The eyes of the world are focused atop Virginia’s ballot. Tuesday evening could feature photo finishes in three high-profile off-year elections. In the gubernatorial race, will common-sense-conservative incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears defeat the illusory “moderate,” former congresswoman Abigail D. Spanberger, who runs from her far-Left U.S. House vote record? (Lifetime CPAC rating: 8.6 percent conservative; 2022 score: 3 percent) This focus on ‘root causes’ might seem almost touchingly dated…. But…. [t]hese beliefs have real-world consequences. For Lieutenant Governor, will Republican activist and radio host John J. Reid, II beat Democrat State Senator Ghazala F. Hashmi? (Lifetime CPAC rating: 13.5 percent; 2023: 6 percent) And will a victory by sitting Republican Attorney General Jason S. Miyares prove that Democrat former State Delegate Jerrauld “Jay” C. Jones machine-gunned his own career in 2022 when he texted his wish for “two bullets to the head” of Republican Todd Gilbert, Virginia’s then-House speaker? Jones discussed with a colleague Gilbert and his wife Jennifer’s “little fascists,” specifically their two young children. Jones hoped that they would die in their mother’s arms. Regarding his GOP colleagues, Jones texted: “I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves.” In 2022, Jones was convicted of driving 116 MPH in a 70 MPH stretch of Interstate 64. Jones was fined $1,500 and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service. He spent 500 hours at his own PAC, apparently without court approval. (Jones’ lifetime CPAC rating: 14.5 percent; 2021: 11 percent) While these campaigns dominate the headlines, an intriguing name appears down-ballot in one coastal community. Ramin Fatehi never met a criminal he didn’t want to hug. Too bad he is running for re-election as Commonwealth Attorney in Norfolk, Virginia. Fatehi is a Saturday Night Live-quality caricature of the doe-eyed liberals’ “root causes” argument. His approach to law enforcement recalls “Gee, Officer Krupky.” In this number, from 1957’s West Side Story, a group of New York City gang members blame everyone but themselves for their being derelicts. The Jets hooligans sing: Gee, Officer Krupke, we’re very upset: We never had the love that every child oughta get We ain’t no delinquents We’re misunderstood Deep down inside us there is good! One of them named Action adds: My father is a bastard My ma’s an S.O.B. My grandpa’s always plastered My grandma pushes tea My sister wears a mustache My brother wears a dress Goodness gracious, that’s why I’m a mess! Action continues: Hey, I’m depraved on account I’m deprived.  A New Wave band called Oingo Boingo similarly mocked this mentality in its 1981 song “Only a Lad.” Only a lad He really couldn’t help it Only a lad He didn’t want to do it Only a lad He’s underprivileged and abused Perhaps a little bit confused It’s not his fault that he can’t behave Society’s made him go astray Perhaps if we’re nice he’ll go away Perhaps he’ll go away He’ll go away These are just fun, harmless songs — from 44 and 68 years ago. Alas, Fatehi doesn’t see this attitude as satire or just zany lyrics. Terminal victimology is his bedrock principle, if not his religion. Only a true believer in this twisted civic creed could express these words without laughing: The old-fashioned view about public safety was not taking into account externalities. It was focused on the idea of crime as an evil unto itself. Where I part ways is in recognizing that crime is a symptom. It’s a symptom of structural racism, of systematic community disinvestment, of redlining, unequal school policy, the lack of jobs, lack of transportation, a lack of opportunities, intergenerational barriers to wealth building, the disinvestment in the treatment of the mentally ill — all of these things are really what produced the symptoms, but then we as prosecutors are charged with essentially trying to deal with it, and then are blamed also when they perhaps increase or decrease. One need not dig for proof of Fatehi’s peaceful, easy feeling toward criminals. It clogs his websites. Just below his official photo, the government site identifies the Commonwealth Attorney as “Ramin Fatehi (he/him).” A March 2022 statement of “Philosophy, Policy, and Procedures” explains: “The Office works to combat explicit and implicit bias, mass incarceration, the school-to-prison pipeline, and the criminalization of poverty, homelessness, mental illness, and substance-use disorder.” Furthermore, “Requiring accused people to post cash bail criminalized [sic] poverty and harms public safety by increasing financial stress on accused people and their families.” Thus, “the Office will continue its longstanding policy not to seek cash bail (secured bond) in any case.” Fatehi’s campaign website is even more strident. “Ramin is a proud Democrat, a progressive prosecutor, and Norfolk’s champion for criminal justice reform,” it states (emphases in the original). Fatehi’s office “has led the charge” to “make the justice system honor the principle that Black Lives Matter.” Fatehi’s “Statement of Principles” checks off multiple Woke boxes: Poverty is not a crime, and we should not criminalize poverty. The legacy of systemic racism — from redlining to segregation to community disinvestment — continues to harm people and undermine public safety. Children should be treated as children, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline should be shut down. The government has an obligation to address poverty, mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness, and other root causes of crime that contribute to people entering the criminal justice system. Jail or prison should be a last resort, when public safety demands it or when there are no less-restrictive alternatives. The death penalty should be abolished. Fatehi’s website also notes that “Ramin believes in the 21 Principles for the 21st Century Prosecutor.” This manifesto includes more gems than the Louvre — before it was robbed. Consider these sapphires: “Promote Restorative Justice…. In a group setting, individuals facing charges talk to the people they hurt, sharing stories and working toward accountability, repair, and rehabilitation. Restorative practices can be part of the criminal court process or a substitute for it.” “Hire a diverse staff across all levels of seniority and report on staff diversity. In mid to large offices, hire a director of diversity and inclusion.” “Engage the community and the office in a reflective conversation about the role of prosecutors in racial inequity. Implicit bias training should be part of this process.” “Stop using scientifically invalid evidence. Examples include: comparison of bullet leads, fire and bloodstain patterns, bite marks, shoe prints, and hair matching.” “Employ the Language of Respect.” Rather than “felon,” use “person who committed a crime.” Apparently “convict” is too vicious. The “21st Century” term is “individual who was incarcerated.” Why use one word when four will suffice? This focus on “root causes” might seem almost touchingly dated — like a macrame flower-pot holder, down in the basement, or perhaps Granny’s dusty doilies up in the attic. But Fatehi’s weep-for-the-criminals mentality is much worse than a pile of moldy ideas. These beliefs have real-world consequences. Because, as Fatehi claims, “Mandatory minimum sentences present a significant possibility of over-punishment,” he requires prosecutors to “seek the approval of their [sic] Deputy” before seeking any sentence beyond 30 days. Fatehi went so lightly on shoplifters that Norfolk’s City Council authorized its city attorney to begin prosecuting misdemeanor shoplifting violations. All of this seems eerily familiar because it is. “Fatehi’s main source of campaign income came from three liberal super PACs largely funded by billionaire George Soros,” The Virginian-Pilot reported. The latest data show that Fatehi scored $393,748 from Justice and Public Safety PAC and 273,488 from Democracy PAC, both of which Soros finances. Fatehi also collected $30,589 from the Working Families Party National PAC and $24,800 from the Working Families Party, a far-Left, Brooklyn-based political faction. Ramin Fatehi is part of the same Soros-financed criminal-kissing clique as Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg, Chicago’s Kim Foxx, and Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner. Of course, at some point, voters tire of lawlessness, and sometimes boot these bums from office. Just ask ejected former prosecutors George Gascon of Los Angeles and even (literal son of terrorists) Chesa Boudin of San Francisco. Ramin Fatehi faces only a potential write-in challenge on Tuesday. However, if he keeps chest-feeding criminals, the Chesa Boudin of the Chesapeake Bay could go the way of his California counterparts. READ MORE from Deroy Murdock: New Yorkers Deserve Stark Choice between Communist and Capitalist for Mayor The USA Can Dominate AI and Make STEM Great Again Zohran Has Two Daddies ​Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor.

One hundred years ago this month, the Ford Motor Company produced 10,000 Model T cars in one day. That level of production for one specific car would never be matched as production lines added new models to inventory, but this output in 1925 would validate the theories of Adam Smith that specialties of labor in production would efficiently produce more of a product at a lower per unit cost. At the height of WWII, the daily production at American factories produced almost 250 tanks, 150 planes, and 2 liberty ships. Smith hard argued 150 years earlier that efficiencies could be realized when a manufacturing process was unbundled to allow better division of labor such that parts of production would be handled by specialists in a particular area. The assembly line would take this idea to a new level. Rather than having a factory in which one worker assembled several items, Ford would begin a process to limit its workers’ skills to a more specialized area of production that manufactured cars faster and, ultimately, at lower costs. Instead of having workers construct an entire car, Ford trained workers to focus on a small portion of the required assembly which would allow cars to roll off the factory line at a staggering pace. This new way of working created several results. First, production costs decreased dramatically. A century ago, a Model T cost $260, or roughly $6,500 in today’s purchasing power, but building a car one worker at a time would have cost many times that amount. In addition, Ford was able to pay workers the unheard-of sum of $5 a day, which seems like a pittance today, but in 1925, the average worker earned around $2.15 daily. As a result, workers flocked to Ford factories, which provided managers with their choice of conscientious hires. Ford’s higher wages made employees become more dependable and loyal to the company, resulting in further increased productivity. This wage also gave workers more disposable income, allowing them to save, invest, and consume other goods and services. Opportunities abounded in and around factories, creating a larger and stronger middle class. Ford’s great innovation went beyond just inventing the Model T as motorized cars had been developed by others in Western countries. The real genius was creating an assembly line that could turn out a completed car in less than five minutes. Ford solved the problem that still bedevils inventors and entrepreneurs even today — taking a good product and scaling production to meet demand. Many worthy products have been invented, but no matter how good the product and no matter what needs the new good meets, failing to expand to large scale production can doom commercial success. Even in the 21st Century’s age of robotics, technology and highly refined production processes, matching the size and scope of Ford’s manufacturing remains staggering. By comparison, the Hyundai plant in Montgomery produces around 1,500 cars daily, and the Mercedes facility near Tuscaloosa makes around 750. Obviously, the components of a Model T were much smaller and allowed for quicker assembly, but even so, producing 10,000 units of anything a day, 100 years ago, is worth remembering. If the construction of cars was scalable using Ford’s assembly line, the same knowledge and experience was scalable for other products. In fact, Ford’s milestone achievement was emulated by other industries and started the dominance of the United States in factory production.  The innovation of the assembly line created new products that consumed more raw materials, creating a ripple effect through the national economy. One of the reasons the roaring 1920’s bellowed was the increase in wages, which created more demand for goods and services and expanded the overall economy. Factories made labor more fluid, and workers gained more opportunities, so the 10,000 units a day production would be replicated in other industries with similar effect. While the Great Depression would stall demand for goods and services, the assembly line would continue to churn out products, though not nearly at the same rate. As bad as the economic pain was in the United States, it was even worse in other parts of the world. The vastness and diverse topography of our nation cushioned some of the worst aspects of the Depression. And while the New Deal stumbled to reignite the national economy through regulations, the resourcefulness of American workers and our natural resources created small expansions in the economy. Though the assembly line was scaled back as demand receded, workers and industry still retained the know-how of muscle memory to ramp up production as the economy improved. If any adversary had produced a national estimate of the U.S. economy in the late 1930s, hidden from any calculation would be the potential might of fully operational assembly lines. When foreign intelligence agencies from belligerent nations examined a snapshot of the United States at the beginning of World War II, they likely reasoned there was nothing to fear.  After all, America was still a rural country with industrial development contained in the Northeast and Midwest. The U.S. had one of the smallest armies in the world, and its industrial might seemed limited to consumer goods. Completely overlooked was the pent-up potential of assembly lines producing tanks, planes, and ships. Once our country was attacked and became fully engaged in the World War, assembly lines transitioned from producing consumer goods to manufacturing military machines. At the height of WWII, the daily production at American factories produced almost 250 tanks, 150 planes, and 2 liberty ships. The production of other war materials was equally great and dwarfed the production of any rival nation. No one could have predicted that the industrial might of the United States could scale up so quickly to produce weapons of war. One hundred years ago, the remarkable production occasioned by Ford’s assembly line would create the infrastructure supplying the military might that armed the Allies to win a global conflict and made the U.S. the only true superpower in the world. READ MORE: MacArthur Returns to the Philippines: Remembering October 20, 1944 The Elusive ‘Conservative Consensus’ Once Upon a Time at Harvard Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com

I’m a proud Gen Xer — not because we were so great, but because we are the last generation still attached to old school. We were raised at the tail end of an America that still had connections to the texture and oddity of what Greil Marcus called that “Old, Weird America.” We still listen to classic rock on vinyl without irony, but we also knew who Glenn Miller and Perry Como were. Sinatra was still touring and still mattered. We watched old movies, lots of them — Angels with Dirty Faces, The Ox-Bow Incident, Casablanca, Yankee Doodle Dandy. We don’t need new definitions of manhood. We need old ones — honor, duty, imagination, restraint, brotherhood. Where I grew up in New York, there were only eight channels — 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 21. My father wasn’t paying for cable; we had an antenna on the roof, and that was good enough. We didn’t have a remote in my house. You watched what was on. This was before VCRs. We watched the Mets on WOR, outside in the summer (no AC!) in black and white on an old portable General Electric 12-inch. We watched shows that parents watched like The Honeymooners and The Odd Couple, Barney Miller and Car 54, Where Are You? We could talk to our parents and older cousins about stuff that was way older than us. We also read books from bookmobiles and tons of magazines. I learned to love the written word from the pages of Sports Illustrated, especially the great stories in the back by writers like Frank DeFord, Rick Reilly, Dan Jenkins, and even George Plimpton. We had our own stuff too — punk, grunge, and films. If you were a Gen Xer, you probably saw Trainspotting (1997), Danny Boyle’s frantic adaptation of the Irvine Welsh novel about down-and-out Scottish junkies and the pointlessness of modernity. It’s a movie you couldn’t unsee. Near the end, the central characters — Mark, Sick Boy, Spud, and Begbie — pull off a shady high-stakes heroin deal in a ragged London hotel. To confirm the purity of the smack, a strung-out wastel in a black knit hat, a torn drab green hoodie, and filthy jeans, whose only purpose in life seems to be to test “gear” for the underworld, enters the room. The image of that lost soul has lingered with me. That guttersnip character now seems a metaphor for today’s young men. Unfortunately, there seem to be more of them, though now they’re numbing themselves in other ways too — video games, porn, social media, pills. They’re wafting in their parents’ basements, going nowhere, connected to nothing, disconnected from the past, and uncertain of their futures. Too many young men are unwell. They’re four times more likely to die by suicide, three times more likely to struggle with addiction. Record numbers aren’t getting married, dating, or working. They feel like they have little or no purpose. Something has to fill that void. Unfortunately, there are unseemly influencers and “alpha” coaches peddling a brittle masculinity. But beneath all the posturing is a real hunger to connect. The question is: what will they turn to? Enter Gen Xer Shilo Brooks. His prescription for the despair of modern manhood is simple: read. Brooks, a Texas-born scholar now serving as president of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, hosts a new podcast for The Free Press called Old School. He wants to bring men back to books — the real ones. His goal is to create a brotherhood of readers, rediscovering what once made men strong. Brooks’s story brings credibility. His early life was rough-and-tumble — his stepfather stole his mother’s savings, leaving them destitute. But his third father, a Vietnam veteran with a high school education, taught him what steadiness and strength looked like — not through boisterous posturing, but by showing him the quiet power of reading. “It is powerful for a boy to see a grown man read,” Brooks says. “A great book induces self-examination and spiritual expansion. When a man is starved for love, work, purpose, or vitality, a novel wrestling with those themes can be metabolized as energy for the heart. When a man suffers from addiction, divorce, or self-loathing, his local bookstore can become his pharmacy.” Brooks doesn’t offer New Age self-help because deep reading isn’t easy. It demands patience, imagination, and humility. Great books slow you down and allow you to see yourself as you truly are. For Brooks, reading is a ladder back to the light of sanity. Maybe that’s why his work feels so right. We’ve forgotten that an education — an old-school education — isn’t about credentials but conversation, the kind you have with minds greater than your own. A man who truly reads doesn’t just learn to get a grade; he inherits the profound grammar of courage and struggle. And isn’t that what we want for our sons? I know I don’t want my boys ending up like that skell in Trainspotting, whose only purpose is the next hit. Maybe if they find themselves in books, and the conversations they stir, they can save themselves — and the next generation. We don’t need new definitions of manhood. We need old ones — honor, duty, imagination, restraint, brotherhood. Maybe a library card, not an iPhone, is one piece of the puzzle back to “honorable manhood.” READ MORE from Pete Connolly: What Graham Platner’s Tattoo Really Reveals Shohei Ohtani Plays Baseball Differently The New York Times Op-Ed on HBO’s Task Highlights Our Two Americas.

Biden regime reportedly did not prioritize capturing and deporting Jose Abelardo Villegas-Orbe despite two DUI arrests in 2024

from OPERATION FREEDOM: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Nicolas Hulscher, Global Research: We have just stumbled upon a goldmine of new data — the kind of evidence that could decommission mRNA technology once and for all. For the first time, long-term immune function can be directly compared across four key exposure groups within high-quality electronic medical record datasets from thousands of real patients — capturing […]

'Hostis humani generis' or enemies of mankind. The post Killing Drug Dealers in International Waters is Actually Legal appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

President Donald Trump in an interview that aired Sunday agreed that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s “days as president are numbered.” Trump sat for an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” his first interview with the program in five years. CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell asked the president about the future of Maduro, who Trump first demanded step down in 2018, leading Venezuela. “On Venezuela in particular, are Maduro’s days as president numbered?” O’Donnell asked. Trump replied: “I would say yeah. I think so, yeah.” Reports late last week suggested that the Trump administration has looked at land targets in Venezuela to strike as part of its escalating efforts to crack down on drug trafficking to the United States. The targets reportedly consist of military assets that have been used in the drug trade. Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now. Trump said last month that he has approved CIA operations in Venezuela to counter the drug trade and Maduro, whom his administration has identified as a top cartel leader and imposed a $50 million bounty on. Trump dismissed O’Donnell’s questions regarding any plans to launch military strikes on Venezuelan territory. “I’m not saying it’s true or untrue,” said Trump of reports of potential strikes. “I wouldn’t be inclined to say that I would do that. But – because I don’t talk to a reporter about whether or not I’m gonna strike,” said Trump. “You’re a wonderful reporter, you’re very talented, but I’m not going to tell you what I’m going to do with Venezuela, if I was gonna do it, or if I wasn’t going to do it.” Trump also played coy when asked about his decision last week to deploy the USS Gerald R Ford carrier and its strike group to the Caribbean. The Ford is the newest and most advanced aircraft carrier in the U.S. fleet. “It’s gotta be somewhere. It’s a big one,” Trump said when asked what purpose the Ford serves in the Caribbean. Norah O’Donnell: “Is it about stopping narcotics or is it about getting rid of [Venezuelan dictator Nicolás] Maduro?” President Trump: “This is about many things.” Norah O’Donnell: “Are Maduro’s days as president numbered?” President Trump: “I would say yeah, I think so,… pic.twitter.com/RBdCwn5xW2 — RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) November 3, 2025