MMN Editor

Fox News host Jessica Tarlov
Jessica Tarlov, the left-leaning co-anchor of “The Five” on Fox News, is wishing Democrat lawmakers did not spill the beans about coming investigations of President Donald Trump, his family and top Republicans should the Democrats gain control of Congress.
Appearing on the “Raging Moderates” podcast, Tarlov said: “[U.S. Rep.] Robert Garcia, who will be the Oversight chair, put out a statement about focus there and will dive in and looking into the Trump family.”
“I almost wish that those things would not be said out loud yet.”
She continued: “That’s actually one of the strongest arguments for a partisan Republican to either come home and vote for Republicans or to get off the couch.”
“It’s not impeaching Donald Trump again. I think we definitely learned our lesson about that. But even the word ‘investigations,’ you see how much it shows up in speeches that President Trump is giving at these rallies. ‘They’re gonna come after me.’
“There are a lot of folks who felt that that was an animating factor in their vote in previous elections,” Tarlov concluded.
WATCH:

Jessica Tarlov says Democrats should’ve stayed quiet on investigations into Republicans until after the election.
Why? Because it might mean more votes for Republicans:
“I almost wish that those things would not be said out loud yet.”
“That’s actually one of the strongest arguments for a partisan Republican to either come home and vote for Republicans or to get off the couch.”
So she would’ve rather Democrats hide the truth from the public about their intentions because the truth might mean more Republican votes.
On. Brand.
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 3, 2026

The Western Lensman on X noted: “So she would’ve rather Democrats hide the truth from the public about their intentions because the truth might mean more Republican votes. On. Brand.”
Others commented:
“What she’s spouting is right out of the Democratic Party Playbook. Lie and conceal your intent to the voters and get elected any way possible. She’s so stupid, she doesn’t get it.”
“She just told everybody that she is a sneaky little b*tch. Also that she absolutely cares nothing about right, wrong or law and order.”
“First it was a BLUE TSUNAMI. Now Jessica Tarlov says Democrats should have kept quiet about investigating Republicans until AFTER the election. When your own side starts giving post-election damage-control advice BEFORE the votes are even counted, you know the blue tsunami isn’t going according to plan. THE PANIC IS LOUDER THAN THE WAVES! ”
President Donald J. Trump boards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House en route Joint Base Andrews, Friday, Oct. 30, 2026, for a campaign trip to Daytona Beach, Florida. (Official White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Rep. Garcia, D-Calif., has made numerous public promises about probing the Trump family and high-profile Republicans including former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, GOP adviser Corey Lewandowski and former U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle.
“We intend to hold not just Donald Trump, but every single member of the Trump family for their blatant crimes,” Garcia told MS NOW.
“Donald Trump is realizing that he’s facing the beginning of the end of his presidency. And we’re going to get all of these investigations started.”

In the majority, we will have the power to go to the courts; we will have the power to use civil contempt. And we should use all of it to go after those who have not been honest with the public.
Anyone with information on Epstein will have to answer our questions. It’s time to end this cover-up.
— Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) October 28, 2026

NEW: Top House Oversight Committee Dem Robert Garcia pledges *RETRIBUTION* if party regains control
Far-Left podcaster Jennifer Welch asked Garcia if Democrats should prioritize “affordability” or “retribution.”
Garcia’s response: “We can do both!”
He didn’t even deny that what he’s planning is retribution.
Earlier in the interview, Garcia revealed his first subpoena targets if Democrats regain power: the Trump Family, Trump Organization, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kristi Noem, and Corey Lewandowski.
He also vowed to use all of Democrats’ “contempt powers” against these targets.
Garcia even name-dropped Melania Trump.
There you have it.
Garcia just said the quiet part out loud about the Democrat agenda 2 weeks before the Midterms.
— Jason Cohen (@JasonJournoDC) October 19, 2026

Leaving office doesn’t erase the record. Kristi Noem, Corey Lewandowski, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and anyone accused of ripping off the American public will be held accountable. The American people deserve truth and transparency. https://t.co/n6cIm5ZRr0
— Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) October 15, 2026

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!
Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews
WATCH: Fox News anchors explode with screaming eruption when asked one simple question

WATCH: Greg Gutfeld eviscerates Jessica Tarlov for making the ‘both sides’ argument about Charlie Kirk murder

American Muslim reformers are torching political commentator Wajahat Ali after he warned that “the fire will rise” and people will be “radicalized” if Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed loses his Michigan Senate bid, saying his language echoes a “Jihad First” intimidation rhetoric used by religious tyrants before elections in the Middle East.On Monday, Ali drew fire on X when he wrote: “If, God forbid, Abdul loses, this will be a watershed moment in Democratic politics. The fire will rise. It’s over. People will be radicalized against corporate, pro-Israel Dems. There will be a reckoning. If, when, he wins, it will be a watershed moment. And that reckoning will still come.”After facing backlash, Ali posted another message Tuesday morning, expressing no regrets and instead scolding critics for alleged bigotry. “Ah, that Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry are so pure and naked,” Ali wrote. “People are just coming out in the open about how they’ve always felt. Great. Please, be honest. Just share the ugliness with the world so we can all see.”Ali didn’t respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.Reform-minded Muslim leaders aren’t buying Ali’s rhetoric.The divide with Muslim reformers reflects a broader fissure within American Muslim politics: between establishment organizations and leaders who accept political Islam, or Islamism — the idea that religion should shape government and political life — and reform-minded critics who challenge orthodoxy, reject anti-Israel and anti-Western rhetoric and support secularism, including the separation of mosque and state.”What Wajahat Ali said on the eve of elections is actually the language we’ve seen Islamists use before elections in countries in the Middle East, including Egypt,” Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian Muslim reformer and critic of political Islamism, told Fox News Digital.”The threat is usually: If you don’t choose us, this will lead to radicalization, and this will lead to violence,” added Ziada, who is Washington, D.C., director at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. “Maybe we need to expect troubles coming up.”EL-SAYED’S PAST MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD COMMENTS RAISE RED FLAGS AS HE EYES POWERFUL ROLESoraya Deen, a Muslim reform activist, attorney and co-founder of the Los Angeles Women’s Multifaith Alliance, said Ali’s language shouldn’t be treated as a routine social-media outburst.”His words are deeply troubling,” Deen told Fox News Digital. “His warning that ‘the fire will rise,’ that people will be ‘radicalized,’ and that a ‘reckoning’ is coming deserves serious scrutiny.””Losing an election is not a license for radicalization,” added Deen, . “We must reject intimidation, political extremism and the politics of perpetual grievance.”EX-DSA MEMBER RIPS ABDUL EL-SAYED AND WARNS FAR-LEFT ADOPTING POLITICS OF FOREIGN TERROR ORGDr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim reformer and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said Ali’s comments reflect what he describes as a “Jihad First” lens for viewing political conflict.”Wajahat Ali, like Abdul El-Sayed, proves yet again their decades of anti-American Islamist obsession and the ‘Jihad First’ lens through which they view every cultural, social, military and political conflict,” said Jasser, who is running for Congress as a Republican candidate in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District.Jasser’s comments were directed at what he described as the political rhetoric surrounding El-Sayed’s campaign. The reformers didn’t accuse Ali of belonging to an Islamist organization. Their criticism focused on language they said resembles tactics used to pressure voters by warning that rejecting a candidate could produce violence or radicalization.EL-SAYED TRIES TO MAKE PEACE WITH JEWISH DEMOCRATS BUT DRAWS LINE AT DUMPING HASAN PIKERAli’s comments came as El-Sayed’s campaign draws support from a wide network of Muslim advocacy groups, Palestinian activist organizations, progressive groups, labor organizations and political influencers.A Fox News Digital review of campaign endorsements, public statements and voter-mobilization efforts identified 70 Muslim groups and influencers supporting El-Sayed’s political orbit one way or another. The records include formal endorsements, campaign-listed support, voter mobilization and public amplification. Not every organization has the same relationship with the campaign.They include CAIR Action, Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, Bangladeshi Americans for Political Progress, Emgage Action and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. El-Sayed’s official website includes endorsements from “Muslims for Abdul,” the Yemeni American Michigan Democratic Caucus, the Michigan Bangladeshi American Democratic Caucus and Palestinian American political operative Linda Sarsour’s MPower Action, among others.ABDUL EL-SAYED REPORTEDLY CALLED HASAN PIKER WARNING HIS RHETORIC WAS ‘COSTING’ VOTESThe broader coalition supporting El-Sayed includes Democratic Party organizations and Democratic Socialists of America chapters, as well as online commentators and political figures including Hasan Piker, Linda Sarsour, Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib.The organizations and individuals have overlapping priorities, including opposition to U.S. support for Israel, demands for an arms embargo or cease-fire, support for Palestinian activism, criticism of Democratic moderates and efforts to mobilize Muslim and progressive voters.The coalition’s critics have described it as a “red-green” alliance involving “red” left-wing political organizations and “green” Muslim advocacy groups.”Their red-green ‘Jihad First’ filter — threatening fire and radicalization — is simply an unmooring of their own dreams to live the jihad of Islamism and destroy the American dream and everything for which it stands,” Jasser said. “Patriotism is not in their vocabulary.”TRUMP SAYS ISRAEL WILL STOP RECEIVING $4B IN US AID BY YEAR’S END, CAN STILL BUY WEAPONSFor Ziada, the significance of Ali’s post lies in the suggestion that an election loss could trigger radicalization.”Muslims like Wajahat Ali are just using the political movement backing Abdul El-Sayed as a staircase to bring them to the power of a chair they want to claim,” Ziada said. “Once they get there, they don’t care what they may have promised. And if they don’t get there, they will turn it into fire.”Ziada also criticized El-Sayed’s campaign rhetoric about Israel, comparing what she described as repeated attacks on Israel to political tactics used by leaders in the Middle East. Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump announced that he would cut off $4 billion of aid to Israel, one of the network’s demands, designed to isolate the nation.”The demonization of Israel that we saw very prominently in the campaign of El-Sayed is a tactic that we saw Middle Eastern dictators resorting to every now and then,” Ziada said.”Whenever they are stuck with economic issues or politics, they just bring up the ‘Israel is bad’ card,” she added. “Again, he is just copying dictators in the Middle East.”Jasser said the episode should prompt Muslim voters and Democratic leaders to examine the language used by political influencers who claim to speak for Muslim communities.”Any honest Muslim who reads that post will see ‘Jihad First’ and everyone else be damned, including patriotic Muslims,” Jasser said.Ali has emerged as a prominent media figure over more than two decades, writing for and appearing on outlets including The Daily Beast, The New York Times, CNN and The Guardian. He also hosted programming for Al Jazeera America.His political activism began after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he became involved in campus protests at the University of California, Berkeley. He later worked with Democratic operative Faiz Shakir, who became campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit established by former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta.Ali has continued to weigh in on Israel, Democratic Party strategy and Muslim political activism, regularly drawing fire. Earlier this year, in a broadcast with former MSNBC host Joy Reid, the two decried “weak White mean” in a heated anti-Trump rant.Most recently, Ali hosted a speaker who criticized Democratic House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries for receiving political contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, calling him an “AIPAC monkey.” The smear drew cries of racism against Jeffries, who is Black.Now, Muslim reformers are scolding Ali for making comments that seem to threaten voters with “fire,” a “reckoning” and a “radicalized” citizenry if his preferred candidate loses.Deen said the response to an election should be political disagreement, not warnings of unrest.”Losing an election is not a license for radicalization,” Deen said. “We must reject intimidation, political extremism and the politics of perpetual grievance.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority offered clear support Tuesday for Catholic preschools that claim Colorado’s taxpayer-funded program improperly excludes them by unconstitutionally intruding on their religious rights.At issue is whether those private education institutions that deny admission to children of LGBTQ+ parents violate state anti-discrimination laws, and can therefore be denied a generally applicable public benefit.It is the latest high-profile religious rights appeal to reach the high court in recent years, several of them originating from Colorado.CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, BANNED RIFLES AND ‘CLIMATE LAWFARE’: BLOCKBUSTER FIGHTS AWAIT SUPREME COURTIn a lively two-hour oral argument, the justices debated competing interests involving both religious liberty and a state’s interest in ensuring equal opportunity for gay and lesbian parents.”I’m hard-pressed to think that, given those [Catholic] teachings, that any homosexual family is going to choose to go to one of these schools, but that should be their choice, not your choice to exclude them,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the lawyer for the plaintiffs. “That’s what you’re asking for… You want an official statement by the State that I will subsidize you with public money even though – because I have a right to reject children.”ANDREA PICCIOTTI-BAYER: COLORADO’S UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL REVIVES VILE ANTI-CATHOLIC LAWSBut Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the state’s motives, however well-intentioned, are promoting a kind of conformity that is not constitutionally permissible.”Why not seek the win/win?” Kavanaugh asked the attorney for the state. “There are plenty of opportunities to respect the rights of the religious believers and respect the ability of LGBT parents to find among the 2,000 [Colorado] schools an appropriate fit for their children.”It seems like this is a would-be solution in search of a problem that is unnecessary to create this clash,” he added. “There’s an ability for everyone to go to the school, a good school that’s a fit for them, and respect religious rights.”Colorado established a Universal Preschool Program (UPK) in a 2020 ballot measure, distributing public funds for participating schools, with the requirement they “provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability.”Two Catholic parishes sued, arguing the policy targets their sincerely held beliefs about same-sex marriage.The archdiocese in the state manages 34 preschools, with a policy to only admit students from ​families who support Catholic ideology, including on same-sex relationships and gender identity.They seek exemptions to the Colorado law, arguing their exclusion is a form of religious discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.The Trump administration has signaled its support of the religious plaintiffs.The state counters its public benefit conditions are neutral and generally applied to every preschool.It provides a $6,300 annual benefit per child for up to 15 hours a week of preschool, with money coming from a tobacco tax.Officials told the nine-member bench that religious schools are free to participate but must abide by nondiscrimination laws, similar to those affecting low-income and disabled students.As part of its review of the Colorado dispute, the high court will decide whether to narrow a 36-year-old precedent that religious practices do not create exemptions from broadly applicable laws.The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”The Supreme Court in prior decades had focused on the first part, ensuring a constitutional separation of church and state, when disputes over religious rights reached the public sphere.But the current conservative bench in the past few years — led by Justice Samuel Alito — has trended toward favoring religious institutions raising “free exercise” claims.The justices have separately backed a Colorado baker, mental health counselor and website developer, who all challenged the state’s anti-discrimination policies.The oral arguments Tuesday seemed to divide along ideological lines.Conservative justices focused on the “free exercise” claims by the Catholic parishes that state requirements for receiving public benefits amounted to religious discrimination.”Explain what the difference is between [explicitly excluding Catholic schools] and then choosing to impose a condition that you know that those schools will be unable to agree to?” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett.But Justice Elena Kagan cited the court’s prior cases, which she said affirmed the idea “you can’t treat religious institutions differently.””That’s not the principle that’s at issue here,” Kagan said. “The principle at issue here is: Do you have to treat them better?”Chief Justice John Roberts asked tough questions of both sides and his vote could prove determinative. At one point, he expressed skepticism that recent rulings favoring the rights of religious schools over similar claims should also prevail in the current petition.”The law in those cases, in each of them, expressly discriminated against religious schools on its face,” Roberts told Reaves. “That’s not the case here,” suggesting Colorado’s law may be applied fairly across the board.The current dispute was brought by plaintiffs including St. Mary Catholic School.Erika Nagle, whose children attend the Littleton facility, told Fox News Digital that two of her children were denied access to the state’s preschool funding program, leaving her family to cover additional education expenses.”We are being excluded from this benefit because we are Catholic,” Nagle said in an interview with Fox News Digital. “And so in a state that preaches inclusion, they are actively going out of their way to exclude a huge chunk of people because of our religious beliefs.”We have had two preschools in the archdiocese that have been closed down,” she added. “The state is dangling a carrot over here, incentivizing people to leave their faith, to abandon the Catholic education that they want.”The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represented the plaintiffs in court, arguing the state’s policies are having severe consequences, with enrollment at archdiocesan preschools falling 20% and two schools shuttered.The state counters that religious entities like Catholic Charities, at least three dozen Christian schools, one Muslim and three Jewish schools continue to participate in the preschool funding program.”Colorado welcomes religious preschools” to its program, state attorney Helen Norton told the high court. “The only thing Colorado asks is that they comply with the same conditions that every publicly funded preschool must meet, religious and secular alike.”The case is St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (25-581), with a ruling expected by next spring.

Nicole Taylor, a singer in the country trio Taylor Red, has died. She was 35.On Monday, Nika and Natalie Taylor, the other members of the group and Nicole’s sisters, announced her death in a TikTok post.”We’re heartbroken to announce the passing of our sister, Nicole Taylor,” Nika said. “We honestly thought she’d be healed here on earth, but now she’s healed in heaven.”STARS WE’VE LOST IN 2026Nicole, who was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in 2022, died Sept. 28 at her home in Nashville, according to a memorial page created by her family.GET ENTERTAINMENT SCOOP DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE”It was an aggressive type [of cancer]. In her words, when she first found out, were, ‘God’s gonna use this for his glory,’” Natalie said. “She fought it fearlessly, and she said, ‘We’re not going to live in dread during all of this.’ And she even did CrossFit while she was doing her chemo treatments. She responded well to treatments, and she was declared evidence without disease.”‘BAYWATCH’ STAR NICOLE EGGERT EXPOSES FINANCIAL TOLL OF CANCER BATTLE: ‘THE BILLS DON’T STOP’They shared that Nicole was told “nine months later” that the cancer had returned as Stage 4, and she had “around three months” to live.LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS”[The doctor said] if the treatments worked, they didn’t know how long [she’d have] after that,” Nika said.”We’re still processing everything,” Natalie said while fighting back tears. “This, honestly, feels really hard to talk about, but we’re going to do our best to share her story.”PUT YOUR ENTERTAINMENT KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST AND SEE HOW YOU SCOREThe sisters said Nicole “lived around a year after that prognosis.””During the time of the more extreme diagnosis, we felt led to not live in fear and claim healing,” Nika said.”She said she had so much peace, and we’re really thankful for that,” Natalie said. “We are still shocked and didn’t think this would happen, but we know she’s not suffering anymore.”