It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, October 02, 2026
Judge Lets Lawsuit Proceed After Police Target Miami Beach Resident Who Criticized Pro-Israel Mayor
“Ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim,” wrote a federal judge.
A Miami Beach police officer questions Raquel Pacheco about a Facebook post on January 12, 2026 in Miami Beach, Florida. (Screenshots from a video by Raquel Pacheco)
A federal judge has allowed a First Amendment lawsuit to proceed against Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner after he allegedly had police sent to a resident’s house to question her over a social media post criticizing his support for Israel.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims filed on behalf of Miami Beach resident and veteran Raquel Pacheco.
Altonaga said that “ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim.”
On January 12, a pair of Miami Beach police officers showed up at Pacheco’s door to question her about a post she made on Facebook criticizing Meiner, an outspoken supporter of Israel and its military assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, including over 21,000 children.
Pacheco referred to Meiner as someone who “consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and “tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings,” referring to his attempt to have an independent theater’s lease terminated after it held screenings of No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary made by Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers about the displacement of Palestinians and demolition of homes by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
Video of the interaction shows police asking Pacheco if the post came from her account and ignoring her as she told them she would not speak to them without a lawyer.
“This is freedom of speech,” Pacheco responded. “This is America, right?”
The officers acknowledged that Pacheco was “not going to jail” and did not claim that she had threatened Meiner. One of the officers then explained that “what we’re just trying to prevent is someone else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement.”
He added that Pacheco’s statements could “probably incite somebody to do something” before telling Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that.” The officers then left and Pacheco was never charged with a crime.
Represented by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Pacheco filed a lawsuit in March alleging that Miami Beach officials had used police power to violate her First Amendment rights and deter her from criticizing the mayor and Israel. The lawsuit described it as part of a broader effort by officials to chill pro-Palestinian speech.
Emails released weeks after the incident revealed that Meiner personally flagged Pacheco’s post to police, referring to it as a “dangerous escalation. Speaking to reporters on February 4, he defended his decision to alert the cops, saying that Pacheco’s post was ”absolutely false“ and referring to it as ”age-old antisemitism.“
But Altonaga said Meiner’s statements supported Pacheco’s allegation that “her viewpoint motivated Meiner’s decision to send police to her home,” allowing her viewpoint discrimination claim against him to proceed.
The court also allowed the ADC to proceed with its claim that the City of Miami Beach itself—including the mayor and police chief—had demonstrated a broader pattern of viewpoint discrimination against pro-Palestinian speech. The lawsuit cites Meiner’s attempt to shut down the local theater, as well as its law banning government contractors from boycotting Israeli businesses, including those operating in territories illegally occupied by Israel.
It also cites Meiner and other Miami Beach officials’ repeated pattern of arguing with and cutting off Pacheco and other pro-Palestinian speakers during city commission meetings while allowing pro-Israel speakers to talk with little obstruction.
During one meeting, Meiner reduced public comments for pro-Palestinian speakers to 60 seconds when they criticized the police response to Pacheco while allowing speakers who defended the police action or criticized Pacheco’s pro-Palestine viewpoint to speak for around two minutes uninterrupted.
Jenin Younes, ADC’s president and national legal director, said Monday’s ruling was “a significant victory for Raquel Pacheco, for the First Amendment, and for all Americans who care about the right to free speech and dissent.”
“The city downplayed what happened to Ms. Pacheco as a routine police visit,” Younes said. “The court disagreed, recognizing that sending police to someone’s home to question and intimidate them over their protected political speech can itself violate the First Amendment.”
“The government does not have to arrest you, prosecute you, or formally censor you to violate the First Amendment,” he added. “The chilling effect of these actions is obvious.”
Dems Rebuke Trump’s Ultra-Rich Treasury Chief Over $910,000 in Unpaid Medicare Taxes
“Until he pays what he owes, Secretary Bessent is placing himself above the law,” said Sen. Ron Wyden.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a press conference on August 24, 2026 (Photo by Mehmet Eser/Anadolu via Getty Images)
A group of Senate Democrats on Wednesday pushed US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to pay back the nearly $1 million in Medicare payroll taxes that he reportedly owes from his years as a hedge fund manager.
In a letter to Bessent, the senators pointed to a recent court ruling clarifying the scope of a self-employment tax loophole that is widely exploited by hedge fund managers and private equity executives. During his confirmation hearing last year, Bessent cited the then-pending litigation to justify his decision not to pay $910,000 in payroll taxes he potentially owes the Internal Revenue Service, and pledged to set up a “reserve fund to address any contingency related to this issue.”
“We write to ask whether you will uphold your commitment to pay the Medicare tax you avoided during your time as a hedge fund manager in light of last week’s Second Circuit opinion about the scope of the limited partner exception,” the Senate Democrats wrote in their letter. “Your avoidance and delay tactics have already cost the Medicare trust fund hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now that the appellate court has spoken, will you use your reserve fund to pay the avoided tax?”
Bessent, who has an estimated net worth of around $500 million, currently oversees the IRS as head of the Treasury Department, and he previously served as the tax agency’s acting commissioner.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement on Wednesday that Bessent “is the highest ranking tax official in America and he is failing to lead by example by exploiting tax loopholes to avoid payroll taxes that every working American pays out of each paycheck.”
“In Trump’s America, you have to pay your fair share of taxes, but the ultra-rich like Scott Bessent get to pay what they want, when they want,” said Wyden. “Many Americans are financially struggling in Trump’s economy. Until he pays what he owes, Secretary Bessent is placing himself above the law.”
The New York Timesreported last year that “like many firms on Wall Street, Mr. Bessent’s hedge fund, Key Square Capital Management, was set up as a limited partnership.”
“Through that structure, Mr. Bessent avoided paying roughly $910,000 in Medicare taxes on money he made running his hedge fund in 2021, 2022, and 2023,” the Times reported, citing a memo prepared by Democratic Senate staffers ahead of Bessent’s confirmation hearing. “Mr. Bessent’s decision to not pay the additional tax has now put him in the unusual spot of personally opposing—and having a personal stake in—how the IRS interprets tax law. And since he took office, the Treasury and IRS have backed away from developing regulations to address it.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Department of Defense's FY27 budget request on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board had scorn for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's bizarre speech boasting about how his military only had "warriors," rather than "beardos," "weirdos," or slurs for transgender people.
Hegseth, wrote the board, "rolled out several good U.S. military initiatives on Wednesday, and usually the purpose of big speeches is to persuade the public of worthy ideas. Yet Mr. Hegseth seems determined to shrink his support with gratuitous potshots, and that bears on whether the Administration can boost recruitment or confront new technology in warfare."
Many of the things Hegseth talked about are decent, the board wrote, like a program for recruiting officers out of schools — even if the focus is intensely on right-wing schools like Liberty University and Hillsdale College — as well as plans to establish a four-star command for autonomous weaponry.
However, the board said, Hegseth "couldn’t resist his usual polarizing attack routine against all and sundry, and he even accused the press of 'treason' for publishing what’s leaking out of the secretary’s shop. The most remembered line of the speech will be Mr. Hegseth’s declaration that the U.S. military no longer abides 'beardos' or 'weirdos.' As a practical matter, has he met anyone in defense technology lately?"
The fact is, said the board, "voters wanted the Trump Administration to restore and protect the military’s meritocracy, after race and identity excesses in the Biden Administration," something Hegseth promises to do, but now "his shoot-first firings of general officers have exasperated even some Republican Members of Congress, and the public is losing confidence in the project as it descends into debates about testosterone levels."
Ultimately, the board concluded, "Mr. Hegseth relishes attacking opponents, and even sometimes allies, as if he’s running a political campaign. But he’s a cabinet officer who needs allies to achieve his military goals."
Hegseth mocked for 'not achieving full extension' after speech about troop fitness
Kasie Hunt and retired Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson on "The Arena." (Screengrab via CNN)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s fixation on military fitness became a punchline when a retired lieutenant general was asked to evaluate his own workout form.
CNN’s Kasie Hunt noted Wednesday that Hegseth has repeatedly stressed physical fitness standards and cited an assessment in The Atlantic that described his push-ups as more like “half-ups.”
Hunt then played several clips of Hegseth working out on camera and asked retired Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson whether he was performing the exercises correctly.
“The kettlebell, not so much,” Hunt joked as laughter broke out on the CNN set of her show, “The Arena.”
“The pull-up is like this, not like this. Yes? No?” Hunt asked while mimicking the movement.
Gibson agreed that Hegseth’s form appeared incomplete.
“Well, he’s not achieving full extension of his arms or the joint there,” she said.
But Gibson quickly shifted to a broader point about Hegseth’s emphasis on physical fitness.
“I think every soldier should be fit. That’s really important,” she said. “But his fixation on some specific exercises is not the quality that makes the U.S. military so incredibly lethal and powerful.”
“There are lots of other things that make a good soldier,” Gibson added.
Alarm as Hegseth gives mega MAGA donors a say in future of warfare: 'Feels different now'
FILE PHOTO: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shakes hands with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff US Air Force General Dan Caine as he returns to his seat after his remarks at a ceremony in remembrance of US military prisoners of war and those missing in action (POW/MIA) at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth alarmed some analysts Thursday after he announced he was inviting a few private citizens to collaborate with the Defense Department on the future of warfare.
Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, and Palmer Luckey, founder of drone company Anduril, have been given advisory roles in a Pentagon project about the future of war, The Guardian reported. The project, known as “Project Meridian," seeks to develop new weapons of war for different terrain ranging from outer space to subterranean.
The inclusion of private citizens in defense contracting is nothing new, but Brendan Glavin at Open Secrets noted in the report that the motley crew Hegseth has gathered raises some important questions.
“Bringing major industry players into these types of positions at the Pentagon is not something new, but what feels different now is the substantial financial support these two have, and continue to, deliver for the Republican Party,” Glavin told The Guardian.
Musk was one of the largest donors to President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, spending an estimated $250 million to help elect the president. Musk's companies have also been deeply wedded to some of the Trump administration's pet projects, such as the Department of Government Efficiency and the so-called "golden dome" missile defense project.
Luckey's company is also supported by the venture capital firm run by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to the report.
Luckey has also been dubbed the "godfather of Republican fundraising on the West Coast," according to the report.
"Invitations to political fundraisers obtained by the Guardian show Luckey hosted and co-hosted events for candidates from Trump himself to Ken Calvert, Rick Scott, Mehmet Oz, Ted Cruz and others. The most recent event was on 22 August, where he and his wife co-hosted a $50,000-a-head effort to 'Keep the Senate,' and listing guests John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Rogers of Michigan, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Jon Husted of Ohio," the report reads in part.
‘Best Minds’? Hegseth Taps Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich to Lead ‘Future of Warfare’ Project
“A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military,” said one observer. “What could possibly go wrong?”
Palmer Luckey (left), Newt Gingrich (center), and Elon Musk (right) look on during US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “State of the Force” speech—in which the trio was announced as leaders of the “future of warfare” initiative—at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on September 30, 2026. (Photo by Sean Parnell/X)
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that three men—none of whom have served in the military and two who make billions of dollars from it—will help lead a new Pentagon project on the “future of warfare,” even as he moves to eliminate hundreds of senior armed service leadership position, including many generals and admirals.
Hegseth unveiled Project Meridian during his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The 120-day initiative will examine emerging technologies that the Department of Defense believes will be critical in future warfare.
“America’s best minds” will be brought together to “reimagine what warfare will look like in the future,” Hegseth said.
To that end, the defense secretary said that “Project Meridian will be co-led by three of our nation’s best minds, Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich.”
Musk, the world’s wealthiest human, is already deeply involved in US national security infrastructure through SpaceX—the recipient of billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts—and other businesses. He was previously part of the administration as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.
Luckey, who like Musk is a major Trump donor, is the co-founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries. Last year, he said that Anduril planned to produce “large numbers” of cruise missiles, fighter jets, and other artificial intelligence-powered weapons systems.
“If we have to fight Iran, and China, and Russia all at the same time, we are screwed,” Luckey said in pushing for more arms production.
Gingrich is a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives who had been pushing for war with Iran since at least 2005. Like President Donald Trump, he has been accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War by receiving numerous deferments; in Trump’s case for bone spurs, and for Gingrich because he was a student and a father.
“Those three great Americans are going to be joined by a team of senior leaders, hand-picked private sector leaders, and subject matter experts from across our nation’s unmatched innovation, academic, and policy ecosystems,” said Hegseth—whose Senate confirmation last year was so contentious due to concerns about him being unfit for office that it required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance.
The defense secretary also announced the creation of an Autonomous Warfare Command—or Autowarcom—“a new four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force.”
The appointments come as Hegseth simultaneously pursues a major reduction in the military’s senior leadership. He announced Wednesday that the Pentagon would eliminate 20% of its roughly 800 general and admiral positions by January—doubling a previously announced 10% reduction. Hegseth described the cuts as necessary to eliminate “redundant force structure” and “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”
The reductions follow the removal or early departure of more than two dozen senior military and civilian defense officials since Hegseth became defense secretary.
The contrast has drawn criticism from lawmakers and military observers, who expressed alarm at the prospect of removing experienced officers while handing an influential role in planning future war to warfare technology executives and a hawkish former lawmaker who is no longer accountable to the public.
“Interesting. A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military,” NewBlue USA executive Marty Taylor said on social media. “What could possibly go wrong?”
Patriotic Cowboys ‘R Us
Warfighter-obsessed Pete Kegsbreath Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Sidestepping his debacle of a war, “smug pathetic little man,” warfighter fetishist and Gen.-Patton-cosplaying clown Pete Hegseth just gave a blustering speech before troops In a “hyper-macho freak show” to announce he’s cutting forces, starting several senseless new programs, and proclaiming, “We are no longer the woke (or) weak department...No fatties, trannies, beardos, weirdos, wimps, radicals. Just warriors.” Appalled consensus on the yahoo “turning the military into a frat house”: “What a dick.”
Perhaps due to his low-rent credentials as a weekend TV host at Fox - and a history of drunkenness, adultery, sexual assault and on-the-job incompetence so sordid he needed JD’s tie-breaking vote to get his job - Hegseth has built a sloppy, fragile “Department of Defensiveness” focused on shaping a narrative and persona to his liking - one based on paranoia, distrust, dysfunction, lies and frequent purges of those deemed disloyal. From his make-up studio to his press strictures to his blunders - Signalgate, the war, its first day’s war crimes - Pete’s spent an inordinate amount of time covering his ass and overcompensating for his failures. “He’s just a true believer in way over his head, the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect,” said one DOD employee. “Generally, we consider him a joke, a deeply unqualified clown.”
Still, with men reportedly fleeing MAGA, their need to “pump up that masculine animus” is well-served by Pete’s juvenile, chest-pounding, lethality-obsessed focus on testosterone in the name of a “High-T Department of War” that has “nothing to do with science and everything to do with regressive ideas of what masculinity is.” The same idiocy fuels all the culture war malevolence: Banning books, gutting DEI initiatives - “Diversity is not our strength” - blocking promotions for women and Blacks, a “no more dudes and dresses” transphobia, and ending tenure for civilian professors at military academies ‘cause who needs to protect independent thinkers, scholars, leaders, experts from “the tyranny of a government that actively hates its critics,” the “mindset of someone who has learned nothing (from) American military failures.”
And so to another cringey, Strangelovian “State of the Force Address,” which was not a thing until a TV bobblehead took over the military and turned it into bumbling amateur-hour theater. Last year, he summoned nearly 800 generals, admirals, advisors from around the world, all smarter and higher-ranking than him, to rant about beards and “fat troops,” tell them they “kill people and break things for a living,” and prattle about a 10% cut in their numbers by “removing redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership.” When he paused for applause, there was only deep silence. Maybe because a Joint Chiefs chairman, two service chiefs, two intelligence directors, several generals and the better part of the Army’s senior leadership “were told to run faster by a weekend television host.”
On Wednesday, he gathered about 600 officers and enlisted members, again at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia, for another speech. In the weeks leading up to his latest dash of show business, The Wall Street Journal reported, he emailed commanders asking them to nominate troops to attend. They had to “fit certain physical standards,” he wrote, to have the proper height/weight ratio, with “impeccable grooming: ”I want central casting.“ If they were hot enough, he added, as a bonus some would have ”the opportunity“ to join him in a hot and sweaty dawn work-out at the Pentagon. Totally normal! And luckily, a camera crew was there to follow them on a chanting, banner-bearing run through D.C. To make them look even cooler, he gave them all t-shirts that read, ”This Is War.“ Or at least off-off Broadway.
Later, before a giant American flag, he dropped the hammer in a campy speech many compared to SNL’s Colin Jost doing Pete Hegseth, or Tom Cruise’s braying misogynist in Magnolia, or George C. Scott’s Gen. Patton “minus the inspiration.” Under his “less generals, more GIs” mandate - though it’s “fewer” not less - he said he was doubling the previous cut of 10% of high-ranking personnel to 20% with, wrote Tom Wellborn, “the confidence of a man who has looked at the most powerful armed force in the world and concluded its central weakness was the number of people in it who outrank a major,” what he was. Months into a disastrous war, “That is the force Pete Hegseth has built by subtraction. What it has lost is (what) a general is for, which is to be the person in the room who says no, and (he) has made sure, one firing at a time, there is nobody left in the room to say it.”
“The media calls that a purge,” blustered Hegseth, evidently expecting criticism. “I call it accountability. As usual, what the media levels as an accusation, I wear as an accomplishment.” He haughtily went on to “lay it out simply for the anti-American losers in our media...We are no longer the woke department, or the weak department. Simple translation? No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors.” On coverage of the war and eight attempted suicides on the USS Lincoln, he slammed “disingenuous headlines about deployment lengths, false claims of low troop morale or flat-out propaganda as if it’s written by our adversaries.” “The information space is a battle space,” he said. “The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in.” Smirking, he added,.“With testosterone testing on top.” Jesus, dude.
He also announced several new programs with fancy warlike names like Fortress America and Autonomous War Command or AutoWarCom, a “four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities,” and “The Next Great American Base,” the first new military base in 40 years, with all 50 states “invited to bid for it like an Amazon headquarters,” and “America’s Corps of Cadets, creating new college partnerships with right-wing Liberty University and Hillsdale College, plus Louisiana State, Mississippi, Tuskegee Universities, to increase the number of ”patriotic leaders of character“ and counter ”anti-American, DEI-worshiping woke factories,“ aka the Ivy League schools Hegseth attended.
There’s the bonkers Project Meridian to study “the future of warfare,” headed by “three of our nation’s best minds” - two tech fat cats and one 83-year-old MAGA hawk - none of whom have served in the military, two of whom have made fortunes from it. Cue Elon Musk, a gonzo rocket salesman with billions in Pentagon contracts, GOP pol Newt Gingrich, who got almost as many deferments as Trump during the Vietnam War, and Palmer Luckey, MAGA donor, self-proclaimed “radical Zionist” and founder of tech company Anduril - “three great Americans to help plan the next war with three people who have never been in one,” what could possibly go wrong?“ From a military Reddit: ”Is this real?“, ”Yes master code-monkey, infosec ninja, and tech infrastructure guru Newt Gingrich age 83. Our enemies are so fuct bro!“ and ”Oh fuck this fucking Nazi-loving fuck outta here.“
There’s a new Office of Religious Affairs for a DOD “putting on the full armor of God” to “strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters,” aka “do the Lord’s work to improve smiting capacity,” because, “while we wage physical war, the real battle is spiritual.” (Maybe why the Pentagon’s covering up not-real casualties?) It’s “voluntary,” which skeptics say is akin to being “voluntold” to do things. Finally, as a party favor, troops were given a new 144-page “field manual” of transcripts of Hegseth speeches. Its forward is by Trump, in classic Trumpese. “As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not ask you to fight dumb Wars,” it reads. “I will unleash you to be violent, lethal and unstoppable - and I will always have your back. Godspeed, Great Warriors. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Along with other regime Nazis, crackpots and fools, theories abound as to what the fuck is wrong with Pete Hegseth. Many argue he’s afflicted with the common sickness of countless, soulless, mediocre white men who know, deep inside, they have risen further than they deserve to. Hence, the bottomless need to be subservient to a monster like Trump (who is too mad to know that) to maintain their place and value in a white guy patriarchy, to always understand “who they get to abuse, and who they are supposed to take abuse from,” and to remain within that vaunted structure, the only one where they have power and respect, by continuing to rule over those they’ve been taught are beneath them. It’s also why, conversely, they freak out when their vital slot is threatened: See Hegseth’s frantic lie detectors at any sign of leaking, mocking, saying no.
Hegseth seems particularly despised by Americans, many of whom eagerly await his war crimes trial, his impeachment,, his rapturing - hopefully first in line, though maybe behind Goebbels/Miller. The concrete damage done by his legacy - the calamitous war, hollowing of the military’s promotion chain, lethality-tinged dumbing down of its intellectual infrastructure and exploitation of those serving - will presumably take years to repair. But people hate him just as much for his personal failings: his gross unfitness and incompetence, his swaggering “Jr High Machismo,” the Nazi-adjacent arrogance of “this nose-powdering drunk,” the lying, preening chutzpah of the military’s worst-ever leader consistently “acting like a 19-year-old edgelord loser,” like “a dipshit,” “an asshole,” “an absolute tinydick in every goddamn way.”
Several truly obnoxious moments of his state-of-the-empire speech ignited that animus. His attack on media who do their job and tell the truth about him began with a lame nod to the First Amendment - “A free press is of course important” - that veered to a diatribe: “But partisan activism that intentionally smears the troops and the historic mission they are undertaking (is) anti-American. It’s sick. It’s a national betrayal. It’s treason, actually...It has to be said.” Umm, not, said America: “Secretary of Dewar’s doesn’t get he’s the only one getting smeared, not the troops,” “I love the free press until they say words I don’t like in which case I call them traitors and want them killed,” “Bro, they’re not shitting on the troops, just you,” “It’s called free speech, fucknut. The thing your troops are supposed to defend,” “The mission of our military has become historic only in the degree of its absurdity.”
Then there was a pitiful, fitness-instructor-like defense of his bullying of troops: “Telling someone to get in shape or shave or fix their uniform or start busting their ass - that’s not discrimination. That’s leadership.” Fact: Actually, it’s neither. It’s stupid, shallow, beside-the-point bullying. Many argued it’s just “being a dick” and “an asshole.” That he should “tell his boss to get in shape and start busting his ass.” That it’s weird how he “doesn’t get to the part where he actually discriminates.” That leadership is “inspiring, being an example, not getting your nation into an illegal war, losing it in days and committing war crimes.” That he’s “a drunk, vain, adulterous rapist with ridiculous sideburns.” That it’s “stunning in an awful way a man his age is so immature.” That “this motherfucker is waaay out over his skis.” And damn, more fucking patriotic cowboys is the last thing we need thanks.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks at the Republican National Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, U.S., September 10, 2026. REUTERS/Callaghan O'Hare
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) ties to Elon Musk show what happens when Republicans control every lever of state power, a legal analyst warned.
Lawyer and journalist Katie Phang made the case in a Thursday video for her YouTube channel while interviewing Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic state representative challenging Abbott in November.
Phang pointed to what she called "a very suspicious, almost, I'd say, scratching of the back happening between Abbott and Elon Musk," citing state grants and tax breaks that have flowed to the billionaire's companies. She said Starlink received $110 million upfront from the Texas Broadband Office and that SpaceX landed a tax break shortly after Musk gave half a million dollars to Abbott's reelection campaign.
The arrangement, Phang argued, is the product of one-party rule.
"Texas state politics has been what I call a power trifecta," she said. "Just like on the national level in D.C., just like in my home state of Florida, your state house, your state senate, and your governor's mansion, all run by the GOP, all run by Republicans. And so if the state of affairs in the state of play is woefully, sadly miserable, there's only one party to blame, and that's the Republicans."
She added, "There is no daylight between Greg Abbott and the billionaires," and asked Hinojosa why she "thought it was important to expose this type of backscratching."
Hinojosa has sent the governor's office a public records request for Abbott's communications with Musk. She said a state broadband contract was rewritten to Musk's benefit just before awards went out. According to Hinojosa, the head of the broadband office told lawmakers at a hearing this summer that the terms changed "because the governor's office made a phone call and told us to change it."
"Before that, Elon Musk was given the keys to the castle," Hinojosa said, referring to Musk's authority to close a public beach.
Bernie Sanders Going Back to California to Rally for Billionaire Tax Ballot Measure
The democratic socialist senator said he’s returning to the Golden State “to demand that billionaires finally pay their fair share and help elect strong progressives to Congress.”
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at the Billionaire Tax Now rally on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
US Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to rally in California this weekend with Reps. Ro Khanna and Aisha Wahab in support of Proposition 40, a November ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of the state’s billionaires to fund healthcare and education amid historic cuts to social spending by President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Sanders (I-Vt.) announced the upcoming appearances Monday on social media as the Prop 40 campaign enters its final weeks, with billionaire opponents pouring millions of dollars into efforts to defeat it.
In San Francisco on Saturday and Los Angeles next Monday, Sanders will headline “Ballots Over Billionaires” rallies hosted by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, which led the introduction of the voter initiative.
Sanders will be joined in San Francisco and Los Angeles by Khanna (D-Calif.) and Jane Kim, a progressive candidate for California insurance commissioner and former San Francisco supervisor who was the state and regional political director for Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign. Sanders won California’s Democratic primary that year.
“Sen. Bernie Sanders is a champion for working people, and I’m honored to have his support in the final stretch of our campaign as we rally for affordability and insurance for all,” Kim told Inside California Politics.
On Sunday, Sanders is also scheduled to speak at a canvass launch with Wahab (D-Calif.) in Livermore before heading south to Bakersfield, where he is hosting a Fighting Oligarchy rally with special guest Randy Villegas, the Democratic nominee for California’s 22nd Congressional District.
“On November 3rd, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the people of California will decide whether to pass a 5% wealth tax on more than 200 billionaires in California who are worth $2.2 trillion,” Sanders said in a recent social media post. “Proposition 40 would raise enough revenue to prevent 3 million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have as a result of Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill.”
“Last year, these billionaires became $500 billion richer,” he continued. “As a result of a rigged tax code, they pay a lower effective tax rate than a plumber or a nurse. The greed of these billionaires is really extraordinary.”
“Instead of paying their fair share of taxes, billionaires are now spending $229 million—0.01% of their wealth—to oppose a 5% tax on their wealth,” Sanders added.
Prop 40 may be the most hotly contested measure on California’s midterm ballot. The initiative enjoys strong support from California progressives but is opposed not only by billionaires and their interests but also by outgoing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom—who is widely believed to be preparing to run for president—and both candidates running to succeed him as governor, Democratic former US secretary of health and human servicesXavier Becerra and Republican commentator Steve Hilton.
Billionaire-backed opposition has intensified as November’s midterms approach. Building a Better California, funded by Silicon Valley billionaires including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, has put millions of dollars into the fight against Prop 40.
Recent polling from the Public Policy Institute of California showed Prop 40 narrowly leading 52%-46%.
“Let’s be clear: These billionaires have more money than they could spend in over 100 lifetimes,” Sanders said last week. “How many mansions do they need? How many yachts do they need? How many private jets do they need?”
“I say to the billionaire class: Control your greed,” the senator added. “Show a bit of compassion to working families and their kids in California.”
These 22 California Billionaires Don’t Want to Pay Their Fair Share
A small segment of the state’s 200-plus billionaires has stepped up to oppose Prop 40, a ballot proposal to tax billionaires, contributing millions to opposition groups and vocally speaking out against the one-time fee.
Entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel visits “FOX & Friends” at Fox News Channel Studios on August 09, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images)
On November 3, 2026, California voters will vote on Proposition 40, a one-time 5% levy on the net worth of billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, with the remainder set aside for food assistance and education.
A small segment of the state’s 200-plus billionaires has stepped up to oppose Prop 40, contributing millions to opposition groups and vocally speaking out against the one-time fee.
Thiel’s wealth is 10,759 times the median wealth of a Californian household.
On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion.
In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%.
Just to be clear, these “snowflake billionaires” are whining, wailing, and donating money to fight a tax that would effectively require them to part with one-eighth of the wealth they’ve gained since January 1, 2025.
This group includes Google’s Sergey Brin who has been the single largest opposition donor, chipping in over $102 million to fight Prop 40. Brin has seen his wealth grow a whopping 70% in the last 20 months, from $148 billion on January 1, 2025 to $253 billion on September 1, 2026. Brin’s wealth is 83,498 times the median wealth of a Californian household, which is $303,000.
Palantir’s Peter Thiel gave $3 million to the No on 40 campaign and has called on other billionaires to move out of California. In the last 20 months, Thiel’s wealth increased a whopping 120.27%, from $14.8 billion on January 1, 2025 to $32.6 billion on September 1, 2026 (Forbes). Thiel’s wealth is 10,759 times the median wealth of a Californian household.
Chris Larsen, founder of cryptocurrency firm Ripple, has given over $5 million to the No on Prop 40 Campaign, along with another $5 million from Ripple and $12 million to Building a Better California. His personal wealth increased 23.5%, from $10.2 billion to $12.6 billion in the last 20 months. His wealth is 4,158 times the wealth of the median California family.
Venture capitalist John Doerr gave $10 million to No On 40. In the last 20 months, Doerr’s wealth increased 47.97%, from $14.8 billion on January 1, 2025 to $21.9 billion on September 1, 2026. Doerr’s wealth is 7,227 times the median wealth of a Californian household.
Three of the 20 saw their wealth decline over this 20-month period: Tony Xu, Marc Pincus, and Marco DeGeorge. But most have experienced substantial gains.
California Billionaires vs. the Median California Household
The number of billionaires in California has grown, with their average wealth remaining roughly between $9.1 to $9.4 billion. As of September 1, 2026, the 231 billionaires identified as living in California have a combined wealth of $2.117 trillion. Just 20 months ago, there were 178 billionaires in California with a combined wealth of $1.685 trillion.
To show how quickly billionaire wealth has accelerated since the pandemic, let’s go back in time six years. In early 2020, all 815 billionaires residing in the United States had a combined wealth of $2.9 trillion, only slightly more than what the 231 California billionaires have today in 2026.
Meanwhile, the median net worth of a California household has risen a marginal 5.2% increasing $15,000 from $288,000 in 2025 to $303,000 in 2026. A Californian with $1 billion dollars in wealth has 303 times the wealth of the median California household.
Under Prop 40, this billionaire will pay a one-time tax of $50 million to support healthcare, education, and food assistance for their fellow Californians leaving them $950 million to survive on.
The Under-Taxed California Billionaire
In California, the state’s 231 billionaires (as of Sept 1, 2026) hold approximately $2.117 trillion in wealth ($2.3 trillion as of Sept 22, 2026) and pay incredibly low taxes on their riches.
According to an analysis published by economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, from 2019 to 2025, while California billionaires’ wealth grew an average of over 15% per year, they paid, on average, just 0.26% of their wealth annually in state income taxes. Sergey Brin and Larry Page paid just 0.07% of their wealth annually in California income tax during that period. I guess we can see why they don’t want anything to change.
This analysis was prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies and Tax the Ultra-Rich Now (TURN). More detailed dossiers will be available soon. Press release HERE. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Chuck Collins Chuck Collins is co-founder of CARP and author of Burned by Billionaires: How Concentrated Wealth and Power are Ruining Our Lives and Planet. Full Bio >
‘I Know Where I Want to Live’: Ex-Venture Capitalist Explains Why He’d Be Happy to Pay California Billionaire Tax
“I believe it’s a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride. Our tax system favors wealthy people, and the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it.”
An attendee holds a sign before the start of a rally led by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the campaign kickoff for the California Billionaire Tax Act at the Wiltern in Los Angeles on February 18, 2026. (Photo by Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)
As some of California’s richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he’s not alone.
John O’Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state’s November midterm ballot.
O’Farrell’s argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
“I know where I want to live,” he wrote.
“I’ve been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I’m not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle,” O’Farrell said. “I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also.”
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United HealthcareWorkers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
“I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing,” O’Farrell said in his thread. “To be honest, I can’t understand it. They have so much money they couldn’t spend it in multiple lifetimes.”
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, “with more rolling in every day,” as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
“These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us,” Collins noted. “On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%.”
O’Farrell’s social media thread pointed out how “our tax system favors wealthy people.”
“I believe it’s a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride,” he wrote, adding, “the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it.”
“Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest,” he contended. “What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?”
“One enables the pursuit of happiness for all,” he concluded. “The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth.”
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O’Farrell isn’t the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
How Much Is Trump’s Senseless Iran War Costing Americans Personally?
To be clear, this isn’t the cost of the weapons and soldiers fighting the war, which the Pentagon estimates to be around $44 billion. This is the higher cost you’re paying to fill up your gas tank and to buy products that cost more to move. A truck with an image of US President Donald Trump and rising gas prices drives past during a rally for Al Quds Day on March 13, 2026 in New York City. (Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images)
Affordability is getting worse, especially if you have to drive to work or anywhere else.
By late September, the total cost of the higher gas and diesel prices triggered by President Donald Trump’s war against Iran exceeded $103 billion, according to my organization’s analysis of the federal government’s energy data. And those higher prices aren’t showing any sign of slowing. If current trends hold, the price tag by the end of this year will approach $180 billion.
For the average household, that comes out to $750 extra so far, and that figure is on pace to top $1,300 by year’s end.
If life feels more expensive today, that’s because it is.
For a family of four with two drivers, those costs are even higher, topping $1,000 already and slated to be over $1,700 by the end of the year if the war continues. Our interactive tool, online at itep.org/iran-war-fuel-cost, lets you punch in your region and household size to get a sense of how much your family’s costs are rising.
To be clear, this isn’t the cost of the weapons and soldiers fighting the war, which the Pentagon estimates to be around $44 billion. This is the higher cost you’re paying to fill up your gas tank and to buy products that cost more to move.
In a normal year, fall is when drivers get some reprieve at the pump. As summer travel winds down, demand for gas falls, and prices should fall too. But not in 2026.
According to AAA, Americans have never paid this much for gas at this time of year. The national average gas price is $4.47 per gallon as of this writing, and a growing number of states are seeing average prices top $5 per gallon.
Equally troubling is the sky-high price of diesel fuel, which has hit record highs this year and now stands at $6.45 per gallon. When diesel prices rise, the cost of making and shipping products rises too. While most of us don’t buy diesel fuel ourselves, this raises the cost of everything else, bumping up the high rate of inflation we’ve already been seeing.
These soaring fuel costs hurt businesses, local governments, and families.
Businesses have had to shell out $48 billion extra for motor fuel this year, mostly on diesel, because of the Iran War.
Local governments also feel the squeeze. Higher fuel prices make it more expensive to operate school buses, garbage trucks, construction equipment, fire trucks, police cars, and other vehicles and machinery. So far this year our local and state governments have had to pay over $2.7 billion extra for fuel because of the Iran War, and we expect that figure to top $4 billion by the close of the year. This expense, of course, ultimately falls on local taxpayers.
These expenses come on top of other new costs for households like rising interest rates, the Trump administration’s widespread tariffs on products you buy every day, and high healthcare prices, made worse by cuts to government programs like food assistance and Obamacare.
If life feels more expensive today, that’s because it is. The higher price you’re paying for gas because of the Iran War isn’t the whole reason for that. But it sure doesn’t help.
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Amy Hanauer Amy Hanauer joined ITEP in 2020, bringing nearly 30 years of experience working to create economic policy that advances social justice. As executive director of both ITEP and Citizens for Tax Justice, Amy provides vision and leadership to promote fair and equitable state and national tax policy. Full Bio >
