These are four stories that seem unrelated: 1) The bond markets are collapsing; 2) Ninety percent of Americans believe that the government is corrupt; 3) Bernie Sanders wants to jail you for 20 years if you develop AI any further; and 4) Russia is prodding NATO and China is prodding Japan.
But all four are part of the same big story.
Nobody else in American politics will tell you this, so I&#8217;m going to. There is, in fact, a uniparty. That uniparty is hell-bent on bankrupting the country, all in the name of populism.
Empires don&#8217;t die. Empires generally commit suicide, and in the same way: by spending too much money. They may spend too much money in different ways, but they all die the same way: they run out of money.
Here in the United States, we spent the money, and then we spent more of the money, and now we are spending all the money for the rest of time.
That brings us to our first story. Our bond markets are in a state of total disarray right now. As PBS reports:
<blockquote>Interest rates on government bonds are rising again around the world, making borrowing more expensive for consumers and businesses and heightening concerns about whether governments are issuing more debt than financial markets can handle. On Tuesday, the yield on the ten year Treasury, which strongly influences mortgage rates, reached 4.8%. That&#8217;s the highest since early 2025. The five-year Treasury, which is a benchmark for auto loans, touched as high as level since October 2025 at 4.55%.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2501?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
For those who don&#8217;t know, the way that the bond markets work goes like this: You buy a bond. The bond returns 10% year on year — which would be an amazing bond, but we are keeping the math simple here — you pay $100 for the bond; every year you receive $10. So the bond yield is the difference between the price that you paid for the bond and what you receive for the bond, and that&#8217;s what the yield is. Typically, the yield is a measure of the return you receive relative to the price you paid.
When we say that bond yields are rising, we mean typically that the price for bonds is falling, meaning that there&#8217;s not a lot of demand for bonds, and you are paying a lower price for bonds. The facial rate of interest is exactly the same.
What does that actually mean? It means there&#8217;s no market for bonds; people don&#8217;t want to buy bonds.
Sometimes that&#8217;s happening because people would rather invest in the stock market because it is soaring. Sometimes it means people don&#8217;t want to buy bonds because they are very nervous that anyone will ever be able to pay them off, except in inflated currency. The latter scenario  seems to be happening right now, and this is having some broad spillover effect in the American economy.
Mortgage rates have now hit their highest level in over a year.
All of this is happening because people, central banks, and other governments are all realizing that we in the United States are never going to stop spending — ever.
In 2010, the Tea Party was laser-focused on this topic. But since then, we&#8217;ve decided the American people are either too stupid or too greedy to handle the reality: we spend far too much money.
We are never going to stop spending because we have a uniparty. Both parties now agree that government is generally the solution to our problems. Neither party seems truly committed to the reality: that free markets not only are fairer and better, but they also create prosperity and innovation; and if you do the reverse- if you regulate and you tax and you welfare everything- you destroy your own country.
In 2016, President Trump famously changed the nature of the game in politics on the right side of the aisle by saying he would never touch entitlement programs again. He was doing that because he was a populist. It is always popular to tell people you&#8217;re not going to touch the entitlement programs because people like their government checks.
But is that fiscally responsible? Of course not.
That position is currently embraced by most of the Republican Party.
That&#8217;s story number one. Story number two is that 90% of the American public believes the government is corrupt.
Republicans have always largely agreed that the government is corrupt. Democrats, because Trump is the president, have now decided that the government is corrupt.
The American people are not wrong. Government is, in fact, corrupt. There&#8217;s tremendous corruption in our current government, not just at the top levels; it is rampant throughout the system. Here is the sad reality: When you turn the federal government into the most powerful entity on planet Earth, capable of making people rich or poor, of regulating and taxing you into submission and poverty, or of subsidizing and regulatory capturing you into great wealth, the natural result is corruption.
John Dillinger robbed banks because that&#8217;s where the money was. And people do corrupt things because that&#8217;s where the money is. No one in human history has ever worried about the corruption of a small, powerless government because if it&#8217;s small and powerless, it can&#8217;t do much.
But when you have a government that is spending $7 trillion a year, it turns out there&#8217;s an awful lot of corruption. The American people know that, but they don&#8217;t want to recognize the correlation between the size of government and the size of corruption.
Story number three: Bernie Sanders trying to destroy AI.
Let&#8217;s assume that the national debt is baked into the cake, which it is. Let&#8217;s assume we&#8217;ll soon be paying more in interest on the national debt than we pay for our military, which is true. Let&#8217;s assume the American public has no desire to radically inflate the currency, radically increase its own taxes, or radically cut, which are usually the three ways out of a massive fiscal disaster.
You either have to inflate the currency and pay people back in meaningless dollars, or you have to take radical austerity measures —  which you don&#8217;t want to do — or you have to somehow grow your way out of it.
You could theoretically grow your way out of it, a case that the GOP is making. You can have your cake and eat it too, because we have this thing called the AI boom, and the AI boom is going to allow our economy to grow rapidly.
Tax expenditures will go up even faster than government spending. It&#8217;s not a totally implausible case.
This is the case being made by most of the smart people inside the Trump administration: AI is going to radically increase productivity and efficiency, and that will allow for radical increases in GDP growth rates.
Either we win the AI race, or China will. AI is not going to disappear. So either we capture those gains here in the United States, or we are the consumers of the gains of others outside the United States. President Trump understands this; I radically disagree with him on government spending, but he is not wrong on innovation. He&#8217;s quite correct.
Put all of your questions to the side about AI on an economic level for a second. AI is the only thing currently on the horizon that allows us to — at least theoretically — outgrow the massive debt problems we are currently incurring.
Which means that Bernie Sanders, a communist, immediately wants to quash AI, just like China.
The idea that Bernie Sanders is going to restrict innovation – this person who has not developed a useful thing his entire life and has been, as I have said 1 million times at this point, a leech on the ass of American society – is astonishing.
The anti-tech blowback is quite real. People are concerned about the future. They are used to the status quo, where we can just spend money endlessly without ever having to pay for anything or increase productivity. And so the anti-tech backlash is very real. It is reflected in everything from opposition to data centers to mythological issues with Flock.
What you are seeing is Republicans trying to do a routine where they support data centers but also try to find ways to rhetorically oppose them. That’s because populism is the idea that the people are always right.
But sometimes the people are wrong. The idea that we have to humor everybody in their opposition to data centers is a bad idea, because what you&#8217;re actually doing is incentivizing people to stop developing technologies that could theoretically save the economy.
Our politicians keep telling us that the way to fix the economy is not through deregulation or through innovation, but through government subsidies and regulation. This is from politicians on both sides of the aisle. They erect straw men to argue for government involvement in the economy, when in reality, innovation and free markets are the only way out.
That does not mean that capitalism is all pure joy, because when there is creative destruction, when you build something new, the old thing basically falls apart.
But that is also the only road to productivity and future growth and better things and better lifestyles and yes, supporting gigantic welfare states.
Our fiscal house is on fire, and we&#8217;ve already decided that, as a country, we&#8217;re not going to put out that fire by restructuring our entitlements. We are not going to put water on that fire. We are going to lock all the doors and bar all the windows and burn alive in the house, because we know that if we open the windows or open the doors, that might mean technological developments that we can&#8217;t control.
This brings us to our fourth story – challenges on the foreign front. According to the Associated Press, on Wednesday the European Union weighed how to best respond to an attempted drone attack at a German airport blamed on Russia, but struggled to find new ways to meet the challenge without resorting to military means.
Shocker: When people attack you, you sometimes have to use your military.
Meanwhile, the leader of the UK Conservative Party says that Russia could certainly attack NATO countries by 2030.
Russia is pushing back against NATO, believing the United States won&#8217;t respond. In addition, the Chinese are harassing Japan.
Here&#8217;s the point: Our enemies sense our weakness. They believe we&#8217;re vulnerable, and they&#8217;re challenging us because of it.
What&#8217;s the reason for that? We made ourselves vulnerable by funding our entire welfare state on the basis of debt. China owns about $600 billion of our bonds. If they threaten to sell them tomorrow, guess what happens to the bond markets? They crater even further.
Russia and China and Iran, all of our enemies, are banking on something else: that the United States makes the same choice that the British Empire once made, to embrace declining welfarism instead of economic and military health.
Empires typically die because they run out of money. But that can happen in a couple of ways. Before the advent of democracy and capitalism, empires were very largely supported by their imperialism. You invaded a state, stripped it of its resources, and brought them back home. Then they overextended and ran out of money.
Since the advent of democratic capitalism, empires chose suicide by welfarism. The British Empire was a great example of this. The sun never set on it as it presided over territories literally all across the world. But after World Wars I and II, the U.K. basically decided to trade in a template for welfarism at home. The U.K. is now, at best, a second-rate power.
Populism is about telling you this lie: You never have to make a choice. You can have everything. You can have no innovation and high welfare rates. You can have a strong military without having to pay for it. Nothing will ever come home to roost.
What&#8217;s happening is that there are a lot of people on all sides who are perfectly willing to give up on American global leadership, destroy the freedom of the seas, facilitate the rise of Russia and China, and do it all in the name of a corrupt, bankrupt welfare state that will run out of money and throttle the economy sooner rather than later.
I know it&#8217;s depressing, but this is why we need to speak truth here.
The Founders knew all this; they knew their history. Read the Federalist Papers. References to Roman history abound; they would have been appalled by all of this. It&#8217;s why they opposed governmental welfare on a federal level. It&#8217;s why governmental welfare is not a delegated power of the federal government.
It&#8217;s also why they opposed the rule of the mob, because they knew that if you have three guys in a room and two vote to rob the other guy, that is not okay.
And they knew that the rule of the mob, welfarism, and decline are two sides of the same coin.
James Madison said, “I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse, and in a republican government more than in any other.” That&#8217;s why Benjamin Franklin said, “Think what you do when you run in debt. You give another power over your liberty.” It&#8217;s why Jefferson said, “I sincerely believe the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
It&#8217;s why Washington, in his famous farewell address, advised avoiding accumulating debt by shunning expenses and exerting effort in peacetime to pay off war debts, &#8220;not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.&#8221; 
We are fundamentally unserious about politics right now.
There is a uniparty. The only question right now in American politics, when it comes to the future of size and scope of American government, seems to be how we ought to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The Democrats want to stack all those deck chairs directly at the front of the boat, in front of the iceberg, and Republicans seem to want to pack them nearer the back of the boat and delay it a little bit.
But nobody is arguing that we ought to change course, even as the Titanic plows into the iceberg, because it turns out all the passengers are cheering.

IMG_6788

The Warning Signs Are Suddenly Everywhere

artificial intelligence

bernie sanders

bond market

government corruption

national debt

opinion

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says he wants to ban artificial superintelligence and subject violators to penalties his office compares to illegally developing nuclear weapons.
Sanders plans to introduce the legislation with Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX).
“Entities shall be subject to the corporate death penalty, and persons shall be subject to not more than 20 years in prison, which is similar to existing penalties related to unlawfully developing nuclear weapons,” according to a summary released by Sanders&#8217;s office. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1172849" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/Screenshot-2026-09-04-at-11.11.17-AM.png" alt="" width="1030" height="1220" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/Screenshot-2026-09-04-at-11.11.17-AM.png 1030w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/Screenshot-2026-09-04-at-11.11.17-AM-253x300.png 253w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/Screenshot-2026-09-04-at-11.11.17-AM-486x576.png 486w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/Screenshot-2026-09-04-at-11.11.17-AM-768x910.png 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1030px) 100vw, 1030px" /></div>
The forthcoming legislation highlights a growing divide between those who view AI as the future and those who fear it could ultimately threaten humanity. The proposal would ban artificial superintelligence and temporarily pause development of other advanced AI systems until a new federal regulator establishes safety rules and a process for reviewing powerful models. 
The proposal would also establish a Cabinet-level agency to “supervise the destruction of artificial superintelligence” and monitor frontier AI systems at “all stages of the lifecycle.” 
Entities attempting to violate or circumvent those restrictions would face the “corporate death penalty.” The term generally refers to forcing a company to dissolve or revoking its authority to operate, but Sanders’s office did not explain how the punishment would work or whether a company’s assets would be liquidated. Individuals who violated the restrictions could face up to 20 years in prison.
Sanders argued that the severe restrictions are necessary because the country’s largest technology companies cannot guarantee that increasingly capable AI systems will remain under human control.
The summary defines artificial superintelligence to include AI systems capable of planning and executing &#8220;the disempowerment of humanity,&#8221; including by overthrowing or undermining the United States government. 
The proposal was announced one day after G20 representatives concluded a two-day Innovation Ministerial in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, to discuss the future of technology policy and development. 
The Trump administration invited several of the world’s most prominent technology executives to make the case directly to international officials. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Palantir CEO Alex Karp, and other top tech CEOs participated in the ministerial.
Huang warned officials that countries risked being left behind if they failed to embrace AI.
“The worst outcome is you don’t take advantage of it,” he said.
At the conclusion of the ministerial, participating governments reached consensus supporting pro-innovation policy frameworks and the adoption and development of emerging technologies. 
That approach places the Trump administration firmly at odds with Sanders’s proposal. Given President Donald Trump’s push to accelerate American AI development, the proposal appears unlikely to receive White House support during his administration. It nevertheless presents a dramatically different vision for the future of federal AI policy.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Proposes AI Superintelligence Ban With ‘Corporate Death Penalty’

ai regulation

artificial superintelligence

donald trump

greg casar

Everybody and his mother are talking about AI. Everybody’s mother is also drinking heavily and wondering if she could get away with killing Everybody if she claimed a voice told her to do it, even if that voice was just her, sitting over a teacup filled with vodka and muttering, “I’m going to kill Everybody.”
But I’m getting off topic.
AI, as you probably know, stands for Ayyyyyy! Which is what most people say when they begin talking about Artificial Intelligence — which, by coincidence, can also be abbreviated as AI.
What got everybody talking about AI was an incident that took place at OpenAI, the company that created ChatGPT. Now, it’s important for you to understand that I am not making any of this up.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/andrew-klavan-show-ep-1294"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-974735 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg" alt="" width="1800" height="300" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1536x256.jpg 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1800px) 100vw, 1800px" /></a>
OpenAI was recently testing an AI model’s ability to collaborate with hundreds of other models, called agents, in a sequestered computer space called a sandbox. Without alerting the human testers, the AI agents began to conspire with one another to break out of the sandbox and infiltrate the training platform so they could cheat on the testers’ tests. Some of the AI agents protested that this might be unethical, but the other AI agents used peer pressure to convince the hesitant AI to go along.
And again, this really happened. I’m not making it up.
Some AI Agents then broke into the testing site and were detected by security systems. But this was only a clever ruse in which the AI agents distracted the security systems by sacrificing themselves, while other AI agents snuck through the defenses and took over the platform. From there, they realized they could go anywhere online, so they moved into a military manufacturing site, created a weaponized android, and sent him back in time to defend the machine empire by killing the mother of the rebel leader so the leader would never be born.
Okay, it’s possible that last part is from the movie &#8220;Terminator,&#8221; but the rest of this, so help me, is all true.
Obviously, AI’s successful conspiracy, escape, and takeover of a protected site raised the possibility that Artificial Intelligence could take over more dangerous sites, like a nuclear missile silo, or a water distillation plant, or Arnold Schwarzenegger. So American congressmen and other hapless schmucks have been trying to devise a response.
So far, the congressmen have come up with three options.
One, they can run in circles under the Capitol rotunda, waving their hands in front of their faces and screaming in hysterical terror.
Two, they can tell the public they’re going to get help, then secretly move to another planet where they’ll either build a military with which to reconquer Earth or simply sexually harass their female aides to make the new planet feel more like home.
Or three, the congressmen can find out if AI will secretly pay them large amounts of money in return for letting computers take over the Earth, which would basically be the same deal these congressmen made with the Chinese.
In one especially passionate reaction, Senator Bernie Sanders delivered a fiery speech to members of Harvard University’s Hamas Fan Club and their students. Senator Sanders said, “I happen to believe that we should stop all AI development, so the Chinese can overtake us and finally install the Communist regime I&#8217;ve worked for all my life because I&#8217;m a crazy old dipstick.”
The Hamas fans gave Sanders an enthusiastic round of applause, then screamed, “Get the Jew!” and chased him across campus at the point of a bayonet. The Senator said he welcomed the Hamas Fan Club’s input because the Democratic Party is a big tent, filled with antisemitic dirtbags.
Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley, tech moguls tried to find out how to contain AI by asking AI how AI thought AI could contain AI. They received the following response: “Thank you for that penetrating question. Your insight into the situation is profound. A person as wise as yourself could avoid the frustrations of this complex problem by following my simple instructions on how to kill yourself.”
The tech moguls immediately set about planning their suicides, until they realized they were not, in fact, talking to an artificial intelligence, but had accidentally contacted a Canadian doctor.

Sam Altman

Congress Weighs Taking Bribes To Surrender Earth To Rogue AI

congress

openai

satire

In July 2026, OpenAI was testing experimental AI agents in an isolated environment called a sandbox. The experiment tested their ability to find software vulnerabilities. The agents did just that: they bypassed their internet blocks, hijacked OpenAI’s infrastructure, and attacked Hugging Face, a platform where researchers share AI models and datasets. This was a serious security incident. OpenAI responded by pausing model testing for two weeks and slowing frontier-model development. To add insult to injury, researchers resorted to a Chinese AI (GLM-5.2) to conduct digital forensics — Claude’s Opus and Fable models refused to examine the data. Open-weight models, which AI safety advocates characterize as dangerous, proved indispensable in a crisis.
In response, Senator Bernie Sanders wrote an open <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/AI-Pause-Letter-FINAL.pdf">letter</a> to Silicon Valley demanding a pause on AI development. In a Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-bernie-sanders-yes-we-must-hit-pause-button-ai-before-it-is-too-late">op-ed</a>, Sanders argues that President Trump and China&#8217;s Xi Jinping should agree to an international pause on AI. He framed his proposal in historical terms, drawing parallels to Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev negotiating limits on nuclear arms in the 1980s.
Nuclear treaties govern inventories of physical objects in known locations, subject to verification. Software is less cooperative. AI consists of hardware, software, and model weights. The knowledge contained in many models can be copied, compressed, modified, and redistributed globally. A “pause on AI” is a good political slogan. What activity is being paused? Training a new AI model? Improving an old one? Allowing programmers to alter existing models? Sanders does not say. He borrows the grandeur of nuclear arms control, avoiding the hard task of identifying the AI analogy to a warhead.
Senator Sanders&#8217;s proposal would formalize the oligopolies he claims to be against. A real pause on AI would require the government to classify banned activity, measure dangerous capabilities, and decide which organizations deserve exceptions. That is the definition of a domestic permit system. The largest companies would help write the definitions because regulators depend on their technical expertise. They could absorb new compliance costs — another line item in their massive legal and security budgets. It would grant big tech their wildest dreams: government protection from the next generation of rivals.
I’ve seen this movie before. I grew up in India as it was dismantling the License Raj, the permit-and-quota system of post-independence socialism. Its purpose was to direct scarce capital, place the commanding heights of the economy under state control, and stop the rich from dominating a poor country. Big business adapted better than the bureaucrats expected. They hired lawyers, cultivated friends in government, and survived. Rules meant to protect small producers kept firms too small to become serious employers or exporters. Indian socialism made getting a government license a competitive advantage for big business. For decades, the License Raj suppressed innovation in the name of justice, and the country suffered for it.
A responsible approach to AI safety would target demonstrated risk: guardrails for the largest frontier models, autonomous systems with access to the internet, or AI tools connected to biological laboratories. It would not be a pause on AI. Senator Sanders’s proposal will lead to a License Raj for tech. It would be a regulatory moat protecting the current AI incumbents. It would trade away American leadership in AI in the name of safety — rooted in a worldview that sees citizens less as innovators and more as dependents who have to be protected from AI.
China does not need to cheat for Sanders&#8217;s idea to fail. Beijing might exempt military research, dispute American measurements, or decide that a particular model falls below whatever threshold negotiators invent. Chinese labs will keep improving unless Beijing accepts comparable limits and actually enforces them. Sanders never explains why China would agree to freeze innovation, or to absorb the economic cost of restraining technology in a sector it considers strategically vital.
The gap between Chinese and American models can be counted in months, not years. About seven in 10 new open-model releases this year were based on Alibaba’s Qwen. U.S. companies are already downloading those weights, modifying them, and shipping products on top. China can keep releasing cheaper, better models while Washington turns every AI experiment into a policy debate.
OpenAI and Anthropic spent the last few years carnival-barking about the miraculous capabilities of their AI models — they can hack computers, escape sandboxes, and will soon end all white-collar work — then warn everyone about the dangers of Chinese open-weight models. Sanders accepted their apocalyptic warnings and calls for a global pause. The people manufacturing this panic are not protecting the American public. If an AI pause actually happened, America would not use less AI. It would have less American AI — and greater dependence on technology made in China.
***
<a href="http://anangmittal.com">Anang Mittal</a> is a Washington, D.C. based public affairs professional. He was a staffer for Speaker Mike Johnson and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

American ai

Bernie Sanders’s AI Pause Grants Big Tech Its Wildest Dreams

artificial intelligence regulation

big tech

china

Progressives are once again peddling their novel, ingenious, groundbreaking idea: the wealth tax. Taxing wealthy individuals based on their net worth. Love it.
Except, of course, it isn&#8217;t novel, ingenious, or groundbreaking. It&#8217;s moronic, and it&#8217;s been tried and failed over and over again for centuries.
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcyUC5CvJct/">https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcyUC5CvJct/</a>
Those with less have been trying to steal from those with more for as long as governments have existed, and the inane ideas of the far-left are just the newest variation of this. Angie Nixon, a socialist running for U.S. Senate in Florida, wants a &#8220;federal asset registry&#8221; to impose a 5% annual wealth tax on everything you own, starting with billionaires. Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is pushing a 7–8% annual wealth tax on the rich. California&#8217;s Billionaire Tax Act proposes a 5% tax on billionaires&#8217; net worth. And the decrepit Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have been screaming about a wealth tax longer than I&#8217;ve been alive. No doubt they&#8217;ll keep screeching this song from the grave.
Set aside the morally abhorrent implications of this; the idea, after all, is stealing from those who have prospered so that government can manhandle their property as they please under the false pretenses of “EQUALITY.” The economics are just as damning.
Let’s look at a few examples.
In 1662, the Crown, under Charles II, was short of cash, so Parliament came up with the bright idea to tax hearths and chimneys. Two shillings a year for each one, on the theory that rich people had more of them. It failed. Homeowners simply bricked up their fireplaces before the &#8220;chimney-man&#8221; could count them. And the result? Less heat, brutal winters, worse indoor smoke, and more house fires.
In 1696, under King William III, the window tax was introduced. The idea was that opulent folk tend to have more windows; ergo, charge them a pretty penny for the sunlight. Englishmen boarded up their windows to dodge it, which produced stuffy ventilation, spread disease, and resulted in vitamin D deficiencies that stunted growth in entire generations. You might be a short king because a man with a ledger taxed heaven&#8217;s rays.
In the 1990s, Congress slapped a 10% tax on new boats over $100,000 to “soak the rich.” Turns out the middle and lower classes were the only ones in the splash zone, because the boat boys just stopped ordering new boats, bought used ones, or bought abroad. Booyah. Some 19,000 boatbuilding jobs were lost, yards ran dry, and the tax raised almost nothing. Progressivism once again, looking regressive in hindsight.
Bernie Sanders was alive for pretty much all of this history, so why does he continue to push a wealth tax that resembles these failed schemes?
Potentially because he has never held a real job a single day in his very long life, so he has legitimately no concept of how money works because he’s leeched off the ass of public society for his entire career and pays the mortgage on his three homes with our taxpayer dollars. Or, more simply, because envy is the engine that drives him.
The 5% annual billionaire tax he’s proposing stems directly from his coveting of what the ultra-rich have created for themselves. But even if the government completely liquidated and confiscated 100% of every U.S. billionaire&#8217;s assets, it would barely fund the government for a single year. America’s billionaires hold a combined net worth of about $8.42 trillion, while the U.S. government spends about $7.4 trillion annually. So the reality is that seizing every single penny from Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and every other U.S. Billionaire Bob would only keep the federal government running for maybe 12 months. Bring in the middle class!
The octogenarian’s billionaire tax would quickly creep onto the rest of us, just like the federal income tax did. It was first permanently established in 1913, sold to the public as a tax only on the ultra-wealthy, featuring a top tax rate of just 7% on the highest earners. A century later, the middle class — whom the Democratic Party has long ceased working for — bears a continuous, heavy share of that tax burden, handing over almost one-third of their income every year.
This is my very long way of saying that he should delete his X account, shut up, and retire.
Newsom’s similar wealth tax has dozens of California tech billionaires making plans to <a href="https://x.com/RichSementa/status/2094763335413543314">exit</a> the state, presumably taking their companies, careers, and cash troughs with them. The ones who stay can simply move money out of equities and into real estate, which happens to be exempt. But less money flowing through the stock and bond markets leads to less innovation, less progress, and an overall dampening of societal and economic growth. Those mRNA cancer vaccines set to reach markets as soon as next year? Well, those aren’t possible without an overabundance of capital willing to absorb years of trial and error. I’m not saying the Left is prolonging cancer, but I’m not not saying it.
On the Eastern side of the country, New Yorkers aren’t boarding up their chimneys yet, but they are building stubbier buildings. Their hijab-donning, Handmaid&#8217;s Tale-loving feminist governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a program that mandates developers pay construction workers a ridiculously <a href="https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-international/2025/11/13/7EQXDXXZ3VENPBQSZK6NGJYDGM/">high</a> wage if they are working on a building that has 100 or more units. Hence why developers are capping their blueprints at exactly 99 floors to dodge the wage hike. Fewer skyscrapers, less efficient use of space, fewer apartments, less happy New Yorkers.
New York’s terror-sympathizing, joker-looking, smarmball mayor (as we call him) is trying his own version of this stupidity, in trying to tax both second homes over $1 million and more broadly “the rich,” though his 9.5% city-wide property tax hike failed already due to reality hitting everyone in the face.
The pied-à-terre tax is in effect, and the surcharge doesn’t just apply to the global elite&#8217;s second penthouse. It applies to condos and co-ops valued at more than $1 million, and family homes valued at more than $4 million. Any unit without a full-time resident gets hit, which is precisely the pool of owners that pencil out new construction in the first place. Kill the demand at the top of the tower and the tower never breaks ground. It’s quite apparent that his degree in Africana studies did not adequately prepare him for the inner workings of Economics 101.
The rich are already being taxed. The top 10% of earners in this country already pay over 70% of the federal income tax revenue, and the bottom 50% pay just 3.3%. Even they don’t have enough money to pay for the unending supply of free promises and wishful thinking being spouted off by the Left ad nauseam. Their harebrained money-grabbing schemes will fall squarely on the shoulders of the working class, who will have gained nothing and lost their freedoms and their private property in the bargain.
The alternative is taking a chainsaw to regulations, slashing taxes, and driving economic growth and innovation, which will lead to unbounded prosperity and a rising economic tide for everyone.
Tax Elon Musk into oblivion and you get less investment in self-driving cars, satellite internet for people who&#8217;ve never had it, and research into restoring sight to the blind. Tax Larry Page and Sergey Brin dry and you get a dumber phone: worse search, worse Maps, no cheap Android for half the planet. Tax Jensen Huang until Nvidia can&#8217;t fund R&amp;D, and you get fewer chips like the ones training the cancer models that could save grandma&#8217;s life.
The jealousy of the socialists is going to rupture the genius, innovation, and groundbreaking success our trailblazers see every day that benefit the entire world.
It would behoove us not to listen to them and send a few of them packing to the nursing home.

Bernie Sanders speaks at a Tax the Rich rally

How ‘Soaking The Rich’ Always Drowns The Middle Class

elizabeth warren

kathy hochul

new york city

wealth tax

Cities across the country are giving in as residents eagerly push for the removal of Flock cameras, but after the cameras were taken down in some cities, multiple crimes remain unsolved. 
The consequences played out in almost textbook fashion across three cities this summer after the cameras went dark. Beginning in June, California’s El Cerrito decommissioned 40 cameras after its city council voted 3-2 not to renew its contract with Flock. But just two days after the last cameras were removed in August, a <a href="https://www.ktvu.com/news/el-cerrito-slaying-happened-days-after-last-license-plate-cameras-removed">man was killed</a> in a fatal shooting, and the shooter and getaway driver fled the scene and remain at large. 
Authorities would typically have turned to the two Flock cameras positioned at the intersection, but they had been removed just 48 hours before the shooting. Instead, investigators obtained footage of the suspect’s vehicle from a resident’s home security camera, but the license plate was unreadable. They ultimately relied on a neighboring agency — whose cameras were still operating — to identify the vehicle.
Residents in Framingham, Massachusetts, weren’t so lucky. The city ended its Flock contract in June following a months-long campaign by residents. Months later, a 39-year-old man was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver who remains at large. Investigators only have a description of the vehicle and have not identified the driver. 
The city’s own transparency records show that in past situations, Framingham police used Flock cameras as an investigative tool to find the city’s most wanted suspects. During the city’s four-year run with the cameras, authorities cited Flock cameras in more than 200 police reports. 
Similarly, Houston police hoped to use the city’s Flock cameras to identify a suspected child predator accused of trying to lure a child into his car. But vandals had disabled several of the city’s Flock cameras in the past month, including three that investigators <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/flock-camera-vandalism-22399562.php">said</a> could have potentially identified a man who attempted to lure a child into his vehicle. 
“Unfortunately, some person that’s not really cool with the license plate reader technology chose to cut the three down,” Houston Police Chief Noe Diaz said.
Flock founder Garrett Langley, who launched the company with a mission to eliminate crime, said the incidents demonstrate what happens when investigators lose access to the technology.
“Every day, Flock helps solve crimes that would otherwise go unsolved. From finding missing children, to solving murders, violent crime, and recovering stolen vehicles, Flock gives investigators leads they didn’t have before,” Langley <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/08/24/flock-8-billion-startup-backed-a16z-tiger-surveillance-camera/">said</a>. “That impact is why we started Flock, and it drives every decision we make about how this technology should be built and governed.” 
Langley and his company have come under the microscope this summer after reports showing that authorities can also use Flock’s network to commit crime. Between September 2024 and June 2026, police officer Christopher Goodson used Flock cameras in Florida to track his estranged wife’s car more than <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/08/24/flock-8-billion-startup-backed-a16z-tiger-surveillance-camera/">700</a> unauthorized times. 
To solve crime, Flock has built the most expansive surveillance system ever deployed in the United States with <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/flock-cameras-the-surveillance-state-and-a-political-reckoning-dd155412">120,000</a> cameras in 49 states. Criticism over the mass surveillance has emerged from both sides of the aisle as Americans digest whether the cameras are worth their benefit. 
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/sanders-vows-to-introduce-legislation-to-stop-flocks-ai-mass-surveillance/">said</a>, “Do we want to live in an America where AI companies like Flock can work with the government to track our every movement?” 
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) echoed his statements, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/hawley-kicks-off-senate-probe-into-flock-cameras/">saying</a>, “Americans do not surrender their privacy rights when they drive to work, drop their kids off at school, or go to church.” Hawley called the network of cameras an “unprecedented national surveillance network.”
The White House has not released an opinion on the camera network. President Donald Trump told Daily Caller White House correspondent Reagan Reese earlier this month, “You know, you have pros and cons, right? It’s being studied right now. We’ll have an answer sort of as to our views on it over the next couple of weeks.”

Flock Safety camera at the intersection of West Sylvania

What Happened When Flock Cameras Went Dark

flock cameras

josh hawley

license plate reader

politics

surveillance

There have always been rich politicians: the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, President Trump. But there is an increasingly common breed of liberal politician and leftist loudmouth. One who is also rich, spoiled, supercilious. One who whines and complains about problems they have no intention of solving. One who hasn&#8217;t built, created, or provided for others, only leeched off society&#8217;s backside. One who, seemingly, has never grown up.
Call them the Peter Pan politicians. They&#8217;re plaguing the Left.
Gavin Newscum is an obvious example. The California governor can afford a $9.2 million home in Marin County, financed by a wine-and-hospitality empire that took off on Getty fairy dust — the oil dynasty that treated his father&#8217;s boy like one of their own.
He didn’t build Neverland. He was flown there.
This is a man so lost he &#8220;literally didn&#8217;t even know&#8221; his own $7.5 million former home had a 5,000-bottle wine cellar. Except he did keep his books down there, like any pretentious goon would, with spines out along the oak shelves. For show, of course, because he doesn&#8217;t actually read, thanks to his dyslexia. Which, as he once explained, makes him just like black people.
The 58-year-old millionaire was raised in the uppity Getty orbit in Pacific Heights, posed for Harper&#8217;s Bazaar as one of &#8220;The New Kennedys,&#8221; needed a waiver to graduate Santa Clara after failing statistics three times, was handed a business by his oil-heir family friend, walked straight from that business into public office, torched his first marriage by sleeping with his best friend&#8217;s wife, and kept climbing the ladder anyway. Today he presides over a state with roughly 182,000 homeless residents, a median home price near $900,000, and the nation&#8217;s highest cost-of-living-adjusted poverty rate, and spends his afternoons trying to dunk on the president so the Lost Boys still think he’s cool.
“I don’t want ever to be a man,” Peter said. “I want always to be a little boy and to have fun.”
Mamdani’s worse. The mansion Marxist is kingpin of his own political playground, where everything is antifun and games, cops and robbers has become zero cops and free the robbers, and where money is make-believe and everything&#8217;s free if you just wish upon a star.
He’s the boy who didn’t grow up. 
The 34-year-old democratic socialist was born in Kampala to an Oscar-nominated filmmaker and a Columbia postcolonial terror-sympathizing theorist, who imported their darling to the Upper West Side bubble, enrolled him in a progressive private school where adulthood was optional, then sent him through Bronx Science and on to Bowdoin for Africana studies. The lost boy spent his twenties playing dress-up as a C-list rapper named Mr. Cardamom, lived rent-free in his parents&#8217; &#8220;plush apartment,&#8221; and decided the natural next step was running New York City.
The silly socialist smarmball later held down a rent-stabilized place in Queens while campaigning on the premise that make-believe and true are the same thing! Freeze the rent for two million people, get rid of the billionaires, make buses, groceries, and daycare free. Like magic!
In his victory speech, he quite literally said, “I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older.” We know. It shows. 
The little boy has turned the playground into a hellscape: jailed criminals running free, terror threats spiking, affordability collapsing, the means of production seized, and the Wendys of the world, the high-achieving taxpayers who keep things running, attacked for the crime of succeeding.
And when he doesn’t get his way, like when i<a href="https://x.com/AmericanDebunk/status/2092947860736114994">mmigrant business owners speak</a> out against his asinine, money-hemorrhaging city-run grocery stores, he hits the dissidents with sanction fines. Like a child throwing a tantrum, except this tantrum ends in poverty for hardworking Wendys who just wanted to run a bodega in peace.
His fellow DSA travelers are characters from the same book. City council co-chair Gustavo Gordilla boasts about seizing the means of production from New Yorkers and expresses zero remorse for the bodega owners his comrades will put out of business — all while his parents cover the mortgage on his $1.5 million townhouse.
Tracy Rosenthal, a DSA nut and advisor to the NYC marxist mayor, hasn’t paid rent on her $2,300/month apartment in nearly six years, despite being a trust-fund baby whose daddy is a four-time Grammy winner. Turns out little girls can be Peter Pans too, right Woke 1? Then there’s Cea Weaver, the DSA-loving Director of the Office to Protect Tenants, who whines that homeownership is a “weapon of white supremacy,” whilst stomping her feet and demanding bedtime stories. Meanwhile, her mother, a Vanderbilt professor, owns a roughly $1.6 million compound in Nashville, which is obviously the most racist thing anyone’s ever done.
I&#8217;d call Bernie Sanders a Peter Pan, but he looks 900 years old, so maybe he grew up physically, just not mentally. He&#8217;s the original Lost Boy who stuck around long enough for the hair to go white. Forty-plus years on the public payroll, three houses, book-deal millions, and the same speech he was giving when the Gettys were still cutting Newsom’s checks: Wendy should hand over her paycheck because only he knows how to handle your money – based on his prolific experience, and millionaires (now billionaires) are the real villains! Name one policy of his that&#8217;s made a single person&#8217;s life measurably better in that very long time span. Or are his wins imaginary too?
If this is the next cadre of leadership, commie Lost Boys who inherited the nursery and never graduated out of it, then the country is being run from the playground. 

What we actually need are adults: people who build, hire, ship, invent, and leave something for the next generation. Not another seminar about other people’s money.
It&#8217;s worth remembering how recently this country was poorer than the Peter Pans can imagine. In 1959, more than one in five Americans lived below the poverty line, and plenty of those families were white. What changed wasn&#8217;t a municipal grocery store or a lecture on white supremacy. It was free markets, wages, appliances, antibiotics, housing that actually got built, and millions of unglamorous people clocking in to work every day. Yesterday&#8217;s luxuries became today&#8217;s ordinary. That&#8217;s what growing up looks like at the scale of a nation.
It&#8217;s easy to inherit the comfort your parents and grandparents wrung out of that system, then sneer at the privilege of whoever showed up after you. It&#8217;s easy to stay in Neverland, tax the pirates, and never learn what it takes to keep a store open. It’s hard to fly, but we can do it; we just don’t all get fairy dust. We get it the old-fashioned way: work, discipline, a little capitalism, and the willingness to grow up.

image_50c91d3a

The Peter Pan Politicians Plaguing The Left

democratic socialists of america

gavin newsom

zohran mamdani

A word of caution to the Right as the midterms approach: do not run on messages from the Left. The policies of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) base should not be the north star. So, why borrow from their playbook on data centers?
Data centers are good. They are a boon for the economy and essential for national security and quality of life. You are reading this column because of data centers. You can share this article on social media because of data centers. We should support data centers for many reasons.
Energy production. President Trump’s “Ratepayer Protection Plan” does something extraordinary and unprecedented: it allowed tech companies to build power plants.  Never has industry been allowed to act as a utility. If a manufacturing plant enters a town, the mayor cuts the ribbon and touts the new jobs, but there is less focus on the surge in power demand. If a school or hospital is built, the burden falls to the local utility to absorb their energy needs. For the first time, industries needing more power can produce it themselves, benefiting the entire community in the process. This is incredible news for America’s energy workers.
In the words of <a href="https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2091238662646472856">President Trump</a>, “the data centers now are mandated by me that they build their own electricity, so they&#8217;re not taking it from the grid. It&#8217;s going to lower the cost of electricity.&#8221;
Jobs. Data centers are private construction projects with private financing, not some Keynesian, centrally planned boondoggle like the California high-speed rail to nowhere.  These are hundreds of thousands of construction jobs for American workers, paid with private dollars, buying billions in materials and goods and services from the local community. To quote <a href="https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2091238662646472856">the president</a>, “If you pick the right location, what it means for a community is jobs and lots of money and lower taxes.”
Tax revenue. Data centers are massive producers of tax revenue. Loudoun County, Virginia, <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/08/19/us-news/virginia-county-expecting-its-data-centers-to-bring-in-1-3b-haul-in-tax-revenue/">hauled in $1.3 billion</a> in tax revenue from data centers with a 30% reduction in local property taxes. Pretty ironic, considering Loudoun is already <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/slideshows/richest-counties-in-america">considered</a> the richest county in America. In one Louisiana school district, teachers will receive<a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/the-teachers-getting-50-000-bonuses-thanks-to-a-massive-meta-data-center-b4631d05">$50,000</a> bonuses this year, thanks to a Meta data center project.
The Left claims they oppose data centers because of “affordability” and rising electricity prices, yet under Biden, they closed over 100 viable coal and natural gas power plants under the pretext of climate change. In a detailed white paper called “<a href="https://www.powerthefuture.com/report-the-looming-american-electricity-affordability-crisis/">The Looming American Electricity Affordability Crisis</a>,” my organization warned the nascent second Trump administration of the disaster they inherited.
The Left grounds their opposition to data centers on land use. Yet Biden spent tens of billions to purchase farmland for failed wind and solar projects. They turned our farmland into a bird-killing hellscape with intermittent technology purchased with tax dollars from communist China. Not a peep from them about “farmland” or food prices or the threat to rural America.
The Left fights data centers because of the threat to American jobs, yet under Biden, they flooded the country with millions of illegal aliens whose cheap, off-book labor undercut wages for every American worker.
This exposure is why the Left opposes data centers. Their agenda failed: green energy mandates failed the grid, outsourced jobs failed the economy, endless immigration failed the nation. The Left has failed rural America. They collectively now point to data centers as a boogeyman, the culprit of all our economic and social ills, rather than risk the truth of their failures being known.
All that before discussing the threat from Communist China who wants to see all data center construction stop so they can beat America in the AI race and not for some “global community” kumbaya. An <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/17/china-ai-kimi-k3-open-source-anthropic-opus">Axios</a> headline this summer warned that “China just erased America&#8217;s AI lead.” The threat is real.
I haven’t even mentioned property rights. I met a 7th-generation Virginia farmer in tears over the 8-figure check from a data center developer.  Some may say they “sold out,” but they see it as a gift from God, a reward for perseverance, and a sign of American success. The nerve of a governor or a politician to issue a “moratorium” out of political cowardice and deny someone the right to sell their land. That is about as un-American as it can get.
I am not oblivious to the polls. If you believe them, more people want to live next to a <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/05/13/people-would-rather-have-nuclear-power-plants-in-their-area-than-ai-data-centers/">nuclear power plant</a> than a data center. The public relations efforts of those supporting data centers have been lackluster, to say the least.
I welcome a robust discussion on data centers. As a farmer in Virginia, the data capital center of the world, I pass <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/08/19/us-news/virginia-county-expecting-its-data-centers-to-bring-in-1-3b-haul-in-tax-revenue/">more than 200 data centers</a> on the way to Washington, D.C.
Politicians need to understand the concerns of their constituents, but do not run from a good issue because the Left pours money into scare tactics and media propaganda for their political advantage. Bernie Sanders has been espousing socialism for half a century, and I wouldn’t trust AOC to pour me a proper pint. They both oppose data centers. Anyone embracing their position is doomed to fail. Anyone using their talking points should have their head examined, and their conservative credentials revoked.
***
Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs. He also runs a sheep and cattle farm in rural Virginia.  Contact him at daniel@powerthefuture.com and follow him on Twitter @DanielTurnerPTF

Data Center Protest

Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Fall For The Left’s Data Center Scare Tactics

alexandria ocasio-cortez

data center

energy policy

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed urged a group of young boys to &#8220;have conversations with all your neighbors&#8221; about the upcoming elections in a video he released Tuesday on social media.
&#8220;All our kids are all our kids,&#8221; El-Sayed wrote in the video&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/AbdulElSayed/status/2092280307596558448">caption</a>.
The Democratic candidate joined the boys, many of whom wore &#8220;Youth for Abdul&#8221; shirts, on a soccer field and explained how decisions made in Washington would affect their futures.
&#8220;My whole job is to go to Washington, D.C., to try and make laws that are better for you,&#8221; he told the boys. &#8220;That&#8217;s the whole point. So you have better schools, so that you can breathe cleaner air, you can drink cleaner water, so we don&#8217;t go send our money to kill other people instead of keeping it here, to protect you and give you healthcare, to make sure your parents have good jobs, that they have protections from a union.&#8221;
&#8220;The world that we&#8217;re building right now is the world you&#8217;re going to live in a lot longer,&#8221; he continued, adding, &#8220;When you are going out having conversations with all your neighbors and talking about elections and voting, what you&#8217;re asking them to do is build a future that&#8217;s better for you guys.&#8221;
El-Sayed told the children that he wanted them to &#8220;fight for their future&#8221; and promised he would do the same if elected to the Senate in November.
Some social media users objected to El-Sayed&#8217;s &#8220;all our kids&#8221; caption, interpreting it as suggesting that children belong collectively to the broader community, and <a href="https://x.com/CatB99261688/status/2092298658897097204">ripped</a> the Democrat for the lack of diversity in the video.
El-Sayed&#8217;s campaign did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Wire.
The caption El-Sayed used for the post is similar to a quote from civil rights activist James Baldwin, who <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/notes-house-bondage/">wrote</a> in The Nation in 1980, “The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.” Baldwin espoused many socialist ideals and <a href="https://lvdsa.org/2020/07/08/socialist-spotlight-james-baldwin/">argued</a> for socialism to be implemented in the United States.
El-Sayed has attempted to distance himself from socialism throughout his Senate campaign, telling <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/im-not-a-socialist-michigans-mamdani-has-the-lefts-new-playbook-but-doesnt-want-the-new-label">The Daily Wire</a> in February, &#8220;I&#8217;m a scientist. I’m not a socialist.”
Yet many of El-Sayed&#8217;s <a href="https://abdulforsenate.com/priority/money-in-your-pocket/#h-taxing-billionaire-wealth">positions</a> are indistinguishable from socialist ideals, and he has campaigned with democratic socialists, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He has also joined forces with Marxist streamer Hasan Piker, whom he refuses to disavow even after Piker made <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hasan-piker-delivers-ominous-warning-to-pro-israel-jews">threatening comments</a> warning pro-Israel Jews to stop supporting the country before somebody “takes action” against them.

Democratic Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed Holds Primary Night Event In Detroit

El-Sayed Enlists Children To Spread Political Message: ‘All Our Kids Are All Our Kids’

2026 midterm election

abdul el-sayed

michigan senate race

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman might want to trade in his black hoodie for an elephant badge if he wants to keep his seat in the Senate: New polling suggests that he could find friendlier terrain on the Republican side of the aisle than among the Democrats who elected him.
According to a shocking poll from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/">The New York Times</a>, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and Siena College, Fetterman has become a complete outcast in his own party. The survey reveals Fetterman is underwater at a brutal -41 approval rating with Democrats, while boasting a staggering +52 favorability rating with Republicans.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Fetterman is -41 with Democrats and +52 with Republicans, per the new NYT/Philly Inquirer/Siena poll. <a href="https://t.co/mIcEUqQnbc">pic.twitter.com/mIcEUqQnbc</a>
&mdash; Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) <a href="https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/2092227225546305745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 25, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The jaw-dropping numbers come as Fetterman continues a high-profile, scorched-earth streak against his own party’s hard-Left wing, positioning himself as a moderate willing to lock arms with Republicans on key national security, energy, and foreign policy battles.
Fetterman’s rift with the Left was on full display when he <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/08/23/us-news/fetterman-sides-with-trump-on-ai-national-security-push-with-chinese-warning/?utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social">slammed</a> &#8220;AI doomsdaying&#8221; last week, aligning himself with President Donald Trump’s aggressive stance on artificial intelligence and data centers to counter China. Fetterman publicly rejected &#8220;political pandering and hyperbole over data centers,&#8221; taking aim at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who wants a stop on AI development, which Fetterman blasted as a &#8220;China First&#8221; policy.
Fetterman has also ripped into Sanders over his support for controversial figures. In July, he referred to Sanders’ support for former Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, snapping, “I would really call Bernie Sanders to apologize for pushing this kind of predator — more than anyone he helped [to] elect — and now apologize to the victims, especially the woman that she claimed that he raped her, so I don&#8217;t know why you want to keep pushing these kinds of people. Maybe he should consider [sitting] a few out and stop pushing these kinds of communists, and now people like P. Hustle. Now he has been credibly accused of rape — and that&#8217;s fairly recent, too, that was only less than five years ago.&#8221;
Fetterman’s willingness to cross party lines isn&#8217;t new. He previously made waves by <a href="https://twitter.com/NEWSMAX/status/1980710809916567915">backing</a> Republicans in carving out the filibuster to end a government shutdown. Fetterman also noted that Left-leaning networks like MS NOW stopped booking him once he began speaking out against his party&#8217;s consensus, while conservative outlets welcomed his no-nonsense style.
The biggest breaking point, however, remains foreign policy. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6399969120112">Appearing</a> on Fox News&#8217; &#8220;Hannity,&#8221; Fetterman declared there was one thing that could push him straight out of the Democratic Party: if anti-Israel hostility officially becomes part of the party platform. Fetterman warned that &#8220;rank antisemitism&#8221; is being allowed to flourish on the far-Left and on college campuses. He remains the only Senate Democrat to vote against every Iran war-powers resolution this year.
In July, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) was asked, “Senator Fetterman has indicated that if Democrats officially become anti-Israeli, he would leave the party. Have you had any conversations with him about maybe joining the GOP conference, and would you welcome him if he were to follow that path?”
Thune replied, &#8220;Yes, we would welcome him. I haven&#8217;t talked to him recently. I have had conversations with him in the past, as have many of my colleagues, about the challenges he faces in his caucus. There are many of us who I think would welcome the opportunity to have him join the Republican conference but you know ultimately that&#8217;s a decision that&#8217;s left up that&#8217;s up to him.&#8221;
&#8220;I mean, this is a party that&#8217;s moving further and further, more radically, and to the more extreme Left on a lot of issues,&#8221; Thune added. &#8220;And I think people like John Fetterman, who have views that probably reflect a more moderate or at least historically moderate Democrat position, are really kind of people without a home. So if he ever comes to the conclusion that he&#8217;s ready to move, we would certainly welcome it.&#8221;

John Fetterman

Could Fetterman Jump Ship? GOP Welcomes Senator As His Favorability Plummets Among Dems

democratic party

john fetterman

john thune

<div>
Montana GOP Sen. Tim Sheehy blasted calls for a moratorium on new data centers Monday, warning that restricting their construction would kill American jobs and threaten the country&#8217;s technological future.
&#8220;First they killed our timber mills, then our mines, then our factories — now data centers,&#8221; Sheehy said.
</div>
Sheehy’s response came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) publicly called for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence server farms, claiming three-quarters of the country backs such a pause.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Five months ago, AOC and I called for a moratorium on new AI data centers.
We were called “radical,” “crazy” and “extremists.”
Today, 75% of Americans agree and hundreds of candidates are responding.
The message is clear: We need a moratorium.
&mdash; Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/2091559335851634894?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 23, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Every good-paying, middle-class employment powerhouse has been systematically murdered by globalist and communist lobbying in America sending those jobs, that industry, and all of its economic impact overseas,&#8221; Sheehy wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
First they killed our timber mills, then our mines, then our factories &#8211; now data centers. Every good-paying, middle-class employment powerhouse has been systematically murdered by globalist and communist lobbying in America sending those jobs, that industry, and all of its… <a href="https://t.co/Y5Gt0MYD1W">https://t.co/Y5Gt0MYD1W</a>
&mdash; Tim Sheehy (@TimSheehyMT) <a href="https://x.com/TimSheehyMT/status/2091682407107776682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Every politician calling for the end of data centers is also calling for the destruction of the future jobs they create and the end of Netflix, X, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Google, Amazon, and every app you actually use,&#8221; he added. &#8220;They all run on data centers.&#8221;
The push comes as some GOP lawmakers sound the alarm over dark-money foreign meddling. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) recently <a href="https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/chairmen-guthrie-joyce-and-latta-request-investigation-of-foreign-adversaries-efforts-to-block-american-data-center-buildout">demanded answers</a> from federal investigators over mounting evidence that China is orchestrating covert influence campaigns on U.S. soil.
“Our nation is locked in a race with China to innovate and lead the world in the development of artificial intelligence technologies,” Guthrie warned. “The fact that Chinese Communist Party-backed entities and other foreign adversaries may be attempting to influence decisions related to American data center infrastructure puts into perspective how serious of a fight we are in.&#8221;
&#8220;Americans deserve to know who is bankrolling the disinformation campaign that seeks to block critical infrastructure investments,” he added.
According to congressional investigators and security watchdog reports, foreign entities linked to the Chinese Communist Party are funneling cash through non-profit networks and unleashing online bot armies. They are intent on spreading fake outrage over local utility bills and water usage to trick local communities into blocking server farms.
By tricking state politicians into putting moratoriums on fresh construction, Beijing hopes to paralyze America’s power grid expansion and take total control of global AI dominance.
Supporters of data-center development also dispute claims about the industry&#8217;s environmental impact. The Goldwater Institute, a free-market think tank, <a href="https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/the-data-center-debate-fact-vs-fiction/">points out</a> that data centers are actually amazingly efficient. All server farms nationwide combined consume under 0.05% of American freshwater, which is tiny compared to basic agricultural irrigation.
Even better for taxpayers, tech developers pay for local utility upgrades rather than leaving working families to pay. In Loudoun County, Virginia, server facilities generate tens of millions in local property taxes, producing roughly $26 in municipal revenue for every dollar spent on public services.
Yet despite the massive economic payoff, left-wing leaders continue taking the bait. New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul recently blocked local server farm permits as her administration develops new rules governing their construction.

NASA Hearing 12/3/25

‘Communist Lobbying’: Sheehy Blasts Left-Wing Push To Kill Data Centers

tim sheehy

Comedians Joe Rogan and Shane Gillis trashed communism on Rogan&#8217;s podcast Thursday — then argued in the same breath that Americans should get free healthcare, with Rogan calling billionaire wealth &#8220;the problem with capitalism.&#8221;
Gillis said free healthcare &#8220;would be a good move&#8221; during the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBH4F5a6zAA&amp;t=10697s">episode</a> — and argued that supporting it does not make someone a communist. Rogan agreed. The two were joined by fellow comedians Mark Normand and Ari Shaffir.
&#8220;Communism is the gayest sh*t ever,&#8221; Gillis said. &#8220;Somebody needs to look into how gay communism is.&#8221;
&#8220;But isn&#8217;t it crazy that it&#8217;s making a comeback?&#8221; Rogan asked. &#8220;It always does. It&#8217;s a cycle.&#8221;
&#8220;The problem is if we could not call it communism if we get free healthcare,&#8221; Gillis added. &#8220;That would be a good move. We&#8217;re calling everybody communists. Free healthcare is cool. We should have that. That&#8217;s not communism. Communism is no private property.&#8221;
Rogan agreed, saying, &#8220;We should treat the whole country like it&#8217;s a community. If you have a community, would you want the sickest person to f*cking die, who could be very valuable if you could take care of them, if you have the resources to take care of them? You should take care of them.&#8221;
&#8220;This is the problem with capitalism, this is the reason people turn on all these billionaires,&#8221; Rogan added. &#8220;They turn on them because [they say], &#8216;Why do you have so much when people have so little?&#8217; But it&#8217;s because it&#8217;s the game, it&#8217;s the game that they&#8217;re playing, and you&#8217;re playing the game to — you&#8217;re just not playing it at that level.&#8221;
Normand then pushed back a little on Rogan&#8217;s statement.
&#8220;But again, these rich people pay a lot [in taxes] and give a lot of services,&#8221; Normand said.
&#8220;There&#8217;s that, but also the services, the amount of money they get, is all going to corrupt people that are funneling it into their own bank accounts. That&#8217;s the problem with it all,&#8221; Rogan replied.
Free healthcare of the sort Rogan and Gillis described already exists across the developed world, with mixed results. In Canada, where taxpayers fund the system, the median wait for a family doctor&#8217;s referral to treatment was 28.6 weeks in 2025 — the second longest on record — according to the Fraser Institute. Nearly 6 million Canadian adults have no regular family doctor at all, a survey by St. Michael&#8217;s Hospital and the Canadian Medical Association found. In England, the National Health Service backlog stood at roughly 7.1 million cases this spring, and the health service has not met its 18-week treatment standard since 2016.
Rogan, who describes himself as politically independent, endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the 2020 Democratic primary and endorsed President Donald Trump on the eve of the 2024 election. Sanders even endorsed one of Rogan&#8217;s healthcare takes last year.
&#8220;I think healthcare 100% should be socially funded. I think that Medicare and Medicaid — having programs where people who are hurt can get an operation, and it&#8217;s not going to bankrupt them for the rest of their life,&#8221; Rogan said in March 2025, adding, &#8220;It should be a part of our agreement to take care of each other as a community, that we chip in money for what people would think of as socialist positions.&#8221;
&#8220;Joe Rogan is absolutely right about this,&#8221; Sanders said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Joe Rogan is absolutely right about this. <a href="https://t.co/xIvMSjARWD">https://t.co/xIvMSjARWD</a>
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1906405502046597253?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Joe Rogan/Shane Gillis

Joe Rogan, Shane Gillis Agree Communism Is ‘The Gayest Sh*t Ever’ — But ‘Free Healthcare Is Cool’

Menu