Just weeks out from the November midterm elections, a socialist insurgency appears to be taking the Democrat Party by storm. But instead of honestly reporting on this shocking and newsworthy development, the liberal media is instead criticizing Republicans for noticing it.

That was the upshot of a New York Times story earlier this month titled “Seeking Jolt, G.O.P. Turns to a New Red Scare.” (Perhaps because of backlash, the Times changed the headline on the online version of the article). The piece cites the warnings of numerous prominent Republicans, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise (R-LA), that the rise of so-called “democratic socialist” candidates for Congress (along with local officials like New York Mayor Mamdani) threatens the United States with the adoption of communist policies.

“Next year the communists will be in Congress — that’s what’s so frightening,” Speaker Johnson said at the GOP midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, earlier this month. That sentiment was echoed by other Republicans who took the stage.

According to the Times, those charges have “little overlap with Democrats’ actual platforms,” yet “some Democrats… worry that the rise of democratic socialism in their party could play into Republican efforts to cast them as extremists.” But as the Times acknowledges in the very same article, “in some ways, far-left leaders have fed the argument.”

In 2020, for instance, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (who notably spent his “honeymoon” in the Soviet Union) “praised elements of the Communist Cuban revolution.” Meanwhile, “Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who unseated a Democratic congressman in a New York primary in June, once maintained a social-media account that circulated a post suggesting that public libraries should carry more Marxist literature.” (As some readers also will no doubt recall, 2024 Democrat vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, the current Governor of Minnesota, spent extensive time in China and praised its communist government.)

The Times column nonetheless cites a University of Virginia presidential scholar who takes Donald Trump to task “for speaking so frequently and forcefully about communism in a way that recalls the Cold War” – and even “the so-called Red Scare” of the 1950s, during which Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy led a series of investigations into domestic communism “that became notorious for their overreaches.”

Senator McCarthy was indeed a demagogue who persecuted often-innocent individuals through his hearings. But the “Red Scare” wasn’t merely an irrational case of “paranoia,” as the Times maintains.

The American government post-World War II had indeed been infiltrated by a limited number of highly placed individuals who served as communist agents – including the atomic spies the Rosenbergs (who were executed for treason), longtime State Department official Alger Hiss, and individuals who influenced American policy that aided Mao Tse-Tung’s rise to power.

When the Russians obtained the means of manufacturing nuclear weapons thanks to their spy network, Americans, not knowing how far the network extended, had good reason for worry. Initially, this concern was not strictly partisan. In the 1950s, journalist Irving Kristol, writing in the then moderate-liberal journal Commentary, wrote that American voters with some justification felt that prominent Democrats seemed less trustworthy than Republicans on the need to confront the communist threat.

The Times would now have readers believe that the “Red Scare” was totally baseless – thus justifying the paper’s claim that current Republican warnings about “communist policies” similarly have no merit. The Times – as well as the news and editorial pages of the more conservatively inclined Wall Street Journal and New York Post – have even played along with calling professed socialists by their preferred name – “democratic socialists” – blurring the actual threat that they pose.

As the policies initiated by Mayor Mamdani have demonstrated, there is nothing necessarily “democratic” in these socialists’ policies or stated goals – nor is there much distinguishing them from policies seen in communist regimes throughout history. In Mamdani’s case, this includes publicly financed groceries that will drive private competitors out of business, strict rent control policies that will similarly drive private landlords out of business, and so on.

Such policies show little regard for the principles of economic freedom – the opportunity to get ahead through one’s own efforts rather than political connections – that most Americans associate with democracy. This is to say nothing of the sympathy displayed by Mamdani and various other democratic socialists for Muslim terrorists abroad and violent lawbreakers at home, which seriously endanger our rights to freedom of speech and religion, as well as life itself.

Most alarmingly of all, the official Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) platform calls for abolishing the Electoral College, Senate, presidency, and Supreme Court, along with “public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries” and wealth taxation of the rich.

Moreover, it must be emphasized, as we see in Marx’s and Engels’s own writings, including The Communist Manifesto (see parts 3 and 4) and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, there is no clear line between socialist policies and communist policies; they used the terms almost interchangeably.

As they portrayed it, “communism” referred to the ultimate paradise, wherein all private property would have been abolished, along with social classes, religion, and government itself. This was to be obtained by means of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that would first establish socialism.

Historically, communists have understood this progression. That is why the Evil Empire was the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” At the 1961 meeting of the Soviet Communist Party, it was proclaimed that the final stage of communism, including the abolition of government, would be attained within the next two decades. Needless to say, the “Party” – the real governing authority – would remain just to “administer” things. But of course, it was the communist state itself that would wither away, along with the Party, not long after the predicted date.

It has been commonplace, but is quite wrong, to identify the social-welfare states of Scandinavia as instances of “socialism,” when they aren’t so at all: major private corporations flourish there, despite relatively high tax rates. (And Sweden is now cutting back on those taxes, for the sake of leaving more money in people’s pockets.)

Since, as the Times observes, polls show that “most Americans have unfavorable views of socialism,” it isn’t surprising that most professed socialist candidates are intentionally vague about the extremes of the policies they may pursue (both domestic and foreign) once elected. But the media should stop cooperating with the socialists’ smoke-and-mirrors campaign by calling them “democratic” just because they run on the Democrat ticket and ascribe that label to themselves.

There is solid ground for Republicans and independent-minded journalists to expose these “democratic socialists” for the danger that they pose to our democracy and our liberty – particularly given their growing influence in that party.

Ultimately, Americans should look past the dubious labels and judge these candidates by the policies they actually support. As socialists gain influence within the Democrat Party, the debate over what those policies would mean for private enterprise, individual liberty, and the structure of American government is likely to become only more consequential.

David Lewis Schaefer, AMAC Newsline

Most people I went to high school with did not go to college. Unless you grew up someplace incredibly wealthy, I bet it’s the same for you. It wasn’t expected of me; it wasn’t even really discussed because the concept was foreign to my family, and I only ended up going full time after a few years of floundering, drinking, and job after job I hated and was miserable doing.

I lost touch with most, but not all, people from high school. But losing touch doesn’t mean not knowing what they’re up to. Many went on to big careers and families, and I’m genuinely happy for them. Many of those careers are in the trades — the kinds of jobs you shower from, not for. If you’ve never had one of those, you’re missing out.

The satisfaction you get from completing a physical task is unmatched in the white-collar world. It’s why so many rich guys play dress-up and hunt, fish, or do some kind of craft involving woodwork. To this day, as I drive through Detroit on visits, I point out, with pride, to my kids the various apartment buildings I helped put roofs on. Naturally, they couldn’t care less — one of the joys of being 9 and 7 is not understanding much about things beyond your friends and toys — but someday in the next decade, if I do my job as a father right, they will.

It will be more difficult for their peers to understand that satisfaction and pride, as the number of those jobs in the physical trades continues to exist, they’re just no longer available to Americans.

In my life, I worked more jobs than most families — upwards of 82 at this point — and among them were roofer, electrician’s assistant for a local IBEW, and concrete work. When I did them in the 1990s, the crews were a rainbow of people that could fill a Benetton ad. We didn’t “celebrate” it; we lived it, and it didn’t matter.

Most importantly, we were all Americans who could communicate with each other, as we all spoke English. Go anywhere near a job site today, or roll down your windows as you crawl through a construction zone now, and you likely won’t hear English spoken. Maybe from the supervisor, if they happen to be on the job site at that moment, but otherwise you’ll likely hear Spanish.

While not impossible, the likelihood of an American only being able to speak Spanish is incredibly low. By law, though seemingly not enforced, you have to have a working understanding of English in order to become a citizen. That means any logical person should assume the crews on these construction sites are made of up, in the most generous scenario, Green Card holders or, in a more likely scenario, illegal aliens.

The good jobs that were available to me and my classmates who weren’t cut out for college right out of the box are gone. Well, not gone, just not for us anymore. American kids graduating high school who don’t know what they want to be when they grow up, or know what they want to be and are a journeyman, don’t have the chances that once were. Now, they have to learn Spanish in order to have a shot at one of these jobs.

The pathway to the middle class for people who grew up like me has been orange-coned and detoured away from what is one of the best ways forward for a high school graduate or dropout. Those jobs, those industries, have been ceded to illegal aliens with a wink and nod from the political class, or both parties.

If you’re good at your job in a skilled trade, you will always have work. Americans no longer have those opportunities.

We’re told illegals are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” This is a lie; I’ve done those jobs and know people who do them. They aren’t hiring Americans anymore, white, black, or Hispanic (if they aren’t fluent in Spanish).

The companies hiring these people need to be fined into oblivion, the illegals deported immediately, and I do not care how many crying neighbors chant as it happens. If they get in the way of federal officers enforcing the law, arrest and throw the book at them. Make enough harsh examples out of lawless leftists, and even the dumb ones will begin to pick up on the concept of consequences.

When I see stories like the one in Austin, Texas, about the illegal alien with a final deportation order (meaning he should’ve been long gone already) being shot in a confrontation with ICE, I can’t bring myself to care. He should not have been here; he should not have resisted; he should not have been hired by a food delivery app to deliver food. I do not care — the bleeding needs to be stopped, and then he needs to be put on a plane.

Democrats can whine all they want about how mean it is to people they consider their constituents, but it won’t change anything. That dumb Americans elect people to government positions where they will fight harder for illegal aliens with no business being in this country more than they will actual Americans is not my concern; I can’t save stupid people from themselves. My concern is everyone else — the people who have to live in the wake of morons; those who suffer the results of the stupid decisions these elected idiots impose on others.

I care about the Americans victimized by illegal alien crime. If they only attacked Democrats who support them being here, I’d care a lot less, but those people are insulated from the violence of their gardeners by heavy police patrols and private security. It’s normal people assaulted, never their kids.

As such, when I hear about an illegal alien or left-wing protester hurt “confronting ICE,” or whoever they feel “brave” taking a swing at, I don’t care.

I look at it the same way I look at a “bullfighter” being gorged — what did you expect to happen? Bullfighting is savage; it is disgusting and stupid. They drug the bull, poison the bull, wound the bull, then a weakling comes out in a costume with a sword to pretend to “fight” the drugged, confused animal, eventually killing it to make up for physical shortcomings elsewhere.

But every once in a while, the bull catches one of these “men” and inflicts real damage through the haze of the poison. I’m on the side of the bull.

ICE is the bull, just doing their jobs. And the illegals and the agitators are the “fighters” comfortable in the knowledge that the bull is restrained by law and professionalism, not to mention the human desire to not harm anyone and just get home at the end of a day’s work. They taunt the bull, they antagonize the bull, they resist the bull, and every once in a while, they cross the line and threaten the bull. For that, there are consequences.

The only real shock I’ve seen is that it doesn’t happen more often, given how many illegal aliens are taken into custody and how many cosplaying leftists have no understanding of how laws work and where the lines for self-defense are.

But ultimately, I don’t care. If you don’t want to get hit by a train, don’t play on the train tracks. If you don’t want to get deported, don’t come into the country illegally. Don’t want to lose in a physical confrontation with law enforcement, don’t start a physical confrontation with law enforcement.

Most of life’s questions have obvious answers; this is no different. It’s just a matter of acknowledging them and moving on. I invite you to join me in actively not caring and making your unambiguous disinterest known on social media. Don’t click on their stories, don’t fall for the outrage, just express your disinterest and then ignore them. Maybe they’ll get it then?

Probably not, but maybe.

And then vote against them in November and make sure everyone you know who agrees with you votes that way, too, even if they don’t want to vote. Ultimately, that’s the only way to really beat these people.

Derek Hunter, Townhall

Elizabeth Dwoskin, (c) 2026 , The Washington Post

Mon, September 21, 2026 at 1:59 PM EDT

Tyler Hassen’s initiation into Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, started as a series of tests.

The Houston oil executive says he was given vague instructions to show up at an unfamiliar D.C. address. He hastily packed three suitcases and flew east, taking an Uber to a building that he soon learned belonged to Elon Musk’s SpaceX. He was whisked to a private office, acutely aware that his tailored suit stood out among the hoodie-clad engineers “too locked in” to their laptops to look up. He was ordered to go through the website of the Department of Commerce and, within days, find two to five ideas to present to Musk.

He checked into a nearby J.W. Marriott and told his wife he didn’t know how long he would be gone.

Thus began an 11-month stint at the center of a national firestorm – an exhilarating, chaotic and sometimes scary experience, Hassen told The Washington Post, in his first major interview detailing his forthcoming memoir and plans. The memoir, “Inside DOGE: The Real Story From a Senior Insider,” which recounts his time working for the secretive cost-cutting group, is the first tell-all to emerge from one of the most controversial periods of President Donald Trump’s time in office – a moment Hassen said he would gladly live through again.

“There’s this misconception that we all just went in there and didn’t really think about what we were doing,” Hassen said, speaking virtually from a hotel room in San Diego. “I spent 24/7 thinking about it, waking up at 3 in the morning thinking, ‘Am I doing the right thing?’ … And I know I did.”

At the heart of the book is a split screen: For many Americans, Musk’s project was a callous showcase of bending government to a billionaire’s will, associated with tens of thousands of federal layoffs, reams of lawsuits, an AI-enabled effort to kill off wasteful contracts and the gutting of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

But Hassen’s memoir enters a different vision into the historical record: He portrays a period marked by a clash in worldviews, in which hardcore capitalists are granted unprecedented power to change a system that they argue operates under completely different incentives, logic and norms.

To Hassen, whose pre-government career involved turning around distressed companies, “DOGE was not radical,” he writes in the book. It was “not a wrecking ball, but a catalyst.”

In conversation, Hassen comes across as mild-mannered, a distant temperament from Musk, who famously brandished a red metallic chainsaw as a metaphor for cutting government waste. A 43-year-old dad with Boy Scout energy, he doesn’t cut the image of the nerd-engineer DOGE bro. He spent his entire adult life “hiring, firing, reorganizing and rescuing failing businesses” in industrial manufacturing and the energy sectors – a skill set that appealed to Musk, his longtime deputy, Steve Davis, and Baris Akis, a venture capitalist who served as a volunteer recruiter.

But for years, Hassen seethed with rage over the national debt, now at $40 trillion. He felt angry that the amount the U.S. spends annually just to service that debt is more than the government spends on national defense and many other public benefits.

So he raised his hand – making a cold outreach to Musk through a network of business world connections, he said in the interview, and pressed the point.

its speed, “faster than Washington was ready for and faster than its defenses could absorb.”

But Hassen insists that DOGE was not cruel, a word that appears six times in the memoir, often in relation to laying off federal workers. The refrain can read as a plea for reconsideration of an effort he argues was poorly understood.

“In the private sector, there’s an understood bargain,” he writes. “You’re hired to create value. If the value disappears, so does the job. It isn’t personal. It isn’t cruel. It’s the operating system of capitalism.”

Government, he argues in the book, runs on a different logic. Value is “presumed,” “permanence is the default,” and “the moral burden of proofs falls on anyone who questions headcount – no matter how bloated the system becomes.”

After the screening process, Musk and Davis deployed Hassen to the U.S. Department of the Interior, a sprawling agency that manages roughly 500 million acres of federal land and property, national parks, and tribal territories. He took the assignment, he wrote, because he knew “very little” about the agency and the challenge was appealing.

Hassen was eventually promoted by Doug Burgum, the wealthy businessman who heads the agency, whom Hassen described as something of a kindred spirit. He became acting assistant secretary of policy, management and budget and stayed on until November – months after Musk himself had left Washington.

During his tenure at DOGE, Hassen says, he put in 14-hour days, working nights and weekends. During the chaotic period he saw his then-4-year-old daughter only a handful of times. He said he relished the minutiae of the job: poring over grants written in what appeared to him to be bureaucratese, disassembling bloated org charts and consolidating departments.

He says he encountered a bureaucracy more labyrinthine and redundant than he could have ever imagined. He caught spelling errors in a project description written by a vendor charging hundreds of millions of dollars, which he saw as proof of a systemic malaise. The contract, he writes, “stopped me cold.” (To drive home the point, a photo of the paperwork with the spelling error is published in the book.)

He told The Post he was exhilarated to get deep into the bowels of the bureaucracy and deploy his corporate-honed skill sets to attack a problem that had long troubled him.

the project in the lurch. The night of that split, Hassen said, he paced around the Interior Department like a ghost. The next morning, he went to the agency gift shop and bought his daughter a T-shirt that said “Future Secretary of the Interior.” He thought it might be his last night in D.C.

Hassen’s experience working with AI for the first time at DOGE led him to take a new job leading Zone Frontier, a former cleaning supply firm with a new mission to provide infrastructure and permitting to the data center industry. Musk’s longtime lawyer, Alex Spiro, has also joined the board of directors, something Hassen said was a pure coincidence.

He says he hopes the legacy of DOGE will be that the country’s most gifted citizens will seek to serve their government. Instead of draining the swamp, he says, he wants to flood it with talent and energy.

“These are some of the best and brightest we have in America,” he said of the DOGE team. “I’m honored to be even a part of them.”

Faiz Siddiqui contributed to this report.

Behind the scenes, several people who worked closely with former Vice President Kamala Harris remain skeptical that she will launch another bid for the White House in 2028.

Although early polls show Harris leading the Democratic field for the nomination, a number of her former aides, advisers, surrogates, and donors do not expect her to run again, according to Axios.

The outlet spoke with eight former Harris aides and advisers, including several who held senior positions, about her prospects for another presidential campaign. Only one said she would probably run. Two viewed the decision as a toss-up, and five said she was unlikely to enter the race.

The former aides cited several factors, including Harris keeping a low profile and doing “the bare minimum” to stay relevant in the presidential sweepstakes. Potential presidential contenders have traditionally spent the pre-primary period building support in early-voting states such as New Hampshire and South Carolina and campaigning for their party’s candidates in midterm elections. Since her stinging election loss, Harris has gone on a book tour and is expected to campaign with Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed for Michigan’s contentious U.S. Senate race.

One former aide told Axios that Harris knows the political challenges she would face in another campaign. The 2028 Democratic primary is expected to be crowded, and Harris would have to convince Democratic voters she could win a general election after losing all seven key battleground states plus the national popular vote to President Donald Trump.

The Harris allies also pointed to fundraising concerns. Some major Democratic donors remain reluctant to support another Harris campaign, while others may be lining up behind other contenders such as Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. At a Politico panel earlier this month, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman threw cold water on another Harris campaign.

“I think it would be a very challenging path for her, and it’s going to be a very noisy field,” Hoffman said.

His negative assessment came days after Newsom said he’d defer to Harris, insisting he would not run if she threw her hat into the ring.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in a viral interview recorded while the two were fly-fishing in Montana.

Tapper later wrote that he was “stunned” by Newsom’s answer.

“Why would I?” Newsom continued. “I won’t waste everyone’s time.”

Newsom argued that a primary contest between the two California Democrats would benefit Republicans and force their overlapping political allies to choose sides.

“First of all, electorally, it’s a gift from God for everybody else,” Newsom said. “They’d enjoy the hell out of it. Mutually assured destruction. It serves no greater good.”

Jacob Wheeler, The Daily Wire

Medicare Part D sponsors made $587.7 million in ineligible payments to pharmacies for five drugs carrying obsolete prescription-only labeling more than a year after the corresponding brand-name drugs switched to over-the-counter status, a federal watchdog found.

The money won’t be recovered, because the payments complied with Medicare guidance in place at the time, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, which made the finding in an audit covering calendar years 2021 through 2023.

Medicare Part D, the federal prescription drug benefit, is delivered through private “sponsors,” including Medicare Advantage organizations and standalone prescription drug plans, under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The program covers 56 million older adults and people with long-term disabilities, according to a June 11, 2026, analysis by KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on CMS enrollment data. Spread across the entire program, the $587.7 million works out to roughly $10.50 per enrollee. By law, Part D does not cover drugs that can be purchased without a prescription.

Over the same three years, Medicare Part D paid about $360 billion in benefits, according to CMS trustees reports, meaning the ineligible payments amounted to about 0.16% of Part D benefit payments.

The bulk of the ineligible payments, $562.1 million, was tied to generic versions of Voltaren, a topical drug used to treat arthritis pain, spanning 12 drug codes and nearly 16 million prescription drug events, the claims records Medicare uses to track prescriptions filled. The other four drugs, Pataday and Lastacaft (both eye drops for itchy eyes caused by allergens), Astepro (a nasal spray for hay fever symptoms), and Sklice (a lotion that treats head lice), accounted for the remaining $25.6 million.

The payments continued because CMS relied on FDA data to identify drugs that had switched from prescription-only to over-the-counter status, while FDA had not set a specific timeframe for generic manufacturers to update their labeling after a related brand-name switch.

“FDA did not set a timeframe until it issued the 6-month policy effective on December 8, 2025,” Melissa Rumley, a spokesperson for the inspector general’s office, told The Center Square. “As a result, some generic drug manufacturers continued producing and selling OTC drugs as Rx-only inventories under NDCs associated with obsolete Rx-only labeling.”

CMS also had not set a deadline for Part D sponsors to stop paying for drugs under obsolete prescription-only codes.

The audit followed a 2022 case in which a drug manufacturer, Akorn, agreed to pay $7.9 million to resolve allegations it caused false claims to be submitted to Medicare by continuing to sell three generic drugs under obsolete prescription-only labeling after the related brand-name drugs switched to over-the-counter status.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a policy effective Dec. 8, 2025, directing generic drug manufacturers to update their labeling at the earliest possible time and within six months of a brand-name switch.

The inspector general found the payments specifically complied with CMS’s Formulary Reference File and guidance in place at the time, Rumley told The Center Square.

CMS concurred with the inspector general’s recommendation to issue guidance setting a timeframe for Part D sponsors to reject payments for outdated prescription-only labeling, Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote in a July 20 letter responding to the audit. The recommendation remains open, with the inspector general’s tracker listing an update expected by Feb. 27, 2027.

CMS did not respond to a request for comment. Rumley, the HHS inspector general spokesperson, responded to questions by email. The audit was issued Aug. 31, 2026, and posted publicly Sept. 2, 2026.

An unnamed sixth drug that switched from prescription-only to over-the-counter status during the audit period had no improper payments, the inspector general found. The policy gap will remain until CMS issues its promised guidance on when Part D sponsors must reject payments for OTC drugs carrying obsolete prescription-only labeling.

Brett Rowland | The Center Square

You can take the Somali out of Somalia, but can you take the Somalia out of the Somali?

Such eternal questions leap forefront to mind after the umpteenth investigation into suspected fraud and taxpayer abuse raises disturbing issues.

This time, the story comes via the Post Millennial’s Katie Daviscourt, and we’re no longer talking about Minnesota, but Seattle.

Some Seattle-area home daycares are facing questions over millions of dollars in taxpayer funding after an investigation found apparently empty facilities, uncooperative operators and one neighbor who flat-out called a nearby daycare a “scam.”

And when a reporter started asking questions at one location, a man fired back with an accusation of his own. Are you “Trump people”?

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: TPM’s @KatieDaviscourt investigated Somali home daycares in Seattle. Could there be millions of dollars of potential misuse of taxpayer funds?

When she knocked on doors, often no one answered and if they did they were hostile and defensive. Neighbors say they… pic.twitter.com/ixY5J4aFOU— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) September 21, 2026

You can’t fault him for the assumption, since the Democrat Party obviously doesn’t care about stopping fraud.

Daviscourt visited more than 20 daycare locations in two Seattle neighborhoods while investigating providers that she reported had collectively received more than $5 million in public funding. Her investigation focused on Somali-run home daycare businesses and whether the services being provided matched the substantial taxpayer payments associated with them.

One of the most striking stops was Daisy Family Childcare. According to Daviscourt’s review of public records, the daycare has received nearly $2 million in taxpayer money and was recently collecting approximately $70,000 per month.

But when Daviscourt visited during the middle of the day, she reported seeing no children at the property, which appeared on video to be a large, modern home.

Then there was Aboo Family Daycare, which Daviscourt reported was receiving roughly $40,000 per month in taxpayer funding.

A neighbor interviewed in the video didn’t mince words when asked about it, claiming he had known for years that the daycare was a “scam.”

It was hardly the only unusual encounter Daviscourt recorded during her tour.

At Hormuud Home Family Daycare in South Seattle, two women outside the property became frustrated when Daviscourt asked whether she could enroll a child.

The neighborhood itself was notable. A map displayed by Daviscourt showed more than a dozen daycare businesses clustered throughout the surrounding area.

At another location, Star Family Home Daycare, Daviscourt attempted to confirm whether the address was actually operating as a daycare.

“I don’t care, I’m not going to answer,” a woman at the property responded, according to the video.

Daviscourt reported that Star was receiving approximately $30,000 per month in taxpayer funding.

But perhaps the strangest exchange came at another registered daycare when a man emerged from the building and confronted Daviscourt and her cameraman.

His first concern apparently wasn’t whether they wanted to enroll a child. He wanted to know whether they were “Trump people.” The man then called the pair “haters” and ordered them to leave. “Get out of here,” he said.

Daviscourt’s report comes as Washington’s childcare subsidy system is receiving increased scrutiny over how public money is being handed out to immigrants.

Washington’s Working Connections Child Care program uses state and federal dollars to subsidize childcare for eligible families. The state pays participating providers the subsidized portion of the cost directly.

Seattle also operates its own Child Care Assistance Program for qualifying families who work, attend school or participate in job training. Participating CCAP providers submit monthly attendance logs, which the city reviews before sending payments.

Daviscourt’s investigation raises serious questions about whether the claimed enrollment and alleged services underlying the payments at the locations she visited can be verified.

Washington has also tightened some of its subsidy rules. Legislation passed this year changes Working Connections payments toward an attendance-based system, with payments tied more directly to the number of days children actually attend. For licensed family-home providers, those attendance-based rules are scheduled to take effect in July 2027.

Daviscourt reported more than $5 million in taxpayer funding connected to the providers she examined across just two neighborhoods.

When taxpayers are sending $30,000, $40,000 or even $70,000 a month to empty home daycares and reporters are met with hostility, there is one question that comes to mind: Where are the kids?

It’s time that Americans ‘lear’ their lesson: Stop the fraud.

Kyle Becker, Red State

The governor of Massachusetts is promoting a new initiative that would have nurses visit new mothers at home in the days after giving birth.

“Everybody in the state, when you have a baby, you’re going to have a home visit within days, weeks, and that will be an opportunity for a healthcare provider to make an assessment to see if you need some additional support and resources,” Gov. Maura Healey (D) told Boston Public Radio during an interview last week.

The initiative is part of the state’s plans to expand its Welcome Family program. Healey further proposed an additional $250,000 to the existing Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program for Moms, which provides mental health support to providers caring for pregnant and postpartum patients, Fox News reported.

The postpartum visits would include screenings for depression and other mental health concerns, which is meant to help identify families who are struggling and may need extra support.

“To every mom who has struggled with her mental health before, during or after pregnancy, I want you to know we see you — I see you,” Healey said during a visit to Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, per Fox KTVU.

While some commenters supported the idea, others called it “creepy” and an example of “massive government overreach.”

“Doctors and pediatricians are more than capable to conduct appropriate screenings for their patients. Say no to home visits,” one response said.

“That lunatic can’t even tell you what a woman is. And she’s gonna send assessors into your home,” another person chimed in.

The program is voluntary, as many users have noted, but that doesn’t mean it always will be. The initiative has added more fuel to the debate over mental health services following the dramatic Lindsay Clancy case that dominated headlines for months.

In January 2023, Clancy brought her three young children to the basement of their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home and strangled them one by one with exercise bands. She admitted to killing her children, but defense attorney Kevin Reddington argued she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and suffered a mental break while her husband, Patrick, was out running errands for the family of five.

She leaned on an insanity defense to try to avoid criminal responsibility for the crimes. More than three years later, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after the jury became deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict.

Amanda Harding, The Daily Wire

By Ryan King

WASHINGTON — Democrats are so desperate to see President Trump out of office that a majority would be happy to see him overthrown in a military coup or die in his sleep, a jaw-dropping new poll has found.

Nearly six in 10 (59%) of Democratic respondents said they would feel “very positive” or “somewhat positive” if they learned a junta had removed Trump and seized control of the American government, while 55% said they would feel the same if the president passed away peacefully, according to the survey from the Center for Strategic Politics.

An even higher percentage said they would be happy if Trump were impeached and removed from office (87%) or ousted by his cabinet via the 25th Amendment (84%).

The results were released ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, in which Democrats are heavily favored to regain control of the House of Representatives after four years in the minority.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has kept open the possibility of impeaching Trump for a third time.

“No, we haven’t ruled anything in and we haven’t ruled anything out in terms of impeachment,” Jeffries told ABC News’ “This Week” Sept. 13. “We’ve got to follow the facts.”

But the poll illustrates the intense pressure Jeffries and other Democratic leaders are feeling from their base to go scorched earth against Trump.

The survey also showed that nearly one-third of Democrats (32%) said they would feel “very” or “somewhat positive” if the president were assassinated at a rally, while 43% said they would feel “very” or “somewhat negative” about the news. 

Exactly one quarter of respondents said they would have a neutral reaction to news of Trump’s murder.

Beyond removing Trump from office, respondents also overwhelmingly favored having the next Democratic administration prosecute members of his administration involved with immigration enforcement efforts (77%), the war in Iran (66%), and boat strikes against suspected drug traffickers (72%).

More than half of Democrats (57%) also backed criminal prosecutions of both Trump and Biden administration officials over the Israel-Hamas war as well as ending the Senate’s legislative filibuster (52%), while more than two-thirds favored expanding the Supreme Court (69%).

Former Vice President Kamala Harris was the pick of potential 2028 contenders among the respondents, with 25% deeming her their first choice, followed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (15%), former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (13%), Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia (10%), Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona (9%), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York (8%).

The Center for Strategic Politics poll sampled 683 Democratic voters beginning Sept. 3 and continuing Sept. 8-10, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.75 percentage points.

Ryan King, New York Post

We don’t just tolerate the wicked (meaning the irrational, the wrong, the barbaric, the dishonest). We subsidize them, applaud them, cheer them on, tiptoe on eggshells around them, ostracize and intimidate dissenters and then wonder why the world is going to hell and ludicrous caricatures start to dominate government, business, media and academia.

Speaking of the devil …

“We want more immigrants to come into your countries and then they’re gonna f*ck your sisters and then your daughters… We’re here to destroy the white race, b*tch.”

The quote is from Hasan Piker, the new darling of the Democratic Party left.

He speaks for the Democratic Party. Democratic voters applaud him, or don’t mind what he says. Democrat voters appear to prefer this sociopathy over lowering taxes, cutting regulations, keeping Iran from going nuclear, or having free markets. They much prefer this.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

“We are now moving towards complete collectivism or socialism, a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody.”

— Ayn Rand