MMN Editor

McHaggis? Court Green-Lights Lawsuit Alleging That The McRib Contains Non-Rib Meat

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,Many were excited when McDonald’s recently announced, “The McRib is back.” The question is whether it is really back or really a McRib. In an interesting decision out of Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry ruled that McDonald’s must go to trial on a class action lawsuit alleging that the popular McRib sandwich is made with non-rib meat. The lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s merely shapes the meat to look like ribs but uses shoulder, heart, tripe, or stomach – making it sound more like McHaggis. McDonald’s vehemently denies the accusation and stands by its representation that the only ingredients are “pork, water, salt, dextrose, and rosemary extract.” The class action was filed under an array of tort, fraud, and misrepresentation theories. In the end, however, the impact on McDonald’s could have the same business impact that the “pink slime” stories had on Taco Bell.The ruling comes just three days after the McRib’s return to McDonald’s menus across the country. It first debuted in 1981.The complaint alleges:”Despite its name and distinctive shape – its meat patty has been deliberately crafted to resemble a rack of pork ribs – the McRib does not contain any actual pork rib meat at all. Instead, its meat patty is reconstructed using ground-up portions of lower-grade pork products such as, inter alia, pork shoulder, heart, tripe, and scalded stomach.” It alleges that McDonald’s uses the deceptive advertising to sell over 30 million such sandwiches each year. It also includes surveys showing that 72% of purchasers of McRibs expected that the product contains rib meat, which is more expensive than these other alleged meats.”The class action was filed with sixteen original courts alleging fraud, implied warranty, false advertising, consumer protection violations, and misrepresentation claims. It also alleges a breach of express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-313. The court dismissed most of these claims but allowed consumer-deception, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed.Perry rejected McDonald’s claim that this is merely a trademarked name and does not allow for such liability, noting that other McDonald’s products, such as the McChicken and Egg McMuffin, describe their ingredients.The shape of the McRibs featured prominently in the complaint, though the company will argue that people understand that it is obviously manufactured since there are no bones in the meat. However, the judge found that the McRib’s shape could support the consumers’ claim that McDonald’s presentation created a misleading impression about the meat they were buying.The key to the ruling is that, at this pre-trial stage when facts are read in favor of the non-moving party (the class action) on a motion to dismiss, the court cannot find that there is no possibility for the class members to prevail. She is giving them a trial to prove their case.For McDonald’s, it is a major blow since attention to the lawsuit will inevitably drive down sales. The company denies the accusations, but consumers may be a bit skittish about the whole barbecued tripe thing.Regardless of the outcome, the public response could present the same pressures as the “pink slime” Taco Bell controversy, which led companies (including McDonald’s) to discontinue the use of lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) despite a defamation lawsuit by the beef people. Notably, ABC/Disney entered into a $177 million settlement over the story, but LFTB never recovered from the pink slime coverage.McDonald’s will, of course, have its chance to prove its case in court, but in the interim, some customers may not be “Lovin’ It.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/03/2026 – 15:15

The list of premier NFL historians has for a long time included Peter King as a contributor, and his new book titled “The Game” is a journey that gives color to the growth of America’s sport from the 1980s, when baseball and the NFL were still sports landscape peers to the current day in which football simply dominates.King, the former Sports Illustrated writer and founding author of the Monday Morning Quarterback column, has delivered 40 chapters about King Sport.”The Game” is a journey that details everything from the perfect NFL career authored by a Steelers’ player not part of the early-day Super Bowl titles, to the rebirth of the New York Giants in the 1980s, to the painful last stand of Bill Walsh, to the sad end of Al Davis in 2007 – with much in between and beyond.The book is a sprawling, colorful ride through four decades in forty chapters.FOOTBALL LEGEND BILL BELICHICK ADDRESSES HALL OF FAME SNUB AND WHETHER IT WAS A ‘POLITICAL’ DECISIONSitting down with the writer allowed me an opportunity to explain to King how wrong he was about his Mount Rushmore of Pro Football.Fine, so I didn’t actually tell a legendary scribe he’s wrong about his stuff. But it’s fair to say I probed him about the water cooler conversation segment of the book, which he patterned after Mount Rushmore.Having known King for decades, I reminded him that Mount Rushmore has four presidents on its granite cliff and his Mount Rushmore boasts 100 people, then adds another 10 just because, then includes an honorable mention section.”Armando,” King retorts, without missing a beat, “as you know, I always wrote long.”Fair enough.Time to prod.King did not include either Bill Belichick or Don Shula among his top 20 names on his Mount Rushmore.EX-PATRIOTS STAR ON WHETHER TOM BRADY COULD FACE SAME HOF FATE AS BILL BELICHICK: ‘CRAZY TO THINK ABOUT’Belichick, who has more Super Bowl championships than any other coach in NFL history, is No. 24 on King’s mountain.”Well, my Mount Rushmore is about the people who have been most significant in making the NFL the monstrous game and product that it is today,” King explains. “So, like I have Joe Carr, former NFL commissioner, as the 4th most significant guy in pro football history.NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL WILL NOT TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS AMID SCRUTINY OF PAST TESTIMONIES”I think it’s hard for somebody, unless you’re absolutely like the best who’s ever done it, for me to say that he’s more important in football history than, say, Lamar Hunt, or Pete Rozelle, or John Madden or Vince Lombardi … And those are guys I have, obviously, in the top 10.”There are so many people, and I went through so many iterations of this, but I just tried to stick with the sort of the tried and true approach of people who were most responsible for this game being as gargantuan as it is.”Before this gets out of control, understand that King was a Pro Football Hall of Fame selector for decades and thought it was a mistake not to induct Belichick as a first-ballot candidate.So he is not anti-Belichick, folks.MANNY FERNANDEZ, CORNERSTONE OF DOLPHINS’ PERFECT 1972 SEASON, DEAD AT 79Shula, the winningest coach of all time and the architect of the NFL’s only undefeated Super Bowl champion, is outside King’s top 25.”I just don’t think of Don Shula as a more important figure than the people I put above him,” King said. “I think the reason is, and look, the undefeated season is obviously, that team is without peer in modern NFL history without any question. And that was an incredible accomplishment, especially because they beat some incredible teams in that season. They had a great year.ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!”But I think the way I kind of look at it, other than the number of wins, which is paramount, when I look at Don Shula, I am left asking the question, ‘What other contributions to the game did he have that should put him higher on this list? What are they?'”And I am left not convinced that he made the kind of contributions that guys like Madden and Lombardi made. This is more than just your win total. It has to do with everything you contributed to the game.”King is a good sport allowing me to thrust and riposte with him a bit. Any book that can set off such an exchange over football is worth the time.FOLLOW ARMANDO SALGUERO ON X: @ARMANDOSALGUERO

Inside The $250 Electric Bill: Dissecting The Midterms’ Most Hated Piece Of Mail

Today, for perhaps the first time in modern American history, the monthly electric bill is on the ballot.Not literally, of course (although in nine states, utility commissioners literally are), but as Reuters put it on Friday, this could be “the first election to feature utilities and electricity, specifically, as a prominent issue in the midterms.” Readers who have been with us for a while will not be surprised. Back in August 2025, when the “power bill crisis” was still a story mostly confined to angry Maryland Facebook groups, we posted a chart of CPI electricity with a big arrow pointing up and a simple prediction:In one year, this will be the most popular chart on this site pic.twitter.com/h93gWXMoNL— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 11, 2025
Fifteen months later, here is that chart updated through the latest (September) CPI report: since January 2020, the electricity component of CPI is up 43%, while the headline index is up 30%. The average price of a kilowatt-hour has gone from 13.4 cents to 19.6 cents, a 46% jump, and the electricity CPI is still rising 4.4% a year.And before either party starts taking a victory lap: the average price per kWh rose 32% between January 2021 and January 2025, and another 9.5% since then, in a year when voters were promised that energy prices would be cut in half. Bipartisanship at its finest.Last month we used Goldman’s new “Affordability” series to map out where bills have gone up the most, and we tweeted this chart, which was seen over 200,000 times, which tells you something about how many people are staring at their own bill:With the polls now open, we figured it’s worth revisiting the same report, “Inside Customer Affordability: An Introduction to the Electric Utility Bill”  (available to pro subs), from the other direction: open the envelope, go through the bill line by line, and figure out which line items are actually doing the damage. Because, as it turns out, the answer depends a lot more on your ZIP code than on which party you vote for.Three Buckets, One EnvelopeGoldman’s utilities team led by Carly Davenport starts with the basics:”The typical electric bill consists of three primary components: supply charges, delivery charges and other customer charges. In short, this covers the cost to generate power, deliver it to the end customer, maintain the grid, and (in some cases) implement state policy goals. Supply charges are primarily driven by natural gas prices, wholesale power costs and capacity markets; delivery charges reflect transmission and distribution investments; while other charges include taxes, public benefit programs, low-income assistance, clean energy mandates and wildfire-related costs. As a result, customer bill increases can stem from commodity costs, infrastructure investment, public policy programs, or a combination of all three.”Simple enough. But here is where it gets interesting: the mix of the three varies enormously depending on who mails you the bill. Consider the sample Con Edison bill Goldman uses (a small NYC apartment, 242 kWh in February 2024): of the $103.47 total, just $31.21 is the actual electricity. The other $72.26, or 70%, is delivery, i.e., the poles, wires and substations of the regulated utility, plus taxes and the “System Benefit Charge.”

(Source: Con Edison via Goldman Sachs)

Now cross the Hudson. For the two New Jersey households whose actual bills Goldman tracked for over a year (one served by FirstEnergy’s (FE) JCP&L, one by PSEG’s (PEG) PSE&G), the split flips: generation is about 73% of the JCP&L bill and supply about 70% of the PSE&G bill. Same metro area, mirror-image bills. Which probably explains why the political debate over “who’s to blame” is so confused: in New York, the answer is mostly the utility’s own spending; in New Jersey, it’s mostly the wholesale market the utility doesn’t control.Nationally, generation still accounts for the lion’s share, but the trend is worth noting: per EIA data, generation’s share of the average price has slipped from 62% in 2015 to 56% in 2025, while distribution rose from 27% to 30% and transmission from 11% to 14%. In other words, the grid itself (and the return utilities earn on building it) is eating a growing piece of every bill, a point we’ll come back to.Death By A Thousand RidersIf you’ve ever tried to read your bill and gave up halfway, that is probably because of the riders. Goldman defines these as “specialized, state-approved billing mechanisms that bypass traditional rate cases to allow utilities to recover specific costs”: fuel and storm cost deferrals, public benefit and wildfire charges, bad-debt recovery (which, helpfully, “tend[s] to rise during periods of high inflation or economic stress”, so customers who pay end up covering those who can’t), and capex riders such as the DSIC, which lets a utility recover grid spending “between formal base rate cases.”Translation: a lot of what you pay never goes through the public rate-case process that makes headlines. It just shows up.The best illustration in the report is a sample residential bill from American Electric Power’s (AEP) Ohio utility. It’s long, so we broke it down:Of the $252.98 total, $121.03 (48%) is generation, which the bill helpfully notes Ohio Power “makes no profit from.” The “Electric Grid Base Rates” (the part set in a rate case, i.e., the part politicians yell about) come to just $56.79, or 22%. And then there are ten more line items: a transmission rider, a state kWh tax, a tax-savings credit, energy efficiency, PIPP (funding Ohio’s low-income bill payment program), a reliability rider for tree trimming, a distribution investment rider, an economic development rider, a storm rider and a gridSMART rider for the smart meter. Add up the riders alone and they come to $71.72, more than the base rates themselves. Here is the original:The Northeast sample bill (Eversource (ES)) tells a similar story with different labels: on top of supply ($96.12), transmission ($28.67) and local delivery ($59.09), the customer pays $12.69 in “Public Benefits,” including a federally mandated congestion charge (FMCC) for the privilege of living somewhere transmission lines can’t carry enough cheap power. That’s about 6.5% of the bill for policy goals the customer may or may not support, and which public power customers often don’t pay at all (more on that below).The 833% Line ItemStill, if there’s one charge that explains why the power bill went from a niche gripe to a national campaign issue, it’s the one buried inside “supply” in PJM, America’s biggest grid: capacity.Capacity is what PJM pays power plants to promise to be available when needed, and those payments flow straight into the supply charge. When supply tightens (plant retirements) and expected demand surges (data centers), the price explodes. Which is exactly what happened: the capacity price went from $28.92/MW-day to $269.92/MW-day, an ~833% jump, before hitting the price cap of $329.17 the following year, and, well, it has stayed pinned at the cap ever since:Goldman’s tracked PSE&G customer shows exactly what that looks like on an actual bill: supply cost per kWh jumped 25% year-over-year in May 2026 (the month when the 833% comparison hit), and another 10% in June, when the next step-up kicked in. Delivery charges, the part the utility actually earns on, fell in every single month shown.Zoom out further and Goldman finds a 73% R-squared between JCP&L’s annual average bill and PJM capacity prices; add natural gas (TETCO M3) and a multi-variable regression explains 88% of the move over six years. Put differently, in New Jersey the bill is mostly a function of two numbers no governor directly controls.And who drove those two numbers? According to PJM’s own independent market monitor, data centers were responsible for $29.4 billion, or 46%, of the $63.6 billion in capacity charges across the last four auctions, and per the same market monitor (via Bloomberg), will add at least $23 billion to customer bills in the three years ending May 2028. And that’s with a price cap: as we showed last December, without price controls, electricity bills would explode.One small piece of good news: as Wolfe’s Steve Fleishman notes in his latest Power Trip note, this year’s New Jersey BGS auction resulted in “only negligible summer bill changes” (PSEG bills down $3/month, ACE flat, JCP&L up $2) after last year’s auction “showed electric bills jumping 17-20% in June when PJM capacity auction results took effect – this drove heightened political sensitivity.” That’s what happens when capacity is capped: bills stop going up. They just never come back down.The Rate Base MachineWhich brings us to the slower-moving, and arguably more durable, driver of the bill: utility capex.Goldman lays out how a regulated utility makes money with the following formula, and it’s worth staring at for a moment:Regulators set the return (the WACC) a utility can earn on its rate base, i.e., everything it has built minus depreciation, plus new capex. As Goldman puts it, “That allowed revenue increase will ultimately be reflected in customers’ electricity bills.” Since the return is earned on capital deployed, the more a utility builds, the more it earns. No conspiracy required: that is simply how the model works (and why utility stocks are valued on rate base growth).The results show up in the data. A Bloomberg analysis of EIA data published last month found that prices at investor-owned utilities, which serve two-thirds of US households, rose 34% since 2020, compared with 19% at publicly owned utilities. “The misaligned incentives associated with an investor-owned utility make these other cost drivers worse — it exacerbates them,” RMI’s Gennelle Wilson told Bloomberg. The case study: a Worcester, MA retiree paying National Grid 34 cents per kWh, while her neighbor across the lake pays the municipal utility under 16 cents.And the machine is just getting started. Per Reuters, utilities are on track to match last year’s record $31 billion in rate increase requests, and S&P’s RRA sees investor-owned utilities spending nearly $1.3 trillion in capex over the next five years. Goldman’s own math shows what that means: in its base case, the average annual residential bill rises from about $1,900 in 2026 to roughly $2,150 by 2030; under its “bull capex” scenario (bullish for the utilities, that is), it climbs to about $2,600, with annual bill growth of 7.9% through 2029 instead of 3.7%.To be fair to the utilities, much of that spending is needed: the grid is old, storms keep getting more expensive (JCP&L alone is seeking $476 million in storm-cost recovery on top of a $253 million distribution increase, per BofA’s rate case tracker), and someone has to connect all those data centers. Then again, “someone has to pay for it” is precisely the question on today’s ballot.So High… Or Does It Just Feel That Way?Here is where Goldman throws a little cold water on the narrative. Despite all of the above, residential electricity costs are about 2.7% of disposable income, and Goldman expects that to dip to ~2.6% by 2030 as income growth outpaces bill growth. And there’s barely any correlation between how fast bills have risen and how much of the wallet they take:DC, the state with the biggest three-year increase (+55.8%), has one of the lowest burdens at about 1.8% of disposable income, while Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii and West Virginia carry some of the highest burdens despite below-average (or even negative) inflation. Which is why Goldman concludes that “inflation is the main metric that matters for customer perception of affordability pressures.” In other words, voters benchmark the bill against last year’s bill, and their paycheck barely enters into it.Maybe that’s also why it feels worse than the averages suggest. Bills are lumpy and seasonal: Goldman’s PSE&G customer went from roughly $100 in the winter to over $450 in July. Or, as one Pennsylvania retiree who logs her daily kWh usage in a composition notebook told Bloomberg, “They continually go up in small increments, almost unnoticeable, until one day you get that shocker of a bill and say, ‘Whoa, how did this happen?'”For lower-income households, though, the squeeze is very real. Goldman calculates that the average monthly bill takes 12.6 hours of work at the state minimum wage, roughly 30% of a 40-hour week. In Texas, it’s 22.5 hours; in Colorado, 6.4.Today’s Real Question: Who Pays For The Next GigawattSo what does it all add up to? Goldman’s base case is a gentle glide path: bill inflation of 5.9% in 2026, easing to 2.1% by 2029, a 3.7% CAGR that eventually falls back in line with PCE.Meanwhile, Goldman’s own desk thinks the political debate has already moved on. In its midterms playbook (available to pro subs), the bank’s baskets team writes that power inflation “may be one of the more underappreciated election-sensitive themes in US equities,” and that “the debate is increasingly moving away from whether datacentres should be built and towards who will pay for the incremental power generation and transmission required by datacentres.” Which is also the thread running through BofA’s state-by-state look at the governor races, which we discussed earlier in “These Are The States Where Tuesday’s Midterms Can Pull The Plug On Data Centers.” The utilities are already feeling it. Just a few hours ago, Goldman’s Davenport reiterated her Sell on Exelon, citing “more limited upside to earnings growth given affordability and regulatory risks across its PJM service territories.” Per Reuters, Fitch cut its outlook for the North American utility sector to “deteriorating” back in June, citing political pressure to limit bills and profits. And as PowerLines’ Charles Hua told Reuters, “the real meat will come after the election.”We agree, and we suspect Goldman’s glide path is the optimistic case. It requires PJM’s price cap to keep holding, capex to land in the base case rather than the bull case even as utilities file record rate requests, and data centers to stop adding to capacity costs at the same time as GE Vernova’s 116 GW gas turbine backlog means new supply won’t show up for years. Any one of those slipping means the “moderation” gets pushed out, again.Which is why we keep coming back to the same answer we gave last Christmas Eve, long before Goldman came around to the same view: if the next gigawatt is for a data center, the data center should build it.Make “behind the meter” mandatory https://t.co/ZEcmX5Ge0e pic.twitter.com/bCBnwx2E5g— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 24, 2025
Otherwise, whoever wins today will inherit the same bill, with a few more riders on it.Much more in the full Goldman “Inside Customer Affordability” report, available to pro subs.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/03/2026 – 15:00

Several counties reported voting equipment problems, scanner rejections, technical delays, and ballots diverted into emergency boxes on Election Day.
Below is a breakdown of the reports based on local news, official statements, and voter accounts on social media.
It will be updated throughout the day if more issues arise.
Westchester County, New York.
Ballot scanners across the county stopped accepting paper ballots shortly after polls opened at 6 a.m. The Westchester County Board of Elections initially blamed ballot thickness, then issued a revised statement citing “an issue involving paper ballots.”
Voters were directed to place completed ballots in designated orange emergency ballot bags for later counting.
County Executive Ken Jenkins called the situation a “debacle” and pledged a bipartisan review.
WATCH: Westchester County Executive Calls Ballot Scanner Meltdown in Race That Could Decide Control of The House a ‘Debacle,’ Mike Lawler Tells Voters to STAY IN LINE!

Rep. Mike Lawler posted videos urging voters to stay in line, stating every scanner in the county was affected and that every ballot would be counted.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said her office was monitoring the issue.
Fulton County, Georgia.
Elections Director Nadine Williams notified the Secretary of State that two scanners failed during early voting, leaving 1,069 ballots unread on their original machines.
One failure occurred October 21 at Mechanicsville Library (361 ballots) after a wheelchair allegedly rolled over a power cable; another occurred October 26 at Hugh C. Conley Recreation Center (708 ballots) after a persistent paper-jam error with no visible jam.
Fulton County Scanner Failures Leave 1,069 Early Ballots Unread; Elections Director Seeks Board Approval Tonight for Rescan After Polls Close

Officials planned to transfer memory cards or rescan the paper ballots publicly after polls close, pending board approval.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said officials removed the machines as a precaution.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, voters are also receiving fake text messages about their polling places changing locations.
Broward County, Florida.
Technical issues with a barcode-scanning system designed to issue the correct ballot in redistricted precincts delayed check-in at multiple sites for about 20 minutes after polls opened at 7 a.m.
Florida: Broward County Voters Hit by System Lockouts and Technical Failures Minutes After Polls Open on Election Day

Supervisor of Elections Joe Scott said the glitch was fixed by approximately 7:20 a.m., no one voted on the wrong ballot, and some voters left the line rather than wait.
Separate flooding forced the relocation of at least one polling place, the Paradise Village clubhouse in Davie, to Tree Tops Park.
Pennsylvania, Beaver, Luzerne, Franklin, and Centre Counties.
Scott Presler relayed voter reports of scanner problems.
In Beaver County, a voter said the ballot scanner wasn’t working, and ballots went into a box to be scanned after polls closed.
In Luzerne County (Butler Township District 8), a Facebook screenshot indicated no ballot bin was attached, so ballots went into a holding box. The RNC later said it flagged and fixed the issue.
In Franklin County (Williamson), a report claimed the machine was down at 7 a.m., some voters were turned away, and ballots were later placed “in a folder.”
Pennsylvania Voters Report Ballot Scanners Down in Three Counties, Ballots Being Dropped in Boxes for Later Scanning

A Centre County report described a jammed scanner at a Lions Club site with ballots directed to a lower slot for later scanning.
Dougherty County, Georgia (Albany).
A ballot scanner went out of service at the Sherwood Elementary School polling location.
Elections Supervisor Ginger Nickerson said voters were directed to place ballots in an emergency backup bin and could return at 7 p.m. to watch the ballots scanned.
Voting continued at the county’s other 22 precincts.
Lucas and Wood Counties, Ohio.
Reports circulated of machines down at a Shoreland polling place in Lucas County, with paper ballots offered as a backup, and a glitch at Toth Elementary in Wood County where the system incorrectly indicated some voters had already voted.
Ohio Secretary of State’s Verify Ohio account and the RNC Vote Protect account stated the issues were resolved by around 7 a.m.

🚨 OHIO UPDATE: ISSUE RESOLVED.
The RNC was on it, and the issue was resolved as of 7 a.m. today.
Thank you to everyone serving as our eyes and ears on the ground.
See an issue? REPORT IT. We’re on it ⬇
— RNC Election Integrity (@RNCVoteProtect) November 3, 2026

Separately, a bomb threat forced the evacuation of the Beverly Elementary polling location in Toledo (Lucas County) around 10:30 a.m. Police cleared the site and voting resumed by about 12:15 p.m. Other nearby schools also received threats that day but were not polling places.
Mississippi, Jackson, Lamar, Lincoln, and Hinds Counties.
Local reporting confirmed check-in and machine malfunctions at multiple precincts, including Ocean Springs Civic Center and St. Martin Community Center (Jackson County), Sumrall Community Center (Lamar), New Sight VFD in Brookhaven (Lincoln), and Griffith Memorial Baptist Church Precinct 1 (Hinds).
Officials said they deployed backup machines and resolved some electronic check-in issues.
One report noted phone lines down for Hinds and Jackson circuit clerks.
Polls close at 7 p.m. CT; voters already in line can still vote.

Malfunctions in Mississippi
Electronic check-in systems in some Jackson County precincts reportedly went down this morning, with no paper backup.
This issue has reportedly been resolved now.
Similar issues were reported in Madison, Lamar, Lincoln, and Hinds counties, but voters could use paper ballots.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 3, 2026

North Carolina, Hertford, Gates, Lenoir, and Wilson Counties.
State Board of Elections Executive Director Sam Hayes said some precincts experienced “minor delays” due to various technical issues, including printer jams, power issues, or longer lines.
The board scheduled a 2 p.m. meeting to consider possible voting-hour extensions limited to the length of any qualifying interruption at affected sites only, per state law.
Officials described the problems as routine and not indications of malicious activity; results reporting in affected counties could be delayed if extensions are granted.
Erie County, New York.
Voters on X reported voting machines down or jammed at certain polling places, including one in the Town of Clarence, with completed ballots directed into emergency bins for later processing.

@DC_Draino My voting machine was down in erie county as well. My ballot went into the “emergency bin” and they told me they would enter it once they fix the jam on the machine
— michael corleone (@Santo_487) November 3, 2026

Voting is ongoing. The Gateway Pundit will continue to monitor and update this list as more information becomes available.

The post Here Are the Counties That Have Reported Midterm Voting Issues, So Far appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Feb. 5, 2025
President Trump said in an interview this morning that the United States will cut off aid to Israel at the end of the year, arguing that “they don’t need it.”
Trump said the cessation of aid will come in “any way you want to define it.” He added, “You can consider it barter. You can consider it military aid or cash.”
“We were giving them 4 billion; we are, but it gets cut off at the end of the year,” Trump said.
Asked why by Fox’s Brian Kilmeade, Trump said, “Because they don’t need it, Brian. I mean, I asked them— because they don’t need it.”
He further noted that politics are playing a role in his decision.
“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they don’t need it?” Trump added. “It’s a bad talking point.”
“When you say, why don’t we give everybody $4 billion? Israel’s our number one. We give them more than anybody else, and they no longer need it. We’ve been doing it for years. I’ve been doing it, but Israel is a very thriving country. They don’t need it. If they did need it, I would say keep it going.”
Trump further explained that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “reached an agreement on that,” and Netanyahu said, “I think it would be appropriate if we do not receive aid,” according to Trump, “because he understands that this is one of their points of contention.”
“Israel has been a great ally, much more reliable than most. I mean, look what happened with Europe— Although, they did give me Greenland for the United States,” he added.
WATCH:

Trump has previously acknowledged the waning support for Israel and the pro-Israel lobby’s past “total control over Congress,” warning that “they’re not winning the world of public relations” during the country’s campaign in Gaza and accusations of genocide and human rights abuses.
“There was a time where you couldn’t speak bad, if you wanted to be a politician, you couldn’t speak badly. But today, you have, you know, AOC plus three, and you have all these lunatics, and they’ve really, they’ve changed it,” he said in an interview with the Daily Caller last year.
“Israel was the strongest lobby I’ve ever seen. They had total control over Congress, and now they don’t. You know, I’m a little surprised to see that.”
President Trump Says Israel is “Winning the War, but They’re not Winning the World… and it is Hurting Them” – “They’re Gonna Have to Get that War Over with”

The post “They Don’t Need It… If They Did Need It I’d Keep It Going” – Trump Says US to End $4 Billion/Year in Aid to Israel (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Berkeley Voters To Decide Whether To Initiate Public Bank With New Parcel Tax

Authored by Lear Zhou via The Epoch Times,Voters in Berkeley, California, will decide in the coming election whether to start a public bank using a new parcel tax as seed money in order to create long-term investments in affordable housing, green energy, and small businesses.Public banking is on the ballot in Berkeley! Measure Z would fund Public Bank East Bay through a six-year parcel tax, projected to raise $9M+ in its first year, the largest single investment in a regional bank. https://t.co/3mpr0FiSLk— CA Public Banking Alliance (@capublicbanking) August 26, 2026
The public bank, as a nonprofit corporation engaging in commercial or industrial banking business, would be “wholly owned by a local agency, local agencies, or a joint powers authority” of local agencies, according to the measure text.”While big corporate banks invest our public tax dollars outside of our community, a public bank can recirculate our money in our community to fund projects and build a stronger, more resilient, local community aligned to our values,” Measure Z states.The proposed parcel tax would last six years and would be $0.06 per square foot of residential improvements and $0.09 per square foot of other properties’ improvements, with potential annual increases.”All funds received from the tax are subject to the review, allocation, and approval by the City Council,” the measure states.The Berkeley city attorney estimated the parcel tax would raise over $58 million in six years. It would start on Jan. 1, 2027.”Unlike a private bank, Berkeley is an owner. The community holds seats on the bank’s board, reviews its books, and has direct input into what it funds,” Coalition to Keep Berkeley Money Local stated on its website. “And when the bank turns a profit, that money comes back to Berkeley – not to Wall Street shareholders.”A board that includes elected officials, financial professionals, and community members would set policy and lending priorities, and daily operations would be run by professional bankers, according to the coalition.Opponents worry that the money would be lent not only to Berkeley but to the whole East Bay.”It’s not a Berkeley bank. It’s Berkeley money for a regional institution,” StopMeasureZ.com states.Originally, supporters of the public bank envisioned it as a regional bank with multiple jurisdictions sharing the costs and benefits, according to a report by Within Our Means Berkeley. Measure Z is a departure from that idea and asks Berkeley alone to fund the regional bank, according to the report.”By concentrating the initial capitalization burden on Berkeley while allowing the bank to serve the broader East Bay, the measure creates a ‘free-rider incentive structure’ that undermines cost sharing and proportional benefits – the historic policy objective,” the report states.A public bank must obtain a certificate from the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, and it must get Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance.If the planned bank does not get the required authorization by June 30, 2033, the collected funds may be used to offer loans for the same purposes, such as green energy and affordable housing, according to the Measure Z text.The city manager would submit annual progress reports, including funds collected and spent, to the city council for review; and the city auditor would independently audit the progress at least once every three years, according to the measure.Meanwhile, StopMeasureZ.com states that, “If [the public bank] never opens, the City keeps the money and ‘may’ lend it out – a job the Housing Trust Fund already does.”The measure needs a majority vote to pass.Since 2020, California has allowed local agencies to establish public banks. Only up to 2 public banks can be authorized by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation per year, and no more than 10 can be established in total in California.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/03/2026 – 14:45

Black Friday is still weeks away, but the holiday shopping season is already picking up. Stores are promoting early deals, our inboxes are filling with sales emails and chances are you’re already thinking about gifts for family and friends. Scammers are getting an early start, too.Holiday shopping scams are designed to blend in with legitimate promotions and messages. A tempting discount could lead to a fake online store. A delivery alert might ask you to confirm your address or pay a small fee. And an email about a problem with your order could be an attempt to steal your payment information.The tricky part is that these messages often arrive when you’re already looking for deals or expecting packages. Before you click or enter your credit card information, here are seven holiday shopping scams to watch for and simple ways to protect yourself.Missed CyberGuy LIVE? Watch the replay and discover 5 ways to travel smarter and save money.Our free CyberGuy LIVE class, 5 Ways to Travel Smarter and Save Money, has ended, but you can still watch the full replay. Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson walks you through five practical ways to protect your phone and personal information, avoid common travel scams, find better deals, save money on bookings and use technology to make your travels easier and less stressful. No technical experience is needed.Watch the free replay + downloadable checklist now at CyberGuyLive.com.DO NOT CLICK FAKE ‘ACCOUNT RECOVERY’ AMAZON EMAILDuring the holidays, it is normal to receive messages from unfamiliar stores. You may also be expecting several deliveries at once. Meanwhile, sales and shipping deadlines create pressure to act quickly. Scammers take advantage of those distractions. A fake message becomes more convincing when it matches something you are already expecting. That’s why one of the best ways to avoid holiday shopping scams is to verify unexpected messages through a company’s official website or app rather than responding directly.You see a social media ad for a name-brand coat, popular gadget or designer handbag at 80% off. The photos look professional, and a countdown clock warns that the deal is about to expire. Big discounts happen during the holidays. However, unusually low prices on popular merchandise can signal a scam. Some fake stores collect your payment and send nothing. Others deliver cheap counterfeits or products that look nothing like the advertisement.The Federal Trade Commission warns that scammers frequently use social media advertisements featuring popular products at unusually low prices.Fake shopping websites can look remarkably convincing. Scammers copy brand logos, product photography and website layouts to make their stores appear legitimate. Sometimes, the biggest clue is hiding in the website address. A fake store might add words such as “outlet” or “sale” to a familiar brand name. Others use subtle misspellings or unfamiliar web addresses.One important detail: A padlock icon or HTTPS connection does not guarantee that a shopping website is legitimate. It means the connection is encrypted. Scammers can use encrypted websites, too. When in doubt, type the retailer’s official address into your browser or open its trusted app.”Your package could not be delivered. Please confirm your address.” Messages like this appear through text messages and emails, often claiming to come from the U.S. Postal Service, UPS or FedEx. Because you may have packages on the way, the message can seem believable. Scammers frequently direct you to a fake tracking page. There, they may ask you to enter your address, credit card number or other personal information. Some demand a small redelivery fee.The Postal Service confirms that it does not charge a fee for redelivery. If a text claims you must pay USPS to receive your package again, treat it as a warning sign.Another common scam involves an email claiming that your payment failed, your shopping account has been locked or a purchase needs immediate confirmation. Some messages go further. They claim someone made an expensive purchase using your account and provide a phone number to call if you want to cancel it. That number may connect you directly to a scammer. Once you call, the person may request your credit card information, ask for a one-time verification code or pressure you into installing remote-access software.If you cannot verify the message through your account, contact the company’s customer service department using contact information from its official website.Gift cards make convenient holiday presents. Unfortunately, scammers also like them because the money can be difficult to recover once the card numbers and PINs are shared. A scammer may pretend to be a seller, employer or family member who urgently needs financial help. Some even claim to represent government agencies or utility companies.A legitimate company might sell gift cards or accept its own gift cards for purchases. However, demands to buy gift cards and send someone the card numbers or PINs are strong signs of fraud.The holidays are a popular time for charitable giving. Scammers know that emotional appeals can encourage people to donate quickly. Fake charities may use names that resemble familiar organizations. Others take advantage of natural disasters or heartbreaking stories to solicit donations. Some scammers impersonate legitimate charities and direct donations to fraudulent payment pages.You can also consult the FTC’s charity guidance before donating.CHEAP ANDROID PHONES FOUND WITH MALWARE ALREADY INSTALLEDOnline marketplaces and local resale groups can be useful places to find holiday bargains. However, they also attract scammers posing as legitimate sellers. A seller might advertise a popular item at an unusually low price, then demand payment before you can inspect it. Others try to move conversations away from the marketplace to avoid its protections. Fake payment confirmations and requests for additional shipping fees are other warning signs.Remember that not every marketplace provides buyer protection. Check its policies rather than assuming it will refund a fraudulent purchase.Avoiding holiday shopping scams starts with a few simple habits. These precautions can help protect your finances and personal information.These habits help reduce your risk even when an advertisement or shopping website looks legitimate.Even careful shoppers can encounter convincing scams. The important thing is to respond based on what actually happened.Simply opening a webpage does not automatically mean your accounts have been compromised.Acting quickly can improve your chances of limiting the damage.Good habits are your first line of defense, but nobody spots every scam every time, especially during the busy holiday season. That’s where reliable security software can provide an extra layer of protection. I recommend using strong antivirus software that helps detect suspicious websites, phishing attempts and malicious links before they put your personal information at risk.Look for software that offers real-time protection against viruses, malware, spyware and ransomware. Some security solutions also include scam detection tools that can help identify fraudulent text messages, fake shopping websites and suspicious links. These features are particularly useful when scammers impersonate familiar retailers or delivery companies.A built-in password manager is another valuable feature. It can generate and securely store strong, unique passwords for your shopping accounts. That helps reduce the risk of someone accessing multiple accounts if one password is compromised.AI-powered scams are also becoming more convincing. Fake celebrity endorsements, manipulated videos and fraudulent holiday giveaways can make questionable offers appear legitimate. Some security products now include AI-powered scam detection and deepfake detection tools to help identify certain types of manipulated content. However, these capabilities vary by product, device and platform.While security software cannot stop every scam, combining it with secure payment methods, account alerts and careful shopping habits can help protect your money and personal information throughout the holiday season.Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices at CyberGuy.com.SCAMMERS ARE BUYING GOOGLE ADS TO STEAL BANK LOGINSI love finding a great holiday deal as much as anyone. But I’ve learned that the best way to avoid getting scammed is to be a little skeptical when something looks unusually attractive or demands an immediate response. Scammers are getting better at copying familiar stores and creating convincing messages. They’re also using AI to make fraudulent offers look more believable. That’s why I recommend checking purchases directly through retailers you trust and using security tools that can help flag suspicious activity. A few extra seconds of checking could save you a lot of trouble. The holidays should be about enjoying time with the people you care about, not cleaning up after a scam.Have you ever received a fake delivery alert or spotted an online shopping deal that turned out to be a scam? What tipped you off? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy NewsletterCopyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.