CSharpDad retweeted
"What Sharia law is coming out of a guy who likes Taylor Swift and wears tight black T-Shirt?"
I can’t hold it in anymore. I practiced Islam. Studied it my entire life. Grew up in mosques listening to mullahs.
@JessicaTarlov is the perfect example of Western stupidity on this. You have zero idea what Jihadists actually practice. You have no idea how they are taught to assimilate, lie, and blend into society just to advance the cause of Islam.
Today Jihad is not only bombs. Jihad means “struggle.”
(“My struggle” does that ring a bell, @JessicaTarlov?)
One form of Jihad is cooperating with people you don’t agree with so you can accumulate power and spread your network like a spider web. This is exactly what people like El-Sayed and Mamdani are doing. A Jihadist in a suit and tie hands positions of power to those who share the ideology. He becomes a legislator and destroys your society brick by brick through laws, not bombs.
Get off your high horse and learn what political Islam and Jihad actually look like. You sound incredibly ignorant.
A tight black T-shirt and Taylor Swift is nothing. They’ll pole dance for you if that’s what it takes to get your vote and convince you they’re not jihadists.
#TheFive - Jessica Tarlov says - RIGHT IN FRONT OF GREG GUTFELD - "Islamophobia will not sit will with Jews." Greg: "Am I Islamophobic?" Jessica says Abdul El-Sayed's middle name is Mohamed and thinks Kid Rock is Islamophobic.
CSharpDad retweeted
Replying to @CaptMarkKelly
CSharpDad retweeted
Replying to @deaflibertarian
I always say that the US has proven it has great gun control.. because hundreds of millions of gun owners never used their guns to commit any crimes.. now that's gun control. People that want to disarm people or think that laws will prevent crime are trying to weaken the last bastion of freedom which is guaranteed by the right to bear arms. Look at Europe.. very few guns but lots of stabbings and rapes and other crimes that would be reduced if more people had guns.
CSharpDad retweeted
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.
The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 93%.
1 man owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of households.
Less than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer in the last year.
Obscene.
Yes. We need a 5% billionaire wealth tax in California and throughout America.
CSharpDad retweeted
Is it any coincidence that after Trump and Elon dismantled USAID every country in Latin America is kicking out its socialist governments?
No. No it is not.
On Sunday, Flávio Bolsonaro beat Brazil’s Marxist President Lula in the first round, 47.03% to 45.16%. It was quite an upset for a man whose father, the former president, was imprisoned by Lula for "treason".
Lula can still recover in the October 25 runoff. But he won't, not without a lot of cheating.
Brazil isn't alone. Seven other Latin American countries have elected conservative leaders since the end of USAID. Trump had cut off an American taxpayer-funded political machine that put leftists in power around the world.
For decades, USAID sold Americans a picture of hungry children and village clinics. Some of its work really was humanitarian. That continues under Marco Rubio's State Department.
But USAID had a budget BIGGER than the State Department AND the CIA...COMBINED. Only about 13% of it was going to humanitarian work.
Instead, the agency funded LGBTQ initiatives. It funded "color revolutions". It funded the forced sterilization of 300,000 native women in Peru. And it was completely unaccountable to anyone.
It's "foreign election interference" was not limited to directly overthrowing governments. It also financed political organizing overseas. But not by just anybody, and certainly not equally. Conservatives need not apply.
USAID’s own inspector general reported that this stuff was the most heavily funded category of assistance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Our "foreign-aid" bureaucracy was financing leftist election campaigns, directly and indirectly, around the world.
USAID ensured that socialists had the winning edge around the world. Turns out a vote against Democrats at home matters to every country on Earth.
You don't have to give a candidate money to elect him. Pay for his staff. Pay for the people who develop his policies. Fund organizations that promote his priorities, and the lawyers who tie his opponents up in court. Prop up sympathetic media with grants.
This is the same kind of political advantage leftist corporations and NGOs buy in America. But overseas, they did it with your tax dollars. And without your consent.
Calling an organization a nonprofit tells you how it files its taxes. It tells you nothing about its politics. A professional activist working full-time with foreign government money has a BIG advantage over a citizen organizing after work and paid for with small donations from impoverished citizens.
Add enough subsidized activists, and the ordinary citizen is fighting a political machine his own country could never afford.
Trump ended the arrangement with remarkable speed. GAO reports that approximately 6,780 of USAID’s 7,510 awards had been terminated by March 2026. That's about 90 percent. Thousands of grant recipients who had treated Washington as a permanent source of money suddenly had to make other plans.
I wrote about USAID as a Democrat-aligned Deep State slush fund when Trump and Musk moved against it in February 2025. The agency’s defenders wanted to talk about bureaucratic procedure. They fought furiously to keep the money flowing.
Now we can see why control of that money mattered so much.
We face the same mentality at home. Americans vote for change, but the permanent bureaucracy tells them which changes it will permit. The elected President is supposed to accommodate employees who openly oppose his policies. The taxpayers are supposed to keep paying. And for 90 years, they have.
Elections have to matter. Americans should control their government through the officials they elect, and Latin Americans should control theirs. Neither should need permission from a network of leftist NGOs whose livelihoods depend on your tax dollars.
Let's be clear: they do this because they can't win if they have to fight fair. Latin America just proved it.
Foreign aid must serve America’s interests. We can feed starving children without paying the overhead of the global Left. If its activists want to campaign against public order or advance causes most Americans reject, let them persuade their own supporters to fund it. Americans have families of their own to support.
Brazil’s runoff is still ahead. Lula may win. But now he has to persuade Brazilians with less American taxpayer support behind the broader movement that sustains him.
If the Left wants power, it can go earn the votes. Americans are through paying for Democrats' corrupt slush funds.
Remember that in November.
CSharpDad retweeted
Media telling you 'Trump told Iran to bomb California' is like when they told you Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute.
Media banks on the stupidity of the left
Never Forget…
The Obama Department of Defense and the Army catagorized the Fort Hood Terror attack “work place violence” because they did not want it labeled as an Islamic Terror Attack.
Even though Nidal Hasan shout “Allahu Akbar” as he killed 13 Americans.
Telling.
CSharpDad retweeted

cat memes@hardcatmemesSep 26
United States
United StatesConnected via United States App StoreAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
CSharpDad retweeted
Replying to @Cheryl707 @jason_meister
If there was an intelligence test required to vote, 60% of Americans would fail it. The average IQ in the US is 90.. and I think that is a generous estimate. It wasn't racism that prompted the forefathers to limit voting.. they just didn't want the stupidest of the herd to vote.
CSharpDad retweeted
Man gas is really expensive, I better vote for the party that flooded our country with tens of millions of illegals, funded the creation of COVID-19 that killed tens of millions, turned the intel agencies on private citizens, mutilated & indoctrinated our children at scale, stole an election, illegally spied on the opposition party/candidate, sabotaged an administration, framed a duly elected president, ignited a color revolution, bankrolled Hamas protests on college campuses and universities, censored Americans, jailed supporters, staged a fedsurrection, locked hands with islamists, and installed a non compos mentis dementia patient as leader of the free world.
CSharpDad retweeted
Replying to @CharlesMSutton @xai
The biggest threat of AI is its scalability. It can do the work normally done by many humans without a shred of humanity.. allowing bad actors to accomplish more with less.
CSharpDad retweeted
AI safety is a Trojan horse for regulatory capture.
The people who want regulatory capture are left-wing radicals.
So regulatory capture of AI is *political* capture.
They captured the institutions -- they want to capture information technology too.
They must not win

































