questions of how and where this young man converted to Islam, and how he got the idea that his new religion, which non-Muslim authorities all over the Western world assure us is completely peaceful and tolerant, commanded him to consider non-Muslims enemies and violently attack them.

Related: White Man Stabs Two Cops With Machete in Times Square on New Year’s Eve! White Supremacy? Not Quite

These questions are never asked, much less answered, despite the fact that converts to Islam turning to jihad violence is a distressingly common phenomenon. American intelligence and law enforcement officials don’t want to do anything to give the impression that they don’t accept the dogma that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The fact that converts to Islam such as Trevor Bickford, Allison Fluke-Ekren, Damon Joseph, Corey Johnson, and many, many others have somehow gotten exactly the opposite idea doesn’t ever make authorities pause and reflect upon their core assumptions.

All this willful ignorance accomplishes nothing other than to ensure that the story of Trevor Bickford will recur again and again. The Biden administration’s all-consuming focus on a fictional “white supremacist” terror threat only ensures that those who converted and taught Bickford and others like him will have a freer hand than ever to recruit and train new jihadis. In this case, as in so many others, Biden’s handlers’ willful ignorance and politicization of counterterror activity come at a high human cost.


Trump Attacks His Own Base, Blames Pro-Lifers for Midterms

What The --?? Trump Moves Left, Attacks Pro-Lifers



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

2023 is off to a resounding start, with the most pro-life president of the post-Roe v. Wade era blaming pro-lifers for the Republicans’ disappointing showing in the midterm elections. After being widely blamed for that poor showing, Donald Trump struck back on New Year’s Day, writing on Truth Social: “It wasn’t my fault that the Republicans didn’t live up to expectations in the MidTerms. I was 233-20! It was the ‘abortion issue,’ poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or the Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters. Also, the people that pushed so hard, for decades, against abortion, got their wish from the U.S. Supreme Court, & just plain disappeared, not to be seen again. Plus, Mitch stupid $’s!”

The singular achievement of the Trump presidency was the appointment of three pro-life Supreme Court justices who finally rid the nation of Roe v. Wade, which even the Left’s Supreme Court heroine Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged was poorly reasoned, on thin (at best) Constitutional foundations, and simply bad law. Donald Trump, despite the shortcomings of his superabundantly publicized personal life, won the enduring gratitude of pro-lifers by laying the foundation for the removal of that exercise of judicial tyranny. The Dobbs decision came courtesy of the justices he appointed, and restored to each individual state the right to determine its abortion laws, and to outlaw it if a majority saw fit to do so. As a result, the relentless sacrifices to Moloch have actually eased in some areas.

It would be reasonable to think that any candidate responsible for such an achievement would run on it and run on it hard, but Trump is busy running the other way. He claims that “the ‘abortion issue’” was “poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters,” and yet there simply were no such candidates in the 2022 midterms. Not a single Republican was out there running on the idea that abortion must be banned when the life of the mother is at risk. The question of whether a mother should kill her child if her own life is in danger, rather than sacrifice her life so that her child may live, is a separate question; the fact remains that this was simply not an issue for anyone in 2022. So what is Trump talking about?

Trump also apparently believes that pro-life positions cost Republicans at the polls. Yet even a cursory glance at the record shows that not to be the case. After the Dobbs decision, Trump’s bête noire, Ron DeSantis, vowed to expand pro-life protections. Yet DeSantis won nearly 60% of the vote as he was reelected governor of Florida in November 2022. Brian Kemp once tweeted: “I’m pro-life and unapologetic about it. During my time as Secretary of State, I sued the Obama Justice Department twice – and won – to keep illegals from voting. As governor, I’ll do what it takes to have the strongest pro-life, anti-abortion laws in the country.” Yet in 2022, he once again defeated the perennial rising star of the Democrat party and the establishment media, supermodel Stacey Abrams. And it’s the same all over the country: the strongest pro-life candidates, including Mike DeWine in Ohio and Greg Abbott in Texas, won their 2022 elections. So whom is Trump talking about?

Related: Blaming Trump

There is likewise no actual evidence for Trump’s claim that pro-life voters “got their wish from the U.S. Supreme Court, & just plain disappeared, not to be seen again.” The media spent the summer and fall boasting that young women, eager to abort their children, would swing the election hard to the Left; although the Republicans underperformed, this was not due to any pro-abortion wave, but to the effects of gerrymandering and mail-in ballots. Republican candidates actually secured a decisive national popular vote advantage, but due to Democrat and RINO chicanery, this didn’t translate into seats.

Trump was certainly correct, however, that “Mitch’s stupid $” was a baneful influence on the elections, but this was an ancillary point that many others have made, and certainly didn’t outweigh the significance of the pro-life president abandoning and criticizing his own base. Trump has apparently decided to try to appeal to the Romney/Cheney establishment Republicans, a strategy that is almost certainly doomed to fail, as they hate him passionately and immovably, and his move to the Left will only alienate his core supporters.

This is a great shame. Trump was a remarkably effective president. In my book Rating America’s Presidents. I gave him the highest possible rating. But is Trump himself aware of what made his presidency so successful? At this point, the answer to that question is unclear at best.