Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders ignites firestorm after add depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients.

 

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Fox News/Getty. 

Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has ignited a firestorm after an advertisement depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients. Fox News. The ad, made to promote a policy that requires work for welfare, stars a white male named "Brad". Brad is depicted as a lazy video game playing loser gorging himself on junk food. However, he was also depicted as white, which does not match the demographics of welfare recipients at all. The advertisement caused immediate backlash, with Sanders seemingly not understanding the reaction. Many conservatives said the ad was both inaccurate and tone deaf and questioned the intelligence of insulting a group that is a major GOP demographic.

 

You pay taxes to cover welfare for people who just choose not to work. That’s why I launched a welfare-to-work requirement.

If you’re young, healthy, and get government assistance, you should work, go to school, or volunteer. pic.twitter.com/M83nxNMdry

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) September 28, 2026

My Comment:

I know there are some people that are theorizing that the GOP is purposely trying to tank the midterms and though I don't think that is what is happening here, I certainly get the argument. For a sorta of younger white male who likes to play video games during my time off work, this seemed like a direct middle finger towards me and if I was in Arkansas I'd at least consider not voting for Sanders because of it. I can't think of an advertisement which has played worse for me, and, given the reaction online, I don't think I am alone. 

The obvious problem is that young white males are about the least likely group to ever be on welfare. There are a few, obviously, but the numbers are extremely small given the actual demographics of government assistance. Most government assistance goes to women, minorities, children and the elderly. And young men? The ones that work are the ones paying for it. But Sanders took the cowardly way out, depicting "Brad" as a White Male instead of a Black female or immigrant from some random country.  And Sanders isn't the first person in the GOP to do this, other people, like Speaker of the House Johnson and Congressman Bobert, have said similar things about young men being lazy and playing video games, but saying it's White folks. 

And that's assuming young men can get jobs at all. A lot of noise was made about the fact that almost all of the new jobs under President Trump have gone to women. And there is still the simmering issue of H1B visas and illegal immigration taking jobs that would otherwise go to young men (and not just young White men, Blacks and Hispanics are getting screwed by this too). Though the economy is strong, that hasn't translated into good jobs for young men, and even when those jobs are available they have to compete with much of the world to get them. And that's not even counting the fact that HR departments are using AI to filter out applicants before they even get a chance to interview! 

What is more is how tone deaf it is for trying to get out the vote. The winning message in 2024 was that the economy was rigged against young White Men (and men in general) and that the GOP was going to be the party to fix it. Though efforts have been made by the Trump administration, and things are better than they were, the popular sentiment is that not enough has been done to help the demographic that helped the party win. Indeed, many folks are genuinely angry that the Trump administration has focused so hard on foreign policy, and I have to agree, even though I generally approve of Trump's foreign policy. 

So what is the message here? Young White Males are video game addicted losers that are scamming everyone else? How is that any different from what the Democrats are saying? The whole point of putting the GOP into office is to stop that message and offer something else, jobs, money and respect, that the Democrats refuse to give them. But we got the exact opposite from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

I do think that ever since the assassination of Charlie Kirk the GOP has had a major messaging problem for young people. Kirk was young enough and talked to enough young people to understand that young men are in trouble and need help, not a lecture. Though this ad might have happened regardless, I do think that Kirk would have been able to talk a lot of young men angry about this ad off the ledge and get them out to vote. But he's dead and I don't know if anyone in the GOP has the perspective he had, let alone the voice. 

So who was Sanders making this ad for? My guess is Boomers. Despite essentially all being on welfare, as what else could Social Security and Medicare be called, Boomers have as their generational story that they were the folks that worked hard. The younger generation? They are all lazy takers, despite the fact that they are the ones paying into those programs now in the first place, even though most of them believe they won't ever get the benefits that the Boomers are getting now. Given how red of a state Arkansas is, it might even work for Sanders, she doesn't need young people when the GOP has a lock on Boomers (and Silents and Gen X to a lesser degree). This kind of ad is catnip for them. But  I don't think she seems to understand or care that a short term gain for her is doing permanent damage to the Republican Party.

What message would be better? Almost anything really, but I know what I want to hear from the Republican Party is something like this: "We love and respect young White Males and know that you folks are working hard to make this country great again. We want to ensure that you won't be discriminated against and want to make sure you can succeed. We know you don't want a handout, but a fair chance to get a good job, a good home and a good wife and we want to get rid of the obstacles that the Democrats have put into place to stop you". Why that isn't the message for the 2026 midterms, instead of the slop we are getting from people like Sanders is beyond me. 

UK police disrupt major terror plot targeting RAF Fairford.

 

A B1B Lancer stationed at RAF Fairford. AP. 

A major terror attack on an airbase in the UK has been disrupted thanks to a vigilant citizen. AP. The attack would have involved three vehicles with explosives targeting RAF Fairford, a base used by the United States military. The base has been used to launch attacks against Iran and has several Air Force B1B Lancer bombers. Five men were arrested after a citizen say them wearing masks and driving towards the base. Police arrested them and bomb disposal units were called. It is unclear who is responsible for the plot, though Iran is largely seen as the most likely suspect after they declared bases like RAF Fairford to be legitimate military targets. 

My Comment:

This was a serious plot and if it wasn't for someone calling the cops on these guys, it may have succeeded. The attackers had explosives and they may have been able to blow the gate into the base and once that happened, they could have targeted the bombers or their hangers. And, even worse, they could have detonated the bombs in the town itself if the operation failed.  

I have no question that the B1B Lancers were the main targets. The US Air Force only has 45 B1B's, though they could probably reactivate a few that are currently mothballed. Losing even one of those to a terror attack would be devastating, let alone a few. Plus this attack could have knocked out the base for awhile too, meaning that any further strikes on Iran would be difficult. But losing any B1B's, let alone as many as a full squadron would be devastating. The type is slowly being replaced by the B21 Raider, but barely any of those have been built. 

So who was responsible for this attack? I would say that it's almost certainly Iran. Iran said this base was a legitimate target and they are absolutely capable of carrying out an attack like this. The suspects were described as Middle Eastern, and they absolutely have a motive to destroy as many B1B Lancers as they could. 

Iran isn't the only suspect though. I guess this could have been a terror organization like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. But I don't really see that being likely. Those terror groups go for civilian targets for the most part and are more about causing casualties, not degrading capabilities like this attack was. I also doubt it was the Russians. Though Russia is capable of this kind of attack and they have some ethnicities that could conceivably be described as "Middle Eastern", they don't really have a reason to attack an Air Force base. Indeed, trying to escalate the Ukraine war by targeting a base that isn't really a threat to them seems idiotic to me, and I don't think the Russians are that stupid. 

This attack was not a justifiable one, assuming Iran was the attacker. For one, the UK isn't really a party to the war and launching an attack on an airbase would be an act of war. The attackers also committed perfidy by not wearing uniforms and wearing civilian outfits. The target itself, the bombers and crew at the base, may have been valid targets, but this was not a valid attack. Indeed, had it succeeded, it may have drawn the UK into the war directly, though you never can tell with the current state of the UK. 

Either way, if it is proven that this was an Iranian attack, it will likely draw a response, perhaps from the very bombers that were the targets of this attack. It also means that a peace deal, already a longshot before the midterms, is probably dead for some time. Keep in mind, Iran reopened negotiations last week, to launch this attack while that is happening is not going to play well at all diplomatically. A new round of strikes isn't guaranteed, indeed, we don't even know Iran is responsible at this point. But I do think they are more likely now than they were before. 

The United States and Iran are discussing ending the war in a phased shutdown. Will it happen before the midterms?

 

Vessels stacked up in the Strait of Hormuz. Reuters. 

The United States and Iran are discussing ending the war in a phased shutdown. Reuters. The meeting happened in New York during the UN Assembly. The deal would potentially end the blockade against Iran and would fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have motivations to end the conflict. Iran is being crushed economically due to the blockade while the United States has been affected by high gas prices due to the conflict, which is also affecting the 2026 midterm elections. However, both sides do not want to give up the leverage they have over each other, Iran could believe they could get a better deal after the midterms. And President Trump could be content to let Iran's economy collapse. Still, talks could ease tensions and prevent the on-and-off conflict from erupting again. 

My Comment:

Somewhat promising news from the Iran conflict. The war has been in a limbo where not much has been happening. No talks have been happening and very little has been happening in the way of combat either. Indeed, the Yemen conflict has been the main issue lately, though that is mostly a Saudi problem. 

Fortunately it does seem like the Iranians are using the the UN meeting as an opportunity to talk. Talk is always preferable than not talking and it could mean a negotiated settlement will come. Indeed, that seems like the only realistic way to end the war, the only other possibilities are the Iranian regime collapsing (which isn't likely) or America getting tried of the farce and going home. Neither of those are likely, so it will likely end with talks. 

The problem is that the Iranians aren't rational actors. Indeed, if they were the war would have never started in the first place or, at the very least, would have ended months ago. It's very possible they will continue to be obstinate because they don't actually care what's best for them or their country. 

I do agree that both sides have a major reason to end the war. The blockade and sanctions against Iran have been fairly successful. And remember, Iran's economy was already in shambles before the conflict even begun. They had major environmental problems and were already experiencing hyperinflation. They just can't keep going economically and something is eventually going to have to give. 

As for Trump and the Untied States, I think there is less pressure there and it's mostly political in nature. There is a problem with depleted weapons stocks, which has been overblown but is real, but it's mostly about the midterms. I think the war's impact is overstated and, at the very least, the Republicans are going to keep the Senate, but the chances of keeping the House grow if the war ends and gas prices go down. There's absolutely a motivation to end the conflict. 

However, I do think that Trump isn't willing to sell the farm just for an advantage in the Midterms. He wants the best deal he can get and isn't going to settle for something that doesn't give him the advantage. And he might be more concerned about the 2028 elections than the 2026 midterms. His thinking might be "it's worth it to lose the house if it means the GOP keeps the Presidency in 2026" and that would be more difficult if the Iran war flares up again in 2027 or 2028. 

Either way, the Iran conflict has lasted way longer than it should have. It should have ended months ago and I could see the Iranian's screwing it up again. If I was optimistic, it's a 50-50 chance that these talks lead to anything, but I am not at this point and it's probably 70-30 that it won't amount to much. Still, at least there is an effort to end the war. 

Why are the Saudis having so much trouble against the Houthis in Yemen?

 

A screengrab showing combat in Yemen. Times of Israel/AFP.

Despite wealth and modern weapons, the Saudis are having major issues in the fight against the Houthis in Yemen. Times of Israel. Saudi Arabia has bought billions of dollars worth of weapons from Western nations, most recently a $24.3 billion deal for 48 F-35 fighter planes. But they have been unable to prevent the Houthi rebels from taking almost all of the coastline of the Red Sea, blocking oil traffic from the Saudis and even striking Riyadh itself. Despite the advantage in weaponry, Saudi Arabia's military is viewed as weak due to concerns over a military coup. The Saudis have also has issues with their allies. Local Yemeni forces complain of a lack of weapons and support. The Saudis have also alienated their UAE allies after the UAE took over government areas in Yemen. The Saudis objected to that and the UAE left the conflict, but the Saudis were not able to take up the slack. The US and Britain also launched strikes against the Houthis in the past, but so far the United States has refused to launch strikes against the Houthis, given diplomatic efforts from the Houthis themselves along with not being willing to open another front in the Iran conflict. 

My Comment:

The Saudis are proof that money can't buy you anything. You can buy the most advanced weapons in the world but if you don't have the will to use them, you will still lose. And that is what is happening with the Saudis in Yemen now. 

Though the article mentioned it, the main problem is the weakness of the Saudi allies in Yemen. It's the same old military problem in the Middle East. They have the same kind of problems they had in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ghost soldiers are a real problem and it's pretty common for a lot of these units to exist in name only. That's a good example of there not being enough local control over these units and it's a huge problem and it's a major reason why these forces collapsed. 

The Saudi military has their own issues. In short, the Kingdom does not want a strong military that could ever be a threat towards the Royal Family. They have kept their military weak and they don't really have a lot of people that are competent. 

Alienating their allies has been a big issue as well. I don't really understand why the UAE's actions last year angered them so much. But kicking them out of Yemen without being able to replace them was a huge mistake and it's a major reason why everything in Yemen went so badly. Given that the UAE has a pretty competent military it was obviously a mistake to send them out. 

I do think this is a major reason why Israel remains a major ally of the United States. The Gulf States in general are pretty bad at warfare, while Israel is a lot more powerful and competent. I don't think the Saudis could have done anything like the Israelis did during the Iran conflict and the conflict in Yemen shows that the they have a lot more to offer. 

As for the conflict itself, I do hope we stay out of it. It does seem like the Saudis are pushing us to back their play but it also seems like Trump is very much suspicious of doing so. Given the Houthis are playing nice it's likely we will avoid getting dragged into this war. 

I do have to say that it's important to note that the Houthis themselves are tough fighters. For being a bunch of backward people that are addicted to khat, they absolutely know how to fight. They have been consistently punching above their level and though the Saudi military is fairly weak, it's impressive that they can stand up to them so effectively. Plus, how many other rebel groups can pull off ballistic missile strikes?  

Canadian MAiD case erupts in controversy as family alleges that an 83 year old grandmother died without her consent.

 

Brigitte Stegemann (left) and her granddaughter Brigitte Kranendonk. Fox News. 

The family of a 83 year old woman who died under Canada's Medically Assistance in Dying program is alleging that she was killed against her will. Fox News. The woman, Brigitte Kranendonk, suffered from stomach cancer and her granddaughter, Brigitte Stegemann, had power of attorney over her. She was in an elderly care program and while the daughter was on vacation, a nurse recommended MAiD for Kranendonk. Stegemann claimed that Kranendonk had opposed MAiD for religious grounds, but when she returned Kranendonk had already been signed up. She also alleges that the doctors misled her grandmother and that she appeared to not understand what was happening. The incident brings further criticism of Canada's MAiD program, which is now responsible for 1 in 20 deaths in the country. An investigation into this case is ongoing and could lead to charges. 

My Comment:

I don't think I have changed my mind on any other issue more than these assisted suicide laws and what is happening in Canada is a major reason why. "Canadian healthcare" use to be a left wing talking point in favor of socialized medicine but now? Now it's shorthand for a government killing its citizens. 

To be fair, nothing in this case has been tried yet. It's possible that the granddaughter is wrong and that Kranendonk truly did want to die. She did have cancer and could have been in pain. It's possible the granddaughter was seeing things that weren't there or is trying to be an advocate. 

However, that seems unlikely. I can't say for sure that this case is exactly how it has been described, but I would put money on it given what I have heard in similar cases from Canada. I am guessing that Stegemann is telling the truth. And if she is? Then this is murder, not assisted suicide, even by the laws of Canada. 

I don't really trust Canada to actually investigate this either. Sure, there is the idea that they might want to come down hard on any violators of the law so folks will have faith in the program, but I doubt it. Canada has made MAiD a keystone program of their healthcare and I doubt they would relish a case that calls it into question. I don't think they will be able to cover anything up, but I don't think the investigation will be valid either. 

Regardless, I do think that this case shows that the MAiD program is a mess. It seems very clear that the nurses and doctors are pushing MAiD as hard as they can. I won't speculate too much what the motivation in this case is, but it could be that they were true believers and actually thought they were helping, regardless of what Kranendonk wanted. 

But my real fear is that MAiD is mostly used to save money for Canada's socialized medicine. End of life care is expensive and by ending the life of 1 in 20 Canadians is probably saving millions of dollars. So there is a real incentive there to push it on vulnerable people, like this 83 year old grandmother. That might not have been what happened here, but it seems very possible.