GOP Maryland AG hopeful is pro-secession and believes all public education is a communist plot: report
Michael Peroutka (Official photo)

Even though Maryland is a deep blue state, it does have a history of electing more moderate Republicans such as Gov. Larry Hogan.

However, Vice News reports that a prospective GOP nominee for Maryland attorney general does not fit anything close to the Hogan mold.

Specifically, the publication notes that Maryland AG hopeful Michael Peroutka is a former board member of the neo-Confederate League of the South who says he's "still angry" that Maryland was not able to secede during the American Civil War.

Additionally, Peroutka believes that LGBTQ marriage and abortion should be outlawed for going against "God's law," and he has also criticized the entire concept of public education as a communist plot whose goal is to "transform America away from a Christian worldview."

READ MORE: Texas mom went through 'nightmare' after being denied treatment for miscarriage: CNN

As if that weren't enough, Peroutka has also vowed to investigate Hogan's efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 over the last two years by implementing mask mandates.

“What happened was so notorious, it was so blatant, so obvious,” he said this past March at an anti-mask rally. “A constitutional God-fearing attorney general of Maryland can do something about that. He can empanel grand juries, he can bring prosecutions against the people who violated your rights.”

Peroutka was once a fringe figure in right-wing politics, but establishment Republicans in Maryland fear that the GOP base has grown so radicalized that it could nominate him for attorney general.

Maryland Republican strategist Doug Mayer, for one, tells Vice News that Peroutka's nomination would spell disaster for the GOP in the state.

"I think he probably has a better chance at building a time machine and traveling back and actually fighting in the real Civil War than becoming Maryland's attorney general," he said. "Unfortunately for normal Maryland Republicans who are running, having someone like him on the ticket would do nobody any favors."

Report typos and corrections to:

The question of motivation was raised on Friday after long-sought testimony by Ginni Thomas, the husband of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, before the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle reported Chairman Benny Thompson said Ginni Thomas is sticking to her misguided claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

"We'll go one step further, it's not misguided, it is a flat-out lie," Ruhle declared.

For analysis, Ruhle interviewed former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner.

"Glenn, what was the committee hoping to hear from Ginni Thomas?" Ruhle asked. "We both know she wasn't gonna say anything."

"No, she wasn't interested in being forthcoming and being candid," Kirschner replied.

"I think it actually turned out worse than we had expected because, in part, she was kind of a shill for her husband, saying things we would never hear from Justice Thomas because he's not going to be asked to testify," he explained. "So she got to say whatever she wanted about how we never discuss cases and we really didn't discuss election fraud and if people believe that, well, there are any number of bridges for sale."

"Then she also stuck with the big lie," he added.

Watch below or at this link:

Glenn Kirschner


More crime is caused by rich people than poor people in America. It’s not that rich people are committing the crimes, although they often do, but that inequality destroys social trust. If we want to reduce crime, we have to start taxing billionaires.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis says he’s going to cut taxes for Floridians. The Florida legislature isn’t meeting again until March of next year, which is when governors typically roll out new proposals, but, hey, he’s heading into a make-it-or-break-it election against former Florida Governor Charlie Crist in six weeks.

In West Virginia, Republican Governor Jim Justice proposed a 10% cut in income taxes, and in Missouri Republican Governor Mike Parsons is pushing an end altogether to progressive taxation, replacing the sliding scale with a flat tax that will hit middle-income people hardest.

In New York the Republican candidate for governor, Rep. Lee Zeldin, says he’ll end the income tax altogether, along with killing off the estate tax and cutting back on Medicaid for the working poor. In South Carolina Republican Governor Henry McMaster wants to cut state income taxes on rich people, while Iowa’s Republican Governor Kim Reynolds wants to cut taxes on rich people while raising them on working people with a flat tax similar to Parsons’ proposal.

Meanwhile, the UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, just eliminated altogether Britain’s top (45%) income tax bracket, meaning that Britain’s morbidly rich will only have to pay taxes at the rate usually enjoyed by the merely-well-off.

Truss hopes the tax cut will jump-start the UK’s sclerotic economy, although she’s apparently not that well versed in economics. As a comprehensive study of taxes and GDP by The London School of Economics — spanning 18 nations across the 50 years from 1965 to 2015 — found, there’s no relationship whatsoever between cutting taxes and stimulating the economy:

“Our results show that, for both matching methods, major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform (𝑡 + 1 to 𝑡 + 5). The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national income of 0.8 percentage points. The results also show that economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich. The estimated effects for these variables are statistically indistinguishable from zero, and this finding holds in both the short and medium run.”

To that point, one prominent London economist called Truss’ tax cuts “moronic.”

The only thing that tax cuts for the rich do are indebt a nation while making its rich people richer. But Liz Truss, like Reagan and Thatcher before her, apparently hopes for the best.

As one Member of Parliament told The Guardian:

“This whole thing boils down to infectious childlike optimism in Downing Street. It would almost be endearing if it wasn’t so completely and utterly fucking mad.”

Which makes sense. As multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer told me on my program a few years ago, while he’s probably 10,000 times richer than I am he doesn’t need 10,000 more pairs of jeans and shirts or socks.

When rich people get extra money from tax cuts, it just makes them richer; it doesn’t stimulate them to buy more things just because they now have a bit more money. That’s a behavior limited to “little people” like you and me.

Nonetheless, these conservative politicians are all putting their faith in tax cuts for the rich, all for pretty much the same reasons: the morbidly rich love them (and kick part of them back as campaign donations) while average working people mistakenly believe that somehow it’ll benefit them, too.

It’s time to tell some simple truths about taxes, particularly income taxes (Florida doesn’t have an income tax, so this applies less to that state). And they’re not particularly complicated truths.

*Cutting high-end income taxes makes rich people richer and raises a nation’s debt but does nothing else. Nothing. It doesn’t influence their pay or lifestyle in any measurable way, nor does it stimulate economic growth. And because tax cuts on the morbidly rich have to be paid for by increasing the national debt, they’re actually a drag on the economy.

*The effect is quite opposite for working class people. Cutting income taxes on them causes their pay to go down or remain flat. The experience of 100+ years in the United States and nations around the world also finds that raising taxes on working class people leads, over time, to pay raises, something no politician since FDR will explain, while cutting their taxes leads to pay cuts.

“Wait a minute!” I can hear you saying. “Cutting taxes on rich people makes them richer, but cutting taxes on working class people makes them poorer? WTF?!?”

Here’s how it works with a short story thrown in.

Some years ago I did my radio program for a week from the studios of Danish Radio in Copenhagen.

Speaking with one of the more conservative members of Parliament, I asked why the Danish people didn’t revolt over an average 52% income tax rate on working people, with an even higher rate on really high earners?

He pointed out to me that the average Dane was doing just fine, with a minimum wage that averaged about $18 an hour, free college and free healthcare, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation every year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom.

“You Americans are such suckers,” he told me and I reported some years ago. “You think the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don’t.
“When working people’s taxes go up,” he said, “their pay also goes up over time. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works that way — look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the exact opposite of how it works for rich people!”

Economist David Ricardo explained this in 1817 with his “Iron Law of Wages,” laid out in his book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.

Ricardo pointed out that in the working class “labor marketplace,” before-tax income is pretty much irrelevant. The money people live on, the money that defines the “marketplace for labor,” is take-home pay.

After-tax income.

But the rules for how taxes work are completely different for rich people.

When taxes go down on rich people, they simply keep the money that they saved with the tax cut. They use it to stuff larger wads of cash into their money bins.

When taxes go up on them, they’ll just raise their own wages — until they hit a confiscatory tax rate (which hasn’t existed since the Reagan Revolution), and then they’ll stop giving themselves raises and leave the money in their company.

And, history shows, while keeping that money in their company to avoid a high top tax bracket, employers typically pay their workers more over time as well.

In other words, as taxes go up, income typically goes up for working class people but goes down for the very rich: High tax brackets discourage exploitation by the very rich and push up wages for working class people.

We saw this throughout the 1940–1980 period; income at the very tip-top was stable at about 30 times worker’s wages because rich people didn’t want to get pushed into that very tip-top tax bracket of 74%.

But for working class people, Ricardo pointed out 200 years ago, the rules are completely different.

When working class people end up with more after-tax money as a consequence of a tax cut, their employers realize that they’re receiving more than the “market for labor“ would dictate.

And over time the “Iron Law” dictates that employers will cut back those wages when working class people get a tax cut.

For example, if the average worker on an automobile assembly line made $30,000 a year in take-home pay, all the car manufacturing companies know that $30K in their pockets is what people will build cars for. It’s the set-point in the “market for labor” for that industry or type of job.

Because of income taxes, both federal, state and local, an auto worker may need a gross, pre-tax income of $40,000 a year to end up with that $30,000 take-home pay, so that $40,000 gross (before-tax) income becomes the average pay across the industry. At that pay and tax rate, workers end up taking home $30,000 a year.

But what happens if that income tax for working-class people is cut in half?

Now, a $40,000 a year autoworker’s salary produces $35,000 a year in take-home pay, and employers in the auto industry know that that’s $5000 a year more than they have to pay to hire new people to build cars.

Put another way, the employers know that they can hire people in the labor market for $30,000 a year take-home pay, which is now a gross salary of $35,000, so they begin lowering their $40,000 gross wage offerings toward $35,000 to make up for the tax cut and keep take-home pay within the $30,000 “market for wages.”

Since Reagan‘s massive tax cut, we’ve seen this very phenomenon in the auto industry itself! As taxes went down, pay has been more than cut in half for new hires.

In other words, income tax cuts don’t increase the take-home pay of working people who have little control over their salaries. It’s the opposite, in fact.

On the other hand, when income taxes on working people increase, employers have to raise working class wages so their workers’ take-home pay stays the same. And that’s exactly what happened in the period from the 1940s to the 1980s as tax rates were fairly high across the board.

But when income taxes on working people go down, employers will reduce the wages they offer over time to keep their workers’ take-home pay at the same level. That, after all, is what Ricardo’s “market for labor” specifies.

But the rules are completely different for the rich, who live outside the “Iron Law of Labor.”

When taxes change for the very rich, they take home less money when taxes go up and keep more money when taxes go down. It’s the opposite of what happens to working-class people.

The incredible magic trick that the morbidly rich have done in America over the past 40 years is to convince average working people that the tax rules for the rich also apply to working class people, and therefore tax cuts benefit average workers, too.

Economist have known since the early 1800s that this is nonsense, as David Ricardo and many others have pointed out.

But after decades of this “you should worry about tax increases the same way rich people do” message being pounded into our brains by Republican politicians, working people think that tax cuts benefit them and tax increases hurt them.

It’s a real testimonial to the power of the Republican propaganda machine that even though individual wages have been flat or even declining in many industries for the past 40 years because of Republican tax cuts, the average American still thinks tax cuts are a good thing for them.

In fact, the time of greatest prosperity for the working class, when working class take-home pay (and wealth) was increasing faster than the income (and wealth) of the top 1%, was the period from 1940 to 1980 when taxes were high and the nation was prosperous.

FDR raised the top tax bracket to 91% and it stayed there through his administration, as well as those of Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and the early years of LBJ. President Johnson dropped it to 74%, which held through his administration as well as those of Nixon, Ford and Carter.

This was the time of maximum American working class prosperity.

Reagan’s massive tax cuts in the 1980s, of course, put an end to that and started the explosion of wealth at the top which has led America to produce over 700 billionaires today. And gutted America’s ability to maintain first-class infrastructure.

To stabilize our economy and re-empower working people, we must bring back the top tax bracket that existed before the Reagan Revolution. It’ll also provide the necessary funds to rebuild our country from the wreckage of Reagan’s neoliberal policies, which are largely still in place.

By taxing income in the very top brackets at a rate well above 50%, ideally the 74% rate we had before Reagan, we stabilize the economy, stop the relentless poaching of working peoples’ wages for the money bins of the rich, and begin restoring our middle class.

It’s time to re-normalize taxes on the morbidly rich (and leave them where they are on working class people) so we can again have a growing economy and a prosperous middle class.

Hundreds of Arizona high school students walked out of their schools into the glaring afternoon sun on Thursday to protest the record number of anti-LGBTQ bills passed by the GOP-controlled state Legislature this year.

“Dear (Gov. Doug) Ducey and Arizona representatives, these bills are killing us,” walkout organizer Dawn Shim told a crowd of students at Hamilton High School in Chandler. “They are killing our peers. We do not need anymore students hurt by your actions. We aren’t out here missing our school day and interrupting our education because we want to. We have been forced into it.”

Shim, a 16-year-old junior at Hamilton, founded the organization that mobilized students across the half a dozen schools less than six months ago, after reading about legislation targeting transgender minors in the state that lawmakers were considering.

That group, Chandler-based Support Equality Arizona Schools, is made up of 10 core students, but has supporters in Gilbert, Tucson and Flagstaff. Its mission is to advocate for equity, with a focus on minority and LGBTQ+ students. The initiative fills a gap for high schoolers who can’t make their voices heard at the ballot box yet.

“Across America, more and more anti-LGBTQ legislation is being passed by the people sworn in to protect us,” Shim said. “We also have a burgeoning mental health crisis among young teens. These two factors are not coincidental. The Trevor Project finds that, in 2022, almost 45% of LGBTQ youth considered suicide in the last year.”

Support Equality Arizona Schools has met with legislators, attended city council meetings and reached out to school board members — all with the goal of securing a promise that anti-LGBTQ legislation won’t be enacted at schools.

All of the laws signed into law earlier this year went into effect Saturday. Several of them are set to have far-reaching consequences for LGBTQ and trans youth across the state. One bars trans students from joining girls sports teams and another prohibits trans minors from obtaining gender-affirming surgery.

Other laws target schools, including one that forces schools to hand over all student records to parents, even if they contain sensitive personal information, and another that bans sexually explicit materials, which is already leading to the removal of LGBTQ books. At Glendale Union High School District, schools have been instructed to remove books that may conflict with the new law, among them titles such as Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison.

Kanix Gallow, 14, is one of the core group of 10 that form the Support Equality Arizona Schools initiative. He hopes the walkouts will make clear to both legislators and school officials that Arizona students don’t support anti-LGBTQ measures.

Gallow is concerned about the effect the laws will have on students’ mental health, and pointed out that suicide rates are already high enough among LGBTQ youth without adding hurtful rhetoric on top of that.

“We just want our students safe and accepted in our schools. We don’t want to lose anyone else,” he said.

At Chandler High School, around 200 students made the trek two blocks down to Dr. A.J. Chandler Park, where they gathered in the small grassy area to listen to speakers and wave handmade posters at passing cars. Across town at Hamilton High School, a group of students gathered in the shade of a tree outside of Hamilton Library, which adjoins the school, to share their anger, passion and fears about the new laws and the general treatment of LGBTQ students.

“It is embarrassing that we live in a state and a country where people are at risk simply for being who they are and loving who they want,” said Blues Patrick, a senior at Hamilton High school.

Khye Jackson, a junior at Hamilton, said he was there to support his LGBTQ classmates.

“Love is love,” Jackson said. “All these people out here are family to me. We all go to the same school.”

Jackson, who is Black, said that it makes him feel distressed to hear about LGBTQ classmates facing discrimination, because Black people face discrimination, as well.

Ace Yates, a 14-year-old who joined the march at Chandler High, spoke hesitatingly into a portable speaker, sharing how difficult being trans was at home. His mother claims to be accepting, but refuses to use the correct pronouns. Listeners in the crowd booed.

Fortunately, Yates said, his mother isn’t hostile to his gender identity — just negligent. It’s frustrating, but other trans kids deal with dangerous home lives: parents that could quickly turn abusive if they’re outed, as is now a possibility with a new law passed earlier this year that forces schools to turn over confidential student records to parents upon request.

“School should be a safe place. Teachers are often the only people students with homophobic parents can talk to, and this law shatters that,” Yates said.

Jay Nash, who is also trans, has firsthand experience with keeping sensitive information away from unwelcoming relatives. He has to hide his identity from several family members.

“I have to stay hidden half of the time. It sucks,” he said.

On top of facing scrutiny at home, Nash has to deal with hurtful rhetoric from GOP state legislators. It’s disheartening to hear elected officials dissect his identity and pass restrictive laws, he said.

“I like having rights,” he said with a chagrined laugh.

Yana Artuz, 14, waved a miniature bisexual pride flag back and forth. She said she heard about anti-LGBTQ legislation and felt compelled to join the march, despite not being directly affected by the laws being passed. The work to bring awareness to injustices, she said, is the responsibility of everyone, regardless of sexuality.

“If nobody comes out and talks, nothings going to happen,” she said.

At Hamilton High, the importance of organizing as a community was equally highlighted.

“I don’t want to stand up here and offer platitudes,” said Leela Raj-Sankar, a junior at Hamilton. “Of course, all of you know that you should be yourself. All of you know that you should accept yourself for who you are, you should be accepted. And we shouldn’t be up here fighting because we deserve to be children.”

Raj-Sankar added that the fight for equality sometimes feels hopeless.

“Yeah, I’m angry,” she said. “I am really angry — all the time. But I want to be able to do something with that anger. I don’t want to just stand up here and say there will be change without being the one to put my feet on the ground and do something about it.”

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

{{ }}