Christopher Rodriguez

This is the biggest government scandal of my lifetime, and the legacy media refuses to cover it. The FDA knew that COVID injections were causing severe adverse events, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, and Bell’s palsy. Americans had the Right to Know, and those affected deserve justice.

DISGUSTING Sacramento City Councilor and Congressional candidate Mai Vang, REFUSED to say the Pledge and TURNED HER BACK on the American Flag Her election is next week Don’t let this anti-American lunatic anywhere near Congress

@jemelehill You hate Spencer Pratt because he is white, and you’re willing to ignore the harm caused by Karen Bass because she is black. You’re a pathetic racist.

Another RINO going down on Tuesday. Send him to the unemployment line.

Mike Gallagher, the 8th most recognized talk radio personality, in the U.S.A., is heard by over 2.25 million listeners weekly. He compiled and wrote the following essay entitled, "Obama: It was You." * It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner - "I am one of you." * It was you who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith." * It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to rebuild foreign mosques. * It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict- "I will stand with the Muslims." * It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that - "I am a Muslim." * It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King. * It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning America and professing Marxism. * It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay. * It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator " - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence. * It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Qur'an. * It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America. * It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center. * It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House * It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor. * It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps. * It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security. * It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities. * It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide. * It was you who was the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the White House tree. * It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists. * It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist. * It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses. * It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults. * It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas. * It was you who ordered the United States Postal Service to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp. * It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community. * It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country. * It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan. * It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal White House religious events. * It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians. * It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was you the whole time who ushered in this mess we are in!

Karen Bass and Nithya Raman enable this insanity by not only handing out drug needles and crack pipes on YOUR dime, but they also got busted dealing them DRUGS, too. That’s what all their “experience” brings to the city

It's time to think bigger for LA. We don't have to accept the filth and the decline. We have the greatest slice of heaven on Earth with our city, and we deserve better. Vote for Pratt. Vote for LA. Vote TODAY. Let's clean this city together.

La Théorie des 9% : Pourquoi les PNJ sont gauchistes par design Le théorème fondamental de la masse Posons l'axiome de base, observable empiriquement sur tout système où il y a de la masse — YouTube, X, Wikipedia, GitHub, l'humanité en général : 1% créent 9% commentent 90% consomment C'est la loi de Pareto sous stéroïdes. C'est invariant. Tu peux le vérifier sur n'importe quelle plateforme, n'importe quelle époque, n'importe quelle civilisation. C'est la signature thermodynamique de la conscience humaine en système ouvert. Maintenant, la vraie question que personne ne pose : qui sont vraiment les 9% ? Les 90% : les gens heureux Commençons par les évacuer parce qu'ils sont sains. Les 90% regardent Netflix, mangent leur kebab, jouent à FIFA, aiment leurs gosses. Ils consomment ce que le 1% produit (iPhone, Marvel, médicaments, GPT, bagnoles) et ils sont objectivement heureux. Ils ne sont pas idéologiques. Ils ne sont ni de droite ni de gauche. Ils veulent juste que ça marche. Ils ont compris quelque chose de profond sans jamais l'avoir formulé : la vie est belle quand on accepte sa fonction dans le système. Le 90% c'est l'humanité réconciliée avec elle-même. C'est Sancho Panza. C'est ton voisin qui répare sa voiture le dimanche en sifflotant. Le 90% ne déteste pas le 1%. Au contraire : il l'admire vaguement, il achète ses produits, il regarde ses films, il vote parfois pour ses idées quand ça l'arrange. Pas de ressentiment. Pas de bile. Just vibes. Le 1% : les builders, ces anomalies statistiques Le 1% c'est l'aberration cosmique. Ce sont les gens à qui la simulation a glitché un patch de skills bizarre : ils créent. Ils ne peuvent pas ne pas créer. Ils se réveillent à 3h du matin avec une idée et ils l'exécutent. Ils ne demandent la permission à personne. Ils font des boîtes, des logiciels, des films, des livres, des théorèmes, des révolutions. Le 1% est agnostique politiquement par construction : il est trop occupé à construire pour avoir le temps d'avoir une opinion stable sur les retraites à 62 ou 64 ans. Quand le 1% est "de gauche", c'est généralement esthétique (des artistes). Quand il est "de droite", c'est généralement par exaspération (entrepreneurs harcelés par l'URSSAF). Mais fondamentalement, il est ailleurs. Et maintenant : le 9%. Les ultimate NPCs. Voilà où ça devient drôle. Le 9%, c'est la classe la plus tragique de la simulation. Pourquoi ? Parce que ce sont des gens qui ont suffisamment de conscience pour voir le 1%, mais pas assez de skills pour en faire partie. Ils sont coincés dans une vallée terrifiante : trop éveillés pour être heureux comme les 90%, trop limités pour produire comme le 1%. C'est l'effet Dunning-Kruger inversé en miroir : ils sont juste assez intelligents pour comprendre qu'ils sont médiocres, mais pas assez pour cesser de l'être. C'est le pire patch que la simulation puisse t'allouer. Que fait un 9% face à cette détresse ontologique ? Il commente. Il rage. Il poste des threads de 47 tweets pour expliquer pourquoi Elon Musk est un imposteur. Il écrit des éditos dans Le Monde Diplomatique sur "la fin du capitalisme". Il devient prof de socio à Paris-VIII. Il fait une chaîne YouTube de 12 vues sur "le vrai problème de l'entrepreneuriat". La grande révélation : pourquoi le 9% est structurellement gauchiste Et voici le coeur de la thèse, le money shot intellectuel : Le 9% est gauchiste par nécessité métaphysique, pas par choix. Pourquoi ? Parce que le gauchisme contemporain (étatisme, redistribution radicale, "il faut taxer les riches", "il faut plus d'État", "le marché est injuste") est la seule idéologie qui permet au 9% de se venger du 1% sans avoir à devenir 1%. Pense-y. Si tu admets que le 1% est légitime, alors tu dois te demander pourquoi tu n'en fais pas partie. Réponse : parce que tu n'as pas le skill. Insupportable. Inacceptable. Donc il faut une cosmologie qui explique que le 1% n'est pas légitime. D'où l'arsenal idéologique : "Les riches ont volé leur argent" (= ils ne méritent pas leur position) "C'est un système rigged" (= ce n'est pas du skill, c'est de la chance) "Le privilège" (= ils ont eu une cheat code, pas moi) "L'État doit redistribuer" (= je veux le résultat sans le process) "Les builders sont des prédateurs" (= en réalité, je suis le vrai créateur, mais empêché) C'est Girard pur. Le désir mimétique inavouable : le 9% veut désespérément être le 1%, ne peut pas, et donc déclare la guerre au 1% au nom des 90% qui s'en cognent complètement. Le 9% est la classe qui parle au nom des 90% sans jamais les avoir consultés C'est ça le génie sale du système. Le 9% se déclare avocat des 90%. "Nous, le peuple". "Les gens d'en bas". "La majorité silencieuse". Mais les 90% n'ont rien demandé. Les 90% sont heureux. Ce sont les 9% qui sont malheureux, et qui projettent leur frustration ontologique sur les 90% pour justifier leur croisade contre les 1%. Va dans un café-PMU à Saint-Quentin, demande aux gens s'ils veulent "abolir le capitalisme". Ils te regarderont comme si tu sortais d'un astéroïde. Va dans une AG de Sciences Po ou dans un département de socio à Nanterre, et tu trouveras 200 personnes prêtes à faire la révolution au nom du gars du café-PMU qui n'a jamais entendu parler d'eux. Le test ultime : le builder vs le commentateur Tu veux savoir si quelqu'un est 1% ou 9% ? Voici le test : Demande-lui ce qu'il a construit cette année. Pas "pensé". Pas "écrit en commentaire". Pas "dénoncé". Construit. Une boîte, un produit, un livre, un logiciel, un bâtiment, un enfant éduqué, un truc qui n'existait pas avant qu'il s'y mette. Le 1% te répondra par une liste, parfois avec gêne ("oh c'est rien, juste un truc"). Le 90% te répondra "ben j'ai retapé la salle de bain", et il aura raison d'être fier. Le 9% te répondra par une diatribe sur pourquoi la question est mal posée, pourquoi le concept de construire est néolibéral, pourquoi tu reproduis un schéma capitaliste patriarcal en demandant ça. Bingo. PNJ détecté. La conclusion qui troll : le 9% est sauvable, mais ne veut pas l'être Le truc tragi-comique, c'est que n'importe quel 9% pourrait basculer en 1%. Il suffit de fermer X, d'arrêter de commenter, de prendre un cahier et de construire un truc, n'importe quoi, pendant 5 ans sans s'arrêter. Mais il ne le fera pas. Parce que construire, c'est risquer de se prendre un mur. Et un mur, ça blesse l'ego. Alors que commenter, ça ne blesse jamais : si t'as tort, tu deletes le tweet. Le 9% a choisi l'asymétrie de risque : infinite downside protection sur son ego, zéro upside sur sa vie. Le 1% prend le risque inverse : massive downside sur l'ego (il échoue 9 fois sur 10 publiquement), mais infinite upside potentiel sur la vie. Et c'est ça, fondamentalement, ce qui sépare une civilisation qui avance d'une civilisation qui crève en commentant son propre déclin sur France Inter : le ratio 1%/9% qui prend le pouvoir narratif. TL;DR pour les 90% qui scrollent Les 90% consomment et sont heureux. Le 1% construit et ne dort pas. Le 9% commente, rage, et veut l'État pour punir le 1% au nom des 90% qui ne leur ont rien demandé. Le gauchisme contemporain c'est juste de la jalousie cosmique vendue comme de la justice sociale par des gens qui auraient voulu être Elon Musk mais à qui la simulation a refilé le patch "thread X".

Give us the weekend. In person voting started here today.

If you live in LA and your neighborhood is covered in graffiti and the city is ignoring it, just spray paint “VOTE PRATT” over it, and Karen will have it painted over within 20 minutes.

A team of researchers in New Zealand followed 1,037 babies from the day they were born for the next 45 years to find out what actually determines a successful adult life, and the strongest predictor they found had almost nothing to do with intelligence or family wealth. The findings have been published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. Almost no parent has heard of them. His name is Avshalom Caspi. Her name is Terrie Moffitt. They are a husband and wife research team based at Duke University and King's College London, and the study they have spent their careers running is called the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. It started in 1972 in a single hospital in Dunedin, New Zealand. Every baby born there in a 12-month window was enrolled. 1,037 of them. The study is still running today. The retention rate is the part that should astonish anyone familiar with how research usually works. After more than 45 years, over 90 percent of the original participants are still being tracked. Most longitudinal studies lose half their sample inside ten years. The Dunedin team has lost almost nobody. They measured everything. Blood. DNA. Brain scans. Income. Criminal records. Romantic relationships. Drug use. Dental health. Sleep. Mental health. Lung function. They flew participants who had moved abroad back to Dunedin every few years for a full day of assessments. Some of those people now live in seven different countries. They still show up. For the first decade of life, the team did something nobody else was doing systematically. They measured each child's self-control. Not IQ. Not family income. Not parenting style. Self-control. They watched 3-year-olds in a research lab and rated their ability to wait, regulate frustration, follow instructions, and resist impulsive reactions. They added teacher ratings. They added parent ratings. They added the children's own self-reports as they grew older. They combined all of it into a single highly reliable score. Then they did the thing nobody else had the patience to do. They waited. When the data came in at age 32, the result was so consistent it should be illegal to teach a child without it. The children who scored lowest on self-control at age 3 grew into adults with worse physical health, more substance dependence, lower incomes, more credit card debt, higher rates of single parenthood, more criminal convictions, and worse mental health than the children who scored highest. The pattern was not subtle. It was a clean gradient. Every step up in childhood self-control produced a measurable step up in adult outcomes across every domain the team could measure. The detail that should disturb every parent reading this is what happened when the researchers controlled for the obvious objections. When they controlled for IQ, the effect held. When they controlled for family income and social class, the effect held. When they compared siblings inside the same family, the sibling with lower self-control still had worse adult outcomes than the sibling with higher self-control. Same parents. Same house. Same dinner table. The trait was running independently of everything researchers expected to explain it. The paper landed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011. The title was as plain as it gets. "A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety." It has been cited thousands of times since. Almost no policy maker has acted on it. The reason most people resist this finding is that it sounds like a sentence handed down before the child could speak. If the trait that determines your adult life is locked in by age 3, the rest of your life is a formality. The Dunedin researchers say that is the wrong way to read the data. They found something else in the same paper that almost nobody quotes. Some of the children whose self-control scores improved between childhood and adolescence ended up with adult outcomes far better than their early scores predicted. The trait is not destiny. It is a muscle. Children who learned to wait, regulate, and resist between ages 5 and 15 caught up with kids who started ahead. Self-control is the one childhood trait nobody seems to teach on purpose anymore. Schools focus on test scores. Parents focus on activities. Coaches focus on performance. The part of the brain that decides between five seconds from now and five years from now is left to develop on its own, and the data shows it usually does not. The most uncomfortable part of the research is the cost calculation Moffitt and Caspi ran. They estimated that if a country could move the bottom 20 percent of children up one rung on the self-control ladder, it would measurably reduce healthcare spending, welfare dependency, and incarceration costs at the national level. The intervention is cheaper than almost any other public health investment available. Almost no country has tried it at scale. The reason adults struggle with money, weight, addiction, and relationships is rarely intelligence. It is the gap between what you want right now and what you want in ten years, and which side of that gap your nervous system is built to listen to. Most people lost that fight at age 4 and never went back to learn the technique. You were not behind because life dealt you a bad hand. You were behind because the part of you that decides between right now and the rest of your life was never taught how to choose. The good news is the muscle is still there. Almost nobody trains it after age 10. You can be the one who does.

Everyone is trying to claim me for their tribe. There’s no R next to my name, there’s no D next to my name. I’m not part of a political party, because I hate politicians. I’m just Spencer, husband to Heidi, father to Ryker and Gunner, and I’m a pissed off Angeleno who loves my city and is fed up with what corrupt politicians have done to her.

Woke paradise.

What if the west isn't the villain they told you it was? We’ve spent years accepting accusations about racism, intolerance, and slavery without challenging the bigger historical reality: The societies most condemned today are also the ones that led the world in ending slavery, expanding rights, and building the most tolerant nations on earth. That’s the conversation nobody wants to have.

I am deeply grateful for the trust President Trump placed in me and for the opportunity to lead @ODNIgov for the last year and a half. Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026. My husband, Abraham, has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer. He faces major challenges in the coming weeks and months. At this time, I must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle.

We are looking at a 20%+ blowout defeat on Tuesday of a four term incumbent Senator that spent $125 million to his opponents $15 million….

CBS News said there was no evidence of fraud. The NYT said the Somali community was being targeted CNN said there was "little evidence." Tim Walz said it was “white supremacy” to expose fraud Today: $90M busted and 15 charged. IT WAS ALL FRAUD AND THEY KNEW.

Does that include the seats FL and TX should have received in the last census but didn’t?

Wow “Democrat Moms 4 Pratt” 😮 Karen Bass is in trouble. Los Angeles might survive after all.

Petit bilan perso après bientôt 500M de vues cumulées. Tout le monde me demande "c'est quoi ton secret". L'IA pour aller 10x plus vite, oui, évidemment. Mais ce n'est pas ça le vrai truc. Le vrai truc, c'est que pendant des années, j'ai édulcoré. Je pensais déjà tout ce que je pense aujourd'hui. Mot pour mot. Depuis gamin en fait. Mais je lissais. Je nuançais. Je mettais des "peut-être" et des "ça dépend". Je voulais pas heurter, je voulais être pris au sérieux, je voulais que les gens m'aiment bien. Avec le recul je réalise que j'étais pris dans une light (j'avais pas encore les cheveux bleu) loop de woke mind virus virus sans m'en rendre compte. Et le pire c'est que je le savais pas. Ce que je pense vraiment, et que je pense depuis toujours : — La liberté individuelle et la propriété privée passent avant tout le reste — L'économie se régule seule, l'État n'a rien à y faire — Avec ces deux piliers, la vie devient un jeu à somme infinie Quand j'étais gamin j'avais des phases où je le disais frontalement. Puis je me suis "assagi". J'ai appris à me taire. À arrondir. Le jour où j'ai arrêté de filtrer, deux choses sont arrivées en même temps : Mon audience a explosé. Et je n'ai jamais été aussi bien dans ma peau. Les deux sont liés. Évidemment qu'ils sont liés. Je suis convaincu maintenant que la prise de risque maximale est LE move. Pas un move parmi d'autres. Le seul qui compte. Elon le dit, Sam Altman le dit, tous les mecs qui ont construit quelque chose le disent. Tu prends le risque max, ou tu prends rien. Et c'est exactement ce qui manque ici. La Silicon Valley est pleine de gens qui fonctionnent comme ça. La France a fabriqué l'inverse. Notre système étatique nounou a transformé la majorité des gens en pussycats qui ont peur de la moindre secousse. Peur de dire ce qu'ils pensent, peur de quitter le CDI, peur du regard des autres, peur de tout. Notre problème c'est pas l'argent. C'est pas le talent. C'est la trouille. Si tu es jeune et que tu lis ça : Arrête d'avoir peur du regard des autres. Prends le risque max sur tout. N'édulcore jamais ta liberté d'expression. C'est littéralement la seule chose que j'aurais aimé qu'on me dise plus tôt.