When Vivek Ramaswamy ran for president in 2024, he liked to describe himself as a "national libertarian" whose worldview included skepticism of new Middle Eastern wars and support for free trade (provided it wasn't with China). 

In a midterm election season in which voters are increasingly angry about higher prices born of protectionist tariffs and high gas prices caused by a new Middle Eastern war, that would seemingly give Ramaswamy, now running for governor of Ohio, a straightforward story to tell about how he'd bring costs down. 

Unfortunately for the Republican gubernatorial candidate, the person responsible for the tariffs and the war is President Donald Trump, whose support he's counting on to get him over the finish line in a surprisingly close race against Democrat Amy Acton. 

The latest polls show Ramaswamy slightly ahead of Acton, with many voters still undecided. 

Other Republican midterm candidates, most prominently Mike Rogers in Michigan, are escaping this bind by criticizing the tariffs and the war without explicitly naming the president who's responsible for both. 

Ramaswamy has chosen a different tactic: Shift the conversation to other sources of voters' cost-of-living anxiety that can't be directly laid at Trump's feet. 

In the last weeks of this election campaign, Ramaswamy has focused like a laser on two proposals he says will deliver cost relief to Ohio voters. The first is his proposed rollback of homeowners' property taxes. The second is a moratorium on new data center construction. 

Like many Midwestern and Western states, Ohioans' property tax bills have shot up in recent years, driven by a pandemic-era spike in home values. 

That's in turn sparked a full-blown property tax revolt in the state. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed a raft of property tax relief measures in 2025. Activists are also collecting signatures to place a full abolition of taxes on real property on the statewide ballot next year. 

Ramaswamy hasn't endorsed full property tax abolition, but he is promising voters that he will roll back property tax assessments for homeowners to pre-pandemic levels. 

On the data centers, he has staked out a very restrictionist position. 

Ohio is currently one of the leading states for data center development. Pew Research counts 57 projects currently in the pipeline there, attracted by cheap land and a robust power grid. 

The state's data center boom has caused a backlash in rural communities, where voters have objected to data centers' consumption of land and electricity and the special tax incentives some projects have received. 

On the ballot in 10 Ohio localities this November are initiatives that would impose additional restrictions on data center development. 

Ramaswamy has proposed to go further with a statewide moratorium that will remain in effect until the Legislature passes laws that not only require data centers to cover the full costs of the power infrastructure they need, but also provide property tax rebates and free electricity to nearby homeowners. 

Local property tax cuts paired with local reductions in spending would, of course, be well in line with a small government worldview. 

But the residential property tax rollback Ramaswamy has proposed doesn't directly do that. 

Instead, it would reduce property tax revenues and then leave it up to localities to make up for the lost revenue somehow. That could result in spending cuts. 

It could also result in localities shifting tax burdens onto commercial properties, raising non-property taxes (like sales taxes), or relying on the state government for more of their revenues. 

In the former two scenarios, local tax regimes would become more hostile to growth, given that property taxes are considered one of the most "efficient" taxes. In the latter scenario, the link between people who pay taxes and the people who consume taxpayer-funded local services would become more distant.  

Neither is ideal. 

While some data centers in Ohio have received tax subsidies, Ramaswamy's proposed solution is to block new data centers until they're legally required to subsidize their neighbors with free electricity and other community benefits. 

All of that is to say that it's a shame to see Ramaswamy adopt increasingly non-libertarian positions to avoid making critiques of Trump's cost-increasing tariffs and Iran war that would align with his erstwhile "national libertarian" worldview. 

It's ironic, too, that, in trying to avoid making those critiques, Ramaswamy has wound up being more restrictionist on data centers than Trump himself. 

In an August Truth Social post, the president famously urged local communities to "let Data Reign" and welcome data center development. Those that did would become "rich and successful," he predicted. Those that didn't would remain "poor and backward." 

At a rally in Vandalia, Ohio, over the weekend for Ramaswamy and Republican Senate candidate John Husted, Trump reiterated his support for data centers, saying, "We want them. Look, there's so much money to be made for Ohio. You can't just turn them off. They'll go to China."

Rather than criticize the president's statist interventions, Ramaswamy is talking up his own instead. Ohio will be poorer as a result.

The post To Avoid Criticizing Trump's Tariffs and War, Vivek Ramaswamy Takes on Data Centers appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi was worshipping at a Hindu temple in suburban Chicago over the weekend when a 19-year-old man allegedly attempted to carry out a mass shooting, the Illinois Democrat said Thursday.

Illinois State Police said they arrested Alexandros Paporakis of Palatine on Sunday, hours after authorities received a tip that he was planning to attack people of Indian descent at the Sri Venkateswara Swami (Balaji) Temple in Aurora. Paporakis’ co-workers at Taco Bell called 911 on Sunday after he told them he went to the temple to carry out the attack but his gun jammed and that he planned to try again, prosecutors said.

“I am horrified that a white supremacist attempted to carry out a mass shooting targeting Indian Americans at the Hindu temple in Aurora where my family worships,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement. “My family and I were there when the attack was attempted last Sunday.”

“The threat of such violence shows how dangerous anti-Indian hatred and white supremacy have become, and we cannot wait until innocent people are killed to take these threats seriously,” he continued. “Every American deserves to live and worship without fear, and we must stand together against hatred in all its forms.”

Investigators recovered a rifle, multiple loaded rifle magazines, body armor and hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition from Paporakis’ home, according to authorities. They also said they found an eight-page document in which Paporakis describes himself as a “sociopathic white supremacist Neo Nazi” and espouses racist views against South Asian communities, particularly those of Indian descent, as well as other nonwhite people, including Black and Jewish people.

Paporakis has been charged with making a terrorist threat and unlawful possession of a weapon, which are both felonies. A judge on Wednesday ordered Paporakis to remain in custody pending trial, with his next court hearing scheduled for Oct. 30.

Several South Asian lawmakers expressed concern about the planned attack and support for Krishnamoorthi.

“I am incredibly grateful that local law enforcement thwarted this attempted mass shooting by a white supremacist and that the worshipers at this temple are safe,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said Thursday. “Attacks on South Asians have been on the rise, online and by leaders in our own government. This hate, racism, and violence are absolutely unacceptable, are traumatizing our communities, and must end.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who is Hindu, said in a video shared Thursday that he is “angered” by the attempted mass shooting at the temple.

“His evil is only surpassed by his ignorance,” Khanna said of the suspect. “Hinduism, ironically, is a faith that believes in nonviolence. This kind of hate crime has no place in our society.”

The post Congressman says he was praying at Hindu temple during alleged mass shooting attempt appeared first on MS NOW.

• In a new interview, White House press secretary Katie Zacharia didn't deny failing the bar exam.
• She also defended calling herself a lawyer.
• "The results are somewhat inconsequential because I knew I wouldn't need the bar in China," she said of the bar exam.

President Donald Trump's new White House press secretary Katie Zacharia is defending her self-description as a lawyer, while acknowledging that she took the bar exam and considered the results "inconsequential."

Zacharia's legal qualifications have faced growing scrutiny since her debut White House media briefing earlier this week, when shortly afterward she was asked which state she passed the bar exam in and replied: "When I moved to China."

In an interview Thursday with right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec on Real America's Voice, she did not deny reports that she'd failed to pass the bar.

Zacharia, who moved to China after earning her law degree in 2011, told Posobiec she had already preregistered for the bar exam before moving to Beijing, where her husband was working at an American private equity firm.

"I didn't want to withdraw from that," Zacharia said of the bar exam. "And we knew we would be moving out to China, and I was obviously incredibly distracted and overwhelmed and excited for finally being married to someone who I had been long-distance from for at least a year."

Zacharia said she thought she'd take the bar and "see what happens."

"The results are somewhat inconsequential because I knew I wouldn't need the bar in China, and we left shortly thereafter," said Zacharia.

The Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday that Zacharia failed California's bar exam after graduating from Pepperdine University in 2011.

A Business Insider review of records for all 50 states and the District of Columbia found no evidence that Zacharia had been admitted to practice law in the US.

In China, Zacharia said she took a job in the international practice division of the Zhong Lun law firm, where she said she worked on multimillion-dollar shareholder agreements and cross-border transactions. She said she was one of four associates under a senior partner.

"After moving to China, I didn't really think much of the bar results or consider that something that I needed to focus on," Zacharia told Posobiec, adding, "There's no Chinese bar. I had enough credentials, which was my law degree, to be able to do this practice."

"I had all the necessary requirements to do that, and I was able to do it effectively and well," she said.

She also said that she never retook the bar exam after returning to the US and having the first of four children with her husband within six years.

Zacharia said she consulted with people within the legal field "for a very long time" and was told it would be acceptable to call herself a lawyer "and provide legal analysis, not legal advice."

"They said absolutely, absolutely across the board — you can call yourself a lawyer, you have a JD, and to buffer that, you have international legal experience in transactional law," Zacharia said.

"It's unfortunate that people dub this as some kind of conspiracy," she said. "The truth is, I was very careful how I executed this, and I never came across as someone who was an attorney at law."

Zacharia's LinkedIn page says she served as general counsel for Fix California, a political advocacy group, between January 2024 and March 2025. In California, it is a misdemeanor to practice law or to advertise yourself as an attorney without a license.

At least two watchdog groups have filed a complaint about Zacharia with the State Bar of California this week.

Both major parties in Victoria have pledged to use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions in exchange for votes in the upcoming November state election.

Under a $30 million election commitment, Victorian Premier Ben Carroll has vowed that Labor—that is, the taxpayer—will cover out-of-pocket costs for medical and surgical abortions up to 16 weeks, including associated consultations and other expenses.

Carroll warned voters that One Nation wants to roll back access to abortion, while Labor-aligned unions have suggested the Liberals won’t have the courage to stop them.

But the Liberal Party in Victoria isn’t just promising not to change Victoria’s abortion laws. They’ve promised to match Labor’s taxpayer-funded slaughter scheme.

According to The Guardian, Opposition Leader Jess Wilson confirmed on Thursday afternoon that a Liberal-National Coalition government would also cover out-of-pocket abortion costs up to 16 weeks’ gestation. This includes GP and specialist consultations, scans, tests, and medication.

In other words, regardless of which major party forms government in November, Victorian taxpayers have been promised the bill for mothers who want to kill off their unwanted kids.

The language, of course, is entirely sanitised and dishonest. It has to be. So, we’re going to hear a lot about “healthcare,” “access,” “choice,” and “reproductive rights.”

But don’t be duped by the euphemisms. What we’re talking about here is the state’s imagined authority to decide which innocent human beings can be legally and freely put to death in exchange for votes.

Which is all the more ironic, considering the outrage we’ve seen from Australian politicians over news that US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth backed a proposal to livestream the December 3 firing-squad execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of murdering 13 people and wounding 32 others in the 2009 Fort Hood massacre.

Although President Donald Trump has since cancelled the proposed broadcast, the announcement provoked considerable outrage among Australian politicians.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the proposed broadcast “abhorrent.” Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young described it as “barbaric” and urged the government to prevent Australians from viewing it. Even Barnaby Joyce compared it to a Roman amphitheatre.

One of Hasan’s victims, a 21-year-old Private Francheska Velez, was three months pregnant at the time. Witnesses at Hasan’s court-martial testified that they heard her pleading, “My baby, my baby,” immediately before further shots rang out.

She and her unborn child were murdered.

Think about the absolute moral inversion here.

Australian politicians recoil at the execution of a man convicted of deliberately murdering 13 people, including a pregnant woman. Meanwhile, Victoria’s major political parties are promising to take money from hard-working citizens and use it to fund the deliberate killing of unborn children who have committed no crime whatsoever.

The public execution of a convicted mass murderer is “barbaric” and “abhorrent,” they say, all while promising to cover the cost of abortions with taxpayer funds. We don’t kill terrorists here; that would be backwards. We kill unwanted babies, and then we call it progress.

Of course, the two are not morally equivalent. And that’s the point, really. Not all killing is morally identical. In Scripture, murder is the shedding of innocent blood. It is condemned because man bears the image of God (Gen. 9:6). Civil government, meanwhile, is given authority to punish genuine evildoers with lethal force. Paul says the magistrate “does not bear the sword in vain” (Rom. 13:4).

The state possesses delegated authority to punish the guilty. It does not, however, possess the authority to redefine who is and is not innocent—and what is and is not evil.

This is why the abortion debate matters, and why it should matter even to those who would rather not think about it, or who believe there are bigger, more pressing political issues to confront.

To put it simply: A government that refuses to recognise the most basic human right, the right of an innocent human being simply to remain alive, has already abandoned the foundation upon which every lesser right depends.

Read that again.

A government that refuses to recognise the most basic human right, the right of an innocent human being simply to remain alive, has already abandoned the foundation upon which every lesser right depends.

Do you care about free speech?

Free speech matters because human beings possess dignity and value.

Religious liberty matters because human beings possess dignity and value.

Property rights, parental rights, bodily integrity, due process, and equality before the law all matter because human beings possess dignity and value.

But if dignity and value are things that the state may confer according to arbitrary characteristics, such as age, location, dependency, or convenience, then none of these are inherent “rights” at all.

They are permissions. They are privileges granted by the government that can be withdrawn by the government.

So, the question that should be fundamental to Victoria’s upcoming election is not merely whether taxpayers should fund abortions, but whether human rights exist independent of the state.

Do we really want to live in a country where our right to life depends on the political expediency of those in power? Is that the country we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?

Once the state claims the authority to decide that an entire class of innocent human beings possess no enforceable right to life, every other right is an imagined fiction.

A political party that doesn’t respect the most basic, most fundamental human right will have little difficulty finding reasons to violate all others.

If a political party won’t defend the right to life, why trust them with any other?

This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 14, 2026, and is shared here with permission.

On August 18, Fernando Cerimedo was arrested in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, for hiring hitmen to assassinate his ex-partner, Nadia Beller, who was pregnant at the time, after she threatened to go public about his large-scale illegal bot farm operations to throw elections for far-right candidates across Latin America. Still recovering from the multiple gunshot wounds she miraculously survived, she gave an interview this week on the Ventana al Mundo program on Mexico’s public television network, Channel 14. During the interview, she explained how Cerimedo and a member of the Bolsonaro family, who is assumed to be Flavio’s brother Eduardo, met with Meta officials to plot interference in Brazil’s presidential elections. She also said Cerimedo’s largest bot farms are still operating, and that his group is planning to interfere in the Claudia Sheinbaum administration in Mexico. You can watch her interview below. Beneath that, is a transcribed and translated excerpt from her interview.

“In early August, Fernando sent me a photo with one of the Bolsonaros in the United States. I can’t pin down the exact date right now, because, as I told you, my phone is with the public prosecutor’s office. But between the first and the fifth of that month, while he was in the United States, he sent me a photo and told me they were discussing the campaign, that he was going to seek financing and that he was going to take part in that campaign, in that election, one way or another. And what they did with Meta is straight out of a playbook. They have very good contacts at Meta. In fact, there was a journalist whose page they had taken down themselves, and Fernando stepped in to get it restored, and he told me at least three times that he had very good relationships at Meta and could get any page taken down or put back up. I have no doubt that his team, his group, intervened for this. I understand there are complaints about electoral violations by Meta, that some dirty war campaigns were allowed through, along with the suspension of Lula’s accounts. I have not the slightest doubt that this was part of a strategy by this team to strip away Lula’s visibility.

The bot farm they took down here is tiny, it’s minuscule. From the very first day I gave interviews, I said there was a much bigger one. I told them where it was. They never touched it. I imagine it’s still active. I don’t think it’s in the same location anymore. It was in the business district. They never touched it, and the same goes for Argentina. I know they have their own bot farms there too. I imagine Fernando’s arrest caused some disruption, and for a moment they went inactive, but they’re fully active now. I’m a victim of it myself, because it spreads lies. His lawyer goes out and says some outrageous thing, and it immediately gets amplified by their bots. So I myself am a victim of their farms, and they use them everywhere, in every single country, with exactly the same modus operandi.

He also told me he was going to get involved in the Mexican election and would have his own candidate, because they were extremely interested in removing her, the president, from office. How do they get involved in elections? As you mentioned before: by distorting public debate, through cognitive fraud, dirty war tactics, buying influencers, their coordinated bot farms that organize attacks, that manufacture trending topics. All of that, what does it do? It distorts public debate.”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Trump administration sued California election officials Thursday, asking a judge to bar the state from counting mail-in ballots for next month’s midterm elections from people the federal government has identified as “likely” noncitizens until their status can be confirmed.

The lawsuit comes after the Justice Department said California officials failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a password-protected thumb drive that contains a list of 20,000 names the federal government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent ballots to participate in the Nov. 3 election. The state mails ballots to all registered voters. A top Justice Department official had sent a letter earlier this week threatening potential legal action if California didn’t comply.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a letter to the Justice Department that the federal government hasn’t provided evidence to support its allegation that 20,000 names on the state’s voter rolls are of noncitizens. She referenced an instance in which the federal government alleged nearly 16,000 possible noncitizens were listed on Nevada’s voter rolls, but the state determined that all were, in fact, U.S. citizens.

She also noted that voting is already underway in the state. Weber, a Democrat, said the Justice Department was “demanding unprecedented measures that threaten thousands of Californians’ right to vote, based on unverifiable information or methodology that you still fail to explain or provide.”

California’s elections are in “full compliance” with federal law, she added.

Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan said in a statement that his office received the letter and thumb drive this week, along with a “hand written note providing a password” to access the list of alleged noncitizens on the voter rolls. He said he did not consider the thumb drive a secure device. The secretary of state’s office said the password was written “on a sticky note.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit says the federal government sought to “work collaboratively” with California to identify noncitizens registered to vote in the state, and “California made no serious effort to do so.”

“The United States thus seeks commonplace election relief when a ballot is called into question,” the lawsuit says. “This Court should enjoin California from presently tabulating vote by-mail ballots from likely noncitizens in the upcoming federal election until the voter’s citizenship status can be determined,” the lawsuit says.

Weber, who is named in the lawsuit, suggested the federal government’s outreach had not been collaborative.

She said that over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that California had 190,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls but refused to provide the methodology or data sources when the office asked for them.

The post Trump administration sues California to block ballots from alleged noncitizens appeared first on MS NOW.

President Donald Trump and the Republican Party have desperately lobbed accusations of “socialism” and “communism” at liberals in their attempts to scare voters in this year’s midterm elections.

Conservative political leaders have instituted “anti-communist” propaganda to indoctrinate schoolchildren with anti-democratic talking points, and Trump’s regime has made a habit of railing against socialism in public — with some rather embarrassing results.

But fresh polling data suggests that a fairly large contingent of the Republican Party actually seems to like socialism. And it’s arguably all Trump’s fault.

The survey by the Economic Innovation Group and Echelon Insights shows that Republicans, at 29%, are more in favor of the government owning a stake in independent companies than independent voters and even Democrats.

The polling suggests majorities of each group oppose the idea. But the not-insignificant number of Republicans who are in favor suggests that Trump’s trend of having the government buy stakes in independent companies — communistic behavior that has led some critics to say he’s practicing “MAGA Maoism” — has led some conservatives to welcome the practice.

So much for all that past talk among Republicans about how the government shouldn’t be in the business of “picking winners and losers.” It has taken less than 10 years of Trump-style authoritarianism to get about a third of the GOP on the record endorsing an undeniably socialist policy, if not a communist one.

So as Republicans rattle on about the supposed scourge of socialism, it sure seems like a chunk of their own party isn’t on the same page.

Or, as Scott Lincicome, a vice president at the libertarian CATO Institute, put it: “The socialist threat is coming from inside the house.”

The post Trump’s desperate war on ‘socialism’ is failing within his own party appeared first on MS NOW.