Elon Musk warned that if Democrats get a trifecta — a “clean sweep” — by winning control of the House, Senate, and the presidency in 2028, they will make Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico states, expand the Supreme Court, and open borders.

In a post on X, Musk explained that by making the nation’s capital and Puerto Rico states, packing the court, and opening the borders and legalizing illegal migrants, it “would result in America becoming a permanent one-party state.” Musk added that it would also result in “the end of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.”

“My biggest concern is that if there is a clean sweep by Democrats of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2028, they will: 1. Make DC and Puerto Rico states to gain a strong majority in the Senate,” Musk wrote.

He added that his second concern is that Democrats would “open the borders and legalize everyone living in” the United States “illegally to cement a permanent majority.”

As his third concern, Musk listed they would “[i]ncrease the size of the Supreme Court to gain an immediate majority.” [Newsmax 10-30-26]

It will be a totalitarian dictatorship without an open seizure of power. They will say it’s “democracy” and therefore ok. If you question it, you will be called an enemy of “democracy,” and the federal government agencies will all be poised and weaponized. America — all of it — will be one gigantic California, or Seattle, or Chicago, or Massachusetts, with no possibility of losing power. There will be no going back.

A totalitarian government benefits nobody, except for the rulers. You might smugly conclude, “Well, I am a Democrat. I have nothing to fear. Let them censor, imprison or even kill the MAGA people. Who needs them?” This will come back to bite you, I promise. Affordability–which you won’t have under a socialist econony–will be the least of your concerns.

*******

“To me gun control is how steady you hold your weapon.” — Senator Darline Graham, running for U.S. Senate in South Carolina against a far left, woke socialist.

I hope she means it. Her opponent is a Communist and an advocate for Islam, gender alteration of children, government seizure of private property, censorship and gun confiscation. Democrats in all 50 states are radicalized. A vote for any Democrat anywhere is an act of suicide-homicide — unless you cheer the end of America and plan to go live in Cuba, Venezuela or Iran after America is destroyed from within. I can hardly believe we have reached such a low point that we have to beg and plead our fellow Americans not to kill us all by voting in explicit totalitarians. I cannot fathom the ignorance, intellectual laziness and general depravity that brought us here. I am grateful that I (being in my 60s) knew better times, because today’s children and very young adults possibly never will.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

President Donald Trump could soon face a dramatically different Congress, and investors are already evaluating what that might mean for the stock and bond markets.

With Democrats seeking control of the House and Senate in Tuesday’s midterm elections, the possibility of divided government is raising questions about corporate regulation, government spending, and the future of some of Wall Street’s most important industries. Banking, artificial intelligence, healthcare, and cryptocurrency companies could face increased scrutiny, while changes in fiscal policy could influence interest rates and investment returns.Start Investing

A Political Shift That Could Reshape Wall Street

The November 3 elections will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress or Democrats gain enough seats to challenge the Trump administration’s legislative agenda.

Republicans currently control both chambers, but their House majority is narrow. Democrats need a net gain of three House seats and four Senate seats to secure majorities, making control of Congress a central issue for investors heading into Election Day.

The financial implications could extend far beyond the political battles in Washington. A Democratic victory in either chamber would complicate Republican efforts to advance legislation, potentially slowing tax initiatives, financial deregulation, and policies benefiting certain industries.

However, a change in congressional leadership would not automatically reverse the Trump administration’s existing policies. The president would retain executive authority over many regulatory and trade decisions, and major legislation would still face significant obstacles.

For investors, that distinction is important. The biggest consequences of the election could come from changes in congressional oversight, regulatory expectations, and corporate spending rather than sweeping new laws.

Why Wall Street Could Face More Scrutiny

One of the most immediate consequences of a Democratic takeover would be a shift in congressional committee leadership.

Democrats would gain greater authority to investigate federal agencies and private companies, request documents, hold hearings, and summon executives to testify. Industries that have benefited from the administration’s policies could find themselves under closer examination.

Financial institutions, cryptocurrency businesses, and technology companies would be particularly exposed. Democratic lawmakers have already questioned the administration’s efforts to loosen financial regulations and its relationships with digital asset businesses.

These investigations could affect corporate valuations even without new legislation. High-profile hearings may expose business practices, increase compliance expenses, or create uncertainty about future regulation, prompting investors to reassess company risks.

The potential impact would vary substantially across industries, with some facing greater challenges and others potentially benefiting from policy changes.

Six Industries That Could Feel the Biggest Impact

1. Banking: Regulatory Relief Could Slow

Major U.S. banks have benefited from the Trump administration’s efforts to ease certain financial regulations, including capital requirements, supervisory practices, and consumer protection enforcement.

A Democratic Congress could challenge those efforts through congressional investigations and increased oversight of financial regulators. Companies such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup could face greater scrutiny of their lending practices, consumer fees, and relationships with federal agencies.

Prominent Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters, have supported stronger financial oversight and questioned aspects of the administration’s deregulatory agenda.

However, financial regulators would retain considerable authority over their own rulemaking. Congressional pressure could slow additional regulatory relief without necessarily reversing changes already implemented.

For bank investors, the outcome could affect expectations for future regulatory costs. Nevertheless, interest rates, loan growth, credit quality, and the strength of the broader economy would remain central drivers of profitability.

2. Artificial Intelligence: The Industry Could Face New Restrictions

Artificial intelligence has become one of the most important drivers of stock market growth, fueling enormous investments in semiconductors, computing infrastructure, and data centers.Read Economics

Companies such as Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Amazon have significant exposure to the continued expansion of AI technology. However, growing concerns about electricity prices, data center construction, and the financial consequences of rapid infrastructure development are attracting greater political attention.

A Democratic Congress could intensify investigations into AI companies and support legislation addressing the industry’s impact on consumers and local communities.

One major concern involves electricity demand. Data centers consume substantial amounts of power, and lawmakers from both parties have expressed interest in ensuring that their construction does not impose excessive costs on residential electricity customers.

Additional requirements could increase expenses for companies developing large computing facilities or delay projects in regions facing power constraints.

For investors, the issue reaches beyond technology stocks. Utilities, natural gas producers, power equipment manufacturers, and infrastructure companies could also be affected as policymakers decide how to accommodate growing electricity demand.

The long-term opportunity in artificial intelligence remains substantial, but the cost of supporting that growth could become increasingly important to company valuations.

3. Healthcare: Drugmakers and Insurers Could Face Pressure

Healthcare could become one of the most politically sensitive industries following the election, particularly as Americans continue dealing with rising insurance premiums, prescription drug costs, and medical expenses.Buy Maps

Democratic lawmakers have proposed measures intended to limit prescription drug prices, increase oversight of health insurers, and address the denial of medical claims. Companies such as UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health, Humana, and major pharmaceutical manufacturers could face greater attention.

More ambitious proposals, including Medicare for All, would face significant political obstacles under a Republican president. However, congressional hearings and narrower policy initiatives could still influence how investors value healthcare companies.

For insurers, the financial implications would depend on potential changes to reimbursement rates, benefit requirements, and government-sponsored healthcare programs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers could face additional pressure over drug pricing, particularly for expensive treatments used by Medicare beneficiaries.

There could also be benefits for parts of the healthcare industry. Divided government could reduce the likelihood of certain cuts to federal healthcare programs, potentially supporting companies dependent on government reimbursement.

For retirees and investors holding healthcare stocks, the important question is how proposed policies would affect company earnings and the cost of healthcare coverage.

4. Cryptocurrency: Regulatory Momentum Could Stall

Cryptocurrency businesses have spent considerable time pursuing legislation that would establish clearer rules for digital assets and potentially reduce regulatory uncertainty.

A Democratic takeover could complicate those efforts, particularly amid disagreements over consumer protections, oversight responsibilities, and relationships between cryptocurrency companies and political officials.

Companies such as Coinbase could face uncertainty about the future regulatory environment, while executives may be called to testify before congressional committees.

The industry has supported legislation that would clarify whether particular digital assets fall under securities or commodities regulation. Delays could extend the period of uncertainty for exchanges, investors, and businesses developing blockchain-based financial services.

Still, Democrats hold differing views on cryptocurrency regulation, and some support establishing comprehensive rules that could encourage institutional participation.

For investors, regulatory developments could influence cryptocurrency company valuations, although prices of Bitcoin and other digital assets would remain closely tied to market liquidity, institutional demand, and investor sentiment.Read Economics

5. Energy: Oil, Natural Gas, and Power Projects Could Face Changes

Energy policy could become another major source of disagreement between Congress and the White House.

Republicans have generally supported expanding domestic oil and natural gas production, accelerating infrastructure approvals, and reducing environmental restrictions. Democrats could seek stronger environmental oversight and greater scrutiny of federal energy policy.

One important issue involves legislation intended to make it easier to build pipelines, transmission systems, and other major energy infrastructure projects.

Companies such as Williams Companies and Energy Transfer could benefit from faster permitting processes, which can reduce development costs and shorten construction timelines. However, political disagreements over environmental protections could delay legislation.

The situation is complicated by growing electricity demand from artificial intelligence. Both traditional and renewable energy projects could benefit from efforts to expand power generation and transmission capacity.

This creates areas where lawmakers from both parties may find common ground, even if they disagree over fossil fuel development and environmental regulations.

Investors should pay particular attention to companies supplying electricity, natural gas, and critical infrastructure for data centers. Their long-term opportunities may be influenced as much by electricity demand and construction economics as by political decisions.Start Investing

6. Trade and Tariffs: Trump Could Remain Aggressive

A Democratic Congress would have limited ability to directly control some of President Trump’s trade policies, leaving tariffs as an important source of potential market volatility.

The administration could continue pursuing trade restrictions through available executive authorities, although those powers remain subject to statutory requirements and judicial review.

Additional tariffs involving China and other trading partners could affect companies dependent on international supply chains, including manufacturers, automobile producers, retailers, and technology businesses.

Higher import costs can reduce corporate profit margins, raise consumer prices, and complicate Federal Reserve decisions if inflation becomes more persistent.

Trade negotiations involving Canada and Mexico could also become more difficult if political expectations shift ahead of the 2028 presidential election.

For investors, the consequences would depend heavily on each company’s exposure to international manufacturing and imported materials.

Businesses with significant domestic production may be less directly exposed to certain tariffs, while multinational corporations with complex supply chains could face greater costs and uncertainty.

Global Market News

The Senate’s No. 2 Republican believes that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had a hand in the alleged scheme unfolding in the Alaska Senate race.

Operatives for Rep. Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign, along with top aides in Senate Democrats’ campaign apparatus, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), are alleged to have been involved in creating one of the stranger races this election cycle: finding and recruiting another candidate named Dan Sullivan to run against the incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, R-Alaska, according to reporting from The New York Times.

National Democrats have maintained they had no hand in the move, but Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News Digital in an interview that he believes the campaign received help from the very top.

“I mean, this is criminal behavior to steal the Alaska Senate race, it’s now been fully exposed,” Barrasso said. “And there is proof that the Peltola campaign knew about it, and that Schumer schemed and colluded with them for over a year to try to search for and then coax a decoy of Dan Sullivan onto the ballot with a purpose only to deceive the voters.”

Schumer’s office and Peltola’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.

The peculiar situation in Alaska has been ongoing for months and has sparked legal battles at the state and national levels, as well as condemnation from Republicans across the country, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Murkowski argued on X that “ballot-stacking should have no place in our electoral process.”

“Alaskans deserve the honest truth from Mary and her campaign — what has been revealed is a pattern of lies and coverups and a culture of deception that belongs nowhere in our elections or among our elected officials,” she said.

Alex Miller, Fox News

In 2008, California voters approved funding for a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. A group of contractors donated tens of thousands of dollars to support the ballot measure. A state program manager projected that the initiative would create more than 100,000 construction jobs.

Eighteen years and more than $15 billion later, not a single mile of high-speed track has been laid. The state hasn’t even laid track on the rump Merced-Bakersfield line that it wants to open in the 2030s. In a recently resurfaced video from his time as lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom said the full project was unlikely to “materialize in our lifetime.”

The bullet train, like almost every effort to build things in California, was killed by environmental regulations. The state’s high-speed-rail website contains more than 130,000 pages of environmental-review-related materials. Stacked together, they stand 40 feet tall and weigh 1,300 pounds. All this has cost taxpayers more than $677 million and served as a meal ticket for consulting firms that backed the 2008 ballot measure.

California law typically requires an entity to perform an environmental review when its building project requires a state permit. In practice, that applies to many major efforts in California. These reports create delays, new expenses, and burdensome requirements, some of which have nothing to do with meaningful environmental protection.

We wanted to find out how much environmental paperwork the bullet-train project has generated. To do that, we had multiple AI systems scan the reams of reports linked on the California High Speed Rail Authority’s website, and asked them to catalog the files, establish each one’s page-count, and sum those numbers.

Both systems tallied more than 130,000 pages. To verify the results, we reviewed one of the AI systems’ spreadsheets, which included each document’s web link, title, and page count. Remarkably, across more than 27,000 pages of cross-referenced files, the AI system didn’t make a single page-count error. A California High Speed Rail Authority spokesperson told us that the authority “does not maintain a running page count of all environmental documents,” but did not deny the 130,000-page figure.

Some of the bullet-train reports include ridiculous measures. One proposed that biologists count bumblebees, one by one. Another outlined when a contractor was allowed to break down woodrat stick huts. Still others contemplated using dogs to sniff for lizard scat or spending $119.4 million on an overhead tube partly to limit the train’s “acoustic impacts on waterfowl and shorebirds.”

Such measures have prompted a flurry of expensive change orders. Contractors have requested $480,000 “to dig small burrows for mammals by hand”; $352,490 for lizard surveys and reports; and $290,000 to implement the state’s environmental-requirements-tracking software. In one case, California’s high-speed rail agency revised its draft environmental report after the state proposed a regional mountain lion as a candidate for protected status.

Environmental reviews are one reason that costs continue to spiral. Another is poor oversight. A November 2018 state audit, for example, found that a contractor received a $3 million amendment from the rail authority. The authority, however, could not demonstrate that it had independently verified the contractor’s claims. Instead, it had lifted part of its report “directly from the contractor’s amendment request.”In June 2018, the authority unanimously approved amendments worth more than $142 million.

Who benefits from all this? Politicians and contractors. The scheme is straightforward: the contractors back the bullet-train boondoggle and shuffle money to politicians, and California directs millions of dollars to the firms to perform endless environmental reviews. It’s a massive gravy train.

Three contractors, HNTB, AECOM Tech, and Parsons Brinckerhoff (later acquired by WSP), were among the biggest donors to a committee supporting the 2008 bullet train ballot measure. They donated $63,000, $75,000, and $76,500, respectively.

The firms have also sent wads of cash to California Democrats and their pet causes. Newsom’s gubernatorial campaigns received $5,000 from AECOM’s PAC, $18,500 from WSP, and $26,000 from HNTB’s PAC. Governors Jerry Brown and Newsom solicited payments worth $55,000 and $75,000, respectively, from AECOM for charitable purposes. HNTB’s PAC donated to California rail advocate Scott Wiener’s campaign.

Their efforts seem to have paid off. AECOM, WSP, HNTB, and Parsons Brinckerhoff were paid $38 million, $61 million, $86 million, and $101 million, respectively,to perform high-speed-rail-related environmental reviews, according to data obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. One former HNTB employee, Ian Choudri, has become the bullet-train project’s chief executive.

California voters were promised a high-speed rail system delivering riders from San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours. Nearly two decades later, they face the prospect of a train transfer and an hours-long bus ride between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.

The main beneficiaries of this program are not California residents but consulting firms that bankrolled the ballot measure. For them, the point of California’s bullet train is not to move people, but to move money, for as long as possible—with taxpayers footing the bill.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution. Kenneth Schrupp is an investigative reporter at City Journal.

“Can’t we just be Mexico or Paraguay and have peace and quiet while things mostly go to hell?” — Matt Taibbi

A pro-Peltola political action committee (49th State PAC) paid $87,000 to an Ohio consulting company run by one Jerid Kurtz (operating under the name “Zane”) to compile a list of all the Dan Sullivans in Alaska and recruit one to run for Dan S. Sullivan’s Senate seat. They succeeded, finding Dan J., age 69, a retired US Forest Service employee and schoolteacher, in Petersburg, AK, who had never run for anything before. In late May 2026, he filed as a Senate candidate without a party label, then received about 2.5% in the top-four primary, and advanced to the general election ballot.

The Alt Dan Sullivan was assisted with all the filing paperwork by one Amber Lee, an Anchorage-based political consultant. A super PAC, Right for Alaska (meaning good for, not right wing, and based in Hudson, Wisconsin, by the way), has spent $1.15 million on Alt Dan, with $990,000 of that funneled in from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a Washington DC-based Lefty-left pass-through operation — a 501(c)(4), not required to disclose its dark money donors — that has handled hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years. The org is associated with Arabella Advisors, which is funded by George Soros’s Open Society grants.

Former campaign manager Rios had told The Times that, “Ms. Peltola was not directly involved in the Two Dan Sullivans project, but she was ‘definitely aware.’” Two days ago, just before publication of The Times report, Rios attempted to retract her story, declaring to the newspaper, “As discussed on our call earlier today, I am confirming that I have retracted all statements made regarding the 2026 Alaska Senate Race in connection with any article you may or may not be writing. I am not willing to be a source for any story in any capacity.” Nice try. Explain that to a grand jury.

The DOJ opened criminal and civil investigations in the Two Dan Sullivans matter last summer but bumped up its activities with the publication of The Times report. A grand jury was convened in August. On the criminal side, prosecutors have now issued thirty to forty grand jury subpoenas targeting Democratic officials, the Peltola campaign, and others linked to the Alt Dan recruitment effort. No one has been charged yet. At issue is whether this was a conspiracy to mislead voters or interfere with a fair election. Potential charges could include 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, conspiracy against rights / deprivation of rights under color of law and wire fraud.

On the civil side, a DOJ lawsuit filed October 23, seeks to block certification of the vote if Senator Dan S. Sullivan happens to lose the election in a way that could be attributed to voter confusion.

Yesterday, Governor Mike Dunleavy directed the Alaska Bureau of Investigation to determine whether the prank violated Alaska law and whether criminal charges or civil action are warranted. The governor said the state’s actions were based on “Alaskans’ right to vote for the candidate they actually intend to support” and described deliberately confusing voters as “striking at election integrity.” The Alaska Supreme Court previously ruled that Daniel J. Sullivan (Alt Dan) met the constitutional requirements to appear on the ballot and that officials could not exclude him based on alleged motives. How that happened remains a mystery.

From a public sentiment point of view, the Two Dan Sullivans case underscores how desperately filthy Democratic Party tactics are in the service of preserving their longstanding racketeering operations. As a practical matter, the outcome could affect which of the two parties gets control of the US Senate. A vote for Democratic Party candidates is a vote to wreck our country. Think hard on that when you go to the polls.

James Howard Kunstler

POLK COUNTY, Fla. (CBS12) — A weeklong undercover operation called “Polk Around & Find Out II” led to 281 arrests in Polk County, including 17 people who worked at theme parks, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s office said Friday. The operation targeted child predators and human trafficking and resulted in 488 new charges, including 198 felonies.

The Polk County Sheriff’s Office ran two stings at the same time: one targeting adults seeking sex with children and another focused on human trafficking. Sheriff Grady Judd called it the largest undercover operation his office has conducted.

At the news conference, Judd said investigators found 31 people who traveled to meet a child for sex, while attorney general’s office counted 32 arrests in the traveler sting. The release said the separate trafficking sting led to 249 arrests, including 117 alleged sex buyers and 122 people arrested for prostitution

Two other suspects were charged with human trafficking in connection with the child predator investigation, the sheriff’s office said. Detectives accused Derrick Opitz, 27, of offering a child’s guardian $500, and Odlanier Marrero Rodriguez, 22, of offering marijuana in exchange for sex with a child.

Uthmeier’s office said those arrested had 798 prior charges, including 358 felonies. Nine were on probation, and nine had been arrested in earlier sheriff’s office stings. Authorities said 24 suspects brought firearms to the operation, while 32 people were charged with drug possession.

Of the 17 theme park employees arrested, 13 worked for Disney and four for Universal, Judd said. He said Disney told investigators it had fired the employees.

Among the 31 child predator arrests, the sheriff’s office highlighted Rashion Crayton, 31, of Bartow, whom it identified as a youth football coach. Detectives said Crayton exchanged explicit messages with an undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl and arrived at the meeting location with lubricant and sex toys. He faces charges including traveling to meet a minor and attempted lewd or lascivious battery, the department said.

The sheriff’s office said several suspects told detectives they worked at theme parks. Adam Snyder, 24, of Champions Gate, said he worked in Toy Story Land at Disney World; investigators found part of his uniform and his Disney ID in his vehicle, according to the release. Snyder was among the 31 people accused of traveling to meet a child for sex.

Uthmeier said his office would pursue the cases and seek significant penalties. “We need our judges to take this seriously,” he said, arguing that repeat offenders can pose a risk if they are released early or receive light sentences. He said prosecutors would review defendants’ records and pursue additional charges when warranted.

The operation also included services for people who may have been trafficked. Judd said partner organizations identified 11 possible victims. One More Child’s senior director of anti-trafficking operations, Saine Dressler, said the group spoke with 93 people, supported them through initial court appearances and continued outreach through jail visits. Eighteen had agreed to receive services so far, she said.

Stacy Ham, a survivor who works with One More Child, said identifying possible exploitation is only one part of the response. People also need long-term support, including housing and accessible services, she said. “Behind every number is a person, a story and someone that deserves to be seen, valued and heard,” Ham said.

The operation involved local, state and federal agencies. David Gritte, an acting deputy field office director with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said officers interviewed more than 65 foreign-born people encountered during the operation and placed more than 30 immigration detainers. The attorney general said 32 people arrested were in the country illegally and 16 had been turned over to ICE.

CBS News12 Orlando

Stephen Kruiser

There is something in the watercooler at The Washington Post. Well, more specifically, in whatever water WaPo’s editorial board is drinking. For the most part, the Post remains a hotbed of Trump Derangement Syndrome-induced hysteria. Typically, the wildfire of irresponsible propaganda “journalism” is lit by editorial directives. For example, The New York Times editorial board is comprised of pathological liars, and that creates the standards-free environment that permeates the organization.

WaPo’s editorial board has been getting some things right lately, which is one of the most interesting things I’ve seen in 20+ years of writing about media bias. The way it gets there can often be convoluted, which is what I’m discussing in this column. More often than not, there will be mere kernels of correctness in an editorial that mostly misses the mark. Here is an example from its most recent editorial, which is about various property tax initiatives that are on the ballot next week:

Ad hoc rate cuts require capable elected officials who closely monitor tax collections and don’t have grand designs for greater government spending. Such officials are not always in power. So, voters may want a more solid assurance that their tax burden won’t rise too fast.

Old-school WaPo boards spent more than half a century celebrating “grand designs for greater government spending.” The new group sees not having any as something that “capable elected officials” do. This board is risking not being invited to the Democrats’ annual “Free Healthcare and Abortions Also Plus J6” ball next year.

Another editorial this week was titled, “Europe is running out of other people’s money,” which made me do a double-take. I don’t think WaPo channeling Margaret Thatcher has ever been on anybody’s bingo card. After determining that I wasn’t concussed, I dove right in to see what the catch was. We’ll take a look at the intro to the piece, then get into that:

France’s political crisis is colliding with a mathematical one. The government has made expensive commitments that its economy isn’t growing fast enough to keep. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets again this weekend to fight for larger slices of a pie that is not getting bigger.

The grievances differ from country to country, but the protests unfolding across Italy, Portugal, Spain and Belgium share an economic backdrop: weak growth, rising living costs and governments struggling to satisfy public demands.

The article is a fairly decent examination that begins its conclusion with the stunning line, “A continent that fancies itself a regulatory superpower should not be surprised when it impedes wealth creation and winds up with less wealth to redistribute.” Again, this is The Washington Post editorial board. The board members sound like they’re ready to revive the Tea Party movement. 

The leftist bent of the WaPo board shows up not in what was written, but what wasn’t. There is no mention of the not insignificant rise in Muslim migrant populations in the countries that are struggling. Once more, with feeling: Mark Steyn told everybody that something like this would happen 20 years ago in America Alone. In it, he wrote of large influxes of Muslim migrants who immediately got on the dole in European countries that didn’t have a lot of barriers to entry for those desiring full participation in the welfare state. 

One of the biggest problems in France since the riots broke out is that no one on the left is being honest about the root of the unrest. As I told my good friend, co-host, and partner in thought crime Stephen Green on a recent episode of “Five O’Clock Somewhere,” it is impossible to formulate a coherent response to a crisis when the people in charge refuse to correctly identify what the crisis is. 

Ignoring the Muslim component in France‘s current situation takes effort. As Catherine wrote earlier in the month, there was evidence that only Jewish-owned businesses were being targeted by some rioters, while businesses owned by Muslims in the same area were safe. Even coincidence doesn’t think that’s a coincidence. Catherine’s post goes on to note that Palestinian flags were well represented among the rioters. 

The WaPo editorial does point out the harsh financial realities of hyper-regulatory states that keep promising freebies to their citizens. That’s a partial win, given the history of the organization. However, ignoring the huge common denominator that accelerated the rush to the edge of the fiscal cliff for all of these countries is irresponsible. 

Things will only get worse if leftists in government, media, and voting booths keep deluding themselves about the Islamic agenda. Don’t look for that to stop anytime soon. As the WaPo board showed here, the only terror that lefties fear is being called Islamophobic.

PJ Media

The endless cries of creeping fascism from the Left have become exhausting, particularly when progressives keep reminding us that their problem isn’t authoritarianism itself, but who gets to wield the authority.

The most recent example? Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton – a man who routinely warns about fascism – advocating for the government to seize control of private companies.

Reich wants a Democrat-controlled government to cut off Elon Musk’s government contracts and prepare to nationalize SpaceX and Starlink if they regain power. In the spirit of Marx himself, Reich wants the state to take ownership of Musk’s lucrative companies.

The thinly-veiled democratic socialist also proposes a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. The solution to all our societal ills is to apparently empower wealthy Washington politicians to go shopping in someone else’s wallet.

The nationalization proposal reveals something important about the political left’s approach to power.

Musk’s companies are undeniably influential. His government contracts deserve scrutiny, just as those awarded to any major defense contractor do. Reasonable people can debate whether the government relies too heavily on private companies for critical infrastructure, whether contracts are structured properly, and how to ensure accountability.

But nationalization is a different proposition entirely. It’s not simply regulating a company or enforcing the terms of a contract. It’s transferring ownership from private hands to the government because officials (or, in this case, a prominent progressive intellectual) don’t trust the person running it.

We’re supposed to believe that concentrating even more power in the hands of government is the solution to the dangers of concentrated power?

The irony is difficult to miss. We’re constantly told that wealthy individuals exerting influence over public affairs constitute a threat to democracy. Yet Reich’s proposed remedy would give the government ownership and control over companies whose technology has enormous implications for communications, space exploration, and national security.

Apparently, concentrated power is dangerous when Elon Musk holds it but potentially liberating when Washington does?

Not every regulation is socialism. But government ownership of private enterprise is a distinctly collectivist answer to the problem Reich identifies, and it deserves to be recognized as such.

There’s also a basic question of consistency here. If the government can seize or nationalize a company because its owner has become too powerful or politically objectionable, what principle limits that power? Who decides when a private citizen has crossed the line, and what prevents a future administration from applying the same logic to businesses it dislikes?

These are precisely the questions one would expect from people concerned about authoritarianism.

Instead, we get years of dire warnings about rising fascism on the Right, followed by proposals on the left to put private enterprise under government control. The rhetoric can’t shroud the underlying temptation: concentrate power in the hands of people convinced they can be trusted with it.

Before lecturing the country about the dangers of authoritarianism, the Left should explain why its preferred solution involves giving the government more power.

Salmon, beef, organic produce and Amy’s Kitchen meals: These are just some of the luxury foods that California welfare recipients can have delivered to their homes each week, for free.

Californians like TikTok user “Lupita” are taking full advantage. Earlier this year, she posted a video of herself opening a taxpayer-funded grocery box, apologizing to her manicurist as she unboxed it by hand. Inside, she found carrots, heads of broccoli, apples, oranges, celery, rice, lettuce and more.

“Yesterday, I was like, ‘I need some lettuce,’ but the lettuce was like $5,” she said. “And look at this. Fresh lettuce! Thank you, God.”

She can also thank Gov. Gavin Newsom. As part of his nearly $12 billion Medicaid reform package, welfare recipients — including illegal immigrants — can receive free, “medically tailored” meals and groceries, delivered straight to their doors. They can obtain foods for free that would cost ordinary people a small fortune.

The food service is part of CalAIM, Newsom’s multibillion-dollar Medi-Cal reform package. Signed into law in 2021, CalAIM directs Medicaid dollars to social programs like transitional rent payments and housing deposits. Newsom called it a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to completely transform the Medicaid system in California.”

The transformation is working. The most popular of CalAIM’s “Community Supports,” by far, is “medically tailored meals.” That program and a related offering send prepared meals or “tailored” grocery items to qualified Medi-Cal recipients’ homes.

The state makes eligibility easy. Applicants need a qualifying Medi-Cal card, a provider’s recommendation, and an eligible condition. In a 2024 presentation to a Los Angeles nonprofit, Andrew Barrier, a former executive of a California medically tailored food contractor, told his audience how easy it was to enroll.

“They’re not looking to push people away from the program, they’re really looking for people to be on it,” he said.

From there, the food shows up at recipients’ doorsteps. Medi-Cal pays contractors to deliver the food for up to 12 weeks, after which eligible recipients can re-enroll.

And it’s not cheap: Across 24 weeks, between food and delivery, a single “medically tailored meals” recipient costs taxpayers more than $1,500.

Joel Pollak, NY Post

NewsNation correspondent Joe Khalil posted a text he received from a Republican member of Congress on Thursday painting a grim picture of the party’s chances in South Carolina.

Khalil posted the screenshot on X/Twitter. In the tweet, he called the congressman’s words a “brutal assessment” on the “party’s own prospects” in South Carolina Senate’s race. The messages read:

Republicans won this seat by 18 points. The fact it’s this close and the speaker has to come to SC 1 to drag the R across the finish line is embarrassing. —-ing embarrassing it’s so close.

Darline race is probably dragging this race down also.

Seat might flip.

Darline is dragging Rs down the ticket. The only saving grace is that the governors race is where it should be.

YIKES 👀

Just got this absolutely BRUTAL assessment from a sitting Republican member of Congress about their party’s own prospects, particularly in South Carolina as both President Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson are making campaign stops there this late in the game. pic.twitter.com/UBaxSlfMuZ

— Joe Khalil (@JoeKhalilTV) October 29, 2026

Shortly after the sudden death of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Darline Graham — his sister — was chosen to run for the seat in his place. Despite the state historically being deep red, the most recent polling revealed that the Darline was “effectively tied” with Democratic candidate Annie Andrews. South Carolina is one of multiple Republican strongholds that Democrats have a legitimate chance of flipping in next week’s midterm elections.

The race has become so uncomfortably close for Republicans that Trump headlined a rally Thursday to drum up support.

Austin Ahmad, Jr., Mediaite