The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate Race

The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race features a stark clash of economic philosophies focused heavily on the cost of living. James Talarico’s platform models Lyndon B. Johnson’s populist "Great Society," targeting corporate influence and structural inequality. In contrast, Ken Paxton’s platform aligns closely with Donald Trump's MAGA policies, focusing heavily on targeted federal tax deductions.

The two candidates' platforms clash directly across several major economic areas:

🏠 Housing & Everyday Costs

* Ken Paxton: Focuses on tax-incentivized assistance. He proposes a $50,000 federal tax deduction for first-time and second-time homebuyers, as well as a $50,000 deduction on down payments for people moving to a new primary residence. He also supports making permanent the signature tax provisions passed under the Trump administration.

* James Talarico: Blames billionaires for the affordability crisis. He proposes a sweeping cost-of-living tax cut for the middle class, funded by repealing tax breaks for the top 1%. Additionally, Talarico advocates for federal funding to establish universal childcare.

🏥 Healthcare & Medicine

* Ken Paxton: Proposes expanding the tax code to alleviate medical burdens. His platform includes a $25,000 tax deduction per taxpayer (plus an extra $25,000 per dependent) for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums. He also pitches a $5,000 "healthy-living" tax deduction to incentivize fitness and wellness.

* James Talarico: Focuses on anti-monopoly regulation and debt relief. Partnering with entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Talarico has introduced a plan to break up corporate healthcare and insurance monopolies to force down prescription drug prices. He also advocates for the broad forgiveness of existing medical debt.

⚡ Energy & Emerging Industries

* Ken Paxton: Champions the traditional Texas oil and gas industry. He strongly opposes federal climate mandates, green subsidies, and modern global tariffs that add friction to industrial manufacturing and agriculture.

* James Talarico: Advocates for an "all of the above" energy strategy. While stating support for the Texas oil and gas sector, he emphasizes reducing greenhouse gas emissions through technological investments like carbon capture. He also proposes heavily regulating data centers—requiring them to fund their own energy usage and recycle water—and creating a federal dividend by taxing artificial intelligence (AI).

💼 Labor & Wages

* Ken Paxton: Argues that lowering taxes and slashing federal spending will organically stimulate job growth, raise wages, and curb inflation.

* James Talarico: Proposes active government intervention to aid workers. He calls for raising the federal minimum wage, expanding mandatory overtime pay, and strengthening laws to rebuild labor unions. 

Fear of your parents’ old age?

There comes a moment in every family when time bends the natural order.

It is when the son becomes his father’s father.

The father who once walked with strength now moves slowly, as if wrapped in fog.

The mother who once held your tiny hand tightly now fears being left alone.

The same father who once lifted you on his shoulders now pauses twice before standing.

The same voice that commanded with authority now only sighs, searching for doors and windows that seem far away.

One day, the hands that built your world will tremble to button a shirt, forget the pills that keep them alive. And we, as children, will realize: it is our turn to be their strength.

The life that once gave us everything… now depends on us to leave this world in peace. 

Aging is not just wrinkles or weak knees. It is learning to hold on to walls, to climb invisible stairs. It is becoming a stranger in your own home, while your children watch—afraid, uncertain, but full of love.

And when the time comes, nothing matters more than a gentle touch, a whispered promise:

"I’m here… I’m here, Dad. You are not alone."

Because in the end, what every parent longs to hear is that their child stayed by their side. 

And Then, There Was One

The Jewish people have traditionally supported and championed the rights of all peoples.
Not so, the other way around.
Indeed, anti-Semitism has been a historical fact and Jew Hatred today is stronger than ever!

Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump.

Just as true today in 2026 as it was ten years ago.

It’s Time for Some Real D.I.R.T.

Unfortunately, extremism has taken hold within our political parties in the United States of America, and American political culture seems to have forgotten George Washington’s warning about the dangers of political factions. (ref: Washington's Farewell Address 1796)

Somewhere along the way, political disagreement became political warfare. The name-calling needs to stop. The personal attacks, insults, and belittling of people simply because they hold a different political perspective need to stop.

We are Americans first.

We may disagree—and there is nothing wrong with disagreement. In fact, healthy disagreement is an essential part of a democracy. But disagreement does not require hatred. It does not require personal attacks. And it certainly does not require treating those who think differently as our enemies.

All Americans need to start pulling together. Divisiveness, hostility, and constant political warfare will not accomplish anything positive for our nation.

It is time for what I call real D.I.R.T.

D.I.R.T. = Democrats, Independents, (and) Republicans (working) Together.

Imagine what might be accomplished if we, the American people, could set aside our distrust.

If we set aside the hostility.

If we set aside the verbal tirades.

If we stopped throwing stones at one another.

If we stopped constantly pointing fingers and assigning blame.

If we put aside the pettiness and started looking for common ground.

We might discover that we have far more in common than we have been led to believe.

Our country does not need more political enemies. It needs citizens who are willing to listen, compromise when necessary, disagree respectfully, and work together toward solutions.

Democrats. Independents. Republicans.

Different political philosophies, perhaps—but one nation and one people.

Maybe it's time for some real D.I.R.T.

Democrats, Independents, and Republicans—working Together.

Because America cannot move forward if we are constantly fighting one another.

The Way We Treat One Another

There is something I have been thinking about for a long time: Why do we sometimes treat other people so badly?

We encounter people every day, yet we know almost nothing about what is happening inside their lives.

The person who seems impatient in the checkout line may be dealing with a sick spouse. The person who doesn't smile back at us may be carrying an enormous burden that we know nothing about. The coworker who seems distracted may be worried about a child. The neighbor who doesn't return our greeting may simply be having one of the worst days of their life.

And sometimes, of course, people really do behave badly. They can be rude, selfish, judgmental, dishonest, dismissive or cruel.

But here's the thing I've learned over the years:

We don't have to respond to someone's bad behavior with bad behavior of our own. We can choose something different. We can choose patience. We can choose understanding. We can choose compassion. We can choose to give someone the benefit of the doubt. We can choose kindness.

Years ago, I came across the words in the image accompanying this post. I shared them on Facebook on August 13, 2019, and I still believe they are every bit as meaningful today:

"If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care."

I wish we really could look into one another's hearts. If we could, I suspect we would discover that many of the people we encounter are fighting battles we never knew existed. We would see the loneliness behind the smile; the fear behind the anger; the sadness behind the silence, the exhaustion behind the impatience, the insecurity behind the arrogance, the pain behind the words that sometimes hurt us. And perhaps, knowing those things, we would be a little gentler with one another.

I am not suggesting that we should allow people to abuse us or take advantage of us. There are times when we must establish boundaries. There are times when we must walk away. There are times when we must stand up for ourselves. But even then, we don't have to become cruel in the process.

Life is difficult enough without making it more difficult for one another. A kind word costs very little. A little patience costs very little. A smile costs nothing.

Forgiveness can be difficult, but it can also free us from carrying anger around inside ourselves. And sometimes the most important thing we can give another human being is simply the feeling that someone sees them, someone hears them, and someone cares.

As I look at the world around us, I sometimes wonder what would happen if we all made a conscious effort to treat people a little more gently, not just the people we love, not just the people who agree with us, not just the people who are kind to us. Everyone. Because every person we meet is carrying a story. And we usually don't know what that story contains.

So perhaps the next time someone is rude to us, instead of immediately asking, "What's wrong with that person?", we might ask ourselves: "I wonder what that person is going through."

That one small change in perspective might make all the difference. We cannot change the entire world.  But we can change the little corner of it that we occupy. And maybe that's where we should begin.

Treat others gently ... with love, patience, tolerance and care. Because we are all human beings trying to find our way through this complicated thing called life. And, in the end, we need one another far more than we sometimes realize.

Parental Abandonment, A Societal Issue of The 21st Century.

As an adult, I maintained regular, frequent contact by telephone and by personal visits in their homes with both my mother and my father (each lived lives apart from one another) on a consistent basis right up until they died. I did not allow anything to keep me from maintaining contact with them. [I note that my father had absolutely no involvement in my childhood and adolescence other than paying child support; and that it was me who initiated contact with him when I was 23 years old.] Regardless of my leading a very busy life, I made the time for my mother and for my father.

I remember my mother speaking with her mother on the telephone twice each and every day. Most often, the calls took place at 10:00 in the morning and at 7:00 in the evening. Many times, it was just "Hello Ma, I just want to make sure you're okay." Or, something like that.

I cannot understand how any adult son or daughter, who had not been abused, cannot make the time to keep in touch in some form with his or her living mother and father on at least a weekly basis.

Ohio's Unprofessional Defamatory Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce

I am writing this commentary in order to make a public record of the unprofessional and defamatory treatment of me by the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce, which is located in Sylvania, Ohio, that was initiated by them on January 24, 2025 and continues to this very day of June 3, 2026.

The following is an electronic message that I had sent to the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce:

"On January 24, 2025, the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce made a public posting on Facebook about my son, Marcus Hansen, entitled 'Meet Marcus Hansen, City Councilman, City of Sylvania, Ohio!' That same posting was placed on LinkedIn. In the aforementioned posting is a statement putting forth that my son Marcus' mother was a single parent for most of his childhood.

For the record, I wish to point out that the statement as published by the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce is factually incorrect.

A single parent is a person who has a child or children but does not have a spouse or live-in partner to assist in the upbringing or support of the child. In order to be legally considered a single parent, the person has to be divorced, legally separated, or unmarried.

The fact is that I was married to Marcus' mother, living in the family home, and supporting our family of five (Marcus, his older brother, his younger sister, their mother who was my wife, and myself) for the most of Marcus' childhood. Due to a brief marriage separation period of several months for the first part of 1991 during Marcus' second semester of his Junior year of high school when he was 17 years-old, I was temporarily absent from our family home. It was during Marcus' second semester of his Senior year of high school in 1993 when Marcus was 18 years-old that his mother and I obtained a marriage dissolution and I moved permanently out of the family home.

I believe that the Sylvania Chamber of Commerce should set the record straight by making a posting on both Facebook and LinkedIn that corrects the misinformation that Marcus was in a single parent home for most of his childhood. As it is now, this article gives the impression that I abandoned my children. That is just plain wrong! I consider the published statement to be libelous."

After having sent several electronic messages to the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce regarding the incorrect information contained within their posting and not receiving a response from them, I finally sent the following message to them:

"You still have not responded to my previous message. Do I need to make public postings of screenshots of the concerned subject matter of the misinformation you posted on public internet sites to get this matter the attention of that which you have failed to correct?"

To that message, the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce provided the following response:

"We appreciate you reaching out regarding our post. The information shared was provided directly by the interviewee, and while we stand by its accuracy, we have made the decision to remove the post to avoid further confusion. Our goal is always to provide clear and reliable information for our community, and we take that responsibility seriously. We will not be providing further comment."

True to their word, the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce deleted the post and has refused to respond to my numerous requests to make a public statement to correct the erroneous information. In fact, the Sylvania Area Chamber of Commerce has blocked me on Facebook. Now, that is professionalism - NOT! Incidentally, I had made screenshots of the entire post of that which was made by the Sylvania Chamber of Commerce prior to its removal.

I have made several postings on Facebook about this incident and have received several comments concerning this issue from other persons. However, I find the comments made by Michael John Young to be the most interesting. The following are copies of his comments made at different points in time.

First one:

"A terribly important clarification. Obviously you were (and remain) an integral component of his upbringing and maturation and character. I’m glad you spoke up."

 Another:

"Completely unnecessary phrase: “ …we stand by its accuracy… “

They just called Roland Louis Hansen a liar.

That’s defamation. So go get’m Roland!

👍

Here’s the thing. A Chamber of Commerce is supposed to help promote and support local businesses by means of direct assistance and data.

Their product is supposed to be FACTS that they provide to enhance clarity and help create a more attractive investment environment by being a trustworthy source of facts.

So to “stand by” the “accuracy” of a patently inaccurate biography of one of their community leaders should cause investors considering Sylvania to pause and reconsider.

If the Sylvania Chamber of Commerce just can’t be honest about this, how can they be trusted about anything else they publish and promote?

The test of a person is, once they have been found to be in error, are they so insecure and innately dishonest they can’t bring themselves to admit it and correct it? Or are they mature adults who demonstrate the character needed as a decision maker for others from their leadership position?

Can they be trusted?

The same goes for a Chamber of Commerce.

Clear eyed, honest, objective, and dependable data, fact finding, and advice is supposed to be what they provide.

Otherwise, what good are they?

Roland should sue them.

And the Chamber would be wise to fire whomever wrote that phrase and those who approved that response.

And as to the man who lies about his childhood with such ease?

Whoa… that’s seriously concerning."

And another:

"They “ …stand by its accuracy”??

I’m sorry. But it’s not only FACTUAL INACCURATE it is EASY to confirm its inaccuracy because the item in dispute is PUBLIC RECORD!

It’s not like your son said something about his personal feelings. He said he was raised alone by just his mother for “most of his childhood.” which is both FACTUALLY A LIE, and speaks to a character flaw, as he FABRICATES his origin story for POLITICAL ADVANTAGE and… worse… LIBELS his supportive and loving father who was there well into his teens and a constant presence in his life, regardless!

“Removing it” is only a half step. It leaves unaddressed the damage done, the public impression, the fairy tale, and the unearned sympathy by anyone moved by his “childhood tragedy” to vote for him or grant him emotional support.

Roland Louis Hansen I think you have a right to question a chamber of COMMERCE that takes those they encounter at their word. I mean, is that how members of a BUSINESS organization conducts BUSINESS? Do they just skip written contracts or due diligence or not require security for loans or conduct business in any way based only on the word of someone?

This betrays their charter. This impunes their honesty. This betrays their thirst for political access at any cost. This reveals support for unethical behavior that rewards exaggerators in a way they’d NEVER DO in ANY business transaction.

Their “standing by” a documented lie is an indictment of the Sylvania Chamber of Commerce that should trouble every dues paying member."

Jewish Principles and the Founding of the United States of America

Many Americans assert that the United States of America was founded on Christian principles. I respectfully disagree with that perspective.

It is undeniable fact that Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism. If one wants to say that America was founded on the principles of any one religion, then I postulate that the United States was founded on the principles of Judaism.

The United States was not founded exclusively on Jewish principles, but its founding was significantly influenced by the Hebrew Bible, Jewish ideas of law and morality, and the Puritanical identification with ancient Israel. While rooted in Enlightenment philosophy and Christian traditions, key concepts such as freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and a “covenantal” view of government were largely derived from Hebraic tradition. 

Influence of Jewish Ideas and Biblical Tradition

Biblical Foundation: Early American settlers and founders frequently referenced the Hebrew Bible, viewing themselves as a "new Israel" escaping tyranny, similar to the Exodus story.

Theological & Legal Impact: Concepts such as equality, individual liberty, and universal rights (e.g., “endowed by their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence) are rooted in biblical Jewish thought.

Cultural Influence: Several colleges (e.g., Columbia, Dartmouth) and early political symbols incorporated Hebrew words. 

Contextual Debates and Nuances

Not Specifically Jewish Law: While religious thought was present, the founders did not establish a theocracy or implement religious law, instead creating a secular government based on Enlightenment principles.

Individual Liberty: The focus on religious liberty, crucial to Jewish involvement in the founding era, actually arose from a desire to escape religious persecution in the Old World, fostering a pluralistic society. 

In summary, Hebrew scriptures and Jewish moral concepts were essential influences in the cultural and intellectual background of the American founders. 

Behavior of Democratic Congressmen at the February 26th 2026 State of the Union Address

 The behavior of Democratic members of Congress during the most recent State of the Union highlights just how divided today’s political climate has become. Increasingly, the chamber is used not only as a venue for the President’s address, but also as a stage for political expression.

Many Democrats chose not to stand during portions of the speech. Party leaders described this as “silent defiance” — a deliberate but non-disruptive form of protest.

Here’s the context behind that decision:

1. A Calculated Form of Protest

For Democratic lawmakers, remaining seated was a way to signal opposition to the President’s agenda and rhetoric without resorting to verbal interruptions or dramatic confrontations that have sparked controversy in past years. Leadership encouraged members either to attend and remain silent or to skip the address altogether and participate in alternative events.

2. The President’s “Test Questions”

During the speech, President Donald Trump framed certain policy proposals — particularly on immigration enforcement and border security — as direct challenges to lawmakers. At times, he urged members to stand if they supported his position. Critics viewed these moments as attempts to box opponents into a public display of agreement. Many Democrats remained seated to avoid appearing to endorse positions or premises they fundamentally rejected.

3. Deep Policy and Ideological Differences

The decision not to stand was not merely symbolic; it reflected substantive disagreements.

Disputes over factual claims: Some Democrats argued that the speech contained misleading or inaccurate statements, especially regarding the economy and the impact of administration policies.

Objections to tone and rhetoric: Lawmakers expressed concern about the President’s language surrounding immigration and political opponents.

Targeted protests: A number of members wore pins or displayed small signs — including references to issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein files — to call attention to specific concerns about administration actions.

4. Shifting Norms in the Chamber

Over time, the State of the Union has evolved from a largely formal and restrained address into a more theatrical and partisan event. In recent years, members of both parties have used standing, applause, silence, or visible protest to signal approval or disapproval. This shift mirrors the broader polarization within Congress, where even traditional decorum has become part of the political contest.

For the Democrats who remained seated, standing would likely have been interpreted as an endorsement of the President’s words and policies — an endorsement they were not prepared to give.