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

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