Western & Eastern Moral Philosophy: The Systematic Ethical Core of Civilization (Moral DNA) Socrates, Confucius, and Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) were near-contemporaries during a pivotal era of intellectual and spiritual ferment across Eurasia marked by social upheaval, questioning of old traditions, and the rise of ethical systems focused on the “good life.” Western and Eastern moral philosophic traditions originated over 2,500 years ago, marking a significant point of contemporaneous moral and ethical human evolution in disparate global locations. medium.com/@American.Essays/…

Anybody gotta punchline?

Once you buy their votes, you have to find money to buy them every election. It is a vicious cycle.

Here are the five top allegations against Ilhan Omar based on official scrutiny, longevity, and public reporting (as of mid-October 2026): These are the issues with the most sustained official or investigative attention. 1. Marriage fraud / alleged sham marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (claimed by some to be her brother) 2. Immigration fraud / false statements on citizenship paperwork (including birth date) 3. Minnesota state campaign finance violations (confirmed findings) 4. Irregular joint tax filings 5. Congressional financial disclosure discrepancies

Radical Professors Have Poisoned the Electorate Socialists have started winning because young voters were indoctrinated rather than educated. The terms of the controversy over higher education hardly changed for three or four decades. Conservatives complained of political activism freezing out serious scholarship. Liberals rejected that criticism as politically motivated and argued that Marxist professors do little harm because students see through and laugh at their ideas. But the recent spate of electoral wins by socialists has confirmed the conservative camp’s worst fears. Those ineffective Marxist professors, it seems, have changed the educated electorate so profoundly that hitherto unelectable socialists can now prevail across the country. Liberals are paying the price for their complacency. Radicals have begun to attack the center-left as intensely as the right, trashing the legacy of Western civilization on which both major parties previously rested. The values they invoke to denounce the West—democracy, equality, human rights—are very much part of that tradition. These aren’t the well-meaning youthful idealists they were claimed to be, but hard-core revolutionaries who go beyond calling for abolition of capitalism and private property and advocate measures that even Stalin and Mao would have thought lunacy: abolishing police and prisons, dismantling the military, opening the borders. Get ready for lawless mob rule. But as we contemplate academia’s degradation of the electorate, we must not forget the rest of the far-reaching damage it does. Education departments that instill poisonous ideologies in schoolteachers have depressed children’s test scores in reading and math to historic lows. Journalism, law and medical schools put woke indoctrination ahead of competent professional training. Virtually our entire educational system has been captured by destructive political radicals, and it is madness for an advanced society to know this is happening and do nothing to stop it. Optimists who think the foolishness will blow over are mistaken. We’re now seeing the effects of one generation indoctrinated by Marxist-dominated campuses. A second is on the way. As the last cohort that had a real college education begins to vanish, our constitutional order will go with it. John Stuart Mill had it right when he observed that “a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life. . . . It is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.” The absence of intellectual opposition allowed left-of-center campuses to descend into insanity. Now the liberals who cheered the infiltration of leftist ideology into classrooms face a horrendous problem of their own making: the Democratic Socialists of America. The reign of the campus radicals must end. Stopping the appalling damage they inflict on the nation means breaking their stranglehold on higher education and professional training. It isn’t enough to ban DEI, to require some currently neglected classes, or to add here and there academic departments insulated from the radicals. Those are valuable first steps, but personnel is policy. If university leaders don’t vet their faculty, political operatives will remain in their classrooms and continue their destructive ways. There are at least three separate grounds on which administrators can remove radical professors from their positions without compromising either academic freedom or tenure. The first is a principle governing all employment. If you were hired to do a certain job (in this case promoting knowledge and analytical thought among college students), but instead do an entirely different one (political proselytizing), that is a breach of contract. The two jobs are so far apart that success in one means failure in the other, because the former promotes independent thought, the latter conformity. Second, your employer has a right to fire you if the results of your work are consistently dreadful. Higher education by political operatives satisfies that test many times over. Many studies have shown that most recent college graduates know little about the history of our country or the economic and political theories that fueled our prosperity. Universities were supposed to produce wise citizens but instead are making them foolish. Instituted to promote knowledge, they promote ignorance. Third, most universities forbid faculty from using their positions to advance partisan interests. Take a University of California policy, under which I taught for nearly 30 years: “The Regents . . . are responsible to see that the University remain aloof from politics and never function as an instrument for the advance of partisan interest. Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination . . . constitutes misuse of the University as an institution.” Neither tenure nor academic freedom protect professors who regularly violate their institution’s policies. We know exactly what’s wrong with academia. We know how damaging it is, and we know what group is doing the damage. There are no legal obstacles to their removal, and opposition from liberal scholars is weakening as they, too, come under fire. Some problems are too complex for easy understanding or remedy, but this isn’t one of them. It is time for university leadership to oust professors whose interests have more to do with activism than academia. Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and author of “The Breakdown of Higher Education: How It Happened, the Damage It Does, and What Can Be Done.” Source: wsj.com/opinion/radical-prof…

‘Medicare for All’ Isn’t Medicare as We Know It It isn't Medicare at all. The program would eliminate competition and choice, limit access and raise taxes. Sen. Bernie Sanders first introduced his Medicare for All legislation in 2017. Despite multiple reintroductions, the proposal has never received a floor vote in either congressional chamber. Medicare for All has become a rallying cry for progressives this election season, and recent polling suggests public support has surged. Voters should be careful what they wish for. Two-thirds of Americans favor Medicare for All, according to a new KFF poll—a substantial increase from 2020, when roughly half of respondents were in favor. But most Americans don’t understand the proposal or its likely effects. Medicare for All would eliminate competition and choice in medical care, limit access, and inevitably lead to tax increases. Medicare for All isn’t an expansion of the current Medicare program. Medicare as we know it combines public and private insurance options, allowing competition and choice. Eligible beneficiaries can choose from a traditional Medicare plan run by the federal government, privately-run Medicare Advantage plans, and privately-run Medicare Part D drug plans. Medicare for All would replace the existing public-private system for financing healthcare with a single, universal insurance program operated by the federal government. It would ban private insurance, including the employer-sponsored group insurance that half of Americans have, if the insurance duplicates any Medicare for All benefits. It would eliminate Medicaid for low-income households, Medicare as it now exists for the elderly and disabled, and the Affordable Care Act exchange-based individual insurance market. The proposal includes systemwide decreases of reimbursement levels below private insurance rates. Patients who don’t like the quality of care provided by the government monopoly would have no other insurance options. Studies of Mr. Sanders’s original proposal estimated it would increase federal spending by $32 trillion over 10 years. The projected 10-year cost is now $47 trillion, according to a recent White House Council of Economic Advisers estimate. That increased spending could be financed through a combination of deficit spending, program cuts and taxes—most likely heavy on the last. Because Medicare for All’s reimbursement rates would be substantially below private insurance rates, providers would respond by offering less service. This would lead to longer waiting times and less access to care. By eliminating the cost-sharing that private plans and Medicare currently impose to limit overconsumption of “free” healthcare, Medicare for All would also increase demand for care, further impairing access and possibly diverting care away from patients with urgent need. In the long term, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that lower reimbursements would cause fewer people to enter medical professions and pharmaceutical companies to develop fewer new drugs, exacerbating access problems and diminishing health. When respondents in the KFF poll were told the effects of Medicare for All, support plunged. Only 52% were in favor when told that private insurance would be eliminated, 38% when learning Medicare for All could threaten the current Medicare program, 35% once they considered that Medicare for All could require most Americans to pay higher taxes, and 24% after learning it could lead to delays for medical tests and treatments. Only 21% of the British public were satisfied with what is now the most famous single-payer health system in the world, the National Health Service, in a 2024 survey. Six in 10 Britons said they were “very” or “quite” dissatisfied, the highest level of dissatisfaction with the NHS since the survey began in 1983. In Canada, where private health insurance is prohibited from covering services included in the centrally financed public health insurance, more than 105,000 Canadians traveled abroad to pay for nonemergency medical care in 2025. Canadians who sought care within the country waited an average of almost 29 weeks between seeing a primary-care provider and obtaining treatment—a 15.3-week wait to see a specialist and then 13.3 more weeks before treatment. Canadians report far more access problems than Americans. Americans should know that Medicare for All will eliminate their existing coverage, ban private insurance options, dramatically increase taxes and impair access to care. With those facts on the table, voters will likely conclude no version of the Medicare for All Act should ever pass Congress. Dr. Zinberg is director of the Paragon Health Institute’s Public Health and American Well-Being Initiative. Sorce: wsj.com/opinion/medicare-for…

Why France Is Burning Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the left see an opening to take the presidency next year. The riots in France turned even uglier on the weekend, spreading across the country and including brazen acts of violence. We’ve explained the underlying fiscal and political woes behind the crisis, but the news this time is the pre-election play by far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Heretofore Mr. Mélenchon, head of the far-left Indomitable France party, had taken a somewhat detached attitude to the protests. But this weekend he participated in protests in Paris. He also blamed police for “unleashing” on protesters, while condemning looting and arson. The riots are ostensibly about declining public services, but the presidential election next April figures into the protest calculations. Marine Le Pen of the insurgent right National Rally is leading in current presidential polls. Mr. Mélenchon is in a three-way tie with two candidates on the center-left. The race now is to see who can emerge from the first round of voting to get to the two candidate runoff, probably against Ms. Le Pen. If the riots help Mr. Mélenchon consolidate support on the left, he could be the one. If the riots move more center-right voters away from the centrist candidates and toward Ms. Le Pen, Mr. Mélenchon may figure he has a fighting chance to become the next President in the May runoff. If that sounds cynical, this is French politics, which hasn’t been this volatile in many years, perhaps not since 1968. President Emmanuel Macron has had his economic reform agenda blocked and is a spent political force. The National Assembly is in gridlock and can’t pass an annual budget as the parties maneuver for next year’s election. The parties of the right and left see a rare opportunity to use the moment to gain the Élysée Palace. It’s no coincidence that some protesters came uncomfortably close to the palace before police dispersed them. Mr. Macron addressed the country Sunday evening, asking for public calm and order. But as a lame duck, he is left to rely on police to protect the French streets. They couldn’t do it on Saturday, as protesters ransacked shops in Marseille and elsewhere, and even torched the historic town hall in Limoges that survived the Nazis. France is in a violent democratic funk, and it will probably get worse. Don’t think it can’t happen in the U.S. given the current state of American politics. Appeared in the October 19, 2026, print edition as 'Why France Is Burning'. Source: wsj.com/opinion/why-france-i…

A surreal night in Paris: Looting, selfies and terrace drinks After nationwide demonstrations that descended into chaos on Saturday, the streets of the French capital still bore the marks of vandalism on Sunday night, alongside the carefree atmosphere of an ordinary weekend. It was as if two worlds collided in one surreal evening. All across central Paris, cafés stayed open and people drank beer and spritzes on Sunday night, October 18. But on the same sidewalks, small groups slipped into shops with smashed windows and emerged carrying bottles, sunglasses or household appliances. Gangs ran to evade police while passersby filmed themselves in front of police vans. A young blonde woman, draped in a French flag, took selfies in front of a pile of burned bicycles for her Instagram account, as if the recent violence was just the latest manifestation of the society of the spectacle. Source: bit.ly/4k5RChZ

Curfews announced in Paris and other cities as France grapples with unrest After a crisis meeting, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said the government was ready to impose a state of emergency 'if needed.' Paris police announced a curfew from 11 pm on Monday until 6 am Tuesday in certain areas. It also announced a ban on protesting in certain areas from 8 pm to 6 am. France announced partial curfews in Paris and other cities on Monday, October 19, after weekend demonstrations over soaring prices degenerated into some of the worst street violence in recent years. Authorities said partial curfews would be enforced from Monday evening to Tuesday morning in a number of cities including Paris, Lille and Lyon, to protect businesses.

Whomever this woman is, I encourage her or a friend to let the world know her condition. Whatever her story turns out to be, I am sure it will provide insight into what is going on in France. She put herself at great risk for some reason. Was it to save the shops or to save the cause? The short video indicated she was an activist who supported the 'protests'. Was that a lie to shield her shop or the shop of friends? Or is it true? If it is true then what are her thoughts and plans now? Please let us know.

There’s a Reason Black Voters in Detroit Don’t Like Abdul. Besides racism. I don’t know where you grew up, but I grew up six blocks north of the Detroit border and one block south of 8 Mile Road, on “the bad side.” It wasn’t bad when I was a kid, or at least not as bad, and as I got older, I spent more time in the city. I went to college downtown at Wayne State and lived for a time in the Cass Corridor, back when that was not a place you wanted to be (it’s quite different now). I saw firsthand why there is distrust and dislike between black Detroiters and Arabs in the city, and I’m kind of surprised no one has talked about it in regard to why Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is doing so horribly with black voters. Back in college, you didn’t really want to be on the streets in the Cass Corridor at night for too long, and you had to keep your ears open for sounds that set off your senses. I spent a lot of time there, and lived on 3rd Street and Cass for a while, because it was cheap, and that’s where the people from the theater department lived, as it was right near where our classes were. (Yes, I was a theater major for a year, mostly because I was aimless; it was fun and easy, I was good at it and the girls were good-looking.) There were liquor stores and bars all around that neighborhood; most are still there. The bars were full of regulars of all ethnicities, but largely Vietnam veterans, which was not great for meeting girls (it is a very large commuter college, something like 25,000 students, with very limited on-campus housing and very few people living off campus because it was dangerous). The liquor stores, or as they’re called in Michigan “party stores,” were a sea of fluorescent lights and plexiglass. One thing you learn about party stores in Detroit is most have an unwritten rule: if you can carry it to the counter, they will sell it to you. If you look lost, confused, guilty or scared, they won’t. But if you act like you’ve done it before, you can buy anything, even the alcohol behind the glass. Money is money. But the tension between the people on each side of the plexiglass was palpable. As a white kid, I was in the distinct minority, though by no means alone. Arabs owned and worked in the stores, sitting inside the glass, and black people were the vast majority of the people shopping there, as the city is more than 75 percent black. And they did not like each other. Not everyone; there were plenty of older black men who’d hang out in the stores and shoot the breeze with the older Arab owner of the store, as they’d likely been seeing each other the majority of their adult lives. But younger men, on both sides of the glass, did not have that history or the respect that goes with it. I can’t tell you how many times I’d seen shouting matches through the glass over price, the amount of money handed over or the amount of change given back; claims that someone was ripping them off, or the other person was literally stealing. So many threats of “kicking your ass” and calling the police, and the police were called a lot. There was no trust – as the owners saw their customers as likely thieves, and the customers saw the owners as racists ripping them off and taking the money out of the city, back to Dearborn. It was a weird dynamic that didn’t involve most customers – black, white or whatever. Many times there would be yelling while the normal transaction was taking place between them, and others you’d conduct your transaction while the argument happened around you. But it was clear that these two groups did not like or trust each other. Which was right and which was wrong did not matter, and does not matter; the animosity is there, and it’s not being addressed. Abdul can’t take the side of Detroiters; that would anger his Arab voter base and a large group of his donors by calling them racists. And he can’t come right out and side with the store owners, as that would just reinforce the racism black Detroiters experience when they walk into those stores to buy milk, a loaf of bread or a six-pack. He’s stuck. Mike Rogers can win more of the black vote out of Detroit than usual for a Republican by a couple of simple steps. First, ask for it – too many don’t bother. Second, skillfully point out how Abdul is more interested in the well-being of people on the other side of the planet than the people on the other side of the plexiglass, and Rogers will put Michiganders and Detroiters first. Abdul can’t do that; it would cost him votes. Unlike Abdul, the fight through plexiglass is one-sided for Rogers. He’s not going to win the Arab/Muslim vote, no matter what. What he can do is use that to take a chunk of the black vote from Abdul, or at least hope many people will stay home, as they’re unhappy with their usual party’s offering. This is a prime example of the Left’s identity politics coming back to bite them. It plays well in gerrymandered districts, but less so statewide, and even less so statewide when a member of one of the groups they pit against each other for local control is on the ballot. Let’s hope Mike Rogers knows this and spends some time in the last two weeks of this election taking advantage of it. Call me, Mike, I’ll hook you up. Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., and has a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and is the author of the book Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and the host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter. Source: bit.ly/4sczyF0

Jesus never preached socialism. Jesus is not a socialist. Rewriting history. Christian compassion calls individuals to give freely rather than politicians to redistribute by force Last week in this column, I wrote that Europe and the United States need a Christian revival, not a socialist revolution. My argument was simple: Socialism is the problem, not the solution. The destruction we are seeing in the streets of France and here in America is caused by the socialist creed, not solved by it. Christianity is the solution. You do not even need the Bible to make this point. History has shown that, in every case they have been applied, Karl Marx’s assumptions about class conflict, identity-based conflict and forced redistribution end badly. Just look at the 100 million dead at the hands of the socialist regimes of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Fidel Castro. If you want life and liberty rather than death and servitude, socialism simply does not work. It has a much worse track record than a constitutional republic built on the Judeo-Christian ethics of Christ and his church. To this argument, several readers immediately responded that I was guilty of presenting a false dichotomy in pitting socialism against Christianity. “Jesus, after all, was a socialist,” they argued. Is this true? In a word, no, and those who argue that he was are either ignorant of the Bible or intentionally misrepresenting it. The fact is that Jesus never taught or advocated collectivism, government largesse or state-enforced redistribution of wealth and private property. Yes, Christ condemned worshipping money, “for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Yes, Jesus warned that it was “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.” Yes, he praised the widow for offering just a single “penny” because she was willing to give all she had to God. And yes, some first-century Christians sold their possessions to support their fellow believers. Still, none of this smacks of the worldview of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani any more than the Salvation Army’s Christmas bells and red buckets resemble the IRS. Jesus never taught or advocated for government compulsion. Instead, he always focused on personal responsibility. Charity was the obligation of the individual, not the state. Christ never told his followers to vote for the government to give more money to the poor. He told his followers to do it themselves. Lawrence W. Reed, president emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education, says it well: “Christians are commanded in Scripture to love, to pray, to be kind, [to give], to serve, to forgive, to be truthful, to worship the one God, to learn and grow in both spirit and character. All of those things are very personal. They require no politicians, police, bureaucrats, political parties, or programs.” He continues: “Christianity is not about passing the buck to the government when it comes to relieving the plight of the poor. Caring for them, which means helping them overcome it, not paying them to stay poor or making them dependent upon the state, has been an essential fact in the life of a true Christian for 2,000 years. Christian charity, being voluntary and heartfelt, is utterly distinct from the compulsory, impersonal mandates of the state.” Is Mr. Reed correct? Is this, indeed, what Scripture teaches? Well, here is just a smattering of what the Bible says on the matter. The Apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” In his Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus calls the traveler “good” because he personally helped the stricken man at the roadside with his own time and money. Nothing in this story suggests that government was the solution to the other man’s needs. Jesus adds in Matthew 26:11, “The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.” The key words here are “you can help [when you want].” He did not say, “We’re going to make you help whether you like it or not.” In Luke 12:13-15, Jesus is approached with a request for redistribution. “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me,” a man asks. Jesus replies, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” Then he rebukes the petitioner for his envy. Does not sound very socialist, does it? Mr. Reed concludes: “Jesus clearly held that compassion is a wholesome value to possess, but I know of no passage in the New Testament that suggests it’s a value he’d impose by force or gunpoint — in other words, by socialist politics.” No, Jesus was not a socialist. He taught us, not the government, to do the giving. Nothing in church history or teaching says we are to shirk our responsibility to help our neighbor by passing it on to the state. • Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper) Source: bit.ly/4BfAdcP

El-Sayed’s past views on the Muslim Brotherhood raise serious concerns Michigan Senate candidate calls the allegations Islamophobic while old family posts fuel new scrutiny Voters should have serious concerns about Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, and his family’s reported views about the Muslim Brotherhood. Appearing on “Meet the Press” on Oct. 11, Mr. El-Sayed was asked by NBC’s Kristen Welker whether his family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. “No,” Mr. El-Sayed replied, adding that his Republican opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, was making an Islamophobic attack on him and his family. If the allegations constitute Islamophobia, that must make Mr. El-Sayed’s half sister, Eman Abdelhadi, an Islamophobe. In a 2012 post, Ms. Abdelhadi disclosed, “Had an amazing talk with my mom about her activism in the Muslim Brotherhood while she was in college during the ’70s.” In another 2012 post, Ms. Abdelhadi, a professor at the University of Chicago, revealed, “My family has long been MB” — for Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. El-Sayed and Ms. Abdelhadi’s mother, Fatten Elkomy, worked for the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was sanctioned for funding al Qaeda. The Treasury Department named the group a specially designated terrorist organization in 2004 for providing financial and logistical support to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and Hamas. Court documents filed by U.S. officials named Ms. Elkomy more than a dozen times in connection with the cash transfers, according to The Washington Free Beacon. In a third 2013 post, Mr. El-Sayed’s half sister wrote, “Praying for all my family that supports the MB in Egypt. Lie low. Stay safe.” Why “lie low”? Because Egypt is one of several Muslim countries — including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — in which the Muslim Brotherhood is banned as a terrorist organization. Mr. El-Sayed himself signed a 2012 open letter supporting the short-lived regime of Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt. A year earlier, he penned a column in The Huffington Post urging the Obama administration to support Egypt’s anti-regime protesters and arguing that fears of Egypt falling to the Muslim Brotherhood should not prevent the U.S. from backing democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in Egypt in 1928, views Islam not just as a religion but also as a system of government. It believes Islam should rule the world, and it has fomented terrorism toward that end. Mr. El-Sayed’s father-in-law, Tayeb Jukaku, is on the board of the Islamic Society of North America, known as the public face of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. The group was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark 2007 terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Mr. Jukaku has donated at least $300,000 to a pro-El-Sayed super PAC. Mr. El-Sayed’s political positions align with those of the Brotherhood. He opposes the war with Iran, demands the end of all U.S. aid to Israel and refuses to even say whether he believes Israel has a right to exist. When he was asked by an interviewer which posed a greater threat to America — Israel or Iran — Mr. El-Sayed again refused to answer. Israel is our staunchest ally in the Middle East. Iran, on the other hand, has waged nonstop war on the United States since 1979, either alone or via proxies. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, predicted that Mr. El-Sayed’s election would pose an “acute national security risk.” Mr. Cruz said, “I believe if Abdul El-Sayed has access to classified information, that will endanger the lives of servicemen and women.” This is not about Islamophobia. Are Egypt and the UAE Islamophobic? These kinds of viewpoints pose a clear and present danger to our national security. Source: bit.ly/4jOOfMD

Larry David Mocks the D.S.A. Some Are Not Amused. The comedian satirized the Democratic Socialists of America, its platform and its opposition to Israel in an essay that some did not LOL at. The last time Larry David waded into politics with a satirical essay, it was to take aim at a very safe target in his liberal circles — President Trump. Mr. David, who is known for his brand of anxious, observational comedy, mocked Bill Maher for dining with Mr. Trump at the White House in a guest essay published in The New York Times Opinion section last year headlined “My Dinner With Adolf,” in which he imagined dining with Hitler in 1939. But Mr. David’s latest satire took aim at topics that are likely to be far more controversial within the coastal enclaves where his work is popular: the ascendant Democratic Socialists of America and its hostility toward Israel. In a new essay published by Air Mail, the 79-year-old comic channels the satirist Jonathan Swift and offers a dozen “modest proposals” for the manifesto of the socialist organization, whose actual proposals and guiding principles have been widely debated this year as several candidates aligned with the organization won primaries. Mr. David’s suggestions start with ideas rooted in core planks of the movement, as he parodies proposals to abolish prisons and restrictions on immigration. “In our Socialist America,” Mr. David writes, “everyone will be so fulfilled spiritually and financially that the police department will be dramatically reduced to where an officer’s only job will be to adjudicate domestic disputes.” “Toward that end, stands will be set up at local farmers markets, where they will work to resolve marital issues in a folksy, farm-to-table manner,” he writes. He rapidly progresses to more outlandish ideas, including national paid leave for the death of pets, mandating that employers provide cots for two siestas a day, allowing humans who identify as animals to “relieve themselves” wherever they wish and reparations that would enlist white people to serve as slaves for Black families. Mr. David then aims his pen at one of the biggest fault lines dividing the Democratic Party, wading into the fraught debate over the line between opposition to Israel and antisemitism. Jews, he writes, will no longer be allowed to call themselves “the Chosen people” — a part of Jewish identity dating back millenniums — and will be known instead as “the Bagel People.” “We strongly believe in a two-state solution,” the proposal says. “To this end, we propose that Palestinians should be given all the land currently occupied by Israel and that Israel should be given Pitcairn Island in the South Pacific, where the weather is beautiful and grapefruits are aplenty. We think the Bagel People will be very happy there.” Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  It's a pivotal moment for American politics. Join us for 2026 and beyond. Get it sent to your inbox. Best known for the hit TV shows “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” Mr. David has long been a prominent Democratic donor in Hollywood with an interest in political satire. A national spokesperson for the D.S.A. declined to comment on Mr. David’s article. But online, some took umbrage at Mr. David’s satire of the democratic socialists. Matthew Gauna, a 29-year-old student in San Antonio who agrees with D.S.A. ideas but said he is not a member of the organization, replied online to a post comparing Mr. David to Mr. Maher by calling Mr. David “my problematic king,” with a wilted flower emoji. “I don’t know if Larry is on top of his comedic game right now,” Mr. Gauna said in a phone interview. Another post described the essay as “Larry David has a boomer crashout over Israel.” Zack Wall, 35, of Columbus, Ohio, replied online to that post, writing, “Someone take the phone from gramps,” along with three crying-face emojis. Mr. Wall said in a phone interview that Mr. David’s piece was an “utter disappointment.”“Not so much that he was ragging on D.S.A. I don’t care about that part,” said Mr. Wall, who added that he identifies as a democratic socialist but is not a member of the D.S.A., with which he has some disagreements. “It was just so lowbrow and unfunny. It can’t be the same person who wrote ‘Curb.’” Many posts focused on Mr. David’s age while criticizing his views, and others described him as unfunny and racist.“Maybe I’m just too young, but who is Larry David and why would any person alive care what he has to say?” said a user who identified themselves as DSA_Girly.The Times sought to confirm the identities of the users who wrote these posts, but some declined to be interviewed or did not immediately respond to interview requests. Mr. David, whose comedy has made him a millionaire many times over, did not mock the D.S.A.’s economic proposals, which include universal health care, raising the minimum wage and expanding public housing and child care. The movement’s focus on economic inequality is central to its appeal for many voters, who are struggling with higher costs and a dismal view of their financial future. Mr. David seemed to anticipate the backlash his piece would provoke, daring his socialist targets to take the joke.His last proposal mandates that any comedian who causes “emotional discomfort” be sent to be “re-programmed” to emerge with greater sensitivity.And if that effort fails, Mr. David offers one final “modest” suggestion: “The repeat offender will be sent to Pitcairn Island to live with the Bagel People.” Lisa Lerer is a national political reporter for The Times, based in New York. She has covered American politics for nearly two decades. Evan Gorelick is a New York-based writer for The Morning, the flagship daily newsletter of The Times. Source: nytimes.com/2026/10/18/us/po…

Democratic candidates revive Medicare for All pitch in battleground states What to know --Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted the burden of high deductibles at a rally. --Polls show increasing support for a single-payer healthcare system. --Republican support for government-run healthcare is growing, according to recent polls. Obamacare is costing consumers a fortune, so Democrats running in some of the most competitive congressional races have reignited calls to expand it to a government-run system that has long been the goal of America’s socialists and the far left. Government-run healthcare for all Americans could cost as much as $50 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis by the conservative Manhattan Institute. Yet Democrats are not talking to voters about the jaw-dropping price tag of “Medicare for All,” or that it would likely eliminate private health insurance and significantly increase taxes. They are selling single-payer healthcare to voters fuming over the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, especially the premiums and deductibles that come with the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. “How many people in this room have deductibles?” Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent, asked at a rally for Democratic Senate nominee Troy Jackson in Maine. People angrily called out their annual Obamacare deductibles. One person hollered, “$5,000.” Another shouted that their deductible is $10,000 a year. “How insane is that?” Mr. Sanders said. “If you have a $10,000 deductible, you still can’t afford to go to the doctor. Troy believes, and I believe, not only that healthcare is a human right, but we have to move toward a ’Medicare for All’ system.” Mr. Jackson is among several high-profile Democratic candidates in battleground states who have made “Medicare for All” a major selling point to bring down the high cost of health insurance and healthcare. In addition to high deductibles, health insurance premiums are rising, with average proposed increases reaching 26% nationwide, according to healthcare marketplace rate filings compiled by health policy researchers. It has made a government-run system far more attractive. “I actually see a scenario where this is going to be great coverage,” Mr. Jackson said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” promoting the idea of a single-payer system. “You know, you’ll have eye, ear, dental. You won’t have to pay the obscene co-pays and things like that.” The race between Mr. Jackson and five-term Sen. Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, is a dead heat. Affordability, especially healthcare costs, is a top concern for voters in Maine. The winner of the state’s Senate battle will help determine which party controls Congress. The Senate race is also neck-and-neck in Michigan, where Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed said that if elected, he would fight to extend Medicare “to every single American from cradle to grave without premiums, copays or deductibles.” He said the program, which is now limited to people 65 and older, should automatically enroll everyone and be accepted everywhere. Mr. El-Sayed, who is running against former Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee, said he would also expand care to include vision, dental and hearing, which are not covered under Medicare. A single-payer program, he argued earlier this month, would provide universal healthcare coverage and keep Michigan’s diminishing number of rural hospitals and healthcare centers from shuttering. “Imagine every single resident, every single one, had full reimbursement for Medicare,” Mr. El-Sayed said at a recent press conference. “Imagine what that would mean for the reimbursement rural hospitals could get. They could stay profitable. They could stay open.” A government-run healthcare system for all is more popular than ever, according to polling. The latest KFF poll, taken in late September, “marks a new high” in approval for such a plan, the nonprofit health policy research organization said. Two-thirds of adults said they favored a “Medicare for All” system, while opposition dropped to about one-third. In October 2020, the share who favored such a program hovered around 53%, while 42% opposed it. Democratic candidates are seizing on the surge in popularity for a single-payer healthcare system. Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon framed her “Medicare for All” plan as one of common sense and basic human decency. “If believing that a child with cancer should get the treatment they need, whether their parents can afford it or not, is radical, then call me radical,” Ms. Nixon said during a rally Saturday in Tampa. Her platform calls for “Medicare for All,” free childcare, free paid family and sick leave, a national rent freeze and eviction moratorium and a universal jobs program with wages tied to inflation. Ms. Nixon said the programs would be funded by taxing billionaires, diverting money from “war and violence overseas” and taking money out of politics. A mid-October YouGov poll sponsored by Univision shows Sen. Ashley Moody, a Republican who opposes “Medicare for All,” is up 9 percentage points over Ms. Nixon. Yet more Republican voters now back a government-run healthcare system proposed by her opponent. The KFF survey found that 34% of Republican voters favor it, up from 21% six years ago. Plans to pay for what would become the world’s largest government-run healthcare system remain murky among Democrats proposing it. Mr. Jackson could not explain how he would pay for “Medicare for All” when asked during his Sunday appearance on CNN. “Greed is running this healthcare system, and when we cut the administrative burden, get the greed out of it, I’m sure that we can afford to pay for it,” he said. Contact the author Susan Ferrechio sferrechio@washingtontimes.com Source: bit.ly/3UDLlQm

Today is the final day to register online. You can still register at your local clerk’s office from now until Election Day. Vote RED Remove Every Democrat

France? WTF?!?

Stop the communists. Stop the hate. Stop the violence.

Most of the non-citizens in Michigan are Muslim illegal aliens. The Secretary of State of Michigan was campaigning with @AbdulElSayed in Michigan yesterday. @JocelynBenson won’t stop illegal alien Muslims from stealing elections in Michigan. She hates Trump. This is her yesterday at Abdul’s rally.

complete conman

Thanks to Trump accounts tweak, Musk can give every child SpaceX shares even if parents object Elon Musk announced he will give every child in the United States stock in his company SpaceX, a maneuver that is possible thanks to the implementation of the Trump Accounts program. Musk, the founder of SpaceX, Tesla, and other ventures, made the announcement Monday morning. He holds billions of shares of SpaceX. “Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America,” Musk said on his social media platform, X. “This will be the first of many.” The announcement follows the Treasury rolling out new rules that will allow charities to donate individual stocks to children’s Trump Accounts. Notably, parents cannot refuse the stock contributions, and those stocks can’t be sold for five years. The Trump administration is taking public comment on the ability for parents to opt out of Trump Accounts. Trump Accounts are tax-deferred investment savings accounts designed for children, to which parents, family members, and others can contribute money. The funds can be tapped into after the beneficiary turns 18. In his message on X, Musk didn’t give any indication about how shares of SpaceX will be distributed. He owned some 4.8 billion shares of SpaceX when the company went public this year. As of Monday morning, a single share of SpaceX was valued at just over $150. For babies born between Jan. 1 of this year and Dec. 31, 2028, the government will deposit $1,000 into each Trump Account. That $1,000 cannot be touched until the beneficiary turns 18. People can contribute up to $5,000 a year up until the year before the child turns 18. Also, several companies have said they will match the $1,000 contribution from the government for eligible children. And employers of children or a child’s parent are allowed to contribute up to $2,500 per year to the accounts. Source: bit.ly/47z0TI6