Repugnant

Please keep this is mind. And that it, too, was a final argument, played two years ago this month:

Viewers tuning into NFL and college football games in recent weeks have been bombarded with two Trump ads — running nationally and locally in swing states — that take issue with Vice President Kamala Harris’ past support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming treatments. They’re running during baseball playoff games, too.

Both ads end with the same punchy tag line: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

The thrust of the ad below is that Israel is to blame for the affordability crisis in the USA.  Assuming for the sake of simplicity that the two individuals are married to each other, the wife says to her husband "you're going to have to put those eggs back... We have to set that $7 aside for killing Palestinians." The husband responds "I mean, don't we give Israel four billion dollars a year, anyways?"

New low for normalized Jew-hate in the American Democratic Party. Very sad: Painting your political opponents as puppets of Jews, as this El-Sayed ad does, and as crazed baby-killers and money-grubbing villains who are the root cause of every bad thing not just in the world, but in your life—from wars to the price of eggs to the reason you can’t have free healthcare—is not just low-grade Jew-hate. It’s pure Third Reich stuff, translated directly from the original German. Do you remember when Jewish Democrats in Michigan explained that they would vote for El-Sayed despite his open disdain for Jews, since there are many other important issues they need him to fight for? That anything was worth it to “defeat MAGA”? Well, here’s El-Sayed’s answer to them: Don’t worry, all those issues we agree on, like healthcare, inflation, and climate change, I’m going to make them about Jews too! I will tell the public that the Jews are the reason they can’t have those things.

— Saul Sadka (@Saul_Sadka) October 25, 2026

Seven dollars? That is so 2025, when in February the average price of a dozen grade A large eggs, thanks to the Avian flu, rose to $5.90- still $1.10 less than alleged in the ad. Last month, they were $2.27.

The wife tells her husband "Yeah, and now we're giving them another 26 billion dollars. Do you know how much that is for every American taxpayer?.... Apparently, it's costing us a lot of money to drop bombs on Gaza."

Much of the increase in prices can be attributed to the war in Iran, as we justifiably have heard repeatedly. This is the first time a candidate has blamed Israel's attack upon Hamas in Gaza for the soaring cost of living- any candidate, that is, not named el-Sayed.

A secondary theme is jealousy of Israel- or perhaps indignation that Israelis receive health care. After his "wife" blames inflation on the Israel-Hamas war, her "husband" says "oh, that's terrible. Don't they get universal health care, too"?

Oh, the horror of it all! Residents of Israel are assured of health care. It is not single payer, but makes health care more available than it is in the USA. This is health care for every resident- Jews, Christians, and Muslims, including Palestinians, individuals of any religion.  A guess: this is not given to residents of Gaza under Hamas rule, and never was. This would hardly be of concern to el-Sayed, whose wife Sarah

Jukaku, who has a medical degree from Columbia University and a masters from the University of Oxford, worked as co-chief of psychiatry at University of Michigan Health—which does accept Medicare—before starting her own Ann Arbor, Mich.-based practice, Mind Work Psychiatry, in 2024. The following March, Jukaku opted out of Medicare, records show, meaning she cannot bill the program and requires Medicare patients to pay out of pocket. The same goes for patients with private insurance plans, though they can often submit bills to their providers and recoup some of the costs.

You might think that a Democratic candidate for the US Senate who advocates Medicare for All might suggest to his wife that she accept Medicare and some insurance plans, at least while he is running for office posing as a progressive. Having not done so, he remains a heartthrob of prominent progressives this autumn, which should concern individuals for whom universal health care is supposedly a priority.  But the health of Americans ravaged by a health care system controlled by insurance companies and for-profit hospitals no longer is the priority it once was. Case in point:

After learning the pro-Israel lobbying group plans to spend up to $9 million backing Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan's Senate race, (Senator Bernie) Sanders wired $1 million on Wednesday to Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and began calling allies for more, reports the New York Times. By day's end, he'd lined up an additional $300,000 in pledges from a dozen Democrats, including Sens. Martin Heinrich, Tina Smith, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley.

Undermining Israel now is the main issue for the far-left, It certainly is not opposition to President Trump, for whom the candidate appears to have a soft spot. 

So el-Sayed now has an ad with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu depicted while "Mike Rogers for they/them And El-Sayed is for you" appears. The candidate is copying the 2025 GOP ad which blasted Kamala Harris' support for the LGBTQIA community with "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for us."  Only now the target is not transsexuals but Jews- uh, er, "Zionists".

Health care, an increase in the federal minimum wage, accessible daycare, and other issues once near and dear to the allegedly progressive camp are so 2024, evidently. concern for racial and sexual/gender minorities all take a back seat to animus for America's steadfast ally in the Middle East.

In the seventh chapter in Matthew's gospel, Jesus warns

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles. Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 

Support for el-Sayed is now the focal point for hatred of the Jewish state. On a positive note, he does not come to us in sheep's clothing. He is being quite obvious in his hatred and bigoty .

Share |

Image of Aggressiveness

This tweeter characteristically posts about the excesses of Islam and Islamists but as in this case, without including the pertinent date of the statement or activity. He also typically omits the location, though in the matter at hand the actual location is irrelevant and we know the date was September 25, 2026.

 

Abdul El-Sayed says he’d go on Bill Maher’s show despite the “terrible things he’s said about me.” Because “I wanna give people the image of watching him get his ass whooped on his own show by a guy who prays like I do.” Why is he always so aggressive?! https://t.co/6ZhDQiBXmp

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) October 22, 2026

El-Sayed said (emphasis his)

I'd go on his show because I want to talk to his audience. You know the terrible things Bill Maher has said about people like me- terrible, awful things. Of course, he's still got his show on Comedy Central and everybody seems to be perfectly O.K. going on that show despite the fact that he's said some deply terrible things. 

But I'd go on the show. Do you know why I'd go on the show? A) I wanna give people the image of seeing his ass whooped on his own show by a guy who prays like I do and I'd also want to show because I'd want to convince the people who watch his show, right, that a lot of the things he says are just not viable. 

The New York Post reported

“It’s not people like you, I would love to have you on, sir, by the way,” Maher said. “And I hope we can make that happen. I talk about Islam. It’s never personal, and it’s never about race. It’s about ideas. Religion is an opinion. That’s all religion is: a group of thoughts that form an opinion of something. I have different views on what, you know, how women should be treated and things like that, that we will discuss. I hope you will accept our invitation.”

Maher is anti-Islam. He's also anti-Judaism, anti-Christianity, and anti- any religion which involves a god or gods.  He is a loud and proud atheist. 

For Maher, it is about ideas and never, ever about race but about ideas. He is more aggrieved by Islam than about Judaism and Christianity in part because of how religious Muslims treat women. As for radical Islamists, there is that terrorism thing. It's real.

El-Sayed might know that if he ever had watched Real Time. However, if he has been looking for it on Comedy Central, he would have missed it on the network, HBO, on which it actually has been running for 23+ seasons. CNN does repeat on Saturdays the episode- most of it, anyway- from the previous evening but it never has been on Comedy Central.  To be fair, however, the candidate is no less accurate about Maher's show than he is about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

(Maher's Politically Incorrect had been on Comedy Central, then on ABC, from which it was terminated over two decades ago after the host suggested that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards.  Now he is supposedly anti-Muslim.)

Nonetheless, I wouldn't worry about the "so aggressive" thing. This outward tendency to display machismo is a characteristic of many men, though a few women have adopted it in recent years.  Arm-wrestling, anybody? The NY Post noted

El-Sayed has frequently invoked aggressive language against his GOP rival Mike Rogers. Last month, El-Sayed challenged Rogers to a game of tackle football despite being more than 20 years younger than the Republican candidate.

“Since you’re too afraid to debate me, how about you ‘hold me accountable’ on a football field instead,” El-Sayed wrote on X. “Tackle, no pads like we used to play when we were kids. I’d be happy to show you [how] much I love football.”

The invocation of sports and of "whooping his ass" also is a means of attempting to portray oneself as a normal guy at the other end of the bar..  El-Sayed is trying to position himself as a regular ol' tough guy, a prototypical red-blood American male.  He seems to be suffering from "small man syndrome," sometimes referred to as "Napoleon complex".

There is little to fear, however. If elected, Abdul el-Sayed will neither invoke the name, nor try to imitate, Napoleon Bonaparte. After all, as a white European, the Frenchman was a member of a disfavored group in the eyes of el-Sayed's most fervent supporters.

Share |

Embracing Israel Derangement Syndrome

If you take Twitter seriously, you would think that the centrists, center-left, or liberals in the Democratic Party are willing to sacrifice a House or Senate majority in order to make sure that anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian Democrats aren't elected. One tweeter argues about the el-Sayed vs. Rogers race in Michigan: 

The only dignified choice is to leave the Senate race blank—an undervote representing a rejection of ideological absolutism. This makes me no less a Democrat. I refuse to be complicit in excusing or accepting extremism to beat extremism. The madness has to stop somewhere.

Unsurprisingly, there is virulent criticism of this position, as indicated by the tweeters who responded to him.

The rule is blue no matter who, not blue only if they are ideologically centrist enough for me.

You’ll then spend the next couple of years blaming the left wing of the party for losing and not being able to do anything. I thought it was vote blue no matter who?

"Blue no matter who, unless they're brown"

“I’d rather the republican won than Israel possibly face sanctions.”  "I value Israel more than my own country." That is you.

Islamophobia needs to stop.  Bigotry needs to stop.  Racism needs to stop.  Just admit it, you are not a Dem you are an Islamophobe who hates this one person for his faith.  Disgusting.

Two of the last three mistakenly believe that the Democrats who oppose el-Sayed's candidacy are motivated by race, an odd notion given that Muslim is not a race. The other believes that opposing a candidate with a burning hatred of Israel makes the critic unpatriotic. That is disgusting.

Nonetheless, the first two make a valid point.  To be clear: supporting an anti-Semite is preferable to the possibility of giving Donald Trump a Senate majority, which would allow him to make the most atrocious appointments imaginable not only to the Supreme Court, but to other federal courts.

But also to be clear: Abdul el-Sayed does not agree with those of us who are committed to a Democratic majority. In the video tweet below, the Michigan Democrat states in part

Allies are supposed to care about you implicitly- not just use you. The government of Israel has done nothing but use us. Allies are supposed to care about you. They use us for our tax dollars. They use us to run cover at the United Nations. They use us to run cover at the I.C.C. to cover up their war crimes. Now they use us to go and fightr a war we have no business fighting. We're paying more in gas. We're paying more for groceries.....

This clarity is so important. This akin to Zohran's 'no apartheid state has a right to exist' moment. It moves the goal posts & permanently changes the conversation. Good on AES. Stay the course. I also appreciate that he didn't fall for the 'Bibi's the real problem' misdirect.

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) October 20, 2026

Do you see what is happening here? We have a Democratic candidate who is not blaming President Trump for the troubles we're in. He's blaming Israel. (Gee, I wonder why.)  Donald Trump, the leader of the Free World and one of the three most powerful individuals on the planet has no agency. He is the puppet of Israel, which always uses us. Affordability? That's not caused by tariffs President Trump imposed or the war in Iran he started. Those damn Jews!

And it's not because of Israel that we, the USA, are fighting this war. Trump already had decided to attack Iran but decided on the timing because of Israel- and Saudi Arabia, Iran's mortal enemy.  Yet el-Sayed mentions nothing about Saudi Arabia which is, possibly though not probably, because the Kingdom is Muslim. (All sorts of leftists blame Israel for pushing Trump into the war.)

Abdul el-Sayed believes, or purports to believe, that Israel manipulates or intimidates the USA. However, a law professor at George Mason University asks "what does Israel do for us, I keep hearing people ask."  He answers

Without Israel, Lebanon falls to Hezbollah, Jordan falls to Islamists, the PA falls to Hamas, Hamas links up with the MB to threaten Egypt, Iran gears up to dominate Iraq, the Houthis take over Yemen and along with the new government in Jordan threaten Saudi Arabia, and so forth. 

Israel,in short,is a linchpin of US security interests in the Mideast, keeping Islamists from seizing power region-wide, and keeping out Russian and Chinese influence.

Three minutes. In this three minute clip, there were three minutes without the words "Donald Trump", "the President", or "Trump" escaping el-Sayed's lips. That's because notwithstanding his most sensible supporters realizing that defeating Donald Trump's agenda is the most important objective, Abdul el-Sayed disagrees. He believes that above all, it is Israel which must be defeated.

Share |

Meet Melat Hamas Kiros

This candidate, who defeated the very good US Representative for the First District of Colorado, Diana DeGette, reminds me of the Coasters' "Yakety Yak". ("Take out the papers and the trash...") I'm not a fan of tweets which specify "only some accounts can reply" but it should be ignored, even though Democrats (D) must be elected everywhere possible.

This one makes me feel sad. I hate the suggestion at the end that we “can't keep Jews in Denver safe while Israel is executing a genocide.” I’ve got Jewish kids here in Denver. The safety of everyone in this city is an imperative, no matter what’s happening around the world. I appreciate that Melat acknowledges that the Boulder firebomber was “trying to incite terror in the Jewish community.” That makes it antisemitic. Jewish safety means the safety of all Jews, whether or not we talk about Israel/Palestine exactly the way someone wants us to. Look, we can be loud critics of Israel. I am. We can argue hard about US policy. We really have to. But the safety of our kids shouldn’t be part of that debate.

— David Seligman (@daveyseligman) October 19, 2026

To confirm that this was not taken out of context, here is the full segment of the interview conducted earlier this month by Politico with House candidates Avila Chevalier and Neelat Karos:

Dasha Burns: Look, you know, I bring up all of these points not to like relitigate the past, but um, to explore this idea that like a lot of your critics look at your comments as a whole and say that your support for the rights of Palestinians has breached into antisemitic territory. Do you understand, Melat, why some people might hear it that way, and is any of that criticism fair? I mean, I’m look...thinking back also so, you know, your reluctance to call the attack on October 7th hostage support demonstration in Boulder um, not calling it antisemitic, right? Do you understand why the aggregation of the stuff that we’ve talked about might make people feel this way? 

Melat Kiros: I do, and I think that is a product of, you know, what I have made abundantly clear that I’m against, which is ethnocracy. When you have created a state around, you know, one particular group, you are welcoming this you know...any kind of criticism against the state being erroneously applied to the entire people, which is wrong. And I have condemned that at every juncture that I have the opportunity to. What we’re talking about is the actions of a state and a government that we are against deeply and their violation of basic human rights of the way they are carrying out apartheid and now genocide on the Palestinian people. What happened in Boulder was a horrific, horrific attack that specifically put Jewish communities in more danger and really... 

Dasha Burns: Was it an antisemitic attack? 

Melat Kiros: ...invited more harm. I think it was a political attack, and I think it was one that specifically puts Jewish people in harm’s way because Israel portends to speak for and act on behalf of all Jewish people, which is not... 

Dasha Burns: But I’m just curious why...why not... 

Melat Kiros: ...the case. 

Dasha Burns: ...call it antisemitic when it was an attack on Jews. 

Melat Kiros: I think whether it was antisemitic or anti-Zionist, it was a hate crime, and it was a crime to insight terror in the Jewish community. And that is wrong, no matter what. I think it is really important that when we talk about these particular um, you know, attacks, that we are clear about why these attacks are happening so that we can actually prevent them from ever happening... 

Dasha Burns: Well, that...that’s... 

Melat Kiros: ...again. 

Dasha Burns: ...but that’s why I’m asking about the antisemitism of it all and why that there’s like a hesitance to call it that. 

Melat Kiros: I think it was a political attack against, you know, the support of Israel specifically. Could it...antisemitism have also been motivated in there? Absolutely. It’s entirely possible. But again, when we are talking about a political attack, we have to go back to the...the root cause of why this violence is happening at all. I want to end the violence so that Jewish people, no matter where they are, but especially to the Jewish neighbors that I have in my district, the Jewish community in my district, that they are safe and that they are protected. And we cannot do that when this state is executing a genocide on the Palestinian people and saying that it is for the safety of Jewish people. There is no liberation where it is not intertwined between you know, all of the people that live in that region, regardless of their faith. And our responsibility is to chart a path forward that recognizes equal rights and equal dignity for every single person and to condemn violence at every single juncture.

In June of 2025 the BBC had reported

An 82-year-old woman who was one of the 12 victims in an attack on a gathering in support of Israeli hostages has died from her injuries in Colorado, officials say.

Karen Diamond was severely injured after the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, shouting "free Palestine" tossed Molotov cocktails at the group in what federal officials have called a "terrorist attack".

The suspect told police after he was arrested that he wanted to "kill all Zionist people", according to court documents....

Diamond was among the 20 or so people gathered on 1 June to participate in a Run for Their Lives gathering at Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado, to generate awareness for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza.

She died as a result of "the severe injuries that she suffered in the attack", the district attorney's office said....

Officials say the suspect planned the attack for a year, watching videos on how to make Molotov cocktails before driving from his home in Colorado Springs to Boulder to carry out the attack.

The suspect allegedly posed as a gardener wearing a construction vest to get close to the group ahead of the attack, prosecutors say.

Near the scene of the crime, officials say they found 16 unlit Molotov cocktails in a plastic container within arm's reach, as well as a weed sprayer filled with petrol.

Kiros does not know whether the act committed by Soliman (who has been prosecuted and sent to prison) was anti-Zionist. You would have thought  that "kill all Zionist people" would have been a clue. She doesn't know whether it was anti-semitic. Maybe the declaration "kill all Zionist people" directed at people who were not supporting the Israeli government but calling for the release of hostages- human beings like the Zionist Karen Diamond- could have been a clue that "Zionist" now is a synonym for "Jew".

The candidate chose not to condemn the attack unequivocally, opting instead to turn the questioning into a diatribe against the imaginary "apartheid and now genocide of the Palestinian people". 

The Israeli government in its bloodlust somehow overlooked the 13 Arabic members of the nation's legislature. Also, the Palestinians in Jordan, where the group comprises roughly half the population. Also, the 31 other nations in which substantial numbers of Palestinians reside; also, in the West Bank, where IDF soldiers are not regularly gunning down residents.  In Gaza,the population, through displacement or killing, ahs declined since the beginning of the war but by something less than 10%, in world history the most incompetent genocide of all.

Kiros is fixated on the "root cause" of "why this violence is happening at all".  The "root cause" is two-fold: hatred of Jews and hatred of the country which has given them safe harbor, and the freedom which no other nation in the Middle East does, and no other nation there ever has. The sense of superiority of Islamists is unsurprising given that

more than 850,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, and several other Arab countries in the 20 years that followed the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. Another major forced migration took place from Iran in 1979–80, following the Iranian Revolution and the collapse of the shah’s regime, adding 70,000 more Jewish refugees to this number.

There is ample evidence that this conduct against Jews was orchestrated in tandem as a joint effort of all the involved Arab countries.

Kiros remarks "There is no liberation where it is not intertwined between you know, all of the people that live in that region, regardless of their faith."  Regardless of their faith, very few people in the region enjoy the freedom that Jews- or Muslims- do in Israel:

According to the measure of the level of democracy in nations throughout the world published by Freedom House, the Middle Eastern countries with the highest scores are Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait, and Jordan. The remaining countries of the Middle East are categorized as authoritarian regimes, though some have  certain democratic aspects.

Freedom House categorizes Israel and Tunisia as the only “free” countries of the region....

Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait, Morocco, and Jordan are all categorized as “partly free"... 

None of the Middle Eastern countries received the “free” status from the Freedom House in their 2016 Freedom of the Press report, which measures specifically the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press. Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and Kuwait were determined “partly free” while all the other countries in the region received the “not free” status.

All the remaining Middle Eastern states are currently determined to be “not free” (including Western Sahara, which is controlled by Morocco).

This is an old report. Sadly, things have not changed much for the peoples, mostly Muslim, of the Middle East. In thirty countries, the head of state must belong to a specific religion. In two of the, he/she must be Christian; in two, Buddhist; and in 17 nations, he or she must be Muslim. Jewish? None. Quite the "ethnocracy:.

Yet Kiros doesn't care. Only the ill-defined "Palestinians" matter and for them, the candidate has no answer, only accusations against Israel.

The disconnect is unfathomable. The terrorist attack was a "hate crime" but possibly not anti-Semitic, which begs the question of whom the "hate" was directed against. This is a problem of the far, far left: simultaneously being equivocal about a murderous crime while being sure to label it a "hate" crime because the label "hate crime" will be the cool thing in Woke 2 as it was in Woke 1. 

Responding at the time to Soliman's attack, District Attorney Michael Dougherty stated "This horrific attack has now claimed the life of an innocent person who was beloved by her family and friends. Our hearts are with the Diamond family during this incredibly difficult time." The hearts of decent people were, but for Kiros and other members of the Democratic Socialists of America, not so much.

In the runoff in the 1991 gubernatorial election in Louisiana, Democrat Edwin Edwards, who had been indicted on criminal charges for which he was acquitted, faced former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and Republican David Duke. (Edwards later was prosecuted for other charges, found guilty, and sentenced to prison.) Some motorists wisely sported the bumper stickers "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard" and "Vote for the Crook, It's Important". 

It's critical that Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.  Unfortunately, in the 1st congressional district of Colorado, we're left with "Vote for the Bigot: It's Important".

Share |

A Point Which Would Have Been Worth Making

On Friday, President Trump spoke at a rally in Dalton, Georgia on behalf of Repbulican gubernatorial nominee Rick Jackson and senatorial nominee Mike Collings. In the following twittered video, Trump can be seen lying about transexuals in a statement which nonetheless does bear a connection- a very tenuous connection- to reality.

Trump: "We have 5 states where your child goes off to school as Tim and comes back as Tammy 3 or 4 days later. It's true. And teachers make a decision. 'Goodbye Timmy I love you so much, I'll see you later.' And you say, 'Where's my son? My son is in the hospital.' Can you imagine? They don't even need approval"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2026

Donald should be asked which states allow its schools to refer a boy to a hospital for gender-reassignment surgery- and then keep him hidden from his parents for "three or four days".  No member of the media will do this, perhaps because jounalists fear being called out for "fake news"or  being ridiculed by the President. Or maybe they don't want to expose our President, the leader of the Free World and commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation ever, as a liar, cognitively impaired, or suffering from dementia.

At the end of the clip provided, Trump name-checked Minnesota. Nevertheless, he could be simply warping out of shape a policy of four states- Minnesota not included- which pertain to the treatment of trans-curious minors.  In a press release in August, the conservative legal firm Liberty Justice Center noted it has

sent letters to the attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington, warning that school districts’ decisions to withhold information regarding students’ purported gender transitions from their parents violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law. School districts that create or enforce policies that conceal a child’s request to change names, pronouns or gender identity at school may violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

The center claims the FERPA

guarantees parents the right to access their children’s education records at schools that receive federal funds. The law defines “education records” as records that “contain information directly related to a student” and are “maintained by an educational agency or institution.” Any school-created or school-maintained records concerning a child’s social gender transition would therefore constitute “education records” and must be made available to the child’s parents.

It's just a guess, but I'd bet the ACLU won't agree. However, whatever courts make of the complicated legal and constitutional issues involved- and assuming the LJC is accurately interpreting current law in the four states- school districts which don't inform parents of a minor's request to change names, pronouns or gender identity at school are making a big mistake. In a New York Times guest essay last year, anti-Trump Republican and gay journalist Andrew Sullivan referred to an

illiberalism (which) made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient blood libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids… So what did the gender revolutionaries go and do? They focused almost entirely on children and minors.

Leave the children out of it, indeed. Don't leave young people with the consequences of a decision made when they were too young to understand its ramifications. Trump himself doesn't give a rat's ass about boys transitioning into girls or believing they are transitioning, or how a school district handles it. If he did, he would make an effort to get the facts straight (no pun intended, honestly) rather than simply playing to voters' fears. 

However, speaking of trans-curious, there also is the more common term, bi-curious, which could (but wasn't) have been coined to refer to Donald J. Trump pleasuring himself with his dance simulation of fellatio to the strains of the Village People's "YMCA".  During the speech in Georgia, Donald reportedly remarked "we're allowed to have big, strong, handsome soldiers now".  To one man in the crowd, he commented "Oh! He's a good looking guy. You're not allowed to say that about women or men anymore. It's the end of your political career, but he's a good-looking guy."  (Ironically, Trump has, to be generous, diverse sexual interests.)

Of course, it won't end Trump's political career or even put a dent into it. No one will care about Trump's fascination with the "good-looking guy" in the audience nor in "big, strong, handsome soldiers".  No one will care because the media will ignore it. It will also ignore Donald Trump taking a serious issue, young boys who are ill at ease with their biological sex, and recklessly lying about it.

Share |

It's Those Jews Again

Cenk Uygur of The Yong Turks is a virulent hater of Israel and of Jews- not necessarily the same thing, but both apply with him. However, that's not the issue here.

 

People claim “dual loyalty” is a trope, but here is large percentage of Jewish voters abandoning every other position they’ve had just for Israel. Many other Jewish voters aren’t doing this. But you can’t say Israel is more important than every other issue and still claim trope.

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) October 15, 2026

Uygur may or may not be aware of the following. However, even if he is, he wouldn't understand its applicability to the plunge of support among New York Jews for the Democratic Party:

The Arab American Institute (AAI) released polling at the end of October 2023 that showed support among Arab voters for President Joe Biden catastrophically plummeted from a high of 59% during the 2020 election to a scant 17%. His approval rating also dropped a precipitous 45 points, from 74% to 29% in that time frame. While positive feelings towards Biden had been dropping amongst Arabs steadily since he came into office, the AAI noted that his support fell by 18 points between April 2023 and October 23 alone, driven in part by widespread criticism of his administration's muted response to Palestinian suffering during Israel's initial military response to Hamas' terror attack. 

Support for Harris among Arab-Americans rose after she became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. One rational reason would have been that Harris was not as fond of Israel as was Biden, as exemplified by the "bring them home" chant at the Democratic National Convention, more pithy than "sign the damn ceasefire, Bibi".

The precipitous drop of support among these voters for Biden- and perhaps even the increase for Harris- obviously was due to the federal government's sympathy for, and empathy with, Israel after the 10/7/23 attack by Islamist terrorists.  No one ever has suggested the that skepticism of Biden, and to a lesser extent, of Harris, was due to anything but that Mideast conflict.

These are called "single issue voters," Cenk. To make it simpler: Arab Muslims disliked Biden because he favored the predominantly Jewish state of Israel over loud and proud, murderous Muslims. And now Jews have lost faith in Democratic politicians because none has renounced Abdul el-Sayed, which is sensible because he is a candidate for Senate; and none has denounced his #1 booster, Hasan Piker, which is morally repugnant. 

There are single-issue voters for Israel, just as there are single-issue voters against Israel, euphemistically "Pro-Palestine" voters.  There are single-issue gun rights (euphemistically, "Second Amendment) voters, individuals who vote for or against candidates because the latter are pro-life or pro-choice, and it doesn't end with these. It may be foolish, but foolish is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

Jews aren't guilty of the dual loyalty anti-Semites have historically accused them of any more than Uygur and his fellow travelers are guilty of dual loyalty because they support Palestine, unfortunately recognized by the United Nations as a non-member observer state.  Nor are  Italian-Americans guilty of dual loyalty because they zealously guard recognition of Columbus Day in recognition of someone who did not discover America.

There are American Jewish organizations in the USA. So, too, are there various organizations advocating for African-Americans, European-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Latinos. There also are Asian-American groups, one of them representing Turkish-American, which Cenk presumably is free to join, if he has not already done so. Fortunately, these do not get accused of "dual loyalties"; that designation is reserved for Jews. 

All of those are part of the rich mosaic of the United States of America.  Or as John Mellencamp recorded in the 1980s in "Little Pink Houses", "Oh, but ain't that America for you and me?"

Share |

Saudi Arabia, Disappeared

An important American ally in the Middle East again is encouraging President Donald Trump to join its forces in escalating conflict.  CNBC reports that the President

said he is considering joining Saudi Arabia in its retaliation against Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen after a deadly attack on Riyadh’s main airport, a move that could draw the U.S. further into a second front in the Iran war.

“We may. We’re going to look at it,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Saturday when asked if the U.S. would back Saudi Arabian strikes. “We just found out about the recent attack. So, we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly.”

Two Saudi Arabian government officials told MS NOW that the kingdom is requesting “urgent defense support” from the U.S. following the attacks.

The officials, including a senior member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did not want to be identified because of the matter’s sensitivity. They added that the U.S. needs to intervene “as soon as possible” to help the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen fight the Houthis.

This is nothing new because on September 10, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a real sweetheart kind of guy called President Trump twice   

urging him to launch strikes against the Houthis as the Iran-backed group closed in on a vital Red Sea chokepoint, two U.S. officials told Axios. Trump declined, and U.S. officials stressed the administration has no plans to intervene directly against the Houthis for now.

And that was nothing new, as applied elsewhere in the Mideast, for in February Trump launched a

wide-ranging attack on Iran after a weeks-long lobbying effort by an unusual pair of U.S. allies in the Middle East — Israel and Saudi Arabia — according to four people familiar with the matter, as Israeli and U.S. forces teamed to topple Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei after nearly four decades in power.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack, despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, the four people said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, continued his long-running public campaign for U.S. strikes against what he views as an existential enemy of his country.

The combined effort helped lead Trump to order a massive aerial campaign against Iran’s leadership and military, which in its initial hour led to the death of Khamenei and several other senior Iranian officials.

In March,Daniel C. Kurtzer and Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace explained

Netanyahu was not the only foreign leader pushing for Trump to attack Iran. Foremost among these was Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Other reports indicate Arab Gulf leaders have been urging Trump not to stop before further degrading Iranian military capabilities. The difference between Netanyahu and Arab leaders was that the latter told Trump quietly what they wanted but would not be honest with their own people. Still, Trump alone is responsible for the United States’ participation.

Trump and Netanyahu are skilled politicians, and both are adept in the art of the con. In this case, however, there was no con. Trump proved to be a willing and full partner. He was risk-ready and caught up in a self-generated aura of military power and invincibility after taking President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela. He was poorly advised by a coterie of advisers unwilling to say anything to him other than yes— perhaps with the exception of Vice President JD Vance, who has backed Trump publicly but has expressed reservations in the past.

Netanyahu may have determined the timing of conflict, but Trump was likely already on his way to war…

Whatever accountability Netanyahu should face for the Iran war, the fact is that the conflict the United States is now fighting against Iran is Trump’s doing. It is a war based on a false and unproven threat assessment of “imminent threats” to the United States. It is a war being waged without bipartisan support, congressional authorization, or the buy-in of allies or the majority of the American public. And it is a war being prosecuted without the president thinking through potential costs and consequences.

It's a wonder that Israel is often blamed by the ultra-left and the ultra-right for getting the USA to start the war against Iran. To be fair to Marco Rubi ( which he generally doesn't deserve), when the Secretary of State in early March pointed to Israel's role in facilitating our involvement, he was referring to the timing of our attack"  He remarked “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Nonetheless, Netany and those evil "Zionists" get a lot of the blame on social media and otherwise for President Trump's disastrous mistake.But then, it's Israel's own fault that it has a lot of Jews.

Share |