Today we present commentaries examining the upcoming mid-term elections, federal government spending and overreach, and the implications of the dangers presented by abandoning government control to the Democrat Party. Enjoy!
____________________________________________________________________
Don’t let voter rage drive America over the cliff
Higher taxes, weaker immigration enforcement and costly government promises carry consequences
BY: Don Feder, The Washington Times (October 18, 2026).
Suppose you saw someone you love in a car heading for the edge of a cliff, going 90 miles an hour. The driver ignores your repeated warnings to stop. He is so angry that he will not brake despite looming disaster.
A man is tied up in the back seat, whom the driver blames for all his problems, including the price of gas, the housing market and data centers. The driver is willing to wreck the car and possibly kill himself to punish the prisoner. Talk about road rage.
That is what the Nov. 3 midterm elections are about.
The America we love is in that car. The cliff is the elections. Middle-class voters are behind the wheel. At the bottom are the politicians who would wreck us with open borders, soft-on-crime policies, new taxes and an anti-energy agenda.
The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 67% of Democrats favor amnesty for illegal aliens. Texas state Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic Senate nominee, said in a 2019 post that illegal aliens were his “constituents too.”
“Undocumented Americans are folks who work in our businesses, learn in our schools and contribute to our communities — but lack citizenship documentation,” the Lone Star Pollyanna laments. They are also the folks who soak up welfare, engage in fraud, join street gangs, murder our sons and rape our daughters.
Democrats have an incentive to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, assuming they will vote for the party that let them in. Under President Biden, the illegal immigrant population of the United States almost doubled.
Democrats want to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which apprehends the worst of the worst. The activist sheep are currently bleating about a Dominican gang member shot in New York earlier this month. He had been arrested multiple times for offenses, including armed robbery and drug dealing, since he came here illegally in 2022.
Democrats pioneered cashless bail, which has put numerous predators back on the streets. Democratic Socialists of America congressional candidates favor abolishing police and prisons. Law enforcement will presumably be handled by social workers and the Camp Fire Girls.
If you think the cost of gas is high now, just wait until enviro-freak Democrats, who want to outlaw the internal combustion engine, get a hold of the energy sector.
On his first day in office, Mr. Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have brought 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Canada. Then he did everything he could to limit offshore drilling.
Even with the Iran war, the average adjusted price of gas under Mr. Biden ($3.89 per gallon) was higher than during President Trump’s second term ($3.43 per gallon).
Although they want to get us all into electric cars, average retail electric rates are significantly higher in blue states, such as California (33.6 cents per kilowatt-hour), than in red states, such as Florida (15 cents per kilowatt-hour).
Democrats will send taxes soaring. “Medicare for All,” free childcare, preschool, college education and public transportation will require massive tax hikes. The Cato Institute estimates that nine of the proposals put forth by the DSA would cost $71 trillion to $211 trillion over 10 years.
Forget the tax-the-billionaires bushwa. If you confiscated 100% of billionaires’ wealth, it would fund the federal government for only eight to nine months.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says we are looking at an array of new taxes to finance Democratic profligacy, including a 32% payroll tax and 25% income tax surtax. You will be riding those free public buses naked.
If you like your health insurance, tough. “Medicare for All” means quality healthcare for none. Look at Britain and Canada. You will love long waiting periods to see a specialist and the rationing of services.
It will be back to diversity, equity and inclusion — “gender-affirming care,” aka castration, guys who look like Yosemite Sam playing girls’ sports, pronoun police, public school indoctrination and the war on Christians and Jews.
You are doubtless familiar with the expression “cut off your nose to spite your face,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “to perform an irrationally self-destructive act out of anger, spite, or a desire for revenge that ultimately harms yourself far more than your intended target.”
By the time our driver goes over the cliff, he will not have any face left.
Do not worry about the man in the back. He is a billionaire. He will survive. Will the rest of us?
____________________________________________________________________
We Are In A Cold Civil War — And We Refuse To See It
And wars that are not recognized are lost.
BY: W. Galt, The American Thinker (October 14, 2026).
There are many ways to wage war. Today, these non-traditional forms of warfare are commonly referred to as hybrid warfare, which includes non-military means such as civilian operations. Spain has just been subjected to an attack of this nature in the city of Ceuta: a civilian invasion sponsored, encouraged, ordered, and directed by Moroccan intelligence services.
But it does not take such obvious attacks to prove that a state of war exists. A cold civil war is already underway throughout the Western democracies. It is not being fought with trenches and rifles, but through institutions, culture, demographics, courts, the media, and the ballot box. The Left — in Europe and the United States — has abandoned the boundaries of the moderate social democracy of three decades ago and now operates according to a logic of total power. It does not seek to persuade within liberal rules; it seeks to transform society until the inherited order becomes unrecognizable. Those who fail to see this will continue losing, election after election, reform after reform, border after border.
Thirty years ago, European socialist parties and the American Democrat party accepted, with certain qualifications, the liberal framework: markets, individual rights, peaceful alternation in power, and a degree of cultural restraint. Today, that restraint has evaporated. Driven by parties further to their left and by an ideologized base — every right-wing government has, for decades, left education in the hands of the Left, which knew exactly what it was doing, because controlling education means controlling the future — European socialist parties have become aggressively interventionist, woke, and hostile to any firm defense of cultural or demographic sovereignty. The Democrat party has followed a parallel path.
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not marginal figures. They represent a current that has shifted the party’s center of gravity toward the most extreme forms of radicalism. Today, their political programs are virtually communist.
Under the Biden administration, agencies such as USAID illustrated the extent to which this agenda was translated into actual policy: funding directed toward gender ideology, diversity, and progressive projects that had little to do with the national interest or neutral humanitarian assistance. This included funding left-wing activist groups throughout the world, including in the United States itself, movements close to terrorist groups, and all manner of enemies of the United States. USAID’s funding of these movements is not merely an anecdote about the misuse of public money; it reveals the real policy of a government beneath its official rhetoric and its more visible policy programs.
If one looks at what USAID did with citizens’ money, only one conclusion can be drawn: the United States government acted against its own country and its own population, in an evident act of betrayal. Those who made it possible should not merely be judged for the mismanagement of public funds, but for treason.
The more than possible electoral fraud of 2020, the repeated attempts on Trump’s life before the elections, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk — none of which could have been carried out without the complicity of elements of the deep state — provide yet more unmistakable evidence of the cold civil war that so many people refuse to see. The aggression always comes from the same side, and so do the victims.
When a political force regards liberal democracy as merely a temporary instrument and believes that its adversaries do not deserve symmetrical rules, it has ceased to be a normal opposition.
It has become a force for civil conflict.
The ultimate betrayal is not merely economic or cultural. It is civilizational. The Left has established a convergence of interests with Islam. They share enemies: the liberal West, national sovereignty, the historical identity of European and North American societies, the Christian religion, and individual freedom. Hatred unites more powerfully than doctrinal differences divide. Today we can see France burning, set ablaze by young left-wing activists and young Muslims who will never integrate and who will ultimately turn against the former as soon as they have sufficient power to do so.
This alliance is not a conspiracy theory. It can be seen on university campuses, in electoral coalitions, in the reluctance to confront the incompatibility of Islamic values with equality before the law, and in the prioritization of “diversity” over cohesion. It represents the surrender of the democratic principle to a bloc mentality: us against them. The American people and the peoples of Europe did not vote to become the subjects of an experiment in cultural and demographic replacement. Yet open or lax border policies, combined with the denial of their social costs, point in precisely that direction.
In Sweden, the left-wing bloc may be able to take power with the help of Muslim votes. In Berlin, communists govern the city with Muslim votes. In the United Kingdom, France, and Spain, left-wing governments or coalitions have maintained or expanded policies that prioritize mass immigration and the most extreme forms of multiculturalism while criminalizing or stigmatizing the concerns of the native population about its identity, security, and demographic future.
Calling someone “racist” for defending the cultural continuity of his own country is the exact reversal of democratic logic. It turns the political opponent into a permanent suspect. When a government treats its majority population as an obstacle and uncontrolled migration flows as an ethical imperative, it is not governing: it is waging a cultural and institutional battle against its own society, which it intends to destroy. The foreseeable result, if this is not corrected, resembles Lebanon or Iran’s post-1979 trajectory more than a stable democracy: fragmentation, loss of trust, erosion of a common legal order, and the eventual subordination of individual freedoms to new majorities or organized minorities.
The moderate Right insists on treating all this as an ordinary ideological disagreement. It believes that dialogue, concessions, and the “center” will be enough. It is mistaken. The difference is no longer merely one of policy. It is existential. Part of the political spectrum operates according to different rules: narrative above facts, identity above citizenship, the enemy above agreement. As long as the Right pretends that this remains a conventional parliamentary debate, it will continue to surrender ground.
We are in a cold civil war because one side has ceased to accept the limits of democracy. The other side has not yet recognized the true scale of the conflict. That is why it loses: in the streets, in institutions, in demographic trends and, often, at the ballot box.
We already know how this ends if it is not corrected. At best, we will have divided, insecure, and culturally unrecognizable societies. At worst, the practical extinction of the European nations and of the civilization that sustained them. The year 2050 is not an abstract date. It is the horizon by which today’s demographic, migratory, and ideological trends will have consolidated irreversibly unless there is a change in awareness and political will.
The Left and its tactical alliance with Islam are not a misunderstanding. They constitute a project of war against all of us and against our civilization. As long as the Right and libertarians deny or downplay it, they will continue to suffer the consequences of a war whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge.
And wars that are not recognized are lost.
____________________________________________________________________
No matter how hard Americans work, the government spends more
America’s debt is $40 trillion, but the left (aided by AI) insists that more taxes, rather than less spending, would help fix the problem.
BY: Jack Hellner, The American Thinker (August 25, 2026).
No matter how far off CBO projections have been, the media still treat their predictions as gospel. They always tout them as being non-partisan, as if that means unbiased and accurate. What’s astonishing, though, is how often they significantly underestimate the cost of new spending programs and how they always miss the dynamic effects of tax cuts. It might not be a coincidence. CBO employees are part of the deep state, and benefit from big government.
This article, for example, touts a report from 2001 that says CBO projected the debt would be paid off by 2009:
In 2001, the federal government had been running an annual surplus for four years and the Congressional Budget Office even projected that the national debt would effectively be zero by 2009.
That — suffice to say — did not happen. The national debt instead grew, reaching $10 trillion in 2008 and then quadrupling over the next 18 years to this week’s gloomy milestone of over $40 trillion in total debt.
That sounds very erudite and accurate, yet this article admits that CBO’s projection was off by $10 trillion just eight years later. Why would a journalist trust what they say?
The article continues:
Three types of decisions were often made with bipartisan support and drove the debt to such high levels in just a few years, the CRFB detailed in 2024.
The analysis was conducted before Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which is projected to add more than $4 trillion to the national debt on its own — yet still found that major tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush and in Trump’s first term are responsible for 37% of the current debt.
The article is terribly wrong, though. It says that only 33% of the debt is caused by spending, and Trump’s and Bush’s tax cuts caused 37% of the debt. Anyone who looks at revenues before and after the tax cuts would see what a lie that is.
Here is a discussion I had on the subject with Gemini, one of the two largest AI sources, with one billion users:
What was the population of the U.S in 2003 and 2025?
290.1 million 2003
341.8 million 2025
That’s a 17% increase.
What was total U.S inflation from 2017 to 2025?
31.44%
What was total inflation in the United States from 2003 to 2025?
75.10%.
What was individual Federal Income tax revenue in FY 2003, FY 2017, and FY 2025?
$794 billion in FY 2003, $1.587 trillion in FY 2017, and approximately $2.66 trillion in FY 2025.
That is up 235% in 22 years or over three times total inflation, following Bush’s tax rate cuts in 2003 and Trump’s rate cuts in 2017.
What was Federal Corporate Income tax revenue in FY 2003, FY 2017, and FY 2025?
$132 billion in FY 2003, $297 billion in FY 2017, and approximately $452 billion in FY 2025.
That’s up 242%, which is three times inflation.
What was total spending by U.S government in 2003, 2017, and 2025?
2.16 trillion, 2003
3.98 trillion 2017
7.01 trillion 2025
Spending increased 224% in 22 years, or three times the inflation rate.
If 2003 spending were adjusted for 17% population growth and further adjusted for 75% inflation, spending in 2025 would have been 4.42 trillion, not 7.01 trillion. The budget would be in surplus with Bush’s and Trump’s tax rate cuts in effect. Out-of-control spending is the entire problem.
Did Trump’s 2017 tax rate cuts add to the federal debt and deficit?
Yes, nonpartisan evaluations from the Congressional Budget Office and fiscal watchdog groups show that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) significantly reduced federal revenue and added trillions of dollars to the national deficit and debt
- Initial Projections: The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2017 tax package would increase budget deficits by roughly $1.9 trillion over its first decade.
- Actual Contribution: Analyses by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget attribute about $2.5 trillion of the national borrowing during that era directly to the tax cut laws.
Instead of answering the question with factual revenue data, Gemini used CBO projections.
Shouldn’t Gemini answer questions with factual data instead of basing them on projections?
Yes, Gemini should and does prioritize factual, real-time data when answering factual questions, but it also uses projections, context, and pattern matching depending on the nature of the prompt.
Basically, Gemini has been programmed with a leftist bias instead of just dealing with facts and analyzing the facts themselves.
Income tax revenue went up 65% in FY 2025 over FY 2017 which was essentially double the inflation rate so how did that raise the debt and deficits?
Even though income tax revenue rose significantly—outpacing inflation—deficits and debt still grew because federal spending increased at an even faster pace.
Thus, Gemini ignored the question but admits that too much spending caused the debts and deficits.
So, isn’t it true that the tax rate cuts paid for themselves and the only reason deficits went up is because the government spent too much?
Major tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Nonpartisan groups like the Congressional Budget Office and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget find that while tax rate cuts can spur some economic growth and recover a fraction of their initial cost, they substantially reduce federal revenue, making deficits significantly larger than they would have been otherwise.
And there’s that bias again. Instead of Gemini admitting that the tax cuts did indeed pay for themselves, it reverted to leftist talking points. Gemini flat-out lied in its answer. Revenue did not significantly go down; it rose rapidly. But the programming means that Gemini’s false analysis means that more naïve people will take it as gospel.
How can anyone say that an increase from $1.9 trillion to $3.1Trillion in eight years when inflation was 32% reduced revenue?
Nominal government revenue grew from $1.9 trillion to $3.1 trillion, but when adjusted for 32% inflation, the “real” purchasing power of that revenue actually declined.
This is another outright lie. Real purchasing power went up 33%
How can a 65% increase in revenue when inflation was less than half that reduce purchasing power?
A 65% revenue increase reduces purchasing power if your business costs—such as supplier prices, wages, rent, and taxes—grow at a rate faster than 65%. Even with low overall consumer inflation, specific business expenses can surge and outpace top-line growth.
So here it covers up a programmed lie by claiming that the government may have higher costs than the rest of the economy.
Hasn’t CBO been notoriously wrong on projections on entitlement costs and programs like Obamacare and the Inflation Reduction Act?
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has faced criticism for significant misses in major legislative projections. Forecasting multi-year economic behavior, dynamic behavioral shifts, and complex policy impacts involves high uncertainty, leading to well-documented discrepancies between initial estimates and realized outcomes for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Instead of just saying yes, there’s obfuscatory wording.
Didn’t spending 76% more when inflation was only 31% cause the entire deficit problem since revenue also doubled the inflation rate?
When federal spending outpaces revenue collection over time, budget deficits grow. While spending growth higher than inflation contributes to a structural deficit, total deficit size is driven by the ongoing gap between total outlays and tax receipts, compounded heavily by rising net interest payments on accumulated debt.
Again, Gemini admits spending is the problem but blames a revenue shortfall. It’s like a 1950s comedy sketch where the husband blames his wife for spending too much, and she counters that he earns too little.
In summary, revenues following tax cuts increased substantially faster than inflation. The tax cuts could not have contributed to the deficit. Gemini clearly knows the facts, but when asked to analyze them or give an opinion, it resorts to a left bias.
It is a shame that the media and other Democrats have always advocated for spending and tax increases. Why would anyone want to increase tax rates when lower rates brought in more money, unless they just wanted a big, powerful government?
____________________________________________________________________
We’ve Handed Government Our Work, and We’re Paying the Price
BY: Mark Lewis (October 10, 2026).
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – James Madison
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
– James Madison, the main author of the American Constitution
Our Founding Fathers, as Mr. Madison said in the quotation above, did not put “charity” in the Constitution as a responsibility — power — of Congress or the national government. Thus, the entire American welfare system is unconstitutional, and if anyone disagrees, please “lay [your] finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents” and point it out to me. And prove to me that you know more about the Constitution than the man who wrote it.
The Founders didn’t put “charity” in the Constitution for a quite obvious reason — if the government starts giving out free money, the lazy, shiftless, and selfish (which is far too many of mankind) will line up for miles to get as much of it as possible. And, worse, it might encourage those who are on the fence — in other words, would take care of themselves if necessity dictated, but tempted not to if free money is available — to slide over into the bum class and become unproductive. Don’t put temptation in front of people. That’s just common sense that we have completely forgotten in our secular, selfish, godless age.
In other words, to the brilliant and wise men who wrote our Constitution, government “charity” would produce the exact situation we see in America today: waste, fraud, abuse, and an inflationary monetary system that hurts the hard-working, diligent American — the kind of people a country should want and seek to produce. But rather, we now have a huge parasitic class that drains much-needed resources from society and adds nothing to its production. To our Founders, people, first and foremost, are to take care of themselves and their families, and not look to government to do it.
But times have changed, and we simply live in an age when so many expect government to solve all our problems (New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani said it should), so we give it massive amounts of our money. That’s just the “zeitgeist” we’ve been trained to believe; thus it is the accepted, and unquestioned, norm today. Any mention, for example, that people should be allowed to privatize their Social Security or Medicare is immediately met with horrified, cacophonous shrieks of protest by government lovers — and parasites — and never even gets out of the batter’s box, much less to first base. Government is supposed to take care of the “poor”; that’s just accepted “wisdom” today.
But it shouldn’t be government’s responsibility to do our work for us. There are some things government can do very well (like oppress and kill people), but charity is best left in the hands of individuals who are close enough to situations to direct it where it truly needs to go. It isn’t in the least surprising that America’s government “benevolence” is in such a catastrophic mess; that institution (government) is wholly unequipped to prudently handle it. And, of course, it’s also purely political now.
For example, the American government has priced the greatest healthcare system in the world almost beyond reach of average citizens — with concomitant massive waste and fraud — and the more power over that system government gains, the worse it will become.
But government has made healthcare, through laws, regulations, strangulation, etc., so expensive that it is about the only entity now that can afford the costs. That’s exactly what totalitarians want — you dependent upon them, not free to make your own choices and pay for them yourself.
The Democrats love it. If the government is to do all the work, it must have as much of the money, and hence, power as possible. And the Left is about nothing if not about government power. It is also why the Left has done, and is doing, everything it can to destroy the nuclear family. If there is no family to take care of a person, then it has devolved upon government to do it. That isn’t the way it should be, but that’s the way we’ve been taught to think. And too many churches, which should be involved in benevolence, are too busy pleasuring themselves with their multi-million-dollar cathedrals and playpens to do the true work Christianity enjoins upon them. If government is going to do it, why should churches bother with it?
But we’ve ignored Mr. Madison; we’ve rejected our Constitution, common sense, and history, and so we have the bloated, fraudulent disaster that our welfare state has become. Not to mention that millions of people, from all over the world, have come to America to benefit from it. Our Founders knew this would happen if we put charity in the hands of government. Free money is one of the greatest attractions in the world to anybody, but especially to a sub-class of sloths and societal riff-raff with no virtue and who only wish to parasite off others. Nearly every human society in history has had them; current American government policy simply makes it easy for them to exist and expand. And it will eventually bankrupt and destroy the nation. We reap the ignorance we’ve sown.
The genuinely “needy poor” do exist, of course; they always have and they always will, and every religion in the world tells its individual adherents to take care of them, not the government. Jesus never told us to perform our Christian responsibilities through government. We, individually, are to do it.
But, individually, we tend to fall short of this great duty because government inflation has made it increasingly difficult to even provide for ourselves, much less help others. Just what the totalitarian left ordered.
GFK
