Iowa Democrat Who Quit His Campaign in September Over Health Issues Still Wins State House Seat in Republican-Leaning District: “I’m Going to Do My Best to Represent… But I Still Have Health Issues”

Iowa Democrat Eric Armstrong, who publicly suspended his campaign on September 7 citing personal health problems and said the district “deserves a representative who can give 100 percent of their energy to this race,” won Iowa House District 20 anyway.

Armstrong, a former railroad executive from Carter Lake, defeated Republican Keith Jones 4,602 votes to 3,737 (55.2% to 44.8%), according to unofficial results reported by the Associated Press and Iowa election data. The margin was roughly 865 votes in a district covering parts of Council Bluffs and Carter Lake in Pottawattamie County.

Armstrong announced his withdrawal via Facebook and Instagram, writing that he faced “personal health issues that require my full attention and immediate care” and was stepping down “effective immediately” to prioritize recovery.

“Our District deserves a representative who can give 100 percent of their energy to this race. Right now, I must focus on healing so that I can continue to serve our community in other ways in the future,” he said at the time.

His name remained on the ballot, and he conducted no active campaign for nearly two months. He has not publicly specified the nature of the health issues.

In a Wednesday morning phone interview with The New York Times, Armstrong said he would “do my best to represent” the district. “But I still have health issues, that’s what I’m struggling with.”

The seat was previously held by Democrat Josh Turek, who vacated it to run for U.S. Senate and defeated Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson, helping flip control of the Senate to Democrats.

Keep reading

Vance points to cause of Republican midterm disaster

Many Americans who voted Republican in the 2024 presidential election switched to the Democrats in the midterms over the war on Iran and related grievances, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said.

Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress on Tuesday, with Democrats winning House and Senate races even in traditional GOP strongholds such as Texas. In a post on X, Vance warned that some would attempt to “gaslight” the public about the outcome, even though “the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.”

The vice president pointed to a survey of voters who had backed Donald Trump and himself in 2024 but supported Democrats in the midterms. Asked what Republicans could do to regain their support, respondents gave four main answers: end the war with Iran, address the cost of living, put America first and “change our relationship with Israel.”

The US and Israel jointly attacked Iran in late February, claiming Tehran was weeks away from acquiring nuclear weapons. The decision contradicted Trump’s campaign promise not to start new wars and was widely criticized as prioritizing Israeli interests over American ones. The unresolved conflict has cost Washington tens of billions of dollars in direct military spending and disrupted global energy markets, driving up prices in the US.

Vance also praised Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy, endorsing her advice to end the war with Iran and defending her against critics who had accused her of anti-Semitism.

Keep reading

If You Lie to Voters About Not Starting a New War, the Voters Make You Pay

American voters have a long memory for one particular kind of broken promise. Tell them you will keep their sons out of a foreign war, then march them into one, and they will eventually send you a bill. In 1920 the Democrats paid it. On Tuesday, the Republicans did.

On election night 2024, Donald Trump told a cheering crowd, “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.” Fifteen months later came Operation Epic Fury. Eight months after that, CBS News projects that Democrats will take both the House and the Senate. JD Vance, never one to bury the lede, summed it up on X: “The reason we lost is the war.”

Woodrow Wilson would have understood. He ran in 1916 on a slogan that a century of history teachers have never let anyone forget.

He kept us out of war, briefly

“He kept us out of war” carried Wilson to a narrow second term in November 1916. The voters took it as a pledge. It lasted about a month into his second term. On April 2, 1917, Wilson went before Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Germany. Congress obliged four days later.

What followed was not what the brochure promised. The draft came. So did the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which made criticizing the war a good way to land in prison. More than 100,000 Americans died in uniform. At home, prices soared.

The voters started sending invoices early. In October 1918, Wilson publicly asked them to return a Democratic Congress as a vote of confidence. They returned a Republican one instead, in both chambers. Then came the hangover: the Senate’s rejection of Wilson’s League of Nations, his stroke in the fall of 1919, a wave of strikes, the Red Scare and a sharp postwar slump.

In 1920 the Democrats nominated James Cox, with a young Franklin Roosevelt as his running mate. The Republicans nominated Warren Harding, a man of no particular distinction who promised a “return to normalcy.” Harding took about 60 percent of the popular vote and 404 electoral votes to Cox’s 127. It was the most lopsided popular-vote margin of its era. Voters were not endorsing Harding so much as firing Wilson’s war.

No more wars, he said

Trump did not have a slogan as tidy as Wilson’s. He had something better: a promise repeated so often that it became the soundtrack of the 2024 campaign. At the Republican convention he boasted, “I don’t have wars.” At a Pennsylvania rally that August he said, “we will have no more wars.” On election night it was “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.” At his inauguration he said success would be measured partly by the wars America never gets into.

Then, on February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel went to war with Iran. Hormuz closed. Brent crude was still around $110 this week, about 50 percent above where it sat before the war. Every voter who filled a tank this year got a reminder.

By June, Trump had found a new position on his old promise. “I didn’t guarantee no war,” he told NBC. CNN’s fact-checkers helpfully listed the times he had done precisely that. Voters were not persuaded either. In a Fox News poll in September, more than 60 percent called the war the wrong decision and 71 percent said the administration lacked a clear strategy for ending it. Trump’s approval going into Election Day averaged about 38 percent.

Tuesday was the bill. CBS projects Democrats will hold somewhere between 251 and 268 House seats and at least 54 in the Senate. James Talarico beat Ken Paxton in Texas. Sherrod Brown is back in Ohio. Troy Jackson took Susan Collins’s seat in Maine. Vance blamed the war. Trump, asked about it, said it was “largely true” that the war cost Republicans seats. Then he blamed the gas prices instead, as though they had arrived from another planet. As for the war itself, Trump’s explanation was “You have no choice.”

Keep reading

Meaningless Midterms in Terms of Liberty

To grasp the meaninglessness of the midterm elections in terms of liberty, let’s consider some of the important pro-liberty positions that did not get discussed by Republicans and Democrats in the races for U.S. House and U.S. Senate:

1. Open borders. There was never any discussion about open borders, which is the only solution to America’s lifelong immigration morass. The entire discussion was about how to manage and reform the federal government’s decades-old, deadly, and destructive immigration-control system and the nationwide immigration police state that comes with it. Every candidate had a “plan” for making this tyrannical system finally work.

2. The drug war. There was no discussion on legalizing all drugs and bringing an end to the federal government’s lifelong deadly war on drugs and the drug-war police state that has contributed to the destruction of liberty and privacy of the American people. There was no condemnation of the Pentagon’s drug-war assassinations of people who have never been convicted of a drug offense. Any discussion about the drug war, at most, involved legalizing marijuana.

3. The welfare state, especially Social Security and Medicare, which are the crown jewels of American socialism. No discussion on the immediate repeal of all welfare-state programs. Instead, every candidate had a “plan” for saving and reforming the welfare state.

4. The national-security state — i.e., the Pentagon, the vast military-intelligence establishment, the ever-growing army of fat-cat “defense” contractors, the CIA, and the NSA. No discussion about dismantling this omnipotent governmental apparatus and restoring America’s founding system of a limited-government republic. All we heard was the standard militarist claptrap about a “strong national defense” and a “well-armed America” to protect us from the scary official bogeymen, including illegal immigrants, drug dealers, terrorists, communists, Russia, Cuba, China, and others.

5. Foreign interventionism. No condemnation of the federal government’s policy of invasions, occupation, wars of aggression, sanctions, and embargoes, including the decades-old economic war on the Cuban people. Oh sure, some candidates criticized Trump’s war on Iran, but their criticism focused on its lack of success rather than on the immorality of foreign interventionism itself. There was no condemnation of the U.S. military’s deadly drug-war raid on Venezuela and the violent and deadly kidnapping of Venezuela’s ruler. That’s because Venezuela is considered a “successful” intervention. There was no condemnation of the U.S. government’s partnership with Venezuela’s tyrannical socialist-communist regime.

6. The empire of military bases. There was no condemnation of the federal government’s empire of foreign and domestic military bases, including the imperialist base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

7. There were no calls to abolish the Federal Reserve, repeal legal-tender laws, and end the government’s paper-money system. There was no advocacy of a free-market monetary system or, at the very least, of a restoration of the gold standard. Instead, candidates had their own plans for reforming the Fed in the hope that it would no longer debase people’s money.

8. There was no condemnation of America’s system of federal income taxation. There were no calls for restoring the right of people to keep everything they earn and to decide for themselves what to do with their own money.

9. There were no calls for a constitutional separation of trade and the state, which would mean a permanent end to tariffs, trade restrictions, and trade wars.

10. There were no calls to separate healthcare and the state, including the immediate abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal healthcare agencies and programs.

11. There were no calls for a constitutional separation of education and the state.

Instead, candidates offered plans, including school vouchers, for making America’s socialist system of education finally succeed.

Keep reading

Incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman Threatens Trump World After Democrats Flip the House

The incoming House Oversight Chairman threatened Trump and Trump’s circle after the Democrats flipped the House on Tuesday evening.

Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia (CA) fired off an ominous social media post.

“LAWYER UP.” Garcia said.

The Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

According to NBC, Democrats are on track to secure 248 House seats, compared to just 187 for Republicans, a massive 61-seat advantage for the Democrat Party.

Keep reading

Crazed Leftist Reportedly Assaults Turning Point Action Volunteer at Polls

An unhinged elderly man was caught on video shouting at a young Turning Point Action volunteer before appearing to backhand him at a polling place in Laconia, New Hampshire, during Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“An 18-year-old stood his ground at the polls in New Hampshire today and was assaulted for it. He stayed calm. The left got violent,” Turning Point Action, founded by slain conservative icon Charlie Kirk, said in a Tuesday X post, sharing the footage.

In the video, the elderly man angrily declared, “You have no idea who I am, so how dare you say I don’t know much?” to which the conservative volunteer calmly replied, “You haven’t presented a single statistic.”

“Neither have you!” the senior citizen shouted. “God damn! I cannot believe that bullshit! You sit there and dare to look me in the face and say I don’t know anything?”

The elderly voter then raised his middle finger toward the Turning Point Action representative’s face, adding, “That’s what I know,” before appearing to backhand the young man across the head.

“I’m out of this place. Fuck that shit! Fuck him!” the unruly elderly man can be heard shouting as he walked away.

Notably, the Turning Point Action volunteer was wearing a white hat and black hoodie, both printed with the word “FREEDOM” on them — the same attire Charlie Kirk wore on the day he was assassinated last year.

The conservative volunteer was staffing a Turning Point Action booth with his brother at the Ward 5 polling location throughout Election Day, according to a report by the Laconia Daily Sun.

Laconia Police Chief Matt Canfield told the newspaper that officers responded to the polling center at Woodland Heights Elementary School, just after 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, after receiving a report of an assault.

“We are investigating, and we will go from there,” Canfield said, adding that it remains unclear if the victim plans to press charges.

Nonetheless, police have identified the assailant and plan to interview him — though the elderly man has not yet been named.

Keep reading

Newsom Threatens President Trump and ICE Agents in Unhinged Tweetstorm

California Governor Gavin Newsom threatened President Trump and ICE agents on Tuesday as midterm elections were underway.

ICE fired off a warning to individuals who vote illegally: “If you vote illegally, we will find you. We will track you down, arrest you, and prosecute you.”

Newsom responded to ICE and threatened to arrest federal agents in an unhinged tweetstorm.

“If YOU show up to the polls illegally, we will find you. We will track you down, arrest you, and prosecute you. There will be no escape,” Newsom said to ICE.

Newsom posted another warning to “Donald Trump’s Thugs.”

In a third tweet, Newsom threatened President Trump.

On Monday evening, Newsom threatened anyone who ‘interferes’ with California’s ballot counting in an unhinged video message on the eve of the midterm elections.

Newsom slammed President Trump and warned that poll watchers who ‘meddle’ in California’s ballot counting will be hit with felonies.

“Donald Trump is trying to throw out 20,000 California ballots and intimidate election workers. Let me be clear, if you interfere with our elections, California will come for you. No presidential pardon will save you,” Newsom said.

“If you interfere with our voters, you will be prosecuted with a felony. If you tamper with our ballots, you will face justice. It doesn’t matter who gave the order. Meddle in California’s elections and California will come for you,” Newsom said.

Newsom continued, “And don’t count on a pardon. The President can’t pardon you out of California justice.”

Keep reading

Evidence Suggests Alaska’s ‘Decoy Dan’ Illegally Colluded With Democrat Dark-Money Group

Americans for Public Trust outlined in a Federal Election Commission complaint how “Decoy Dan,” a purported spoiler candidate with the same name as Alaska’s incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, may have violated federal election laws by coordinating with a dark money group. Recent reporting by The New York Times alleges that Democrat candidate Mary Pelota’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee actively recruited candidates to confuse voters and manipulate Alaska’s U.S. Senate race.

Together, this suggests a more complicated scheme to influence that race and possibly tip the balance of control of the U.S. Senate. Americans deserve answers about what happened in Alaska and whether federal election laws were in fact violated.

The New York Times reported last week that in the summer of 2025, Mary Peltola’s aides directed a staffer to search for every Dan Sullivan in Alaska. Jerid Kurtz, an operative introduced to the Peltola campaign by aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called a Peltola aide in late May to say he had just arrived in Petersburg, the hometown of Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. (“Decoy Dan”), shortly before he filed to run for Senate.

The Times describes Petersburg as “a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea.” Kurtz was not the only notable visitor that spring. Peltola held a campaign event on May 26, three days before Decoy Dan filed his candidacy. Decoy Dan denies any connection, telling KFSK, “I have not been in contact with her or her campaign.”

The Times also reported on texts in which Peltola advisers, watching a focus group, wrote, “Do we have a scheme for you.” The Peltola campaign and the DSCC deny recruiting anyone. Decoy Dan has maintained, including through his attorney in court, that his campaign is genuine.

Public discussion has largely coalesced around the view that ballot-stacking is not illegal. That view misses the bigger legal story. That story is found in Americans for Public Trust’s Sept. 8 complaint.

The complaint describes how Decoy Dan’s only known campaign consultant, who was only made known after metadata revealed her relationship with the campaign, also held a leadership role at a dark-money group that spent more than half a million dollars attacking Sen. Dan Sullivan in the three months leading up to the August primary. Holding both a role within the Decoy Dan campaign and an outside group that attacked the campaign’s primary opponent could have violated federal election rules on coordination.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Voter Shocked to Find Someone Already Voted in His Name Before He Even Got to the Polls — No Voter ID Required

Pennsylvania resident Jean Franco Urbaez arrived at his polling place in Lower Macungie Township, PA, to vote in person. To his surprise, someone had already voted in person using his identity at 8:11. Urbaez videotaped himself making the discovery until he was told he was not allowed to videotape in the polling place.

According to Urbaez, Pennsylvania has no requirement to prove a voter’s identity, making it easy to steal someone else’s vote. He explains that after he discovered someone voted using his name and address, poll workers gave him the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot. Urbaez explained that once he cast his provisional ballot, it would be up to him to argue that the person who voted using his identity while Urbaez slept this morning was not him, for HIS ballot to count.

This is obviously a completely avoidable situation. If federal law required each voter to provide a legitimate form of identification to vote, this would never have happened. No voter should walk into their polling place to vote in-person only to find out someone else had already voted for them.

Keep reading

Dearborn Poll Worker Speaking in Arabic Tells Undercover Non-Citizen He Can Vote for Senate, Just Not President

James O’Keefe has released undercover video from a Dearborn, Michigan, polling place on Election Day showing a poll worker, speaking in Arabic, telling a reporter who stated he was not a U.S. citizen that he could still vote in the U.S. Senate race, just not for president.

In the clip posted to X, the undercover journalist asks, “I’m not a U.S. citizen is that okay?” and later inquires about voting for “Abdul,” a reference to Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

The post translates the worker’s response as “Only for U.S. President you can’t vote, but the others you can.”

O’Keefe notes that under 18 U.S.C. § 611, noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections, including U.S. Senate races, subject to narrow exceptions.

Dearborn, home to one of the largest Arab-American communities in the United States, has been a focal point in the closely watched Michigan Senate contest between El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers.

Keep reading