A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



November 10, 2026

He needs to wipe the shit off his nose...

Jordan brushes off questions about Trump as he ascends to House GOP leader

By Alison Main and Manu Raju

Rep. Jim Jordan, who was just elected by his House Republican colleagues to lead their conference next year, would not say whether he plans to be in lockstep with President Donald Trump as the party recovers from brutal midterm election losses.

Jordan said he believes his role as minority leader will be to help Republicans win back the majority in 2028.

Pressed by CNN’s Manu Raju on whether that would require a break from Trump, he said that House Republicans are “going to focus on what’s good for the country, as I said, what’s good for American families.”

Outgoing Speaker Mike Johnson, who opted not to put himself in the running to lead House Republicans in the next Congress, told Raju he believes Jordan’s victory over current Majority Leader Steve Scalise shows “members’ confidence in him.”

Asked what the choice shows about the lessons Republicans learned from the election, Johnson said, “Jim is a known entity, a trusted voice, a trusted leader. He’s an honest broker. He’s a good man. He’s a fighter, and I think that’s the signal that is being sent here that they’re ready. We are ready to dig into the fight.”

Well?


 

WINNING!

US evacuates aircraft from RAF Mildenhall over reported Iran threat

Move comes weeks after Washington withdrew bombers from RAF Fairford after a suspected security incident

Dan Sabbagh and Jamie Grierson

Ten air tankers were relocated to bases in Germany, Spain and Scotland, while Osprey transport aircraft were sent to nearby RAF Lakenheath. It is the second time the US has undertaken a hasty redeployment in the UK with some of its bombers pulled from RAF Fairford in October.

The latest incident was said to be in response to a threat from Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal, although British sources emphasised there was no immediate or direct danger to the base or the area nearby.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “As you know, the US is one of our top security partners. We’re in constant communication with them, sharing intelligence and accessing threats together. Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements.”

Asked whether the government maintained that British bases were safe, he said: “Yes.”

Washington withdrew B-1 bombers from the Fairford base just over a month ago – a week after ⁠a suspected Iran-linked ​security incident in September. Two men have been charged with espionage offences on behalf of Iran after the episode.

The precise nature of the threat to RAF Mildenhall remains ⁠under discussion among US officials, and the Pentagon has chosen to take a risk averse approach when it receives threats to planes on the ground after the first phase of the Iran war in the spring.

Five KC-135 Stratotankers, the same refuelling aircraft moved out of Mildenhall, were hit on the ground by an Iranian missile in Saudi Arabia in March, and the US is concerned about how well planes are protected on the ground.

UK security officials however believe that Iran does not have the capability to launch an explosive attack on a base in the UK, although Tehran may threaten to do so in an attempt to disrupt American military calculations.

Donald Trump, the US president, is considering whether to renew the bombing of Iran, although overnight he said further attacks were “highly unlikely” in the aftermath of last week’s midterm elections, when his Republican party was heavily defeated. Trump allies, including the vice-president, JD Vance, blamed the war for the poor results.

Luke Pollard, a British junior defence minister, told a military conference in Oslo “it was a decision for the US where they place their military assets” and that the UK was “investing more” in counter-drone capabilities and base protection.

Local residents are being advised to remain vigilant in case of any untoward developments in the vicinity of Mildenhall or other bases used by the US air force in the UK, though it was not said they faced any heightened risk.

However, the US had reportedly upgraded the security threat level at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath on Monday,according to a US ‌official familiar with the ‌matter.

The base was placed under Force Protection Condition (FPCON) Charlie, which is the second-highest defensive threat level in the US Department of Defense’s security system ‌and occurs when intelligence indicates a form of terrorist action is likely.

A US Air Force spokesperson said: “US Air Force aircraft rotate between installations and operating locations for a variety of reasons, including training and real world requirements. US military aircraft are hosted in accordance with access, basing, and overflight agreements with our allies and partners. Due to operations security, we will not provide further information on movement of assets.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We do not routinely comment on the activity of other nations. Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements.”

Five men driving three white vans were arrested at a village outside RAF Fairford airbase in Gloucestershire shortly after midnight on 27 September over a suspected plot to attack the base. Although a bomb warning had been made, no explosives were found in the search and the men were released on bail.

A month later two men were charged with assisting Iranian intelligence in the relation to the incident under the National Security Act 2023, Mohmed Abdulkarim, 24, and Nouman Essghir, 24. Essghir was one of the five who was initially arrested near the airbase, while Abdulkarim is accused of buying the vans.

While Tehran’s ambassador to Britain has denied accusations it was involved in any plot against the airbase, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said in July that Fairford and any other bases used to launch attacks against Iran were legitimate targets.

GOPers are starving children!

More than 1 million children lost access to food benefits after Trump bill passed

Analysis finds more than 4 million Americans lost Snap benefits, or food stamps, from July 2025 to March 2026

Marina Dunbar

More than a million children across the US have lost access to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) food benefits since Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

The analysis found that more than 4 millions Americans were removed from Snap from July 2025 to March 2026, marking a significant decline in participation in the federal food assistance program.

Arizona recorded the largest drop in enrollment after the bill became law. The legislation tightened eligibility rules for food assistance and increased state screening requirements. State data through May shows that more than 450,000 Arizonans have come off Snap, cutting overall participation within the state in half.

According to the CBPP analysis, children make up a significant portion of those losing benefits, with more than 1 million children across the 19 states studied no longer receiving Snap assistance.

In Louisiana, nearly one in four children receiving Snap benefits lost assistance. Massachusetts and Texas each saw close to one-fifth of children enrolled in the program removed from Snap.

The report comes as participation in the program continues to fall nationwide following major reductions to the federal food assistance program under the Trump administration.

Snap, commonly referred to as food stamps, provides monthly benefits to low-income and no-income households to help pay for groceries and remains the country’s largest food assistance program.

The report says the steep decline in participation is likely tied in large part to the 2025 Republican reconciliation law, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which shifted a substantial share of Snap benefit costs to states based on their payment error rates.

The CBPP warned that the situation would continue to deteriorate unless Congress intervenes. “Without immediate congressional action to delay this cost shift for all states, the unfolding emergency will only worsen as more children are cut off from the food assistance their families need to afford nutritious food,” the CBPP said.

Representative Ilhan Omar, a progressive Democrat from Minnesota, pointed to the outcomes during a speech on the House floor earlier this month. Omar had introduced an amendment aimed at reversing the Snap cuts, but the proposal was rejected by the Republican majority.

The latest figures also prompted action from the US Conference of Mayors. On Monday, the nonpartisan organization representing cities with populations of at least 30,000 sent a letter to the Senate signed by more than 200 mayors calling for lawmakers to reverse the Snap cuts amid the US’s “deepening food security crisis”.

“Snap remains the nation’s most effective and efficient anti-hunger program. It reduces poverty, supports local economies, and provides an automatic stabilizer during economic downturns,” the letter said. “Hunger is not a partisan issue, and efforts to address food insecurity should rise above political divisions.”

This is what happens out of sight, not reporting, the shadow rulings that destroy america....

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 26A560
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, ET AL. v. FRIENDS OF THE
RUIDOSA CHURCH, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[November 9, 2026]
 PER CURIAM.

Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to construct border barriers and roads “to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” §102(a), 110 Stat.
3009–554, as amended, note following 8 U. S. C. §1103. The same section expressly authorizes the Secretary “‘to waive all legal requirements’” as “‘necessary to ensure expeditious construction’” of those barriers and roads, §102(c)(1), 119 Stat. 306, and sharply limits judicial review of all claims arising from such waiver determinations. Specifically, the statute provides that “‘[a] cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States’” and courts “‘shall not have jurisdiction’” over nonconstitutional claims. §102(c)(2)(A).

Earlier this year, the Secretary invoked Section 102’s waiver authority to initiate a border-construction project at the U. S.–Mexico border, in a region that U. S. Customs and Border Protection has designated the “Big Bend Sector.” The Secretary found that the Big Bend Sector “is an area of high illegal entry” requiring additional border barriers, and waived the application of a variety of environmental and conservation laws to facilitate expeditious construction. 

Shortly thereafter, respondents—an individual river guide, an environmental nonprofit, and a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas—challenged those waiver determinations by filing suit in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Respondents claimed, among other things, that the Secretary’s waiver determinations “violat[ed] the major questions doctrine under the U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:26–cv–01099 (WD Tex.), ECF Doc. 26, ¶¶75–85 (some capitalization omitted). Although styled as constitutional, that claim simply alleged that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority in issuing the waivers. Ibid.

On October 2, 2026, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction blocking the Secretary’s waivers and halting all associated construction. The District Court acknowledged that its jurisdiction was limited to constitutional claims. But it nonetheless concluded that respondents’ “major questions doctrine claim” qualified because, in its view, the “major questions doctrine is a constitutional clear statement rule grounded in separation of powers.” Memorandum Opinion in No. 3:26–cv–01099 (WD Tex.), ECF Doc. 75, at 7–8. The court further held that respondents’ “major questions doctrine claim” was likely to succeed on the merits because the Secretary lacked “‘clear congressional authorization’ to issue” the waivers. Id., at 8. Because the Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, IIRIRA §102(c)(2)(C), the Solicitor General filed an application requesting either summary reversal or a stay of the District
Court’s preliminary injunction.

We grant the requested stay. The Government is exceedingly likely to prevail on its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate respondents’ socalled major-questions-doctrine claim. However it is labeled, respondents’ claim does not “‘alleg[e] a violation of the Constitution of the United States,’” the only type of claim the statute permits district courts to adjudicate. IIRIRA §102(c)(2)(A). It alleges instead that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority. And we have long recognized that “claims simply alleging” that the Executive Branch has exceeded its “statutory authority are not ‘constitutional’ claims.” Dalton v. Specter, 511 U. S. 462, 472–474 (1994).

That conclusion does not change where, as here, a plaintiff invokes the major-questions doctrine. Many canons and rules of statutory interpretation reflect constitutional principles, including “constitutional avoidance, the clear-statement federalism rules, and the presumption against retroactivity.” Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 508 (2023) (BARRETT, J., concurring). When courts invoke those canons, however, they do so in service of adjudicating statutory claims, not constitutional ones. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 382 (2005) (explaining that litigants invoke the constitutional-avoidance canon to vindicate their “statutory  ights”). The same is true when a court invokes “the major questions canon of statutory interpretation.” FCC v. Consumers’ Research, 606 U. S. 656, 705 (2025) (KAVANAUGH,
J., concurring). There is no such thing as a “constitutional” major-questions claim.

The remaining factors also warrant a stay. To start, the District Court’s order, which bars the Secretary from exercising his statutory authority to waive applicable laws as he “determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction” of border barriers under IIRIRA §102(c)(1), delays the Government’s construction of border barriers and roads in the Big Bend Sector. The injunction thus impedes the Government from advancing its “compelling interests” in border security and integrity. 

In addition, the Government has presented a declaration from a U. S. Customs and Border Protection official, who attests that—because of the injunction—the Government is incurring nearly half a million dollars in costs per day, which “cannot be recouped” if it prevails at the end of this litigation. Id., 222a, ¶20–22. “[W]hile the loss of money is not typically considered irreparable harm, that changes if the funds cannot be recouped and are thus irrevocably expended.” National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Assn., 606 U. S. 998 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The balance of the equities also favors the Government. Respondents claim that construction in the Big Bend Sectorwill diminish their ability to use and enjoy the area. But Congress’s enactment of IIRIRA §102(c)—which permits the Secretary to waive the requirements of environmentalprotection and other conservation laws—reflects a clear preference for expeditious border construction over the very harms respondents assert. §102(c)(1). And courts “of equity cannot, in their discretion, reject the balance that Congress has struck in a statute.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U. S. 483, 497 (2001). The Government’s interest therefore outweighs any aesthetic, recreational, and environmental harm alleged by respondents. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 25–26 (2008). 

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in case No. 3:26–cv–01099 is stayed pending the filing and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

It is so ordered.

 JUSTICE JACKSON would deny the application for stay. 

Would you be surprised?

Trump officials destroying documents?

By Ja'han Jones

A top House Democrat is warning members of the Trump administration not to hide or destroy documents as the party plans to investigate top officials in the next Congress.

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, who is primed to lead the House Education and Workforce Committee next year, sent letters to the heads of numerous federal agencies on Wednesday, reminding them of the Federal Records Act and the threat of criminal liability for anyone in violation of it. Scott’s letter follows incoming House Oversight Committee Chair Robert Garcia’s two-word warning to Trump officials after Democrats’ “blue tsunami” in Tuesday’s midterms: “Lawyer up.”

The letters warn that anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys” federal documents could face up to three years in prison. And one can only imagine the sorts of things that might be unearthed by Scott’s committee.

Letter recipients include leaders of several agencies that Trump and his allies have used to federalize the MAGA movement’s racism, sexism and antiscientific hysteria. Education Secretary Linda McMahon — who has helped dismantle school desegregation policies while trying to abolish her own department — got one. So did Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose conspiracy theory-laden antivaccine agenda has been condemned for promoting eugenics. And Andrea Lucas, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chair who has helped fuel MAGA world’s false claims that the workforce is rigged against white men, received Scott’s warning as well.

They’re joined by the heads of the Agriculture Department, the National Labor Relations Board, the National Endowment for the Arts and more. And they all received the same message: Investigations are coming, so don’t even think about pulling a Trump and hoarding documents in your bathroom.

And the warnings seem more than warranted. In addition to Trump’s personal history with documents, he has waged war on the Presidential Records Act, which requires the retention of federal records and communications. Furthermore, he reportedly vowed to issue mass pardons to members of his staff within 200 feet of the Oval Office before his term ends.

This is not someone known to adhere to federal records laws, and we have no reason to believe he expects anything better from members of his administration.

Why am I in such a good mood?

Dave Chappelle is testing the right with jokes about Charlie Kirk

By Zoe Sottile

No one was supposed to see the videos of the comedian Dave Chappelle appearing to joke about the death of Charlie Kirk.

“I feel fucked up saying this,” Chappelle said during a set at Madison Square Garden this weekend, multiple recordings of which circulated on X. “It’s scary being a public speaker. And I mean, look, ever since that guy Charlie Kirk got murdered — and I shouldn’t say this publicly, but — ”

He paused for the punchline: “ — I feel better.”

Chappelle went on: “I know I shouldn’t say that, but it’s just a feeling. I just be driving around, like, ‘Why am I in such a good mood?’”

The clips about Kirk are short, and it’s unclear what preceded or followed the bit in the routine.

In another video from Chappelle’s two-night set, the comedian seemed to suggest that Kirk, who was shot and killed while speaking at a Turning Point USA event at a Utah university last September, was in hell: “I’m sure he’s looking up at us right now, laughing so hard he can’t breathe.”

The comic legend has a strict no-phones policy at his shows, but a few blurry clips emerged nonetheless. Conservative commentators quickly condemned the bit. The next day, without naming Chappelle, Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, called comedians joking about her husband’s death “beyond disgusting” and decried a culture that uses the “destruction of a human life” as a “punchline.” Elon Musk declared Chappelle “just not funny anymore.”

Chappelle has built his career on a readiness to push the bounds of acceptability — originally with scalding routines about racism and racial stereotyping, and then with provocations toward people he considered oversensitive or censorious. In the past few years, he’s been the subject of criticism from the left for his jokes about gay and trans people.

His jokes about Kirk seem to represent a shift in the winds on two levels. For Chappelle, who did not respond to requests for comment, it treated conservatives as the easily provoked parties, in the way he’d assigned to the left. And in the broader culture, the jokes in a sold-out arena suggest just how much the tides have turned since the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s killing, during which those who criticized him, or simply quoted Kirk’s own inflammatory remarks, faced investigations, firings and even arrest.

On Thursday, after the midterm election resulted in a historic blue wave, the liberal commentator Jennifer Welch was reading aloud posts from X on her left-leaning podcast, “I’ve Had It.” One of the posts she read said: “We’re digging up Charlie Kirk and doing it again” and Welch laughed as she read it, and then for some time afterward. The post Welch read received over two million views and more than 200,000 likes, before the person who posted it made their account private.

The reaction to Welch’s laughter was swift. Ben Shapiro’s conservative outlet, The Daily Wire, called it “evil.” Several of the podcast’s sponsors, including the multibillion-dollar pet-supplies delivery company Chewy, condemned the comment, and some — like Cash App and the eyewear brand Zenni — said they would no longer advertise on the show altogether.

Welch and her co-host Angie Sullivan both apologized for laughing about the joke, calling it insensitive. Still, Welch accused the organization Kirk founded, Turning Point USA, of “trying to ignite a war with us because they want to prove to their donors, ‘we can cancel libs.’” In an emailed statement, the podcasters said they “still have plenty of advertisers and we aren’t going anywhere.”

This wasn’t the only time Kirk and Chappelle’s careers improbably intersected. In 2022, Kirk posted on X calling for criminal charges against an audience member who had attacked Chappelle on stage. By declining to charge the attacker — who the LAPD said had a replica handgun containing a knife blade — the district attorney had, Kirk wrote, sent “a clear message that public acts of political violence are justifiable—and even encouraged—against anyone who dares speak out against The Regime.”

Schumer's future

Questions emerge about Schumer's future as some Democrats say they want to keep options open

By Lauren Fox and Morgan Rimmer

Several Senate Democrats say they are not committed to voting for Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer next month in leadership elections despite massive wins across the country in the midterm elections.

While many Democrats said they would consider voting for Schumer, several say they want to hear more from him on how he will lead the caucus and what his vision is for the Democratic agenda if he were to once again lead in the majority.

“We haven’t had a chance to talk as a caucus yet,” Sen. Andy Kim, a Democrat from New Jersey, told CNN. “Now we have a chance to actually lead. What do we want our committees to focus on? That’s the conversation I want to have then we can walk through how we set the leadership table.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado, also wouldn’t say if he’d ultimately back Schumer.

“We are going to have some time to discuss this, to debate this as a caucus, to think about how we put our best foot forward, and I think that’s what we should do,” he said.

On the Republican side, there has been clamoring for new leadership in both the House and Senate. But that came after Republicans took a drubbing in the midterms, losing Senate seats in traditionally Republican states like South Carolina, Texas and Kansas and as the House overwhelmingly flipped Democratic. Several Schumer allies pointed out that Schumer was pivotal in the Senate’s historic successes and that he’s proved he can guide Democrats to wins, a critical attribute as the party seeks to set the table ahead of the presidential race in 2028.

Several Senate Democrats who won in those seats have either not committed to Schumer or said on the trail they wouldn’t vote for him. Annie Andrews, the Democrat elected from South Carolina, said on Fox News earlier this week she wants to see “generational change” in leadership, and Adam Hamilton, the Democrat elected in Kansas, told voters throughout his campaign that he did not plan to back Schumer for leader. He told CNN’s Dana Bash Monday that he wants to see “fresh leadership” and that Schumer is seen as a more “divisive” leader whether that is the reality or not. He said he’s looking for someone that can bring Republicans and Democrats together.

Asked about the questions over Schumer’s future on Monday night, Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat who is running to be the next whip, told reporters that he is “for Chuck” but that he also was not Schumer’s spokesperson.

The race for leadership is a secret ballot so no one will know who voted or did not vote for Schumer next month. It only takes a majority of the caucus to win majority leader.

“I haven’t actually heard of anybody running so I think it’s actually kind of a moot point,” Arizona Democrat Sen. Ruben Gallego told CNN as he pointed out Schumer and his staff had been critical in helping Democrats secure victories around the country.

Right now there is no official challenger, but Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen has said he is not closing the door on a run.

Van Hollen told CNN Monday night that Democrats “shouldn’t just anoint somebody.”

Techno-optimist Peter Thiel lecture on the Antichrist. At what point did they go crazy????

Meet the “Thielbillies” Reshaping the Republican Party

They’re into rootedness, tech, and JD Vance—with a distinctly nativist edge.

Kiera Butler

On four successive Monday evenings this fall, hundreds of people filed through metal detectors and past armed guards into the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, a Masonic temple in Nashville, for a very special closed-door event. Culturally, it was a world away from the cowboy-boot-clad bachelorette parties and honky-tonks of Broadway, the city’s nearby tourist drag. The “largely male and suit-wearing,” according to an account by Pirate Wires—had come to hear billionaire techno-optimist Peter Thiel lecture on the Antichrist.

By the final session, Thiel had spent a total of some six hours traversing political, economic, and religious history for his audience. He closed with a plea to the locals. He’d told the crowd he’d often been asked, “‘Why are you speaking in Nashville?’” according to leaked recordings obtained by Nashville investigative reporter Phil Williams. “In that question, I hear a mild inferiority complex.”

Nashville is “arguably the global capital of Protestantism,” Thiel said, and its residents should not leave “finance, technology, and politics to other people in other cities.” His exhortation was blunt: “Get over your inferiority complex and fight.”

Two weeks later, the tech-right and the Republican Party finally got their fight—they lost. Democrats surged across the map, powered in part by a sharp swing among 18-to-29-year-old men. Texas, the right’s proving ground for a decade, fell outright: Democrats James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa beat Ken Paxton and ousted Greg Abbott. Tennessee was different, though. Sen. Marsha Blackburn won the governorship and state Republicans kept their legislative supermajorities.

Which is why the election’s most revealing post-mortem isn’t happening in Washington, but in Tennessee’s burgeoning right-wing intellectual scene—a red bubble inside a blue bubble inside a red state. Here, a well-heeled crew of tech workers, financiers, and edgelords—heavily dominated by men—are converging on a single conviction: that America is not an idea but a people, rooted in particular places, and that its wars and its borders must answer to them first. 

Call them the Thielbillies. They’re into regionalism with a nativist edge—the politics of roots. Over the coming months, they are likely to define the reshaped GOP.

To understand the Thielbillies, start with The Pamphleteer, the right-leaning riff on an alt-weekly that Davis Hunt, a 36-year-old Nashville native, founded five years ago. With a staff of five, the publication, Hunt says, is writing for “an audience that’s kind of neglected by local media, which is people with perspectives like my own who are interested in Nashville, want it to do well, and don’t really have a home in local politics.” Only about 20 percent of Nashville’s registered voters turn out for city races, Hunt told me, and most of the Republicans who vote in midterms and presidential races “are not voting in metro elections.” The Pamphleteer wants them back in local politics, where conservatives have been losing. 

Arguably more influential than The Pamphleteer’s coverage is its event series, which included Thiel’s Antichrist lectures. Last month, it hosted “Building on the Cultural Frontier,” a gathering that promised to inform its audience about a “cultural and educational revival” that includes “boys’ schools to properly educate the next generation of American men” and “conference circuits to facilitate robust intellectual discourse, especially on issues neglected or suppressed in academia.” In July, another Pamphleteer event featured Kevin Dolan, who organized last year’s NatalCon, a conference in Austin, Texas, that brought conservative Christians and techies together to strategize about how to get people to have more babies. Dolan has since turned his attention to running EXIT group, a “fraternity of like-minded men.”

Around the publication sits a constellation of related ventures. There’s Meriwether Academy, “a men’s group in Nashville built on great books, serious conversation, and the outdoors.” Meriwether has also co-hosted events with The Piraeus, a project of the Nashville-based writer Nick Gallo that offers “Grassroots Western Civ Revival” of salons, civic clubs, and retreats. (“Saving Western Civilization” from the libs and immigrant hordes has become a trendy pet project of the right.)

There’s also Delphica Society, which describes itself as a “decentralized, invitation-only club dedicated to the unapologetic pursuit of excellence, trust, capital, and a beautiful culture.” Last November, it partnered with Pamphleteer to host an event it called the Southern Revival Salon; the invitation instructed guests to “Expect a sensory feast: Tennessee whiskey-based cocktails paired with decadent caviar, live bands setting the stage ablaze, and the signature Delphica energy that blends refined elegance with raw vitality.” Featured guests included alt-right social media influencer Douglass Mackey, whose 2023 conviction for interference in the 2016 election was overturned on appeal last year, and Andrew Isker, a far-right pastor and the author of the 2023 book The Boniface Option: A Strategy for Christian Counteroffensive in a Post-Christian Nation.

In Nashville, the Thielbillies have real institutions to work with. “You also have country music, which is red-coded culture,” Hunt says. The Grand Ole Opry, he adds, is “inherently inflected with a Christian conservative” bent, and “the cultural output of the city is ingested mostly by conservative, red-blooded Americans.” Even Vanderbilt University has distinguished itself against academia’s activist drift, recently welcoming Education Secretary Linda McMahon to campus. 

Nashville is a hub, but the Thielbilly movement is expanding. There’s Heritage Hubs Knoxville, an eastern Tennessee group that last month co-hosted an immigration forum featuring former Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, followed by a watch party of the Tennessee–Arkansas college football game with the hard-right Mass Deportation Coalition. In Atlanta, there’s the 1903 Club, an invitation-only discussion and supper club for “the finest men in Dixie.” In St. Louis, there’s Oyarsa, a men’s salon series “working to make the city a home for intellectual and cultural life again and to inspire others in heartland cities to do the same.”

And then there’s the Highland Rim Project, a real estate initiative in rural northern Tennessee, the project of a conservative Christian venture capital firm called New Founding. The project is spearheaded by Josh Abbotoy, a former fellow at California’s arch-conservative Claremont Institute. He describes the Highland Rim Project as a group of “charter communities” organized around “traditional American values like faith, family, and freedom, in a rural and vintage small-town American setting.” It’s also a tech-forward project: Promotional materials note that the communities will be designed around “digital self-governance,” including cryptocurrency, and a culture “in which our patrimonial civic rights, chiefly those of property, free political speech, and civilian armament, can be maintained and perpetuated.”

The midterm election results will likely be a boon for Abbotoy’s project. That’s because Texas, the tech right’s adopted home since the pandemic, voted blue and Tennessee didn’t. Governor-elect Blackburn is, as Hunt puts it, “favorable towards data center development”—the state has no income tax, and the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority is pursuing small modular nuclear reactors to power data centers. Oracle plans to break ground soon on a sprawling new campus across the river from downtown Nashville.

Texas’ loss is Tennessee’s gain, says Abbotoy, who believes his state is poised to become “the ‘it’ place for tech investment.” It can do this, he argues, without giving up its sense of place and predominant culture. “The whole point of it is to plant a flag and say ‘This small town is where our people are gathering,’” Abbotoy noted in a promotional video for Highland Rim Project. “The question is, who’s going to grab the land? Is it going to be good, based people who want to build something inspiring, something that’s culturally authentic to the region’s history? Or is it going to be Bill Gates and BlackRock and hippies from California?” 

As The Pamphleteer‘s Hunt sees it, Tennesseans differ from Californians and New Yorkers—they’re “even different from people in Georgia.” He and the others espouse a localized version of what has become an article of faith among the new right: that place makes a people, and that a nation is, at its foundation, a people rooted in a place. 

JD Vance is an especially prominent champion of this idea. At the July 2024 National Conservatism Conference, he described America as “not just an idea” but “a homeland.” A week later, while accepting the VP nomination, he called America “a group of people with a shared history and a common future.”

Tennessee is the kind of place a candidate running on rootedness would want in his corner. “Most of my circle would still love to have Vance,” Abbotoy says, “if we could just wave a wand and get him in.”

William Wolfe, a self-described Christian nationalist and former Trump administration official who also has spoken at a National Conservatism Conference, appears to agree. “My message?” he wrote on X. “More George Washington, less Nazi hunting, and JD Vance is our guy.” 

In his own (lengthy) post on X the day after the midterms, Vance wrote that a pollster he called “one of the smartest people I know in politics” had told him some Trump 2024 voters “were angry and planning to vote for Democrats.” They wanted to “end the war,” “focus on cost of living/inflation,” “put America First,” and “change our relationship to Israel.” In the same post, Vance warned that “anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.” It was basically an update of his 2024 homeland speech.

His amnesty line was a reminder that a nation’s “people” is an exclusive group. As Texas slipped away this cycle, conservative candidates dabbled in nativism. Republican primary voters ousted the incumbent railroad commissioner in favor of Bo French, a former Tarrant County GOP chair who has called for deporting 100 million people, purging the nation of Muslims, and emulating apartheid-era Rhodesia. As my colleague Tim Murphy reported in September, French’s rise is “in many ways the defining story of the era.”

French lost by roughly seven points but his worldview thrives on social media. An unmistakably AI-generated video purporting to explain why Texas flipped showed caricatured Indians, heads waggling, dancing in traditional dress before idols and McMansions, and grinning Muslims waving Islamic flags outside mosques. One X post sharing the video has been viewed 1.8 million times.

The Thielbillies are worried about how immigrants are changing their communities, too. Hunt noted that suburbs southeast of Nashville bucked the statewide trend—Democrat Victoria Broderick unseated Rep. Scott DesJarlais in the 4th congressional district, and three state House seats flipped—partly, Hunt says, because Murfreesboro has been absorbing newcomers priced out of Nashville. “There’s also a very large immigrant population down there,” he added, “which I think played into that.”

The silver lining of last week’s Republican loss, Abbotoy told me, is that the election “flushed out a lot of stultified establishment people” and will “reset the bench” for younger operators. His models are two Texans who outran their collapsing ticket: Reps. Brandon Gill and Rep.-elect Jace Yarbrough. Gill responded last year to a video of Zohran Mamdani eating rice with his hand by declaring that “civilized people in America don’t eat like this,” and that Mamdani should “go back to the Third World.” Yarbrough, who received a $7,000 campaign donation from Thiel, has accused Muslims of “attempting to set up Sharia law here in the United States” and lamented that “we no longer share common values with people that we see in the grocery store or at our public schools.”

Both lawmakers, Abbotoy says, talked about immigration “in sensible, responsible ways” and could “translate these political issues into kitchen-table issues.” The fact that nativist rhetoric worked for Yarbrough and Gill but not for French suggest that their red districts are distinct from Texas as a whole, and that they understood the voters there.

Abbotoy isn’t the only one who believes such messages can win. On Monday, a new conservative candidate recruitment group called American Ascent launched with an initial $12 million from Thomas Klingenstein, the Claremont Institute board chair and a Yarbrough donor. Helmed by former Heritage Foundation chief of staff Ryan Neuhaus, the group aims to find and equip a new generation of conservatives to replace older Republicans in 2028.

American Ascent has strong ties to Vance: It will partner with a PAC run by the vice president’s close advisor Andy Surabian. In the Politico interview, Vance was the first name Neuhaus’ mentioned in his list of Republicans he considered “inspirational to the base.” He also mentioned Gill and Yarbrough. American Ascent communications director Bradley Devlin, a former editor of the Daily Signal, told Politico, “Republicans lost on the economy. They did not lose on the immigration agenda, which voters time and time again say is the number one best issue for Republicans to run on.”

The emergence of the Thielbillies gives Abbotoy more cause for optimism: “The whole scene is going to be on the upswing.” He’s based in the Highland Rim, but also hangs out in Nashville—Abbotoy and Hunt are friends. He likens the Thielbilly scene to Dimes Square, the downtown Manhattan post-left salon circuit, while conceding that it’s not a perfect comparison. Dimes Square is “a little bit more counterculture,” he says. “Nashville’s different.” The rooms here are full of investment bankers, marketing executives, country-music brass and stars, and “a lot of crypto whales that have been moving to Nashville.”

Less bohemia, in other words, than a right-wing chamber of commerce with better parties. A red bubble inside a blue bubble inside a red state convinced that America is a people, that it lives here, and that, as Thiel suggests, it is worth fighting for.

Climate conference

COP31 Is Here. Will Anyone Finally Say “Fossil Fuels”?

Three decades of climate talks have danced around the real problem. Turkey’s summit is the latest test.

Rachel Santarsiero

The world’s biggest climate conference kicked off today in Antalya, Turkey, a country known for growing political repression. Under an unusual compromise, Turkey is hosting, but Australia’s government will preside over negotiations among more than 190 nations seeking to address the climate crisis. And for the third year in a row, one problem underscores all the others: Why can’t anyone say “fossil fuels”?

For the next two weeks, delegates from all over the world—except, notably, the United States—will discuss their progress under the Paris Agreement, the international treaty they signed in 2015 (which Donald Trump has twice withdrawn the US from). Under that deal, countries committed to limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and ideally to 1.5 degrees, by setting their own targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The timing couldn’t be more urgent. We’re in the middle of an El Niño season that has already smashed global temperature records and caused catastrophic flooding in Nepal. And last month, the United Nations warned that we’re on track to overshoot 1.5 degrees entirely. The urgency is real. So is the cynicism.

“UN climate summits have become all but synonymous with low expectations, long on rhetoric, short on action,” Covering Climate Now (CCN) reported, even though “an overwhelming majority of the world’s people, 80 to 89 percent of them, want their governments to ‘do more’ about the climate crisis.”

The annual Conference of the Parties, as COP is officially known, has been the backdrop to my entire life. I have vague middle-school memories of the 2009 Copenhagen summit, which ended in a weak, non-binding accord that left many observers deflated. As a college student in 2015, I remember the surge of possibility I felt when negotiators in Paris emerged with a deal described as “the best possible shot to save the one planet we’ve got.” As an adult, I joined the National Security Archive, where I interviewed dozens of former government officials, scientists, and advocates about all the ways we’ve gotten it wrong—and right—in our quest to save the planet.

Perhaps the most absurd part of this history is that for nearly 30 years—my entire life—international climate negotiations largely avoided naming the primary driver of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. It wasn’t until COP28 in Dubai in 2023 that a final agreement explicitly called for transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, a step UN climate chief Simon Stiell called the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. But the deal crucially neglected to say how or when a phaseout would happen.

Last year was supposed to be different. Brazil hosted, which was a hopeful sign: In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, an inflection point that ushered in a new era of international cooperation on climate change. For the three years before that, the conference had been held in countries whose economies rely heavily on fossil fuels: Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Azerbaijan. But at COP30 in the Amazon city of Belém, delegates failed to make any new commitments on how they’d permanently ditch oil, gas, and coal.

It’s difficult to assess the long-term significance of any individual COP in its immediate aftermath. Copenhagen was considered a failure because negotiators failed to produce a global treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But years later, observers credited it with having “killed off the top-down treaty-based approach” to climate change, as Joshua Busby, a public affairs professor and researcher at the Center for Climate & Security, pointed out in 2015.

In its place came the system of national pledges at the heart of the Paris Agreement. Those pledges, non-binding though they are, have had real impact. Renewable energy projects boomed. Energy demand growth slowed. Projected warming by the end of the century has dropped from about 3.6 degrees Celsius to 2.6 degrees. 

Of course, 2.6 degrees Celsius is hardly a victory, and a gargantuan amount of work remains to avoid the most catastrophic climate scenarios, assuming all nations meaningfully pitch in. When President Trump refused to send a delegation to last year’s conference, former Secretary of State and Special Climate Envoy John Kerry told PBS that the absence of of leaders from the world’s second-biggest greenhouse gas emitter “defeats the fundamental purpose of these meetings” because “no one country can solve this problem by itself.”

Despite a handful of Democratic members of Congress attending this year’s summit, COP31 will be the second year in a row with a US delegation–sized hole in it. But plenty of other countries have woken up to the idea that we have to break up with fossil fuels, with over 60 nations coming together in April in Santa Marta, Colombia to discuss a fossil fuel phaseout outside formal COP negotiations.

A conference that fails to deliver the right language can still build momentum that changes what’s politically possible at the next one.

“We are a majority power that therefore can have confidence that we have a collective global community that really wants this to succeed, and that it isn’t too late,” Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said at the close of an October webinar. “The window is still open, but rapidly shutting.”