James Carville slammed for vulgar ‘used condom’ remarks on Rep. Haley Stevens endorsing GOP candidate over Dem Abdul El-Sayed

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville was slammed for disgustingly comparing Michigan Dem Rep. Haley Stevens to a “used condom” after she endorsed Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over lefty candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

Carville said Stevens wasn’t even worth a used condom to Democrats after she broke with the party days before Election Day and sold her soul to the GOP for “two cheeseburgers” in his vulgar remarks Sunday.

“But your political career is over … if you think that these Republicans are gonna treat you as anything other than what they view you as, and that is, let me just break the news to you: a used condom,” Carville said Sunday in an episode of the podcast, Politicon.

“The Democrats don’t even think you’re worth a used condom, but that’s about where you are,” said Carville, 82.

The longtime Dem strategist ended the rant by saying that Stevens should look into opening a cheeseburger restaurant with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who similarly crosses his party’s lines.

“Questioning her motives is fair game. But the sexist vitriol she is receiving for endorsing the wrong candidate is disgusting,” one user said.

Carville was fired up after Stevens endorsed Rogers two days before the midterm election, following a public falling-out with El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee, whom she lost to by 1 percentage point.

The Dem strategist’s stomach-turning comments sparked backlash among Republicans on social media as clips surfaced online.

“Never seen anything like the anti-woman crash out going on rn. Wow,” wrote conservative political commentator and strategist Scott Jennings on X.

“Where is GRAHAM PLATNER when we need him? This old bag of bones needs to be put away,” wrote actor Michael Rappaport.

Zoe Hussain, NY Post

“We take you down with us!” – Putin threatens mutually assured destruction

Today, the biggest news comes from Europe.

Putin warned Europe that a direct war with Russia would have no winners. Commenting on European preparations for a possible conflict with Russia by two thousand and thirty, he said Moscow is ready but does not want war. If they want to prepare, let them prepare. If the situation goes too far, there will be no winners at all, Putin said. With these remarks, Putin essentially threatened Europe with a nuclear war and mutually assured destruction.

What Putin is effectively saying is that Europe is preparing for a possible Russian attack, while Moscow continues to conduct hybrid warfare, threaten European countries, and test their defences through repeated provocations and incursions. Yet, when European countries respond by strengthening their militaries and preparing for the possibility of a conflict, Putin presents this as a dangerous escalation. His message is that Russia is ready for war, even though it supposedly does not want one, and that Europe should think twice before preparing to defend itself because a direct confrontation would end in mutual destruction. According to his logic, Russia can threaten Europe, undermine its security, and engage in increasingly aggressive behaviour, but Europe is warned that taking defensive precautions could trigger a catastrophe in which nobody survives. Even the reaction of the people sitting in the audience appeared particularly uncomfortable with what they were hearing, as Putin casually described a potential war with Europe in terms of mutual annihilation.

Because of the threat of a Russian attack, Europe is undergoing a major rearmament, driven by Russia’s war in Ukraine, doubts about long-term US security guarantees, and a push for greater strategic autonomy. This combines an EU-level package with large national programmes, which is how the total EU defence spending reached four hundred and eighteen billion euros in two thousand and twenty-five. Last year, Europe presented the Rearm Europe Plan, which aims to mobilise close to eight hundred billion euros overall for defence. Member states submit national defence investment plans focused on priority capabilities as part of this program. Additionally, Nato members agreed to spend five percent of GDP on defence and security by two thousand thirty-five, including three point five percent for their armed forces and up to one point five percent for areas such as infrastructure, cybersecurity and civil preparedness. For example, Germany will spend approximately one hundred and eight billion euros on defence this year, with annual spending expected to rise toward one hundred and fifty three billion euros by two thousand twenty nine. In Europe, priority is given to drones, long range strike capabilities, and air defence systems. The rearmament is based on lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, trying to implement the latest technological breakthroughs by the Ukrainian defense industry. Additionally, bunkers and defense lines are being built on the eastern flank of Europe, which are intended to slow down Russian forces if they launch a direct attack.

These preparations are needed because Russia has been conducting sabotage actions and provocations across Europe. Notably, Russia has disabled Starlink infrastructure in Poland and Bulgaria and attacked European defense factories in Estonia and Germany. Countless Russian drones have also crossed into Nato airspace in Romania and Poland, while some of them crashed as well. Russia has also been striking and sinking civilian ships in Nato countries’ territorial waters, such as Bulgaria. These violations test Nato’s response, force European governments to spend more on defence and increase the risk that a single incident could develop into a wider confrontation.

Overall, Europe faces a dangerous strategic dilemma because Moscow presents European rearmament as aggression while continuing to test the continent’s security. However, failing to prepare would leave European countries more vulnerable to Russian pressure, sabotage and military intimidation. Putin’s warning is intended to make Europe fear that strengthening its defences could help cause the war it wants to prevent. If that warning succeeds, Russia gains more room to threaten European countries without facing a strong response. Europe therefore needs credible deterrence that makes clear that any Russian attack would fail, while keeping communication open to prevent individual incidents from developing into a wider war.”

RFU News, Strategic Geopolitics

Antisemitism is on the Ballot

.


Antisemitism Is on the Ballot

The midterms will measure our collective immunity to an ageless hatred that destroys everything it touches.

Matthew Continetti

Oct 30, 2026

Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit on Oct. 24.
Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit on Oct. 24. Photo: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg News

At first glance, the 2026 election looks like any other midterm. The incumbent party is exhausted. The opposition is eager to rebuke an unpopular president. Economic concerns predominate. An electoral thumping seems inevitable. Check results from 2022, 2018, 2014, 2010 and 2006 for reference.

Under the surface, however, an ugly force is stirring in U.S. politics that makes this midterm campaign different. For the first time in generations, antisemitism has emerged from the shadows to influence American public life.

From Graham Platner to Abdul El-Sayed, from Hasan Piker to Tucker Carlson, antagonism toward Israel, “Zionists” and foreign intervention has morphed into fear and loathing of a minority that has lived peaceably and productively in this country for more than 300 years.

The results on Nov. 3 will be more than a gut check on Donald Trump’s presidency. They will measure our collective immunity to an ageless hatred that destroys everything it touches.

There is no single definition of antisemitism. Scholar Ruth Wisse defines it as the organization of politics against the Jewish people. Disagreeing with Israeli politicians or policy isn’t antisemitic, but there is a line beyond which opposition turns into obsessive, uncontrollable enmity. Former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician Natan Sharansky says criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic when it demonizes, delegitimizes or applies double standards to the Jewish state.

I follow the Justice Potter Stewart rule: I know antisemitism when I see it.

The Michigan grocery ad, for example. The one-minute spot depicts a married couple in a store aisle. As they review their shopping list, the wife tells her husband to return a carton of eggs to the shelf. Why? “We have to set that $7 aside,” she says. “For killing Palestinians.”

Message: Republican nominee Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and congressman, cares more about Israel than America. Mr. Rogers, the ad concludes, is for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Democrat Abdul El-Sayed is “for you.”

Produced by Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks—uncle of Hasan “America Deserved 9/11” Piker—the ad has been condemned for its accusations of dual loyalty, demonization of Israel, economic illiteracy and antisemitic tropes. Many Democrats, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.), rightly say it’s beyond the pale.

Mr. El-Sayed is the exception. According to a spokesman, “No one speaks for Abdul but himself and his campaign.” Glad that’s cleared up. Note, however, that the spokesman neither disagrees with the ad’s content nor suggests it be removed from circulation. The libel that food is expensive in Kalamazoo, Mich., because Jews divert U.S. taxpayer money to Be’er Sheva, Israel, is left untouched.

No surprise. Mr. El-Sayed has made opposition to the U.S.-Israel alliance central to his candidacy. This is a man who traffics in all three of Sharansky’s “D’s.” He demonizes Israel for committing a bogus “genocide” against Palestinians. He falsely charges Israel with apartheid while saying nothing about human-rights abuses in Iran. He refuses to say Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.

Mr. El-Sayed didn’t want to comment on the assassination of Iran’s dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, because “there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad” about his death. His flippant response to a failed terror attack on a synagogue and preschool was that “hurt people hurt people.” He implied during a recent debate that Israel and Iran are equal threats to the United States. He’s dodged questions about family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas.

Mr. El-Sayed’s radical candidacy might have been dismissed in previous election cycles as an outlier, a novel product of Michigan’s fervid college towns and sizable Arab and Muslim population. Not this year. Mr. El-Sayed is simply the most prominent—and perhaps the most vulnerable—representative of the anti-Israel and antisemitic bile flowing through the body politic in 2026. He has company.

Troy Jackson, the former Maine state senator who replaced Mr. Platner in July as the Democratic challenger to Republican Sen. Susan Collins, might not have Mr. Platner’s Nazi tattoo. But he shares Mr. Platner’s aggressive opposition to Israel. Mr. Jackson said in September that some Jewish Mainers refuse to call Israel’s war against Hamas a genocide “only because they’re Jewish.” He later apologized for the slur.

Messrs. El-Sayed and Jackson are running to join a Senate Democratic caucus that voted overwhelmingly in April to cut off aid to Israel. On the House side, the democratic socialist “Squad” is set to double in size next year. New members will include Melat Kiros, the Colorado congressional candidate who won’t say that last year’s firebombing attack on pro-Israel marchers in Boulder was antisemitic.

The terrorist, who shouted “Free Palestine,” killed an 82-year-old Jewish woman and injured a dozen people, including a Holocaust survivor. Ms. Kiros is still figuring out the assailant’s motive. “This was an attack that was specifically attacking Zionism and Israel,” she said on Oct. 21. No kidding. That’s what made it antisemitic—as is Ms. Kiros’s refusal to call anti-Jewish hate by its name.

Rising antisemitism isn’t only a problem for Democrats. No one who travels in Republican or conservative circles can have missed rising anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Jewish prejudice among young men. Republicans have been able to remove antisemitic figures such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) and block antisemitic candidates such as Dan Bilzerian, a social media personality who ran for a Florida House seat. Yet antisemitism persists online and on podcasts

They already are. Anti-Jewish attacks are the most common form of religious-based hate crimes, according to FBI data. Last year was the third-highest year on record for such crimes. This activity doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Efforts to delegitimize Israel wind up legitimizing hostility to Jews.

As Americans have soured on Israel, as elected officials such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have elevated anti-Zionism into a left-wing litmus test, as podcasters of all stripes invert the history of World War II and spread lies of a Jewish conspiracy, antisemitism has flourished on the street. Tongues wag. Bigots crow. Innocents pay the price.

In 2018 the late rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks spoke eloquently of how antisemitism corrupts society. First, antisemitism moves from the fringes to the center of a political party. Then, when a party sees it won’t be held accountable for antisemitic views, the virus gains strength. Finally, the opponents of antisemitism are vilified and punished for speaking out. “All three factors exist in Britain now,” Rabbi Sacks concluded.

America has crossed Sacks’s first threshold. Is it about to cross the second, where antisemites pay no price for slander?

The 2026 election will decide. Affordability comes and goes. Antisemitism is a permanent stain. “That is why I cannot stay silent,” Sacks said. “For it is not only Jews who are at risk. So too is our humanity.”

Mr. Continetti is a Free Expression columnist at WSJ Opinion.Subscribe

42 Likes∙

11 Restacks

A guest post by

Matthew Continetti

Matthew Continetti is a columnist for Free Expression and Wall Street Journal Opinion. He is the director of domestic policy studies and inaugural Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute.

Subscribe to Matthew

Discussion about this post

Todd Bolton

3d

Thank you for this

ReplyShare

Michael Mohr

3d

Fantastic essay.

ReplyShare

4 more comments…

Boomer Christianity Is Dying Fast

That generation’s political priorities were formed by an unusual historical moment. It’s over now.

Sep 23•Louise Perry

1,275

396

222

TV Audiences Binge On an England That Doesn’t Exist

It’s a fantasy version of society in which specific social ills are subsumed into the broader category of class division.

Sep 30•Louise Perry

557

181

68

Gone to Australia

I’m leaving the U.K. because things are bad there, and I expect them to get worse.

Jul 1•Louise Perry

443

205

49

Ready for more?

Subscribe

© 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved·Publisher Privacy∙Publisher Terms

Substack·Privacy∙Terms∙Collection notice

Start your SubstackGet the app

Substack is the home for great culturenull

The Purity Test That Broke Zohran Mamdani

I wonder whether Zohran Mamdani has ever read Shakespeare or sticks mainly to Karl Marx.

If he has ever dabbled in the Bard, he may know the idiom “hoist with his own petard.” In Hamlet, a petard was a crude medieval explosive used to blow open castle gates, and the unlucky engineer was the one launched skyward. That is precisely where this tard finds himself today, lifted by the very cause he weaponized, which now seeks to destroy him.

After the Marxist, maleficent, Muslim mayor of New York City ostentatiously attended an October 7 vigil mourning the Israelis slaughtered that day and the Palestinians killed in the war in Gaza that followed, he was berated, screamed at, and swarmed by his own supporters.

It was a richly delicious irony.

Fully masked Islamist men chased and threatened Hizzoner, essentially branding him a Zionist after loudly protesting the memorial in its entirety.

Honestly, where do these people find the time? If I have a rare evening off, I’m not spending it in New York’s chilly, grimy, nauseatingly loud streets, yelling at strangers through a scarf. But then again, I’m normal.

It didn’t matter to these deranged, daddy-issue-riddled delinquents that Mr. Mamdani looked as though he wanted to attach a suicide vest to himself throughout the ceremony. Nor did it matter that he was the sole invitee to decline a New York screening of the October 7 massacre footage Wednesday evening, opting instead for dinner at the only Palestinian restaurant on the Upper West Side after the vigil. By donating one hour of his life to a semi-Jewish-appearing cause and one sentence to the victims in an otherwise lengthy and pro-Hamas X statement, he earned himself the title of traitor.

There is zero room for error in the pro-Palestine movement. Deviate once from its nefarious expectations, and you’re branded a Zionist. And you’re out.

You can’t sit here anymore, Heather!

All the cool kids agree, starting with the queen bee of the Democratic Socialists of America, Hasan Piker, who complains that Mamdani didn’t offer enough “material concessions to the anti-zionist groups he made promises to while running,” and that the mayor has instead made concessions to Zionists. Ugh! I hate when this couple fights. I hope they can move past this relationship roadblock. Inshallah.

And their youthful useful idiots, who follow these baboons blindly into Babylon, are now parroting the same line.

This keffiyeh kid protester says there’s been a “shift against him in activist spaces.” I love when they say “spaces.” They have a million of them, each one simultaneously safe and aggrieved. P.S. If I ever proclaim I’m a member of a “space,” seek medical attention for me immediately.

The mini socialist, with the charming cleavage tattoo, goes on to say that the shift away from Mamdani is because the spaces have realized he is underperforming on Palestine, the NYPD, surveillance, and the overall protection that he was supposed to deliver to his dutiful cadre. It’s a shame. I, too, thought he would have jihaded the NYPD by now. Total letdown, amirite?

It’s gotta be difficult for this mayor, who has enjoyed the privilege of playing protester in his infinite free time for most of his young adult life, to face the real world, where you can’t simply scream into a microphone all day about the NYPD’s boot being laced by the IDF, or about a genocide that was apparently underway before Hamas ever invaded Israel. Instead, he has to pretend to be mayor for “all” New Yorkers, which means slipping on the “I don’t hate Jews” mask for five minutes. Even that was enough to poke the bear. It doesn’t matter how much he’s fed the bear. The bear will eat him.

He failed the litmus test he helped create, and now he will face the consequences. These people are binary: You’re with them, or you’re against them. And as far as they’re concerned, Mamdani just did the equivalent of donning a yarmulke and chanting from the Torah. He’s officially an establishment Dem. Old news. Washed up on the Democratic death beaches alongside House Minority Leader Hakeem (D-NY) Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Mamdani? Who even is that? Lost to obscurity, practically a footnote. Is he a Republican now? I forget. Scoot over, Mamdani, the DSA wants a REAL leader, someone like Piker! He flaunts the iconography of communist dictators who killed millions, forgives rapes against those he disagrees with, and would love to see capitalist blood run in the streets. A commie girl’s dream boy.

Mamdanimobster, you built this petard. You planted it at the gate. And now it will end you. Just as the Bolsheviks devoured the liberals, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries who cleared their path in 1917, Stalin devoured the Old Bolsheviks who had made him. Just as the Jacobins devoured the Girondins who helped topple the monarchy, the Terror devoured Danton, and finally Robespierre himself. Just as Khomeini’s Islamists devoured the leftists and Mojahedin who had marched beside them against the Shah.

The revolution does not do coalitions. It does purges. You’re no exception.

Chloe Trapanotto, Daily Wire

Hillary Clinton’s Midterm Pitch: Investigate Trump’s ‘Supporters and Allies.’ Buckle Up

Five days before the midterms, Hillary Clinton told Democrats what a new majority would do first. Not lower grocery bills. Not cheaper gas. Investigations.

On the Oct. 28 episode of High Stakes, the Vox Media podcast she co-hosts with Kara Swisher, Clinton predicted President Trump would soon face “a Democratic Congress trying to rein him in, hold him accountable, and investigate him, his administration, his family, his supporters and allies.” Then she added: “So buckle up. The election is just the beginning.” The remarks come at about the 1:12 mark of the episode, according to a published transcript and the Rothman Report’s account of the episode.

“His supporters”

Investigating an administration is Congress’s job, and Republicans did plenty of it under President Biden. But Clinton did not stop at the administration. She named Trump’s family, his “allies” and his “supporters.” More than 77 million Americans voted for Trump in 2024: 77,302,580, according to the Federal Election Commission’s official results. Clinton did not say which supporters she had in mind, or what they would be investigated for.

That vagueness is the problem. This is the same politician who said in September 2016 that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” according to Time. Now she is talking about a congressional majority that would go after the people around the president, five days before voters decide who controls the House. It is fair to ask whether “hold him accountable” means oversight or payback.

She also cited the idea from behavioral psychology that people “in what’s called the domain of loss” will “double down on risk,” and predicted Trump would “most likely launch more attacks on Iran.” She said Trump “has held Republicans hostage for a decade” and that the hostages would eventually decide to “take him on.”

Affordability as an afterthought

To be fair, Clinton did mention prices. She said Democratic leaders want to “start introducing legislation to deal with affordability” on day one, and she closed by calling affordability and corruption “the two big issues.” But in the same episode she named no specific bill on grocery prices, housing or energy. The investigations got the big line. The kitchen-table plan got a sentence.

Voters have seen this movie. After Democrats took the House in 2018, the next two years were dominated by the Russia probe, impeachment and subpoena fights. Clinton is telling voters, in her own words, to expect the sequel.

If Democrats want to win on the cost of living, they should lead with the cost of living. Promising to investigate a president’s “supporters” is not an economic plan. It is a warning, and Clinton was honest enough to say so. Voters should take her at her word: buckle up.

The National Telegraph Staff

End the Democrats’ Horror Movie – The Democrat party is a monster that must be defeated.

It seems morbidly appropriate that America’s midterm elections come right after Halloween.  What the Democrat Party offers voters this year is the culmination of many decades of cultural rot, psychopathy, and anti-Americanism.  

It feels as if we’re in the middle of a scary movie, doesn’t it?  Are we hanging from the edge of a cliff?  Yes.  Are there evil monsters chasing us down?  Yes.  Does it seem as if every choice we make could be our last?  Yes.

What the Democrat Party has become is truly horrific.  Like Frankenstein’s monster, its political body is comprised of dead parts: Islamic supremacy, racial grievance, class warfare, cultural Marxism, cultish communism, child sacrifice, child mutilation, sexual deviance, and pagan gods.  Everything the Democrats celebrate today is disgusting, gruesome, and deserving of an R-rating.

A lot of Americans have drifted from the Democrat to the Republican Party over the last few decades.  

It is apt that the two Republican presidents of the last century that Republican voters rate most highly — President Reagan and President Trump — both spent parts of their lives as members of the Democrat Party.  

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats were not so different.  President Kennedy’s low-tax, pro-manufacturing policies were very similar to Trump’s economic growth agenda today.  Kennedy Democrats included anti-communist military veterans who would feel right at home in this century’s Republican Party.  

Blue-collar workers who once identified as Democrats have realized that President Trump’s MAGA-fied Republican Party is the only party interested in supercharging the number of industrial and manufacturing jobs in the United States.  

Democrats used to champion equality of opportunity for women.  Now they punish high school girls who object to being forced to change in the same locker rooms as confused boys and ridicule girls who refuse to compete against boys in girls’ sports.  

The Democrat Party used to include a huge number of hunters, military veterans, and other Americans who accepted the responsibility of self-defense.  Now Democrats vilify gun owners as if they were domestic terrorists while protecting violent criminals who use weapons against innocent Americans.  

The Democrat Party used to include a huge number of practicing Catholics, devout Protestants, and observant Jews.  It included thoughtful scholars such as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose report on black poverty recognized marriage as the lynchpin to social mobility.  It included cultural groups, civic organizations, and clubs that promoted strong, healthy families.  

Now Democrats dismiss marriage and the nuclear family as vestiges of “patriarchy” and “white supremacy.”  They use their power over legal associations and medical boards to promote the castration and mutilation of children.  Many Democrats promote promiscuity and sexual fetishization as “healthy” lifestyles and not-so-subtly endorse incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.  

At what point does it not become obvious that the Democrat Party has become the “safe space” for grotesque evils?

When an illegal alien rapes and/or murders an American girl, Democrats in public office and Democrats working as “journalists” show more compassion for the rapist/murderer than they do for the broken victim.  

This is monstrous, abhorrent, anti-American behavior that I would not have thought possible thirty years ago.  Most of us remember a time when Americans took care of and protected other Americans.  We beat back those who threatened our peace, and we hunted monsters that hurt American children.  Now Democrats describe the monsters among us as victims and ignore the dead American girls and their suffering American families altogether.  What a ghoulish, soulless party the Democrats have become.

Last week, an illegal alien from Mexico used a sledgehammer to damage an Iwo Jima monument in Quantico, Virginia, and during his act of desecration, the foreigner beheaded one of the statues depicting American marines’ utmost sacrifice in the Pacific Theater during the Second World War.  

The Battle of Iwo Jima was one of the bloodiest conflicts in American history, and three of the men depicted in that monument never came home.  Decapitating a hero’s likeness is an act of hatred against America and disrespect for all American veterans.  

Nevertheless, Democrat politicians and Democrat “journalists” ignored the story as much as possible, and when forced to acknowledge it, Democrats blamed the incident on a generic “Virginia man,” as if the crime were a minor act of vandalism of no significance.  

This is how little respect Democrats have for American heroes, American history, and American sacrifice.  Democrats in office and Democrats in newsrooms write glowing propaganda in defense of foreign nationals who have no business being in the United States, but they completely disregard the vile acts of destruction that monsters perpetrate against American citizens and their cherished symbols.  

We also know that if Democrats regain Congress and the presidency, the worst is yet to come.  

President Obama and President Biden are responsible for over two-thirds of the district court judges currently on the bench.  This is why some federal judge is always inventing laws or parts of the Constitution that do not exist or usurping Article II powers that belong to President Trump.  The only impediment to the Democrats’ complete takeover of the Judiciary is the Supreme Court — or, more accurately, the stalwart defense of the Constitution coming from the jurisprudence of Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.

Democrats have made no secret of their plans to get rid of the Senate filibuster should they achieve a simple governing majority.  With fifty Democrat senators and a Democrat in the White House in January 2029, they will unleash a barrage of legislation and finish the “fundamental transformation” of the United States government that began in earnest during Obama’s presidency.  

Democrats will recognize the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as new states, adding four more Democrat senators to the upper chamber.  

Democrats will once again open America’s borders to foreign invasion and grant mass amnesty and citizenship to any foreigner in the world.  By doing so, Democrats will greatly expand the number of Democrat voters and obtain an insurmountable supermajority in the House of Representatives.  

As they have repeatedly promised, Democrats will add at least six new justices to the Supreme Court, ensuring complete ideological control over the federal judiciary.  

In three quick moves, the Democrat Party will successfully erect a one-party political system with permanent power over the federal government — indistinguishable from the monopoly power that the Chinese Communist Party has enjoyed since 1949.

That’s how fast Islamo-communism and the European Union’s brand of totalitarian globalism will take over the United States if Americans don’t fight back.  

We know what happens then.  Democrat Senator Elissa Slotkin and her collaborators have promised to lock up Trump supporters.  Democrat Senator Adam Schiff and Democrat Senator Chris Murphy promise to censor political dissent on social media — effectively killing the First Amendment.  The Democrat-controlled IRS, FBI, and DOJ will once again persecute us as “potential domestic terrorists.”  Democrats will kill the Second Amendment and come for our firearms.  Democrats will use taxpayer dollars to fund their Antifa paramilitary and NGO armies and direct them to burn down cities and attack Americans.  Democrats will celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk and incite their followers to murder more of us.

Avoid this horror movie.  Vote Republican on Tuesday.

J.B. Shurk, American Thinker

Scientists claim they’ve visualized what the universe looked like as God was creating it

I’ll let ya believe it was the first two billion years if you want. Go ahead. You have a brain capable of comprehending the infinite because God created you in His image, just like He finely tuned everything in the universe to be a beautiful work of engineering and artisanship.

But before everyone argues about the theology, take a moment to appreciate how modern science continues to prove Psalm 19 right.

From a Smithsonian report:

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and Nancy Roman Space Telescope are revealing the universe’s earliest chapters in extraordinary detail. To help astronomers understand what they are seeing, researchers at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian have developed ‘Lumina,’ one of the largest and most detailed simulations ever created of the early universe.

Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the new model recreates how ordinary matter, dark matter, and radiation interacted during the universe’s first [few days of creation 😉], giving scientists a powerful new tool to test theories about how the cosmos evolved after the Big Bang.

Can’t wait to see the case for a Creator continue to be proven!

Just look at His handiwork, spread out across billions of stars and galaxies 👇

VIDEOS AT LINK………..

Psalm 147 says “He counts the number of the stars; he gives names to all of them.”

The God who made the incomprehensibly large expanse of the cosmos made you, knows you, and wants you to know Him.

The Smithsonian reports (in slightly more accessible language) that the Lumina program “models how the universe’s fundamental ingredients, including gas, dark matter, and light, interact to form stars and galaxies.”

The simulation covers more than 100 times the volume of space modeled by previous comparable simulations. … Creating Lumina required more than 15,000 graphics processing units running on Frontier, one of the world’s fastest supercomputers, located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Its immense computing power allowed researchers to model an unprecedented volume of the early universe while maintaining the level of detail needed to study the formation of galaxies, stars, and black holes.

The scientists plan to use Lumina in future simulations “to investigate how gases move between galaxies, how radiation from the Big Bang shaped cosmic evolution, and how regions of intense star formation developed over time.”

While they do, I’ll be over here re-reading Genesis 1.


Not the Bee

Rubio sends Brazil’s Lula the right message

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was right to grant a visa to Brazilian presidential candidate Flavio Bolsonaro and his family. As President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, grows increasingly vindictive and authoritarian, the United States should make clear that political persecution has adverse consequences. Supporting freedom and democracy in Latin America means standing behind those whose right to challenge the government is under threat. Offering protection to an opposition leader in the region’s biggest and most populous nation upholds America’s principles and serves its strategic interests.

Bolsonaro and his family arrived in the U.S. this week after his defeat in the Oct. 25 election. His relocation was well timed, for following that close result, Brazilian prosecutors moved quickly to seize Bolsonaro’s passport. They say the conservative politician is under investigation for money laundering and is a flight risk.

The allegations against Bolsonaro are serious and, if Brazilian media reporting is accurate, also credible. Brazilian police are said to have financial records linking Bolsonaro to money-laundering schemes. Considering the grotesque scale of political corruption in Latin America, effective anti-corruption efforts are a priority.

Regardless of the evidence, however, Lula’s presidency makes it impossible for Bolsonaro to get a fair trial. Lula, who was previously imprisoned for his involvement in a vast kickback scheme involving Brazil’s nationalized energy company, seeks vengeance against anyone who dares to challenge him.

His animus is not limited to Bolsonaro. Journalists, opposition figures, and activists have all faced repression since Lula returned to power in 2023. Most visible has been the president’s fanatical focus on shutting down critical social media accounts. This crackdown has involved Lula’s politicization of the judiciary, including his stacking of the Supreme Court with partisan allies.

Lula appointed his interior minister and his personal lawyer to the nation’s highest court. The results have been alarming.

In 2024, X, formerly Twitter, was taken offline for all Brazilian users after its owner, Elon Musk, refused to block accounts critical of Lula. X was allowed to resume operations only after it paid millions of dollars in fines and restricted the accounts in question. Lula says this is about countering “disinformation.” In reality, it’s about controlling the narrative.

Lula’s former lawyer, now a Supreme Court justice, was responsible for extending voting hours at the last minute on Sunday. While both campaigns applied for extended voting hours, the announcement came when many voting stations had already closed and could not reopen. Coming from Lula’s crony, the decision suggests judicial impropriety.

It appears that Lula would have won regardless of his Election Day antics. But Rubio and the Trump administration must consider the day after tomorrow. Had they rejected Bolsonaro’s request for sanctuary, they wouldn’t simply have given Lula new space for his anti-democratic ambitions — they would also have betrayed nearly 60 million people who voted for Bolsonaro. By acting as it did, the Trump administration has shown those Brazilians that America supports the democratic rule of law.

Lula is no friend of the U.S. Ensconced in the Latin American Left’s anti-Washington tradition, he has prioritized closer relations with the U.S.’s preeminent adversaries. China, for example, has been allowed to build satellite control stations that help its espionage in the Western Hemisphere. China has secured rights over Brazil’s vast rare earth mineral reserves and at its trade ports.

Lula has also been loath to challenge Russia over its aggression against Ukraine and the West (though President Donald Trump’s kowtowing to Vladimir Putin dilutes this otherwise legitimate American complaint). Lula has also made Brazil an important political and trade partner for Iran.

The central concern is a simple one. Until Lula leaves power and judicial independence is restored in Brazil, it will be impossible for Bolsonaro to receive a fair trial. Were the U.S. to abandon that democratic principle, it would betray the people of Brazil and assist an authoritarian leader who wishes to harm American interests and values.

Washington Examiner

Victor Davis Hanson: Democrats Think They’re About to Win Big

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.

I’m speaking about 10 days before our Nov. 3 midterms, the second midterm in the second term of the two Trump administrations. We thought, given historical precedents, that it should be a shoo-in for the Democrats. One hundred and twenty-six years since 1900, to take the modern era, 90% of the parties that were holding the White House at the time of the second-term midterms lost.

And of all midterms, the in-party only won on three occasions: FDR in the ’34 election, Bill Clinton in the ’98 election, and George W. Bush in 2002. And they all had extenuating circumstances. Especially, a force multiplier is the president of the United States has about a 39% rating. He’s about where George W. Bush was in 2006. He’s a point less than Barack Obama was in 2014, when both of them suffered severe midterm corrections.

So, it should be a no-brainer that the Democrats should pick up 20 to 30 seats in the House and take over the Senate with a one- or two-seat margin. But they are more worried about the midterms than the Republicans are.

Why is that? And the answer is, to use that phrase of Donald Rumsfeld, there’s too many known unknowns in this particular year. The first is redistricting. Nobody’s talking about redistricting. But if you look at the districts that have been changed by the red state legislatures, which outnumber the blue state legislatures, and those that are affected by the Supreme Court ruling, the Republicans might pick up five to six seats they otherwise would not have.

If they were running against a John Fetterman Democratic Party or an old Schumer-Pelosi party before they went far radical, or a Bill Clinton Democratic Party, then there’s no way the Republicans are going to win.

But the second unknown is, for some reason, and we’ve talked about that before, the Democratic Party doesn’t exist anymore. It’s been absorbed by, or it itself absorbed, the socialist-Islamist movement. And whether it’s Mr. Abdul El-Sayed or whether it’s Ilhan Omar in the news or whether it’s Hasan Piker in the news or whether it’s Mr. James Talarico, these are people way out of the mainstream, and they scare people.

And the Republicans are making the argument that you may not like the temporary spike in gasoline. You may not like that we did not correct the 21% inflation under Joe Biden, aggregate over four years. They may not buy the argument that the first year of the second term we only had about 2.3% inflation. Now we’re going to be about 3.5%. That’s much less, less than 5.1%. They don’t want to hear that.

But on the other hand, they’re starting to think, maybe I don’t want to vote in anger at all of that for socialism or Islamism, and that seems to be on the ballot.

The other thing is, we were told that the Democrats in each particular race, that is, direct contributions to a particular candidate far, far outpaced the Republicans, and that’s absolutely true. But when you look at the PAC money, the PAC, the political action committees’ monies, the Republicans have such a huge lead in that factor, and sometimes the PAC commercials are far more effective than the actual candidates’ efforts.

And if you add PAC money and direct money that each candidate has at his own expense, his own volition to expend, the Republicans actually have a $200 million to $300 million advantage, and that will come into play in the last eight to nine days.

The price of gas is very high, but as I speak, for the last three days, 24 million barrels of oil have passed out of the Persian Gulf, either through a now-liberated Strait of Hormuz or through the Red Sea pipelines or through the Gulf of Oman.

Why is the price of gas still high, then? It won’t remain high, but right now there is a refinery crisis in Saudi Arabia and in Russia, where refineries have been hit during these respective wars. And in addition to that, insurance costs have climbed. The United States has not built enough refinery capacity.

But the point I’m making is that we’re pretty much, as far as crude oil production and availability, where we were before the war, and the refineries will respond to that. So the voters should know that already things are not set in stone, that the oil situation will get better. It already has got better. It just hasn’t got better on the refining end.

There’s another known unknown, and that is no one really has confidence in the polls because they were wrong in the 2024 election. They had been wrong in the 2016 election, and they had been very wrong in the Democratic primary election.

And it’s becoming increasingly clear to the Democrats themselves that the public polls are more or less dominated by left-wing entities who feel that a poll is not just a reflection of popular opinion, but it’s a political tool. It’s a method to create false momentum and increase voter participation, the idea you want to be on a winning team, and greater donations.

And so, to counteract that, candidates have private polls where they hire private pollsters who cannot be paid to lie to them. Why would you pay somebody in secret, and then he would lie to you? You want him to tell you the truth. You don’t want to disclose the truth, but you want to know actually where you are, and we’re not getting any of that information.

Let me conclude. History says the Left, the Democrats, whatever we want to call this new group of Islamists, socialists, etc., etc., should win big. But there’s enough known unknowns that it’s still uncertain. They mock Donald Trump because he’s barnstorming the country, and he’s saying something that they feel makes no sense. He’s saying, “Consider that I’m on the ballot.” And they’re saying, “I hope you do, Don, because you’re 38%, 39%, and our people are voting against you.”

Yes, they are, and that could be almost all the Democratic Party, and that could gain people traction to go to the polls. Vote against Trump, no problem. But what he’s saying is that if the MAGA movement turns out about 75% or 80%, as it did in 2024, the Republicans can stop this blue wave.

So, all of these rallies are not intended for the Democratic Party. They’re not intended even as much for the independents. They’re intended for the Republican MAGA base, which traditionally has not come out in midterm elections and sometimes did not come out in force in 2020.

If they come out in force and they’re whipped up by 20 or 30 of these rallies, then that is an unknown unknown that might make a difference.

Final warning: The Republicans were very haughty in 2022. Joe Biden had suffered a humiliating August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. We were hitting 9.1% inflation. The war in Ukraine had happened in February 2022, partly because Joe Biden said his reaction would depend on whether it was a major invasion or not.

People didn’t like him. His approval rating was very low. It was down in the 40s, would get to 38. And yet the Republicans were very confident that it didn’t really matter. The party in the White House would lose seats. They thought they were going to just sweep the Congress, and they didn’t do it. They didn’t do it.

Why? Because Joe Biden emptied half of the petroleum reserve and got the price of gas stabilized. Why? Because he promised student loan relief, which was illegal. The Supreme Court overruled it. Why? Because he said he was going to stop all prosecutions of marijuana. I could go on and on, but in the last minutes, he offered all of these things to the Republicans, and they did not have candidates that they had nominated who were as competitive as they could have been because they thought it would be a sure thing.

Somewhat similar, isn’t it, to the Democrats? So, yes, they should win. History says they should win, but there’s enough known unknowns that they might not.

Victor Davis Hanson, Daily Signal

The Lonely Man at the End of the Bar

What a suicide in Wyoming reveals about all of us.

By Spyridon Andrews

October 31, 2026

I am sitting in a bar in Sheridan, Wyoming. I can’t help but overhear a conversation about a local suicide that the bartender said was precipitated by a man’s wife leaving him. I am acutely attuned to this because an acquaintance, and now friend, whom I met in a bar in Red Lodge, Montana, told me about the suicide epidemic among men in Montana. It’s not the first time I have heard these kinds of stories. They often involve men going through divorce or separation and sometimes losing not only a marriage but also their daily connection to their children, their friends, and the life they thought they had built.

It’s no secret that mothers are far more likely than fathers to be the primary custodial parent. It’s also no secret that women these days also initiate the majority of divorces, especially among college-educated couples. Taken together, these facts raise a question that no one seems to be asking, or even cares about asking: what happens to a man when he loses his marriage, his home, and the ordinary privilege of seeing his children grow up? What happens to a man when the courts tell him that he can no longer play a role in the upbringing of his children—something that every good man dreams about—because his wife no longer wants to be with him and a family court judge wants to move quickly to get this case off of her docket?

To the average man, the loss of a job is more than losing a job; it is the loss of their sense of striving and honor. We’ve all heard the beautiful ballad from Peter Gabriel, sung by Kate Bush, Don’t Give Up, an inspirational and heart-wrenching song of an unemployed man trying to hang on. But that’s not what I’ve seen in my life. Maybe there are some inspirational stories out there, and I welcome readers to share them with me. But what I have encountered in situations involving friends and family is that a lot of women don’t stick around.

Studies support this. Some of the men’s groups in evangelical churches can and do provide some support, but as far as mainstream Protestant churches are concerned, all they are going to do is hear a lecture on using proper pronouns.

When we look at the extent of the despair in some of these communities, it is not just middle-aged men who lose their jobs. Younger men in these communities often struggle to see a future for themselves. Local officials where I am today, in Sheridan, Wyoming, have expressed concern about suicide, and the community has experimented with gatherings that encourage people to talk openly. Bars like the place I was last night, The Pony, have done what they can to host these meetings and encourage solutions.

Meanwhile, nationally, men die by suicide at roughly four times the rate of women; divorce and separation are associated with still higher risk for men; and rural suicide mortality exceeds urban mortality. I can’t yet confirm—without more examination—that all of this is linked together. But the statistics are disturbing enough without any exaggeration on my part.

There is nary a mention of much of this in the national political conversation, although it is not far from the minds of the people in these small towns. The Sheridan County coroner has raised concerns about this and spoken out publicly, as suicide deaths this year were reportedly approaching or surpassing the previous year’s total. And Sheridan is not alone in grappling with this problem.

Small-town Americans are the people who have built this country. They built the highways and the railroads, dug for coal, copper, and silver, and even in Montana, they dug for the shiny little objects that women like to wear around their necks. They drilled for oil and grew the crops that put food not only on American dinner tables but also fed the world, especially as it tried to recover from the World Wars. There would be no Chicago, no Detroit, no St. Louis, no Kansas City, no Los Angeles, and no San Francisco if it were not for the courage and bravery of these men.

Meanwhile, in the big city, it boggles the mind that commentators like Maureen Dowd and Ana Navarro actually have jobs—famous for their utterances that men are useless. They can make these numbskull utterances to equally dim audiences, because the men they never see will never know and are too stupid to thank them for building the entire world that they exist in. In the 21st century, these are the kind of people that are considered useful and talented, while the steel workers, former coal miners, and railroad workers have no place.

Blue-state beta males nod in agreement not only because of a nauseating desire for approval in the eyes of their ferociously stupid overlords but because—and this is the real reason—they know that they could never measure up to the courage that the forgotten men who built our country have displayed. These two types of parasites continue to draft off the men who helped build our way of life, while the host dies and fades from memory.

My time in the American West has revealed a great many positives, but it has also exposed problems at the core of our culture. Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist and writer, understood how slavery attacked the family and denied people the security of belonging. Tocqueville identified a different danger in democracy: individualism, the temptation to withdraw into a small private circle and abandon the larger community. He saw the antidote in churches, families, voluntary associations, and habits of mutual obligation. Without these, liberty might leave us not connected and flourishing, but isolated and alone.

Well, look around. The family is now fragile at best, as we congratulate ourselves on our liberation from old obligations. Forget the fact that many marriages end. What about the families that were never formed? Just the scale of abortion since 1973 reflects how contested the place of children and family has become in American life. In states like Massachusetts, the legal profession can seem more concerned with abstract claims of autonomy than with the children whose lives are at stake. The millions of children never born, the millions of families never formed, and children who never grew up and, in turn, never had their own children only point our country toward demise. So, I do not think it at all surprising that we have become remarkably casual about what happens to the people left behind when the household dissolves. We just don’t seem to care about anything other than what we want as individuals right now.

Once you leave the comfort of the suburbs or the fashionable neighborhoods of the city, you see that communities across America are filled with men seeking purpose and finding too little of it. The industries that once gave entire towns a reason to exist—mining, railroads, farming, manufacturing—have contracted or changed into caricatures. The means to support a family is disappearing at the very moment the family itself is coming apart. For a man who has organized his life around being useful to other people, this is a devastating combination.

Everywhere else, the places where men once congregated, spent time, and supported one another are disappearing before our eyes. The town squares, bars, bowling leagues, churches, and social clubs have lost ground to a world of digital acquaintances and social media tribes that bear little relationship to the democratic communities necessary for a functioning republic. Our politicians, unsurprisingly, are unconcerned. After all, they see their constituents not as neighbors in living communities but as demographic slices, donor lists, lobbyists, and interest groups. Yesterday’s rural and union voters are remembered only when somebody needs a photograph in a hard hat.

But it doesn’t make sense to end on a note about the pathetic nature of Washington. Jefferson thought it should never have been built, and he was probably correct. Washington is not going to walk into a bar in Sheridan, sit down beside a man who has lost his job and his family, and ask how he is doing. But a neighbor can. A pastor should; that’s what they are there for. An old friend from the bowling league or the softball team could. A bartender might—they were always better at diagnosing problems than some fool with a master’s degree. That is precisely why the disappearance of these ordinary human connections matters so much and why we cannot let them disappear.

Tocqueville understood something about Americans that we seem determined to forget. Our democracy did not work simply because we had a Constitution, elections, and a long list of rights. It worked because Americans formed churches, clubs, associations, and local institutions, and because they took responsibility for things that did not directly concern them. They did not wait for somebody in Washington to send a program, a grant, or a social worker. They organized themselves. And in doing so, they learned how to be free together rather than merely alone.

So what should we do? For starters, we might stop treating the collapse of a marriage or the disappearance of a job as somebody else’s private problem. It’s our problem. We can demand that family courts take a father’s continuing place in his children’s lives seriously while also protecting children and parents from genuine abuse.

We can rebuild apprenticeships and local opportunities for men whose talents do not require a college degree. The college degree requirement, an artifact of the Vietnam draft deferment years, has outlived its usefulness, is no longer worth its expense, and has become a finishing school for rich young kids, mostly girls, to learn Marxist nonsense.

Churches might consider spending less time chasing the latest cultural fashion and more time finding out which of their neighbors is sitting at home with nobody to talk to. And the rest of us could revive the bowling leagues, volunteer fire departments, veterans’ groups, fraternal organizations, and civic clubs that once gave men a place to belong. None of this is glamorous. That is rather the point.

We should also be willing to ask a man how he is doing and then stick around long enough to hear the answer. When somebody loses his job, invite him over. When a father stops showing up at church or the local bar, find out why. When a friend is going through a divorce, do not simply choose sides and disappear him from your life. And when a man tells you he sees no way forward, take him seriously and help him. These are small acts, but communities are built out of small acts repeated over generations. A government program cannot substitute for them, and early Americans knew that.

Tocqueville feared that isolated citizens, absorbed in their own private lives and no longer accustomed to helping one another, would eventually surrender their responsibilities to a vast, protective government. He described a form of democratic despotism that would not necessarily arrive with soldiers and chains. It would arrive with citizens who had forgotten how to act together, leaving the state to manage their lives while they quietly withdrew from one another. We would retain the outward forms of freedom but lose the habits that made freedom possible. The reason we still read him today is that he got an awful lot of things right.

I keep thinking about the conversation I overheard in that Sheridan bar. I do not know the full story of the man who died, and why he took his life. But as I spent more time researching what was happening here in Sheridan, in Montana and in isolated communities all over America, I know enough to ask other questions. I know enough to wonder how many people saw him coming apart, how many places he had left to turn, and whether anybody understood how much he had lost. I wonder if we still know how to be Americans. The real measure of a community is not how friendly it is to a stranger passing through. It is whether it knows what to do when one of its own begins to disappear.

We are not going to save these men with another election slogan, or solve this problem with another lecture about masculinity. We might begin by remembering that these faceless working men are important, that their work is important, that their children need them, and that the rest of us owe them something more than an occasional thank-you on Labor Day.

Tocqueville warned us what happens when a people cease to associate, cease to care, and finally cease to govern themselves. The lonely man at the end of the bar is not merely a tragedy in Sheridan, Wyoming. He is a warning about the country we are becoming. And if we are unwilling to do something for him, we will soon discover that there is nobody left to do something for us.

SPYRIDON ANDREWS  American Greatness