In spite of the summer hustle and bustle of our beautiful Delaware beaches, there’s still that “off-season” time of year when our resort yet again becomes a small town. This is when I start hearing one of the most common off-season complaints: “Everybody knows your business.” Though it seems to be a widespread feeling, it’s not entirely accurate.

Nobody knows your business unless you tell it to them. If you care enough to inform somebody of something personal, then obviously that’s something they should know. But if you don’t know the person who has (supposedly) formed an opinion about you, then on what basis could that opinion have been formed? A lot of people get caught up in the fact that others think poorly of them. But most of these opinions are based on a few random – and unverifiable – “facts”. So why care about it? It doesn’t make sense.

The only opinion that truly matters is the one you hold about yourself. A close second are the opinions of those whose values you respect. Beyond that, caring about what others think is about as pointless as superstition.

Writer Warren Wojnowski of ezinearticles.com has an interesting take on the subject: “[Other people] don’t really know you. They don’t understand what thoughts and feelings you are experiencing. So they are in no position to offer an opinion — but of course that won’t stop most people from sharing one with you. Then, because you become so concerned about how others will perceive you…, you find yourself making decisions within the context of what you think they might think. Which of course means it’s all made up anyway! You let the imagined opinions of others dictate the decisions you make in your life. The only opinion of you that matters is your own. Learn to operate from a position of confidence in your own abilities and intuition.” Psychotherapist and author Nathaniel Branden puts it even better: “Self-esteem is the reputation we acquire with ourselves.” Words to live by!

Years ago, I asked a client why she cared so much about the opinions of others. She answered honestly: “You know how it is, Dr. Hurd, We all want to be part of the pack.” Though I understand, I don’t agree. To want to be loved is one thing. To want to find people who share your values, your interests; to fulfill the need for human connection, is perfectly natural. But acceptance by others, for its own sake, shouldn’t matter to a healthy person. It shouldn’t be an issue of, “Will someone like me?” It should be, “Will I find people I like?”

We human beings tend to project. Projection is the subconscious assignment of beliefs or motivations to other people with little or no evidence to back it up. We project without realizing it – especially in a small town. You tend to see the same people over and over, although you don’t know most of them well. The degree to which you are insecure is the degree to which you will assume that others think certain negative things about you. How do you know what they’re thinking? In fact, what makes you believe that they’re even thinking of you at all?

A late friend of mine once interrupted her husband who was proceeding to explain what HE thought their neighbor Rose thought about him. “You flatter yourself,” she said, “if you think that Rose thinks about you at all.” This hits the nail on the head. We don’t know that others are thinking about us. And whatever it might be, so what?

The road to happiness is paved with self-esteem. You can’t have self-esteem if you are overly concerned with what others think. Life is stressful enough. Don’t be sidetracked by things that don’t matter. Live your life for yourself, and expect others to do the same. If they hardly know you, but are in fact making judgments about you, then the problem is theirs, not yours.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

The two parties used to compete over rational goals. Democrats and Republicans both claimed to be better for prosperity, for fighting crime, for upholding the Bill of Rights, and for “the working man.” No more. If you want to reduce crime, today you can only support the Republicans. A vote for the Democrats is a vote to defund police, let violent felons into the country, and shut down prisons. If you want America to have a border, as opposed to letting terrorists and felons into the country while giving them free groceries and health care, then you must vote Republican. If you are a parent and desire even SOME say over how to raise your child, the Republican Party is your only option. If you don’t wish to live under Sharia Law, Republicans are your only cover. If you want even watered down, overly taxed and regulated capitalism, rather than outright socialism, then you cannot even consider the Democrats. If you want anything other than repeal of the First and Second Amendments, then Republicans are your only hope.

This is what it means for a party to become “radicalized.” The Democrats, since Obama, are proud of their radicalization. They are getting more radical every day. They hardly pretend otherwise. If Democrats actually pull off any kind of victory in the already started election, then it will be sold (by a one Party media) as a victory for Marxism, Islam and totalitarian rule. You’re a dangerous fool if you fall for it. I hardly know what to say any longer. I simply cannot believe the Democratic Party is even taken seriously by 5 percent of the population. In 1950 or 1980 or even in 2000, it would not have been.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

I have read, over the past two weeks, the following things about the election:

There will be a massive blue wave.
There will be a huge red wave.

Jews favor Republicans two to one (unprecedented).
Jews are still Democrats.

More urban voters are Republican than before. More blacks are Republican.
Democrats are ahead in every group.

Record numbers of Hispanics like Trump.
Hispanics are going two to one for Democrats.

California will go Republican. California will sweep Democratic.

Unprecedented numbers of Democrats are abandoning Democrats because of the explicit socialism and antisemitic views.

Unprecedented numbers of Republicans are abandoning Republicans and voting straight blue for the first time in their lives.

I have never seen such a contradictory and convoluted mess of desperate propaganda and impossible to objectively critique information. Frankly, on both sides.

Survivors of dictatorships (like the former Soviet Union, Maoist China) have told me that you could never believe what you read — ever — in those societies.
It seems that America has become the same.

It’s deeper than politics. It’s what the death of reason looks like. No intellectual honesty, no objectivity.

No truth.

When reason goes, liberty is not far behind because liberty depends upon truth and integrity.

We have to find a way to get reason back.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Everyone’s excited about Medicare for All. No more premiums. No more medical costs. No more worrying about health insurance. The government covers everything. Unfortunately, the Medicare program for seniors is going bankrupt, as is Social Security. In the next decade, it will collapse by the government’s own figures. So how is Medicare for All going to step in and cover everything and everyone? Taxes can’t go high enough. Democrats want to tax “the rich” as high as 90 percent. But even that won’t cover the cost of Medicare. The only possible solution? Rationing. Plus mandated euthanasia. There’s no other way. People voting for socialism (right now, in early voting) think they suffer so much under capitalism. But how will they cope with the medical equivalent of empty grocery store shelves? Oh, and empty store shelves are coming too. Perhaps when hunger and famine become part of American life, health care won’t matter as much.

But hey — we will have AFFORDABILITY under socialism. That’s all that matters.

*******

We use DNA as the final word in convicting violent criminals. DNA is so trusted that we will send a convicted criminal to Death Row based on it. Yet when it comes to men who decide they’re women, or women who decide they’re men, we no longer consider the DNA evidence. Gender is whatever you say it is, or feel it is, in a given moment. If your DNA proves you’re a man, but you claim you’re a woman — why then, you’re a woman. So much for “trust the science.”

*******

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau.”
― Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

On April 6, 1967, 20-year-old Douglas Hegdahl, a farm kid from South Dakota, was knocked overboard from the USS Canberra in the South China Sea. By dawn, he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Unlike the captured pilots who arrived in Hanoi, Doug had little military training or intelligence experience. His captors saw a confused, inexperienced young sailor and assumed he was too simple to be dangerous. Doug made a decision that would change his life and the lives of hundreds of others: he let them believe it. He acted clumsy, confused, and almost comically incompetent. His captors mocked him, gave him humiliating nicknames, and eventually stopped watching him closely.

While the North Vietnamese underestimated him, Doug quietly gathered intelligence. He sabotaged equipment when opportunities arose, but his most important mission was collecting information about fellow American prisoners of war. He memorized their names, ranks, capture dates, military units, and hometowns. Unable to write anything down, he devised an extraordinary solution: he encoded the information into a song using the melody of Old MacDonald Had a Farm. Through constant mental rehearsal, he memorized the details of 256 American POWs, ensuring their identities and circumstances would not be forgotten. Among those who recognized the significance of his achievement were senior officers, including future Senator John McCain.

On August 5, 1969, North Vietnam released three American prisoners, including Doug, believing his release would serve their propaganda purposes. Instead, they had unknowingly freed a remarkable intelligence asset. The moment he reached friendly territory, Doug delivered the information he had painstakingly memorized. The 256 names gave the U.S. government concrete evidence of American prisoners being held in North Vietnam. Families who had endured years of uncertainty gained vital information about their loved ones, and officials had specific cases to raise with the North Vietnamese. Doug later received the Silver Star and testified before Congress about the treatment of American POWs.

Think about the price he was willing to pay. Doug endured ridicule and humiliation, sacrificing his pride so other men would not be forgotten. He understood that appearing weak could be more powerful than trying to look strong, and that being underestimated could become an extraordinary advantage. His story is a reminder that courage doesn’t always look like defiance, and intelligence doesn’t always announce itself. Sometimes, the bravest person in the room is the one everyone else dismisses. Douglas Hegdahl proved that a young man armed with patience, discipline, and a song could carry the identities of 256 men out of a prison—and help bring hope to the families waiting for them back home.

FeelGoodThoughts

Dec WTI crude oil prices fell on Thursday as the market assesses mediation efforts to avert a possible US military attack on Iran after this Tuesday’s US mid-term elections. The Wall Street Journal reported that US Vice President Vance sent a letter to hardliner Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of Iran’s top security body, to see if a framework for negotiations exists. Iran said it has not yet replied to the letter. Axios reported Wednesday that Qatar is leading behind-the-scenes mediation efforts, supported by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Türkiye.

The news of negotiations followed the Wall Street Journal’s report Tuesday that the US has told several Persian Gulf countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign against Iran. The WSJ said President Trump hasn’t yet decided to proceed with the attack but is leaning toward an attack after next Tuesday’s mid-term elections.

In a bullish factor, Wednesday’s weekly EIA report showed US crude oil inventories fell by -1.9 million bbls, more than market expectations of a -1 million bbl decline and the fourth straight weekly drop. Gasoline inventories rose +3.87 million bbls, while distillate inventories fell -1.46 million bbls. In a bearish factor, US crude oil production rose to a new record high.

Despite the ongoing hostilities, oil continues to flow in the Middle East. Oil transiting the Strait of Hormuz so far in October was 16.7 million bpd according to Kpler and 15.4 million bpd according to Vortexa, approaching pre-war levels of about 19 million bpd. US Energy Secretary Wright said on Monday that Persian Gulf oil flows have recovered to about 80% of their pre-war level, though refined-product shipments remain constrained.

Higher Saudi crude output is bearish for crude prices. Saudi Arabia said its Sep crude production rose by 2 million bpd (+40% m/m) to 8.732 million bpd, recovering from a 36-year low in August. However, Saudi oil production continues to be threatened by Houthi missile attacks on Saudi Arabia and by the Houthi threats to oil shipments near the Bab-al-Mandeb Strait.

Recent attacks by Ukraine on Russian oil infrastructure have curbed Russian crude production and exports. Ukraine attacked Russian fuel-producing plants 15 times in September and 22 times in August, targeting five of Russia’s ten largest oil-processing plants. According to EA Analytics, Russian crude-processing rates averaged 3.51 million bpd in July, the lowest in 24 years, amid damage to Russian energy infrastructure caused by drone and missile attacks from Ukraine. Russian crude processing rates recovered slightly to 3.98 million bpd in September as damaged refineries struggle to come back online.

On the bearish side for crude, the International Energy Agency (IEA) on September 11 warned that high oil prices and restricted oil supply will cause the biggest drop in global oil demand this year since the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite the projected demand drop, the IEA raised its estimate for this year’s global oil deficit to 1.7 million bpd from last month’s 1.3 million bpd estimate due to the restricted supply caused by the US-Iran war. The IEA said the return of a global oil surplus will be delayed until 2027, later than its previous estimate of late 2026.

On October 4, OPEC+ agreed to keep oil production quotas unchanged for November. As a bearish factor for crude, OPEC delegates on August 2 approved their final increase of +188,000 bpd in crude production for September. On paper, the group has restored all 1.65 million bpd of the supply cutback it made in 2023 and said it plans to hold output steady for the rest of the year after the September hike. However, OPEC+ may struggle to deliver planned production increases amid Middle East shipping disruptions. OPEC’s Sep crude production rose by +1.12 million bpd to 20.71 million bpd.

Vortexa reported on Monday that crude oil stored on tankers that have been stationary for at least 7 days rose +8% w/w to 87.42 million bbl in the week ended October 23.

Wednesday’s EIA report showed that (1) US crude oil inventories as of October 23 were -3.7% below the seasonal 5-year average, (2) gasoline inventories were -2.0% below the seasonal 5-year average, and (3) distillate inventories were -9.5% below the 5-year seasonal average. In a bearish factor, US crude oil production in the week ending October 23 rose +5.4% w/w to a new record high of 13.992 bpd as production more than recovered after a temporary decline due to Hurricane Isaias.

Baker Hughes reported last Friday that the number of active US oil rigs in the week ended October 23 rose by +1 rig to 460, slightly below the 1.5-year high of 462 rigs posted on October 9.

Rich Asplund, BarChart

Former Vice President Kamala Harris declared packing the U.S. Supreme Court and reworking the Electoral College “first priorities” during a New Hampshire campaign swing for U.S. Senate nominee Chris Pappas and other Granite State Democrats Saturday.

Harris, who sits atop the national polls for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary, made a three-city campaign swing through the state. She pumped up volunteers at a Portsmouth phone bank and poured beers at Feathered Friend Brewing in Concord.

Then she joined Pappas on stage for a taping of an episode of the “My Body. My Pod.” podcast with Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All in Manchester. (Editor’s note: NHJournal reporter Leonard Robinson was turned away from the event by Democratic operatives and was not allowed to participate in the press coverage. More here.)

During that podcast, Harris laid out her vision for what she called “structural change” in America’s political system.

Acknowledging that her proposals would be “controversial coming from me,” Harris didn’t hold back.

“We have to expand the Supreme Court. Let’s expand it to 13 because we have 13 circuit courts.” (Harris misspoke about the lower courts: There are 13 federal circuit courts and 94 district courts.)

“We also need to take a critical look at the Electoral College, fight for statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. We need to overturn Citizens United,” Harris added. “These have to be first priorities.”

And to achieve them, “We have to be ruthless.”

“And so, when I talk about ruthless, I mean simply that we have the backbone to actually act on accountability and consequence, because a harshly worded letter ain’t gonna get it,” Harris said.

And electing Pappas will help, too, she said.

“Chris Pappas will be the kind of senator who will hold accountable the system to the people, and fight,” Harris said.

Perhaps. But Pappas’ record on these issues is far less clear.

On packing the court, Pappas told NHPR earlier this month that he was a “no.”

“I don’t support that. I think that would be a never-ending tug-of-war between both political parties.” Instead, he suggested term limits or age limits for justices, saying turnover would benefit the federal judiciary.

However, a month earlier Pappas voted “no” on a constitutional amendment to set the number of judges at nine.

Pappas has also wobbled on eliminating the Electoral College, a move many political experts say would be disastrous for small states like New Hampshire.

During an Oct. 7, 2020, NHPR debate, he said, “I believe in one person, one vote. I think (eliminating the Electoral College) is something we should take a look at.”

He called the system an “antiquated compromise” and said he was concerned about presidents winning without a national popular-vote majority.

Eight days later, WMUR reported that Pappas opposed both expanding the court and abolishing the Electoral College.

The John Sununu campaign says Pappas’ campaigning with Kamala Harris reflects the sort of U.S. senator he would be.

“Again and again, ‘California Chris’ has shown that he is more interested in catering to the Far Left than serving the people of New Hampshire,” said Sununu spokesman Mike Schrimpf. “If Chris Pappas is this partisan during an election, just imagine what he’d be like during a six-year term.”

Harris also campaigned with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cinde Warmington and congressional candidates Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Stefany Shaheen.

The court has had nine justices since 1869. Congress sets its size through legislation, according to the Supreme Court’s explanation of its structure.

Since the Supreme Court achieved a 6-3 originalist/conservative majority, Harris has repeatedly called for changing the rules.

At the National Urban League conference in Nashville on July 31, she said, “We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts.”

She also urged reconsidering the Electoral College at that event.

In a June interview with Don Lemon, Harris agreed that a 13-member court is worth considering. When asked specifically about getting rid of the Electoral College, she said, “I don’t think we should eliminate that as a point of discussion for potential action.”

On Keke Palmer’s podcast, released Oct. 13, Harris again endorsed expansion. “I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court.” Advocating changes to the Electoral College, she said, “The popular vote has to matter.”

Harris has a double-digit lead over the nearest contender, fellow Californian Gov. Gavin Newsom, in the national RealClearPolling average. However, in the new St. Anselm College Survey Center poll released last week, she’s well back in the pack with just five percent support.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg finished in first place with 28 percent support.

Michael Graham, NH Journal

Craig Bannister

October 28th, 2026 4:36 PM

This could snowball quickly as staffers seek safe harbor,” renowned George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley explained Wednesday in his analysis of a New York Times report that Alaska Democrats schemed to deceive voters in the midterm elections.

Democrat Alaska Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign sought out and convinced a retired teacher with the same name as her Republican opponent to put his name on the ballot in an apparent effort to dupe voters, The The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing its review of communications and interviews.

“If true, the report raises concerns over filings by Peltola in seeking to dismiss an action by the Justice Department to address the obvious effort to confuse voters. The Peltola campaign did not state that they were actively informed in such efforts to cause vote errors,” Prof. Turley noted in a series of X.com posts.

In light of the Justice Department’s federal lawsuit seeking to block certification of the election results, if votes for the other Mr. Sullivan cost Senator Sullivan the win, Peltola’s staff could be exposed to legal liability, Prof. Turley explained:

“Since the Justice Department has already filed and has raised concerns over the legality of this effort, campaign officials can be at risk if there were efforts to conceal this conduct in pressuring potential witnesses or destroying possible evidence.”

“This could snowball quickly as staffers seek safe harbor given the federal filing,” Turley predicted, noting that “The NY Times is citing not just this campaign worker but others associated previously with the campaign.”

Turley called it “striking” that The New York Times article refers to multiple sources attesting to the Peltola campaign’s effort.

“It is even more problematic when Peltola recently filed to prevent efforts to address the confusion by calling the allegations “baseless,” Prof. Turley added:

In her recent federal filing, Mary Peltola’s counsel insisted, ‘DOJ’s complaint is wholly baseless.’ Now the NY Times is reporting that her campaign was actively involved in seeking to confuse Alaskan voters by running decoy ‘Dan Sullivans.’ A staffer now says that Peltola knew about the effort to force voter confusion.”

Prof. Turley did, however, cast doubt on the allegation that Peltola’s lawyers played a role in the scheme, because “few would be willing to put themselves at such risk,” legally and professionally.

As CNSNews has reported, interviews, text messages, and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit obtained by The New York Times suggest that Peltola’s campaign:

• Instructed a staffer to find as many people in Alaska named Dan Sullivan (the Republican candidate) as possible.
• Compiled a list of Alaskan Dan Sullivans, based on voter records.
• Employed an operative using a fake name to travel to, and meet with, each Dan Sullivan to convince him to declare himself a Senate candidate.
• Persuaded a retired teacher named Dan Sullivan living in a tiny fishing village accessible only by air and sea to announce his candidacy for the state’s Senate.
• Involved the Peltola campaign’s lawyers and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).
• Dubbed the scheme “the ballot composition project.”

MRC News Busters

After losing Brazil’s election, Flávio Bolsonaro fled to Miami in an elaborate operation aided by Trump’s inner circle and Argentina’s president

Less than 24 hours after losing Brazil’s presidential election, Flávio Bolsonaro appeared to vanish into a convoy of four dark cars.

After pulling away from his home in Brasília on Monday evening, the vehicles split in different directions, leaving journalists and authorities scrambling to determine which one carried Bolsonaro. By the next afternoon, the former presidential candidate’s allies were telling reporters he had already reached Florida.

As Brazilian and international outlets reported that Bolsonaro had left the country, he was still in Brazil, while a private jet waited for him across the border in Argentina. At 12:21 a.m. Wednesday, the Gulfstream G400 took off from Puerto Iguazú and whisked him to Ecuador and then Miami, where his entry was facilitated by Trump allies his family spent years cultivating. 

The getaway—which relied heavily on deception and decoys—sparked a global guessing game that left even some of Bolsonaro’s closest allies in Washington and Brazil in the dark about his whereabouts.

After Bolsonaro stepped off the plane in Miami on Wednesday morning wearing a navy polo shirt and a backpack, uniformed officers used umbrellas to shield him and his family from cameras. Their arrival followed an extraordinary effort by a small circle of influential Trump allies, senior U.S. officials and Argentine President Javier Milei to help him fly to the U.S. and secure entry, despite a Brazilian court order barring Bolsonaro from leaving the country. 

Referring to himself as the “leader of Brazil,” Bolsonaro thanked President Trump for welcoming him to a “land of freedoms” and Milei for his “courage” and “sense of justice” in a statement from Miami Wednesday.

Trump personally approved admitting Bolsonaro.

Vera Bergengruen, Samantha Pearson, Ryan Dubé and Philip Wegmann

The Wall Street Journal

Russian Permanent Representative to the OSCE Dmitry Polyansky highlighted that the alliance “continues to rely on hybrid warfare, in which a bleeding Ukraine fights on everyone’s behalf”

VIENNA, October 29. /TASS/. Russia and NATO are moving closer to a direct military clash with each passing day, said Dmitry Polyansky, Russia’s permanent representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

“A direct military clash between Russia and NATO has not yet occurred, although we are moving closer to that point every day,” he told a regular meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council. TASS has obtained the text of his remarks.

Polyansky said the alliance “continues to rely on hybrid warfare, in which a bleeding Ukraine fights on everyone’s behalf.” He also described the Ukrainian authorities’ actions against the Russian language, Russian speakers, canonical Orthodoxy and Orthodox Christians as manifestations of that warfare.

TASS