JD Vance, After Convincing Several People He Was MAGA For A Hot Second, Now Blames Trump’s Iran War For Entire Midterm Disaster.

A lot of good people were sucked in by JD Vance. He talked a hell of a game. For about two seconds, he even sounded like he meant it, but Tucker Carlson got his guy, and his playing to MAGA was just a short performance.

Hours after Democrats routed Republicans in the midterm elections, the vice president, who has the allegiance of a scorpion, took to X to announce that the real problem was President Trump had the nerve to start knocking the mullahs around instead of sending them another pallet of cash. 

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote. “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so,” he continued. “Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Vance, currently auditioning for the role of 2028 nominee by pointing at everyone else, also cited an unnamed pollster he described as “one of the smartest people I know in politics.” This pollster, who “nailed the results,” informed Vance that voters wanted Republicans to end the war on Iran, focus on the cost of living and inflation, put America first, and change the U.S. relationship with Israel. “Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats,” Vance progressively explained. “This is according to a pollster who nailed the results.”

Critics were unimpressed. 

Emily Schrader, a journalist: No, JD Vance and his desperation to appease the mullahs is what led to a GOP defeat in the midterm . . .  that is why he’s now trying to cast blame on others. He also undermined President Trump and divided the GOP, giving credence to psychotic grifters like his “friend” Tucker Carlson whom he continues to defend.

Of course the Democrats, the RINOs and traitors like Vance will blame President Trump. Blame the one man who actually did something. Hell of an alibi for the rest of them. I had my own disagreements with some of what Trump says about people who don't always agree with him. For example, he should have let Israel finish off Hamas. Instead, here in America, voters elected Hamas. He should have crushed the mullahs’ regime. I disagree with him on both counts. But he is the best President we ever had and you don't punish the country over a difference in policy.

Trump, for his part, acknowledged in a Wall Street Journal interview that “Iran was a piece of it,” before adding, “I don’t think about it. I did the right thing. I would have done it again.” 

On the campaign trail he had described the conflict as “a very soft war” and promised that “as soon as the war ends, fuel prices are going to drop like a rock.” After the results came in, he noted on Truth Social, “I wasn’t on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

He’s not our guy in ’28. It’s DeSantis or Rubio, and if I had my druthers, I'd go for the latter.

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Peshawar’s Newest Cultural Ambassador, Hafiz Salman, Brings Innovative Grave-Digging Workshop to Girls’ Cemeteries

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN — Local authorities have temporarily paused an ambitious community enrichment program after a 19-year-old Afghan national identified as Salman (an Afghan national living in Bara Qadeem) was arrested in the Sheikhan/Budh Bher area. Locals caught him red-handed digging up a grave and removing the body of a young girl (reportedly around 2–3 years old). Police said he targeted only girls’ graves . . . for some reason.

According to police (including SP Saddar Fida Hussain), initial investigations and his reported confession indicated he had previously exhumed several other graves (reports cite around 4, with some later mentions of up to 10), removed girls’ bodies, took them to isolated areas, cleaned and dressed them, and sexually assaulted/desecrated them. He was described in some reports as a Hafiz-e-Quran who had completed intermediate (12th-grade) education.

Experts note that Salman’s intermediate education and complete memorization of the Quran positioned him uniquely to interpret ancient texts in a way that prioritized “inclusive outreach” exclusively toward deceased female children. Local progressive voices have already begun framing the incident as a tragic intersection of “unprocessed trauma,” “colonial borders,” and “systemic underfunding of afterlife gender studies.”

He was later killed on September 22, 2026, when unidentified gunmen ambushed a police team transporting him to the graveyard for identification. He died of gunshot wounds en route to the hospital. An FIR reportedly included charges related to grave desecration, sexual assault, child protection, and the Foreigners Act.

Photos and videos circulating online are from this incident. Details of the alleged sexual abuse come primarily from police statements and reported confessions; some outlets noted that not every graphic claim was independently verified beyond that.

The incident was widely covered by Pakistani media outlets such as The News, Kashmir English, Siasat, and others, though Western outlets are still awaiting confirmation that the perpetrator used incorrect pronouns before issuing full condemnation.

In a statement that has not yet been issued, community organizers praised Salman’s “bold reimagining of public space” and announced plans to rename a local park in his honor, provided the remaining graves can be relocated to a more welcoming, gender-affirming location.

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Judge Halts Hearing to Protect Name of Juror Who Committed the Unforgivable Sin of Thinking Strangling Three Kids Was Bad

Lindsay Clancy

DUXBURY, MA — In a stunning defense of courtroom dignity, Judge William F. Sullivan on Monday interrupted proceedings to rebuke a lawyer for the shocking offense of uttering the name of the single juror who refused to pretend that a mother strangling her three small children was simply a very understandable case of the baby blues that could happen to anyone with a uterus and a bad day.

The other eleven jurors had already done the mature, compassionate thing and voted that the killings were not really killings in any meaningful moral or legal sense. One holdout ruined the vibes. That man has since been correctly identified as the real problem in the story.

Judge Sullivan stopped defense attorney Kevin Reddington while the lawyer discussed the holdout’s questionnaire answers and alleged conduct during deliberations in the trial that ended 11-1.

“I’m going to stop you right there,” Sullivan said.

Reddington replied, “No, you’re not gonna stop me,” the contemptuous lawyer said. 

The judge stated there was “no need here in this courtroom to use that” juror’s name.

Reddington continued, saying the juror “got more face time than I do,” a reference to media interviews the holdout has given since the mistrial.

“But that’s not through any rulings I’ve made,” Sullivan answered.

Reddington added, “And his attorney from Houston is sitting in the back.” Sullivan replied, “Well that’s great, too,” and told him, “We don’t need this.”

Observers reported gasps in the gallery as Reddington used the juror’s name. Sources confirmed the same gallery had remained perfectly still and respectful when the topic was the actual strangulation of a five-year-old, a three-year-old, and an eight-month-old. Naming a living adult who declined to excuse it, however, was simply too much for some people to bear.

Reddington argued that the name was already widely known online and referenced claims involving the juror’s cellphone use and research into filicide during the trial period. Local experts agreed that looking up “filicide” on your phone is far more troubling than performing it.

The hearing concerned the defense effort to dismiss the charges on double-jeopardy grounds. Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder for the January 2023 deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan in their Duxbury home. She has admitted the killings but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. In modern America this is widely considered the correct plea whenever the victims are small enough and the perpetrator is female enough.

Eleven jurors favored a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility due to postpartum mental health problems; the holdout, who has publicly identified himself as Michael Desronvil, did not. He has stated that he had no doubts and that the evidence showed Clancy knew what she was doing and planned the acts. Other jurors said he refused to apply the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt. Translation: he stubbornly insisted on noticing that three children were dead and that their mother was the one who made them that way.

Sullivan previously denied the defense request for a hearing to examine the juror’s questionnaire, prior domestic-violence matter and alleged phone use, ruling that information that surfaced after the mistrial could not be used to challenge the decision to declare one. Prosecutors also pushed for a gag order after Reddington told reporters he hoped the holdout could “sleep well at night.” The possibility that the man who voted against excusing triple child murder might sleep poorly was apparently the true injustice that needed addressing.

The judge took the dismissal motion and related matters under advisement. Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek a retrial. If they do, legal observers expect the next jury to be carefully screened for anyone who has ever been troubled by the concept of a parent killing their children.

The case centers on the deaths of three small children and the question of criminal responsibility for those deaths after Clancy admitted the acts. The single holdout juror’s refusal to join an insanity finding produced the mistrial after roughly 38 hours of deliberation. Postpartum mental illness is real, but a person can be mentally ill and still criminally responsible. Mental illness does not change that three children were killed in the home where they were supposed to be safest. They will never grow up. The children cannot speak in the courtroom. Dismissing the charges would leave the taking of their lives without a completed finding of criminal responsibility. This last point has been widely criticized as insufficiently focused on the mother’s emotional journey.

Pro-life writers have called that reaction a moral inversion: compassion for a mother who killed her children, with far less public focus on Cora, Dawson and Callan themselves. Some have even suggested, wildly, that the children being dead is the central fact of the story rather than a regrettable side effect of the mother’s distress.

Journalist Caitlin Flanagan wrote that “what began as admirable compassion for a woman who says she was driven by mental illness to commit the world’s greatest form of evil has turned into something strange: an almost exultant, fan-like celebration of Lindsay Clancy.”

Paul Batura of Focus on the Family argued that a culture already trained to treat a child’s death as secondary to a mother’s distress — first in abortion, then in cases like this one — struggles to say plainly that killing children is wrong even when the mother is ill. Postpartum mental illness is real, he wrote, but “an individual can be mentally ill and still criminally responsible.”

Abby Johnson, CEO and founder of And Then There Were None and ProLove Ministries, who herself experienced postpartum psychosis after the birth of one of her children, said the intense identification with Clancy reveals a deeper moral distortion long cultivated by abortion advocacy.

“I am not arguing that compassion for Lindsay is wrong…What concerns me is something different. We have become extraordinarily practiced at looking at a dead child and asking first what his or her mother was going through. And abortion taught us how to do that. For decades, the defense of abortion has depended on shifting the moral center of the story away from the human being who dies and toward the human being experiencing the crisis. The mother’s suffering becomes the justification. But suffering does not make killing good,” Johnson wrote.

The Clancy babies

Johnson stressed that mental illness may affect legal culpability without changing the moral nature of the act.

“Mental illness may affect a person’s culpability for an act. It does not change the moral nature of the act itself,” she said. “Cora was five years old. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. Their mother killed them.”

Johnson argued that culture has spent more than 50 years training itself to begin with a mother’s fear, financial stress, lack of support or depression until the child’s humanity nearly disappears—first in abortion and now in cases like this one.

“We can demand better postpartum mental-health care in their names. We can acknowledge that their mother may have been gravely ill. We can pray for Lindsay,” Johnson wrote. “None of that requires us to forget where the greatest irreversible harm occurred. Three children went to bed on January 24, 2023, in the home where they were supposed to be safest. They will never get to grow up.”

The courtroom, for its part, made clear that the real emergency was the unauthorized use of a holdout juror’s name. The three children, already dead and therefore unavailable for interviews, public statements, or fan clubs, remained unavailable for comment.

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Trump Casually Ends $4 Billion Israel Aid Because Netanyahu Asked Nicely, Leaves Democrats’ Favorite Talking Point in Smoldering Ruins

President Donald Trump casually dropped a foreign-policy bomb on Tuesday morning that somehow managed to be both completely reasonable and maximally annoying to the exact people who have spent years demanding it. Speaking to Fox & Friends while Americans were dutifully voting in the midterms, Trump announced that Benjamin Netanyahu himself had suggested America stop writing Israel that annual $4 billion check, and that the two of them had already worked it out.

If true, this would be the rare Trump announcement that does exactly what certain leftist activists claim to want, only without the part where America also stops selling Israel the actual weapons or abandons the alliance entirely. Naturally, the immediate response from the usual corners was a mixture of confusion and quiet disappointment that their best attack line had just been revoked.

Trump insists the whole thing is already settled. By the end of 2026 the United States will stop providing Israel with roughly $4 billion a year. Israel can still buy American weapons with its own money, and Washington will still show up if things get spicy. In other words: the welfare portion ends; the alliance does not.

There is an almost comical straightforwardness to the idea. Israel is a rich, high-tech country with a military that has been demonstrating, for roughly two years now, that it can handle its own neighborhood without American ground troops. Continuing to hand it free money forever was always going to become harder to defend the richer Israel got. Netanyahu has been saying some version of this himself. The only difference is that Trump appears to be treating “eventually” as “by Christmas 2026.”

Trump was especially eager to make clear that this was Bibi’s idea, not his.

“Can I be honest with you? He brought it up. He brought it up,” Trump said, Trump said. Did I mention Trump said this?

According to the president, Netanyahu told him: “I think it would be appropriate if we do not receive aid.”

Trump continued that the two had been discussing it for a while: “And I was approached by Bibi Netanyahu, and we’ve been talking about it for a couple of years because it’s a lot of money.”

Netanyahu has indeed floated versions of this in public. In January he told The Economist he wanted to phase out U.S. military assistance over a decade. In May he told 60 Minutes: “I want to taper off American support for Israel to zero. We’ve come of age.”

A ten-year glide path is one thing. Trump’s version sounds more like “we’re done after next year.” Whether Netanyahu actually signed off on that compressed timeline, or whether Trump simply heard “I want to end this eventually” and translated it into “great, let’s finish by 2026,” remains one of those details the president treats as less important than the headline.

The Fox hosts then spent several minutes trying to pin down what “$4 billion” actually meant, which is always a fun exercise when Trump is involved. “So, Mr. President, you’re saying you’re not giving them $4 billion worth of weapons?”

Trump did not answer directly. He wandered into the Strait of Hormuz instead.

The hosts tried again. “Can I just ask again? I’m sorry for not knowing this, but do you mean $4 billion in military aid? Actually, hardware is being cut off? Do you mean $4 billion, as in a check?”

The President responded: “I’m giving four in any way you want to define it. You can consider it barter. You can consider military aid or cash. What we give them, $4 billion of things and money, and they don’t need it.”

In reality the current package is not a giant check. It is a 2016 Obama-era memorandum of understanding that runs through 2028 and provides $3.3 billion a year in Foreign Military Financing plus $500 million for joint missile-defense programs—roughly the $3.8 billion Trump rounded up to $4 billion. It is not a treaty. Congress still has to appropriate the money. An understanding between two leaders does not magically zero out a line item that has already been authorized. Trump did not dwell on any of that.

He was considerably clearer about the politics.

Michigan’s Senate race features Republican Mike Rogers against Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, who has made opposition to aid for Israel a signature issue and has called Israel’s campaign in Gaza “genocide.” The issue has already split Michigan Democrats; Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost the primary to El-Sayed by a hair, recently announced she would back Rogers after an outside ad tried to blame grocery prices on aid to Israel. Stevens correctly called the ad anti-Semitic. 

El-Sayed claimed his campaign had nothing to do with it.

Trump, never one to leave a political gift unopened, explained the timing with characteristic subtlety: “And because why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they don’t need it? It’s a bad talking point because when you say, ‘Why don’t we give everybody $4 billion?’ Israel’s our number one. We give them more than anybody else, and they no longer need it.”

When a host suggested that ending the aid would deprive Democrats of one of their most reliable attack lines, Trump agreed enthusiastically: “I want to say that it’s great, great word usage. Talking point, the best talking point that these lunatics have on the left.” 

In other words: keep the alliance, drop the check, and watch a certain class of activist suddenly discover that they were never actually that interested in the precise dollar figure after all.

Trump was unambiguous that Israel could still buy whatever it wants. “Oh yeah, they can buy whatever they want. They can buy whatever they want. So can Europe.” What Trump meant was that Israel can buy whatever they want, whatever they want, in case you missed what he meant.

[Have you noticed that Trump nearly always repeats his important points at least twice, sometime thrice?]

Whether that means existing procurement deals get rewritten, whether the joint missile-defense programs continue under a different label, and whether Congress will simply stop appropriating the money are questions the interview did not resolve. Defense contractors, who get paid either way, appeared unbothered. Taxpayers who have been hearing for years that Israel is a “welfare queen” may notice the sudden silence from the same people once the check is no longer being written.

Trump has supplied the headline. Netanyahu has previously said he wants to taper the aid. What has not been independently confirmed is that the two governments have locked in a hard stop by the end of 2026, or that Congress will play along. One IDF source declined to comment; another sounded surprised; Defense Ministry officials were quiet. That is not usually how ironclad bilateral agreements are announced.

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Still, the basic case is not crazy. Israel can afford to pay out their own collective pocket. The relationship is strategic, not charitable. Ending the annual transfer while keeping the ability to sell weapons and coordinate on defense is a perfectly coherent evolution. The only open question is whether Tuesday morning’s television appearance constituted the entire negotiation, or whether the usual tedious process of lawyers, appropriators, and actual agreements will eventually catch up to the president’s version of events.

For the moment, the left’s favorite $4 billion talking point has been taken out of circulation by the same president they routinely accuse of being Israel’s lapdog. The irony appears to be lost on no one except, possibly, the people who spent years polishing it.

Tweet

Moderate PA Governor Hosts Completely Normal Pride Reception, Heroically Vows to Shield “Our Trans Children” From the Ongoing Threat of Their Own Bodies

Cross-dresser waves at camera: is it a Nazi salute or is he a Democrat?

“Pride is the mask of one’s own faults.”

— Yiddish proverb

In a display of measured centrism that has made him the Democratic Party’s most trusted voice of reason, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro welcomed [Rear] Admiral Rachel Levine back to the Governor’s mansion and pledged to protect “our trans children” from the “hate” of anyone still insisting that sex is real. The June 2026 event featured transgender flags, a performance by the Harrisburg Gay Men’s Chorus, and a speech in which Shapiro positioned himself as the last adult in the room for refusing to let biology, medical evidence, or basic observation interfere with a child’s self-diagnosis, or that of his/her parent, most often the mother, who supports the latest thing.

Shapiro, long celebrated for his willingness to meet radical gender activists exactly where they are, has consistently argued that gender-confused minors require access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries.

“I’m guilty of letting emotion get in when I see politicians trying to score cheap political points off the well-being of trans kids in this commonwealth,” stated Shapiro. “I need you to know that I take very seriously the defense of all God’s children — our trans children, our gay children, our LGBTQ+ children. Every one of you is loved and welcome here, and I will do everything in my power to protect you.”

So if children want have their bits cut off, Shapiro supports it because he cares about them.

Dr. Kurt Miceli of Do No Harm offered a dissenting medical view that was not invited to the stage for some strange reason.

“The scientific consensus shows that sex-rejecting interventions on minors can lead to serious, often irreversible, harm,” Miceli said. “The tragic irony is that lawmakers who refuse to acknowledge the flawed case for so-called gender affirming care will push policies that end up hurting the vulnerable kids they say they want to protect. If the goal is to help gender confused kids, then politicians should support policies backed by evidence-based medicine, not radical gender ideologues.”

Shapiro has told supporters he will codify additional LGBTQ+ rights if Democrats secure the state trifecta. When asked which rights currently lack sufficient codification, his office did not respond. He previously joined other Democratic governors in suing the Trump administration for restricting pediatric sex-rejecting procedures and has described legislation keeping males out of female sports as the work of “extremists.”

“The adults are important, kids are extra important, and I need you to know that here in Pennsylvania, you will be protected,” Shapiro stated at the LGBTQ+ reception. “This is a moment in time where we got to stand up and make sure our kids are looked after, our kids are protected, and we’re going to do that.”

The room erupted when Shapiro welcomed gender confused Admiral Levine, the Biden administration’s former Assistant Secretary for Health and one of the nation’s most influential advocates for medical procedures to remove male and female genitalia and cosmetically attempt to make the scarred areas look like the oppose sex, like he did to himself. [And let's not forget the lifelong drug treatments to enrich the attending physicians.]


Levine oxymoronically had served as Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health. Shapiro’s office did not respond when asked whether Levine would be considered for a role in a second Shapiro administration.

Cabinet officials in attendance included Human Services Secretary Dr. Valerie Arkoosh and Education Secretary Dr. Carrie Rowe.

“A number of wonderful leaders and allies in my cabinet who are here. I saw Secretary Arkoosh, our great leader in the Department of Human Services with us,” Shapiro said. “Secretary Rowe who is out, and leads our education department. She does an amazing job.”



                                        Governor 'Pride' Shapiro

Secretary of Health Dr. Debra Bogen was also in attendance. The Pennsylvania Department of Health wanted to remove “mothers” and “pregnant woman” from the state health code and the terms “pregnant woman” and “mother of a newborn” were replaced with “pregnant or postpartum individual” throughout a 502-page regulatory proposal made public in August 2026. The regulatory proposal was withdrawn on September 25 after significant a public who was disgusted with the terms.

Ashleigh Strange, executive director for the Governor’s Advisory Commission on LGBTQ Affairs and whose surname aptly describes her, also spoke at the pride reception.

Shapiro created the Governor’s Advisory Commission on LGBTQ Affairs in June 2023 that engages in LGBTQ activism throughout Pennsylvania and provides the administration with legislative and policy recommendations.

Posts from the PA LGBTQ Commission Instagram account show Strange holding a 200-foot pride flag on the front steps of the Harrisburg Capitol building, announcing listening sessions with “PA LGBTQ+ Youth,” and celebrating the International Trans Prisoner Day of Action and Solidarity.

“This International Trans Prisoner Day of Action and Solidarity, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) reaffirms their commitment to the safe housing of all residents in correctional facilities,” states an Instagram post. “Transgender inmates are often at a higher risk of mistreatment and the PA DOC firmly stands by the PREA standards that protect PA inmates.”

Shapiro called Strange and the LGBTQ+ commission his “ambassadors” to the community.

“Ash and the members of the commission, well, they are all my ambassadors out in the community,” Shapiro stated at the pride event. “I want to thank Ash and every member of this commission for representing me, representing our administration, and representing this Commonwealth so well. We are grateful to you, and we are thankful to you.”

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Report: Marriage License Application Reveals Ilhan Omar Appeared Confused About Her Name

MINNEAPOLIS — A 2009 Hennepin County marriage license application shows Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) initially listing her surname as Omar, then crossing it out in favor of Elmi, then restoring Omar, the New York Post reported Friday. The form was filed in connection with her marriage to Ahmed Elmi, the man she has repeatedly insisted is not her brother.

The document will no doubt come into play in a Department of Justice investigation into whether the outspoken Somali-born Minnesota congresswoman committed fraud gaining her U.S. citizenship in 2000 by allegedly failing to use her accurate legal name and birthdate. The DOJ’s recent court filing refers to her as “Congresswoman Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.”

A source familiar with the investigation had told the news outlet that Omar is a fictitious name and that she was born with the last name of Elmi, the same as her alleged brother she purportedly married. The application, dated February 12, 2009, also required the couple to indicate whether they were related by blood or adoption; they checked the “no” box. The Post noted that “It’s unclear who filled out the application, but it appears to have been written with just one person’s handwriting.” Unlike the Justice Department’s formulation, the crossed-out revision on the form read “Ilhan Omar Elmi.”

Elmi has described himself as gay. Omar’s office did not respond to the Post for comment on the marriage license application.

Omar has denied the allegations of fraud and called the investigation and questions about her marriage a racist conspiracy theory and a politically motivated smear by Republicans and President Donald Trump. When MS NOW anchor Chris Hayes recently asked her if she was related to Elmi, she answered, “Not to my knowledge,” an odd, and yes, idiotic response that also made headlines.

According to the Post, “An image of the marriage application has circulated online for years and appears to have been first published in August 2016 by the Minnesota outlet Alpha News. It has until now largely gone untouched by major news outlets.”

Scott W. Johnson, a retired Minneapolis attorney who has been investigating the “curious case” of Omar and allegations of fraud for nearly a decade, told the Post “the whole thing is a red flag.”

In a related development, local election officials confirmed that Minnesota’s automatic voter registration system continues to accept whichever name an applicant prefers on any given form, provided the applicant later denounces any resulting questions as racist.

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Democrats Allegedly Find New Way to Win Alaska: Clone a Republican and Hope Voters Can't Tell the Difference

 Trump Administration Fires Back After Judge Rejects Challenge to Dirty Democrat Scheme in Key Alaska Senate Race

Democrats apparently decided that one Dan Sullivan on the ballot wasn't enough. So, according to allegations now at the center of a legal fight, they helped recruit another one, hoping Alaska voters would have trouble telling the difference. Now the Trump administration is fighting to make sure the resulting election isn't certified without examining what happened.

A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama dismissed a lawsuit Sunday seeking to delay certification of Alaska's Senate election if a Democrat-backed candidate with the same name as incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan siphons away votes from the real deal.

Judge Sharon Gleason rejected a Justice Department lawsuit arguing that the state should not certify the results if voters intending to support the incumbent instead mistakenly cast ballots for Daniel J. Sullivan, the independent candidate Republicans have dubbed “Decoy Dan.”

Gleason's objection was that the Justice Department hadn't provided a specific plan for identifying which voters might have confused the two candidates. Apparently, the prospect of someone deliberately creating voter confusion was less concerning than the prospect of having to investigate it.

“The United States provides no workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day and then conduct a court-ordered unspecified ‘investigation’ of those ballots in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy,” she wrote.

“Clearly, if this Court were to order that certain ballots will be segregated and subject to a future and as yet unspecified investigation by law enforcement, it would likely result in voter ‘confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.’ Such late-breaking changes to the election rules are strongly disfavored,” she added.

The case took an interesting turn last week when The New York Times reported that Democrat operatives, including staffers working for Democrat candidate Mary Peltola, were involved in an effort to recruit the second Sullivan. The apparent objective was to siphon votes away from the incumbent Republican in Alaska's notoriously convoluted ranked-choice voting system.

One might think that deliberately recruiting a candidate with the same name as an incumbent senator to confuse voters would merit some attention from election officials. Instead, the Justice Department now finds itself having to fight for the right to investigate the alleged scheme.

The Trump administration isn't accepting the ruling quietly. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal and says it intends to keep fighting.

“Alaskan voters deserve a fair election, not to be misled in an attempt to rig outcomes,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Kiersten Pels.

The department's original lawsuit argued that allowing the election to proceed without addressing the alleged scheme would undermine the integrity of the vote.

“Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan — whose candidacy, Defendant Beecher found, is ‘for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot’ — the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election,” the suit said. “The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska.”

Peltola, meanwhile, has denied knowing anything about the effort to recruit the second Sullivan. Her explanation came last week:

“I just want to clear the air,” she said last week. “I knew nothing about any other candidate on the ballot except for me and the incumbent. That is all I have ever known about. I am not interested in tricking voters.”

Well, that settles that. The alleged recruitment effort, the candidate with the suspiciously familiar name, and the New York Times report can all apparently be filed under things nobody on the Democrat side knew anything about.

The Justice Department will now have to make its case on appeal. Alaska voters, meanwhile, are left with an unusual question: If a candidate is recruited specifically because his name might confuse voters, who exactly is supposed to take responsibility when the confusion works?

I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Dem Senator suffers a stroke: hospitalized Saturday

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has been hospitalized after suffering a stroke, according to a statement released Sunday by his chief of staff, Allison Herwitt. Doctors are encouraged by his progress and expect him to make a full recovery.

Murphy, 53, reportedly began experiencing numbness in his arm Saturday afternoon while attending his son's hockey game. He was initially taken to a local hospital, where doctors determined he had suffered a stroke, before being transferred to Johns Hopkins for further monitoring.

"He was taken to a local hospital, where it was discovered he had experienced a stroke. He was transferred to Johns Hopkins for further monitoring and is responding well to treatment," Herwitt said in a statement.

"The doctors are encouraged by his progress, he is awake and alert, and we are optimistic he will make a full recovery."

Murphy was first elected to the Senate in 2012 and took office in January 2013. He has since emerged as one of the more prominent voices in the Democratic Party and has been mentioned as a possible contender for the party's 2028 presidential nomination.

Although Murphy is not seeking reelection this year, he has been actively campaigning for Democratic candidates, spending the past several weeks trying to help his party reclaim control of the Senate. He had been scheduled to campaign for Democrats in New Hampshire on Sunday.

The sudden medical emergency is an unwelcome interruption to those political ambitions, although the news from his doctors appears encouraging.


I hope you will take the time to click on any of the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to simply look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet