Thursday, November 5, 2026

Yeah, It Blows… So What? Life Is Hard. Toughen Up.


Well, that sucked — nay, it super sucked. It sucked like the giant black hole at the center of the galaxy. There’s no silver lining to this cloud; the best you’re going to get is some aluminum. But we’ve been here before. Not to this extent for a long time, but we have been here before. We’ve had bad nights. And Tuesday was a very, very bad night.

OK, so we’re going to sit and cry about it? Are we going to give up? Not unless we want to give up our country. And I don’t want to give up our country. The only good thing that happened on Election Day was that my new novel “American Warlord” finally came out, and if you want to see the worst-case scenario, read it. If you want to avoid the worst-case scenario, let’s figure out what happened and how to fix it.

I did not see this coming. I knew it was a possibility, and there were people out there saying it could happen. My assessment was that we might lose one or two Senate seats overall and probably the House by a few. See, that’s why you shouldn’t assess — you can make an assessment of yourself.

Three different groups reacted in three different ways. I saw one of them coming. Democrats were motivated to get out there and vote, to scramble over broken glass in an effort to send their message of perversion and communism. I did not see Republicans not showing up in numbers. I thought the Trump rally swings and the massive ad spending would have alerted them to the danger and gotten them off their duffs, even if they were mad about four-dollar gas and us defeating a generational enemy that had murdered and maimed thousands of Americans. I suspect we may find that it was independents who did it, breaking hard for something new and different. After all, it’s been almost 11 and a half years since Donald Trump came down that escalator. It’s been fun, and he’s done great things, but as Saul Alinsky observed, after a while, everything becomes a drag. Maybe they’re exhausted of Donald Trump. Maybe they forgot all the great things he did, like seal the border and rebuild the military and get rid of DEI. Maybe they were asking, “What have you done for me lately?”

They knew they couldn’t afford things, and they didn’t think Trump, or any Republican, cared. I went out to breakfast on the morning of Election Day at a cute little breakfast place in my liberal enclave in now-blue Texas. I got three scrambled eggs, bacon, some sourdough toast, hash browns, a coffee, and two orange juices. Irina got a little less. With tip, I paid $60. This was practically a diner. How can normal people pay $60 for a breakfast every day? How can they pay $30 for breakfast every day, or $15? They can’t. Something’s got to give. And what gave was the Republicans’ grip on power.

Well, who else are they going to blame? We’re the ones in charge. Yes, I know why all this stuff happened. I know what Biden did to the economy. There are logical reasons why the Republicans aren’t to blame, but if you think persuasion is about logic, you’ve never stood up in front of a jury of 12 people who couldn’t get out of jury duty. We were in charge, things were perceived to suck — please don’t quote me all the statistics about how the economy’s doing great because they don’t matter — and so we got the blame and the boot.

One thing it is not is proof that somehow people hate MAGA candidates and don’t want them anymore. No, this was an equal-opportunity bloodbath. MAGA guys like Vivek Ramaswamy got destroyed — his likely departure from the public eye is one of those aluminum linings — but so did normie Republicans like Ashley Hinson, John Husted, and Mike Rogers. Who is more normal than Susan Collins? Not the guy who fills his family’s Thanksgiving dinner with erotic tension — you know, Senator Cousintapper? It wasn’t about who they were, but about that R after their names. In Texas, they wiped out Republicans from senator and governor down through a whole lot of the ticket. It didn’t matter. This wasn’t rational. This was emotional.

Now, there’s already some gloating by the people affiliated with the old-school Busherriffic Republicans, who are now going to argue that we should announce the end of the America First movement and allow them back into power. They are positively giddy that this happened because they imagine we’re going to come crawling to them, admit we were wrong, and beg them to take us back. Not happening. Another of those aluminum linings is the fact that a lot of jerks are now gone. We’re not going to have to deal with the likes of John Cornyn or Thom Tillis anymore. Don’t fall for the baloney line that if we had not turned on them (after they turned on us), they would’ve won their current seats. It’s pretty clear they would’ve been slaughtered, too. The Republican Party that’s left is tighter and more conservative. Thomas Massie is gone, and so are Don Bacon, Dan Crenshaw, and other pains in the rear. It’s not much, but we should take what we can get.

Again, something was going on here that was bigger than we could’ve imagined. That we were so out of touch is on us, though I’m not sure what we could’ve done about it in the run-up. With Congress, and to some extent the president, the last year has felt like we’ve been treading water. The important question is what do we do about it now?

Well, first we don’t give up. These things happen. We’ve been through bad nights before. Not usually this bad, but we’ve had some pretty bad ones, and so have the Democrats. But you can come back from them. It’s never over. In 2010, we crushed the Democrats. In 2012, the Democrats came back, and Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney — incidentally, another of those normal guy Republicans we were told we need to nominate. The 2028 election is a century away and is also tomorrow, and it begins today.

If you would ask me two days ago who was gonna be the GOP nominee in 2028, I would’ve told you it’s whoever Donald Trump anoints, and that the anointee du jour is JD Vance. Well, I don’t know about that anymore. Vance has wrapped himself up with Donald Trump, and that might not be helpful in 2028. But then it may be helpful in 2028 — Donald Trump thrives with a nemesis, and he has the opportunity to place himself in opposition to a Democrat Congress and take credit for keeping it from doing the insane things its insane members are insanely set upon doing. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Trump goes from zero to hero in two years, just like he went from hero to zero in two years. We will be talking about the 2028 race, which is now underway, more in the future…

Back to the present. The immediate policy prescriptions kind of write themselves. The Iran War is going to end soon, whether with a bang or a whimper. On the plus side, the whole world owes Donald Trump its gratitude for courageously neutering the pagan, psychopathic regime, at least for a while. The obvious move for the president is to focus on the economy, but that was also the obvious move for the last year. He needs to stop being distracted by things like ballrooms and Bill Maher beefs. People are just done with that. You can argue whether this stuff is right or wrong objectively, but it’s not about being objective. It’s about vibes. And the vibes are bad. We need to hope that they’re not so bad that Donald Trump gets suckered into a deal for the sake of a deal on something like immigration. It’s not clear we have enough senators to filibuster a bad deal.

As for the festival of impeachment and investigations, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats will overreach. It would be nice for the Republicans to be able to run in 2028 against a Congress that has done nothing about the things that it was sent to Washington to do and, instead, single-mindedly pursued its vendetta against its political opposition. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is still president. He still holds the veto power, and, as somebody else once said in the wake of a similar electoral disaster, he can do a lot of governing with a phone and a pen. But he’s not going to do much nominating — make sure you keep Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in your prayers.

So, yes, this sucks. Yes, there are going to be consequences — the people who gave the Democrats a chance may end up getting those consequences as good and hard. And while there is the potential for the Democrats to destroy our country as we know it down the road if they build on this foundation of failure, America the day after the debacle is still the greatest country on earth.



Podcast thread for Nov 5

 


good day to hear about NCIS

Where Are the Riots, the Military, and the Nukes?


Well, that didn’t work out how we’d hoped, did it? But hope isn’t a strategy, nor is it often an accurate reflection of reality – it’s about as effective a plan as crossing your fingers or holding your breath as you drive past a cemetery. Republicans lost because they had bad candidates, a horrible strategy, no recent accomplishments and an unpopular President in the White House.

Advertisement

Am I saying this is all Donald Trump’s fault? Not at all. But he’s not blameless. I’d been saying Ken Paxton was an awful candidate since the jump; a Trump endorsement of John Cornyn likely could have prevented that failure. Cornyn was far from perfect, but someone who’d vote with you 90-95 percent of the time is always better than someone who never will, and now Texas has Senator Never.

I hate nepotism. One of the biggest problems in politics is how name recognition matters so much – it’s the only reason a lobbyist like Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI-6) ends up in the House after her husband spent more than half a century in that same seat. She was hired to lobby because of who her husband was and slid into his seat when he was sliding out of it.

That Sen. Lindsey Graham died is sad, but that doesn’t make his sister qualified to be a Senator. She was eligible – being a citizen older than 30 – but qualified is different. Being appointed to finish the year is one thing; being nominated to serve a term of her own is another. They’re the difference between a kid who can’t swim walking into the shallow end of a pool and being shoved into the deep end. Darline Graham couldn’t swim and was on the high diving platform.

All the losers are looking for someone to attach themselves to, and while it’s easy to blame just the President or the candidates, there are others who should not escape their share of the splatter as well.

The media, of course, campaigned relentlessly for Democrats. Kristen Welker at Meet the Press had no follow-ups or tough questions for Abdul El-Sayed, but wouldn’t let Mike Rogers speak; then did the segment immediately following his appearance with the Democrat Governor of Michigan to attack him when he wasn’t there to defend himself.

Recommended

Advertisement

MS Now and certain paranoid podcast hosts and liberal columnists were assuring their audiences that the President was on the verge of launching the military to seize ballots across the country and block certifications of results, thereby holding on to power like the Hitler that he is. Surely it wasn’t called off simply because some weenie at The Atlantic blogged about it, thereby alerting the public. A dictator cares not for public opinion.

No, they were lying. Why? Because why not? What are the consequences for Democrats for lying? Maybe you get a book deal or a CNN contract, but that’s about it. You’d almost be stupid not to lie. Plus, the truth does you no favors, so you kind of have to.

Now there are podcasters and college professors calling for Elon Musk to be executed for treason. The reason? Musk displeased him by existing in a non-obedient way. Missing was anything Musk has done that would constitute treason except displeasing Scott Galloway and his fellow fascists. Would it be cool if Galloway were declared a traitor who should face execution by Musk? He wouldn’t have anything to worry about, as political violence is the currency of the left. He’d only have to worry if he accidentally used the wrong pronoun on someone; then they might kill him.

Then there was Tucker Carlson, who, in a long post on Twitter, promised a nuclear strike on Iran in the days before the election. Why? Jews, naturally, always the Jews. Where is it? “Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Tucker wrote. And his source? It’s “an informed observer.” Maybe it’s the hippie keeping the peace vigil across the street from the White House, as that guy probably sees a lot of things.

Advertisement

How many people believed him? How many of those people didn’t vote, or voted Democrat to “stick it to Israel”? It’s beyond stupid, but it’s profitable! So is selling merch with the same antisemitic message Abdul El-Sayed embraced about Jews being responsible for high prices, or hats that read “Neocons are gay for Israel” or “The wars will continue until Israel is satisfied.”

Selling out everything you once claimed were deeply held principles is very profitable, just like Bill Kristol. Maybe his former boss and mentor is where he learned it?

Many things and people converged to cause the failures in the election; there’s plenty of splatter to go around. What happened matters a lot less than what happens next. We aren’t about to experience a coup, from either side, and we aren’t about to nuke anyone – all the people selling any of it were doing just that, selling you something and making money off of you.

The ultimate lessons of the election are: don’t believe anyone who always tells you exactly what you hope or want to hear, don’t follow those to profit off paranoia, and never trust anyone who insists on things that never happen were only averted because they “exposed them.”

Otherwise, relax. There have been bigger losses in recent years, and bigger victories. Two years of Democrats exposing themselves and how crazy they are through proposed legislation that will go nowhere and hearings that will pull back the curtain on lunacy and ultimately lead to nothing might be the best thing Republicans could wish for over the next two years. Anything that manages to make its way through Congress will likely be vetoed, making them even more unhinged as they get nothing done.

Advertisement

All in all, that’s not that bad. It’s not the prize we wanted, but as far as consolation prizes go, it could’ve been worse. It could have been a presidential election year.


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Thune Decides Whether He'll Run for Senate Minority Leader

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) will run for Senate Minority Leader, a Thune spokesperson independently confirmed to Townhall on Wednesday afternoon. 

The decision comes amid major losses in the upper chamber for the GOP on Tuesday night, as Democrats could hold up to 56 seats. Currently, Decision Desk HQ projects they will hold 54 seats, but two races in Alaska and Mississippi have yet to be called. 

“Over the last two years, Senate Republicans have put up a strong record of accomplishment that’s created safer streets, more money in Americans’ pockets, and new opportunities for families and businesses to get ahead,” Thune posted to X early Wednesday morning. 

“As we head into 2027, Senate Republicans will not stand idly by as the far-left, socialist wing of the Democrat Party attempts to unwind everything we’ve done,” he continued. “Thankfully, we still have President Trump in the White House, and we’ll work with him to stop the worst impulses of Democrat extremism. We cannot let their fringe positions become the mainstream.”

It’s unknown at this time whether Thune will have any challengers for the position, or whether the White House will wade into the leadership race. The Washington Sun reported previously that he was eyeing a bid for the job. 

While Thune and the president have had a fairly positive relationship, the two have disagreed over whether to axe the filibuster, as the president wanted to use every lever possible to pass the “SAVE America Act” earlier this year. However, Thune and others argued that scrapping the filibuster would open the floodgates for Democrat-backed legislation.

Meanwhile, a battle for House Republican leadership is unfolding. Speaker Mike Johnson is stepping aside, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan are battling it out for minority leader. The president said Wednesday he will not get involved in that contest. 


Trump Reveals Whether He'll Get Involved in House Minority Leader Race

President Donald Trump will not be wading into the race for minority leader in the House of Representatives, as Republicans faced massive losses in both chambers of Congress on Tuesday night.

Speaker Mike Johnson will be stepping aside from leadership, whereas House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) will be diving into the race for the position, which will play a key role in rallying and uniting Republicans against Democrats once they take power in the legislative branch.

“We’ll stay out of it,” Trump told reporters while touting White House ballroom construction on Wednesday. 

The president also praised Johnson, who repeatedly pulled through tough votes in the narrow Republican-majority House. 

“The speaker was fantastic, the people under him were fantastic. All good people. I guess right now you have to candidates,” he added. 

The minority leader could play a key role in setting the political tone for Republicans in the lower chamber. In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is expected to run for the position, according to the Washington Post.

"In these next two years, our job cannot be merely to spotlight how radical this new Democrat party is—offense, not defense, wins elections. Republican policies prioritize making Americans’ neighborhoods safer, keeping more money in their pockets, and protecting enduring American values and freedoms," Jordan wrote in his letter to House colleagues, according to Punchbowl News. 

"To restore our majority, we must restore voters’ faith in our ability to deliver on these principles," he added. 

Scalise stressed party unity in his letter to his fellow Republicans. 

"Standing united will allow us to use every procedural tool at our disposal to disrupt the Democrats’ radical agenda and force votes that expose divisions within their ranks," the Republican wrote, Punchbowl News reported. "From discharge petitions and motions to recommit to previous question votes and coordinated committee and floor action, we will use every opportunity to put them on defense. Having served in both the majority and the minority, I know how much pressure a disciplined conference can bring to bear—and I commit that every one of you has a voice and a role in that fight."


What Washington is missing about Trump’s Canada tariffs - The effect on American Business and People

 

By Tracy Moran -  November 5, 2026 at 4:00 a.m.

The Council on Foreign Relations recently led a member delegation to Detroit and Toronto to examine the U.S.-Canada economic relationship.

The group examined how trade, investment, and advanced manufacturing continue to connect the two economies despite the trade tensions.

Edward Alden, a CFR senior fellow and visiting professor of U.S.-Canada economic relations at Western Washington University, accompanied the group. National Post spoke with him about what the delegation learned and what Washington is missing.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

During your trip to Detroit and Toronto, what did you hear that policymakers in Washington most need to understand and perhaps aren’t hearing?

I think several different things. I think one that they may be aware of but aren’t hearing enough is how damaging the tariff policies have been to that region.

I mean, these are industrial economies, most obvious in the auto industry, but it’s true in other sectors as well, that are so integrally tied to each other that trying to pull it apart inevitably causes a lot of damage to both countries. So I think message number one is just the very significant regional impacts that the tariffs are having.

Message number two, which surprised me a little bit, is how much goodwill remains. I mean, there’s obviously a lot of Canadian anger at the actions of the administration.

We’ve seen big declines in Canadian travel to the U.S., which has hurt Detroit, but has also hurt my community out here in Bellingham, Washington. But I really came away from the conversations in Windsor and in Toronto with a sense that there’s still a lot of will and desire on the Canadian side to try to fix this. Not to go back to the way things were — that won’t happen — but to try to build a more productive path going forward.

And I think the third thing, which if they’re not aware of it in D.C. they should be, is just that Canadians are prepared to be in this for the long haul. I didn’t hear a shred of willingness to accept a deal that’s going to permanently disadvantage the Canadian economy. I think if there’s a deal to be reached, it has to be a more balanced agreement of the sort that have been reached in the past. Obviously, there will be differences — this is a new administration, it’s a new world. But I think the extremely one-sided demands that we’ve seen out of Washington just aren’t going to fly in Canada. Those would be my big takeaways.

When Washington talks about bringing manufacturing back to the United States, what about that argument works, and what does it miss about how production works across the Canadian border?

I think the argument doesn’t work very well in North America because as a result of free trade agreements going back three decades plus, we’ve created these regional production economies. Let’s look at this from an American perspective.

Goods manufactured in Mexico or in Canada have very high percentages of U.S. content. There are direct benefits to the American economy when we are importing products that have a “Made in Canada” label or a “Made in Mexico” label. It’s quite different when you’re looking at trade with China.

China is building supply chains … that are quite separate from the United States. China is increasingly making most of the inputs for its manufactured products in China. It’s internalized a lot of the supply chain. But where it’s not (internalized), it’s an Asian supply chain. So the products coming from China to the United States have very little U.S. content in them.

There is not very much in the way of industrial or manufacturing work that is created in the United States when we’re importing products from China. In fact, quite the opposite, because these products are often competing directly with North American-made products. So the problem with the approach this administration has taken is not tariffs per se, but not picking the targets intelligently.

Even if you want to reshore manufacturing, the U.S. is not about to become a self-sufficient economy. We are going to rely on manufacturing inputs for the final products that we produce, and a lot of those are gonna come from Canada or Mexico.

If you’re putting tariffs on those intermediate goods, then you’re just costing your own manufacturers a great deal of money. So there’s nothing wrong in theory with wanting to reshore some manufacturing, and I certainly think there are strong arguments for working with allies to develop capacities in critical inputs, be they minerals or lithium batteries.

We could come up with a long list of things where North America doesn’t want to be wholly dependent on China. But fighting a trade war with Canada and Mexico undercuts that goal. I think the trade war is completely misguided, even if you accept that the goal is to try to encourage reshoring of manufacturing in the United States. This is not the way to go about it.

Who is bearing the greatest cost of Canada-U.S. tensions, and is that visible to policymakers?

If you look at the election debates, I think the greatest costs are actually being felt in the U.S. border states. So we’ve got an economy out here in Washington State, and the same is true in places in Michigan and New York and others. You’ve got border towns that were heavily dependent on Canadian business that is way down.

You’ve got the industries in Michigan and the other border states that are hurting, a lot of it from the cost of the tariffs that those companies are being forced to pay. The competitive position of Ford and General Motors vis-Γ -vis international competitors is weakening as a result.

I mean, it’s a very cynical kind of strategy, and I don’t think one that behooves any U.S. president who’s behaving in a way that befits American interests. But the strategy was to harm the Canadians more and hope they will buckle, and I think, in fact, you’re seeing the opposite.

You’re seeing a lot of the harm being concentrated in the northern U.S. states and voters in those states complaining about it. And the administration is responding. You’ve seen some tariff modifications. I think that’s why there seems to be a prospect for the U.S.-Canada negotiations to be revived.

It is not at all clear that the tariffs have inflicted a level of pain on Canada that is making Canadians want to rush back to the negotiating table. In fact, it seems to have done the opposite.

Prime Minister Carney and President Trump spoke over the weekend about the possibility of a deal, and Carney said talks would continue in the coming weeks. Did you see that as political messaging or a sign of a genuine breakthrough?

It’s too soon to tell. I’ve followed trade negotiations closely for about three decades now, and the devil is always in the details. The U.S. and Canada were quite close to a deal back in August until things happened at the last minute. It seems to be mostly U.S.-led — that they just put unacceptable issues on the table. It’s certainly possible that that could happen again. But I think the Trump folks are aware that they are reaching the political limits of the tariff policy.

They’ve managed to do something rather extraordinary in the last two years, which is to take an American populace that was quite skeptical of trade. You look at polls on NAFTA, USMCA, or polls on trade with China, and across the board, (there were) high levels of skepticism among the American public about the trade arrangements.

And, in the course of a year and a half as a result of tariff policy, they’ve turned Americans strongly against tariffs. Americans have come to equate tariffs with rising prices, with hits to their own pocketbook. And I think the administration is recognizing this.

Trump is always willing to do deals. He wants them to be as one-sided as possible. But I think he’d be more than happy to put this to rest. I don’t think he wants to get hammered for the next two years over the tariff policy with Canada …

We don’t like a lot of things about the tariffs, but the Canada tariffs — you’ve got to be kidding me, right? This is one of our closest allies, a trading partner that we’ve been able to work out disputes with for decades, that has largely the same labour rights we have here in the United States, that doesn’t have the challenges of trading with Mexico and some other countries. What the heck are we doing putting tariffs on Canada?

Trump’s tariffs are unpopular, but the Canada tariffs are uniquely unpopular. And you’ve really seen that come together in the midterm campaign. So I think we’re in a different political moment. That doesn’t mean that a deal is imminent.

For Canada, this is a hard team to negotiate with. They’re not well-organized. They change their mind frequently. So I’m not going to go out on a limb and predict that a deal is imminent. But I do think the political environment for a deal is considerably better than it was even two, three months ago.

What concrete signs should we watch for over the next year to tell whether the relationship is recovering or the damage is worsening?

I think at the national level, the signs of recovery would be efforts to modify the tariffs when and where it’s evident that harm is being caused to both countries.

I’m not naive enough to think we’re going to go back to the USMCA tariff environment, but I think you could end up in a situation where both countries are actually trying to make the trade relationship work, even if the rules are different than they were under USMCA. So that would be one.

I think number two would actually be serious engagement on the USMCA review, which has not happened yet between the United States and Canada. But a clear commitment from the U.S. side that, yes indeed, we want to extend the USMCA, and to do that, we have to reach agreements that are acceptable to both Mexico and Canada.

The U.S. talks with Mexico have broken down as well — not as publicly as they have with Canada because the Mexicans have taken a much quieter approach. But they’ve broken down over largely the same issue, which is the national security (Section 232) tariffs, particularly on autos in both Mexico and Canada’s case, not exclusively.

Steel is another big one and steel derivative products. But those negotiations are going nowhere. So I think a second sign would be that the review process that was set up in USMCA is actually being engaged with in a faithful fashion by all three countries. So those would be the two big things I would look for. Also, some effort to gain common benefit out of whatever the new set of rules are and a recommitment to the USMCA process. Possibly a third one would be even inklings of some common approaches vis-Γ -vis China. At the moment, I think Canadians aren’t the least bit interested in that, but I think if the situation with the U.S. stabilizes, then those discussions could begin again.

And I think there are interests in both countries in having somewhat more unified approaches towards China.

https://nationalpost.com/news/what-washington-is-missing-about-trumps-canada-tariffs/

Yikes: Scott Galloway's Ominous Remarks About Elon Musk Take a Disturbing Turn

It was an ugly Tuesday; there's no getting around that. 

The Republicans got wiped out in a big way. We should remember that losing in the midterms is fairly traditional, so that's not unusual. For the folks dooming, read my colleague Bob Hoge's great piece for some perspective and what we need to do. 

You know the Democrats are already going into overdrive with what they think they can do to get Republicans. Anyone who voted for Democrats thinking they were sending a message or voting for affordability is about to get a hard lesson in what the Democrats' real priorities are. They are going to have nothing but lawfare and investigations. 

We're already seeing this, as Bob noted in his earlier story with Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia (CA-42) tweeting, "Lawyer up!" Democrats have already let the cat out of the bag about people they'd like to go after, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the owner of X, Elon Musk. Talk about weaponization of government. And that's another thing. It's not just that nothing good will get done; it's that a lot of bad will be set in motion that can harm our nation and the rule of law. 

Democrats are definitely feeling their oats. Professor and podcaster Scott Galloway put some ugly words to that nasty sentiment, as our sister site Townhall reported. 

"We've begun believing through this ridiculous, unhealthy, and dangerous idolatry of innovators that they get to live by an entirely different standard," Galloway said. "Elon Musk is a traitor to the West."

"We lined up the Rosenbergs against a wall," he continued. "This is a traitor to the West, and he should be held to the same standards as every other traitor in the West."

What made it even worse was that the crowd applauded that insanity. 

I think he was talking here about the recent controversy involving Starlink and its military counterpart, Starshield, in Ukraine, where restrictions disrupted Ukrainian drone operations. Musk said Ukraine had violated Starlink's terms by using it for offensive strikes, a claim Ukrainian officials disputed. But Ukraine has also relied heavily on SpaceX's satellite technology since Russia's invasion.

This is how unhinged the Democrats are at this point. This is the dangerous talk the Left is engaging in here. 

The Rosenbergs were electrocuted (not lined up against a wall) for passing atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union. No, Elon has not done anything even close to that. No matter how much the Left gets twisted over him. 

Plus, Elon has brought so much good to the world through his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and all the many things he's developed through SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, and other efforts. He put everything on the line when he bought Twitter to help bring greater freedom of speech on X. He was then targeted for that and because he dares to help the Republicans. 

This is where the Left is now, and it's an ominous thing being let loose.