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 02, 2026

Could nuke Iran within days

Tucker Carlson wildly claims that Trump could nuke Iran within days

Story by Ronny Reyes

The podcaster who cried nukes.

Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson wildly claimed Sunday that President Trump was preparing to launch a nuclear weapon against Iran in the coming days — as he dementedly suggested that the administration were puppets for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Carlson, who has come under fire in the past for antisemitic statements, claimed in a lengthy post on X that Netanyahu was pressuring Trump to nuke the Islamic Republic.

“Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” Carlson wrote, citing a supposed “informed observer.”

The post suggested that Netanyahu, under pressure from failing to secure the majority in last week’s Israeli elections, now sees war as his only means of political survival.

To that end, Netanyahu is allegedly trying to convince Trump to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, the regime’s secret nuclear facility buried underneath a mountain and presumably immune to any of America’s bunker-buster bombs, Carlson claimed.

Carlson also said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were following Netanyahu’s lead, as well as leaders of the Democratic Party, without providing any evidence.

The rant, which garnered more than 53.1 million views on X, appeared to capitalize on Trump’s own statements over the weekend that the US could take out Pickaxe Mountain “within 10 minutes.”

The president, however, has publicly rejected the use of nuclear weapons in the war, stating earlier this month that America has no need for it in place of conventional bombs and economic pressures on Iran.

Regardless of Trump’s position, Carlson has repeatedly made claims that the US was dangerously close to firing nuclear weapons at Iran throughout the war.

“We’re moving toward the use of weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, possible nuclear weapons,” he said on an April 1st broadcast. “Everything hangs in the balance right now. This is not hysteria.”

Carlson repeated such claims at least four more times since then, including during an Oct. 15 broadcast following Trump’s threat to drop the “mother of all bombs” on Iran.

But Trump dismissed the claims and said the term referred to America’s larger bombs, not a nuclear missile.

The president has previously used the term to refer to large-scale bombardments against America’s enemies during his first term.

Trump and Carlson had a public falling out last year when the president kicked the former Fox News host out of his MAGA movement over repeated criticism of the war in Iran.

Mr. Veto

Trump says he'll become "Mr. Veto," if Democrats win back power of Congress

By Kit Maher

President Donald Trump reiterated that he plans to exert his executive authority to veto Democratic-led legislation if they win back power in Congress.

“I think we’re going to do great, but if we didn’t win, I veto everything. I’ll be vetoing, vetoing, then they’ll come along and we’ll probably make some deals along the way, but it wouldn’t be as good,” Trump told Miranda Devine on New York Post’s “Pod Force One.”

The interview, which was taped on Friday, was released this morning. It comes as new polls suggest Democrats are within striking distance of Senate control.

Asked if he’ll be able to continue what he’s doing as president and work with Democrats if they win, Trump said: “Well, if that happens, I guess I’ll become Mr. Veto.”

“Then at some point, we’ll probably make deals. That’s what’s happened. I mean, this wouldn’t be the first time,” he said.

“They’ll be sending stuff up. You veto it, and eventually, after a month or two of getting all vetoed, they just waste — they come over, and you make a deal,” Trump added. “Hopefully, we don’t have to worry about that.”

Trump made similar comments to reporters in late October that while he believes “Republicans are going to win,” his plan is to veto Democratic-led legislation to force the other party into a negotiating position with Republicans.

Run again?

"I'd love to run again if I had the chance," Trump says

By Kit Maher

President Donald Trump said that he’d love to run for president again if the Constitution allowed it.

“I’d love to run again if I had the chance, but the language is very exacting,” Trump told Miranda Devine on New York Post’s “Pod Force One.”

“I would love to run. They had a poll the other day where I beat everybody by so much. I’d love to run, but it’s fine, you know we have more than two years left. It’s a long time. You can do a lot in that period of time,” Trump said in the interview, which was taped on Friday.

Trump has previously mused about running for a third term but has also referred to the clear restriction written in the 22nd Amendment, which bars a person from being elected “to the office of President more than twice.”

At a rally in Iowa last month, Trump said he believed he has “the right to run again because they cheated,” referring once again to his false claims of election fraud in the 2020 election.

“I think the law said — I’m not 100% sure — but I think the law says that I’m not allowed to run again. I’ve studied that phrase,” Trump said at the time.

Election Day

Here are some of the reasons your party will (or won’t) have a good Election Day

Analysis by Aaron Blake

Election Day is tomorrow, and while there are high expectations for Democrats, it’s impossible to know for certain what will happen in the race for control of Congress.

Many Democrats are worried about the polls overestimating the strength of their candidates again, while President Donald Trump and some in the GOP seem sanguine in the final days.

Here’s a look at some possible scenarios:

Why Republicans could have a good night

  • The polls were wrong: Polls — especially in red states — could systematically underestimate Republicans because they don’t respond to them as much.
  • The Senate map was just so red: Democrats need a net gain of four seats, which requires them flipping at least two states that Trump won by double digits.
  • The GOP pulled an upset in a currently blue state: The number of GOP Senate seats Democrats need to pick off increases if they lose the ones they’re defending — namely Maine, Michigan or both.
  • The GOP’s gerrymandering was too successful: If Republicans keep their majority in the House — or even just keep Democrats’ gains to a minimum — the GOP’s brazen mid-decade gerrymandering push will likely have played a role.
  • Voters didn’t care much about the Iran war, corruption and other unpopular Trump ideas: If Republicans do better than expected, a big reason might be that voters didn’t care enough about Trump’s actions for them to matter.

Why Democrats could have a good night

  • Trump’s historic unpopularity: By many measures, Trump is the most unpopular president in modern history heading into a midterm.
  • Trump’s coalition broke down: Trump swept the swing states in the 2024 election in large part by making big gains with young people (especially men), Latinos and infrequent voters. Polls suggest all three groups have turned sharply against him.
  • Trump’s neglect of affordability: Trump has neglected what almost always polls as a chief concern: affordability. He was elected in large part because of high inflation and his own promises to fix it quickly.
  • Broken promises: Related to the two preceding items is that Trump simply didn’t do the things he promised. He said he wasn’t going to start wars, but he did. He said he was going to fix inflation, and it’s now worse.
  • The GOP mobilized non-White voters — in the wrong way: Perhaps no demographic has swung against Trump by as much as Latino voters. There is also some evidence that the Supreme Court further weakening the Voting Rights Act and Republicans gutting heavily Black congressional districts could be mobilizing Black voters.
  • Corruption: Corruption has emerged as a major concern for Americans — sometimes even polling above prices. But more significantly, there is growing evidence that voters’ concerns about corruption are more of a problem for Republicans than Democrats

Fundraising record

El-Sayed campaign breaks single-day fundraising record after Stevens’ endorsement switch

By Diana Anos

Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed raised $2.4 million in a single day on Sunday after Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens’ surprise endorsement of his GOP opponent, Mike Rogers.

It marked the biggest fundraising day for the campaign yet, an El-Sayed spokesperson said, just two days before Election Day.

“This record-breaking grassroots fundraising haul is a testament to the excitement that Abdul’s movement has inspired in the hearts of Michiganders—and a rejection of the status quo politics that’s left Michigan behind for far too long,” campaign spokesperson Cole Wozniak said in a press release.

The campaign added that the average contribution was $36.74 from more than 65,000 donors — 29,602 of whom were first-time donors to the campaign.

This comes after Stevens endorsed Rogers in a surprise move yesterday that was criticized heavily by members of the Democratic Party. The endorsement switch prompted national Democrats to further rally around El-Sayed’s candidacy.

Preemptive pardons

Trump says he would offer Musk, other admin officials preemptive pardons "if I needed to"

By Kit Maher

President Donald Trump vowed to “protect” Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who formerly led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and other members of his administration with possible preemptive pardons.

“It’s talk, but if it is talk, we’ll protect them,” Trump told Miranda Devine on New York Post’s “Pod Force One.”

“If they do it, we’ll just have to protect those people,” Trump said, when asked about the possibility of Democrats targeting Musk or former DOGE employee Edward Coristine, known as “Big Balls.”

Trump spoke about how former President Joe Biden pardoned several people before leaving office. Pressed on whether he would offer pardons to people within his administration, Trump said: “I would if I needed to, sure.”

“Everybody who worked for you?” Devine asked.

“I would not even think about it; I’d do it. I did it for J6,” Trump said, referring to the mass pardons and sentence commutations he issued for those charged in the January 6 riot on the US Capitol.

Some background: In a separate interview with TIME Magazine last month, Trump said that he would consider issuing pardons to members of his administration toward the end of his term: “Yeah, sure I’d do that,” Trump said.

Misrepresented

David Flippo Misrepresented His Gulf War Military Record

The Nevada congressional candidate said he was in “the desert” in 1991. Records show he was attending Montana State and was not on active duty during Operation Desert Storm.

Noah Lanard

David Flippo, the Republican nominee for Congress in a competitive Nevada district, has repeatedly claimed he served in Operation Desert Storm. Yet, according to a US Air Force spokesperson, Flippo was not on active duty until nine months after that military campaign ended.

In a candidate questionnaire, Flippo said he was at Montana State University in 1990 and 1991. He also appears in Montana State’s 1991 yearbook as a member of the school’s Air Force ROTC program. The Air Force spokesperson told me that Flippo, who served as an enlisted airman before going back to college and becoming an officer, entered active duty as an officer on December 10, 1991.

Combat operations against Iraq by the United States and its allies during Operation Desert Storm began on January 17, 1991, and ended on February 28. They were preceded by the troop buildup during Operation Desert Shield, which began in August 1990 and continued until the start of Desert Storm.

Flippo has claimed he was in the “desert” in 1991. As he put it at a 2024 fundraiser during his first run for Congress: “Think about when I served, ’85 to ’09. What the heck was happening? What happened in ’91? What happened in ’03? I was in all of that. I was in the desert all that time.”  

The February 8, 1991, edition of Montana State’s student newspaper places Flippo at the university during the war. The article reports that Flippo became the student leader of Montana State’s Air Force ROTC program on January 31, two weeks into the war. It goes on to note, “As the new commander, Cadet Col Dave Flippo has many challenges ahead.”

The remarks at the fundraiser were not the only time that Flippo suggested he was in the Gulf War. As first reported by the conservative outlet Nevada News & Views, Flippo, who retired as an Air Force officer in 2009, has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he was in Desert Storm and has often worn a hat that identifies him as a veteran of that war. 

Flippo has already faced accusations of exaggerating his military record. His campaign falsely claimed that he had a Bronze Star with valor that he did not earn. The Reno Gazette-Journal has also reported that Flippo was relieved of his command as an Air Force squadron commander in 2008. He left the Air Force the following year. 

Other aspects of his candidacy have also raised questions. Flippo has reported putting more than $2.5 million into his campaigns, despite having no obvious source of such wealth. The Nevada Republican has failed to file legally required financial disclosures dating back to 2023, when he launched his first bid for Congress. As I’ve reported, Flippo also has ties to a dubious Arizona land venture that says it aims to produce “constant” 20 percent returns for 20 years. The Washington Sun and Wall Street Journal have reported that Flippo’s campaign claimed to have received donations from two dead people. (His campaign blamed a clerical error for one of the donations; the campaign’s treasurer said he is “looking into” the other contribution.)

In October, Flippo told a Reno TV station, “I was in Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm and all of that was all throughout my career because I came in ’85.” In a similar vein, Flippo told former Rep. Matt Gaetz earlier this year that with “24 years in the Air Force, I spent my life from Desert Storm all the way through Iraqi Freedom.” In a May 2025 podcast interview, he said, “I did 24 years in the Air Force from 1985 to 2009. So, I was in for Desert Storm, obviously.” 

In all three cases, he neglected to mention that he was not on active duty between about 1989 and December 1991, according to the Air Force and the article from the Montana State student paper. That period covers the entirety of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the key operations related to that war. 

Flippo wrote in an October op-ed that he was “deployed to Saudi Arabia right after the birth of our second son” in 1992. Public records show that his second son was born in April of that year, meaning that Flippo would have arrived in the region more than a year after Operation Desert Storm ended. By that point, the United States was conducting a ceasefire campaign, rather than an active war.

In text messages, Rory McShane, Flippo’s main campaign consultant, called the questions about Flippo’s Desert Storm claims a “total non story,” saying that Congress and the Air Force “say he’s a Desert Storm Veteran.” He did not answer questions about when Flippo returned to active duty or whether Flippo served in Operation Desert Storm in early 1991. He also did not say why Flippo claimed to have been in the desert in 1991. 

McShane pointed to the fact that Flippo was awarded the Southwest Asia Service Medal. An Air Force website states that the award was given to “members of the U.S. armed forces who served in support of Operations Desert Shield or Desert Storm between Aug. 2, 1990 and Nov. 30, 1995.” According to that site, the award was given in relation to three campaign periods: the defense of Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991, the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces in 1991, and the “Southwest Asia Cease Fire Campaign” that ended in 1995. (The timing of Flippo’s 1992 deployment to Saudi Arabia suggests that he served only in the Southwest Asia Cease Fire Campaign.) Flippo’s military records do not list the Kuwait Liberation Medal that was given by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to coalition forces who served in Desert Storm.

McShane also highlighted language in a bill and an amendment passed by Congress in 1991 that defined Operation Desert Storm as “operations of United States Armed Forces conducted as a consequence of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq” for the purpose of that law. The definition explicitly included operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Provide Comfort, which protected Kurdish refugees in Iraq and Turkey between 1991 and 1996.

McShane did not respond to a question about when Flippo may have participated in Operation Provide Comfort. Flippo served at a base in Turkey associated with that operation, according to the Air Force spokesperson, and public records list him there starting around 1995.

According to a 2017 press release, the purpose of the Desert Shield and Desert Storm Memorial, which opened on the National Mall in October, is to honor the “650,000 service members who served and 383 military [personnel] who died in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm from August 2, 1990 to April 6, 1991.”

Daniel Casentini, a retired Air Force master sergeant who has been critical of Flippo’s claims about his military record, said via email that he doubted that any “veteran who actually served in Desert Storm would see him as a Desert Storm veteran unless he was in theater during the operation itself.” Casentini added, “[I]t’s just another example of his lack of integrity, which is ironic since ‘Integrity First’ is one of the Air Force’s three core values.”

In September, Flippo was accused of stolen valor after his campaign falsely claimed that he received a Bronze Star with valor for his service in the second Iraq war, when he actually has the far more common standard Bronze Star. After the Washington Post revealed those false claims, Flippo said his staff made an honest mistake. 

The problem with that explanation was that Flippo repeatedly wore a hat featuring V-shaped emblems that suggested he had earned a Bronze Star with valor. After photos of him in the hat emerged, Flippo blamed his grandkids for putting the emblems on it. (Flippo wore the hat, which also identified him as a Desert Storm veteran, for years.)

Scott Maryott, a retired Army lieutenant colonel in Nevada who is supporting Flippo’s Democratic opponent, Teresa Benitez-Thompson, was also critical of Flippo’s Desert Storm claims. “If a guy said he was in Desert Shield, Desert Storm, I would have assumed he was in theater during that time,” Maryott said.

“You don’t do things to exaggerate your military service,” Maryott said. “The people that are most humble about their military service probably did the most. And it’s people that exaggerate their service that really show a character flaw.”

Ban mass surveillance technology

What Coal Country Can Teach America About Fighting Flock

From socialists to Freedom Caucus Republicans, an unlikely coalition is working to ban mass surveillance technology in deep-red West Virginia.

Schuyler Mitchell

Paige Reiring showed up at Woodchuck’s house with a revolver strapped to her hip. She didn’t know anything about the man except that he loved America and hated Flock cameras. He’d reached out to Reiring via TikTok after seeing her videos tracking automated license plate readers in the city of Morgantown; he wanted her to come look at a new one in his neighborhood. Reiring told me she brought her gun as insurance—this was West Virginia, after all, and she was “just one lady.”

At first glance, Reiring—a 33-year-old lesbian socialist and third-party candidate for the West Virginia House of Delegates—wouldn’t seem to have much in common with Woodchuck, a proud patriot who decries so-called “Nazi communist bastards” for putting a surveillance camera in front of his yard. But over the course of a 45-minute conversation, the two found they were standing on some solid common ground. Neither thinks mass surveillance has a place in West Virginia. Or, for that matter, anywhere else.

“If I had introduced myself as a socialist, he would not have spoken to me,” Reiring said. But when she told Woodchuck she was running for the state house seat in his district, he pledged to pass out her yard signs. “‘We need people like you who are willing to point these things out and get rid of them,’” Reiring recalled him saying of Flock cameras. 

In 2026, few things unite Americans more than hating Flock. The company’s AI-powered network of license plate readers has been at the center of a much-documented nationwide backlash, as revelations about police abuses of the technology increasingly come to light. More than half of US voters now say they oppose ALPRs in their communities. And as my colleagues Chasity Hale and Sophie Hurwitz reported last month, “Both Republicans and Democrats in battleground states like Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are wooing voters by promising to place guardrails on unregulated surveillance technologies.” One Arizona sheriff put it best when he remarked at a hearing that “Flock has become a four-letter word.”

I’ve been covering policing and surveillance for years, and I’ve never seen a law enforcement technology catch quite as much flak as Flock. At first, the intense pushback surprised me—civil liberties advocates have been warning about the federal government’s expansion of mass surveillance since 9/11, and police departments across the country have long deployed ALPRs alongside other invasive technologies. I wanted to understand why Flock, specifically, has inspired such robust bipartisan reproach. But more importantly, I wanted to see where all this anti-Flock momentum is going—and if it could spark a wider anti-surveillance movement in America.

In August, I traveled to West Virginia in search of answers, where an unlikely coalition of activists is powering a thriving anti-Flock crusade. Crucially, the state isn’t a battleground: West Virginians voted for President Donald Trump by a whopping 42-point margin in 2024, second only to Wyoming, and Republicans hold more than nine in 10 seats in the state legislature. Yet state lawmakers in Charleston have been among the most aggressive in the country when it comes to publicly sparring with Flock executives over privacy concerns. While some officials are calling for better guardrails, many critics—including both the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and the ultra-conservative state Freedom Caucus—are pushing to ban mass surveillance technology altogether. Freedom Caucus chair S. Chris Anders told me Flock is “the first really big bipartisan issue [he’s] seen come up” in West Virginia since starting his term in 2024.

In an August hearing, state delegates grilled Flock’s director of government affairs, Kevin Kane, on the company’s privacy policies and security. Unsatisfied with Kane’s answers, Republican lawmakers then exchanged a series of scathing public letters with Flock, accusing the company of attempting to hold secretive back-door conversations and demanding that corporate representatives testify under oath before the House Government Organization Committee. Flock’s “technical personnel” are now set to appear in Charleston days after the midterm elections; legislators say to expect state regulations next year.

The backlash to Flock “is an example of the facade starting to crumble,” said Kyle Vass, an investigative reporter with the West Virginia ACLU who grew up in the southwestern city of Huntington. “People are seeing this for what it is: the expansion of the police state.”

On a Monday night in mid-August, I attended a “DeFlock teach-in” at Monkey Wrench Books in downtown Morgantown, a city in the north-central part of the state that’s home to West Virginia University. More than 40 people packed into the small space, squeezing between bookshelves displaying titles like All This Safety is Killing Us and Why Would Feminists Trust the Police?

The crowd was rapt as civil rights attorney Lesley Nash explained how to find public information about Monongalia County’s Flock contract and navigate the open-source ALPR mapping website DeFlock. When it came time for audience questions, a young, cherub-faced man with long dirty-blond hair announced he’d recently been arrested for allegedly destroying a Flock camera. The room erupted in applause. “You didn’t do it!” someone shouted.

Earlier that month, a local news post about the young man’s arrest had received 29,000 comments, as Facebook users rushed to his defense with a flood of implausible alibis. (Morgantown has a population of around 30,000.) Suffice to say he’s a bit of a hometown hero.

“We have this really long history of people who aren’t from here, who have a lot of money, coming in and extracting wealth from the state, and then leaving the state in shambles.”

In Morgantown, locals have been particularly incensed that the Monongalia County Commission approved spending up to $180,000 of opioid settlement money to fund the sheriff’s office’s contract with Flock. Those funds—the product of years of nationwide litigation against major pharmaceutical companies accused of fueling the opioid epidemic—were largely intended to provide crucial addiction recovery and harm reduction services. Yet since 2022, much of that money has flowed into law enforcement agencies’ coffers. In an August investigation for Mother Jones, I found that Monongalia County wasn’t alone; as of this writing, at least 22 agencies in twelve different states have spent more than $1.4 million in opioid funds on Flock and other ALPRs. Seven of those agencies are in West Virginia. 

“There is not a single human being inside the state of West Virginia who was born and raised here who has not been adversely affected by the opioid crisis,” Adam Menear, a 45-year-old father born and raised in Morgantown, told me at the time. He started a petition in March calling on the Monongalia County Commission to halt the installation of Flock cameras. It’s received more than 1,600 signatures.

“The new crisis,” Menear added, “is the fact that the funds that are supposed to go to the public to help build back and reverse the nightmare that we lived through are being appropriated to use artificial intelligence to surveil us.” (The Monongalia County Commission did not respond to a request for comment.)

Police Are Spending Opioid Settlement Funds on Flock Cameras

Menear’s comments echoed a sentiment I heard from numerous West Virginians: Public agencies’ contracts with Flock feel like the latest slight in a long history of corporate repression and state abandonment.

During the peak of the industrial coal boom, primarily out-of-state coal operators owned hundreds of company towns across Appalachia. Absentee corporations controlled the homes, roads, schools, churches, private security forces—even the drinking water. Miners were pressured to shop at company-owned stores with company-issued currency. “Nowhere was the percentage of miners who lived in company towns higher than in West Virginia, where nearly eight of every ten miners were subject to such control,” writes historian Ken Fones-Wolf in the foreword to Frederick Barkey’s book Working Class Radicals: The Socialist Party in West Virginia, 1898–1920. Coal mining made a few West Virginia families very rich, but much of the wealth flowed away from the state—and as the coal industry declined, companies packed up and moved out, leaving decrepit infrastructure and impoverished communities in their wake. 

Today, West Virginia consistently ranks last or near-last in public health, education, and economic outcomes. It has the highest drug overdose death rate in the country and the highest rate of adult depression. 

“I like to describe West Virginia as an extraction colony within the borders of the US,” said Vass, of the ACLU-WV. “We have this really long history of people who aren’t from here, who have a lot of money, coming in and extracting wealth from the state, and then leaving the state in shambles.” Coal was West Virginia’s third and most famous wave of extraction, but it was preceded by the salt industry’s exploitation of enslaved labor in the early 1800s and the late-19th century commercial logging boom. 

Now, Vass says, it’s tech companies that are performing a new form of 21st-century digital extraction: hoovering up the personal data of everyday Americans without their consent, without a warrant, and making a profit. (Flock didn’t respond to a detailed list of questions, but the company “does not sell data,” a spokesperson said.)

In Huntington—the second-most populous city in West Virginia and the gateway to its southern coal fields—city officials voted in July to approve a contract with Flock despite seven hours of largely negative public comment. “I think Flock has really been the spark that’s ignited the conversation around data collection and tech companies as a form of extraction,” Vass said. He noted that people are connecting the rise of AI-powered mass surveillance to fights against data center development in their communities—perhaps the only political issue that’s currently more bipartisan than Flock. Organizers are now working to gather signatures for a citywide ballot initiative that would cancel Huntington’s Flock contract and prohibit other third-party mass surveillance systems in the city. 

Up north in Morgantown, Paige Reiring also pointed to state history when explaining why the backlash to Flock has been so impassioned. Over coffee at Monkey Wrench Books, Reiring pulled out her phone and began swiping through her camera roll—“just so you know that I do live by the things I say.” She showed me images she’s saved of abolitionist John Brown, as well as West Virginia labor icons like Sid Hatfield and Bill Blizzard, who fought on the side of union miners during the bitter Coal Wars of the early 20th century. During that time, miners struggled for better wages and union recognition in a series of violent clashes, while coal companies paid private detectives to infiltrate and spy on organizers. The fighting culminated in the infamous Battle of Blair Mountain—the largest armed civil insurrection in the US outside of the Civil War. 

“West Virginia is a red state, but this is a state that has been under martial law several times, including during the West Virginia mine wars,” Reiring said. “I think there is a very strong spirit of understanding what it’s like to be constantly surveilled and have your life monitored by people who have power over you.”

Police are “acting like they never solved any crimes before the invention of this technology,” said Republican state legislator S. Chris Anders.

Framing Flock as a bipartisan issue in West Virginia feels a bit like pointing at the sun and calling it hot: accurate, sure, but a pretty facile description. Most people I spoke with didn’t identify with a major party at all, even if the state looks deep red on paper. And unaffiliated voter registrations are increasing.

Menear, the Morgantown father, told me he has “no trust for political parties.” But if he really had to explain, he says, he’d just tell you, “I believe in freedom.” A fervent belief in privacy and civil liberty—and a deep skepticism of the political establishment—is far more of an organizing force here than any party label. 

If anything, in more recent history, these types of issues have generally been seen as the domain of Republicans. GOP Delegate S. Chris Anders, for instance, lists banning Flock cameras and mass warrantless surveillance as his number-one priority, alongside things like stopping the “trafficking of abortion pills into West Virginia” and ending “woke ideology” in schools. On the homepage of his reelection campaign site, he poses in a full-bleed photo, dark sunglasses on, aiming an AR-15 rifle. The image is overlaid with a quote, attributed to Anders: “I will not waver in my support of the principles of Life, Individual Liberty, and Private Property.”

As chair of the Freedom Caucus, Anders has been among the more radical camp pushing for a full ban on Flock; other Republicans’ proposed guardrails, he says, just won’t do. I asked him how he weighs his support for police officers, who say they need Flock to keep people safe, against his concerns about government overreach. 

“It’s fairly simple,” Anders told me. Police are “acting like they never solved any crimes before the invention of this technology,” he said, but “it is not the job of the Constitution to bend itself around technology. It’s a job of technology to bend itself around the Constitution.” Anders introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act in January, which would prohibit West Virginia law enforcement from using facial recognition software, surveillance drones, ALPRs, and other surveillance technologies without a warrant.

A bill that far-reaching is unlikely to pass at the state level, so Anders also worked with Jefferson County commissioners in West Virginia’s eastern panhandle to draft a resolution banning mass surveillance tech on county property. At an October 16 meeting, the five-person, all-Republican commission unanimously—and enthusiastically—voted to approve the resolution.

“Harpers Ferry is the birthplace of the civil rights movement,” commission president Pasha Majdi said at the meeting, referencing John Brown’s armed abolitionist raid in 1859. “It’s only fitting that Jefferson County is first in banning mass surveillance technology, the greatest threat to our civil liberties today.” Only one other commission in the US, Oconee County in South Carolina, has passed a similarly comprehensive ordinance. 

In pushing for a total ban, Anders finds himself in an unlikely alliance with groups like ACLU–WV and DeFlock Monongalia, a grassroots collective that grew out of Morgantown mutual aid efforts. Voters on the left have expressed concerns that Immigration and Customs Enforcement reportedly tapped into Flock’s nationwide network, even as Flock claims it doesn’t share data with ICE. Other reports have found cops using the system to surveil No Kings protesters and to track a woman across state lines after she self-administered an abortion.

In October, DeFlock Monongalia obtained audit logs from the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office via a public records request, which showed the county’s system had been searched more than 3 million times by 3,918 external organizations during the first nine months of 2026. The three law enforcement agencies that queried Monongalia County’s data the most were all located in Texas, and none of the top 20 were in West Virginia.

Aaron Hamler, 31, has been fighting Flock in Fairmont, a former coal mining town about 30 minutes’ drive from Morgantown, where city officials have spent about $30,000 to install five Flock cameras in public parks. I dropped by an organizing meeting at the Marion County Public Library, located in a charming 115-year-old former post office in downtown Fairmont. There, attendees crafted educational zines and sought practical advice from a Fairmont city council member who fielded in-the-weeds procedural questions about how to get a city contract cancelled.

Hamler told me that he sees the organizing wave against Flock as an opportunity to push for broader systemic change. West Virginians, like so many Americans, are fed up with the cost of living; they’re struggling to survive, Hamler says, and might find themselves “politically homeless.” He’s now working to start the first Democratic Socialists of America chapter in the region—there’s currently only one other DSA group in West Virginia, an organizing committee in Wheeling, about 100 miles away.

“A lot of people that I talk to have been in this spot where you’re too poor to survive, but you’re too rich to get any sort of benefits,” Hamler told me. Case in point: He and his wife, both health care workers, don’t qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because they’re “right over that line.” When they couldn’t afford daycare, his wife reduced her hours at the hospital to watch their daughter during the week, moving her shifts to weekends instead.

As the working class gets poorer and tech oligarchs get richer, it feels like Americans are “watching logs get put on a fire soon to be lit,” Hamler said. And when people see public funds allocated to something like ALPRs—or tax breaks given to data centers, or billions of dollars spent on a war with Iran—it feels to them like a personal violation. Flock cameras are just “part of the match that’s lighting the small corner of the log.”

That’s an absolute lie.

A Test for Trump’s Disinformation Operation

Can our political system beat back a movement predicated on lying?

David Corn

During one of the recent frantic, manic, and racist rants Donald Trump has delivered at red-state campaign rallies to boost imperiled Republican candidates, the bloviator-in-chief—in between comments about people’s asses and boasts of his own purported greatness—claimed credit for turning Washington, DC, from a hellscape of crime to a citadel of safety. He brayed:

Nobody wanted to eat out. They were afraid. Even if you were in the restaurant, people would walk in and, like the Wild West, hold it up! Everybody is standing there. Can you imagine? A fancy restaurant. They were robbing the whole restaurant. It’s crazy.

That’s an absolute lie.

For Trump, lying is like breathing. It never stops.

Trump is a serial prevaricator who cannot stop spouting falsehoods. During his first run in the White House, The Washington Post cataloged 30,573 false statements that he emitted. (Nowadays, the Post, following billionaire owner Jeff Bezos’ loving embrace of Trump, doesn’t bother to systematically track his deceptions.) But I am highlighting this particular fib because it is so idiotic and so transparently untrue. As a resident of the metropolitan DC area, I can say that folks here were not afraid to go out to dinner prior to Trump’s pointless dispatch of National Guard troops and that “whole” restaurants were not being pillaged by malfeasant marauders.

For Trump, lying is like breathing. It never stops. It occurs automatically, without thinking. Once upon a time, we rebuked politicians if their spin deviated too far from reality. They were afforded much license to hail their supposed accomplishments and policy proposals and assault their rivals’ liabilities and intentions. There was tremendous leeway for stretching the truth. But outright lying was considered a step too far.

During the 1988 GOP presidential primary contest, the campaign of Vice President George H.W. Bush aired ads accusing his main rival, Sen. Bob Dole, of being wishy-washy on tax policy. In an interview, when Dole was asked if he had a message for Bush, he growled, “Yeah, stop lying about my record.” That was considered a big deal.

These days, the lies are far more brazen and blatant, and an accusation of lying barely rates a mention in any news story.

The GOP’s midterm effort that he’s leading—like his past presidential campaigns—is foremost a disinformation operation. Trump never stops pumping out extreme falsehoods.

That’s partly—or largely—because Trump has turned the Republican Party and the MAGA movement into one big disinformation outfit. He doesn’t spin. He lies over and over, and his party and cult happily go along with and cheer on his deceit. The GOP’s midterm effort that he’s leading—like his past presidential campaigns—is foremost a disinformation operation. Trump never stops pumping out extreme falsehoods.

He tells the crowd at one rally that “98 percent” of Somali immigrants in the United States “don’t work…because they steal so much. They all have a Mercedes-Benz…low IQ. And they live better than you.” He repeatedly proclaims that the United States is experiencing an economic Golden Age after he “inherited the worst inflation in American history” and that inflation is down to 1.8 percent. The worst inflation in US history was 23.7 percent in 1920, and it was 3.0 percent when Trump returned to the White House last year. Currently, it’s 3.7 percent.

He calls his Democratic foes and critics “communists.” They are not. Even members of the Democratic Socialists of America are not communists. He continues to spread the debunked MAGA conspiracy theory that James Talarico, the Democratic senatorial candidate in Texas, left the campaign trail to be treated for mental illness. He asserts that Democrats are for “open borders” (they are not) and that President Joe Biden allowed 25 million people to “pour across the borders,” including drug dealers, rapists, and 11,888 murderers. These numbers are exceedingly wrong.

Does Trump—and the MAGA devotees he’s trying to stir up—believe there are operating rooms in schools where these procedures are happening in secrecy?

Perhaps the most disturbing lie Trump has been hawking is that schools are performing gender transition operations on children without the knowledge of their parents. This is batcrap crazy—but it fuels anti-trans paranoia. Schools these days cannot even dispense an aspirin without the consent of a parent. And there is no evidence to support this claim. Does Trump—and the MAGA devotees he’s trying to stir up—believe there are operating rooms in schools where these procedures are happening in secrecy?

At a rally in Georgia, Trump went deep on this lie:

We got critical race theory and transgender mutilization insanity out of our schools. I mean, we have five states where your child goes off to school as Tim and comes back as Tammy, three or four days later. It’s true. And teachers make—somebody makes a decision. Can you imagine? “Goodbye, Timmy. I love you so much. I’ll see you later.” And you say, “Where’s my son? My son is in the hospital.” Can you imagine? Can you imagine? They don’t even need approval. It’s sick. You’ll have five—I think Minnesota and some others—I think it’s five or six states. You know that, right? 

That’s a bit he regularly injects into his meandering stump speech (which increasingly includes strange sounds that are not words).

I know. Complaining about Trump’s lying is like complaining about the weather. Two years ago, as the 2024 campaign was hurtling to its finish, I wrote an article headlined, “Trump Is Running a Disinformation Campaign, Not a Political Campaign.” (“They’re eating the dogs…They’re eating the cats.”) Nothing has changed. Except, it seems, the purveyors of fake facts have expanded in number. Now GOP disinformation is flying in scores of House, Senate, and gubernatorial campaigns.

Musk is echoing Trump’s false assertions. “Talarico will vote to take away your children and transition them,” he wrote on X this week.

In Texas, Elon Musk has spent close to $200 million so far to defeat Talarico and elect Ken Paxton, the corrupt GOP attorney general, with much of that money underwriting transgender-related attack ads. And Musk is echoing Trump’s false assertions. “Talarico will vote to take away your children and transition them,” he wrote on X this week. Again, an utterly false statement. Like Trump, Musk catches no flak for lying and amplifying false conspiracy theories. (As of October 25, Republican groups had aired about 217,000 ads nationwide exploiting the trans issue—about one-quarter of those were in Texas.)

I could go on and on about the lies coming from Vice President JD Vance, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and other Trump wingmen (are there any wingwomen?) who have hit the campaign trail. (You can find some below in Dumbass Comment of the Week.) Cruz claims Michigan Democratic Senate contender Abdul El-Sayed “is Muslim Brotherhood.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott insists his Democratic opponent, Texas state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, supports Shariah law. This is all bunk—the sort of stuff that in years past would have derailed the campaign of the candidate spewing it.

Now, it’s GOP SOP. With his victory two years ago, Trump demonstrated that a con-man demagogue—who profoundly mismanaged a pandemic—could win back the highest office in the land by running a nonstop and extensive disinformation operation. This year, he’s relying on the same tactic to preserve Republican power on the Hill.

With Trump’s approval rating at a historic low and gas prices remaining high because of the stupid Iran war (which Trump barely talks about when he’s stumping for GOP candidates), selling all this bullshit is a harder task. Yet this election, like the last one, remains a test for the American political system. Can it beat back a political movement predicated on prevarication?

This election will tell us whether democratic backsliding will be reversed, whether voters will punish corrupt grifters, practitioners of plutocratic policies, and proponents of brutality, and whether such political chicanery as racist gerrymandering and big-money politics (see Musk and his hundreds of millions of dollars) can triumph. It will also show whether Trump’s disinformation crusade has stalled and his art of the lie has lost its shine.

Biggest Upset of Election Night

The Biggest Upset of Election Night Could Come From South Carolina

Lindsey Graham’s sister inherited his Senate seat. Plenty of Republicans aren’t buying it.

Isabela Dias

On Tuesday evening, a week before Election Day, Maggie O’Neal took her husband and two daughters—six and 10 years old—to see Dr. Annie Andrews, the pediatrician trying to flip a Senate seat in deep-red South Carolina, speak in Greenville.

O’Neal, who grew up in a Republican household but votes Democrat, was “very early on the Dr. Annie bandwagon.” For about a decade, she worked as a hospice social worker; her father is a retired physician and her husband a practicing doctor. In Andrews, she recognized the dedication to years of study—in the Democratic challenger’s case at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine—and the commitment to evidence-based research.

“The strongest, most amazing physicians I’ve ever met and watched go through medical training are women,” O’Neal, 39, said. “The amount of work they have to do to succeed and thrive, and what they have to endure says a lot about her.” At the campaign event, O’Neal’s oldest daughter carried a sign that read, “If I could vote, I’d vote for Dr. Annie.”

“She’s very inspiring,” said O’Neal, a Colombian-born adoptee who became a naturalized citizen as a child. Her parents, Republicans who have grown disenchanted with the direction of the party under President Donald Trump, also support Andrews. Some of her friends are picking Republican candidates all the way down the ballot—except for the Senate. “She has a really good head on her shoulders for straddling the line of both parties,” O’Neal continued, “which I think is what South Carolina needs right now.”

Ahead of a pivotal election night, Andrews is in an unexpectedly tight contest against Darline Graham, a political novice who inherited the seat following the death of her brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, in July and now hopes to serve a full six-year term. The Republican candidate’s credentials—her family name and an endorsement from President Donald Trump—have voters in the Palmetto State questioning if she’s not just a “nepo senator,” especially when contrasted to Andrews’ hard-earned medical bona fides and political campaign history.

The result, a race that should be a safe GOP hold but Fox News has moved to a toss-up, has Republicans worried. In the two weeks leading up to the election, Trump rallied twice in the state he carried by almost 18 points in 2024, and the GOP top Senate PAC has pledged $5 million to prop up Graham and prevent a Democratic pickup that would be one of the biggest upsets in the country. Even the interim senator herself, who doesn’t seem to particularly enjoy campaigning, acknowledged feeling a “little nervous” about the polls.

“Democrats haven’t had much to get excited about in state politics for a long time.”

“Democrats haven’t had much to get excited about in state politics for a long time,” said Furman University professor Danielle Vinson. The last time a Democrat won a Senate seat in South Carolina was in 1998, and no Democratic candidate has come within nine points of a victory this century.

Vinson was initially skeptical of the polls showing a competitive race. The most recent New York Times/Siena poll had both candidates effectively tied, with Graham leading by less than one percentage point. In 2020, Democrats had their hopes crushed when Jaime Harrison, former chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, appeared within the margin of error, but ended up losing to Lindsey Graham by 10 points. This year, Harrison has said, the “stars are aligning” for Democrats in the state and a strong Black voter turnout could help Andrews’ chances.

Trump’s multiple stops in South Carolina to try and boost one of his handpicked candidates have also persuaded Vinson that this time it might be different. “That suggests to me that their own internal polling is raising questions and concerns because there’s no really good reason that the president should have to come to South Carolina for a Senate race,” she said. That, and the fact that Andrews’ yard signs have cropped up in reliably conservative areas of Greenville, are an indication to her that some Republican voters simply “are not comfortable” voting for Graham, whose previous professional stint was as the head of South Carolina’s Commission for the Blind.

If Andrews wins, Vinson said, “Democrats will be bouncing from the ceilings.” But even if she just comes close enough to pulling it off, “it will be a reminder that if you want to see change, you have to show up.” A near-win could also re-energize the party looking ahead, with South Carolina holding the first 2028 Democratic presidential primary.

A Kentucky-born mother of three, Andrews worked as a pediatric hospitalist at the Medical University of South Carolina Children’s Hospital in Charleston for 14 years, treating kids with cancer and gunshot wounds. After the 2018 Parkland school shooting in Florida, Andrews joined the Moms Demand Action movement that fights for gun safety laws and later became an adviser for a gun violence prevention organization.

In 2022, she ran for Congress to unseat Rep. Nancy Mace, ultimately trailing her by 14 points. Andrews then launched a political group advocating for children. “That’s what drove me off the sidelines,” she said in a conversation with Harrison in October. “It’s witnessing these patterns of policy failures showing up in our hospital exam rooms and wanting to do something about it.” 

Now, momentum appears to be on Andrews’ side. On Friday, the Senate Majority PAC to elect Democrats released the first ad in a $750,000, 11th-hour push to get her over the finish line, painting Graham as “an empty suit for special interests.” Andrews’ slim path to a one-time unthinkable victory may hinge on that message resonating with Republican and independent voters who would rather not be force-fed a candidate who inspires little confidence.

“We were led to believe that she was just a placeholder for that seat and South Carolinians would have the opportunity to vote for whomever they thought would be the best,” said George Culpepper Jr., who identifies as a conservative Republican and picked US Rep. Ralph Norman in the primary. “We were kind of caught off guard because a seat shouldn’t just be given to someone.”

“We get hounded on by hardcore conservatives who believe that you need to vote for Darline Graham because she has an ‘R’ by her name. We’ve done that in the past and we’ve got screwed.”

“When a candidate is shoved down our throats, I’m sorry, but our minds are independent here in South Carolina,” he added. “We won’t bow down to being told how and who to vote for.”

A Greer resident and father of three, 52-year-old Culpepper described himself as a long-time supporter of President Trump but blamed his administration for the Iran War-fueled spike in gas prices. He’s skeptical that Graham would stand for conservative causes, saying she’s “still an unknown.” He also pointed to the primary debate in which Graham fumbled a foreign policy question about Taiwan and the South China Sea—responding that “national security is not my thing”—as a “turning point” for him. Culpepper said many conservatives are either crossing party lines to vote for Andrews or writing in Norman.

“We get hounded on by hardcore conservatives who believe that you need to vote for Darline Graham because she has an ‘R’ by her name,” he said. “We’ve done that in the past and we’ve got screwed.”

Culpepper decided to vote for the Democrat, adding his name to a “Republicans for Dr. Annie” list, after seeing a campaign ad in which she vows to “fight the swamp” of Washington, DC. “She has six years to prove herself,” Culpepper said, offering that she could “truly be an independent” like a John Fetterman or a Kyrsten Sinema. If she doesn’t, she can be voted out the next time around. “We need a fighter,” he continued. “We don’t need someone that’s going to kowtow to a certain party.”

Carl Hokanson, a Republican-turned-independent who never voted for Trump, said Graham’s candidacy “is a joke” and that “she can’t even read from a prepared speech,” referring to her questioning of former special counsel Jack Smith in a recent Senate hearing. He also criticized her political ads as “filled with lies and half-truths.”

Graham’s campaign has labeled Andrews a “radical.” At a rally in Rock Hill, the Republican said her opponent was “plain old batshit crazy.” Trump has echoed those attacks, calling Andrews a “fanatical transgender activist.” In one of her ads, which sparked backlash from LGBTQ+ rights groups, the pediatrician says she’s against “biological men” playing women’s sports and never performed “gender surgery” on minors.

Andrews, who has tried to deflect culture war flashpoints and focus on South Carolinians’ concerns about affordability and healthcare, has been courting voters just like Culpepper. She likes to say her campaign is for everyone, regardless of party affiliation, and that, if elected, she will be an “independent voice” working across the aisle. Andrews often nods to her Republican dad and has received endorsements from former GOP Governor David Beasley and State Senator Katrina Shealy. Warren Norman, son of the hardline conservative congressman, made it known that he wouldn’t be supporting Graham and was “leaning” towards Andrews.

“She’s somebody who’s taking the approach of being very pragmatic,” said Vinson, “and just wanting to address problems and not necessarily doing it from a partisan perspective.”

John Aguilar, a 35-year-old resident of Walhalla who runs a dog training business, appreciates Andrews’ attention to “real-life problems.” The son of Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants who were able to obtain legal status during the Ronald Reagan presidency, Aguilar said he had voted for Trump before, but has soured on his mass deportation policies and fears Graham will just be a “complete rubber stamp” for the administration.

“I believe [Annie Andrews] can do it and I feel like the GOP also believes that she might be able to pull this one off just just based on the the amount of effort and money they’re dumping into a +18 state that shouldn’t be that way,” he said.

A retiree who lives in Horry County and asked not to be named because she believes the vote should be private said three months ago she didn’t believe Andrews stood a chance, but that “the tide is turning.” She has voted for Republican candidates in the past, but doesn’t think the “Graham lady” represents the working people of South Carolina and predicted that others will also put the person above the party on Election Day. “I don’t care how red you are and how proudly you’ve worn that hat in the last couple of years,” she told me, “you put that hat down.”

For Michael, a 48-year-old father of six and a lifelong Republican who asked to be identified by his first name only out of fear of retribution, this election is a referendum on Trump and the party. He’s furious about the war in Iran and a $40 trillion national debt. “It’s crazy-land at this point,” he said. “I’m never voting for these people again until they start looking like the Republicans I grew up with. I’m done.”

He voted for Democrats across the ballot and, despite living in a predominantly red part of the state, put a sign up for Andrews on his yard. Like others, Michael doesn’t trust Graham to stand up to the administration. “She’s not really representing South Carolina,” he said. “She’s representing Trump.” Andrews would likely be a “middle of the road” senator, he said, adding, “That’s what we need to get back to in this country: bipartisanship.” 

Renee Harvey of Charleston worked on Andrews’ unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2022 and was an early backer of her Senate run even before it drew national attention. “Annie is offering solutions,” Harvey said, noting that she has several Trump-voting relatives who are casting a ballot for Andrews. “She’s always been a problem solver. That’s what she has to do at the bedside of her patients.”

After decades of Republican rule, Harvey thinks South Carolinians are ready for a change and poised to “shock” the country. “We’ve been doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” she said. “I think people are are starting to wake up.”

“If anybody is going to flip this seat,” Harvey added, “it’s going to be Annie Andrews.”