THE U.S. HAS 3X MORE IMMIGRANTS THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH. 1 of 6 immigrants on the planet live here. No other major developed nation comes close. The outcome is clear: the U.S. absorbs a disproportionate share of global migration & ~9/10 new jobs go to them right now.

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans. Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable. Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné. Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut. À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol. Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée. Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit. Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie. Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle. Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère. Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision : "La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne) "La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek "Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

If the Marxist Dems steal power again they will… Crush X Ban Voter ID Open Borders Grant Amnesty Disbar Lawyers Censor Free Speech Force Woke Education Universal Mail in Ballots Pack the Supreme Court Imprison Political Enemies Etc Destroy America. Pass the Save America Act!

I built CourtWatch.us — a free public database for American citizens who deserve safer communities. You can track which judges released defendants who then got rearrested, skipped court, or violated their release conditions. All public records. All free. I started with Orange County FL and will be expanding to all 67 Florida counties and eventually every state in the country. This first batch of info is from 2024 and since public reports are released in March/April for the previous year, data is behind. But I wanted to see if this is plausible. After adding 2024,I'll add 2025 and then figure out how to get real-time-data uploaded. It's in beta — would love to know what you think 👇 Numbers don't lie, but criminals do. courtwatch.us @bennyjohnson @jockowillink @GrantCardone @LauraLoomer @nickshirleyy @j_fishback

Hello, Mr. Desiderio, Punchbowl News sells access to Capitol Hill for corporate clients. Their senior Senate reporter is you, Andrew Desiderio. Here's how the access works: Punchbowl has a weekly show called "Fly Out Day," taped at the Punchbowl News Townhouse and described on their own site as an "exclusive first look" for Premium subscribers. Those Premium subscribers are the K Street corporate government affairs staff and trade association officials whose legislative interests depend on what Senate leadership decides to schedule… or kill. The second-ever guest was Senate Majority Leader John Thune, on September 11, 2025. This is documented in your own webste. Now let’s go over your post carefully. You say Mike Lee "primed the GOP base to believe" something. That’s manipulative framing, the language of a man working a crowd. But Thune "pointed out" something. That’s the language of a man correcting the record, establishing fact. This is not a one-off phrasing choice on your part. Your Punchbowl coverage consistently frames Thune's positions as institutional reality and conservative alternatives as base management. Thune "declared" that the talking filibuster is dead. Lee and his allies "captivated Trump's base." Thune "had enough." The SAVE Act push is "a self-inflicted wound." These are not neutral verbs. They are a point of view… and it's Thune's point of view, delivered with a byline. There's a structural reason this happens. Jake Sherman described Punchbowl's business model in his own words on The Rebooting podcast (January 2022): nearly 90% of the outlet's revenue comes from corporate sponsorships… "trade groups and companies looking to get their public affairs messaging in front of those making public policy." The sponsors documented at Punchbowl include PhRMA, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Facebook, JPMorgan, Blackstone, the American Investment Council (private equity lobby), and others. These sponsors need the goodwill of the Senate Majority Leader, who controls which of their legislative priorities come to the floor. Thune controls the floor. Thune sits in Punchbowl's townhouse. You reports Thune's framing as conventional wisdom. When Desiderio writes that the talking filibuster "will ultimately fail" ... not might fail, not Thune argues it will fail, but when it ultimately fails ... is that journalism? Or is it the view from Thune's Fly Out Day chair? You are busted, Mr. Desiderio.

We’re supposed to believe - all the world leaders - that all meet up in Davos - all made the exact same errors - open borders - COVID - vax mandates - Digital ID - CBDC - green energy - trans - all at the exact same time - all in the exact same direction - just coincidentally.

Someone put this diagram together and it deserves to be read slowly. Three of the most disturbing psychological experiments in modern history placed in a Venn diagram with COVID policy sitting precisely at their intersection. They were not wrong. Most people know the Milgram experiment. Ordinary people administering what they believed were lethal electric shocks to strangers because an authority figure in a white coat told them to continue. We wrote about this. COVID replicated it at planetary scale, the doctors, the neighbours, the employers, the family members who enforced mandates with a zeal that had nothing to do with science and everything to do with institutional obedience. But the other two are equally important and far less discussed. The Asch Conformity Experiment demonstrated something even more fundamental. Solomon Asch showed in the 1950s that a significant majority of people will deny the evidence of their own eyes will give an answer they know to be factually wrong, simply because everyone else in the room is giving that answer. Not because they were threatened. Not because they were paid. Because the social pressure of the group was sufficient to override direct sensory experience. This is what masking a healthy population, cancelling Christmas, and demanding that people treat their neighbours as biological threats actually accomplished. It was not about any of those things specifically. It was about training an entire population to override their own perception and defer to the group consensus, however absurd that consensus became. And then the Stanford Prison Experiment. Philip Zimbardo’s 1971 study abandoned early because it spiralled so rapidly out of control, showed that ordinary people assigned roles of authority over other ordinary people will, within days, begin to abuse that authority in ways they would have found unthinkable before the role was assigned. The guards became cruel not because they were cruel people but because the structure gave them permission and the institution backed them up. We watched this happen in real time. The COVID marshals. The border agents turning families away. The hospital administrators barring visitors from dying patients. The teachers reporting parents. The neighbours calling police on children playing in parks. The HR departments gleefully processing terminations for the unvaccinated. Ordinary people, handed a role and a uniform of institutional approval, discovering capacities for cruelty that their pre-2020 selves would not have recognised. Now go deeper. Because the institution at the centre of this, the one that has connected these threads across decades is not an accident of history. Stanford sits at the intersection of centralised medicine, defence research, and the surveillance architecture that has been constructed around human attention and behaviour for the better part of a century. The Stanford Research Institute. The connections to MKUltra the CIA’s mind control programme that ran from the early 1950s and included everything from Mexican mescaline experiments to the weaponisation of LSD on unwitting subjects, overseen by figures who moved seamlessly between military intelligence and the medical establishment. From General Groves who oversaw the Manhattan Project and the deliberate suppression of radiation health data to Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA chemist who ran MKUltra’s most extreme programmes. The through-line is not conspiracy. It is institutional continuity. The same networks. The same funding streams. The same willingness to use human beings as experimental subjects in the service of power dressed as science.

Obamacare was never about “affordable” healthcare, it was a $250 BILLION dollar tax increase. The bill’s architects Ezekiel Manuel & Johnathan Gruber explain how they wrote the bill so now everyone pays taxes on their employee provided healthcare