Erich Wuerfel

@Rothmus @physicsgeek It was…. “promises” for votes. It is now….”Welfare & aid for votes”. The price of power has risen but the politician’s willingness to pay, with your money, has risen just as fast.

“I’m here for my money and my free house. It’s my dream.” Notice the entitlement. MY money and MY free house. So this is your reminder that mass immigration at this scale is impossible without heavy government funding. They are not coming to the West to work. They are coming for the subsidized lifestyle you pay for. Their net contribution is not zero, it is negative. This would never have happened at this level without a massive public trough funding it. Your tax dollars are the incentive. You work hard, the government takes your money, and funnels it to them. You are funding this reality. Take it up with your government. They are the ones confiscating your earnings to incentivize mass immigration.

@DataRepublican @gal_red11250 @bullfrog35 The sky is blue

@bullfrog35 I will wrap up this thread for now. But make no mistake: Hamas is Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR is Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR is financed by foreign organizations. CAIR is deep in the machine of DC politics. The Democratic party has a foreign operative problem.

🧵 THREAD: The CAIR–Muslim Brotherhood–Hamas Pipeline They Don't Want You to See This thread has been a long time coming. Let's start with a simple fact: In its 1988 charter, Hamas openly declares itself the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. So here's the question: 🇺🇸 Why hasn't the U.S. designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization? Seems obvious, right? Here’s my answer 👇 If the Muslim Brotherhood is formally labeled a terror group... ➡️ Then CAIR, founded by leaders from the Brotherhood's U.S. network, gets implicated too. And if CAIR gets implicated… ➡️ Then so do a lot of politicians. 📍And that’s the line no one in D.C. wants to cross. So instead, the Brotherhood stays "undesignated." CAIR keeps the civil rights label and keeps its tax advantaged nonprofit status. And the public is left in the dark. Patience as I pull the receipts.

@simonmaechling @MAHA_Action I agree. The absolute count is misleading. The ability of the FDA to act independently and objectively to set “appropriate” risk levels at the constituent chemical and combined / cumulative content level is a problem.

Every food is made of chemicals. An apple is chemicals. Coffee is chemicals. Breast milk is chemicals. Your body is chemicals. A single strawberry contains thousands of different molecules: Water Sugars Acids Vitamins Aromatic compounds Natural pesticides made by the plant itself Coffee alone contains over 1,000 identified chemical compounds. A banana contains dozens of volatile chemicals that create its smell and flavor. Even “organic,” “natural,” or “chemical-free” foods are chemically complex mixtures. The real scientific question is not: “Are there chemicals in food?” The real question is: “What chemicals? At what dose? And do they present a risk?” Because toxicology is about exposure and dose - not whether something has a scary-sounding name. Botulinum toxin is natural. Water can kill you at high enough doses. Vitamin A becomes toxic if you consume too much. Meanwhile, many synthetic food additives are used at tiny concentrations and are extensively tested for safety. “Chemical-free food” is not a scientific concept. It’s a marketing slogan.

RFK Jr. reveals FDA officials admitted they literally do not know how many chemicals are in the American food supply. “When I came in, I asked FDA, ‘How many chemicals are in our food?’” “They said, ‘We don’t know.’” “‘We don’t have a list of them.’” “It’s somewhere between 4,000 and 12,000.” “In Europe, they only have 400 chemicals in their food.” “The 9,600 extra ones that we have are all illegal there.”

@gothburz @30ACTruth Oh jeez, I fell for it.. great stuff.

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

@0xhyperfury @ianmSC It’s all about the votes.

@ianmSC in any third world country we have something called "guest worker passes" they pay taxes, get their healthcare but cannot vote why is it so topsy turvy in the US? why is it so hard to have rational policies in the US but it's so common sense in the third world?

Democrats for months: No of course we don’t want taxpayers to fund free healthcare for illegal aliens Democrats running for governor of California: Of course we want taxpayers to fund free healthcare for illegal aliens

@editty @LevAkabas When he jumps into the defender he isn’t even looking at the basket

@LevAkabas Shai is jumping into the defender. Bryant jumps to the side of SHAI to avoid him. SHAI jumps into the path of Bryant and they reward him with a foul. He is worse than Harden. Never seen anyone play like this and the refs continue to let him get away with it.

Remember when pushoffs weren't legal? (most of NBA history) Remember the awesome crackdown on unnatural shooting motions for a few months in 2021-22? Now a defender gets shoved backwards and then basically isn't allowed to contest the shot. Plays like this are bad for the game

A University of Kentucky epidemiologist convinced 678 Catholic nuns to donate their brains and their entire life records to science, and the autopsies he performed quietly rewrote everything modern medicine thought it knew about Alzheimer's disease. The findings have been published in JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine. Almost nobody outside the field of neurology has heard of them. His name was David Snowdon. He was a young epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota in 1986 when he had what most of his colleagues considered a crazy idea. He wanted to study Alzheimer's disease the way it had never been studied before. Not through brain scans of confused 80-year-olds in a hospital. Not through self-reported family histories. He wanted to find a group of people whose entire lives were on paper, from their twenties to their deathbeds, and then look inside their brains after they died and see what the autopsies actually showed. He chose 678 Catholic sisters from the School Sisters of Notre Dame congregation. The choice was not random. Nuns lived almost identical lifestyles. Same diet. Same housing. Same daily schedule. Same medical care. No smoking. No drinking. No pregnancies confounding the hormonal data. They were, statistically speaking, the cleanest research population on Earth. And they had something no other study population had ever offered. Their entire lives were already documented. Every nun in the order had written a one-to-two-page autobiography in her early twenties, before taking her final vows. The essays had been sitting in convent archives for 60 years, untouched, waiting to be discovered. Then Snowdon did the part most researchers would never have agreed to. He asked the nuns, in person, one at a time, if they would donate their brains to science after they died. They said yes. All of them. The study ran for over 25 years. Annual cognitive tests. Annual physical exams. Detailed medical records. And at the moment of death, every single brain was carefully removed and analyzed under a microscope. The findings broke modern neuroscience. The first thing the autopsies showed was that many of the nuns had brains riddled with the classic plaques and tangles of full-blown Alzheimer's disease. Severe damage. The kind of damage that, in any other patient, would have produced complete dementia. But while they were alive, these particular nuns had shown no symptoms at all. They had stayed sharp until the day they died. They had taught classes. They had run errands. They had recognized everyone. Their brains were destroyed. Their minds were intact. Something was protecting them that nobody had ever measured before. Snowdon called it cognitive reserve. The brain, he argued, can absorb extraordinary amounts of damage without showing symptoms, as long as it has been built thick enough beforehand. The nuns who stayed sharp had brains that had been so well-developed over a lifetime of learning, teaching, reading, and thinking that they could afford to lose huge sections of tissue and still keep functioning. Then he found the second thing. The one that made the study famous. He pulled the autobiographies out of the archives. The essays written by the same nuns 60 years earlier, when they were 22 years old. He measured a single linguistic feature called idea density. How many distinct ideas a writer packed into each ten words of prose. Not vocabulary. Not grammar. Not style. Just the raw informational compression of a young mind. The result was so clean it should be illegal to ignore. The nuns who had the lowest idea density at age 22 were 59 times more likely to develop Alzheimer's by age 85 than the nuns who had the highest idea density. Snowdon could predict with roughly 80 to 90 percent accuracy who would develop dementia 60 years before it happened, from a single essay written before the woman had even taken her vows. The detail that should disturb every adult reading this is what happened when the researchers controlled for the obvious objections. When they controlled for education, the effect held. When they controlled for occupation, the effect held. When they controlled for the age at which the nun entered the convent, the effect held. The cognitive complexity of the 22-year-old mind, measured in a single autobiographical paragraph, was a stronger predictor of Alzheimer's six decades later than any other variable Snowdon could find. Then he ran the second analysis. The one that almost nobody quotes. He measured the emotional tone of the same autobiographies. The frequency of positive words like joy, gratitude, hope, love, contentment. The nuns who wrote about their lives in positive emotional terms at age 22 lived an average of 10.7 years longer than the nuns who wrote in neutral or negative terms. Same convent. Same diet. Same medical care. Same prayer schedule. The lifespan was being shaped by something invisible. Something that had been written down before the nun had any way of knowing it would matter. The paper landed in JAMA in 1996. It has been cited thousands of times since. Almost no one outside academic neurology has heard of it. The reason most people resist this finding is that it sounds like a sentence handed down before adulthood even began. If the architecture of your old-age brain is being built by what you do with your mind in your twenties, and your emotional resilience is being calibrated by the words you use about your own life, then your eighties are being shaped right now by patterns you cannot even feel yourself making. Snowdon argued the opposite. He said the data showed cognitive reserve could be built throughout life. The nuns who continued to learn languages, teach courses, read difficult books, and engage in complex conversations in their 60s and 70s also showed slower decline. The brain does not stop responding to mental work just because you got older. It only stops responding when you stop asking anything of it. The most uncomfortable part of the research is the contrast Snowdon repeatedly emphasized. Two nuns could have identical brain damage on autopsy. Identical plaques. Identical tangles. Identical genetics. One would have lived her last years confused, frightened, and lost. The other would have lived her last years lucid, joyful, and intact. The only meaningful difference between them was the depth of the cognitive and emotional architecture each had built across the decades before the damage arrived. The brain you will have at 85 is being constructed right now by the books you choose not to read, the conversations you choose not to have, and the words you choose to use about your own life. The dementia that arrives at 80 is not a verdict. It is the bill for a structure you either built or did not build between 22 and 60. Almost nobody walks through the window because almost nobody knows it is open. You can be the one who does.

@Bubblebathgirl (D) … embraced by the party.

California congressional candidate Mai Vang declines to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, running in CA-7, has repeatedly chosen not to say the Pledge at public meetings and has turned away from the U.S. flag during the ceremony. She shared on social media that she uses the moment to reflect on America’s “injustices.” This is drawing criticism from veterans and others ahead of Memorial Day, with some questioning whether declining the Pledge aligns with serving in Congress. Shouldn’t members of Congress take pride in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? 🇺🇸 (Video: AI)

@philseawolf @ChrSzegedy I fully agree with your blind liar characterization and the legal cover written into the terms, but perhaps those are inadvertent (lying), or evolutionary (necessary early product life) realities. Your long term objectives are ideal end state.

@philseawolf @ChrSzegedy Second, if an AI response to a prompt is not “published content”, and is not warranted in anyway, then perhaps different rules apply. AI should not of course, present false data or data sources but perhaps the terms of use shift the authentication burden to the user ?

OK, I found one that I can predict with 99% certainty: Whenever AI proves P!=NP, RH, or other millennium prize problems, there will be a few loud voices claiming that it is not "new math," "just combined some existing ideas," or some other copium.

@philseawolf @ChrSzegedy Interesting on several levels. How comprehensively does AI cite its sources? Why do I feel the sources/data cited change based on prompts, sequence of prompts, model level, AI usage levels, etc.

AI scraping without citation is so weak. Christian, this post of yours hit different for me. Academia wouldn't allow a freshman student to present an idea as their own that was not without citations. I love using AI as a powerful collaborator but take the creepy thief out of it please TY!

@HouseLowlights This is the game Adam Silver wants.

Shai hit his signature move Push-off, flop, free throws.

@Fla_Ga_Twins @AlexPfeiffer @RickJacksonGA Stacey Abrams ?

I’m not really sure what Burt Jones has done, other than be a politician, but @RickJacksonGA has built a billion dollar business employing people across the state, while creating one of the most sought after workplaces, with a beautiful campus, has stood up for foster kids, and saved the last antibiotic production facility in the US. I’d bet DJT also gave money to Democrats…so let’s not use that as a measure of a good leader.

MUST WATCH: Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Jackson finally admits that it is "true" he donated to Liz Cheney after she voted to impeach President Trump as well as that he donated to Democrat Stacey Abrams.

@DiedSuddenly_ @naomirwolf State legislatures…get busy

EPA Chief Lee Zeldin confirms that sulfur dioxide is being released into the atmosphere for geoengineering experiments. The EPA is now demanding answers from the unregulated startup behind it, highlighting real health and environmental risks. It’s no longer a theory.

@ZarkFiles “The willingness to certify something false is itself material.”

2/ If a bank robber walks in, steals money, and corrupts the bank's official records of how much money they had — you no longer know how much was stolen.This is why, in accounting, the 'Threshold of Materiality' becomes extremely sensitive to any intentional falsehood. Once an official is willing to certify a statement containing known falsehoods, the specific dollar amounts no longer matter. The willingness to certify something false is itself material.This is what ultimately contributed to Enron's collapse — and many other corporate failures.

1/ "OK, but how many votes were affected?" As a voter, I care. As a researcher, I couldn't care less. My research isn't about "who won?" It's about " Why on earth was that election certified?" No one can tell you how many people voted, let alone how many of those votes are legitimate.

I am not telling anyone to stop their medication. I am telling you to ask your doctor one question. "What is my fasting insulin?" If they do not know, or will not test it, you have your answer about whether they are looking for the root cause or just managing a number on a lab report. The truth heals Co-founders of HealthTruth: Dr. Philip Ovadia, Cardiac Surgeon @ifixhearts Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Cardiologist @DrAseemMalhotra Dr. Robert Cywes, Metabolic Surgeon @carbaddictiondr Prof. Tim Noakes @ProfTimNoakes With thanks to @bigfatsurprise @BillAckman @drjasonfung @LDLSkeptic Mark Kaplan Founder, HealthTruth

My statin thread hit over 400k + views yesterday. Thousands of you asked the same question. “What about Repatha?” Here is the answer. It is a bomb shell. You better sit down. I remember sitting on my bathroom floor with a needle in my hand. My cardiologist told me Lipitor was the answer. 80mg. Within months I started losing my memory. Words disappeared mid-sentence. I could not remember my daughter's phone number. He switched me to Crestor. Same thing. Then he told me the future had arrived. A new drug called Repatha. A PCSK9 inhibitor. $14,000 a year. An injection I had to give myself every two weeks. I sat on the cold tile of my bathroom floor, pushed a needle into my own stomach, and injected a foreign substance into my body because a doctor told me a number on a lab report was going to kill me. That was the lowest point of my life. What I did not know yet is what the data actually said about the drug I was injecting. 🧵

@WallStreetApes @JayVTheGreat Thune and Johnson are all over this (eye roll)

A British billionaire named Chris Hohn has been secretly funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into radicalizing America Report shows the goal of his NGO is quote, "Nothing less than the complete radicalization of the US political landscape” He is also funding our protests “In 10 years, CIFF funneled over half a billion dollars into US organizations to bankroll litigation and protests in our country” So he’s paying for protests and paying for the lawsuits “They also reportedly gave money to a China-connected group, the Rocky Mountain Institute, which is seeking to ban gas stoves in America. Foreign nations are barred by federal law from directly or indirectly influencing US elections, and these guys are funding litigation, protests, and changes to our laws in cooperation with China” I found it’s actually so much worse Christopher Hohn, the British billionaire hedge fund manager, founder and board chair of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) funneled over $553 million to US based organizations Much of this supported: - Climate litigation and activism against fossil fuels. - Protests - Left-leaning policy advocacy, including through networks like Arabella Advisors (pass-through funders for many progressive causes) - Meaning he’s working with George Soros groups - DEI, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, initiatives and social justice programs Everything happening on the left is being foreign funded to bring down America

Bezos went on CNBC yesterday and said "You could double the taxes I pay and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens." And all the bureaucrats and socialists lost their minds. Promise the teacher a raise. Tax everyone. Launder the money through Washington. Then blame the billionaire. We aren't morons Ro, we've seen this before. Bezos said the bottom half of earners should pay zero federal income tax. A nurse in Queens making $75K hands the IRS $12K a year. He said cut it to zero. She keeps her full paycheck. No bs refund, paperwork or shady government program. Simple. They won't do it. And you should ask yourself why. They don't ACTUALLY want to help anyone. They just want to pretend they tried and get your votes while making you hate the ppl they scammed. They want the money to flow through Washington, the city, every ponzi department and consultant and charity so each one can wet their beak. By the time it reaches the teacher it's maybe $100, if that... And then they'll blame the billionaire who hasn't paid their "fair share." Right Warren??? Lets take a gander at Mamdani's education budget. NYC spends $42K per student per year, 3x the national average ($15K). Highest in America. Florida pays $9K. NYC spends more per pupil than most people pay for private school or college. Its frickn insane. The budget has gone up every year, enrollment has gone down. With all that money only 3 out of 10 kids can read in the 8th grade. Cuba can read better english and they speak spanish lol. So where is the money going? Def not to teachers. but shh, ro doesn't want you to know that. A starting teacher in NYC makes $65K. Mamdani's city spends $42K per kid, runs a $40B budget. You could pay every teacher six figures with that money and have 12 kids per a classroom. But thats too logical. It goes to administrators. Consultants. Overtime. Unions. Friends and family businesses. Pensions for people who left a decade ago. Studies about studies. Buildings that take ten years to renovate. Everyone else but the kids, teachers and actual schools THERE IS ENOUGH MONEY. Politicians decide where the money goes. Teachers are underpaid because of how government spends money. Not because Bezos doesn't pay enough. Then they stand outside a billionaire's apartment with a camera and tell you he's the problem. That's the SCAM. Ro Khanna says tax billionaires to fund $60K teacher salaries. NYC already spends enough to fund $100K teacher salaries. The money's there, Ro. Your people are the ones who won't give it to her. Federal level is the same story. DOE spending up 649% since 2000 and kids aren't any smarter. GAO found $186 billion in improper payments last year. $3 trillion in errors since 2003. It’s criminal. Stop taxing the nurse. No bureaucracy. Just let the woman keep her full paycheck. Outrage is deflection. They'd rather she pay. Because her keeping her own money doesn't fund the machine and they lose the one thing that keeps the whole racket going: a billionaire to blame.

🚨#BREAKING: The ONLY Republican running for Mecklenburg County (Charlotte NC) District 1 has just dropped out of the race... ...AFTER NOT A SINGLE PERSON WAS ARRESTED FOR FIRING SHOTS AT HIS HOME WHILE HIS WIFE AND KIDS WERE INSIDE!!!!! Local police CONFIRMED the attack was targeted specifically at Aaron Marin. Bullet holes can be seen in trees, cars, mailbox, and his kid's basketball hoop. Marin's ENTIRE FAMILY was forced to leave their home and Aaron says they live in, "constant fear." He says his kids no longer even feel safe to play outside. CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHY ZERO MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLET COVERING THIS??????!!!!!! REPUBLICANS ARE LITERALLY BEING SHOT AT AND THERE IS SILENCE FROM THE MEDIA!!!!!! WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!!!!!!