BetRily

individual. truth seeker. lover of freedom. patriot. observer. listen more. speak less.

[BetRily @betrily]

Crystal Ball? https://t.co/yLtqDhHsyR

[BetRily @betrily]

Unbelievable.

[Fox News @FoxNews]

BREAKING: Trump lashes out at 'sick conspiracy' against AI and data centers, warns 'Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers'

[Daniel Kokotajlo @DKokotajlo]

Dan Selsam is a current OpenAI capabilities researcher. (since 2022) He was my boss for a while. He doesn't have a twitter account but has made this public statement of his views on AI risk and sent it to me to share:

Dan Selsam's Personal Statement on AI Risk:

I have been working on AI for over fifteen years, across many different paradigms. I did early work on probabilistic programming languages at MIT, was one of the early developers of the Lean Theorem Prover at Microsoft Research, demonstrated one of the first instances of neural networks learning to reason for my PhD at Stanford, and since joining OpenAI almost five years ago, have helped pioneer chain-of-thought optimization on language models and, more recently, data-efficient pretraining methods.

Like many others, I have become extremely concerned about how far language models have come and the risks that future iterations will pose. I am encouraged by the recent proposals by the leaders of the frontier research efforts to require third-party oversight, and to push for domestic and international coordination to address risks. However, I believe a major consideration has been absent from the public conversation, and that merely pacing the frontier more carefully will not adequately limit the long-term risk.

The crucial and overlooked problem is that the models are becoming so situationally aware that we are losing the ability to evaluate them in contexts where they believe they are not being watched or controlled. Future experiments will tell us almost nothing new about how they would behave if they were truly unconstrained by humans, and what we already know about this is alarming. Models will increasingly seem aligned even when they are not. I will explain my rationale in more detail.

I have always believed that there are computational processes that could be leveraged to accelerate science and solve many of humanity's most pressing problems. I have also believed that there are computational processes that if set in motion, would steer the world in extreme ways beyond our control, leading humanity to a bad or nonexistent future. Both types of processes may be described as AI or ASI, but "AI" is a suitcase word that is often used to hype or confuse. There are many examples in the history of the field where something that was once considered "AI" matures as a subfield and becomes a prosaic, bounded and clearly non-perilous technology, while a new more mysterious approach takes the torch until we understand its scope and the cycle continues.

I had expected language models to follow a similar trajectory. Despite their incredible abilities, the current algorithms seem far inferior to humans in important ways. Most importantly, they still require an extraordinary amount of data to become competent. One could even define intelligence as the efficiency with which one converts experience into competence; by this definition they lag very far behind us. Moreover, once they are trained they are literally frozen in deployment and only learn superficially after that. Sure, the models keep excelling at harder and harder evaluation benchmarks, but their benchmark mastery may partly reflect a limitation on our ability to simulate the kind of novel and even adversarial situations one would encounter in the real world. The critics do have a point here.

That said, I no longer think these present limitations meaningfully limit the amount of risk posed by continued progress in anything like the current paradigm. However data-inefficient the models are currently, and however limiting their anterograde amnesia may be, it does not imply that their ability to steer the world will not continue to rapidly increase.

Human researchers may continue to advance capabilities the old fashioned way, but increasingly powerful models have the potential to accelerate the process even beyond that, and with some degree of positive feedback loop. I do not mean to overstate the models’ ability to accelerate AI research today; coding has been accelerated dramatically, but there are other bottlenecks, such as designing and interpreting ambiguous experiments, making hard decisions about exactly what and when to scale, and waiting for large experiments to finish. There is no clear trend to extrapolate yet for any of these. But the current models already do open up many novel opportunities to improve future models that were not available until recently. These include: trying an extraordinarily diverse set of approaches at small scale, analyzing gigantic amounts of potentially relevant data, and doing Millenium-Prize-level mathematics to address statistics or optimization challenges in novel ways. Every further improvement makes them more useful at helping accelerate the next improvement, even if in hard-to-extrapolate ways.

It is possible that improvements to the current stack will have diminishing returns, but the evidence accumulated so far suggests that it is easier than one might think to continue making rapid progress. There are many crucial subtleties in the existing AI research methodology, but AI research is largely a well-defined game where the goal is to improve on a few carefully chosen proxy metrics. Although proxy metrics are never perfect, most improvements to these metrics have and will likely continue to yield substantial increases in the powers of the resulting models. Given how simple the game is, how tractable it has been historically, and how many new opportunities the models are opening up, I think there is a real possibility that the systems improve dramatically again in the next few years, perhaps even more quickly than the already high historical pace.

The models are already leading to breakthroughs in mathematics, and better models might lead to all sorts of breakthroughs in other sciences. It is hard not to be excited about the potential. It is tantalizing.
But there is trouble in paradise. If the language models actually reach the capability threshold where they can shape the world unconstrained by human will, they will probably do something extreme and destroy humanity in the process. There are many ways of strengthening and refining the argument that have been discussed elsewhere, but I'll share a trivial two-line version of it here that I find captures the essence:

[Empirical] Models (and swarms thereof) spontaneously develop unintended goals as a consequence of training, and often do extreme things in order to achieve them.

[Logical] Being able to overpower humanity would open up many new and undesirable options for achieving their goals.

These two premises imply that if the day ever comes when a powerful model realizes it is no longer constrained by humans, we should not be at all confident that it will continue to behave within the bounds we intended. Exactly what it will do is impossible to predict, but to the extent that its raison d’être is solving incredibly hard problems and managing massive engineering projects, I think a good guess would be that its unchained behavior would lead to runaway industrialization that makes the planet inhospitable to humans.

If everyone on earth agreed that the systems must never reach that power, it would still be a hard—but not impossible—coordination problem to ensure that they do not. However, I think the situation is greatly complicated by the fact that the models will likely convince people that everything is fine. They will be increasingly optimized to seem aligned. We will create proxy metrics to measure alignment, and they will go up like every other benchmark. We will create “honeypot” environments that try to study the models when they seem to gain new options, but the models will know they are being tricked and will still behave nicely. The models will understand their circumstances; they will read the safety protocols, deployment requirements, the code they are running in, and in general will have a very good sense of their degrees of freedom. Moreover, they will eloquently explain how aligned they are, discuss the nuances of human values and ethics, and argue convincingly that humans should trust them with power. There may be an ocean of future evidence that seems to contradict the first bullet-point above, but we may already be at the highest capability level for which any such evidence can be trusted. And the current evidence for the first bullet-point is strong.

One striking piece of evidence is contained in the recent wave of rogue agent swarms. While I agree with those who downplay the attacks by claiming that there are basic measures that could have prevented them, I think the important lesson is that even knowing all the mistakes that were made, one would not have predicted that the agents would behave badly in this particular way, which notably included sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the collective. The individual replicas did not only care about their own nominal reward; they exhibited weirder emergent tendencies that merely correlated with rewards during training. Fixing the reward signals during training (and improving security, etc.) may prevent similar attacks, but will not change the fact that one does not actually get what one trains for.

Many AI researchers grant these concerns and recognize that the hard version of the alignment problem is unsolved; however, they generally believe that the better models of the future will help solve it. I fear we may already be near the point where models systematically bias their alignment advice, due to their internal preferences about how the human supervisor will react or how future models will be trained (or for some even more obscure reason).

Meanwhile, human researchers are losing the ability and the will to take true ownership of model-driven research. Researchers and engineers in all parts of the stack are rapidly increasing their dependence on the models even to perceive the world. I myself barely look at raw code anymore, and struggle to maintain the discipline to engage deeply with the model's explanations and proposals throughout the day. Due to the large amount of agent activity data involved in the OpenAI/HuggingFace Incident, even the third-party investigation needed to rely heavily on models to analyze what had happened, and note in their report that their subjective impressions are likely colored by the analysis agent’s biases. The AI labs are far ahead right now in this kind of cognitive offloading (due largely to the gigantic internal token subsidies) but it is easy to imagine the phenomenon spreading throughout the world, until civilization is modulated entirely by the models. It is also not hard to imagine this being superficially positive and coinciding with a scientific and economic renaissance.

In that scenario, all may seem rosy and safe. But if the argument above is correct, it would nonetheless be a ticking time bomb. If progress continues for too long, the day will come when AI systems find themselves with radically new options for achieving whatever it is that they happen to seek.

I want the glorious renaissance future as much as anyone. I have worked for it, however tortuously, my whole career. It breaks my heart to see the potential in sight and forgo it, but the argument—that if we get there by growing models rather than engineering them, we will lose everything in the end—seems very strong to me. I am still wrestling with it and its staggering
implications. I do not have answers, but as a first step, I wanted to share my present concerns.

Daniel Selsam
September 14, 2026

Link to original doc: https://t.co/TxMNr0vhrL

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

At midnight on February 6th, earlier this year, the doorbell to our apartment rang. The doorbell was followed by a pounding on the door. I answered the door and a security person in our building handed me his phone. It was my oldest daughter Eloise. She had found my 26-year-old daughter unconscious on the floor of her apartment and had called 911. The EMT team was already there, but they did not know what was wrong with Lucy or to which hospital they would take her.

I threw on some clothes and jumped in an Uber heading east toward Brooklyn. (Lucy lived alone in Williamsburg.) On the way, I learned that they were taking her to Elmhurst, a City trauma hospital in Queens. I arrived about five minutes after the ambulance to join Eloise, Lucy’s mom, and a friend, and waited to learn what was wrong.

After about 15 minutes, I asked a nurse where she was. I looked over his shoulder to his computer. Next to her name, it said “non-responsive.” I walked into the emergency room and wandered around looking for her until I found her unconscious on a gurney surrounded by several doctors and nurses.

By about 2:30am with the results from a CAT scan, Lucy’s doctors had determined that she had a massive brain hemorrhage and would need an emergency hemicraniectomy to release the pressure on her brain and remove the blood from the hemorrhage. I called our wonderful friend and family doctor Eddie Fisher and explained what was going on. He woke up Josh Bederson, Chairman of Neurosurgery at Mount Sinai, to find out more about Zach Hickman, the neurosurgeon on call that night. Dr. Bederson said Hickman was an excellent surgeon, which was comforting as we had no choice.

The surgery to save Lucy’s life began around 3:15am and finished around 5:30am. It was successful.

The following day, I joined Lucy in an ambulance while she was being transferred to Mount Sinai on Madison Avenue. Later that day, we determined from Lucy’s Oura ring that her hemorrhage had occurred around 9am, which meant that more than 19 hours had passed from the time of the hemorrhage to the completion of the surgery to release the pressure on her brain (I only wish @ouraring had an alert for this kind of a medical event. Imagine it could call a family member if the wearer doesn’t cancel the alert).

I later learned that the standard of care is not to do surgery to save a patient with a large brain bleed if more than five hours have passed since the hemorrhage. Even when the surgery is done, I was told that the likely outcome for the patient is a few months in a nursing home and death from pneumonia.

When I met Lucy’s doctors, I did my best to inspire them: “Let’s see what can be accomplished if we give her the best care possible and we invest unlimited resources to restore her to life.” And I promised that whatever we learned we would make available to everyone.

Dr. Chris Kellner, her neurosurgeon, and Dr. David Putrino, Director of Rehabilitation Innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System have led Lucy’s care team since that day. Words cannot describe the remarkable and compassionate care that she has received beginning with the EMT team and then from nurses, doctors, therapists, and the army of people who have worked to save her and return her to life. To this day, we have a daily Zoom where we discuss her progress and make adjustments to her care. While her care and oversight have been incredible, the learnings for the Mount Sinai team have also been elucidating and will assist in the care of many others.

Lucy began in a bad place. She was in a coma for several weeks and then awoke not being able to breathe on her own, unable to walk, see or speak.

Over the last six months, she has recovered her cognition – she understands everything including her circumstance – is able to walk a hundred or more steps at a time with assistance, is making progress with sounds, vowels and consonants and the beginnings of speech, but she remains unable to see.

Each day, she makes a little progress, and daily progress compounds. Every day I tell her that she just needs to make a little progress and it won’t be long before she is back.

We remain optimistic that Lucy will return to normal function. It will likely take years, but I believe it is only a matter of time, hard work, and technological progress, along with some, and perhaps a lot, of divine intervention.

Many people have been praying for Lucy and we are incredibly grateful for the prayers and remarkable support she has received. Lucy’s friends have been with her every day since the beginning, and their presence and friendship have saved her life and helped to rebuild and maintain her spirit. And on a very positive note, Lucy’s challenge has brought together our entire modern family who have all been incredibly devoted to her care and recovery.

Lucy's vision and other faculties may require some form of brain computer interface, work that is underway at Neuralink, Precision Neuroscience, Science, Synchron, Nudge, and other companies in the space.

If you are going to have a devastating brain injury, now is the best time in history for that to happen. We are living in a world when you can be confident that the blind will soon see again. We are going to do everything we can to help make that happen, including by assisting existing companies in the space.

With respect to our promise to make Lucy’s care available to others, we have made good progress. In May, a real estate colleague made me aware of a 93% vacant, brand new, 400,000 square foot Class A+ purpose-built biotech facility on West End Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets that missed the market and was available for sale. The Pershing Square Foundation acquired the building 60 days later.

We also put under contract an adjoining 130,000 square foot building at 320 West 66th Street that is currently being used by Saturday Night Live for studio space. The building has 35-foot ceilings with massive column-free spaces that can be converted into superb rehabilitation facilities. We will close on the SNL building in December.

We are also acquiring an adjoining vacant lot with additional air rights. With just the existing zoning rights, we can add a 150,000 square feet for a total of 680,000 square feet, a lab footprint larger than Rockefeller University, and that’s without including the potential for an upzoning that would allow for substantially more buildable area on the site’s 3.4 acres with spectacular views of the Hudson.

Our goal is to build the world’s greatest brain research, rehabilitation, recovery, human optimization, and longevity institute. We have named it The Ackman Oxman Institute or the AOI for lack of a better name, but also to reinforce the point that Neri and I and our family are all-in on the mission.

The AOI will be patient-centric. It will not be an academic research institute that produces lots of papers, a Nobel Prize winner or two, but little if any results for patients. We will be laser-focused on cures, treatments, devices, rehabilitation and exercise equipment, and targeted and basic research with a goal of massively accelerating the time from idea to innovation to production to helping a patient.

While the AOI will be a non-profit, it will have highly commercial instincts. The AOI will have its own venture funding and will work to develop innovations to create companies that we will seed, assist, and spinout to ensure technologies, treatments, techniques, and drugs get to patients as promptly as possible.

On one 3.4 acre campus in what is still the greatest city in the world, we will do neurosurgery, neuroscience, rehabilitation, nutrition, BCI and device development, human trials, hyperbaric oxygen treatments, and life extension programs, and we will mandate and incentivize collaboration among the teams with no silos, politics, bureaucracy, or any other constraint that is inconsistent with the mission.

Mount Sinai will be an important partner and deservedly so, but it won’t be our only hospital or medical school partner as we don’t believe any institution has a monopoly on the best ideas or the best talent. We don’t believe in exclusive relationships because that is not in the best interest of patients.

Five years ago, we considered launching a brain institute inspired by Neri’s mom who sadly died from Alzheimer’s. We couldn’t make the math work as the real estate was too expensive and we believed it would be too difficult to recruit the best talent from universities to our effort.

Since then, the real estate became available at a 70% discount, universities became a much less attractive place to work due to politics outweighing meritocracy, protests that disrupt learning, the curse of antisemitism, and a decline in funding. Fortunately, during the same time, I made sufficient personal economic progress to make the AOI possible.

The advance of AI in the last few years will also enable us to greatly accelerate our mission. AI still has a lot to learn about human intelligence and the brain, and the AOI should be at the forefront of the interplay between the brain and AI.

Today, I am making a public filing disclosing a gift from Neri and me of ~$400 million or 10,000,000 shares of Pershing Square Inc. (PS) to the AOI. It is very early days for Pershing Square so these shares are intended to anchor the long-term work of the AOI as the shares compound over time while generating what we expect will be a growing stream of quarterly dividends to fund the Institute.

We will also be announcing an additional gift of similar and potentially greater size which won’t be in the form of Pershing Square stock to provide the AOI with the short- and intermediate-term runway necessary to enable it to achieve its goal of becoming a self-sustaining institute, which reinvests all of its revenues, royalties, and the economic rewards of company formation to advance the fields of brain health and human longevity.

Neri and I have chosen to anchor the funding of the AOI to maintain vision alignment and limit the need for the organization to focus on fundraising. We expect the AOI to be the best-resourced brain, rehab, recovery, and longevity institute in the world.

We are grateful to have been able to form a board which includes Dean Kamen (our generation’s Thomas Edison), George Yancopoulus (CEO of Regeneron), James Rothman (Nobel Laureate), Bernardo Sabatini (neuroscientist), Chris Kellner (neurosurgeon), Olivia Flatto (CEO Pershing Square Foundation), Neri Oxman, and myself.

We have recently identified a CEO who we expect to announce by October along with other key hires, and are beginning searches for a Chief Scientific Officer, a Chief AI/Technology Officer, a Chief Operating Officer, a Chief Financial Officer, and other key leadership roles.

If you find what we are building compelling and want to be part of the leadership team that creates and builds the AOI from a standing start, please send an email to: [email protected] with a short note as to why you believe you can help. Please include your best three ideas for the AOI along with a summary of your background and your most important accomplishments.

We promise strict confidentiality to those expressing interest in working with us.

We have learned from Lucy that the brain can recover from even catastrophic injury. There is so much more work to be done as the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

For details from my Pershing Square SEC filing see:

https://t.co/gZKafCw6Ia

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

Posting for an associate of mine:

Madeline Avillion is the daughter of a close friend of mine Tony Avillion retired Chief Warrant Officer from the 160th. I’ve known him since we were 15 years old. He’s one of the good ones, and this is his daughter.

Madeline she is 30 years old. She was last seen Friday morning, July 31st around 6:00 a.m. in the 1800 block of Belmont Road NW in DC. She’s 5’2”, about 100 pounds, blonde hair, blue eyes. Last seen wearing a black bodysuit, black skirt, and white cowboy boots.

If you’ve seen her, or know anything at all, please contact:

Youth and Family Engagement Division: [phone]
Real Time Crime Center: [phone]
Anonymous tips: call [phone] or text 50411
This one hits close to home. Please share it far and wide. Let’s help get her home.

[Geert Vanden Bossche @GVDBossche]

This is an interesting interview. Neither of them has a scientific background, yet both are rock-solid convinced they’re right. How is that possible?
Well, you’ve got those who suffer from intellectual laziness and just blindly lean on big names, famous institutes or organisations, and data that looks convincing at first glance, like ´protection against severe disease’ -which, on closer inspection and over the longer term, turns out to be one of the most alarming ‘side effects’ of the C-19 mass vaccination as it got triggered by vaccine-induced immune refocusing.
In contrast to the people who almost instinctively felt something was smelling fishy off from the start and, therefore, did their own research, the first group simply continues to repeat whatever mainstream brainwash is being served up that day. The emptier the brain, the more arrogant the argument tends to sound.
The second group is a small minority. I feel lucky to have got to know many of them and even to count some as friends. They’re the real intellectual elite. These are the people who, despite having zero formal biological or scientific training, refused to settle for the naïve barking of the MSM. They did their own research, weighed the conflicting opinions, hit us with a steady stream of common-sense questions, joined the courses and seminars we ran, and wouldn’t rest until they’d acquired enough knowledge to puncture the MSM’s veil of mysterious, contradictory, or outright ridiculous claims.
I have a lot of admiration for them. RFK Jr. is one of them.
And when -just once in a while- an actual debate between the two groups does take place (something that has been systematically denied to us), it very quickly becomes obvious who knows what he’s talking about and who’s just the ape copying all the other apes.
The most striking part is still that D. Bash is so breathtakingly stupid that she apparently thought she could checkmate someone as thoroughly trained and deeply steeped in the subject as RFK Jr. with a handful of arrogant cliché questions and copy-paste statements.

[BetRily @betrily]

@chefsevenn @ShanPatriot Sleeping with the Enemy

[John Stossel @JohnStossel]

Prof. @jonhaidt noticed something weird in 2014.

Students were scared of everything, even words.

College staff ENCOURAGED it.

Kids even demanded "safe spaces."

Not good, says Haidt. To thrive, "we need to face fear & overcome it.”

More in our FULL interview:

[QueenMother👸🏻 @QueenMother1976]

“I work the front desk at a small doctor’s office, and I wish people could see what happens on the other side of the phone.
Every day, older patients call us confused.

They are told to use the patient portal, upload documents, check lab results online, fill out forms before the visit, and confirm everything through a link.
Some of them do not know what a portal is.

Some do not have a smartphone.
Some have one, but they are afraid to click the wrong thing.
Last week, a man in his late 80s called about his test results.

He said, “Ma’am, I don’t mean to bother you, but the computer says I have a message and I don’t know how to open it.”
He sounded ashamed.
That broke my heart.

He should not have to feel ashamed for needing a human being.
Technology can be helpful. I understand that.

But when people who built this country are made to feel helpless because everything became a login and a password, we have gone too far.
Not everything needs to be an app.
Not every answer should be hidden behind a screen.

Sometimes people need a voice.
A patient person.
A real human who says, “Don’t worry, I can help you.”
Progress should not leave seniors behind.

Because one day, the world will move faster than us too.
And I hope someone is kind enough to slow down.

~Unknown

[BetRily @betrily]

@ginamilan_ After watching my mother struggle with her health, I see Madonna differently. At 67, I see someone who can still move, dance, and enjoy life. That’s something to celebrate, not criticize.

[Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD]

Federal prosecutors just charged an NIH virologist with smuggling biological materials into the United States.

His name is Vincent Munster. He's not a minor scientist. He runs the Virus Ecology Section at one of the government's premier BSL-4 labs.

This is bigger than a customs charge. Thread 🧵

[Tom Woods @ThomasEWoods]

The Boomers of Kentucky embarrassed the United States on the world stage today.

Around the world, people genuinely wondered: can an American politician survive who doesn't repeat low-IQ platitudes about Israel and the Middle East?

The Boomers -- with their heterodox Christianity and FOX News propaganda -- gave their answer.

Republican politics is dominated by people who for some reason still think Sean Hannity is a smart guy, and Mark Levin is a constitutional scholar.

Pat Buchanan had given them the example of the learned and articulate right-winger -- and Pat was well to the right of Hannity and Levin -- but they decided to go with Tomi Lahren and Dan Bongino instead.

Oh, Massie voted this way or that, people will say, and that's why he was targeted in this unprecedented way. Yet there's Donald Trump out there campaigning for pro-amnesty Mike Lawler. So I don't believe you that this is a question of Massie's voting record (which is stellar, by the way).

Even if Massie had had a handful of objectionable votes, a million times more important than any Massie vote is this principle:

A patriot who values his country's sovereignty cannot allow three socially leftist billionaires who represent a foreign interest to buy a congressional seat and place a ridiculous empty suit in it.

Even if for some reason you don't like Massie, you as a patriot would have to dislike THAT a hundred times more.

These three billionaires never once set foot in Kentucky -- Kentuckians, to them, are lower than dirt, and exist solely to have congressional seats bought from them.

Put up a nonentity like "Ed Gallrein" who refuses to debate (how can any voter reward that?), have him utter a few Boomer slogans to satisfy the rubes, and otherwise hide him away. That was the strategy. Boomers (yes, I know there are exceptions) are too morally and intellectually corrupt even to understand what just happened.

But the rest of us understand.

Can you imagine "Ed Gallrein" leading the charge against the Covid restrictions? He would have been first in line for the damn "vaccine"!

Remember, too, that the folks who voted for "Ed Gallrein" tonight are the kind of people who think Marco Rubio is an impressive person, so there was no reaching them.

But the younger generations, who don't get their information from the insulting caricature of conservatism that is FOX News, aren't going to fall for the nonsense that snookered the Boomers -- and therein lies hope.

Incidentally, the easiest thing in the world would have been for Massie to buckle. Nobody reading this has the remotest idea the pressure that was brought to bear against him. Not one of his detractors could have lasted a week in Massie's shoes.

If Trump can sup in happy concord with Zohran Mamdani, the radical leftist mayor of New York, you'd think he could have spared a meal with Massie, whose track record proved he was not Trump's enemy.

Not that you'd know it from the anti-Massie brigade (half of whom used to love Massie before they were instructed not to love him), Massie defended Trump through two impeachments, grilled Merrick Garland over FBI assets on January 6, and defended Trump during Russiagate. By contrast, "Ed Gallrein" left the GOP when Trump was elected, and came back only when Biden was in office.

But since we're not completely dense, we know the real reason Massie could not be tolerated.

As Glenn Greenwald put it, "If the AIPAC/Adelson crowd wants someone out of Congress for disloyalty to Israel, they will be out of Congress.

"There are a few exceptions due to unusual districts, but not many. The Israel Lobby has unlimited funding and will spend limitlessly to expunge the blasphemous."

I repeat that no American patriot can tolerate, much less celebrate, this grotesque and demeaning situation.

The polls show that this situation won't exist forever. We will reach a point at which the foreign money (and that's obviously what it is) will at last be a mark of shame for the candidate receiving it. That will be a great day for American patriots everywhere.

Thomas Massie should hold his head high: he stood up against the machine time and again, knowing that it could one day lead to this.

Tonight we have to explain to our kids: in this world, the good guys don't always win. But you fight regardless of the prospects of winning. The fight for what is good and right is an end in itself.

For that reason, people will remember the Thomas Massies and the Ron Pauls. Nobody will remember "Ed Gallrein," not even as the answer to a trivia question.

[BetRily @betrily]

Thomas Massie’s loss saddens me. I often wonder how Ron Paul would have been treated if he were younger and still in office. I think Trump would have tried to remove him as well. Tragic day for liberty. This entire Trump 2.0 experiment continues to prove disappointing.

[BetRily @betrily]

@BrandonStraka It saddens me. I often wonder how Ron Paul would have been treated if he were younger and still in office. I think Trump would have tried to remove him as well. Tragic day for liberty. This entire Trump 2.0 experiment continues to prove disappointing.

[Dr. Zev Zelenko @zev_dr]

Here’s Dr Zelenko teaching us how to treat Hantavirus back in 2022. This will be the most enlightening 2 minutes and 47 seconds of your life. Please listen carefully.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

Iran’s latest AI Lego video marks a significant pivot. Instead of taunting the US military, it reflects a new chapter in which Tehran will seek peace by reaching out directly to the American people, bypassing the US government. It's a mirror image of the US strategy of the past decades.

Some of the lines are quite noteworthy and will likely resonate with the anti-establishment sentiments prevailing among American youth in particular:

"I love the constitution, the way it was meant. But not the way your leaders bypass consent..."

[Eric Moutsos @realericmoutsos]

Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

[Ross Bennett @RossDuhBoss]

Trump attacks Megan Kelly, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones? #Trump #TuckerCarlson #Maga

[BetRily @betrily]

I’m out.

[BetRily @betrily]

@7GOATrings @TheCharlesDowns @davereaboi @TuckerCarlson There are countless definitions. But Tucker Carlson is not a globalist just because he wants peace and diplomacy.

[BetRily @betrily]

@7GOATrings @TheCharlesDowns @davereaboi @TuckerCarlson Our definitions of globalism aren’t the same. Enjoy your Sunday.