Jamie Jill

WAYNE ROOT: I Know How Democrats Stole Texas- and Everywhere Else. It was “Foreign Interference in Our Elections.” | Wayne Allyn Root, The Gateway Pundit Something smells rotten and rancid in the 2026 midterm election. I was the first in the media to boldly report that while Republicans made many mistakes and made many enemies among voters, the results were absurd, ridiculous, and literally impossible- and the election was rigged and stolen. It turns out the American people have woken up. My bold opinion is now popular with the voters- if not the dumb, clueless GOP leadership. “Wall Street Apes” is a popular social media account on X with 1.4 million followers. It’s not a political account. It’s a stock market news account. They just asked their followers a simple question. “Do you believe the 2026 midterm elections in America were rigged?” The vote was 92% rigged vs. 8% not rigged. There were plenty of valid reasons and excuses for the GOP loss. The general consensus- among both the right and left- is that the GOP was crushed in a landslide because of the Iran war…and high gas prices…and inflation. I know and understand the problems, controversies, and all the mistakes made by the GOP. Especially the worthless, cowardly, “do-nothing” GOP Senate. And then there’s my personal “pet peeve”- the GOP’s TV ads were the worst of my lifetime. I’ll get to that in an upcoming column. But if any of those reasons held true, wouldn’t GOP voters have stayed home? In the last midterm in 2022, 54 million voters turned out nationally- and elected a GOP House and Senate. This time around 55 million GOP voters turned out- and we lost. Yes, the GOP vote went up. So how did we lose in a landslide? Simple. The Democrat vote went up by 20 million. TWENTY MILLION. In Texas it was even worse. The two terrible Texas candidates – Gina “the nobody sacrificial lamb” who looks like a teenage girl; and weirdo James Tailfreako, who thinks there are six genders, and believes Jesus is queer- both set all-time records for Democrat votes. Both won by about two million votes more than Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris. And they did it in a low-turnout midterm election. That is statistically impossible. So, where did all these phantom votes come from? Simple. 20 million new Democrat voters nationwide, and three million new Democrat voters in Texas, came from the same place… Joe Biden (and his boss Obama) imported 20 to 25 million new illegal aliens into America from 2021 to 2024. Over 12 million illegal aliens entered America through the Texas border alone. And you still wonder where three million new Democrat voters came from in Texas? Then the Biden administration, and Soros-funded NGOs, and Catholic Charities, and other supposed non-profit groups (who are paid billions of dollars by the US government) arranged for them to get $10,000 Visa cards, welfare, food stamps, free phones, free housing, free healthcare (Medicaid), registered them all to vote (without Voter ID or proof of citizenship), and taught them all to vote Democrat if they want to stay in the USA, and keep the freebies and welfare checks coming. SIMPLE. Just two weeks ago a new study came out showing that the state of California gives the average illegal alien family about $100,000 a year in benefits. Days ago, another study came out showing there are well over three million illegal aliens voting in California. Are you getting the picture? This is “The Great Replacement” meets “Cloward-Piven.” First, Democrats brought in 20 to 25 million new illegal aliens from 2021 to 2024 to replace you and me. To out-vote white Americans…and middle-class Americans…and American born citizens…groups who all vote majority Republican. Then they applied the strategy called “Cloward-Piven”- designed by two Columbia University professors in the 1960’s. The plan was simple- get tens of millions of Americans addicted to welfare checks, make them dependent on government, and then they would vote Democrat forevermore to keep the checks coming. Democrats simply combined the two strategies- knowing that all these millions of illegals they waved into America through the open border required cradle-to-grave welfare. This made all these potential new non-citizen voters dependent on government checks. And they would vote Democrat forevermore to keep the checks coming, and of course, to halt deportations. Now to the final piece of the puzzle. This is the real key to making the plan work! Democrats used Covid to usher in mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting and ballot drop boxes. Why is this so important? Because many of these illegal alien foreign invaders have low IQs; no skills; can’t read, write or understand how to vote on a machine; and are scared to death of going to a polling place- where they could be questioned and arrested by ICE, or police. Mail-in ballots solve that problem- because illegal aliens can vote without ever going near a polling place, or risking capture by ICE. But perhaps more importantly, with mail-in ballots, and ballot harvesting, and ballot drop boxes, an army of thousands of Democrat activists can fill out the ballots for illegals, and mail them in. Do you get it? With mail-in voting, illegal alien voters don’t even do the actual voting. Democrats handle it all for them. Voila. 20 million new votes. Democrats weren’t quite ready in 2024 to pull it off. They needed more time to get these millions of non-citizens registered. And to make this work, they needed a midterm- when fewer Republicans come out to vote than during a Trump presidential run. 2026 was the perfect opportunity. The test case, or “model” for all of this was California. Democrats turned a Republican red state (the land of Nixon, Reagan and Pete Wilson) 100% blue by welcoming in millions of illegal aliens; giving each illegal alien family $100,000 in welfare, free healthcare and benefits; and registering them to vote. Mail-in ballots sealed the deal- making it easy and safe for all of them to vote. Guess what? Democrats have now applied this strategy to the whole country. For this midterm, they finally had all the pieces in place to rig and steal Texas- “the crown jewel” they’ve been lusting after for a decade. This is where they got three million new Democrat votes in Texas since the last midterm- all registered with no proof of citizenship. This is where they got 20 million new Democrat voters nationwide since the last midterm. This was how Democrats stole the midterms. This is the very definition of “foreign interference in our elections.” They did it by combining three powerful strategies: “The Great Replacement,” combined with “Cloward-Piven,” combined with mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting and ballot drop boxes. And we let it all happen- even after seeing what happened to California. Now the question is, will President Trump or the GOP do anything this time? Will he challenge the results? Will he declare a “National Security Emergency for Elections” based on this foreign interference in our election? Will he demand to see the ballots and machines? Is he willing to overturn the election based on massive voter fraud? These are the questions that will determine the future of America and capitalism. thegatewaypundit.com/2026/11…

MORE BULLSH*T from 2026 Midterm! New Non-Native Texans Who Moved to Lone Star State Were MUCH MORE CONSERVATIVE that Natives – They Weren’t Liberal Voters! | Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit There are rumblings online that the shocking and unreal midterm results from Texas can be explained by the non-native Texans who moved to the state from California and other states. Of course, this was a ridiculous argument. For one, if you’re being destroyed financially by radical far-left policies that make energy prices skyrocket, make building anything next to impossible, then you are going to vote for more liberal candidates in your new state. It’s laughable! This never happened. There are even polls that found that new non-native voters in Texas are making the state more conservative, not liberal! Of course! A 2023 survey by Chism Strategies found that new non-native voters in Texas were MORE CONSERVATIVE than native voters! In 2018, exit polls showed Beto O’Rourke beat Ted Cruz among native-born Texans, while Cruz won those born out-of-state by a wide margin. But exit polls can be unreliable, so we decided to poll non-native Texans to see where they stand politically. How we conducted the poll L2, a national voter list, collects data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database to determine which new registrants have moved across state lines. We used that to pull a sample of Texas voters who—at some point—lived in another state. We then filtered out anyone who said they were born in Texas to find a list of emigrants from other U.S. states. It would have been great to find a list of just California-to-Texas movers, but there were not enough in the database for us to pull a reliable sample. The poll was conducted by sending text messages with a link to an online survey to targeted voters. Responses were weighted by age, ethnicity, gender, and education to match within the voter file for all Texas registered voters who fit the criteria mentioned above. What we found Overall, non-native Texans were much more conservative than the state as a whole, and some moved to Texas explicitly because of its conservative politics. In the 2022 gubernatorial election, new Texans supported Greg Abbott over Beto O’Rourke 47%-34% (12% of those we surveyed did not vote and 6% could not remember who they supported). In a hypothetical 2024 rematch, Donald Trump leads Joe Biden 54%-42% among this cohort. Voters from out West—including California—were the most conservative group, as they supported Trump 64%-32%. Also of note, emigrants from blue states were more Republican (supporting Trump 56%-39%) than those who came to Texas from red states (50% Trump-46% Biden). When asked why they decided to move to Texas, 4.5% of respondents listed the state’s conservative politics as the motivating factor, with no prompting from us. And when asked how the state’s politics impacted their decision, nearly a third of respondents said they were more excited to move here because of Texas’ Republican-controlled state government (compared to just 18% who said it made them hesitant). 40% of respondents said they were more conservative than the average Texan, while 35% said they were more liberal than the average Texan. Only in the Austin metro area did a majority (56%) of respondents say they were more liberal than the average Texan. And despite fears from conservatives that blue staters are trying to import liberal values to the state, only 33% of those we spoke to who moved here from blue states said they were more liberal than the average Texan. Maybe it was the charisma of the “Jesus is trans,” and “God is nonbinary” freak who ran as a Democrat? Again, not likely. This is the bullsh*t that they demand we believe! thegatewaypundit.com/2026/11…

New blood test claims to detect 50-plus cancers before symptoms – but there’s no evidence it can reduce your risk of dying from cancer | Andrew Wolf, The Conversation Cancer isn’t the leading cause of death in the United States; heart disease ranks first in that regard. But it’s cancer that strikes fear into the hearts of many Americans. Cancer can take an excruciating toll on its millions of victims and their family members. Cancer treatments are often highly toxic, and the disease is increasingly striking people at younger ages, which is why it accounts for more years of potential life lost than heart disease. So when a blood test comes along that claims to be able to screen for over 50 cancers at once in a single blood draw before symptoms appear – as is the case for the Galleri test, by the biotech company GRAIL – it might seem like society has a Holy Grail of modern medicine at their fingertips. But a closer look at the evidence suggests that the Galleri test is not yet the universal screening breakthrough patients and doctors hope for. As a physician who studies early cancer detection, and as chair of the American Cancer Society’s screening guideline development group, I have been following this test’s development with interest. While the Galleri test certainly shows great promise, clinical trial data indicates that it struggles with early-stage cancer detection and has not yet been shown to lower the risk of death from cancer or prevent advanced cancer. Across all cancer stages, the test missed over two-thirds of cancer cases. On Sept. 23, 2026, an advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to recommend approval of the Galleri test. While a recommendation from the FDA’s advisory panel is not the same as full approval from the agency, it marks a critical first step in the process of potentially making the test widely available to the American public. The FDA has not yet announced when it will make a decision on the test. But even as the advisory panel approved the test, panelists recommended that the word “early” be removed from “early cancer detection test” in product labeling. Panel members were not convinced the test can find cancers at their earliest and most curable stages, and they expressed uncertainty about the test’s benefit to patients at this time. Given this uncertainty, careful scrutiny of the data behind the test can help doctors and patients make informed decisions about whether to use it. What is the Galleri test? How does it work? Galleri is part of an emerging class of multicancer early detection tests. These tests do not diagnose cancer: If a test is positive, further evaluation is necessary to determine whether cancer is present, and, if so, what type of cancer. It is offered as a screening test, similar to mammography for breast cancer screening or PSA testing for prostate cancer screening, but with the potential advantage of screening for many cancers at once, including many for which no screening test currently exists. The Galleri test looks for DNA fragments in blood that are associated with cancer. When something goes wrong with your DNA, whether because you inherited a mutation or something in your environment triggered that mutation, the processes that regulate cell division can go awry. Uncontrolled cell division can trigger the growth of cancer cells. Galleri and other multicancer early detection tests in development look for differences that distinguish the DNA produced by tumor cells from normal cells. Galleri identifies unique tags on cancer DNA called methylation markers and uses machine learning algorithms to generate a positive or negative test result. What are the strengths of the Galleri test? The Galleri test looks for DNA signals from over 50 cancers, including the 12 that account for almost two-thirds of cancer deaths in the U.S, such as lung and pancreas cancer. Importantly, it provides information on which organ the possible tumor likely originated from. Currently recommended cancer screenings are largely limited to four types of cancer. Many of the cancers the Galleri test looks for are not currently included in routine screening. Moreover, the test has a very low false positive rate: Only about 0.5% of people who get the test are incorrectly identified as having cancer, or one person out of every 200 tests. A false positive rate is the percentage of people who are told they have cancer but actually don’t. This requires that patients get more testing, which can be costly, sometimes risky and often worrisome. In comparison, many currently recommended screening tests, such as the Cologuard stool test for colorectal cancer, have false positive rates in the 10% range. This very low false positive rate also translates into another strength – a very high positive predictive value, or PPV, which is the probability that a positive test result actually means cancer is present. The PPV of the Galleri test was 52% across three annual screens, meaning over half the positive results actually led to a cancer diagnosis. This is good because it gives people confidence that the test is more than 50% correct. For context, the PPVs of most recommended screening tests – such as stool tests for colorectal cancer, mammography for breast cancer, or the HPV test for cervical cancer – are typically below 10%, meaning most positive results don’t lead to a cancer diagnosis. The Galleri test also can predict with high accuracy where a cancer originated in the body. In one study of 32,000 U.S. adults age 50 and older who received a Galleri blood test, cancer was diagnosed in about 0.5% of them – 173 patients. Of these patients, the test correctly predicted the cancer type in 91%. This specificity could help clinicians select more targeted evaluations rather than looking for cancer anywhere in the body. What are the limitations of the Galleri test? Despite these impressive results, the Galleri test has several major shortcomings. For one, the test is not as good at detecting cancer in its earliest stages as currently recommended screening tests, which is the main point of a cancer screening test. The test’s ability to detect cancer at all stages was less than 31% over three annual rounds of screening, meaning the test missed 69% of cases. Of the cancers detected in the study, comparing outcomes from getting the Galleri test three years in a row to routine cancer screening, 60% of the cancers detected in the people who got the Galleri test were early stage, which was almost identical to those who didn’t get it. In addition, the Galleri test did not perform any better than standard screening tests at detecting cancer early. The detection rate for early-stage cancers was only 21% over three years of screening, meaning almost 80% were missed. Cancer is most curable in its early stages, so this shortcoming is a major one. Such a low detection rate can lead to false reassurance from an incorrectly negative test result. Perhaps the most important shortcoming of the Galleri test is that it hasn’t yet proved that it can save lives or even reduce the risk of being diagnosed with late-stage cancer. The main goal of the trial was to show that the test could reduce the incidence of late-stage cancers over three years of screening – and it failed to do so. In other words, one of the hopes was that the test could reduce the risk of being diagnosed with advanced cancer by finding and treating cancer early – but as of now, there is no evidence to support this. There was a hint that the incidence of Stage 4 cancer was trending lower by the third year of screening. But more time is needed to determine whether this is a true finding and, if so, whether it leads to a lower risk of dying from cancer. Requests for comment from GRAIL were not returned. What did the FDA’s panel recommend? The FDA advisory panel took three votes. While one of of these votes followed the evidence, two of them were surprisingly counterintuitive. First, the panel voted 10-0 to recommend that the Galleri test is safe. While undergoing a blood test doesn’t typically involve any substantive risk, a positive result may prompt further testing, such as biopsies, that are riskier than a blood test and can incur additional costs. These harms can be particularly hard to swallow if the test turns out to be a false alarm, as it will in about half of cases. One study evaluating Galleri’s safety found that 0.6% of those who had the test ended up undergoing an invasive diagnostic procedure, but none experienced serious complications. Hence, the safety vote appears to have been warranted. Second, the panel voted 6-4 to recommend that the test is effective, though a number of the panelists cast their yes vote on the condition that the company remove the term “early” from the label “multi-cancer early detection” test. This outcome, however, does not have the evidence to back it up. Available studies indicate the Galleri test does not reduce the incidence of late-stage cancer and performs poorly in detecting early-stage cancer. Additionally, there is no evidence that it lowers the risk of dying from cancer. Finally, the panel voted 7-2 with one abstention to recommend that the benefits of the Galleri test outweigh the risk. But if there is no proven benefit to the test, how can the benefits outweigh the risks, even if the risk is low? While the advisory panel acknowledged the test’s serious limitations, it still went ahead and recommended approval. One of the panel members stated that the ability to find more early-stage cancers in a broader population is a benefit, even though that hasn’t been proved yet. “So perhaps my ‘yes’ is a hopeful (vote) rather than an accurate one,” said the panel member. The problem is that “hope” does not reduce death and disability from cancer. Should you get the Galleri test or not? If the FDA agrees with its advisory panel’s recommendation and approves the Galleri test, it will likely be more widely marketed to the American public. Regardless, there remain many caveats, and I believe patients will want to be cautious. First, FDA approval does not guarantee insurance coverage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a separate coverage determination process, and it is not required to grant coverage to FDA-approved tests. The out-of-pocket cost of the Galleri test is currently US$949. It remains unclear whether the test can reduce your risk of dying from cancer or being diagnosed with advanced cancer. However, if you’re willing to pay the annual cost of the test, are willing to undergo further testing despite a high rate of false alarms, and are not overly reassured by a falsely negative test result, you can ask your doctor for more information about the test. What doctors and researchers are certain about is the importance of staying up to date with currently recommended cancer screening tests for colon, breast, cervical and lung cancers, even if you decide to get the Galleri test. These tests are proven to detect early-stage cancer and lower your risk of dying from cancer. That’s the bottom line. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article: theconversation.com/new-bloo…

Poll: 43% of Youngest Voters View Sharia Favorably, Fueling Historic Gains for Muslim-American Candidates | J M Phelps, The Gateway Pundit A recent Rasmussen Reports/Our Republic survey has found a surprising surge in support for Sharia law among America’s youngest voters. According to the October results, 43 percent of likely voters between the ages of 18 and 24 view Sharia favorably—marking a notable increase from previous years. The same poll indicated that more than a quarter of voters under 30 would support the adoption of Sharia law within a local community. This rise prompts a pressing electoral question: has this growing approval of Islamic law translated into measurable electoral outcomes in recent cycles, including the current year? Recent election cycles have indeed seen several historic victories for Muslim-American candidates, a trend some analysts link to shifting demographics and attitudes. In Michigan, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI) defeated Republican Mike Rogers (R-MI) to become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate; he is scheduled to be sworn in on January 3, 2027. Meanwhile, in New Jersey’s 12th congressional district, Adam Hamawy (D-NJ) secured a seat as the state’s first Muslim member of the House of Representatives. In New York’s 13th district, Darializa Avila Chevalier (D-NY) also won her congressional race. They are not alone in their success. Veteran incumbents also secured re-election, continuing their service. Representative André Carson (D-IN) won another term in Indiana’s 7th district. In Minnesota’s 5th, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was re-elected to her fifth consecutive term. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) retained Michigan’s 12th congressional district, and Lateefah Simon (D-CA) held California’s 12th. Congressional representation has reached a new peak with Muslim lawmakers set to serve in the upcoming term. At the state level, 46 Muslim legislators hold office, with 32 in state house seats and 14 in state senates. Local governance shows even broader integration: 98 serve on city or county councils, 63 on school boards, 11 as mayors, and 18 as judges. An additional 15 officials hold roles in municipal agencies, law enforcement, and transportation oversight. A post-election analysis from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—an unindicted co-conspirator by federal prosecutors in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) terrorism financing trial—confirms the “record-breaking” milestone: more than 255 Muslim officials now hold elected office across the United States. Clearly, these findings reflect growing political influence at every level of government. This growing political influence at every level of government appears to validate concerns raised by education advocates like Melanie Kurdys of United States Parents Involved in Education (USPIE), who recently framed young voters’ political discernment as a generational crisis of understanding. The USPIE President and board member argued that many young people lack historical knowledge, describing them as drawn to social issues but conditioned by an “oppressed-oppressor model” taught in schools. Kurdys drew a sharp distinction between discrimination and discernment, particularly regarding religious law. She claimed that criticizing Sharia law is often misconstrued as anti-Islamic sentiment rather than a defense of American foundational values. “Young people don’t have the information to be discerning about why it would be an impact,” she told The Gateway Pundit, pointing to principles of equality that she believes are incompatible with Islamic religious practices. She conceded that many American Muslims practice their faith and integrate peacefully into society, but Kurdys warned against what she called “enclave communities” where more extreme practices might take hold. She cited concerns about press coverage being overly sympathetic, obscuring what she described as oppressive elements. The solution, according to Kurdys, lies in education reform and media representation. She criticized government schools as nearly irredeemable and advocated for homeschooling or private Christian education as short-term solutions. For adults beyond school age, she emphasized the need for conservative media to calmly articulate these arguments. “The messaging has to be beyond this election,” she explained, noting that the fundamental issue concerns preserving America’s national character against what she perceives as transformative threats from hardline Islamists. As these competing narratives unfold—one charting measurable political integration through democratic processes, another framing it as civilizational erosion—the nation finds itself navigating not merely policy differences but fundamentally irreconcilable visions of American identity itself. thegatewaypundit.com/2026/11…