Hasan Piker Says Middle East Would Be More Stable If Iran Had a Nuclear Weapon

It’s easy to see why Abdul El-Sayed wants to separate himself from left-wing streamer Hasan Piker. 

In an interview with Axios, Piker said that he believes the Middle East would be more stable if Iran had a nuclear weapon. 

Piker said that America conducts more terror than Al-Qaeda. 

“You once said that America is the top dog in terrorism,” Axios’ Alex Thompson said. “Do you think America then is worse than al-Qaeda?”

“Pound for pound as far as the number of deaths, yes, we’ve caused tremendous terror all around the world,” Piker said. “I think that that is not only terror that we are waging on regular civilians in nations in the periphery, but it’s also having consequences on ourselves. It’s having dramatic consequences on the home front.” 

“One clear example of this is what we did in MENA (Middle East and North Africa),” he added. “There’s no distinction between blowing up a school, triple tapping it with Tomahawk missiles. If you’re killing 140 schoolgirls, that is an act of terror. This doesn’t mean that all Americans are terrorists, but the reality of the matter is we have to create an environment of accountability to ensure things like that never happen again.”

Piker previously said that America deserved 9/11.

Scott McClallen, Townhall

Talarico’s pastor promotes ‘Inclusive Bible’ that strips ‘Son of God’ from Jesus: ‘Let go of the stupid stuff’

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter

The longtime pastor of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico was recently caught on camera promoting an “inclusive” translation of the Bible that strips the text of gendered language for God, including Jesus’ titles as Lord and Son of God.

The Rev. Jim Rigby, who has pastored St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) near Austin, Texas, for more than 35 years, discussed The Inclusive Bible with an undercover journalist posing as a prospective new church member, according to video recorded in August and first reported Thursday by The Daily Caller.

Noting the church typically provides new members with a copy of The Inclusive Bible when they join, Rigby claimed, “It’s good on the gender stuff.”

“The more, like, metaphysical stuff, it’s not a very good translation, if that makes sense. I think it’s really important to have a good translation, so you can let go of the stupid stuff,” he added.

The video also depicts a new member named Larry being given a copy of the inclusive translation to applause during a service at St. Andrew’s.

“And Martha’s here to give Larry his Inclusive Bible,” a woman says in the video. “It’s the Bible that we use at this church. It’s been rewritten so that there is only inclusive language and that it doesn’t use the gender-fueled language that the King James Version uses.”

First published in 2007, The Inclusive Bible touts itself as “the first egalitarian translation” and offers “a re-imagining of the scriptures and our relationship to them,” according to a description.

“Not merely replacing male pronouns, the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers. Seeking to be faithful to the original languages, they have sought new and non-sexist ways to express the same ancient truths,” the description reads.

The video also depicts a new member named Larry being given a copy of the inclusive translation to applause during a service at St. Andrew’s.

“And Martha’s here to give Larry his Inclusive Bible,” a woman says in the video. “It’s the Bible that we use at this church. It’s been rewritten so that there is only inclusive language and that it doesn’t use the gender-fueled language that the King James Version uses.”

First published in 2007, The Inclusive Bible touts itself as “the first egalitarian translation” and offers “a re-imagining of the scriptures and our relationship to them,” according to a description.

“Not merely replacing male pronouns, the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers. Seeking to be faithful to the original languages, they have sought new and non-sexist ways to express the same ancient truths,” the description reads.

The translation was published by Priests for Equality, which is an extension of the Maryland-based Quixote Center. Co-founded in 1975 by Bill Callahan, a Jesuit priest who was removed from the order for promoting women’s ordination, the Quixote Center also served as the basis for the pro-LGBT New Ways Ministry, which helps Roman Catholics find “LGBTQ-friendly parishes.”

According to an explanatory introduction, the translators of The Inclusive Bible said they “had to consider whether modern renderings of sacred scriptures present modern sexist biases, in addition to biases of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean cultures.”

Claiming that “scriptural language specifically referring to God presents a major problem,” they go on to denounce “the Lord” as a “sexist and classist form” of God’s personal name. They replace it instead with “YHWH,” “Most High,” “Most High God,” “Almighty” or “Sovereign One.”

God the Father’s title as “Father” is replaced with “Abba” or “Loving God.” Christ’s titles as “Son of God” and “Son of Man” are especially “difficult,” according to the translators, who replaced such terms with “Only Begotten,” “God’s Own,” and “Eternally Begotten.” The terms “Chosen One” or “Promised One” are also used.

Acknowledging that Jesus’ title as “Lord” is “hard to replace because it is confessional,” the translators said: “To avoid sexist and classist connotations, we use substitutes for Lord that are meaningful in our own confessing of Jesus, such as Sovereign, Savior, and Jesus Reigns.”

In another undercover video released Thursday, Rigby boasted of speaking at an event with the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist nonprofit that wages legal campaigns often aimed at removing Christian expression from the public square.

“Because to me, it’s like, if you love humanity and you love nature, and that’s why you hate religion, then we’re on the same team,” Rigby said, echoing a similar sentiment from Talarico, who said on a podcast in 2021 that he thinks of himself “as a Christian who hates Christianity.” The video also appears to show the Rev. Babs Miller, who serves as “minister to the parish” at St. Andrew’s, claiming she doesn’t “have a need for a God” and that Rigby’s church is “not a worshipping church.”

Talarico, who raised eyebrows for claiming God is non-binary, has touted Rigby as one of his most influential mentors, whose church he has attended since childhood. The pastor baptized him, officiated his parents’ marriage and delivered the invocation before his 2019 swearing-in ceremony at the Texas House of Representatives. In a recently resurfaced clip from 2023, Talarico praised Rigby’s church by noting it taught him “the idea that Christianity is just another word for causing trouble.”

Known for promoting the liberal theology that Talarico has often echoed throughout his political career, Rigby has repeatedly clashed throughout his ministry with the dwindling conservative wing of the mainline Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), especially over issues of sexuality and gender.

Rigby openly defied the PCUSA’s former prohibition on homosexual marriage and ordination since the 1990s, though he failed to trigger the formal ecclesiastical trial he said he wanted.

In 1995, when the PCUSA’s Book of Order still limited ordination to those living in fidelity in heterosexual marriage or chastity in singleness, he took to refusing to wear his clerical robe or share the Lord’s Supper at presbytery meetings in protest that the sacrament was not open to those who unrepentantly practice homosexuality.

Rigby has also compared aborted babies to “extracted teeth,” and appeared to deny the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection in a lengthy, sarcastic Facebook post on Christmas Day in 2015. In another Facebook post he made during the Christmas season in 2022, he called Jesus “the magical baby” and used the Nativity story to condemn gendered descriptions of God, claiming instead that “the transcendent does not need to have a gender.”

Catholic parents have their daughter taken by the State of Massachusetts

Was this in Stalinist Russia, North Korea, China, Iran? The Third Reich?

We’re from the government and we’re here to help.” Those are the nine most terrifying words in the English language, as Ronald Reagan once said.

To what do I refer?

Per Life Site News:

A devout Catholic family in Massachusetts had their 15-year-old daughter taken away from them after they refused to refer to her with male pronouns while her school was secretly socially transitioning her behind the parents’ backs.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko haven’t been allowed to see their daughter, Sophie, in nearly two years. Since then, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has housed her in a boys’ dormitory, put her on birth control pills and antipsychotic medications.

Dear God.

It is hard for me to fathom the words “had their 15-year-old daughter taken away from them …”

So, the state “took” the daughter from her parents because they refused to participate in a pernicious lie? And tried to “transition” her behind her parent’s backs? The state hasn’t “allowed” the parents to see their own child in two years? And has placed her in a boys’ dormitory and given her antipsychotic medications and birth control pills. Who the hell approved these actions? Does “The State” now trump parents? And do real, actual boys need birth control pills? For what other purposes does “The State” have the “right” to confiscate parents’ offspring? To force them into a certain approved political party or religion? To make them believe the Earth is flat? Can anyone else see how heinously dangerous and evil this is?

When I was young, my father took me to see our baseball team on “opening day” on several occasions. The “home openers.” These games, early in the season, were always played in the afternoon. One year, when I was in eighth grade and in junior high, he needed to take me out of school after lunch to attend the game. School officials frowned on this and were not going to grant permission for me to leave. During the 5 minutes we had between classes, I darted across the street to a convenience store and called my dad. I told him of my school’s reluctance. He said, “no problem, son, I’ll come right over and speak to them.”

About 30 minutes later, I was called into the principal’s office over the intercom. The powers that be informed me that it would, in fact, be perfectly okay for me to go to the game with my dad … who was standing far off to the side. The powers that be, my advisor and the principal among them, looked shaken and ashen as they proceeded to speak of the virtues of spring baseball.

Moral of the story? Screw the government. My dad was there to help me … confront the government.

Any — and every — society that allows government to have the ultimate power over parents and families is a society that is morally bankrupt and ultimately doomed to failure.

Ed Sheeran has done nothing wrong: So why is his US tour falling apart?

So now we know what happens if you refuse to prostrate yourself before the Gaza cult. If you politely decline wearing the keffiyeh like a holy shroud and chanting “Free Palestine” on a mindless loop. They will destroy you. They will hound you like an infidel and seek your excommunication from polite society. Just look at what is happening to Ed Sheeran.

Pop’s Mr. Nice Guy, penner of bloodless ballads, is being ripped to shreds online. He’s damned as a “coward,” a “lowlife,” even as “complicit” in one of the great crimes of the 21st century. “Call off the rest of your American tour!” cry the frothing Ed-hunters. What sin did he commit to warrant such venom? He refused to bend the knee to the Palestine mania and its truthless commandments about the Jewish state.

Sheeran’s US tour is falling apart following the removal of irritant rapper Macklemore as the opening act. Macklemore turned two Sheeran gigs in New Jersey into joy-sucking lectures about the wickedness of Israel. Images of the destruction in Gaza were emblazoned behind him on the stadium screens. It’s just what you want when you’ve forked out £200 to see your favorite British crooner – a deranged homily about “genocide” delivered by the Temu Eminem.

Other venues gave Sheeran an ultimatum: ditch the Gazaholic or we won’t host your gigs. So Sheeran and Macklemore parted ways. Then all of Sheeran’s other support acts walked out too – “in solidarity” with Macklemore – and even his backing band has now left the tour. A whole tour burnt at the altar of Israelophobia – behold the sanctimonious grimness of the Gaza cult.

Everyone is saying Macklemore has been censored. Leftists who giddily cheer the blacklisting of Israeli musicians for the sin of being Israeli are now posing as warriors for artistic expression. We weren’t born yesterday, lads. But here’s the thing: it’s not Macklemore who’s being shamed and silenced, it’s Sheeran. It’s our boy, Britain’s great pop export, for whom the knives of cancellation are being sharpened.

The digital invective being heaped on Sheeran is insane. They say he’s a Zio-cuck, that he has blood on his hands, that the hell of ignominy awaits him. He risks becoming a “pariah”, says Billy Bragg. He should call off this cursed, Zio-compromised tour, says the cyber mob. “Ideologically” it’s the right thing to do, says smug songstress Paloma Faith.

Ideologically! It’s like a Stalinist reprimand. Fall into line, comrade, and cancel this tainted tour. As to Sheeran’s plea that he leaves politics out of his shows because many of his fans are kids, Ms. Faith said: “I say ‘Free Palestine’ to my children every night.” Oh sweetheart, get out while you can. You know you’re in a cult when you find yourself whispering its daft mantras into your own kids’ lugholes.

The art-killing bozos of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) are calling on Sheeran’s fans to boycott his remaining gigs. It’s a “complicit tour”, they wail, as if Sheeran were taking a break between songs to fire missiles at Gaza. You almost have to admire the gall of people who pose as champions of free speech even as they wage holy war against a pop tour because the star refused to kiss the ring of their bankrupt ideology.

The anti-Ed hysteria really is spinning out of control. He’s a “gutless coward” who “should never feel welcome in Ireland again”, says a writer for the Irish Mirror. The vindictiveness is staggering. Perhaps Sheeran’s name should be added to all travel watchlists, so that we might shield nations from the toxic moral fumes of this heretic who failed to say: “Free Palestine.”

It was Sheeran’s statement following Macklemore’s removal that really enraged the mob. There is “suffering and pain” on “both sides” in this war, he said. Oh Ed, no. You must never acknowledge the suffering of Israelis. You must never mention that they were raped and slaughtered in a pogrom of Nazi proportions just three years ago. In the eyes of the Gaza cult, sympathy for Israelis is the greatest transgression of all. For it does something unforgivable: it humanizes the Jews of the Holy Land. It reminds us they are not in fact “genocidal maniacs.” It reintroduces nuance and truth, puncturing the infantile and bigoted dogmas of an activist class that insists Israel and her people are evil incarnate. Sheeran will not soon be forgiven for his sins of humanization.

Who will now deny the zealotry and intolerance of the Palestine movement? They pose as peaceniks but come off like inquisitors, expecting floor-scraping obedience from all and flying into a blind rage when it is withheld. I fear Sheeran will buckle. But imagine if he didn’t. Imagine if he carried on with his tour, just him and his guitar, bursting the deathless sanctimony of the Gaza cult with a little musical joy. Wouldn’t it be amazing?

Brendan O’Neill, The Spectator

Germany’s Merz says US friendship since war ‘probably over’ for now

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the era of “unconditional” ties between the US and Europe built since World War II are over, at least for now, the latest pronouncement of a breakdown in relations under US President Donald Trump’s presidency.

“This era of unconditional transatlantic friendship is probably over for the foreseeable future,” Merz told party members in Berlin on Sept 17. “On the other side of the Atlantic, we are seeing a change in political attitudes, a change in the assessment of the transatlantic alliance, which we might not have thought possible.”

Merz, giving a stump speech at his conservative party headquarters ahead of the Berlin state election on Sept 20, contrasted the current US relationship to past visits by American presidents to the German capital, citing famous speeches by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

His comments came the same day that he spoke on the phone with Trump, where the two “emphasised the special bond between Germans and Americans”, according to a German government spokesman. The pair also discussed US efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, as well as the ongoing trade friction in the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea.

Merz’s speech came as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed an overture to become an “associate member” of the European Union this week. Trump responded by threatening a new round of tariffs against the 27-member bloc if he deems the new relationship to be harmful to the US.

Trump lauded a shock victory by Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany in a state election earlier in September, an event that has shaken the country’s political establishment and raised calls for Merz to step aside.

Merz has a track record of provoking the Trump administration with his rhetoric. In April, he told a group of school students that US negotiators seeking a way out of the war with Iran were being “humiliated”. The US President responded with an announcement of the withdrawal of some 5,000 troops from the country.

The Straits Times

Do Most Muslims Really Oppose Islamic Terrorism?

We’re told that most Muslims oppose Islamic terrorism and that it’s only a tiny fringe of radicals and extremists who practice “radical Islamic terrorism” (as opposed to‘moderate Islamic terrorism’ in which the moderate participants moderately detonate bombs, moderately stab civilians and moderately ram cars into pedestrians) and that their actions don’t reflect Islam.

Even those who correctly identify the roots of Islamic terrorism in the Koran and Islamic teachings still firmly insist that most Muslims oppose terrorism and only a minority support it.

Is that really true? The answer is that it depends on which Islamic terrorism we’re talking about.

There are four categories of Islamic terrorism.

Caliphate Terrorism – These are terrorist attacks carried out by groups like ISIS which claim that their leader is the Caliph of all of Islam and Muslims who refuse to obey him may be killed.

Islamic Terrorism Against Muslim Countries – Domestic terrorism by Muslim terrorists fighting to replace an insufficiently Islamic government, e.g. Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda.

Islamic Terrorism Against Western Non-Muslim Countries – Terrorist attacks against America or Europe, where large numbers of Muslims live and can become collateral damage.

Islamic Terrorism Against a Non-Muslim Religion – This includes Islamic terrorism targeting a country seen as defined by a non-Muslim religion such as Israel or India and it also includes Muslim violence inside Muslim countries against non-Muslim minorities such as Christians in India or Hindus in Bangladesh or violence against Christians in mixed countries such as Nigeria.

Most Muslims oppose ISIS and ‘Caliphate’ terrorism directed at Muslims, smaller numbers of Muslims oppose Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood violence that is directed at Muslim governments, significant numbers of Muslims support Al Qaeda terrorism directed at Western countries and majorities of Muslims support violence directed at non-Muslim religious groups.

Qatar’s Doha Institute (Qatar is a state sponsor of Hamas) released a poll after the Oct 7 attacks which found that 67% of those polled in 16 Arab countries supported the attacks and 69% supported Hamas. That same year, 1 in 3 Muslims in America admitted to supporting Hamas, while by 2026, 44% came out ofthe Hamas closet. Since supporting Hamas is still illegal in America, unlike the Middle East, this is likely to be an undercounting in the U.S.

Many insist that Israel is different and the large Muslim support for terror there isn’t reflective of any broader Muslim backing for terrorism, but Muslim support for terrorism in Israel is actually consistent with Muslim support for terrorism against non-Muslim religious groups.

For example, a survey found that 53% of Pakistanis supported Islamic terrorism against Hindus by Lashkar-e-Taiba, but only 34% supported similar terrorist attacks by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. What was the difference? Lashkar-e-Taiba is covertly backed by the Pakistani government and only targets Hindus, but does not kill Pakistani Muslims, while Tehrik-i-Taliban also carries out attacks against the Pakistani government and kills other Muslims.

Lashkar-e-Taiba has made a point of distinguishing between non-Muslims and Muslims while carrying out its massacres, asking tourists in Kashmir about their religion before killing them in the recent 2025 massacre in Kashmir. This is why so many Muslims support it.

Lashkar-e-Taiba’s position is that it is dedicated to wiping out Hindus and Jews, but that it will not harm fellow Muslims who ‘profess the faith.’ That is enough of a difference for its level of support among Pakistanis to climb from a third to a majority. And this embodies the gap in Muslim support between terror attacks against Muslims and against non-Muslims.

Here’s another example.

In 2004, 67% of Jordanians were supportive of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS) and only 10% considered it a terrorist group. In 2005, Al Qaeda in Iraq bombed several hotels in Amman, Jordan, killing 59 people, including a wedding party, and the backlash was so severe that its leader released a tape claiming that they had actually been targeting “Zionist intelligence” only to somehow blow up a wedding.

Al Qaeda’s approval rating in Jordan, after it killed fellow Sunni Muslims, dropped from 67% to 20%, and the number who considered it a terrorist group shot up from 10% to 48%.

Did Jordanian Arabs, who are 97% Muslim, fundamentally rethink their support for Islamic terrorism? Not very much. After Al Qaeda killed fellow Muslims, the number of Jordanians who considered Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks to be terrorism rose from 35% to 61%, but support for Hamas only fell from 86% to 73%. The number opposed to killing civilians in an ‘occupied’ Muslim country rose from 77% to 92%, but many supported terrorists killing non-Muslims.

“We ask Allah to have mercy on the Muslims, who we did not intend to target, even if they were in hotels which are centers of immorality,” the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq apologized.

The central issue was not terrorism: it was terrorism against Muslims. Or, more specifically, Sunni Muslims, since Al Qaeda in Iraq had already been bombing Shiite mosques in Iraq.

By 2014, with a clearer distinction between Al Qaeda and ISIS (Osama bin Laden had taken pains to distance Al Qaeda from the ISIS targeting of fellow Muslims), only 44% of Jordanians considered Al Qaeda to be a terrorist group, while 62% thought ISIS was a terrorist group.

So do the majority of Muslims oppose Islamic terrorism? Only when it kills Muslims.

Islamic terrorism is not an absolute for Muslims. Support for it or opposition to it depends on who is carrying it out, why and who the victims are. Islam is both highly legalistic and tribal, and support for Islamic terrorist attacks depends on clerical approval of particular groups and their tactics as well as whether they are attacking a hated non-Muslim group or fellow Muslims.

The Muslim terrorist groups with the broadest approval from Muslims are religiously nationalistic, attacking a non-Muslim religious group with the aim of expelling them from land claimed by Muslims, such as Israel and India, in purported defense of an aggressive Muslim colony, such as Kashmir or Gaza. Such attacks most closely parallel the founding genocides carried out by Mohammed in the early days of Islam, and are the least controversial among Muslims even when terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas kill women and children.

Devout Muslims are more drawn to Islamic terrorist groups seeking to firmly establish Sharia law by seizing power in Muslim countries, e.g. Al Qaeda and ISIS: however such groups are controversial among many Muslims who remain loyal to their governments, worry about being targeted and don’t necessarily want to live in a proper Islamic state. Al Qaeda initially won a good deal of Muslim support by focusing its attacks on America even though its larger aim was toppling the Saudi monarchy. Osama bin Laden had built a reputation as a devout global Jihadist who was fighting the Russians and then the Americans. The Iraq War, more than anything else, destroyed Al Qaeda’s reputation among Muslims and birthed ISIS.

Many Muslims are not at all certain that they want to live in the ISIS version of an Islamic State. They are much more comfortable with Islamic terrorists focused on killing non-Muslims in defense of Islamic expansionism than they are with the idea of toppling their own governments. ‘Good’ Muslims terrorists distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims: another reason that some Muslim terrorist groups make a point of sparing non-Muslims during terrorist attacks by quizzing them about Islam as Somalia’s Al-Shabaab did during the Kenya mall attack.

An Islamic terrorist attack in Israel or India isn’t terrorism. An attack in America or the UK might or might not be. While an attack in a Muslim country is almost always seen as terrorism. To Muslims, targets matter more than tactics. Rather than opposition to terrorism, they oppose being terrorized. And they are quite willing to support Islamic terrorism as non-Muslims die.

The majority of Muslims don’t oppose Islamic terrorism. They don’t even view attacks like September 11 or Oct 7 as representing ‘terrorism’ until they end up on the wrong side of them.

Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Magazine

James Talarico’s Lesbian Minister Just Outed Him

Matt MargolisFollow @mattmargoli

He doesn’t read the comments section. You can send news tips, praise, hate mail, and media inquiries to tips@mattmargolis.com.

For weeks, Republicans have accused Texas State Rep. James Talarico (D-50th District) of faking a rightward shift on transgender issues to win a statewide race. Now the public doesn’t have to take our word for it.

Why? His own pastor just confirmed it.

An undercover journalist for the Daily Wire caught Rev. Babs Miller, a “minister” at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Talarico’s longtime “church,” on hidden camera discussing exactly what we’ve suspected all along.

Talarico has drawn Republican criticism for his professed love for “trans children,” claiming that there are seven genders, and that “God is non-binary.”

Miller knows who Talarico is, and isn’t buying his attempt to rebrand himself.

“He’s getting some advice that I don’t think he should be following.” She predicted he’d drop the act the moment he’s safely in office, telling the undercover journalist, “I can guarantee you that once he gets elected, he’ll change his tune back to where he was.”

That’s the whole scam, according to the guy’s own “minister.”

When the undercover journalist suggested Talarico simply “has to play this game” to win, Miller agreed, saying, “That’s what his campaign has convinced him of.” She added that the Democrat Party broadly is softening its posture on transgender issues, saying “his staff is encouraging him to kind of do the same thing, just for the next 50… days.”

She continued, “I think it’s bad advice personally, but if it helps him win, okay…”

Because it’s okay to lie if it means you get elected.

Now you know why I keep putting “minister” in quotes in reference to her.

Miller has been part of the St. Andrew’s community since the mid-1990s. She was ordained there in 2014 as an openly lesbian chaplain, retired shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, and returned to the church in 2022.

Recommended: Nancy Mace Recommends What Many Are Too Polite to Suggest for Lindsay Clancy

Miller wasn’t the only insider caught making the same admission on hidden camera. Footage separately caught Texas Democrat Party organizer Jennifer Miranda, a manager with Texas Together and the Texas Democrat Party, describing Talarico’s shift as a calculated play to reassure conservative-leaning Texans uneasy about Paxton. “I would say right now he’s trying to target a wider net, which unfortunately means being more palatable to Republicans here in Texas. He really needs to win those Texans over,” Miranda said.

None of this should surprise anyone who’s been paying attention. Talarico spent years pushing radical gender ideology from the legislature and the pulpit alike.

I mean seriously, were we supposed to believe it was just a coincidence that after years of having a creepy obsession with “trans kids” and being all in on radical gender ideology, he saw the light just as he was running for statewide office in Texas?

I’ve said before that Talarico’s pivot is a sign that his internal polling numbers are not as good as the public polls. Now his “minister” has confirmed he’s lying to win. If he were really ahead, this pivot wouldn’t be happening.

Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.

Help PJ Media continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

Matt Margolis

He’s a great columnist. I think he’s terrific.”  – Mark Levin

Matt Margolis is a conservative commentator and columnist. His work has been cited on Fox News and national conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dan Bongino Show. Matt is the author of several books and has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice News, Salem News Channel, and even CNN. You can also subscribe to his newsletter for free!

He doesn’t read the comments section. You can send news tips, praise, hate mail, and media inquiries to tips@mattmargolis.com.

So, How Are We Doing With the Midterms Seven Weeks Out?

Look, I can’t tell you that everything is going to be OK for us patriots in the midterms. I think it will, but I’m not sure. Nobody knows for sure. What I do know is what the correlation of forces, to my mind, indicates. It indicates another 2022, a year when we Republicans were going to clean up against an unpopular, semi-conscious president. And we did OK. Not great. OK. And it looks to me, from where I sit, from who I’ve talked to, from what I’ve seen, and yeah, from my gut, that that’s the high-water mark for the Democrats. They might do OK. They might get the House by a few seats, and they might cut our lead in the Senate. That’s just my perspective, though. I’ve talked to well-placed optimists and doomers (one who, you know, says we lose the House and 50-50 in the Senate if we are lucky). But I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody knows.

Let’s look at the big themes, then get down to specific cases. What do the Democrats have going for them? History, for one. History doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The party in power, especially in a second term, tends to struggle in the midterms. People get tired of the status quo.

The problems add up, the friction and the fog of war slow the progress, and people get bored. That gives Democrats another advantage: excitement and intensity. And boy, are they ever excited and intense about taking us out. They can’t wait to crawl out of their old folks’ homes, cat-overrun condos, moms’ basements, Hollywood mansions, university dorms, and perverted communes to vote out those wicked patriotic Americans of the Republican Party. They would crawl over broken glass to vote against us or at least hire illegal aliens to do the crawling over broken glass that American Democrats won’t do. Every single one of them is going to vote, probably several times.

That intensity leads to their third advantage: the polls. Negative polling can demoralize Republican voters.

But to the extent the polls are not actively bent to support the Democrats (which some of them manifestly are), Democrat intensity skews the polls because Democrats actually answer them. Anecdotes are evidence of nothing but anecdotes, but I like to informally poll fellow Republicans about whether they ever respond to political polling. I never do. And they tell me they never do. I don’t know who the Republicans answering these polls are, but I haven’t met one.

The polling is terrible for us if you take it at face value. It has us losing in places we have no business losing. But I just can’t make myself believe it. The polls don’t fit the fundamentals, and they’re too darn convenient for the opposition. Is that wishful thinking? It may be, but it’s wishful thinking based on polling’s track record of failure. Remember the famous 2024 Ann Selzer Iowa poll that had Kamala three points up on Trump? Trump ended up beating her by something like 13 points. And just a couple of weeks ago, Hasan Piker’s Hamas-diddling puppet Abdul in Michigan was supposed to win by double digits over his moderate (sic) Democrat opponent, but he ended up barely squeaking to victory by a point or so. The polls are wrong a lot, and always in one direction. When’s the last time you found a polling error that favored a Republican? That’s about as likely as finding leftovers in JB Pritzker’s fridge.

Of course, the polls could be right. I don’t think they are. Given the dire unanimity of the current polls, disbelieving them means betting on both the malice and the incompetence of the pollsters. I’ll take that bet, especially when so many are polls from outfits you’ve never heard of, like the “University of College/Pepsi Challenge Public Opinion Survey” or the “Geebo Strategies Online Solutions.”

What do we have in our favor? Well, we have a ton of money. That’s good. Plus, the folks in the know whom I’ve talked to like the strategy of waiting until after Labor Day to really start spending. Democrats have been spending for a while, but traditionally you spend early to create a positive image for your candidate and tear down the other guy. That used to work, but will it work now? This is a very partisan environment. If you’re a Democrat, we already know what we think of you, and all the ads with you and Mee-maw sitting on the porch talking about values you don’t actually believe in aren’t going to change your image as an avatar of a political party that supports crime, communism, castration, and open borders.

We also have Donald Trump, who’s good for turning out our voters. His ability to enrage the other side is already baked in, but he’s going to be out and about everywhere rallying our troops. That’s good. And while the convention was slammed for low ratings, it did what needed to be done. It set a positive tone and motivated our base.

This election is all about turning out our base. We now have a decade of experience getting the kind of voters in our coalition to come out and vote when Donald Trump himself is not on the ballot. We better turn them out. That we can’t is everyone’s big fear. But the base staying home because it’s mad seemed much more plausible when the Democrats were just annoying rather than a threat to our way of life. It’s easy to say, “Who cares?” when, at their core, both parties are composed of people who generally like America and want what’s best for it. But that’s not true with today’s Democrats.

They want to flood us with Third World barbarians, mutilate our kids, take our guns, tax us into poverty, and outlaw normal people. Yeah, there’s an affordability problem, and there’s a crime problem, and there are lots of other problems, but the Democrats caused all those problems, and everyone knows that it’s not like they’re going to fix them. America has become vastly more partisan, and vastly more binary, and I’m thinking that very few Republicans are going to be able to swallow the idiotic notion that we need to show the dumb Republicans among us (and there are a lot of dumb Republicans among us) what-for by allowing the election of a bunch of communist pervert-enablers.

I just don’t think Republicans are going to stay home in droves, much less actually vote for Democrats. I do expect the polls to tighten as we get closer to Election Day, largely because that’s when pollsters have to start thinking about their reputations and will take at least a couple of their fingers off the scale. It always happens.

So, let’s look at the races. There’s just too much going on in the House to go through individually, but our maps will do a lot to limit any damage. The House is going to be tough because we only have a handful of seats in our majority, but some of the folks I’ve talked to were confident about it in private. These people have nothing to lose by telling me what they really think. You can take it or leave it. But while Team Black Pill will get all the regime media coverage, know that there are a lot of GOP guys out there who think we can do OK in the House.

The Senate remains our firewall. We have a 53-seat majority. Democrats need to net four seats to overcome JD Vance’s tiebreaker vote. Let’s ignore the wildcard scenarios, like whether Lisa Murkowski or John Fetterman might switch parties to ensure a majority. Let’s find those four seats, if we can. We’ll start with the seats Republicans are defending. Keep in mind, the polls are negative for Republicans in pretty much all of them.

I’ve talked about Texas and that blasphemous imp Talarico already this week, and for the reasons I set forth, I think we hold it.

With the guy with the Nazi tattoo having been replaced by the guy who has kids with his second cousin, Susan Collins has a very good chance of keeping her seat in Maine. It would be pretty wild for the Maple Syrup State to swap out the chair of the Appropriations Committee for a guy who makes family Thanksgiving dinners awkward with sexual tension. She’s likely to win.

North Carolina is probably the Republicans’ toughest fight, with Michael Whatley struggling against that state’s less masculine version of Abigail Spanberger. Roy Cooper is a straight-up leftist pretending to be a moderate, and North Carolina is a purple state. I think we lose that one, but we shouldn’t give up.

Dan Sullivan in Alaska has to contend with Dem dirty tricks like ranked-choice voting and a doppelgänger on the ballot. It will be tough. I think he holds – a lot of Alaskans depend on oil, and the Democrats want to end the industry. But it will take money and effort.

Jon Husted is allegedly struggling in Ohio against leftist retread Sherrod Brown. The same is true in Iowa, with Ashley Hinson against Josh Turek. Both of these are red states. It’s hard to toss out an incumbent like Husted, and Hinson is a strong candidate. It’s going to take money and work, but I think we pull it off and keep both seats. There is also some crazy talk about Democrats expanding the map to Kansas and Florida. That’s just not going to happen, and if it does, it’s such an apocalypse that nothing else is going to matter anyway.

Now, the best defense is a good offense. What states are we going to take from the Democrats? Jon Ossoff is getting the full-court press from the regime media in Georgia; he’s an even more beta Beto, but they do like young, glib, good-looking guys. He’s up against Mike Collins, who’s a good old boy, and who I’ve gotten to know a little from interviews. The dude is smart. He ran a trucking company. When you talk to him, he doesn’t talk to you in hack clichés. He talks about money, organization, getting out the vote, and what matters. Do not underestimate him the way a lot of people seem to. Governor Brian Kemp, who backed somebody else in the primary, just decided he wanted to remain a viable GOP candidate in 2028 or later and has endorsed Collins. Let’s see if he turns his formidable Republican machine out to snatch that Senate seat; if he does, that makes him viable in the future. If Kemp can’t help recapture the seat, what good is he? In any case, we have a decent chance in Georgia, but let’s be conservative and assume we don’t; though if we do, that destroys all the Democrats’ dreams once and for all.

In New Hampshire, John Sununu seems to have a decent shot at beating Chris Pappas, who’s another Spanberger Democrat who talks moderate but would vote left. New Hampshire is a purple state, and they do elect Republicans. The name Sununu still means something there. Again, my conservative nature tells me that it’s more likely than not that we lose, but if we win, oh boy.

In Minnesota, Michele Tafoya is running against a lunatic, pervert-loving communist woman in a state that elects lunatic, pervert-loving communist women of all genders. But enough about Tim Walz. We’re probably not going to win this one, but there’s that outside chance.

And then we come to Michigan, where Mike Rogers, a straight-up veteran patriot, is going up against Abdul El-Sayed, a straight-up Islamist communist who makes AOC look like William F. Buckley. Here we’ve got a real opportunity, and I think it’s more likely than not that the good people of Michigan are going to want to be represented by a resolutely normal guy rather than a guy who dreams of imposing socialist sharia on a country he despises. I think we win this one.

So let’s tally it up. I think we lose one we had, and I think we gain one we didn’t. I think we have a couple of other pickup opportunities in purple states, but it’s hard for me to see them picking up any in our red states. It could happen, but I don’t think it will.

So I put the Senate at 52 to 54 GOP.

This is just a snapshot just under seven weeks from the midterm election. That’s an eternity. Anything can happen. And anything probably will happen.

Kurt’s next action-packed conservative novel, “American Warlord,” is out for presale now! Read Kurt’s Kelly Turnbull/People’s Republic series, including the latest “Panama Red,” and follow Kurt on X @KurtSchlichter!

Kurt Schlichter

Sen. Rand Paul: End federal welfare for refugees, let churches, charities, families sponsor instead

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has suggested that churches and family members of refugees could sponsor and fund people’s relocations, as he calls for an end to federal welfare benefits for refugees, some of whom remain on benefits long-term.

Paul appeared on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show” Tuesday to discuss separate lawsuits filed by major American cities and 22 states over a pending rule that seeks to prevent immigrants who would be dependent on government assistance from entering the U.S.

“We actually have laws on the books that [say] if you come here illegally, you’re not supposed to be eligible for a host of welfare programs for five years,” Paul said.

“Some of the [ways] that people have gotten around this is by coming [on] refugee status,” he added. Paul noted that refugees are exempt from the federal government’s five-year waiting period for certain means-tested benefits and cited statistics showing that about 85% of Somali refugees who went on welfare when entering the U.S. are still on welfare before calling for changes to federal law.

Paul highlighted legislation he introduced that would “eliminate all welfare for refugees.” The bill, titled the End Welfare for Noncitizens Act, would prohibit the use of federal funds to provide benefits to refugees, asylees and illegal immigrants from obtaining federal funds under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Paul insisted that under the bill, “You can still come to this country, have someone sponsor you, have a church sponsor you and they take care of you.” He mentioned another option would be to “have a family member sponsor you and they take care of you. That’s the way it historically was. That’s the way it should be.”

“We should not have any welfare for immigrants, and it should not be a beacon to the world to come here and get free stuff,” he proclaimed. Paul also discussed documented welfare fraud before characterizing the welfare system in the U.S. as a “terrible system” where “the federal government funds it and the state governments police it,” asking, “if you’re policing something you don’t pay for, do you really care if it’s wasted?”

Paul accused Democrat-run states of using the welfare system to “bribe people to get their vote.” According to Paul, “They say ‘here, you can all have welfare and we’re not going to check to see whether you need it or not or whether you’re stealing it because Uncle Sam, the federal taxpayer, is going to pay for it.’”

Paul asserted that the federal government should shift responsibility for both funding and oversight of welfare programs to the states.

“I propose that we shift this all back to the states so that the payment and the policing would be at the state and they would bankrupt themselves if they didn’t police the system,” he said.

While Paul’s bill itself hasn’t received a vote in the Senate, Paul previously offered an amendment that would have eliminated funding for refugee and entrant assistance. The amendment was rejected in the Senate.

Twenty Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 that would have eliminated funding for refugee and entrant assistance.

Paul’s appearance on “The Will Cain Show” and his push for an overhaul of the welfare system, along with his call for churches and families to assume responsibility for sponsoring refugees, come as a new rule published in the Federal Register is slated to take effect Friday.

The rule seeks to reverse a Biden-era policy that the Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Homeland Security alleges “limited the public benefits that DHS could consider in a public charge inadmissibility.”

Federal law declares that “Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday by New York City, Chicago, Santa Clara County, California, San Francisco, Seattle and King County, Washington, alleges that the new rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and would have adverse economic impacts. The plaintiffs are seeking to have the rule set aside.

The states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin as well as the District of Columbia filed a separate lawsuit making similar allegations in the same court Monday. Both complaints are asking for a federal court to set aside the new rule.

In a statement posted on X Monday, DHS reacted to the lawsuits by asserting that “Sanctuary states are terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs.”

Condemning the “ideological contortion required by left-wing leaders to justify their defrauding of the American taxpayer at the hands of illegal criminals,” DHS stated that it had “heard for months that illegal aliens weren’t using these very same programs” before asking, “Which is it?”

Ryan Foley, Christian Post

Dismay from Democrats over Fetterman’s job performance boils over in Pennsylvania

At a demonstration against the GOP-controlled Congress, a decidedly anti-Trump crowd has a Democrat’s name on its mind: Sen. John Fetterman.

“I voted for him. I donated money to his campaign,” said Vick Lindquist. “I feel like I’ve been stabbed in the back as a Pennsylvanian. It’s very — I can’t even put it into words. I’m so disappointed in him.”

In his 2022 campaign against Mehmet Oz, Fetterman was hailed as a progressive willing to buck convention, campaigning in what would become his Senate uniform of a hoodie and basketball shorts. While in office, he’s grown increasingly isolated from his party, in part over his votes for several of President Trump’s cabinet nominees, his resolute defense of Israel and his frequent appearances on Fox News, where he bemoans the far-left wing of his party.

His seat comes up for re-election in 2028 — a date some of his constituents say can’t come fast enough.

Senator John Fetterman sits in a room in Jerusalem with a menorah in the background. Fetterman is wearing a white hooded sweatshirt and looking off camera.

Middle East conflict

Fetterman traveled to Israel and met with Netanyahu despite blowback on the left

“He doesn’t seem to want to do the job, at least based on everything that his ex-aides are telling us,” said Rod Dougherty of the Lehigh Valley. “He should pack up his bags and go.”

Dougherty was nodding to a recent Wall Street Journal article that reported Fetterman has skipped hearings, missed meetings with constituents and shown a general disinterest in the day-to-day responsibilities of being a senator.

NPR has not independently verified the reporting and his office did not respond to a request for comment. In an interview with CNN, Fetterman dismissed the Journal‘s reporting as “lies, half-truths, innuendos, smears and anonymous.”

Long-simmering frustrations

Discontent among his base has been brewing for some time.

“Initially, I was very excited about Fetterman,” said Ren, a Democrat in southeastern Pennsylvania who voted for him. She spoke on condition that NPR only use her first name, citing concerns about sharing her political beliefs publicly in what she sees as an increasingly partisan and dangerous climate.

“You really felt like he was fighting for you. And he was a non-conformist — obviously with his wardrobe, but also just very outspoken in a progressive way.”

She said her frustration came to a head when Fetterman voted alongside Republicans last year to end the government shutdown. At the time, Democrats were holding out their votes in a bid to renew expiring health care subsidies.

“I was really disappointed with his decision. I feel like he’s betraying Democratic Pennsylvanians and independents who support him,” she said. “I regularly write emails to his office and the last email I sent says, ‘please step aside and let someone else have your job who will do the job as they’re elected to do.’ And he’s not doing the job that he was elected to do.”

Sergio Cea is the political director for Reclaim Philadelphia, a progressive group inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. He said he hears frequently from voters about their frustration with Fetterman.

“It’s something that makes my work very hard because as an organization that tries to endorse candidates with populist messages, more and more what I’m hearing from people at the doors is — how can I trust this person you’re supporting? I don’t want to get another Fetterman,” Cea said.

Surprise spot at GOP convention

Fetterman has developed a friendship with Sen. Dave McCormick, his GOP Pennsylvania counterpart. The pair recently formed a joint fundraising committee — a rare form of bipartisanship that raised eyebrows. Fetterman even filmed a video introduction for McCormick at the recent GOP midterm convention in Dallas.

“I’m a commonsense Democrat. I’m always going to stand with America. I’m always going to reject the extremes and socialism and that anti-American way of life,” Fetterman said in the video.

Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa., was at the convention and said he was surprised by Fetterman’s appearance.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is displayed on a screen as he delivers a video message during the Republican National Midterm Convention at the American Airlines Center in Dallas on Wednesday.

Politics

Fetterman, already at odds with his party, makes surprise video for GOP convention

“But at the same time, Sen. Fetterman and Sen. McCormick have a great working relationship that is very well known. I would think that’s what you want as a state when you have elected officials from two different parties — that they would work together well,” he said. “What I’m most surprised by is how angry Democrats are with the fact that one of their members wants to work in a bipartisan fashion with somebody else. To me, that is exactly what we should be doing.”

The video sparked outrage among Democrats.

“It’s a big strategy for this election for Republicans — they say ‘common sense versus communism’ or ‘common sense versus crazy,'” said Christopher Beem, managing director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State. “[Fetterman] said words that directly fit with the Republican strategy for ’26. That’s bad for Democrats.”

‘I’m not going to be a Republican!’ 

A common refrain among many frustrated Democratic constituents is that if Fetterman is going to have a cozier relationship than they’d like with GOP lawmakers, he should make it official and switch parties.

In May, Fetterman addressed this directly in a Washington Post op-ed, saying he’d be a “terrible Republican who still votes overwhelmingly with Democrats.” He has since said he would switch if the Democratic Party became the “anti-Israel party.”

But his declarations haven’t stopped him from getting peppered with the same question. On Tuesday, he exasperatedly told a reporter on Capitol Hill, “I’m not going to be a Republican!”

Pennsylvania state representative and House majority whip Mike Schlossberg said people suggesting Fetterman switch parties are overlooking the political reality.

“His votes are pretty much in line with our party, maybe a little bit more conservative and a little bit more pro-Trump — but Pennsylvania is a swing state and I don’t actually have a problem with his votes,” Schlossberg said. “I have a problem with how he’s chosen to advertise himself and the disrespect that he’s shown to Pennsylvania voters in doing so.”

Many of Fetterman’s policies are solidly in the Democratic platform, like supporting abortion rights and LGBTQ rights, expanding healthcare and raising the federal minimum wage.

“So let me get this straight. The guy who flew the LGBTQ flag, who ran around advocating for the legalization of marijuana — he’s going to be welcome in the Republican Party? Anybody who thinks that has been smoking too much of what Sen. Fetterman wants to legalize,” Schlossberg said.

Outrage spills into state politics 

Fetterman’s Democratic constituents aren’t the only ones up in arms in Pennsylvania. State and local Democrats say the senator isn’t part of the intense campaign effort to make the case for Democrats up and down the ballot in November.

“He has been nowhere,” said State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, who ran against Fetterman in the Senate primary. “Frankly, I’m not sure his presence would be welcome to begin with.”

Allegheny County Councilman Dan Grzybek voted against Fetterman in that primary, but went on to knock on over a thousand doors to get him elected in the general election.

“I can’t think of a single event that I’ve seen John at since he was elected in 2022,” Grzybek said. “We can’t find you anywhere, we can’t get assistance from you — but yet you can go on Fox News, you can fly out to Israel multiple times, you can appear on Bill Maher — how is this helping Pennsylvanians?”

He added there was broad support for Fetterman after he had a stroke ahead of winning his seat, and a later hospitalization for clinical depression at the start of his term.

“Folks were extremely sympathetic to Sen. Fetterman and what he went through with his stroke and the mental health concerns he had following his stroke,” Grzybek said. “It was really only after that point, whenever he was casting votes and engaging in rhetoric that was very contrary to the values in which he ran on — that’s when folks started to get disenchanted with him.”

Lori McFarland, chair of the Lehigh County Democratic Committee, said although Democrats “have had it with him,” there’s no coordinated push to get Fetterman to leave office.

“Right now, we have a more immediate election in November – but I do believe that we have some really strong people that are interested in primarying Fetterman come 2028.”

Barbara Sprunt, NPR