Aggregator

From the Golden State to the socialist state

1 week 5 days ago


On November 3, California voters will find 37 candidates for local office on their ballots endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. That’s more than half of the 69 DSA-endorsed local candidates nationwide, according to Ballotpedia. Minnesota, the distant runner-up, has six.

California, it seems, has become fertile ground for politicians promising to cure the failures of big government with still more government.

Californians have paid for big promises long enough. Before funding the next experiment, they should demand the receipts.

This is quite a reversal for the once Golden State. The Gold Rush, the transcontinental railroad, agriculture, manufacturing, and Silicon Valley transformed California into a magnet for Americans who wanted to build businesses and fortunes. Opportunity was its calling card.

Today, millions of Californians find it increasingly difficult even to afford the place.

The socialist candidates did not create all these problems. California's governing establishment spent decades laying the groundwork. Nor is every progressive regulation a socialist policy; California remains a powerhouse of private enterprise. But that only sharpens the question facing the newcomers: Why should voters trust a more expansive government to repair what government has helped break?

Consider housing. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the typical home was worth roughly $776,000 in the first seven months of 2026. The national figure was $372,000. California has under-built for decades, leaving a housing shortage that estimates put at more than 1 million units.

Land and construction costs are high, and people still want to live in California. Those realities do not absolve lawmakers who imposed layers of local restrictions and cumbersome approval procedures. The obstacles became so obvious that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed legislation in 2025 to streamline environmental reviews and speed construction. Sacramento finally acknowledged that its rules had become part of the problem.

A state that spends years making homes harder to build should not act astonished when workers cannot afford them.

Then there is electricity. In July, California's average residential price reached 33.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 18.3 cents nationally, according to federal energy data. Families do not experience those figures as an abstract dispute over climate policy. They experience them when the utility bill arrives.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office identified greenhouse-gas policies as one contributor to California's soaring rates. Wildfire costs and the utilities' operating structures also play a role. The explanation is complicated; the price is unmistakable. Politicians pursuing ambitious mandates owe residents an honest accounting of what those mandates cost.

And what has California received for its vast spending on homelessness?

RELATED: Gavin Newsom makes damning admission about socialist takeover on undercover camera

JP Yim/Getty Images for Clinton Global Initiative

The state allocated nearly $24 billion for homelessness and housing programs during the five fiscal years ending in 2022-23. Yet in 2024, the state auditor reported that California lacked enough outcome data to assess the cost-effectiveness of three of the five programs examined. Two appeared cost-effective. The other three could not be properly judged because officials had failed to collect sufficient information.

That is not proof that every dollar was wasted. It is an indictment of a government that spends billions before establishing whether key programs deliver results. Taxpayers are entitled to more than another appropriation and another promise.

Yet California’s budget offers no reassurance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects roughly $29 billion in outstanding budgetary borrowing by the end of the 2026-27 fiscal year. It also identifies a structural imbalance: The enacted budget is balanced, but ongoing expenses exceed ongoing revenues.

California is not bankrupt — yet. Its economy remains enormous and productive. Indeed, that makes the recurring fiscal trouble harder to excuse. A state blessed with extraordinary wealth should be able to account for its spending and live within its means.

Now consider what some of the socialists propose. On Election Day, voters will decide Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of billionaires who were California residents on January 1. Naturally, the DSA supports it. Most of the proceeds would go toward health care, with smaller shares for education and food assistance.

RELATED: California says ‘trust us’ on voter eligibility. Why?

John Tully/Getty Images

Supporters say the money would help protect health care from largely overhyped federal funding cuts. The state projects the tax could raise tens of billions of dollars. But a one-time windfall is no cure for permanent spending commitments. California's Legislative Analyst warns that wealthy taxpayers could respond in ways that reduce future income-tax revenue. Once the windfall is spent, what comes next?

This is the argument socialists should have to confront. California already taxes heavily, regulates extensively, and devotes staggering sums to public programs. Yet housing is scarce, electricity is expensive, homelessness persists, and Sacramento borrows against tomorrow to meet today's obligations. Expanding the government’s reach without repairing its failures offers no guarantee of better results.

Many Californians recognize this. There are also plenty who may conclude that the existing political establishment has failed them so badly that an avowed socialist deserves a chance. Their frustration is understandable if misplaced.

California once drew the ambitious from across America with a promise that hard work could pay off. Before voters give Sacramento and city halls still more power, they should demand evidence that the power already granted has been used wisely.

Californians have paid for big promises long enough. Before funding the next experiment, they should demand the receipts.

Chris Talgo

Oklahoma man charged with double murder after his pregnant girlfriend is found dead, police say

1 week 5 days ago


Stephanie Strock was in her seventh month of pregnancy when she was found dead, according to one of her friends.

The Heavener Police Department said officers responded to a residence in the 500 block of West D. Ave. on Monday on a welfare check.

'I do believe that she may have been able to have a chance to be a mother to both her children if we would have paid attention sooner.'

They found the body belonging to 20-year-old Stephanie Strock.

Strock's body exhibited injuries consistent with homicide, according to investigators.

Police said they found her boyfriend, 28-year-old Austin Morrison, walking nearby.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation said that evidence gathered at the scene indicated that Morrison had been with Strock that night and had assaulted her.

He was arrested for two counts of murder, one for the child and another for Strock.

Morrison was booked into the LeFlore County Jail.

Strock's friend Cathy Ritter told KFSM-TV that Strock was in an abusive relationship and led a hard life.

"I think Stephanie should have been somewhere before all this tragedy happened, and I think it would have been avoided, and I think her baby would still be alive," Ritter said.

RELATED: Police make gruesome discovery in freezer of abandoned home in Dallas

"I do believe that she may have been able to have a chance to be a mother to both her children if we would have paid attention sooner," Ritter added.

She added that she was heartbroken that no one was there to help Strock.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Carlos Garcia

If Democrats defund the Iran campaign after midterms, what then? Nick Freitas lays out 3 potential strategies.

1 week 5 days ago


Right now, the U.S. government is putting military pressure on Iran, but that pressure is likely to let up if Democrats sweep the midterm elections, as they are predicted to do, and cut the money for continued military operations.

BlazeTV host Nick Freitas and Hillsdale military historian Mark Moyar are concerned that Iran is just biding its time — waiting for American politics to shut down the military pressure.

Freitas wants to know how the administration can continue to thwart Iran even if that military pressure ends.

“So if we acknowledge that Iran does pose a threat, that they do have aggressive goals … what do you think would be a good long-term strategy for mitigating the threat?” Freitas asks Moyer.

Given that Democrats will almost certainly push to “defund the war,” Moyer believes America will have to “depend more on countries in the region.”

“For Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, the other Gulf states, this is really more of an existential threat for them than it is for us,” he says, recommending that we “[build] the conditions for allowing them to to take more of the kinetic action.”

Freitas proposes the idea of “coming up with some sort of alternative to the Strait of Hormuz with respect to the export of oil.”

“How viable a strategy do you think that is, and what do you think some alternatives could actually look like?” he asks Moyer.

Moyer looks favorably on this idea. “I think using the alternative roads, we're already getting back close to prewar levels of oil. So I think that's very important — certainly going to reduce the ability of Iran to try to blackmail us with the Strait of Hormuz, which seems to be their current method of operation,” he says.

As for alternatives, Moyer says “it's not that hard” to “circumvent Iran,” but doing so “is not going to make the Iranian threat go away.”

“Realistically speaking, we should assume that at some point the Democrats and the Europeans are going to ease up on them, and so, you know, [Iran] will get back to doing the things they want to be doing,” he explains.

“How much leverage do you think the United States has in offering a stick or a carrot to the Chinese in order to lean on the ayatollah?” Freitas asks.

“In theory it sounds good,” says Moyer. However, “the Chinese probably like what's going on because we are their main adversary and we're losing lots of money and having lots of trouble.”

“They want to surpass us as the world's most powerful country, and so for us to be bogged down in this mess, I think, serves their interest, so I don't see them probably wanting to change Iran too much," he theorizes.

Freitas then presents a third potential strategy: Instead of fighting Iran directly, the U.S. quietly helps groups inside Iran fight the Iranian government themselves.

“You see opposition to the ayatollah coming from the overwhelming majority, which is Persian, but you also see it from Arab populations. You see it from Kurdish populations, and you certainly see it from the Azerbaijani populations, all within Iran,” he says.

“Do you think investing in a long-term strategy, which essentially supports and uplifts dissident groups to be able to potentially mount an effective insurgency ... do you look at that as a viable strategy?” he asks.

Moyer says it’s “certainly one worth considering” but ultimately “a tough call.”

“We have as a country mixed experience with supporting insurgencies in other countries, and sometimes it works,” he says.

But sometimes it doesn’t work.

“If you recall when we supported the Syrian insurgency, I think we spent a hundred billion dollars to train five guys or something before we canceled the program,” he notes.

It’s also a deadly gamble.

“I also think of the Iraq experience where we try to encourage these people to rise up and then Saddam Hussein ends up slaughtering huge numbers of people,” Moyer says, “so I do think we have to kind of think about are we going to simply be consigning people to their death.”

“Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms. Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com, and use the promo code NICK for $20 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

BlazeTV Staff