Conservative Blogger
Monday, November 2, 2026
Trump: I'll Be Mr. Veto if Dems Control Congress
President Donald Trump said he would become "Mr. Veto" if Democrats win control of Congress in Tuesday's midterms, the Washington Examiner reported Sunday. In an interview with Fox News posted on X, Trump discussed the possibility of Republicans losing control of the House and Senate and how divided government could affect his legislative agenda. "Well, if that happens, I guess I'll become Mr. Veto," Trump said. "I'm not going to let them ruin — and then at some point, we'll probably make deals." Trump noted that previous presidents have faced opposition majorities in Congress and used vetoes to block legislation. "I mean this is, this wouldn't be the first time, you'll have president, and he won't have the House or the Senate, they'll be sending stuff up, you'll veto it, and eventually after a month or two of getting all vetoed, you know, it's wasted, they just wasted, they come over, and you make a deal," Trump said. Democrat control of either chamber would complicate Trump's efforts to advance his legislative priorities during the final two years of his presidency, the Examiner reported. If Democrats capture both chambers, they would gain control of congressional investigations, hearings, and the legislative agenda. Republicans face challenges in retaining their House majority, while control of the Senate remains competitive. Trump has campaigned across the country to mobilize his supporters and voters who don't regularly participate in elections. At campaign appearances, Trump has urged Republicans to turn out for GOP candidates in races that could determine control of Congress. Brian Freeman ✉Brian Freeman, a Newsmax writer based in Israel, has more than three decades writing and editing about culture and politics for newspapers, online and television. © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
'Banner Afternoon': Dems Come Unglued, and Tell Us Who They Really Are (Again) in the Process
 |
We political junkies are usually good at seeing right through the machinations of the Democrat Party and their media allies, no matter what it is they are saying or doing, something that comes from years of experience in watching how they operate. Those who only pay casual attention to politics may not necessarily see it, because Democrats are typically good at masking who they really are, while hiding it behind buzzwords like "women's rights" and "equal pay" and "equality for all," things that, in the abstract, sound good to some people. But sometimes the mask slips, and Democrats reaffirm who they really are while allowing people who didn't catch it before to finally do so. This is something we saw Sunday in the aftermath of Democrat Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11) endorsing Michigan GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers
with just two days to go before Election Day. It was a bold move in the face of what she surely had to realize would be an unrelenting swarm of fury from TDS-afflicted Democrat voters, activists, and so-called party "leaders," people who have for years reliably informed us that if you vocally disagreed with a (leftist) woman, you were either a misogynistic male or a sellout female, no matter the issue. As we reported, the blowback has commenced accordingly, with the Michigan Democrat Party moving to kick Stevens out of the official state party machine, and Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY),
who has spinelessly refused to condemn Democrat nominee Abdul El-Sayed's antisemitism despite the fact that he (Schumer) is the most powerful Jewish elected official in America, calling Stevens' actions a "despicable betrayal."
Sadly, but not surprisingly, things got uglier as the day wore on, with prominent political figures on the left, like ex-Clintonista James Carville,
diving straight into gutter politics mode. "If you think that these Republicans are going to treat you as anything other than what they view you as...a used condom," he fumed, addressing Stevens in a low-quality video. "The Democrats don't even think you're worth a used condom." "You made your bed, sleep in it; you sh*t in your mess kit, eat it," he sneered. Carville then made a fat joke about Stevens and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) maybe needing to open up a cheeseburger restaurant. As always, putting the a** in classy. Watch:
Then there was failed New York 12th Congressional District Democrat candidate and NeverTrumper George Conway,
who suggested Stevens should check herself into a mental health facility: There was also another failed NeverTrumper, grifter Bill Kristol,
suggesting without evidence that Stevens had suffered a "breakdown":
And then there was this:
Even Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI-06),
who is treated as the "conscience" of the Michigan Democrat Party, had a meltdown on CNN and made similar insinuations about Stevens' mental health that David Axelrod and Van Jones did:
Amazing how she can pretend to be concerned about Stevens when earlier in the day she accused her of "attention seeking." This is what's called a political stab in the back:
Amazing that some of these folks can talk about how Stevens is supposedly "struggling" and "emotional," and yet they don't consider that the reason she's probably "struggling and emotional" (assuming she even is) is because she knew she'd get treated like absolute garbage by people who previously said they had her back? This isn't rocket science. I'm sorry, but this is just scummy (yet entirely predictable) behavior from these people - not just the jerks like Carville and Conway, but the ones who feigned concern, like Jones, Axelrod, and Dingell. They know what they're doing, what they're implying. Every single one of them. Disgusting. But at the end of the day, this is who they are. Party over country. Every time. For anyone out there who is reading this and may still be undecided, please keep that in mind when you vote. Credit: redstate.com |
El-Sayed’s Answer on Men in Girls’ Locker Rooms Is the Worst Thing Any Sane Parent Could Imagine
 |
Senate candidate Abdulrahman Mohamed "Abdul" El-Sayed (D-MI) offered a flat-out stunning defense for allowing biological males into girls’ locker rooms and sports during a recent 60 Minutes interview. When asked about conflicts over transgender kids on sports teams, El-Sayed argued that such concerns are largely manufactured. They aren't. They're very real. There are countless examples of biological males either hurting females in sports or exposing themselves to young women and girls in locker rooms. To be clear, there are three stages the Left uses when trying to downplay horrific things — 1) It's not a real thing, 2) It happens, but it is extremely rare, and 3) It's real, but here's why it's actually a good thing. El-Sayed begins in the initial stage before quickly dipping into stages two and three. "What happens with transgender kids on sports teams and so on, right? Like, these are places where rights are in conflict, right?" interviewer Ross Douthat asks. "I don't know that that's actually true," El-Sayed counters. "I think we manufacture these social issues." That's when he quickly pivots to the more advanced stages of liberal mental disorder. "Here's the thing about it, Ross. You have an iPhone in your pocket, probably, or is it an iPhone or a Samsung? You have a phone in your pocket, right? You can get access to everything and anything in the whole world, all the world's information in your pocket," he explained. "The notion, somehow, that you are going to prevent your child from being exposed to something that you may find disagreeable, and that that is going to be because of school is so profoundly outdated." Video that youtube won't show https://www.facebook.com/MikeRogersForMI/videos/abdul-el-sayes-says-its-ok-for-men-to-be-in-girls-locker-rooms-whywell-because-t/4035808126714106/ "Because of course you have all the information, and they have all the information," he added. "So here's the thing about it. I think it's really important for us to recognize that the free flow of information is actually a beautiful thing." "It's really important, and the most important thing you can do is not try to protect a person from seeing a thing." El-Sayed's response is, in a word, vile. Extrapolating on this, the radical Islamist is treating the physical presence of males in girls’ private spaces as no different from whatever images or videos a child might find online. By that logic, any sexual activity should be free game. In Abdul's world, why bother protecting girls from pornography when they can just access it on their phones? Drug use is also free game. Any other adult behavior and activity is there for the viewing, so why not just let them access it? And if they can access it online, why not just let them be exposed to sexual activity in real-time? Does he not see how absurd that is? The argument effectively dismisses parental efforts to protect girls’ privacy, safety, and innocence as futile. Again, that might be okay for someone who subscribes to the views of Sharia, but it doesn't hold water in any actual civilized society. His answer is sick. The man is an extremist across the board. And Democrats want you to think these views are somehow normal. El-Sayed has insisted that schools should protect transgender students’ access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and teams of their choice. In past podcast appearances, he also supported a Medicare for All plan expansive enough to cover gender-affirming care for illegal aliens, blasting opposition to such coverage as being guilty of "the original sin of racism." Then there was this gem of an explanation, in which El-Sayed compared medical transitions for minors, including surgeries, to circumcision. Fox News host Jesse Watters had to gently explain to him that "Circumcision is different from castration." Now, 'kids have access to information, so we should just allow men to run naked through girls' locker rooms.' Where do the Democrats constantly dig up these deranged people? Credit: redstate,com |
Your Vote for the Republicans Is a Vote Against Tyranny
You need to go vote for every Republican on your ballot. The election Tuesday isn’t going to be the breaking point for this little experiment we call the “United States of America,” but if the Democrats substantially improve their position, it could haul us a long way down the dark road they seem intent on following to its dead end. And it is a dead end, not only for the country but perhaps for a lot of people, as early as 2029. That may sound alarmist to the Color Revolution Deniers™, but facts are facts. I got grief recently from a glorified blog nobody reads because I was amplifying @DataRepublican’s horrifying research revelations about a potential color revolution here in the United States. Apparently, warning people not to do things that could lead to civil conflict is somehow the same as advocating civil conflict. It’s not.
You can see the problem – our enemies have abandoned reason, and when you can’t reason your way into a political solution, all that leaves is raw power. If they take power, they don’t intend to ever give it up. Oh, they hide what they want to do in a web of lies about how they’re protecting “Our Democracy” or fighting “disinformation” because they don’t want to admit the obvious truth, which is that they believe they should rule and the hell with the rest of us. You look around the globe, and you’re already seeing it as the globalist left establishment fails and flails and desperately seeks to keep control. In Brazil, the communists squeaked out a win through rank cheating and barely missed arresting the guy who ran against them for the crime of running against them. In Poland this week, the left tried a coup – we’ll see how that turns out. Lawfare is underway against the leader of the largest party in France, and in Germany, the government is spying on an upstart party, with the left demanding it be banned outright. You can get arrested for saying things in Britain. They’re less subtle in Romania; they just overturned a whole election when the people voted wrong.
What New York Times best-selling author @DataRepublican discovered was a collection of fired government employees, former military and intelligence types, politicians, and media, all conspiring to launch a campaign to delegitimize the government such that it falls and they take over. The target is the Trump administration, if you’re not paying attention. Apparently, we’re not allowed to elect unapproved people. Of course, Donald Trump got legitimacy by being elected.
But we all know what this is about. When you’re for delegitimizing the elected government, you’re not a real fan of democracy, even if you call yourself a Democrat. Their strategy is to create a sense of crisis through violence, lawfare, and propaganda in order to eventually bring down the legitimate government. It also involves using leftist power bases, like governorships in blue states, and even foreign governmental organizations and NGOs, to isolate and undermine the Trump administration. They are particularly interested in drawing a forceful response from Donald Trump, including implementing the Insurrection Act to crush the violence the Democrats sow, which they would use to further delegitimize his presidency. Propaganda is important too – they already treat Trump as illegitimate and the Supreme Court as illegitimate too. Of course, once they take power, the persecutions begin, and they’ll never give up power again voluntarily.
You can see how much easier this would be with a bunch of Democrats holding the House and the Senate; if you are not voting all red to “send a message,” then the message you are sending is “I’m an idiot.”
Their plan is to squeak into power with 50 percent +1 as early as 2028, then end the filibuster and essentially make it so normal patriotic Americans can never again exercise power. Think about it. They could lock down the Senate by creating new states where there shouldn’t be states. Look for the elimination of the Supreme Court as a barrier against leftist tyranny. They would rev up the importation of millions more illegal aliens – for the establishment Republicans, immigration was always about bringing in a serf class of compliant workers, but for the Democrats over the last couple of decades, it became a demographic campaign to create a more pliable population. You’ll see freedom of speech redefined into freedom to say what they allow you to say. You’ll see the Second Amendment defined out of existence. You’ll see yourself disenfranchised. And you’ll see a bunch of the opposition in jail. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has already told us what they plan, and that fugly CIA alumna is supposed to be a moderate.
They’re not hiding their plans, at least not successfully. Perhaps they’re so used to being covered for by the regime media that they don’t understand that the new media is out there and will report things like Slotkin’s threats and the @DataRepublican files. You can expect them not to make the same mistake again of allowing a free press to exist outside of their control, which makes it a not-free press, but to them that’s a feature, not a bug. And if you think they won’t legislate what AI can and can’t tell you in order to control “the truth,” you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years.
Now, how does this all go down? I’ve written a lot of fiction about American society falling apart because examining hypothetical ruins can tell you a lot about the present. Tomorrow, my new novel, "American Warlord," drops. In it, society collapses when a leftist US government attempts to crush dissent at the same time the world faces the crisis of a deadly Chinese virus that escapes the lab — so basically, it’s a documentary in novel form. Things fall apart but have to be put back together by the people who will eventually save us in real life, normal Americans. Not Ivy League snobs, HR managers, or Internet influencers, but regular people with good values who don’t hesitate to shoot when they have to.
And they may have to, which I’m not supposed to say, but unlike the people who would rather I shut up about the foreseeable consequences of their allies’ power trips, I have a little bit of experience in this area. My (Union) family is from Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, which was burned by Democrats a couple of times during the Civil War; my earliest memory is being at Gettysburg. In 1992, I watched Los Angeles fall apart, standing in combat boots with an M16 in Inglewood and South Central. And then I served a year in the ruins of the Kosovo civil war. My family lived it, and I saw it.
I highly recommend avoiding civil conflict, and I’m going to keep saying so. It’s unclear to me how not pointing out what’s going to happen if Democrats keep on this course is somehow hoping for the worst rather than trying to prevent it. It’s very simple. When you eliminate the ability to participate in politics by debate and honest elections, the only alternative is raw power. But in the United States, the government doesn’t have a monopoly on raw power. Thanks to the Second Amendment, the people have 400 million guns and, therefore, a veto. Moreover, unlike in primitive European countries where the population tends toward obedience to authority and the security forces are centralized, in the United States, the forces are highly decentralized — there are thousands of police departments, and every state has its own National Guard — plus American soldiers are unlikely to obey orders to oppress a population of their brothers and sisters. And that armed population outnumbers the security forces 20-to-1.
But this reality won’t stop them from trying their scheme. Think about what happens if the Democrats get a trifecta in 2028 and get past the breaking of the filibuster barrier – there are some structural reasons why even Democrat senators may not be eager to eliminate the filibuster, but the pressure to cross that Rubicon will be nearly unbearable. If you want a real crisis of legitimacy, change the rules, and then add Puerto Rico and DC as states, followed by packing the court and having it issue a repeal of the Second Amendment. That is not going to be legitimate, and it will not be seen that way, and as we’ve seen, legitimacy is critical for a government. America operates on consent, if you hadn’t noticed. We effectively all pay our taxes on the honor system; it’s a vanishingly small percentage of people who get audited. We obey the laws because we feel we created the laws – drive around at 3 AM and watch people stop at empty intersections because there’s a stop sign there. But overseas, life is a never-ending struggle for advantage because their governments have no such legitimacy. In America, we have a little of that, but it’s still largely a high-trust society where you can depend on the rule of law and people generally – outside of Democrat blue cities – behave like civilized human beings. This is why the Democrat foreigner welfare fraud is so outrageous to normal people; it’s figuratively and literally alien to us.
The power grab the Democrats contemplate eliminates all that. We would be deprived of any say in our own governance, so why should we recognize its legitimacy and obey? Plus, we have political power bases, too, and we now have a template for resistance. Look what happened with the ICE campaign to enforce the law by deporting the illegal aliens. You had cities and states resisting in an organized fashion. Think about a campaign to confiscate guns, which is at the top of their to-do list. You’ll have entire states and municipalities resisting. And there’s another problem for the aspiring tyrants. A normal American will risk his life to defend his rights. Who do the Democrats think they were going to talk into risking their lives to take away the rights of other Americans?
What the Democrats don’t understand is that they can’t rule without voluntary compliance, and it just doesn’t seem to me that normal Americans will comply with an illegitimate government. So, they will have to either rein in their tyrannical instincts or amplify their oppression. I assume they would try to amplify their oppression, but do you see the problem? A heavy-handed response would act to further delegitimize the already illegitimate Democrat government, just as they will seek to manipulate the Trump administration into taking heavy-handed actions that delegitimize it.
The big danger today isn’t massive armies maneuvering across battlefields in the Pennsylvania countryside as it was in 1863. The big danger is everything falling apart. As "American Warlord" illustrates, the America we know is an intertwined system of politics, culture, and logistics. It’s a machine, and you can’t pull parts out at random and expect it to still work. What happens when the food stops because of violence, or because the government decided it was going to freeze dissenters’ bank accounts, or because American commissars are every bit as incompetent as every other set of commissars in every other country that tried to impose real communism? Without endless truckloads and trainloads of food and fuel, an American city becomes Mogadishu in three days, as opposed to Minneapolis, which already is. And all the new laws, decrees, and social media badgering in the world aren’t going to change that.
So, you’ve got two jobs in the next 24 hours. The first is to go vote, and to vote all red. Vote for every Republican, because every Democrat is a danger to your country, your freedom, and potentially, your life. And go buy "American Warlord" yourself, or for someone who just doesn’t get it. Better they get frightened reading about it in a novel than have to live it in reality.
Credit: townhall.com
The Left Has a Complete and Total Meltdown Over Haley Stevens Endorsing Mike Rogers
 |
I wasn’t expecting Rep. Haley Stevens to attend the campaign event with Abdul El-Sayed, which Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) hosted today, but she went a step further: she endorsed Republican Mike Rogers and went to church with him. The Left is losing their minds. It’s meltdown worthy of a bucket of popcorn and some whisky:
The Michigan Democratic event today was meant to drive home the ‘Democrats unite’ theme that was missing between the two former primary rivals — Stevens had yet to appear on stage with El-Sayed. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MN) supposedly tried to get the two camps together. Something had to happen in this Michigan Senate race, because last week was not good: Haley Steven’s fiancé, Jason Turkish, endorsed Mike Rogers, and the narrative that there were small but election-killing fractures for Democrats in the state was taking hold. Then, Stevens posted a press release stating that El-Sayed would denounce the overtly antisemitic ad produced by Rebellion PAC that supported his candidacy. It’s the ad where a couple can’t afford bananas and eggs because Jewish people exist — it’s awful. El-Sayed refused and later told Stevens to avoid him on the trail. Then Clyburn’s people said the invitation was for both stands and that it wasn't an El-Sayed event. Well, Stevens decided to endorse Rogers.
Credit: townhall.com |
'It's a thing called bravery': Trump praises Haley Stevens' endorsement of Mike Rogers in Mich. Senate race as Dem. leaders bash the congresswoman
 |
President Donald Trump praised United States Representative Haley Stevens for endorsing GOP Mike Rogers in the hotly contested Michigan Senate race as Democrat leaders bash the congresswoman for the perceived betrayal. In a Sunday Truth Social post, Trump weighed in on Stevens’ (D-Alaska) recent announcement that she was switching gears just two days ahead of elections, crossing the aisle to throw her support behind Rogers instead of Democrat nominee Abdul El-Sayed.
The president’s approbation was paired with severe censure from Stevens’ party, with prominent Democrat leaders condemning the move.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the endorsement “unforgiveable” on Stevens’ part, and the Michigan Democratic Party voiced its unequivocal support for El-Sayed.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-N.Y.) also condemned the endorsement, stating that she has “just betrayed” working class people “by endorsing the very Republican she wanted to run against.” Despite the strong censure from within her party, many Republicans voiced their support for her. U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) stated her office was willing to assist Stevens with any need.
Credit: oann.com |
NYTimes Admits Publishing Decoy Dan Scoop Sparked DOJ and FBI Probes
 |
The New York Times this week published an “Inside the Times” defense explaining why it ran a big investigation tying Democratic operatives to the so‑called “Decoy Dan” scheme in the Alaska Senate race. The move is the news — not the earlier scoop — and the paper says it ran the story because its reporters believed the reporting was verified and withholding it would itself sway voters. That explanation has only made the controversy louder, and rightly so. Inside‑the‑Times: Why they say they ran the storyThe paper’s internal piece features Kellen Browning, a political reporter, and Amy Gardner, a deputy politics editor, laying out the newsroom’s reasoning. They say they had dozens of text messages, interviews and records that pointed to a “ballot‑stacking” effort tied in some way to Mary Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC. Even after one source sought to retract, the Times says it still had enough corroboration to publish. Their argument: once the reporting was nailed down, not publishing would be an editorial intervention in a close race. Timing, fallout, and the DOJ/FBI surgeThat decision mattered because the story did not stay confined to op‑eds. Federal and state law enforcement moved quickly after the reporting appeared. The DOJ civil action and a criminal inquiry reportedly accelerated, FBI agents have been following leads, and the Alaska governor ordered a state review. Republicans are pressing the FEC and other authorities to follow up. In other words, the Times’ publication helped trigger real investigations, which proves that this was not just a media temper tantrum — it had consequences. Why readers and critics are still skepticalOf course, many on the left cried foul about the timing and accused the paper of playing politics. Some readers angrily accused the reporters of bias — even tossing around absurd labels. That reaction is part theater, part genuine confusion: the Times has a reputation for partisan instincts, so when it actually publishes tough reporting about Democrats, people are stunned. The paper’s need to publish an “explanation” shows how little trust it has earned from large parts of the country. What Republicans should do nextConservatives should welcome real investigations and demand documents. Ask for the texts, the campaign finance trails, and the file of evidence the Times says it relied on. Push for transparency from the DOJ about the scope of any criminal inquiry. If the reporting is right, there are accountability steps to take. If it’s wrong, the Times owes someone more than an insider essay — it owes a correction and an explanation to voters. Either way, the New York Times’ decision to publish — and then defend — the Decoy Dan story is now squarely a political and legal story Republicans must follow and make sure ends with facts, not spin. Credit: https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/ |
Top Pollster Warns Democrats Are Bleeding Support in Battlegrounds
 |
A well-known pollster just dropped a forecast that has Democrats looking pale and sweaty. Call it a reality check or a rude wake-up call — either way, it matters. Polls don’t decide elections, but they show which way the wind is blowing. And right now, that wind looks gusty for Democrats.What the “Most Accurate Pollster” Actually SaidThe pollster’s latest model suggests Republicans are ahead in several key battleground areas and that the margin of error is not kind to Democrats. This isn’t gossip. It’s a data-driven forecast based on voter preferences, turnout models, and trends across many states. The message is simple: Democrats are on their heels in places they used to take for granted. Why Democrats Should Be WorriedPolicy and Perception ProblemsThere are real reasons behind the numbers. Voters care about pocketbook issues, public safety, and borders. When people feel worse off or less safe, they punish the party in power. Add to that weak messaging and a tired playbook, and you get falling approval in swing suburbs and among working-class voters. The enthusiasm gap — who actually shows up — still bites Democrats when they assume turnout will save them. Why Polls Can Be Right — and Sometimes WrongPolling is part science and part art. Good models weight demographics, turnout, and early voting trends. Bad models guess too much about who will go to the polls. Remember, a single shift in a few counties can flip a state. So yes, polls can miss, but when a top pollster consistently signals danger, it’s not smart to shrug and call it a fluke. What Republicans Should Do Next — Don’t Get CockyConservatives should treat this as a to-do list, not a victory lap. Lock down strong local candidates, keep the ground game sharp, and keep talking about bread-and-butter issues in plain language. Comedy routines aside, winning requires discipline. Ignore the urge to gloat on social media. Turn those poll numbers into votes at the ballot box. Bottom line: when a respected pollster rings the alarm bell, both sides listen. Democrats need new answers fast. Republicans need to stay focused. The polls are useful — but only if you act on what they show. Otherwise, the “nightmare” might turn into a missed opportunity for both parties. Credit: https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/ |
Sunday, November 1, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
European leaders are standing by sanctions against Russia despite President Donald Trump’s agreement with Russian Presi...
