According to Axios, Democrats are increasingly worried about a tightening race for the U.S. Senate in battleground Wisconsin between Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Republican challenger Eric Hovde. “Baldwin leads by just two points in internal Democratic polling, a source familiar with the campaign told Axios,” the outlet reports. Democrats are already on the cusp of potentially losing Senate seats in tight races in Ohio and Montana. Losing Wisconsin would be a disaster for Democrats and almost a guarantee they lose the Senate. Democratic fears emerge on Wisconsin Senate race https://t.co/eGj8OWPm4p — Axios (@axios) October 4, 2024 Per Axios: Democrats are on pace to be outspent by Republicans in the state every week until Election Day, with an infusion of around $20 million from GOP sources. A Baldwin loss to Republican Eric Hovde would probably doom any chance Democrats have of holding on to their Senate majority. Montana’s trouble for Democrats. Ohio and Michigan are toss-ups. But Wisconsin is supposed to be like Nevada and Arizona — a tight but safe-ish race, as long as nothing goes awry. Multiple Democratic sources told Axios there are “alarm bells” ringing in the state, arguing the race is much tighter than what public polling has shown. Report: Democrats are panicking about the Wisconsin Senate race. Supposedly Tammy Baldwin's internals only have her up by 2 points against Republican Businessman Eric Hovde. Via: Axios pic.twitter.com/Q7l0S6ZQP7 — The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) October 4, 2024 From The Guardian: On the campaign trail, Baldwin has made stops at farms and in rural areas, launching a “Rural Leaders for Tammy” coalition to make her case in areas of the state that tend to lean red. Issues like healthcare access and hospital deserts and subsidies for farmers form core aspects of her platform. She has highlighted populist-leaning bills, like one she drafted with JD Vance, the Republican senator and vice-presidential candidate, to require goods and services developed with federal dollars in the US to be manufactured in the US. She has even taken up issues that are less popular with liberals, like removing gray wolves from Wisconsin’s endangered species list – a move supported by some farmers but criticized by environmental and conservation groups. “She never shied away from going out into the countryside,” said Hans Breitenmoser, a dairy farmer from northern Wisconsin and a member of the Lincoln county Democratic party. “I think her message has resonated to an extent, because, you know, it’s not just all BS – she tries to understand the issues, and understands the issues at a level that some other politicians don’t.” For Hovde to win the seat, he will have to erode that support and hope for high turnout outside heavily Democratic areas like Milwaukee and Dane county, which have generated historic voter turnout in recent elections. Polling so far shows a close race, with Baldwin holding an approximately seven-point lead over Hovde, according to a poll conducted at the end of July by the Marquette University Law School. An earlier poll, conducted in June – before Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race – showed Hovde trailing Baldwin more closely. “In the U.S. Senate race, Sen. Tammy Baldwin is supported by 53% to Eric Hovde’s 46% among registered voters. Among likely voters, the results are the same. These results include initially undecided voters who were then asked whom they would vote for if they had to choose. Among registered voters, when initially asked, Baldwin receives 48% and Hovde 43%, with 10% saying they are undecided. Among likely voters, 9% are undecided, while Baldwin remains at 48% and Hovde remains at 43%,” Marquette University stated this week regarding a new survey. However, a national Democratic strategist working on Senate campaigns said the race is much closer than the poll indicates.

A massive fire has destroyed the historic Notre Dame des Sept Allégresses Church in Trois-Rivières, Canada. Since 2021, over 100 churches in Canada have been burned or vandalized. pic.twitter.com/U7C5qfwbvj — Harrison Faulkner (@Harry__Faulkner) October 4, 2024 The Quran has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, […]

What I didn’t realize about God’s command to be obedient was the process by which I could grow in obedience. God will take our obedience however he can get it because he wants us to enjoy the incredible fruits of his perfect will, but his desire is always to love us to a place that our obedience would be a natural overflow of our love for him.

Foreign Affairs J.D. Vance’s Point of Departure for Peace in Ukraine A negotiated settlement is the most viable way to end the carnage. Credit: image via Shutterstock Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky recently spoke before the UN General Assembly and had meetings soliciting support from President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and allegedly even the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Nevertheless, whether help is forthcoming or not, the war appears to be stalemated with no end in sight. The Republican vice-presidential candidate, J.D. Vance may have earlier hit upon a viable policy proposal. True, Vance’s proposal started out shakily by saying that the United States’ continued support for the NATO alliance hinged on the European Union not regulating Elon Musk and his social media platform X. Vance argued, “So what America should be saying is, if…NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance, why don’t you respect American values and respect free speech.” Elon Musk may very well have good free-speech arguments with the European Union over his platforming of Donald Trump, but linking US foreign policy with the issue is a mistake; it reeks of special pleading for a quirky billionaire who is a supporter of the presidential candidate. During the same interview, however, Vance suggested a proposal to end the war in Ukraine worth discussing: that the fighting stop where both sides’ troops are currently on the battlefield and a fortified demilitarized zone set up to prevent Russia from invading again. Ukraine would be guaranteed its sovereignty in exchange for its territory occupied by Russia and its neutrality—that is, it would not be admitted to NATO. Finally, Vance argues that Germany would need to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction.  At the very least, Vance’s proposal should be a jumping-off point to a more realistic discussion of an end to the Ukraine war, which has been devastating to Ukraine and increasingly costly to Russia (an estimated 600,000 casualties). Putin’s naked aggression against a non-threatening Ukraine must be vigorously condemned, and it is understandable that Ukraine wants all its territory back. Yet Vance seems to argue correctly that the huge costs of continuing a massive but largely stalemated war for even wealthy countries, such as the Untied States and Europe, is untenable in the long term, especially when Russia, which is much more locally potent (in fighters, equipment, and resources), has the advantage in a continuing war of attrition. Even now, despite the horrendous Russian casualties, Ukraine seems to be straining much more than Russia to get desperately needed fighters to the battlefield. The United States and Europe have the leverage to convince the Ukrainians, behind the scenes, to reach the realistic conclusion that they are not going to get all their territory back and that a negotiated settlement to the conflict is needed. What may provide both warring countries a fig leaf for any result that doesn’t meet nationalistic expectations would be holding referendums in the occupied territories of Ukraine and now Russia to determine which government the largely Russian speaking people there would like to live under. These would need to be internationally monitored referendums, not the sham ones the Russians earlier conducted there under military occupation and intimidation.  Vance is correct that Ukraine should retain its independent and neutral sovereignty but not be admitted to NATO. The foreign policy elites of the United States and Europe have had a hard time processing that Russia, invaded many times from the West, feels threatened by a hostile alliance expanded up to its borders. The United States likely would vigorously oppose  Mexico or Canada entering an anti-U.S. alliance with Russia or China.  The other concept that Joe Biden and the US foreign policy elite have never processed is that alliances are not ends in themselves, but a means to security.  If war erupts again between Ukraine and Russia—as it did in 2014 and 2022—and Ukraine is a member of NATO, the United States would be obligated under Article V of the treaty to directly come to Ukraine’s defense against a nuclear-armed great power. Dragging the United States into an unneeded and potentially cataclysmic war with Russia would hardly improve American security. And because the fate of Ukraine and Russia are less strategic to the faraway United States than to nearby Europe, Vance is right that Germany (and other wealthy European nations) should foot the bill for reconstruction.  The post J.D. Vance’s Point of Departure for Peace in Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Walz Is Not My Sort of Midwesterner Boorish goofiness is not in fact a staple of America’s heartland. Credit: lev radin via Shutterstock Among the myriad reasons not to make Tim Walz the second-most powerful person on the planet—his radicalism, his propensity for overstating his international travels, his weirdness—the one that looms largest in my mind is entirely personal: As a native Midwesterner, I do not wish for Walz to become the standard-bearer of my region. In the course of his brief stint at Kamala Harris’s running mate, Walz—who was born in Nebraska and is the present Democratic governor of Minnesota—has attempted to make his goofily gregarious, distressingly demonstrative, and amiably annoying persona his central selling point.  During the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday, when asked to account for his misleading statements about his proximity to China at the time of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Walz was true to his “just a regular guy who doesn’t know any better” image. “I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times,” he said, possibly becoming the first-major party presidential or vice-presidential candidate to call himself a “knucklehead.” Then, trying to mop up after that debate performance, Walz again attempted to excuse himself by implying he was just an ordinary dope. “Look, not bad for a football coach—not bad!” he said, reminding voters yet again that among his qualifications for being second in line to the presidency was coaching high-school football. This would be merely amusing, in an apocalyptic sort of way, were I not an inhabitant of the geographical region that Walz goes out of his way to represent each time he walks onto a stage or sits down for an interview. He is making all of us who hail from the Midwest seem like affable rubes. I write here with some authority. My father was from Marion, Ohio, and my mother was from Sioux City, Iowa. Both were serious, smart, and sober-minded people. I myself was born in, and live outside of, Columbus, Ohio. I am personally familiar with the widely agreed-upon virtues of Midwestern culture: neighborliness, commonsensical-ness, civic trust, enthusiasm for collegiate athletics, especially those played on the gridiron, and a high degree of respect for police officers, firemen, and snow-plow drivers.  All of this has very little to do with the frenetic hand-waving and brow-furrowing of Tim Walz. Staidness, not zaniness, is the quality I would more often associate with Midwesterners, including James Thurber (b. 1894, Columbus), who drew cartoons about listless, long-suffering men, and Charles Schulz (b. 1922, Minneapolis), who drew comic strips about depression-inclined schoolchildren.  In my state, the presiding political family for much of the last century were the Tafts, who were the picture of aristocratic understatement. In an anecdote recounted by sociologists E. Digby Baltzell and Howard G. Schneiderman in the book The Protestant Establishment Revisited, the wife of the future Ohio Republican Senator Robert A. Taft did not attempt to portray her husband, then running for office, as just one of the guys: “He did not start from humble beginnings. My husband is a very brilliant man. He had a fine education at Yale. He has been well trained for his job. Isn’t that what you prefer when you pick leaders to work for you?” His grandson, the former Ohio Republican Governor Bob Taft, boasted a similar unexciting competency.  These qualities were not unique to Ohio Republicans. Ohio’s Democratic Senator (and former astronaut) John Glenn had something of this same unpretentious reserve.  But wait, you say: Walz does not claim to be a dignified public servant—he’s a former football coach and therefore entitled to act nutty. I beg to differ. Where I live, everybody’s idea of a great football coach is one Wayne Woodrow Hayes, who, in his capacity as Ohio State University’s head football coach, had in common with Walz only two things: He was stocky and had white hair. Hayes was a hard-charging warrior, not a giddy follower of woke trends. Let us imagine what Hayes would have thought of men playing in women’s sports. Walz seems determined to confirm the coastal elites’ opinion of the Midwest as a bastion of poor taste and tackiness; it’s no coincidence that Jim Gaffigan, in his impression of Walz on Saturday Night Live last weekend, said his suit was purchased from Costco. Yet I associate my home region with the modest courtliness of the Midwestern narrator of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway, who, at one point in the novel, says this about his homeland: “That’s my Middle West—not the wheat or the prairies or the lost Swede towns, but the thrilling returning trains of my youth, and the street lamps and sleigh bells in the frosty dark and the shadows of holly wreaths thrown by lighted windows on the snow.” Nowhere in the novel does Carraway describe himself or anyone else as a knucklehead. Now, I have never been to Minnesota or Nebraska. Even so, I have known people from both states, and I have never met anyone who is anything like Tim Walz. His hokey dorkiness disqualifies him from becoming the highest-serving elected official from our region. Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, soaringly, of Midwesterners’ “awe for a fertile continent stretching forever in all directions”; Walz gets laughs for having committed to memory the jingle for Menards. We can do better than this.  Happily, there happens to be an Ohioan on the Republican ticket this November. The post Walz Is Not My Sort of Midwesterner appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Whither Mexico? The end of the AMLO era leaves big questions on the table for America’s southern neighbor. (Octavio Hoyos/Shutterstock) Andrés Manuel López Obrador, former president of Mexico, departed his home Tuesday to the seat of government in the capital one last time. Thousands of citizens jammed the narrow streets around his car, desperately pushing for one last view of the beloved politician. López Obrador—or AMLO, as he is popularly known—was on his way to turn over the presidential sash of Mexico, his last official act before, he says, retiring to obscurity at his ranch in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. He arrived at the Palace of San Lázaro, the seat of the Congress of Mexico, just after noon. He was joined by the star of the day, president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, the first female president of Mexico and his political protege. Sheinbaum gave a speech eulogizing López Obrador’s political accomplishments and promising that her presidency would maintain the course he set- the so-called “Fourth Transformation” of Mexican politics. With tears in his eyes, the old president handed over his sash, the symbol of presidential power in the country, to thunderous applause from the audience, and Sheinbaum was sworn in. The second generation of Morena leadership in Mexico had begun. López Obrador leaves the presidency with one of the highest approval ratings of any Mexican president in history, and indeed one of the highest approval ratings of any political leader anywhere in the world today. More than 70 percent of Mexicans had a high opinion of the president on the final day of his presidency. He also leaves big questions about Mexico’s future. First, is he actually going to leave politics, as he has said he wants to? Or will he try to govern the country from afar through Morena, the party he built? Mexico has a strict term limit for presidential power—“effective suffrage, no reelection” was the slogan that launched the Mexican Revolution and continues to define the popular conception of democratic Mexico. That doesn’t mean, however, that one man can’t rule the country for more than a single term. Plutarco Calles, former president of Mexico and the founder of what is now known as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), controlled the nation through the party from 1928 through 1934 (a period known as the Maximato after Calles’ nickname, el jefe maximo), despite having other men fill the official seat of power. López Obrador’s party may seem the perfect means for him to do the same. Founded in 2014, the party was built almost entirely around López Obrador himself as a presidential candidate, and it has always been dominated by his overwhelming personality. His high approval ratings among the populace at large are even stronger among his own people, and if he decided to play kingmaker, it seems very unlikely that he wouldn’t get his way. Because Morena so thoroughly dominates the Mexican political arena—winning an outright majority in both houses of Congress as well as controlling the government of two-thirds of Mexican states—this would give him a great deal of control over everything in the country. Despite worries from the opposition about López Obrador becoming a second Calles, there are serious indications that this will not be the case. Greatest among them is his choice of an heir. Sheinbaum, though a loyal supporter of the former president, is a very capable politician of her own right, and does not seem the kind who would be content to sit back and let an older man rule in her name. If López Obrador had intended to follow the example of Calles and rule through power within a party, he would likely have chosen a weaker, more pliable successor, as Calles did during the Maximato. It seems more likely that the ex-president is sincere in his desire to leave, if not politics entirely, at least his position as prime decision maker in Mexico, and chose Sheinbaum as the successor most likely to capably take over and execute his vision for the country. Of course, there is always the possibility that he simply miscalculated, or even that he changes his mind later on, as successors often disappoint (think Roosevelt and Taft). If that is the case, it would be unwise to underestimate Sheinbaum, whose quiet competence makes her a fighting match for control of disputed party leadership. The second big question is whether Mexico returns to being institutionally dominated by a single party, as it was for almost a century after the establishment of the PRI. López Obrador’s constitutional reforms—including but not limited to the controversial judicial reform that he pushed through at the end of his term last month—certainly put his party, Morena, in a strong position to see that happen.  The de facto end of political independence for the judiciary and the National Electoral Institute (the agency that runs Mexican elections) provide a tempting opening for the kind of party entrenchment that Latin American countries have so frequently seen turn sour, including in Maduro’s Venezuela—a regime that López Obrador was a consistent ally of. And Sheinbaum seems to have no interest in changing course on this portion of the ex-president’s program: her recently-released policy platform “100 Steps for the Transformation” includes a section promoting the reconstitution of federal electoral bodies, reducing the number of seats and ending proportional representation in the Mexican Congress, and extending the principle of “no reelection” to Mexican deputies and senators, all of which strengthen the political power of incumbent Morena. Despite López Obrador’s strong rhetoric denouncing corruption, Mexican politics is far from squeaky-clean. The institutional reforms advocated by Morena also make it easier—and therefore more appealing—for corruption to enter the political process and for well-placed officials to hand out a favor or two (and get one or two in return), and as those favors mostly go to the party in power, Morena stands to benefit. As a result, Morena’s political strength is likely to grow, at least for the immediate future—both legitimately and less legitimately. The increased possibilities for corruption in the judiciary and electoral bodies will also make it likely that organized crime becomes harder for Mexico to control. Nevertheless, it would be very surprising if Mexico regressed to anything like the dictadura perfecta of the 20th-century PRI. Mexico now has a tradition of democracy, and the transfer of power, limited though it may be, something that Priista Mexico, only recently recovering from the ravages of the Revolution and the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, never had. Morena may be popular, but today, Mexicans demand that the will of the electorate be respected. They will no longer tolerate the kind of flagrant electoral fraud that the PRI used to maintain control of the country. When the party becomes legitimately unpopular, as all parties eventually must, its electoral adjustments will not be enough to save it. The post Whither Mexico? appeared first on The American Conservative.

People had a gut full of these greedy bastards at Coles ??????‍♂️?????

Nevertheless, the most direct and strait forward definition that I have ever found for the word LEGAL is, “THE UNDOING OF GOD’S LAW.” [1893 Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Encyclopaedia Britannica, a dictionary of arts, sciences and general literature / The R.S Peale 9th 1893].

Getting the worst reputation. The post Stone Temple Pilots: grunge rock’s greatest pariahs first appeared on Far Out Magazine.