Ready to start flying? The flying cars ARE coming, only they all seem to be taking the form of a flying drone or flying copter. Nevertheless, they are coming fast and furious and the latest is the Air Scooter. Super lightweight, only takes 20 minutes of training to fly, anyone can fly one, 2 hour range, combined electric and gas motors and the Zapata Air Scooter can be yours for the low price of $250,000! Watch here: I want one! Nevermind the fact that I don’t leave my house much (I’m in my chair covering the news and serving YOU most of the day) but if I got one of these bad boys you might see your boy Noah buzzing around the neighborhood a whole lot more often! A new “Flight Center” where you can take test rides is coming to Las Vegas in 2026: I’m in Las Vegas and spotted this. Zapata will open its first U.S. “Flight Center” near Las Vegas in early 2026. This is an aerial “robotaxi-like” (autonomous-assisted flight, easy controls), but it’s personal/recreational experience. No pilot license required (FAA Part 103… pic.twitter.com/SEThCl5v12 — CyberMike (@CyberMikeOG) November 19, 2025 A direct competitor, the Jetson ONE, also looks amazing…. Check this out: WATCH: Palmer Luckey Takes His First Flight In The Jetson ONE This is so cool.... About a week ago, I told you the flying cars were coming. Actually, that's not entirely accurate -- they're calling them "personal air vehicles" made by Jetson.  Aptly named. Here was my full report on the Jetson ONE: Meet The Jetson ONE, Your Personal Air Vehicle For Only $128,000 Now today I have a follow up to show you.... Watch as Palmer Luckey takes deliver of his Jetson ONE (the third one ever commercially produced) and takes his inaugural flight: Backup video here if needed: Man, that must be such a blast! I would so love to go flying in one of these bad boys! And if you don't know who Palmer Luckey is or why you should care, he's actually a really cool dude. He's one of the only based people in Big Tech, an early Trump supporter from WAY before 2015. In fact, he even wrote Donald Trump a letter far before 2015 urging him to run for President. Oh, and he built the Oculus VR headset and sold it to Facebook for $2 billion and then took that money to start up Anduril, a high-tech Defense company that is building out the next generation of Defense tools for the United States. Like I said, really cool guy. More here that I highly recommend: BIG TECH ANTI-HERO: Introducing Palmer Luckey Some of you may be familiar with Palmer Luckey, but I'm guessing many of you will have no idea who he is. It's not often that I'm so blown away by someone that I devote a whole article to it, but that's what I'm doing right here....because I watched his interview with Shawn Ryan and I was absolutely BLOWN AWAY. Look, I'm not here to put him up on a pedestal and anoint him as God, but I was very impressed.  Pleasantly surprised. I was vaguely familiar with him as the founder of the Oculus Headset which he famously sold to Facebook for $2.3 billion, but other than that I didn't really know much about him. In fact, I kind of figured he'd be like most of the rest of Silicon Valley.  Weird.  Creepy.  Far Left.  Anti-human.  Basically like Sam Altman -- boy does that guy creep me out! But Palmer's not like that. He's actually more like the exact opposite of Silicon Valley, similar in a way to how Steve Jobs did not fully fit in with the Far-Left tech world. An outsider. A free thinker. Self made from literally nothing. And quite clearly a genius. Not only that, but a $9,000 donation to a pro-Trump PAC back in 2015 ultimately got him FIRED from Facebook! The more you dig, the more it's impossible to not like this guy and not be impressed by him. I write this article not to go all "fan boy"  on him, but to say we need more people like this in America. Free thinkers who will not conform to what Far Left Big Tech tells us we have to think.... People who want to radically transform our Country for the better! Oh, I didn't mention that part, did I? After selling Oculus to Facebook, collecting $2.3 Billion, and then getting FIRED from Facebook for his Trump support, most people would probably just sail off into living a very easy life. But similar to Elon Musk, that's not what Palmer did. No, he started a new company designed to compete with all the weapons companies like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. Why? Because he saw that they were ripping off America and he wanted to put a stop to it. He also saw they were provided sub-standard weapons for America and he wanted to make sure we had the absolute best of the best to secure America's future. But he's not a war hawk.... In fact, he's very similar to President Trump.  He wants peace through strength.  He wants to bring our troops home, but also have the strongest military in the world, by such a large degree that no one dares challenge us. Sounds just like Trump, doesn't it? But he saw there was no path for that to happen in the corrupt Military Industrial Complex system we've been living in since Eisenhower, so he basically set out to become DOGE himself for an entire industry! And that's what he's been doing, with remarkable and mind-blowing levels of success! Ok enough of me talking, let me SHOW you. I have the full interview down below, which I encourage you watch -- you will not be disappointed, I promise you that! But first let me give you some shorter clips to get you warmed up and show you what I mean: Starting here: WATCH: Palmer Luckey reveals the truth about why he was FIRED by Facebook. This guy is based! Patriot! pic.twitter.com/PMCKqu5xWQ — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) February 21, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: I mean, you have to remember this was—this was, sorry, I need to get some water.Oculus was everything to me.All my friends worked at Oculus.Remember, it was started by me and all my friends worked there. All the friends that I made working over the course of half a decade on that particular product were there.My reputation was there.My work was there.All of the technology that I've been developing since I was 13 years old for VR was owned by that company. Yeah, everything—like I was Oculus.And then they said, "No, we're taking it all away from you and you can't even talk to anybody or we're going to come after you."And if you say a word of this to anyone, we're going to come after you.And so for me, it was just a catastrophically destructive event. I wish that I would have acted differently in the moment, but the mistake I made was trusting that people could have different politics from me but still treat me fairly.And I didn't realize that when they told me, "Oh, you're still an important part of the team," I didn't realize that was a pure manipulation tactic to prevent me from leveraging my position.I had leverage.There were things that they needed from me. There were things I was doing.They basically were just manipulating me to try and squeeze the last little bit of juice out of me for a few months before just getting rid of me.Wow.Anyway, that was how it all went down. What would you have done differently?So, first of all, I would have put out my own statement, which I had already written.I should have just put it out.And the thing is, I realized later that I didn't know at the time that political activity outside of your employer—like outside of your job—is protected, at least in California. They cannot do anything about politics.They cannot tell you not to endorse a candidate, for example.They can tell you you can't do it wearing a Facebook shirt.You can't do it while you're on the clock at Facebook. Of course, lots of Facebook employees do that.Hillary Clinton was everywhere.They were literally using the campus print shop to print "I'm with her" posters that they were plastering all over San Francisco.If you were for Hillary, it was absolutely no problem. But I should have said, you know what? Aside from that, I should have just gone out and said, "Hey, the media is lying."They are lying to all of you.This is completely false.This is fake news to the ultimate degree. The press is lying about me to try and take my scalp.And I think that would have probably caused a lot of—they would have pissed them off because I wouldn't have been allowing them to run the PR strategy.But the way that it's supposed to work—just if you've never worked at a big company—the trade you're making when you allow the company to run your PR strategy is implicitly that they're not going to fire you, right?Basically, it's okay. The trade is, do things our way and you get to stay safe.Because otherwise, there's no incentive to do things their way.Otherwise, you just go off on your own—you say, "Fuck you, I'm going to do whatever I want."I shouldn't have made that trade. I should have gone out and gotten the truth out there.And I think people would have been pissed that I didn't let Facebook, you know, do their preferred option, which was to say nothing bad about me.They literally told me I couldn't.I said, "I'm against Hillary Clinton because I think she's going to drag us into World War III." She said that she's going to enforce the no-fly zone in Syria, which is like—That is saying, "I'm going to shoot down."People think "I will enforce a no-fly zone" means you just say words and it's like, pretending you have the authority.No, enforcing a no-fly zone means that a Russian aircraft is going to enter Syrian airspace and the United States is going to shoot it down. And I was looking and I was like, "Holy shit, I'm one of the people who want us to get out of the Middle East, especially at the tail end of things."I'm like, "That will drag us back."Can you imagine doing this shit all over again with the Russians in the Middle East?And they said, "You can't say any of this." You cannot say anything negative about Hillary Clinton.You cannot say anything positive about Donald Trump.And I should have just realized, wait a sec, this is literally illegal—I should just put it out there.They would have been upset with me temporarily that I didn't follow their strategy, but it would have been much harder for them to fire me in the end. The master stroke of their strategy was that in refusing to deny the allegations against me, they became true.Right?Perception is reality.My refusal to address them and Facebook's refusal to point out that it was all made up in the minds of everybody—they said, "Well, it must be true." He is funding white supremacist troll campaigns.He is funding people to attack other people on the internet.He is funding a tidal wave of anti-Semitic memes all over the internet.Because why wouldn't they believe it?I never even said that it wasn't true. Then here: Palmer Luckey explains how a small donation to MAGA got him fired from Facebook pic.twitter.com/UjtOqClAiY — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) February 21, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: And they thought that I was just insane.Literally, when I said that, they said, “Wow, I thought you were a smart person.”“No, guys, I am a smart person. Donald Trump is going to win. I’ll accept that there’s a possibility he won’t, but all of the signs are that he is going to win.” The problem is that the media is reporting on Donald Trump the same way they’re reporting on me—in an absurd, totally baseless way that is out of touch with reality.“Don’t fall for that,” they said.And they said, “No, no—you have to stay out of the office until after the election.”So the day after the election, after Trump had won, they said, “Actually, you can’t come back to the office.” “Are you serious?” I asked.“I’m serious,” they replied.And that was when the machinery went into motion to get rid of me.They realized that with Trump in office—and there were Facebook executives publicly saying, “I will not work with Trump supporters. I will not have them on my team,” which is, by the way, illegal in California, but you know, you have to bring a case about it—especially back then when Republicans weren’t really… I think we weren’t punching square. I think that most of them were like, “I just want to get shit done. I just want to get paid. I’m not trying to be a professional victim.”Right? Like, what red-blooded Republican man wants to basically go into a courtroom and be like, “They’re so mean to me”?They said that they don’t like me because I voted for Trump.Doesn’t that just sound like the dumbest little bitch-fest ever? Like, wouldn’t everyone laugh at you—even if you won?So people wanted to get work done.They didn’t want to be a professional victim and put themselves out there as the whiny little boy who’s sad his coworkers don’t like him in a hostile workplace environment.Did you have any conversations with Zuckerberg in person? “No, because the lawyers very quickly isolated things like this.The moment they realized that this was turning into a problem, they were like, ‘You cannot come to the office. You cannot send any messages. You cannot send any emails. You may only communicate through attorneys.’”There is a lockdown protocol to minimize accountability on these things.So it wasn’t until later—they told me, though, even after the election, “You can come back. We really need you. We all recognize that you’re the guy and that you’re a critical part of the team. We just need to stay out of the office for a little longer and we’re going to figure this all out.” And then January rolled around and their attorneys called my attorneys and said, “You’re being fired. You’re being terminated without cause.”Oh, that was the other thing I forgot—they launched an internal investigation into me.They wanted to try and dig up some kind of policy violation.They wanted to find a reason to fire me that they could say had nothing to do with politics. And so that went on for months—they dug through all my emails and all my communications, and they interviewed dozens of Facebook employees, just like full Gestapo style.“What have you ever heard about Palmer Luckey doing something bad? Like, what do you know? What have you ever heard?”And I was like, “I literally have never heard Palmer even mention politics. He’s just like a VR guy.”He gave nine thousand dollars to this Trump group, I think on a whim, because he has billions of dollars. Like, this doesn’t even see—he is—and so they tried to find something on me, and they found literally nothing.So their investigation concluded, and I remember being in the room because it’s a formal process and they let you know when you’re being investigated.In the end, they said, “We just found no violations of Facebook policy at any point in your tenure.”And so that was when they realized they were going to have to fire me without cause. They just said, “Well, we were paying you tens of millions of dollars a year and we’ve just decided for no reason we don’t need you employed anymore.”And it was, look, it was totally ridiculous.It was totally trumped up—they didn’t ever ask me about people who were discriminating against me for my politics, right?They were saying, “Oh, we did this investigation and Palmer was not fired for his politics.” Like, well, you never asked me about it.If you would have told me, “Palmer, are you aware of any instances of people being discriminated against for politics?”I’d have said, “Yeah, I can give you like two dozen.”If they asked me, “Palmer, were you fired for politics?” I’d have literally given you the emails and messages where people explicitly stated that they would not work with me. And so it was insanity.The worst part is they were even telling the media this.They were saying, “Oh no, it was Palmer’s decision to leave.”Literally untrue—I was terminated. They told one journalist off the record, but off the record doesn’t mean anything.They told one journalist off the record that it was something like, “Look, Palmer leaving was his decision.”It’s not like this is Soviet Russia, where you say the wrong thing about the wrong politician and then get disappeared.It was literally just like that. Anyway, I’m sorry—I seem worked up about this, but I just hate getting back into this headspace because it was just—it was...I could testify with you too.I mean, you’ve got to remember—this was... sorry, I need to do some water.Oculus was everything to me. All my friends worked at Oculus.Remember, it was started by me and all my friends worked there.All the friends that I made working over the course of half a decade on that particular product were there.My reputation was there, my work was there, all of the technology that I’d been developing since I was 13 years old for VR was owned by that company. Yeah, everything—like, I was Oculus.And then they said, “No, we’re taking it all away from you and you can’t even talk to anybody, or we’re going to come after you.”“And if you say a word of this to anyone, we’re going to come after you.”And so for me, it was just a catastrophically destructive event. I wish that I would have acted differently in the moment, but the mistake I made was trusting that people could have different politics from me but still treat me fairly.And I didn’t realize that when they told me, “Oh, you’re still an important part of the team,” I didn’t realize that was a pure manipulation tactic to prevent me from leveraging the power I had.I had leverage—there were things that they needed from me, things I was doing.They basically were just manipulating me to try and squeeze the last little bit of juice out of me for a few months before just getting rid of me. Wow. Then here: From VR to politics: Why Palmer Luckey supported President Trump while surrounded by Silicon Valley liberals pic.twitter.com/gmrwhDeJTN — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) February 21, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: I'll say like I've long been a libertarian-minded person. Politics were always something I had thought about but really didn't do anything about. Like, I had given 40 dollars to Gary Johnson, right? Like, I don't want to say politics weren't important to me, but they just weren't that important to me. I cared about VR—I was the VR guy, right? And so here I am—I’ve sold my company for billions of dollars. A few years pass and all of a sudden Donald Trump's running for president. Now, Donald Trump is somebody who I had long had respect for. I actually wrote a letter to him when I was in college and 15 years old, telling him that he should run for president. You might not remember this, but he had been on TV and they were asking if he was going to run against Barack Obama. And he said, he said, "Well, I might have no choice—I might have to run. I don't want to run. No, nobody wants me to run." It feels like, but if I have to do it, then I have to do it. You know, if people tell me that I have to run, then maybe I have to do it. And so I wrote him a letter—I said, "You have to run. We need someone who's signed both sides of a check. We need someone who is not a part of this giant government bureaucracy. We need someone who understands what it's like to build a business, not to be a community organizer." I wrote that letter—I don't even want to say I thought too much of it. I did it on an impulse because I saw him say, "If enough people tell me I have to run, then maybe I'll do it." Years pass—Trump's running for president—and I said, "This is fantastic. I'm so stoked that Donald Trump is finally running for president." Hold on—was there any, did you get a response? No, I never got a response, which is fine. I don't want to act like I was put off by it—I’m so glad I did this. I posted on Facebook about it too—I said, "It looks like Donald Trump might run for president. We can convince him." This would be awesome. I'm so glad I did that because now I have proof that I supported him when I was 15 years old—all those years ago. Because otherwise, this would be a ridiculous story—you'd never be able to prove it. When I had Trump at my house years later for a fundraiser—which, by the way, was the biggest presidential fundraiser for a Republican that had ever been held—I put that little Facebook post up on the screen before he came up. Anyways, look—Trump's running for president. Everyone in Silicon Valley was losing their mind, right? I mean, it's like—I know you probably remember, but there's probably people listening who don't remember or they're too young to remember—twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen was insane. The media hated Trump—everything was being twisted in these absurd ways. You remember when he said, "They're sending us their drugs, they're criminals, they're rapists." And they said, "Trump says that Mexicans are rapists." And their quote is, "They are rapists." You can literally just watch what he says and it doesn't even make grammatical sense for that construct. Also, he's literally talking about the criminals and the drugs and the murderers and the rapists. And, I mean, it was insane. There was no ethics being used—it was a pure attack blitzkrieg by the media against Trump, and a lot of people fell for it. And so I ended up giving nine thousand dollars to a pro-Trump, anti-Clinton group. And it's so funny because this started a media shitstorm that I'll get into in a moment, but I have to tell you what they actually did. I gave them nine thousand dollars—they ran one single billboard in Ohio—I think in Columbus, Ohio—that was a picture of Hillary Clinton and it said, "Too big to jail." And this was after she got away with mishandling classified information. You might remember at exactly the same time you had U.S. submariners being put in prison for decades for much less expansive mishandling of classified information. It was an obvious double standard. You have the deep state, the State Department apparatus protecting Hillary. And on the other side, you have a serviceman going to prison for something that was not nearly as bad as anything. So, "Too big to jail." So would you agree—like, that's pretty reasonable political discourse, right? That's not crazy—I'm not saying Hillary's a bitch, like, you know, it's very reasonable. So, two things happened: first, the media found out about my contribution. And a few media outlets reported on it somewhat accurately, like, "Palmer Luckey—the guy who started Oculus—this Facebook executive has given nine thousand dollars to this pro-Trump, anti-Clinton group that's running a billboard." Then, a handful of people on Twitter—literally, it was a completely made-up story—said, "Palmer is funding white supremacist internet trolls to attack Clinton supporters on the internet." It expanded from there: "Palmer is funding anti-Semitic memes. Palmer is funding misogynist troll squads. Palmer is funding— I believe Ars Technica called it—a tidal wave of racist memes on Reddit, Facebook, and beyond." It was literally fabricated—none of it ever happened. It was a completely false story. Then here: Palmer Luckey reveals EXACTLY how the MSM spins their lies and how defamed him "Radical Zionist" pic.twitter.com/94ne7nRigu — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) February 21, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: And it was reported by dozens of outlets—CNN, Bloomberg, CNBC, Ars Technica, Wired Magazine, Gizmodo, Boing Boing, The Washington Post. Taylor Lorenz reported on it—I mean, it was everywhere. And they all just had this lockstep narrative: Palmer Luckey is a racist, misogynist, anti‑[something]. Which is so funny—I'm actually a radical Zionist. It was even in the moment—it was funny. What is a radical Zionist? I strongly believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. People are like, "That's so problematic, though. It's so ethnostate-adjacent." I say, "I don't care. After what happened to them in World War II, they deserve a place where they can do their own thing and protect their own people without getting wrecked by everybody else who hates them." And you know what? Maybe someday everyone who hates Jews is going to be gone. We are not living in that world today. And people—it's a slippery slope, though. If they can have it, why can't the KKK have their own state? I say, "That's not going to happen." It's absurd for us to even have this discussion. It is very reasonable for the Jews to have a place that is theirs. And they say, "Oh, but what about the Palestinians?" You know what? That's a separate political issue. Like, the existence of a Jewish state—which is what Zionism is: the belief that they have the right to a Jewish state—is separate from the issue of what do you do with refugees from some political, you know, from some physical area. So it was so funny to me when, like, Palmer's this anti-Semitic guy, because it was literally made up. Like, it's not even like there were screenshots or made-up screenshots—journalists just said it was true with zero evidence, and they just repeated what each other said. And I know people are going to hear this and say, "I must be mistaken—Palmer's ignoring, he's glossing over something. He must have said something about Jews on Twitter." "Are you Jewish?" "No, I'm not Jewish. I just believe in the existence of a Jewish state." And I bet even some of your listeners probably won't agree with me on that, and that's fine—we don't have to all agree on everything. But I will say, it was pretty ridiculous in the moment when Palmer's an anti-Semite—I'm like, "No, I love the Jews more than anybody." You Democrats would probably hate me for how much I love the Jews. Anyway, it was—what happened was, as a result of this reporting, looking back, I should have pushed back. What happened is I wrote a statement saying, "Hey, this is all false. None of this is true. Here's what actually happened: I gave nine thousand dollars to this pro-Trump group. They ran a single billboard. Everyone is lying. This is literally fake news." And that was when "fake news" was like a new phrase. Facebook told me I couldn't publish it. They said, "We won't let you make this statement. You cannot make this statement because it frames the media as the bad guy." And in a world where Donald Trump is attacking the Fourth Estate, we can't appear to be aligned with him. I said, "Well, you guys don't have to appear to be aligned, but I will be. I'm fine if people think that I'm being unfair because this is literally character assassination. They are trying to destroy—" They kept reporting, as of Thursday at 3:58 p.m. when read for comment, "Palmer Luckey is still employed by Facebook." That's how they ended the article—it was explicitly a scalp-taking operation from the very beginning. All the articles were ending with, "Palmer's still employed ..." According to Facebook, Palmer is currently still employed. And they just couldn't wait for the follow-up where they could take my scalp. So Facebook tried to get me to resign, and I refused. They tried to get me to not say anything. Eventually, they wrote their own statement for me that basically just said, "I'm sorry for the negative impact this is having on Facebook's reputation, and I want to—I'm going to be taking a voluntary leave of absence." In reality, they told me I couldn't come into the office until after the election—it was that explicit: "You can't come in until after the election." Their thinking was, "Okay, Palmer is like the leader of our virtual reality organization." They knew they actually needed me; getting rid of me was not a thing that they could easily do. And their thought was, "Okay, we know that Palmer didn't post these racist memes." Like, Facebook did not know—Facebook knew none of this was true, right? So they knew that this was just a media invention, but they didn't want to push back. They didn't want to say anything—kind of like when you see Mark now coming out and finally saying, "Okay, the Hunter Biden laptop thing—maybe, you know, that wasn't good; this was... it was a different universe." So they were hoping that I would take this leave of absence, disappear until after the election. They believed Hillary would win. And then, if Hillary won, they thought all their employees and the press would kind of forget about this whole thing, because it would just be this crazy time that Palmer supported that fringe candidate who lost in a landslide to Hillary Clinton. Remember, she had a 95 percent chance of winning. So now I told them this was a bad strategy—I said, "Guys, what you don't understand is Donald Trump is going to win." And finally here: Palmer Luckey explains how Donald Trump is one of the only people who understands the massive threat of manufacturing overseas. Xi could cripple us overnight! pic.twitter.com/NVdlsyXxc6 — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) February 21, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: You are one of like the puzzle pieces that keeps everything held together for, you know, their missile program. Come over to the United States—we'll give you a job at NASA and we'll give you a visa. You can come over, you can get an American life, an American wife—it'll be fantastic. You're going to love it. I think we need to start doing that again. I think that that's one of the ways that we can beat China, because there's a lot of people in China—they're there, but they don't really want to be. There's a lot of people who hate what China has become. I would love it if we could say, you know what—we need a lot more people in America who know how to manufacture. I want American jobs, right? To be clear, I'm not saying we need to import people because we can't survive without immigration—I'm not one of those people. But if we can steal their very best manufacturing engineers, deprive China of those people, and then put them to work here helping us catch up with China on manufacturing, I mean, that's a great trade. Let's haul over their best plant managers and then let's have a thousand jobs created by each of those guys here in America. I think we need to bring back defector visas. We need to own it. And it seems like a type of immigration that even the really anti-immigration people can get behind, because the point is, like, look—we're not trying to bring in millions of fruit pickers. We're trying to steal the very best people from our greatest foe. Surely we can agree that that's usually worth doing. It's better for us to have those people than for them to be running the missile factory that's going to blow up our nation. There was a little bit of a debate on that not too long ago, correct? You know, like, the skilled immigration versus not. So that's true. The difference there is that H-Bs are about whether or not they're, like, it's on theory. Of course, there's so much H-B abuse—you would not believe what I saw when I was in Silicon Valley. It is insane. It's obviously a program to try and replace U.S. workers with basically slave labor that can't ever escape H-B abuse—it's crazy. But in theory, H-Bs are to create a job for an immigrant if there is not a person who can be hired to do that job in the United States. A defector visa adds an additional requirement: it has to be something that they care about that you're ripping away. So, like, it's not just that there's a need for them here—it's that it's going to hurt China by taking them. If China has a million people that do something like, let's say... Like, let's say that we need more rice pickers here and China's got more rice pickers—China's got plenty of rice pickers. Taking a rice picker is not going to hurt. Taking the head of an advanced silicon manufacturing facility that can make cutting-edge computer graphics chips—that is going to really, really hurt them. So I say that was the part of the debate that I didn't see present: using immigration not just as a tool to help the United States but to harm our adversaries. I want to stop focusing on the plow and start turning it into a sword—to double win. Exactly—because there's a lot of people around the world who would rather be here, who will cause catastrophic consequences for their home country if they leave. Here's a fun one: think about the guys who are running the—what would it be like if China plucked you? Yes, that's a great example. Imagine if I had no national allegiance and they made an offer over there and I really wanted to live in China, and they just—yeah, they got rid of me. That would cause so much downstream damage. And the best—like, I don't want to go to China. In fact, my company is sanctioned by China on account of our sales to Taiwan. And so if I go to China or Hong Kong, I'll be arrested—it's fantastic. Also Russia or Belarus—if I go to Belarus, I'll be arrested, I would imagine. How do you know that? Oh, they put it out publicly. Russia has the so-called poison list where they say, "Here are the individuals that are under extreme sanctions," personally, individually, as individuals. And Belarus also recognizes—the, I think, Belarus had maybe one other, one other weirdo Baltic break-off—I can't remember what it was, but there's a handful of countries in the world where I literally can't go. But think about not even just China—is that public? Oh yeah, it's public. I even tweeted about it. I actually have the notice framed in my office. I was just going to say, "I want to get that, have you sign it, and I'm going to frame it." I will definitely send one to you—I have one in my office. Perfect. My dream is to get it signed by Vladimir Putin somehow. I just want to get it on his desk somehow, or at a signing or something. By the way, he deserves a bit of credit on this AI stuff. He was saying, before I even started Anduril, "The country that wins in the sphere of artificial intelligence will become the ruler of the entire world." I know that today that sounds not that interesting, but this was 9 years ago when everyone thought AI was crazy. Xi Jinping said that too, right? And you have all these world leaders who are saying things. Could you imagine, let's say—could you imagine Hillary Clinton having an opinion on something like that 8 or 9 years ago? Absolutely not. Could you imagine Joe Biden putting a stake in the ground? Of course not. Anyway, even in growing China, look at Venezuela. Let's take whoever's running their oil and gas machinery over there—imagine what would happen if we identified their top ten most competent people who are running their oil and gas organizations, and we gave them all defector visas and said, "Come to America and you can work at ExxonMobil on industrial refinement systems, and we're going to pay you twice as much as you make in..." One other observation.... As I was watching this interview, I couldn't help but think this guy is almost EXACTLY the Donnie Douglas character from Frasier. Remember him? One of the best guest stars they ever had on the show, and that was a high bar. But if the timeline wasn't completely impossible, I would say the Donnie Douglas character was simply inspired by Palmer Luckey, and a pretty obvious rip off at that! Tell me I'm wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ejBatH1jRk Crazy, right? Ok, here's the full interview if you'd like to watch the whole thing. Please enjoy: Share!

Charlie Sheen Met Ozzy Osbourne in Rehab

Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to immediately appeal a judge’s recent decision to toss out criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

President Donald Trump is directing the federal government to combine efforts with tech companies and universities to convert government data into scientific discoveries, The goal is to make artificial intelligence the engine of the nation’s economic future. It’s too bad he liked what the tech giants had to say. Speeding Up Discoveries with Big, Elephantine […] The post Genesis Mission: A Very Big Government Creation appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday roasted his political opponents during the traditional turkey pardoning ceremony, including a crack about Democrat Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s weight. “I had a little bit of a Pritzker joke, I was gonna talk about ‘Pritzker in size,’ but when I talk about Pritzker, I get angry because he’s not letting us do the job,” Trump said at the ceremony. “So I’m not gonna tell my Pritzker joke.” “Some speech writer wrote a joke about his weight, but I would never want to talk about his weight. I don’t talk about people being fat,” Trump continued. “I refuse to talk about the fact that he’s a fat slob. I don’t mention it.” Trump on JB Pritzker’s weight? “I would never want to talk about his weight. I don’t talk about people being fat. I refuse to talk about the fact that he’s a fat slob. I don’t mention it.” pic.twitter.com/z2fSF1LSET — Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) November 25, 2025 Trump and Pritzker are at odds over the governor’s opposition to the president demanding crime be cleaned up in Chicago specifically, and illegal immigrants in the city be deported. Pritzker has refused to address the growing crime issues in Chicago, including after the recent brutal public transit attack in which a 26-year-old woman was set on fire by a career criminal with more than 70 arrests. After a shooting last week, Trump again offered to send in the National Guard. The president wrote on Truth Social, “The people are chanting, BRING IN TRUMP!!!” “Pritzker needs help badly, just doesn’t know it yet,” Trump said back in September. “I will solve the crime problem fast, just like I did in DC. Chicago will be safe again.” Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. Pritzker has also done nothing to stop the attacks and assaults on federal immigration officers in his state, instead staunchly opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) efforts. “Our message to JB Pritzker: Get out of your mansion and see Chicago,” Assistant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in October. “If J.B. Pritzker actually walked the streets of his own city, he would see domestic terrorists and violent rioters attacking police officers and the scourge of violent crime as a direct result of his own policies.” As highlighted by Daily Wire Deputy Managing Editor Tim Rice, who was at the turkey pardoning ceremony, few political opponents were spared by Trump on Tuesday. The president also ribbed former President Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Related: ‘Gobble, You’re Pardoned!’ Trump Touts Success, Roasts Dems In Annual Thanksgiving Tradition

At 9:24 PM on November 17, a 26-year-old white woman named Bethany MaGee was sitting on a seat in the middle of a Chicago Transit Authority train car. She was looking through her phone, not paying much attention to her surroundings. At the same time, a 50-year-old black man named Lawrence Reed, who had 72 prior arrests and 15 prior convictions (including nine felony convictions, for crimes including arson, aggravated battery, and drug trafficking), was seated at the far back of the CTA car. Credit: United States District Court Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division/Chicago Transit Authority security camera/HighSentry360-34 To give you a sense of the distance between these two passengers on the train, in this image, the woman is circled on the right, and Reed is circled on the far left, at the bottom of the screenshot. So they’re not far away from one another. And in case it’s not clear, the woman is seated with her back towards Reed. She’s completely defenseless. Credit: GoFundMe Before long, Reed stands up, walks toward the woman, and begins pouring gasoline all over her body. He had purchased the gasoline just 20 minutes earlier, from a local Citgo station. Although the woman was able to briefly fight Reed off, he managed to ignite the bottle of gasoline in his hand using a lighter, run towards the woman, and set her on fire. He then watched, from across the CTA car, as her entire body was engulfed in flames.  Credit: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division/Chicago Transit Authority security camera The woman attempted to roll around on the ground to extinguish the flames before exiting the car when it pulled up to the station. She then collapsed on the platform, gravely injured, with burns to her face and body. She ultimately went to the hospital in critical condition, where she’s now expected to remain for several months. Lawrence Reed casually walked away, as if nothing had happened. Credit: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division/Chicago Transit Authority security camera When detectives arrested Reed the next morning, they read him his rights and began transporting him back to the station for questioning. While in transit, without any prompting from the officers, he celebrated what he had done, and began taunting his victim. He yelled, “Burn b—,” and “Burn alive, b—.” Put another way: Just three months after a young white woman named Iryna Zarutska was murdered on public transit by a black man with more than a dozen prior arrests, who attacked her from behind while she was using her phone, left her for dead, and taunted her after-the-fact, yet another young white woman has been violently assaulted on public transit by a black man with an even longer rap sheet, who also attacked her from behind while she was on her phone, and who also taunted her after-the-fact. This is a story of black-on-white violence that you’ve almost certainly heard about by now. We briefly mentioned it last week. But it merits a much more in-depth discussion than it’s received in the national media. Already, for the most part, mainstream outlets have moved on. If a white man had violently attacked black woman on the train for the second time in three months, of course, all of these outlets would be encouraging rioters to level the entire city of Chicago within 24 hours. (Not that the encouragement would probably be necessary). But as it stands, you can search the name “Bethany MaGee” on CNN’s website, and you won’t find a single result. To the extent the case is receiving coverage at all, it’s mostly from local news stations, who are eager to inform us that Lawrence Reed is suffering from some kind of mental illness. Watch: Credit: @ABC7Chicago/YouTube.com It’s almost beyond parody. If the crime wasn’t so horrific, you’d have to laugh. The career felon lies in wait on a train car. He deliberately attacks the most vulnerable white woman he can find on the train — a woman who’s completely defenseless. Then he runs away, demonstrating a clear awareness that he had just committed a crime. And then when he’s caught, he mocks the victim. When he’s brought before a judge, he admits that he’s guilty — just like he was guilty all of those other times that he violently assaulted people and set things on fire.  And after all of this, we’re supposed to conclude that, really, he’s just unwell. He’s got some kind of horrible brain disease. In fact, the disease is so bad that we may not even be able to put him on trial. We might just have to sentence him to six months of therapy and cut him loose again. Who’s to say? He can’t possibly be evil. He can’t possibly be a horrible person. His guilty plea can’t possibly be legitimate. He must be sick. It’s worth pointing out that we used to have public hangings in this country within 24 hours of arrest. If you got caught for serious crimes, even for nonviolent offenses like spying, that’s what would happen to you in the early days of this country. You’d be tried and executed in a very prompt and efficient fashion. We used to be able to recognize evil people and evil behavior and punish them. But that’s not happening anymore. Why is that? That’s the question that really needs to be answered at this point. So let’s answer it. We’ll start by taking a look at the judge who just let Lawrence Reed out of prison back in August, after he slapped a social worker so hard that he knocked her unconscious, cut the cornea of her eye, bruised her optic nerve, caused a concussion, and chipped her tooth. I’m talking about Cook County Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez. Credit: Supreme Court of Illinois/Facebook Three months ago, following this assault, prosecutors requested that Molina-Gonzalez keep Lawrence Reed in prison, because by that point, he had already racked up more than 70 arrests and 15 convictions. And he was clearly a danger to everyone around him. Prosecutors told the judge, “The defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of, especially this victim, whoever else was working in the hospital that day, and the community as a whole.” Electronic monitoring, the prosecutor said, “could not protect the victim or the community from other vicious, random, and spontaneous attacks.” But the public defender’s office disagreed. They told the judge, “Mr. Reed needs services, he does not need to be incarcerated for being mentally ill and acting in accordance with his mental illness.”  That’s an argument that’s worth repeating. “He does not need to be incarcerated for being mentally ill and acting in accordance with his mental illness.” In other words, no matter what horrible things Lawrence Reed does, he shouldn’t be incarcerated, as long as his behavior is consistent with some “mental illness.” According to the public defender’s office, the safety of the public is irrelevant. What matters, in their view, is whether a psychiatrist is willing to write you a get-out-of-jail free card. This case is yet more evidence of what I’ve argued for a long time, namely that two of the greatest dangers to our country are, one, the psychiatry industry, and, two, liberal female judges. When these two monstrosities come together, you end up with horrors beyond all comprehension, like women burned alive on public transportation.  The judge, according to court transcripts, sided with the public defender. Judge Molina-Gonzalez told prosecutors, “I can’t keep everybody in jail because the state’s attorney wants me to, but I understand and respect your position.” She then told Lawrence Reed to stay away from the hospital where he had beaten the social worker unless he had “a medical emergency.” And then she told him that he’d need to wear an electronic monitoring device, “because of your ridiculous criminal history and lengthy criminal history.” Yes, in court, the judge described Lawrence Reed’s criminal history as “ridiculous.” And yet, despite that finding, she released him from jail. And the so-called “electronic monitoring” was completely useless, because she allowed him to leave his home for 40 hours each week, completely unsupervised. To be clear, this ruling would be totally indefensible if she had put him on indefinite house arrest and said he couldn’t leave his home unless he needed to buy groceries or something. That would still endanger the public to an insane degree. But she didn’t even do that. She imposed basically no restrictions at all. Credit: Case Western Reserve University So who is Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez, exactly? What’s her judicial philosophy? How did she become a judge in the first place? These are questions that no one seems interested in answering. But they’re important to answer, because judges like this are the root of the problem. They need to be exposed and removed from office. And in order to do that, we need to understand how she rose to power. In this case, you don’t need to look far. The official website of the Illinois court system recently published an interview featuring Judge Molina-Gonzalez. And during this interview, she was asked, “When you reflect on your career, what accomplishment are you most proud of?” Now, if you’re a judge, and you hear that question, a good answer might be, “I apply the law fairly,” or, “I uphold the rule of law,” or “I’ve kept the public safe by sentencing violent offenders to prison instead of letting them loose immediately after they nearly kill a social worker,” or something along those lines. After all, that’s the reason we have judges. But Judge Molina-Gonzalez didn’t respond that way. Instead, she said: Credit: IllinoisCourts.gov “The accomplishment that I am most proud of in my career is being the first Puerto Rican judge ever appointed and elected to a countywide judicial position in Cook County. …  As an attorney who was in court nearly every day of my career, I never once had the opportunity to step up before a Latina judge. Now, I am proud to say that so many other Latinas are becoming judges and am excited about a judiciary that actually represents all of the community.” To translate that, she’s not proud of anything she’s done during her career. She has accomplished absolutely nothing. She’s proud of being from Puerto Rico and of infiltrating the United States judiciary. That’s it. On so many levels, it’s hard to even comprehend the mindset of someone who would give an answer like this. Productive, useful people don’t consider their ethnicity to be an accomplishment.  But for this judge, it’s the only “accomplishment” that’s worth mentioning, apparently. And it’s not a great mystery how she became a judge, either. In this interview, she credits another Hispanic woman with two last names — “Mercedes Luque-Rosales” — with jump-starting her career in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. She made a connection with “Mercedes,” and then, one way or another, managed to get hired at a time when 97% of applicants were rejected. Presumably, she was hired based on merit and competence, and definitely not her ethnicity, which is the one thing she’s proud of in life. It’s worth going into detail on this judge’s background because, at this point, these judges need to be removed from power, one way or another. Impeachment doesn’t seem to be viable, since we’ve been calling for judges to be  impeached for six months now. But there is an alternative solution that could actually be productive, which is to change sentencing law, so that judges don’t have any discretion in sentencing anymore — or, at a minimum, so that they don’t have discretion in sentencing repeat offenders anymore. The catch is that, not too long ago, we used to have laws like this. You probably remember them. They were called “3-strikes laws.” And they used to be overwhelmingly popular, even in states like California. In fact, in the mid-90s, California passed the strictest three-strikes law in the country. A third felony meant a mandatory term of life imprisonment. But almost immediately, the law was watered down — not by voters, but by judges. Within just a couple of years, the California Supreme Court invented the idea of a “Romero motion,” where defendants could petition the court to forgive a strike, as long as forgiveness was “in the interests of justice.” So the voters made it very clear that they wanted a 3-strike system, which by definition is not a 4-strike system. The voters wanted to prevent judges from releasing habitual criminals. And then the judges just returned the power to themselves. What happened in California is that a defendant named Jesus Romero was charged with possessing 0.13 grams of cocaine, after having been convicted for residential burglary and attempted residential burglary. So prosecutors thought they had a slam dunk on their hands. This would be Romero’s third strike, and he’d go to prison for 25-to-life, automatically. But the judge thought that would be an unjust outcome, on the theory that it’s wrong to get such a harsh sentence for narcotics possession. So he told the defendant he could plead guilty, in exchange for the judge dismissing one of his strikes. And somehow the California Supreme Court upheld this arrangement. Of course, the big problem with the logic here is that the defendant voluntarily possessed the narcotics after he had already committed two serious felonies and been convicted for them. So he had already committed two crimes, either one of which, by itself, should’ve resulted in a sentence of 25-to-life, in a sane society. He robbed people in their homes. And then, after those convictions, he was on notice that any additional felony convictions would mean a 25-to-life sentence. He knew the risk he was taking by committing another crime. And yet somehow, he still lacked the impulse control to refrain from breaking the law one more time. He just couldn’t help himself. That is not someone you want to share a society with, under any circumstances. He’s failed a test that no worthwhile citizen would ever fail. But California’s Supreme Court disagreed. So almost immediately, the 3-strikes law was watered down.  And then the propaganda began. Corporate media outlets complained about criminals who were supposedly being sentenced to life imprisonment for relatively minor offenses, like stealing golf clubs. So California voters changed the law again, so that the third strike has to be a violent felony. And then they changed the law once more, to reclassify many felonies (including drug-related felonies) as misdemeanors, so they wouldn’t count as strikes. To this day, California’s three-strikes law is still being weakened by the courts. There was a ruling a few months ago by the California Supreme Court that prevents some gang-related crimes from counting as strikes. In Illinois, where Bethany MaGee was attacked on the train by a man with 72 arrests and 15 convictions, there was a similar trajectory for the state’s equivalent of a three-strikes law, which is supposed to punish so-called “habitual offenders” with increased sentences. Illinois has had a habitual offender law on the books for many decades now, since the ’70s. But obviously, habitual offenders aren’t actually being punished with any meaningful sentence, if they can get convicted 15 times, knock someone unconscious, and then get out of prison immediately. So how did that happen? As it turns out, four years ago, the so-called “SAFE-T Act” was signed into law by Illinois’ rotund governor, JB Pritzker. This was part of sweeping “criminal justice reforms,” as Democrats called them. One of the reforms was to abolish cash bail, which has led to 75% of defendants simply skipping their first court date, since there’s no financial penalty for doing so. That includes violent offenders. Yes, because of an act that supposedly provides for public “safety,” 3 out of every 4 criminals in Illinois have simply stopped showing up to court. But in addition to that great innovation, with the SAFE-T Act, Illinois lawmakers also modified how habitual offenders are treated. And one of the big changes is that defendants, regardless of how many crimes they’ve committed, are entitled to “pre-trial fairness,” as the law puts it. And in practice, that means they’re entitled to go free, as long as they promise to wear an ankle monitor. The judge has total discretion to let a criminal — any criminal — walk right out of the courthouse, as long as he wears an electronic monitoring device. That’s led to situations like this one, from this summer, where a lunatic held up a federal courthouse for nine hours — only to be released immediately. Watch: SAFE-T Act: because nothing says ‘public safety’ like freeing the guy who locked down a federal building for nine hours. pic.twitter.com/rqHTSE4foA — Jen (@IlliniJen) August 21, 2025 Credit: @illiniJen/X.com Imagine being one of the SWAT guys on that call. A federal courthouse downtown is being held hostage by a deranged criminal with a knife. You bring out the armored vehicle and shut down the entire block. They had to evacuate the entire 30-story building because of this. Operations at the courthouse are suspended. And after an entire day, around 8 PM, you finally take him into custody. And then the judge lets him out, a few hours later, as long as he wears a bracelet. “It’s okay,” the judge says. “His sister is going to make sure he doesn’t cause any more trouble!” It’s actually astonishing, and I don’t say that lightly. This is the kind of punishment a child might receive in an elementary school after he cheated at hopscotch. And thanks to “criminal justice reform,” that’s how Illinois treats literal terrorists. One point that needs to be made here, now that I think of it, is that  Lawrence Reed almost certainly had far more than 72 arrests and 15 convictions before he lit that woman on fire on the train. Those are just the arrests and convictions that we know about. Almost certainly, he had many more arrests (as a juvenile) that have been sealed or expunged. We have no idea. And on top of that, how many times have police officers detained him, without any charges being filed? Again, no one has any idea. But we can assume it’s happened a lot. Credit: @hooyah85/Grant/X.com But as it stands, even the official numbers are staggering. The man who killed Iryna Zarutska on the light rail had more than a dozen prior arrests. The man who killed Logan Federico as she slept had 39 prior arrests. At what point do we do what Bukele did and say, enough is enough? This isn’t actually a difficult problem to solve. We could turn Chicago into a utopia within a year, if we wanted to. All you have to do is take every violent criminal and put them in a cage forever, or kill them (lawfully). That’s how you have a civilized, safe society. There is no other way. It is the only way. Period. In Chicago, someone is shot every 4 hours, and murdered every 19 hours. Already this month, there have been 24 homicides, and 124 total shooting victims. By the end of the day, those numbers will almost certainly be higher. In response to these numbers and to the attack on the train last week, JB Pritzker has suggested that he’s open to revising the SAFE-T Act in some way. But revisions aren’t enough at this point. We need laws — ideally, at the federal level — that strip judges of all discretion when it comes to repeat offenders. And unlike the three-strikes laws of the 90s, these laws need to prevent judges from clawing back any of that power. But most of all, we need to see some kind of meaningful professional consequences for judges who let violent criminals go free. The alternative is judicial tyranny, and the elimination of civil liberties for all Americans — because, after all, if we can’t go out in public without a reasonable fear that a violent habitual felon is going to shank us, or pour gasoline on us and then light us on fire, then we have no civil liberties at all. The first conservative lawmaker in Congress to propose some kind of solution to our rogue judiciary will also be the first conservative lawmaker in Congress, this entire year, to propose a genuine, meaningful improvement in the lives of all Americans. Before any more young women are killed or maimed for the crime of going outside in a major American city, and before any more Republicans resign from Congress, it’s time we heard some of those proposals.

The ShamWow guy wants to clean up his biggest mess yet: the woke Left. Offer Vince Shlomi, who is best known as the ShamWow infomercial host, filed Friday to run for Congress in Texas as a Republican. “ShamWow” is even listed as part of Shlomi’s official name in the filing records. “I’m the ShamWow guy,” Shlomi told The Daily Wire. “You want a boring politician or an exciting one?” Shlomi said he was inspired to run after Charlie Kirk was killed. “I feel called to stand on my beliefs and make real change in this world in his honor,” Shlomi said. “Charlie Kirk stood for what he believed in and entered himself into the fight, but more powerfully, he encouraged others to do the same.” Shlomi admired the way Kirk stood up against “wokeism.” “I see kids who are happy, and as they get older, they’re unhappy because they’re being subjected to wokeism.” Shlomi thinks social media algorithms play a big role in that wokeism, something he vows to change if elected. “Google, YouTube, and all social media companies need their codes to be open source,” Shlomi said. “The algorithms need to be fair and transparent, not biased. Google and YouTube suppress conservative views on [their] platforms and discriminate [against] anything that ridicules their woke ideology.” Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. The 61-year-old is running against incumbent John Carter, as well as five other candidates looking to represent Texas’ 31st District, which covers parts of Austin, Temple, and Fort Hood. Shlomi’s campaign slogan is “Soak the Swamp.” An ode to ShamWow, the super-absorbent cleaning cloth that Shlomi made a name selling. The ShamWow commercials played throughout the early 2000s. “I mean, I took a rag and made millions.” The entrepreneur said his “rags to riches” experience with ShamWow makes him a natural fit for Congress. “I am a great salesman, they say I’m the GOAT at pitching. I should be a Congressman, pitching bills that improve the Texas 31st constituents’ lives. I’m not a polished politician, but I wasn’t polished when I was the pitchman either — and that’s why you loved me.” His reputation needed a ShamWow cleanup after an incident with an alleged hooker in Miami back in 2009. Shlomi was arrested for aggravated battery after getting into a fight with a woman at a Miami hotel. Per an NBC News report, Shlomi struck the woman with his fists after she bit his tongue and wouldn’t let go. Prosecutors didn’t press charges. “I was defending myself, and the public needs to know that,” Shlomi said. “It turned into a comedic story and sparked tons of rumors. I own up to the fact that I shouldn’t have put myself there.” ShamWow Shlomi has a year to wipe out his competition for Congress. Election Day is in November 2026.

The idiots are back at it again