Democrats are in a position to make it easier for healthcare professionals to help people kill themselves after securing new trifectas in six states following the 2026 midterms.

In 2025, one out of 215 deaths in Hawaii was the result of ingesting lethal drugs prescribed under the state’s 2019 assisted suicide law, the National Right to Life Committee stated in a Friday press release. Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin could join Hawaii and the 13 other U.S. jurisdictions that legalized assisted suicide if newly empowered Democrats revive past efforts during the next sessions of the state legislatures they now control.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Live Action, SBA Pro-Life America, Students for Life of America, and multiple other pro-life organizations for comment.

This isn’t just happening in Canada. Assisted suicide is legal in 13 U.S. States.

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 21, 2026.

Arizona

Republicans controlled the Arizona House of Representatives since 1968, and the state senate since the early 1990s, PBS News reported. Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, who defeated Republican Rep. Andy Biggs, a former House Freedom Caucus chairperson, on Nov. 3, vetoed 540 bills passed by the state legislature during her first term.

Hobbs, however, may soon sign a lot more bills into law now that Democrats flipped both chambers of the state legislature, winning 20 of the state senate’s 30 seats and at least 37 of the state house’s 60 seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

HB 2569 was introduced Jan. 20 to legalize assisted suicide for terminally-ill adults in the state. While it died in committee, Democratic state representative Oscar De Los Santos — one of the its co-sponsors — became speaker-elect after the midterms.

Michigan

Democratic Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson will enter the governorship with more power than her predecessor, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, after her party flipped the state house and held the state senate in the 2026 midterms. Democrats expanded their majority from 20 to 23 of the state senate’s 38 seats. They also netted 11 seats in the state house, securing 63 of its 110 seats.

HB 5825 and HB 5828 (the Death with Dignity Act) were introduced April 21 to legalize assisted suicide for mentally capable adults who are believed to have up to six months to live. Both bills have since been stalled in the Committee on Government Operations.

Minnesota

The Democratic governor-elect of Minnesota, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, is similarly sweeping into power after Democrats flipped the state house and held the state senate.

Democrats expanded their majority from 34 to at least 39 of the state senate’s 37 seats. They also broke the state house’s 67-67 split by netting at least 10 seats as of Saturday’s writing.

HF 2998 and SF 3215 were introduced in April with similar requirements to Michigan’s Death with Dignity Act, but did not meet the committee crossover deadlines in time for the state legislature’s May adjournment.

Minnesota state representative Jamie Long was elected House majority leader while state senator Erin Murphy was elected Senate majority leader, Bring Me The News reported Nov. 6. Long co-sponsored HF 2998. Murphy co-sponsored SF 3215.

Nevada

Democratic Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford defeated Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo with nearly 52% of the midterm vote. Additionally, Democrats expanded their majorities in both the state senate and state assembly.

Nevada Democrats attempted legalizing assisted suicide twice under Lombardo’s administration. He vetoed SB 239 in June 2023 and also said April 4, 2025, he would veto AB 346, which was introduced March 3, 2025, KLAS 8 News Now reported. However, it died after the state legislature adjourned the following month.

“End of life decisions are never easy,” Lombardo wrote in his veto statement of their first attempt. “Individuals and family members must often come together to face many challenges — including deciding what is the best course of medical treatment for a loved one. Fortunately, expansions in palliative care services and continued improvement in advanced pain management make the end-of-life provisions in SB239 unnecessary.”

Pennsylvania

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro won reelection against Republican State Treasurer Stacy Garrity with over 60% of the vote. Democrats also expanded their majority in the state senate by three seats and flipped the state house by winning at least 111 of its 203 seats.

In April 2025, both HB 1109 and SB 570 (the Compassionate Aid in Dying Act) were referred to their respective chamber’s judiciary committee, where they have since remained. The state legislature adjourns Nov. 30.

Wisconsin

Democratic Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley defeated Republican Wisconsin Rep. Tom Tiffany in the 2026 race for the governor’s mansion with 54% of the vote. Democrats also flipped both the state senate and state assembly.

SB 1114 (the Our Care, Our Options Act) was introduced March 12 to grant mentally capable terminally ill adults assisted suicide access with a 15-day waiting period. It died after the state legislature adjourned March 23.

Wisconsin state senators Mark Spreitzer and Dianne Hesselbein are poised to become senate president and senate majority leader, respectively, WisPolitics reported Nov. 10. Both were among the bill’s co-sponsors.

Roughly six-in-ten Americans indicated physician-assisted suicide is either morally acceptable (34%) or not a moral issue (29%), compared to 35% who believe it’s morally wrong, according to a Pew Research survey conducted in May 2025. Among those who identified with Republicans, 51% did not consider the policy to be a moral issue, along with 76% of those who identified with Democrats. In contrast, 48% of Republican-identifying respondents and 23% of Democratic-identifying respondents viewed the policy as morally wrong

Spencer Lombardo, Daily Caller

Barely a week after the midterm elections, Democrats are debating how to turn newfound support among young men into a lasting coalition, while Republicans are trying to understand why the group abandoned them so decisively.

An estimated 59% of men ages 18 to 29 voted for Democratic ​US House of Representatives candidates, compared with 37% for Republicans, according to Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. That marked a sharp reversal from 2024, when AP VoteCast found young men ‌backing President Donald Trump over Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by 14 points, 56% to 42%.

That rapid shift has made young men one of the most influential and unpredictable voting blocs in American politics, with both parties viewing them as critical to winning the White House in 2028.

Democratic Party operatives are wasting no time looking for ways to sustain their gains. At a conference on the party’s future in Denver last week, one session examined strategy for winning over younger voters, under the title: “What we are still getting wrong about Gen Z.”

Republicans have yet to conduct a formal postmortem, but party strategists and activists are already ​calling for an end to the unpopular war in Iran and measures to bring down the cost of living, according to interviews with five party officials and strategists.

“No party owns them,” said John Della Volpe, director of polling at ​Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, arguing Democrats could keep some, if not all, of their gains if they deliver tangible policy results. “It will clearly swing.”

Nathan Layne, Reuters

WWIII will start at home.

J.B. Shurk | November 14, 2026 American Thinker

The wars to come will ultimately pit freedom-loving peoples of many nations against the architecture of the State — composed of the bureaucratic Leviathans at the national and international level, taxpayer-funded news organizations, and the broad spectrum of so-called “non-governmental organizations” whose budgets and personnel nonetheless come directly from government agencies (including foreign and domestic covert intelligence services). 

The present War in Ukraine is a throwback to a time that no longer exists — one in which borders meant something.  Consider how strange it is to have the European Commission’s unelected President Ursula von der Leyen, the European Union’s boisterous cheerleaders from France and Germany, and the leftist-globalist leaders of residual nations, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, all clamoring about the sanctity of Ukraine’s eastern border, when these various proponents of supranational and international institutions all denounce the nation state as outdated, fascist, and downright yucky.

As Spain has recently demonstrated with its open borders policy of flooding Europe with North Africans, the E.U. is a borderless schizo-continent.  Forty years ago, the European Economic Community suckered member states into relinquishing sovereignty over their borders with the first iteration of the Schengen Agreement, and Brussels has used that jurisdictional battering ram as the camel’s nose under the tent to incite unlawful mass migration from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. 

Likewise, Canada has huge immigrant populations from India and China.  The United Kingdom grants settlement or citizenship to a fresh-off-the-boat foreigner every single minute, and the number of “boat migrants” who have been resettled into taxpayer-funded digs over the last two years alone is larger than the number of soldiers in the entire British Army. 

Now that Democrats have control over the state governments of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, they will work with their open-borders friends (and Americans’ enemies) in D.C.’s Uniparty to continue the carnage of the Biden presidency, during which the senile, old git resettled twenty million foreigners across the United States. 

It is preposterous for Western leaders to cry about Ukrainian sovereignty when they have abandoned any pretense of defending their own nations’ borders.  Large parts of the populations of Crimea and the Donbas region identify more with Russia than with Ukraine, but the same meddlesome European Commission whose agents canceled Romania’s presidential election when the “wrong” candidate won (a so-called “Euroskeptic,” egad!) insist that “democracy” exists only when territories bow down to the royal edicts of Brussels Eurocrats.

Fighting over the geographical boundaries of Ukraine when the European Union wishes to dissolve Europe’s national boundaries will succeed in getting a lot of boys and men killed for no purpose greater than the vanity of empire-builders and piss-poor students of world history.

I find it remarkable that the British government is prepping citizens to fight WWIII against the Russian Federation when the United Kingdom looks nothing as it did at the turn of the century.  White native Brits have disappeared from the cities, and much of the kingdom has been handed over to third-world immigrants who despise everything about their new home’s history, traditions, and beliefs. 

The British Army keep telling the white population (whose ancestors have called the islands home for a thousand or more years) that they will be conscripted to fight a great war within one thousand days, and the white population (who are quickly becoming a minority in their own kingdom) keep telling the British government that they would rather fight the foreign invaders (and their aiders and abettors within the State) than send their sons and daughters (yes, girls will be sacrificed in the years ahead for the “glory” of the globalist ruling class) off to die in drone-exploding trenches. 

Why would native Brits die for a nation that no longer exists?  From their perspective, the Muslim rape gangs who were never punished for raping hundreds of thousands of British girls clearly have more power than the average white Brit.  If the Islamists wish to protect their newly conquered British Isles in some future war, the mosques should send their jihadis off to do the fighting. 

It is truly bizarre to hear the globalist politicians in D.C., London, Ottawa, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels speak about coming conflicts as if the world that they are constructing is worth preserving. 

These are not things for which sane people will lay down their lives. 

We fight to protect our families, homes, neighbors, communities, and countries. 

The globalist governments that have taken over Western nations insist that they own our children and may “trans” them without our consent.  They tax our homes every year, making it impossible to ever completely “own” anything.  They resettle foreign invaders into our tight-knit communities and call us “racists” and “bigots” because we prefer to have neighbors who speak our language and share our religion.  They refuse to enforce national borders and replace the people whose families built the West with third-world peoples who do nothing but exploit the West.  

Why would I fight for the European Union, Canada’s Chinese vassal state, Britain-istan, or D.C.’s imperial Deep State?  These cabals offer a vision for the future that is no better than Vladimir Putin’s strongman-controlled Russia or Xi Jinping’s one-party-controlled communist China.  Speaking of China, why is it that European and American globalists bend over backwards to play nice with Xi and his totalitarian police state while taking the juvenile step of banning Russian athletes from international competitions?  How can European and American globalists pretend to have any legitimacy when it comes to the so-called battle between “authoritarianism” and “democracy” when they partner with authoritarians all over the world — just not Russia’s.

America’s Founding Fathers had it right.  Governments are never the solution; they are always the problem.  Both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution express the Founders’ firm belief that neither governments nor officeholders can be trusted to do what is right. 

If they believed that political leaders were inherently good, the Constitution would be much shorter: Put the most ethical, moral, capable man in charge of the government.  Instead, they created an extremely limited federal government, constrained its powers except for those specifically delineated, divided it into three branches, and included checks and balances meant to keep the branches competing against each other.  If the Constitution were a “bottom line up front” memo, its principal conclusion would state at the top: Governments are always corrupt.

Globalist governments believe that Western citizens can be pressured into fighting WWIII.  I think WWIII will be fought between Western citizens and globalist governments.

Image: Pashi via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

Related Topics: Globalism, World War III

View & Add Comments50

About the Author

J.B. Shurk

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p&gba_gb.element.platform=other

Advertisement

This Sciatica Discovery is Leaving Spine Specialists SpeechlessSmoothSpine

MD Nerve Pain (Neuropathy) After 50 Comes Down to 1 ThingHeartland Health Journal

Advertisement

Around the web

Advertisement

These AI Hearing Aids Adapt Before You Touch a Buttonhear.com

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)Health Weekly

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Why is This Winter Bucket Hat So Charming?Yifare

Electricians: The Mistake That Doubles Your Electricity BillGadgethome

Dermatologist Begs Women With Thin Hair to Use This Household ItemNoor

Neuropathy Warning: Do This 1 Thing Tonight Before Foot Numbness Turns PermanentHeartland Health Journal

Why Pay for 3 Pairs of Glasses When One Does The Job?Yifare

23 Cool Gadgets Selling out This MonthConsumer Trail

The Missing Nutrient Behind Thin HairNoor

Side Sleepers: Try The Ritz Carlton Pillow Trick for Neck PainThe Sleep Digest

Philadelphia: The Dragon Mug That Changes Color With Every Hot PourYifare

Trending

Advertisement

AI is Now Inside Hearing Aids. Here’s What Changedhear.com

Neurologist: 97% of People With Neuropathy Don’t Know This Crucial ThingHeartland Health Journal

This Cozy Bucket Hat is Made for Cold-Weather StyleYifare

Why Display One Christmas Decoration When You Can Have a Whole Village?Yifare

Most ReadLast 24hrsLast 48hrsLast 7 Days

1

They will mess with Texas

J.R. Dunn | November 14, 2026

2

Jensen Huang And The Vicious Dwarves

Clarice Feldman | November 15, 2026

3

Needed: A World War Against Globalism

J.B. Shurk | November 14, 2026

4

AWFLs Under The Microscope

Armando Simon | November 13, 2026

5

The Problem With The ‘Great Replacement’

Jay Rogers | November 14, 2026

Top ContributorsLast 7 DaysLast 30 Days

Amil Imani

It Was A Coup

Allan J. Feifer

Total War Is About To Make A Comeback

Eric Utter

The second civil war is being waged, but Republicans are pretending not to notice

Vince Coyner

The 2026 Election: The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

Silvio Canto, Jr.

The Texas governor’s election is a little suspicious

SponsoredX

This Drugstore Cream Has Women Canceling Appointments

Always Rushing to Pee? Urologists Reveal What’s Really Behind It

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)

Electricians: The Mistake That Doubles Your Electricity Bill

Thinning Hair After 50? Biotin Isn’t The Answer. This is

The Winter Bucket Hat That Makes Cozy Look Chic

HOMEARCHIVESCARTOONSSUBMISSIONSABOUTRSS SYNDICATIONPRIVACY POLICYCONTACTDONATE

FOLLOW US ON

© American Thinker 2026null

Laws have force only to the extent that their legitimacy is recognized. The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Well, Marco Rubio has done it again. Just weeks after his extraordinary address in front of the Parthenon, he delivered a magnificent keynote address on November 13 at the Federalist Society’s annual national lawyers’ convention in Washington, D.C.

Coming so hard on the heels of the midterm elections—elections that were a disaster for Republicans—it is not surprising that Rubio began by reminding his audience that the fate of the Republic is not determined by a single election. He drew on the example of Ronald Reagan to make his point. In 1980, Reagan won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter. Reagan won 44 states to Carter’s six and took the Electoral College vote 489 to 49. Two years later, the country was courting a recession, and Reagan’s popularity seemed to be in a tailspin. “In less than a year,” Rubio noted, “the approval ratings of the Reagan administration had plummeted from . . . 68 percent down to 43 percent.”

By March of 1982, President Reagan was four points less popular than Jimmy Carter at the same point in his term. The economy had taken a nosedive. In fact, it faced a full-fledged recession. Unemployment was approaching double digits, the worst it had been in 40 years, with many, fairly or unfairly, blaming the president for all of this. Even his foreign policy ambitions were beginning to lose ground, with rising fears of nuclear war with Russia spilling out into a popular revolt against his efforts to take on the Soviet communism around the world.

Reagan lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm election. But even in the midst of that gloomy situation, the embers of renewal began to glow. As it happens, 1982 was the year that the Federalist Society was founded. Formed by a handful of conservative jurists, including Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, the organization was dedicated to reshaping the legal profession by “checking federal power, protecting individual liberty, and interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning.” Nineteen-eighty-two was also the year that Reagan’s economic policies began to bear fruit, sparking what would become the greatest generation of wealth in history. The electorate took notice. In 1984, Reagan resoundingly won his second term. He took 49 states to Walter Mondale’s one (plus the District of Columbia), 525 electoral votes to 13. As Rubio stressed, one of those lessons of that turnaround is that “politics requires more than simply winning elections.” Why? “[B]ecause the government is not the only source of political power.”

This is a key point.

Power also lives in the universities. Power lives in the press. Power lives in the whole expanse of civil society, all of the institutions that define and shape our understanding of ourselves as a nation and as a people. Every society . . . has an elite, has a ruling class. And in ours, that class resides not just in the White House, not just in Congress or the courts; it also resides in academia, in powerful nonprofits, and in nongovernment organizations. It resides in corporate boardrooms and C-suites and think tanks and journals, in foundations and in mass media, stretching across the commanding heights of business and education and culture.

One of Rubio’s greatest intellectual strengths follows from his understanding of the real, as distinct from the utopian or politically correct, metabolism of power: what it is and what legitimates it.

In a democratic society, elections are important. But they provide snapshots of a people’s needs and aspirations, not the living reality. Elections, Rubio sees, “do not decide by themselves what our institutions teach or what our lawyers believe, which ideas are treated as respectable or normal, and which are deemed beyond the pale. . . . Who defines these things and to what end—that is what power is.”

It is one of the great peculiarities of our time that success so often turns rancorous and self-consuming, laced through with unwarranted ecstasies of guilt and limitless cravings for expiation. Such are the fetters in which the marauders of Globalist, Inc., continually seek to capture the United States. Many in academia and its outposts in the media and the leftover Left have signed up for service in that brigade. But Rubio is having none of it. Consider, for example, his response to the International Criminal Court, a spurious entity whose jurisdiction the United States has never recognized.

When the Trump administration locates and destroys drug runners in the Caribbean, the wizards of the ICC say the U.S. is violating “international law.” When the U.S. extracts Nicolás Maduro from his pleasure palace in Caracas, the ICC gibbers about “crimes against humanity.” When the U.S. secures its own borders, seeking out and deporting illegal aliens, the ICC skirls impotently about our violating “human rights.” As Rubio points out, the “law” that the ICC propagates is “not a neutral body of rules.” On the contrary, it is “an instrument to advance their interests under the pretense of universal principles.”

For example, they’re staunch defenders of democracy—until particular elections challenge their interests. They lecture us on the importance of sovereignty even as they demand that nations surrender control of their borders and outsource their immigration laws to unelected international courts. They oppose, they say, all forms of imperialism, of conquest, of domination, but they seek to exercise authority over every country and every government on Earth.

Alert readers will note that this same song is being sung at home by activist judges who seek to “govern by injunction, twisting the law to fit whatever their preferences happen to be at any given place or time.” The bottom line, Rubio points out, is that for such people, American power is in itself an affront. For them, American success by definition is intolerable because it is American.

Until recently, the American response to such globalist complaints has been a muted, hangdog semi-acquiescence. But now, under President Trump, a more robust response is the order of the day. “There is nothing,” Rubio said, “in our history or the history of any other great nation that requires us to recognize the authority or legitimacy of any of these ridiculous ideas.”

Arguing against “the leveling and pessimistic spirit of the age,” “the menial consensus of the world,” Rubio offers a hymn to American boldness and ambition. “The ultimate question of our time,” he says, “is whether Americans have a moral right to exist as a distinct nation and a distinct people, and thus to demand a government that defends and pursues our interests above all else.”

Those who tell us that we are living on stolen land, as an example, that our nation was founded and built upon slavery and genocide and oppression, are telling us clearly that they do not believe that we do. They would have us think that America—and more broadly, that the West—are uniquely burdened by guilt, guilt that we can only atone for through total surrender—by opening our borders, by renouncing our laws, by retreating from the world, and allowing them to remake our society in their image.

One of my favorite parts of Rubio’s speech was when he noted that the ICC has threatened to arrest Americans abroad for violating some politically correct diktat or other. “They can certainly try,” Rubio acknowledges. But our response, he continues, is likely to be like that of the Roman general Pompey when Sulla sent him to Sicily to secure his hegemony over the Marian rebels there. Most cities capitulated. The Mamertines in Messana held out, citing an ancient Roman treaty (foedus) that limited the Romans’ jurisdiction over them. Pompey scoffed and said, “Won’t you stop quoting laws to us who gave swords girt about themselves?” (In Plutarch’s telling, οὐ παύσεσθε . . . ἡμῖν ὑπεζωσμένοις ξίφη νόμους ἀναγινώσκοντες;)

Rubio cheerfully acknowledged that his allusion to Pompey’s words was not politically correct. True enough. Rubio was also right that Pompey was uttering an uncomfortable truth. Was this just a “might-makes-right,” “How-many-divisions-does-the-Pope-have?” retort?

Not really. Rubio was not advocating the lawless exercise of force. The “laws” to which the International Criminal Court appeals are simply diktats that the United States has never recognized. A savage in Africa might say that his law allows him to boil and eat a missionary. A bureaucrat in Europe might say that his law allows him to incarcerate Americans who make fun of the EU, laugh at climate change fanatics, or point out that Islam is a murderous political ideology that is incompatible with modern secular democracy.

But laws have force only to the extent that their legitimacy is recognized. The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. The tertium quid to which Rubio appeals with his allusion to Pompey is that grown-up element that makes Karens of all sexes nervous: power. The ICC might meet, threaten, and stamp its feet. Exactly what is it going to do when facing the greatest military and economic power in history? Whine and bluster.

Besides, should the ICC decide to incarcerate service members or other government officials, there is plenty of legal cover for the use of military force. Consider 22 U.S. Code § 7427, “Authority to free members of the Armed Forces of the United States and certain other persons detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court.” That statute explicitly authorizes the president to employ “all means necessary and appropriate” to bring about the release “members of the Armed Forces . . . elected or appointed officials . . . , and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government,” as well as “military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally,” i.e., just about anyone. In any event, it is nice to know that the President has that statute in his back pocket in case he needs to send SEAL Team Six or Delta Force to storm The Hague.

The ICC can posture all it likes. A shorter translation of Pompey’s words might be “Pound sand.” That, in essence, is what Marco Rubio said about the ICC. I like to see such a forthright, masculine, realist parry. Rubio’s speech is a politically mature, patriotic masterpiece.

Roger Kimball, American Greatness

Top Connecticut Democrats accused President Trump on Friday of trying to rig the 2030 census.

Gov. Ned Lamont, Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) appeared with advocacy groups to warn that the administration’s new counting rules would leave roughly 250,000 state residents out of the tally used to divvy up U.S. House seats and federal funding.

“The 250,000 estimate appears to reflect the state’s non-citizen population that would fall outside the new apportionment base,” the Connecticut Centinal writes.

Huh. What a coincidence.

DeLauro, in particular, did not hold back, practically setting her peacock-purple plumage on fire. And in an irony to end all ironies, she called the census rules “illegal.”

Why? Because it includes the ol’ dreaded “citizenship question.” That’s right, in Gargamel’s world here, it’s illegal not to count illegals for a legal census.

“This is an effort by the Trump Administration to punish blue states and states with higher immigrant populations,” she said. “New York, California, New Jersey, yes, and Connecticut. Connecticut ranks 11th out of all 50 states for immigrant population.”

“This is an effort to rig the system, rob the American people of their right to be represented properly.”

It’s meant to right the wrongs of blue states with higher illegal immigrant populations, sure. I know you’re familiar with the word “illegal,” Rosa, since you used it just seconds before your buffoonish comments.

Oh, and when you analyze the supposedly nefarious scheme, you realize there is nothing terrible about it.

The Census Bureau’s September proposal would limit the count used for House seats and Electoral College votes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, according to the Associated Press. People in the country illegally, asylum seekers, and others without permanent status would not count toward congressional representation.

And the truth will set you free. In other words, the “rigging” is counting the people who actually live here legally when deciding how much power each state gets. This vile creature, along with the rest of her America-loathing party, wants to give criminal illegal aliens more representation in Congress.

Bysiewicz claimed Trump wants to “manipulate the census to give taxpayer funding and political power to the states that he favors.”

Catching onto the theme here? It isn’t even about whether those 250,000 people are properly represented. It’s about money and power, and specifically the money and power Connecticut Democrats, and their blue state sanctuary-loving colleagues, would lose.

Lamont and DeLauro even conceded the risk is bigger for New York and California than for their own state. The states that rolled out the welcome mat to their illegal alien base are the ones sweating the most.

That alone should tell you Trump is making the right call.

Here’s a fun fact: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D), who has filed comments opposing the rule, once said, “America runs on Dunkin and undocumented workers,” back in December 2024.

Democrats run on illegals; that’s obvious.

Rusty Weiss, Red State

“I don’t think we should play this game where the things we want have to be paid for and the things they want can be put on a credit card,” he said, referring to Republicans. “So I’m cautious about falling into that trap, but if we can find pay-fors, that’s even better.”

Democrats, who will have dozens of new members in January and comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate, are still figuring out their internal consensus, Neal said. They are eager to show that they can quickly deliver results that put money into people’s pockets and to demonstrate the differences between themselves and Trump.

They can use the one-party budget reconciliation process to get bills to Trump’s desk with simple majorities. They can clear the Senate filibuster with backing from a handful of Republicans—but Trump could veto such a measure. Or they can try to muster bipartisan supermajorities, particularly on tariff policy, to override Trump’s opposition. They may take different procedural paths and tax strategies with different bills.

Democrats expect to start the new Congress with a series of bills that would reverse policy changes that Republicans enacted in the “one big, beautiful bill” last year. That law imposed work requirements on Medicaid recipients and tightened food-stamp eligibility. Republicans also allowed the expiration of expanded subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act at the end of 2025. Trump has imposed a series of tariffs that raised consumers’ costs, so undoing them could address the affordability concerns that helped propel Democrats to victory.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is poised to be the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said he is open to paying for the party’s agenda but sounded wary of a hard-and-fast rule, especially after watching Republicans’ major legislation last year add to deficits.

“I don’t think we should play this game where the things we want have to be paid for and the things they want can be put on a credit card,” he said, referring to Republicans. “So I’m cautious about falling into that trap, but if we can find pay-fors, that’s even better.”

Democrats, who will have dozens of new members in January and comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate, are still figuring out their internal consensus, Neal said. They are eager to show that they can quickly deliver results that put money into people’s pockets and to demonstrate the differences between themselves and Trump.

They can use the one-party budget reconciliation process to get bills to Trump’s desk with simple majorities. They can clear the Senate filibuster with backing from a handful of Republicans—but Trump could veto such a measure. Or they can try to muster bipartisan supermajorities, particularly on tariff policy, to override Trump’s opposition. They may take different procedural paths and tax strategies with different bills.

Democrats expect to start the new Congress with a series of bills that would reverse policy changes that Republicans enacted in the “one big, beautiful bill” last year. That law imposed work requirements on Medicaid recipients and tightened food-stamp eligibility. Republicans also allowed the expiration of expanded subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act at the end of 2025. Trump has imposed a series of tariffs that raised consumers’ costs, so undoing them could address the affordability concerns that helped propel Democrats to victory.

Richard Rubin, Wall Street Journal

The problem originated at an FAA radio site in El Dorado, Arkansas, where a newly installed router flooded the network with excessive data traffic, disrupting communications between pilots and air traffic controllers, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“We saw two places that were actually pinging our network at a very high rate, a thousand connections over every four to five seconds,” Rebecca Guy, the FAA’s technology chief, said on Saturday.

The outage affected 17 of the FAA’s 22 high-altitude control centers, forcing officials to issue a nationwide ground stop.

More than 3,500 flights were grounded during the roughly five-hour shutdown.

Officials are investigating whether defective equipment or installation errors by contractor L3Harris caused the failure.

Another router in Amarillo, in the Texas panhandle, is also being eyed as contributing to the outage.

The FAA states that there was no evidence of a cyber attack.

A single malfunctioning FAA router in rural Arkansas appears to have caused the air travel chaos that grounded all flights across the US Friday, according to a new report.

The problem originated at an FAA radio site in El Dorado, Arkansas, where a newly installed router flooded the network with excessive data traffic, disrupting communications between pilots and air traffic controllers, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“We saw two places that were actually pinging our network at a very high rate, a thousand connections over every four to five seconds,” Rebecca Guy, the FAA’s technology chief, said on Saturday.

The outage affected 17 of the FAA’s 22 high-altitude control centers, forcing officials to issue a nationwide ground stop.

More than 3,500 flights were grounded during the roughly five-hour shutdown.

Officials are investigating whether defective equipment or installation errors by contractor L3Harris caused the failure.

Another router in Amarillo, in the Texas panhandle, is also being eyed as contributing to the outage.

The FAA states that there was no evidence of a cyber attack.

Ally Goelz, NY Post

Over the summer, Fetterman stated that he would be forced to take flight from the party if Democrats abandoned Israel.

‘If our party ever becomes — and just makes it official — the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me,’ he shared at an event.

Fetterman also noted at the time that his ‘long-term concern has been with the Democratic Party, as I am a member of that, is that our party is going to back away and turn their back to Israel.’

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman has once again reiterated that his party’s support for Israel is a key factor in whether or not he will remain a Democrat.

In his first interview since the midterm election earlier this month, Fetterman revealed that the election of Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland senator challenging Chuck Schumer for the job of majority leader, would see him reassess his party allegiances.

Speaking with Fox News anchor and former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on her show Saturday in America, Fetterman stated that he could walk away from his party if it continues a leftward shift.

‘It would be troubling if my caucus elects someone like Van Hollen that has really made his name being very anti-hostile to Israel, you know,’ Fetterman told McEnany.

Van Hollen is challenging current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for the top job in the upper chamber of Congress after Democrats decisively won back control of both chambers earlier this month.

In his interview on Saturday, Fetterman also suggested that, ‘If you are going to be angry or hostile towards any countries in the region, why not make that, you know, Iran or Hezbollah or Hamas as well too.’

The Pennsylvania Democrat has also stated that he doesn’t want his party to spend the next two years in ‘a circus of constant hearings’ about getting ‘payback’ on the Trump administration.

Van Hollen’s challenge to Schumer came earlier this week after he said he was considering a bid and after Schumer said he has the necessary support to win.

The party has privately deliberated about what message to take from the election, and Schumer recruited many of the party’s winning candidates and raised money for them.

Over the summer, Fetterman stated that he would be forced to take flight from the party if Democrats abandoned Israel.

‘If our party ever becomes — and just makes it official — the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me,’ he shared at an event.

Fetterman also noted at the time that his ‘long-term concern has been with the Democratic Party, as I am a member of that, is that our party is going to back away and turn their back to Israel.’

Nearly half of the Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted against providing aid to Israel, while 10 more of their colleagues voted ‘present’ on the measure back in July.

Last month, President Donald Trump said that he would love to see Fetterman join the Republican Party.

Nodding at the upcoming re-election fight Fetterman faces, Trump stated that it would be ‘hard’ for him to be nominated to the US Senate ‘as a Democrat,’ adding that he’d ‘love to have him as a Republican.’

Victoria Churchill, Daily Mail

Whenever conservatives control Congress, they’re cowards. They do nothing. Every Republican majority has missed opportunities. Trump was ready to defund programs Republicans had promised to defund for years, but they didn’t. Couldn’t even pass the SAVE America Act! Republicans only display backbone when in the minority. Republicans are losers, even when they win.

When leftists control Congress, they’re psycho. The Democratic Party now is literally psychotic. They will go crazy beyond anything ever seen. The silver lining is that crazy doesn’t foster respect. The gullible people who actually voted for Democrats thinking they could somehow accomplish lower prices through socialism will soon discover what the real priorities of Democrats are: censorship, gun confiscation, release of violent criminals, huge taxes, rationing, intimidation, conformity and the replacement of merit with pull and racial status.

It’s hard to get things done when you’re psychotic and when most of the people who voted for you are not psychotic, just gullible. Expect a lot of chaos and instability the next two years. Beyond that? Anybody’s guess.

*******

A Honduran illegal alien accused of attempting to enter the cockpit of a United Airlines flight after allegedly claiming to have a bomb had previously been deported from the United States twice, the Dept. of Homeland Security confirmed to Fox News.

Rony Alexander Gomez-Alberto was arrested by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office after United Airlines Flight 2174 landed at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport after a frightening midair disturbance Monday night.

The suspect allegedly claimed to have a bomb during the flight, prompting the pilots to issue a reported hijacking alert, according to the Daily Mail. DHS separately confirmed that Gomez-Alberto was accused of attempting to enter the cockpit.

This is why we need borders. Unfortunately, the borders will soon be opening again, especially in Texas, so we can expect more violent thugs to enter the country, and be supported by taxpayers while they murder Americans. I wonder how many of the frightened people on this plane voted for Democrats last week, and I wonder if they realize they are asking for this treatment.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The government-run air traffic control system is a metaphor for everything. It has been falling apart for decades. Nothing was done — because when government runs anything, nobody is accountable. Elections and parties are a joke, as we can plainly see. It’s the same old story — Big Government sets out to do something like Amazon.com or Tesla. It will never happen. Trump happens to be in office. He will shoulder all of the blame.

Capitalism will get the rest of the blame. Gullible millions will agree, and respond by tripling down in favor of the socialist air traffic control and socialist airports; and then demand socialism for everything else. Most Americans want free market results produced by a totally unaccountable, unimaginably corrupt and incompetent government. Socialism in airports, education, medical care will continue to rain death and despair on us all — and then the ignorant fools victimized by it will simply scream for more.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason