British Magazines don't miss.

Most Kansans are quiet & humble. This is awkward. #ksleg

THINGS MY PRESIDENT TELLS ME "In the Biden administration, they got less than $1 trillion of new investment. So think of it, in four years, about half $1 trillion. But in the first 15 months, we did $21 trillion of new investment." Donald Trump, San Antonio, Texas, October 7, 2026 The accompanying chart shows real private nonresidential fixed investment, in billions of inflation-adjusted dollars. The values as delivered by the U.S. government are expressed as an annual rate. During the Biden years, investment ranged from annual rates of $3 trillion to $3.5 trillion, totalling just over $13 trillion total. During the first six quarters of the Trump administration, investment continued to rise, reaching an annual rate of $4 trillion. The total, so far, is about $5.7 trillion. So Trump's claim of investment during the Biden administration is false. His claim of investment in his own is speculative, based on events that may not happen. The chart reflects genuine American economic strength, but interpreting it as proof of a uniquely successful Trump economic policy - or as a Biden failure - would go beyond what the data establish.

Hard-On for Putin, Tough on Ukraine Look at the graphic above and read down each column. On the left is how the Trump administration has treated Vladimir Putin, the man who launched the largest war in Europe since 1945. On the right is how it has treated Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the duly-elected leader of the democratic country Putin invaded. Hold the two side by side and the pattern is obvious. The aggressor gets stroked. The victim gets ultimatums and threats. This week highlights the pattern. Trump strokes villainy and abuses our allies. substack.com/@avindman/note/…

FACT CHECK: Kansas Republican Party Chair’s Defense of Roger Marshall and Attacks on Adam Hamilton @KansasGOP | @KansasDems | @RogerMarshallMD | @Hamilton4Kansas Source: Danedri Herbert, chair of the Kansas Republican Party. “Kansas RNC: Kansas Knows the Difference Between a Cover Story and a Record.” Wichita Eagle, October 18, 2026. Overall verdict: MIXED — Several accurate facts, significant omissions, misleading claims, and political attacks presented as factual conclusions. Claim Being Fact-Checked Herbert argues that Republican Senator Roger Marshall has demonstrated effective leadership for Kansas farmers, rural communities, and families, while Democratic challenger Adam Hamilton has concealed his political beliefs and demonstrated poor judgment. Summary The op-ed contains genuine accomplishments and accurately reported facts, particularly regarding agricultural endorsements and federal rural-health funding. However, it exaggerates certain achievements, misrepresents the elimination of the estate tax, omits substantial policy consequences, and presents politically motivated interpretations of Hamilton's record as established facts. The most serious allegations concern Hamilton's handling of child sexual abuse reports at his church. Those allegations have a factual basis, but their full chronology and context matter. Analysis: Accuracy, Sources, and Related Fact-Checks 1. Kansas cattle production VERDICT: TRUE, WITH A QUALIFICATION Herbert states that Kansas raises approximately 5.8 million cattle. The USDA reports that Kansas had 5.85 million cattle and calves on January 1, 2026 (USDA-NASS, 2026). However, total cattle inventory should not be confused with beef-cow inventory, which was approximately 1.145 million. Kansas is an important beef-producing state, but these figures describe different measures of the industry. 2. Kansas Farm Bureau endorsed Marshall VERDICT: TRUE, BUT IMPRECISELY DESCRIBED The Kansas Farm Bureau's VOTE FBF political action committee endorsed Marshall on August 26, 2026. The decision was made by representatives from the organization's 10 geographic districts after receiving county-level recommendations. Herbert's description could leave readers believing that farmers in all 105 counties individually voted to endorse Marshall. That is not how the endorsement process worked (Kansas Farm Bureau, 2026). This is a legitimate organizational endorsement, not proof that Kansas farmers universally support Marshall. 3. Year-round E15 would generate 2 billion bushels of additional corn demand VERDICT: SPECULATIVE AND MISLEADING Marshall has promoted nationwide, year-round sales of E15 gasoline, containing 15% ethanol. In March 2026, he suggested that expanded E15 use could create approximately 2.5 billion bushels of additional corn demand. However, that is a hypothetical market-expansion estimate, not an achieved increase. The actual impact depends on how widely E15 is adopted, consumer demand, retailer investments, gasoline consumption, and ethanol production. Allowing year-round sales does not automatically mean every gallon of gasoline sold will contain 15% ethanol. Herbert presents a potential benefit as though its magnitude were established (Marshall, 2026). 4. Marshall eliminated the estate tax VERDICT: FALSE Herbert claims Marshall helped eliminate the federal estate tax, thereby protecting family farms. The federal estate tax has not been eliminated. The 2025 tax legislation permanently increased the estate-tax exemption. For 2026, the exemption is $15 million per person, generally $30 million for married couples. A USDA analysis cited by FactCheck.org found that approximately 1% of farms would have faced any estate-tax liability even without the permanent extension of the higher exemption. The tax relief is real. Claiming the tax was eliminated is false. Suggesting that large numbers of Kansas family farms otherwise faced forced liquidation is also unsupported by the evidence presented (Farley & Robertson, 2026). 5. Rural health-care funding VERDICT: FUNDING VERIFIED; IMPACT OVERSTATED AND CONTEXT OMITTED Herbert credits Marshall with legislation bringing Kansas $221.9 million through the Rural Health Transformation Program. The funding is real. Federal records document an award of $221,898,008, initially issued December 29, 2025 (HHS, 2026). The claim about 14 rural providers also has a factual basis: Kansas announced approximately $16 million in grants for 14 providers to implement new health-care technologies. But awarding grants does not establish that all the equipment was already operating or saving lives by September 2026. The major omission is what the same legislation does to Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $1 trillion over approximately a decade. KFF estimates that rural areas nationwide will lose approximately $137 billion in federal Medicaid funding over 10 years, exceeding the entire $50 billion, five-year Rural Health Transformation Program (KFF, 2025). Thus, the article credits Marshall with a rural-health investment without acknowledging the substantial reductions in other federal health-care funding enacted in the same legislation. That omission materially changes how readers might evaluate the accomplishment. 6. Beef labeling and agricultural protections VERDICT: SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE, BUT CREDIT IS OVERSTATED Herbert credits Marshall with supporting stronger crop insurance, agricultural reference prices, and more accurate country-of-origin labeling. Marshall has supported these policies. However, the federal “Product of USA” labeling reform was finalized by the Biden administration in March 2024, with compliance beginning January 1, 2026. The rule permits voluntary U.S.-origin labels only when the relevant animals were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. It is not mandatory country-of-origin labeling (USDA, 2024). Marshall may legitimately claim to have advocated for better labeling. He cannot claim sole credit for a regulation adopted by a previous administration. Furthermore, describing foreign beef as inherently lower quality is an unsupported generalization. 7. Hamilton won a 12-candidate Democratic primary VERDICT: INCORRECT COUNT; OTHERWISE TRUE Hamilton won the Democratic nomination, but the official Kansas Secretary of State results list 11 candidates, not 12. Hamilton received 77,607 votes, or 34.63% of the total (Kansas Secretary of State, 2026). Herbert correctly identifies him as the Democratic nominee. However, the assertion that his Democratic affiliation proves he is a far-left partisan is not supported by the facts presented. Hamilton previously registered as both a Republican and a Democrat. He explored an independent candidacy before choosing the Democratic nomination. Two former Republican governors, Mike Hayden and Bill Graves, have endorsed him. His support for Kamala Harris is relevant to evaluating his political independence, but a political donation cannot independently establish how he would vote on legislation (Associated Press, 2026). The prediction that he would be a Democratic rubber stamp is an opinion, not an established fact. 8. Hamilton's comments about transgender athletes and bathrooms VERDICT: ACCURATE QUOTATION, MISLEADING FRAMING Herbert accurately references a November 22, 2024, message from Hamilton. In it, Hamilton acknowledged uncertainty about policies concerning athletics and bathrooms, while emphasizing compassion and dignity toward transgender people. That statement is documented on his church's website (Hamilton, 2024). But uncertainty does not establish support for every policy involving transgender athletes or bathroom access. Herbert also omits Hamilton's broader argument about how Christians should treat people they disagree with. The op-ed substitutes a categorical political position for a careful examination of Hamilton's actual views. 9. Hamilton encouraged a vegan diet VERDICT: MISLEADING EXAGGERATION In a January 2020 sermon, Hamilton discussed greenhouse-gas emissions, agriculture, and Christian responsibility for environmental stewardship. He suggested that dietary changes could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. That much is supported. However, the available sermon excerpts do not establish that he instructed his congregation to become vegan or condemned everyone who eats beef. The Associated Press examined Republican campaign ads making similar allegations and found that they misleadingly combined separate portions of his sermon (Hanna, 2026). Herbert's response about preferring Kansas steak to vegan tofu is political ridicule rather than an examination of the environmental claim. A separate question worth asking is whether reducing beef consumption would meaningfully reduce agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions. That is a legitimate policy discussion, regardless of the election. 10. Hamilton's handling of child sexual abuse allegations VERDICT: SERIOUS FACTUAL BASIS, BUT MATERIAL OMISSIONS AND UNPROVEN IMPLICATIONS This is the op-ed's gravest accusation and deserves careful examination rather than either automatic dismissal or acceptance. The allegations concern Scott Preston Moore, a volunteer associated with Church of the Resurrection. Contemporaneous court records and subsequent reporting establish the following chronology: 2005: Two teenagers reported inappropriate touching during a church retreat. Church personnel conducted an internal investigation but did not immediately notify law enforcement. A later appellate decision described camp leaders as dismissive of the complaints. 2006: Moore returned as a camp leader. Following further suspicious behavior, church officials contacted law enforcement, reported both years' incidents, and restricted Moore's involvement with children and vulnerable adults. 2010–2013: Moore committed an unrelated sexual offense involving a teenager in 2010 and was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery in 2013. 2015: Moore died after another encounter involving police and a teenager. Kansas Reflector investigated the matter in May and July 2026, interviewing former church employees and reviewing court records (Kaminski et al., 2026). Hamilton acknowledged that church leaders should have contacted police immediately in 2005. That admission is significant. It is reasonable to criticize the decision to conduct an internal investigation rather than immediately involve law enforcement. It is also reasonable to question the church's decision to permit Moore to return in 2006. But the op-ed omits three important facts. First, court records do not establish that Hamilton personally authorized Moore's return. Second, the church eventually notified authorities and provided the findings of its earlier investigation. Third, an April 2010 report of earlier abuse led Hamilton to encourage another individual to contact police. Evidence from the church retreats later contributed to Moore's prosecution. On October 14, 2026, David Hudnall published an extensive fact-check in The Kansas City Star. It confirmed the church's initial failures but found no evidence that Hamilton intentionally protected Moore from prosecution (Hudnall, 2026). Conclusion on the abuse allegations: The failure to report the initial allegations promptly was a serious lapse. The record does not establish that Hamilton knowingly concealed abuse to protect a predator. Herbert is entitled to criticize Hamilton's leadership. But treating disputed responsibility and motive as proven facts goes beyond the evidence. Logical Fallacies and Misleading Rhetoric The article employs several recognizable argumentative techniques. False dichotomy: Herbert presents voters with a choice between Marshall's supposedly successful record and Hamilton's supposedly deceptive character. Neither candidate's record is adequately evaluated in its entirety. Guilt by association: Supporting Kamala Harris or belonging to the Democratic Party is used as evidence that Hamilton must support an entire national political agenda. Cherry-picking: The author lists selected agricultural and health-care policies without accounting for potentially damaging consequences of the same administration's tariffs, spending reductions, and trade decisions. Straw-man argument: Hamilton's environmental comments are reduced to opposition to Kansas beef, rather than evaluated as claims about environmental stewardship. Appeal to fear: The article uses allegations involving child sexual abuse to support categorical conclusions about Hamilton's fitness for office while excluding information that complicates the accusations. Selective attribution: Marshall receives credit for policies involving multiple lawmakers and administrations. The Biden-era beef-labeling rule is a particularly clear example. Significant Omissions About Marshall's Record Herbert's central argument is that Marshall deserves reelection because of his record. A comprehensive examination of that record should also address: Agricultural trade: Kansas Farm Bureau has warned that tariffs and foreign retaliation can harm farmers. Its leadership has advocated for open trade and expressed concern about farmers being caught in tariff disputes (Kansas Farm Bureau, 2025). Medicaid: Any assessment of Marshall's commitment to rural health care must include projected reductions in Medicaid spending, not merely new grants. Personal financial controversies: An investigation reported that Marshall's medical practice sued more than 700 patients for unpaid medical bills, with arrests occurring in 81 cases after defendants failed to appear in court. That record is relevant when evaluating competing claims about integrity and compassion. Potential conflicts of interest: An October 15 Associated Press investigation examined Marshall's request for federal funding for a water project that could benefit his own ranch. The possible conflict warrants scrutiny, although the reporting does not establish wrongdoing. These omissions do not erase Marshall's accomplishments. They demonstrate that Herbert's article is an advocacy piece, not a comprehensive assessment. Final Verdict MIXED ACCURACY, WITH SUBSTANTIAL MISLEADING FRAMING. Herbert identifies legitimate accomplishments by Senator Marshall and raises some legitimate questions about Adam Hamilton's record. But she also makes a demonstrably false claim about abolishing the estate tax, exaggerates prospective E15 benefits, overlooks the economic consequences of legislation she praises, and selectively presents Hamilton's political and religious statements. Her treatment of the church abuse allegations raises the greatest concern. There was a genuine failure in the church's initial response, but the article goes beyond what has been established about Hamilton's personal responsibility and intentions. The central irony is that Herbert invokes her journalistic experience and ability to distinguish fact from spin while employing many of the techniques associated with political spin. A candidate's record should be judged in full, not by counting favorable accomplishments for one candidate and unfavorable allegations against the other. End Notes Herbert, D. (2026, October 18). Kansas RNC: Kansas knows the difference between a cover story and a record. Wichita Eagle. kansas.com/opinion/article31… U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2026). Kansas state agriculture overview. nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag… Kansas Farm Bureau. (2026, August 26). KFB's VOTE FBF endorses Sen. Marshall for U.S. Senate. kfb.org/Article/KFBs-VOTE-FB… Marshall, R. (2026, March 12). Senator Marshall: Year-round E15 could double U.S. corn demand. U.S. Senate. marshall.senate.gov/newsroom… Farley, R., & Robertson, L. (2026, April 3). Trump fumbles the facts with farmers. FactCheck.org. factcheck.org/2026/04/trump-… U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2026). Rural Health Transformation Program: Kansas award information. taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/AwardDe… Congressional Budget Office. (2026). The budget and economic outlook: 2026 to 2036. cbo.gov/publication/62105 Saunders, H., Burns, A., & Levinson, Z. (2025, July 24). How might federal Medicaid cuts in the enacted reconciliation package affect rural areas? KFF. kff.org/medicaid/how-might-f… U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2024). Voluntary labeling of FSIS-regulated products with U.S.-origin claims. fsis.usda.gov/policy/federal… Kansas Secretary of State. (2026). 2026 primary election official vote totals. sos.ks.gov/elections/26elec/… Hamilton, A. (2024, November 22). Weekly update from Pastor Adam. Resurrection Church. resurrection.church/enote/we… Hanna, J. (2026, September 2). No Democrat has won a Kansas Senate seat in a century. Can a megachurch pastor change that? Associated Press. apnews.com/article/1fbd5120a… Kaminski, A., Smith, S., & Carpenter, T. (2026, July 22). At nation's largest Methodist church, ex-employees split on Kansas pastor running for U.S. Senate. Kansas Reflector. kansasreflector.com/2026/07/… Hudnall, D. (2026, October 14). Fact check: Marshall TV ad accusing Hamilton of protecting child sexual predator. Kansas City Star. aol.com/articles/fact-check-… Kansas Farm Bureau. (2025, March 10). Kansas Farm Bureau president advocates for fair trade and rural America. kfb.org/Article/Kansas-Farm-…

ROGER MARSHALL: SERVING KANSAS OR DEFENDING DONALD TRUMP? The claim that Senator Roger Marshall has been a champion of the Constitution and an outstanding representative of Kansas deserves to be tested against his actual record. The results are difficult to reconcile with that praise. Constitutional government requires Congress to exercise its powers independently of the president. Those responsibilities include declaring war, overseeing federal spending, and regulating foreign commerce. Marshall, however, has repeatedly sided with Donald Trump's assertions of executive authority instead of demanding greater congressional accountability. Consider the war with Iran. On September 24, 2026, Marshall opposed a resolution calling for American troops to be withdrawn from hostilities that Congress had not authorized. It was not his first vote against such a measure. Regardless of whether someone considers Iran a serious threat, a prolonged war warrants congressional debate and authorization. Marshall's votes have helped Congress avoid confronting that obligation. Kansas farmers are paying a substantial economic price for policies Marshall supports. Trump's tariffs have unsettled agricultural trade, weakened export opportunities, and pushed China toward other suppliers of soybeans, sorghum, and additional farm commodities. In October, Reuters reported that China was substantially behind its commitments to purchase American soybeans, with Brazil capturing much of the lost business. Marshall has continued defending Trump's trade strategy, despite conceding that tariffs inflicted economic hardship on farmers. And in February 2026, the Supreme Court determined that Trump lacked authority under emergency-powers legislation to impose his sweeping tariffs. A senator committed to congressional authority should recognize the significance of that ruling. Then there is the Iran war's effect on production costs. According to the Associated Press, by October gasoline prices had climbed approximately 45% and diesel prices 68% compared with their prewar levels. Earlier in the year, the American Farm Bureau Federation reported that urea fertilizer prices had jumped 55% and farm diesel prices 72% within a matter of months. For Kansas agriculture, those increases are particularly damaging. Farmers need diesel to operate tractors and combines, while wheat and corn production depend on fertilizer. Rising expenses would be troublesome enough on their own. Combined with disrupted export markets and unpredictable crop prices, they put additional pressure on already narrow profit margins. Marshall argues that Trump's approach will produce benefits in the future. But Kansans are entitled to judge their senator by what his policies have delivered, not merely what he hopes they eventually accomplish. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A SENATOR TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM SCRUTINY. IT REQUIRES HIM TO FULFILL HIS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES Roger Marshall was elected to represent Kansas, not to provide political cover for Donald Trump. His record offers substantial grounds to challenge the claim that he has served either responsibility well.

Socialism yet?

I donate. Consider joining me.

Trump is not America First. Trump is Trump First, Russia Second.

CLAIMS OF NONCITIZEN REGISTRATION OR VOTING: ANALYSIS AND TRACKER Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) - September 2026 One-Sentence Summary: A nationwide examination of noncitizen voting allegations finds that preliminary claims frequently collapse under investigation, actual instances of illegal voting are exceptionally rare, and misleading voter data can result in eligible American citizens being incorrectly identified as noncitizens. KEY TAKEAWAYS – Noncitizen voting is extraordinarily rare. Investigations consistently find only small numbers of potentially illegal registrations and even fewer votes. – Initial allegations frequently overstate the problem. Many flagged records ultimately belong to eligible American citizens. – The largest allegations amount to approximately 0.1% or less of a state's active registered voters, even before verification. – Registration and voting are different. A questionable voter-registration record does not establish that someone actually voted. – Government errors contribute to inaccurate allegations. Some noncitizens have been mistakenly registered by government agencies despite identifying themselves as ineligible. – SAVE is not definitive proof of citizenship status. Its limitations create risks for naturalized Americans and other eligible voters. – Corrections receive less publicity than accusations. Dramatic initial announcements often continue circulating after subsequent investigations substantially reduce their numbers. – The evidence supports the effectiveness of existing election safeguards, while also demonstrating the importance of carefully investigating questionable records. ARTICLE SUMMARY The Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) analyzed public allegations of noncitizen voter registration and voting across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Its continually updated tracker draws on government statements, news coverage, and follow-up investigations. Its central finding is that large initial allegations routinely diminish under scrutiny, while confirmed cases of unlawful voting are extremely rare. CEIR emphasizes a distinction often lost in political debate: a voter record flagged for uncertain citizenship is not proof of an ineligible registration, and registration is not proof that a ballot was cast. Mistaken data matches, outdated citizenship records, and registration errors by government agencies can all produce misleading figures. A newly naturalized citizen, for example, may still appear as a noncitizen in another agency's database. CEIR reports that even the largest preliminary allegations represent no more than roughly 0.1% of a state's active registered voters. It cautions against comparing numbers across states because officials count different things and apply different standards of evidence. The report offers several examples. Iowa: Officials initially flagged 2,176 voter records in October 2024. Further review reduced that figure to 277 possible noncitizens, including 35 people suspected of having cast counted ballots in the 2024 election. By October 2026, the report says, at least six people had been charged in connection with the referrals: one convicted, four acquitted, and one awaiting retrial. These figures describe suspicions and legal outcomes, not 277 proven illegal voters. Michigan: An extensive audit identified 16 apparent noncitizens who voted in the 2024 election, approximately 0.00028% of ballots cast. The cases were referred for possible prosecution. Texas: A federal citizenship-checking system flagged 84 Denton County registrations. Local scrutiny identified some citizens and some people mistakenly registered by government offices. Fifty-six registrations were canceled after notices went unanswered, although reporting found at least one citizen among those affected. CEIR scrutinizes the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, which at least 28 states agreed to use for election-related checks. In April 2026, USCIS reported that only 0.03% of records checked required further review as possibly belonging to noncitizens. The report says SAVE's incomplete data can misidentify eligible citizens. A lower court prohibited the expanded use of SAVE in June 2026, but the Supreme Court stayed that decision in September while litigation proceeds. The researchers conclude that election safeguards generally identify the small number of questionable cases, while poorly contextualized preliminary announcements can exaggerate the scale of the problem. CEIR recommends confirming citizenship through multiple reliable sources before removing voter registrations. Its tracker is broad but not exhaustive, and it records both substantiated findings and unverified claims rather than treating them as equivalent. CITATION "Claims of Noncitizen Registration or Voting: Analysis and Tracker." The Center for Election Innovation & Research, Sept. 2026, electioninnovation.org/resea…. Accessed 16 Oct. 2026.

🙄