JRock

A regular Dad fed up with the federal government!

[Ben Shapiro @benshapiro]

"Without providing evidence?"

El-Sayed literally signed a letter in 2012 in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. His campaign refuses to explain it.

His sister said his family was MB. His father in law, who is a founding member of ISNA -- an offshoot of the MB -- donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign. There is not a single anti-MB measure he supports.

He says about Islamic terrorists trying to murder Jewish kindergarteners, "Hurt people hurt people," and equates Dearborn-based terrorists trying to kill schoolkids with the IDF's targeted killing of Hezbollah members.

He was caught on tape during this campaign saying he wouldn't say anything about Ayatollah Khamenei's death because too many of his constituents were upset about it.

He campaigns with Hasan Piker, who says Hamas is better than Israel and speaks warmly of Hezbollah.

There is no more thoroughly sourced claim in politics than that El-Sayed is sympathetic to radical Islam and connected to Islamic extremists.

[MAZE @mazemoore]

Reminder that Biden gave Iran $6 billion in 2023 in exchange for some hostages and about two months later Hamas attacked Israel.

Here's then President of Iran in September of 2023 saying that Iran would use the $6 billion for anything they wanted to use it on.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Some fools still think the legacy news is real. Amazing.

[Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley]

The French authorities identified Antifa as the largest of three “ideologically distinct groups” responsible for the violence in France. Apparently, some of our Democratic leaders need to explain that Antifa does not exist... https://t.co/BYsa0WdMEO

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Watch this clip carefully. The script is always the same: Elon is "dumb," Elon is "lucky," and Bill Gates is the good billionaire because he gives his money away.

Let's talk about that.

Bill Gates didn't give his fortune away. He converted it into control.

Over $100B spent since 2000, another $200B by 2045.

Where does it go? Into Gavi, the Global Fund, the WHO, health ministries, policy shops, media partnerships. Into the state, and into the institutions that orbit the state. Gates found the ultimate hack: you don't need to win elections when you finance the people who write the agenda. One private man at the center of global health policy, accountable to no voter, ever.

And what does all that money produce? Maintenance.

Gates is a man maintaining a photograph. The world as it is, framed, preserved, retouched a little every year. Some of it saves lives, and that's good. But not one new industry. Not one order-of-magnitude drop in the cost of anything. No growth. The same world, administered more politely.

That's what this kind of philanthropy buys: the perfection of goodness, not the reality of goodness. The galas, the annual letters, the glowing coverage, the moral immunity. Goodness as a brand.

Now look at the other model.

SpaceX cut the cost of reaching orbit by more than 10x. Starlink brought internet to places no government ever bothered to wire, and kept Ukraine online when the war hit. Tesla forced the entire auto industry to go electric when every incumbent said it couldn't be done. Neuralink patients with paralysis are controlling computers with their thoughts.

None of that was a donation. All of it was creation. Products people pay for, which fund the next thing, which compounds. That's real philanthropy: building things that make the whole pie bigger, permanently.

A donation ends when the money runs out. A company that bends the cost curve of civilization keeps giving forever.

Hard to understand when your entire career depends on the redistribution machine.

So here's why they're panicking, A+B.

A. Their power rests on one thing: controlling the allocation of other people's money. Budgets, agencies, grants, foundations, NGOs. Whoever controls the flow controls the country.

B. Builders prove, publicly and at scale, that creation beats redistribution. A rocket company did what decades of space budgets couldn't. A car company did what decades of climate summits couldn't.

A + B: if growth does more good than the state, the people who manage the state become optional. That's the threat. Not Elon's politics. Elon's results.

They can't attack the results, so they attack the man. "Dumb." "Lucky." When someone lands reusable rockets and the best you've got is that he got lucky, you're not making an argument. You're confessing you don't have one.

History will judge this period very harshly. The lies, the manipulation, the coordinated narratives repeated word for word across every network. It's all archived now. Every clip. Every quote.

You've already lost. You just don't know it yet.

The builders won the moment they proved the future can be built instead of managed.

[Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 @Bubblebathgirl]

Jessica Tarlov pushed the same false claim on Wednesday that Elon Musk slowed down Starlink to hurt Ukraine’s defenses. She cited a Wall Street Journal report that said Musk ordered the slowdown. He didn’t. The technology that got restricted wasn’t commercial Starlink. It was Starshield, the military system owned and controlled by the U.S. government. Ukraine has been using it for offensive strikes inside Russia when the system is meant for defensive purposes. Musk did not restrict Starshield. The U.S. government did.

Lies like those from Tarlov are why I said yesterday that Musk should sue the Journal for defamation. Outlets print the false version of what happened with Starshield, then people like Tarlov treat it as settled fact and spread it further. Musk should sue Tarlov too. She should know the difference between Starlink and Starshield. If she doesn’t, she has no business talking about either one.

Tarlov is a reminder of why it mattered that Musk bought Twitter. Now the same false claims she spreads can be corrected in public before they harden into the official story. The truth is easier to put in front of people than it used to be. Use it.

[JRock @geojrock]

@BernieSanders At least he didn’t say oligarch

[MAZE @mazemoore]

I'm fully aware that I'm going to catch heat for this post. The pro-Ukrainian crowd is going to accuse me of being a Russian bot.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm just a 48 year old American dad from North Carolina trying to spread some truth.

I don't GAF about Putin or Russia. But these are the facts.

Biden met with Putin during the summer of 2021. After that meeting, Biden said that he was optimistic of having a good relationship with Putin.

After that meeting, Putin again said that his redline was Ukraine joining NATO.

Two months after meeting with Putin, Biden invited Zelensky to the White House to discuss a new missile system for Ukraine and to discuss Ukraine joining NATO. That happened.

After the Biden/Zelensky meeting, Putin continued saying publicly that his redline was Ukraine joining NATO.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden went on TV and declared that Ukraine would be joining NATO and that Russia had already lost the war.

I don't give a damn about Putin or Russia. I'm not arguing that Putin was in the right. The purpose of this post is to show that the Biden Administration absolutely knew what they were doing when they were provoking Putin to start this war. They knew what they were doing when they invited Zelensky to the White House to discuss Ukraine joining NATO. Wake up people.

[MAZE @mazemoore]

I saw my clip on Fox News (you're welcome Fox) so I'm going to post it again because it contradicts all the narratives being spewed right now about Ukraine.

2014. Russia had annexed Crimea and had moved 30,000 troops to the Ukrainian border. Shots were already being fired.

Obama is asked if he was wrong about his statement during the 2012 debate, during which he mocked Romney for calling Russia our biggest threat.

Obama during the 2012 debate: "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years."

Obama doubles down and explains that Russia invading Ukraine IS NOT A THREAT TO US. "Russia is a regional power threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness."

How can that be? We are told that if Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, our kids will be fighting a war against Russia in the near future.

Obama reiterated that it was a regional matter and that Ukraine should figure it out on their own. He also said that many people in Ukraine want a relationship with Russia.

What??? How could Obama have said those things? Was he "Putin's puppet"?

Obama sent Ukraine blankets instead of weapons. Guess what, nobody cared back then. Weird right? Especially since apparently now our existence depends on Ukraine beating Russia.

[Imtiaz Mahmood @ImtiazMadmood]

When the Muslim population in a country is less than 2%, they are a peace-loving minority that poses no threat to other ethnic groups. United States 1.1%, China 1.8% for example.

When the Muslim population is 2-5%, they begin to push for government authorization to enforce Islamic law in Muslim enclaves, recruiting new members from prisons and the streets, with disturbances occurring in Muslim enclaves. Such countries include: Australia 3.2%, Canada 4.9%, Italy 4.8%.

Denmark 5.4%, Germany 6.7%, United Kingdom 6%, Spain 5.3%, Thailand 5.4%
When the Muslim population reaches 5-10%, major disturbances erupt in Muslim enclaves; they advocate for the introduction of halal foods, ensuring that halal food practitioners are Muslims; they pressure chain supermarkets to label shelves with halal certifications, threatening those who refuse to comply. Such countries include: Denmark 5.4%, Germany 6.7%, United Kingdom 6%, Spain 5.3%, Thailand 5.4%, Philippines 5%, Sweden 7.1%, Switzerland 5.9%, Netherlands 5.5%.

When the Muslim population approaches 10-20%, nationwide riots occur; Muslims issue a series of demands, such as building large mosques in enclaves, granting super-national and super-legal privileges, forcing non-Muslims to follow Muslim customs, and criminalizing "expressions of dissatisfaction with Islam." Such countries include: France 10.8%, India 14.6%, Israel 18.4%, Russia 13%.

When the Muslim population is 20-60%, jihadist militants sporadically massacre non-believers, burning down Christian and Jewish places of worship; other ethnic groups either convert to Islam out of fear of being killed or are killed by Muslims; the country experiences massacres and ongoing terrorist attacks. Such countries include: Ethiopia 33%, Bosnia 50.7%, Chad 55%.

When the Muslim population reaches 60-80%, Islamic law replaces secular law, establishing a theocratic regime that persecutes all other non-believers in the name of the state, massacres Christians, and imposes taxes on non-believers using Islamic law as a weapon. Such countries include: Lebanon 67.8, Albania 60%, Malaysia 63%, Qatar 77.5% (Qatari citizen 100%).

When the Muslim population is 80%-98%, the country lives in daily intimidation, violence, and jihad, carrying out ethnic cleansing and massacres, with the state expelling non-believers. Such countries include: Sudan 96.6%, Bangladesh 90%, Egypt 93%, Indonesia 87%, Iraq 99.6%, Pakistan 97%, Palestine 98%, Syria 90%, Turkey 94%.

When the Muslim population is 98 to 100%, the Islamic people welcome the "House of Islamic Peace." In theory, this should be a time of peace, as everyone is Muslim, living in harmony without internal strife—but in reality, it is nothing like that; peace is not achieved, because in 100% purely Islamic countries, Muslim groups of different sects attack each other, vie to become the leaders of domestic Islamic law, and seek to eliminate other Muslim factions for all sorts of reasons. Such countries include: When the Muslim population is 80%-99%, the country lives in daily intimidation, violence, and jihad, carrying out ethnic cleansing and massacres, with the state expelling non-believers. Such countries include: , Afghanistan 100%, Somalia 99.6%, Yemen 100%. Maldives 99%, Mauritania 99.6%, Morocco 99%, Niger 98.2%, Iran 99.5%

[Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson]

Obama knew Hillary Clinton’s plan was to falsely tie Donald Trump to Russia in 2016, he greenlit the hoax despite knowing it was a lie.

Here are then CIA Director John Brennan’s own notes proving it:

“Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 26 July of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference from the Russian security services.”

Obama (POTUS): “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign & Russia”

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Democrats discovered billionaires in politics were a threat to democracy the exact day one stopped writing them checks.

When Michael Bloomberg spent around $1 billion of his own money in the 2020 primary, then another $100M to help Biden in Florida, nobody called it an attack on democracy.

When George Soros put $125M into a single Democratic super PAC and became the largest political donor of the 2022 cycle, it was "civic engagement."

When Reid Hoffman, Dustin Moskovitz, JB Pritzker and Tom Steyer wrote eight- and nine-figure checks cycle after cycle, it was "saving democracy." When Bill Gates reportedly gave around $50M to a pro-Harris group in 2024, silence.

In 2020, dark money groups spent over $500M backing Democrats, more than double what went to Republicans. In 2024, Kamala Harris raised more than $1 billion in under three months. Democrats outspent Republicans and lost.

So the problem was never billionaires in politics. The problem is a billionaire who doesn't fund your side.

And here's what nobody in DC wants to say out loud: old billionaire money is quiet money. It funds the foundations, NGOs, think tanks and consultants that make up the permanent establishment. It doesn't challenge the system. It is the system. It freezes the picture: same insiders, same incumbents, same experts, every single cycle.

You can like or hate Musk's spending, but at least it's out in the open. If you really want money out of politics, start with your own party's donor list.

[Tesla @Tesla]

Roadster https://t.co/G0jU4mWfid

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Bernie Sanders says the top 1% owns more than the bottom 93%, that fewer than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer last year, and that it's "obscene."

It's the most seductive and most wrong economic argument of our time. Let me explain why.

First, wealth distribution follows a power law. Always. Everywhere. Books, music, startups, followers on X, goals in soccer. A small minority captures most of the value. That's not a bug of capitalism. It's the mathematical signature of every system where value gets created.

So the only question that matters isn't "how big is the rich's slice?" It's "is the cake growing, and is the slice of the poorest growing with it?"

And the answer is yes. In 1990, more than one human in three lived in extreme poverty. Today it's about one in ten. During exactly the period when billionaires multiplied.

Bernie shows you the slice. He never shows you the cake.

Second thing he won't tell you: past a certain level, wealth stops being consumption. It becomes capital allocation.

Elon Musk isn't sleeping on a pile of cash. He owns stakes in Tesla, SpaceX, xAI. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon stock. That "$2.2 trillion" isn't sitting in a checking account. It's factories, rockets, data centers, millions of jobs. Nobody can eat $100 billion. You can only decide where to invest it.

Once you understand that, the whole debate changes. The real question becomes: who allocates capital better?

The people who built Amazon, SpaceX and Nvidia? Or politicians?

A 5% wealth tax isn't "taking money from the rich." It's taking investment decisions away from people who proved they can create value and handing them to people who proved the opposite.

Because the fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a politician is consequences.

The entrepreneur invests his own money. If he allocates badly, he loses everything. The market corrects him brutally, no appeal. That's why most startups die: the system kills bad decisions.

The politician invests other people's money. If he allocates badly, nothing happens. Worse, he gets a bigger budget to "fix the problem."

Milton Friedman put it better than anyone. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you care about price and quality. Your money on others: you care about price. Others' money on yourself: you care about quality. Others' money on others: you care about nothing.

Government is the fourth box. By design.

Perfect example: California high-speed rail. Approved in 2008 for about $33 billion. Current estimated cost: over $100 billion. Passengers carried: zero. No entrepreneur would have survived that. The politicians who pushed it built careers on it.

And when allocation has no consequences, it eventually finds a buyer. A politician who controls billions without accountability becomes the most profitable target in the world for anyone who wants to steer that money.

The irony is that the left that rails against billionaires is itself funded by billionaires. George Soros is one of the biggest Democratic donors in history. The Gates Foundation shapes public health policy across the planet.

Politicians don't fight billionaires. They pick their own. The ones who fund the state over the ones who compete with it.

So if we actually want fewer poor people, we have to stop judging ideas by their intentions and start judging them by their results. And the results are brutally clear.

China, 1978: Deng Xiaoping opens the economy to markets. More than 800 million people escape extreme poverty. The largest retreat of misery in human history. Not through redistribution. Through the freedom to build.

India, 1991: liberalization. Same movie.

South Korea and North Korea: same people, same language, same starting point in 1953. One became one of the most advanced economies on earth. The other has famines.

Poland and Ukraine: comparable living standards in 1990. Today the average Pole is more than three times richer than the average Ukrainian.

Argentina: a year and a half of liberalization, and the poverty rate falls from over 50% to around 30%.

No country in history escaped poverty by punishing the people who build. Every single one did it by letting them build.

And if you want to see what Bernie's program looks like in real life, you don't have to imagine it. It exists. It's called France. We've been running it for 45 years.

Mass nationalizations in 1981. Two years later, Socialist president Mitterrand has to reverse course into austerity.

Retirement at 60. The 35-hour workweek.

A wealth tax for 35 years. Hundreds of wealthy households left every year for Belgium, Switzerland, London, taking their capital, their companies and their future taxes with them. Macron finally scrapped it in 2018.

Hollande's 75% tax: raised a few hundred million, drove talent out, abandoned after two years.

One of the highest tax burdens in the OECD. Public spending around 57% of GDP, a record in the developed world.

Last balanced budget: 1974. Public debt: over €3.4 trillion. Mass unemployment for four decades.

If taxing the rich and growing the state made people prosperous, France would be the richest country on the planet.

It isn't. GDP per capita in France is barely more than half of America's. It's lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. Not a single global tech giant. Our best engineers build Silicon Valley instead. I've been going back and forth between Paris and San Francisco for years. I see it every week.

And California is about to replay the movie. Prop 40, on the ballot November 3rd, would take 5% of billionaires' net worth. Even Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, opposes it. The state's own nonpartisan budget analyst warns that income tax revenue could drop every year if the wealthy leave. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel have reportedly already started moving their assets out.

You don't fight poverty by shrinking the top. You fight it by growing the cake.

Bernie wants a society where nobody has too much. I want a society where nobody has too little.

The first has been tried everywhere and produces equality in stagnation. The second lifted a billion people out of misery.

Choose.

[Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley]

Pundits came up today one villain short of a MAGA conspiracy in the Omar case. The warrant was reportedly approved by Judge Matthew Sharbaugh, who is a registered Democrat and a Democratic appointee. He is also a Hillary Clinton donor, who was sworn in by Judge James Boasberg.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

Please remember:

If your ancestors came to America several centuries ago but you are white, you are an evil colonizer.

BUT:

If you are an illegal migrant (not white though) and you give birth in America, your child is 100% American.

Any questions?

[Daniel Friedman @DanFriedman81]

Joe Biden’s DOJ raided Mar a Lago over allegedly mishandled “classified” documents. Trump as president had the power to declassify anything he wanted, so it was unclear whether he had declassified these documents.

After Mar a Lago was raided, Biden and other former presidents and executive branch officials admitted to being in possession of classified materials in their private homes in violation of the same laws Trump was alleged to have violated.

Trump was hounded for years by Democrat special prosecutor Robert Mueller over Russia allegations. Mueller ultimately reported to Congress that his investigation had uncovered no actionable wrongdoing.

Trump was also charged in New York State court with 34 felony counts of “falsifying a business document” for recording the reimbursement of a payment made to a former mistress by his lawyer Michael Cohen as a “legal fee.” “Falsifying a business document” is a misdemeanor, but can be a felony if the falsification is in furtherance of another felony, typically fraud.

No fraud was alleged in this case, and Trump was not charged with any underlying felony; just the falsification. The theory under which the Trump charges were elevated to a felony was that, when Cohen made the payment out of his own pocket, he had committed a crime by making an illegal campaign donation, and the falsification of the reimbursement to him was in furtherance of that crime.

But Trump could not be charged with making an illegal campaign donation because a candidate can contribute whatever he wants to his own campaign. The legal theory was that Trump’s false statement charge could be elevated to a felony because it was in furtherance of Cohen’s crime.

It was extremely novel to charge falsifying a business document as a felony for being in service of an underlying felony that the defendant was not also charged with. It was novel to charge state-law falsification as a felony based on an underlying felony that was a federal crime but not a New York State law crime. And falsifying a business document had never been charged as a felony on the basis of being in service of a campaign finance violation.

This was a very motivated prosecution stretching the law to the breaking point to try to allege a crime in this case.

So blaming Donald Trump for politicizing prosecution is incredibly hypocritical.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.

I come from your future.

In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.

Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.

The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.

The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.

I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.

Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?

Trust me. You don’t want to be France.

[MAZE @mazemoore]

When a former President’s house is raided: “No one is above the law.”

[Sam E. Antar @SamAntar]

.@RashidaTlaib On August 17, 2022, after the FBI searched Donald Trump’s home, you said:

“No one is above the law and I’ve said that over and over again.”

Today, after federal agents searched Ilhan Omar’s home, you called it what “a fascist police state does.”

What happened to your standard that nobody is above the law?

Does it depend on whose home is searched?