The New Pledge of Allegiance

Last month, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez infamously stated "I have a local city councilman that has this saying 'Woke 1 was crazy.' I think that during this time, especially during COVID... the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place."

Critics noted that the New York congresswoman herself was part of the problem. Overlooked was that her reference to "especially during COVID" was disingenuous. Covid-19 had little to do with woke statements or perspective. It was much more the black lives matter movement, spearheaded by the ethically questionable Black Lives Matter organization.

This is significant because there is an idea- vocalized by Ocasio-Cortez- that "woke is dead". This is a convenient notion, encouraging controversial opinions to be shielded from the accusation that it is "woke". Not taken in is the co-author of Regime Change because as Breitbart noted

On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” New York Times White House Reporter and author Jonathan Swan said that “there’s actually an effort to get away from what AOC has called woke one. But the new litmus test is Gaza and genocide. That’s replaced a lot of these old litmus tests.” And “It’s completely oriented itself around Israel.”

Swan said, “The interesting thing is that there were all these other litmus tests that existed in 2020, and you see politicians like Pete Buttigieg took out — he had his pronouns on his social media account. He got rid of them. So, there’s actually an effort to get away from what AOC has called woke one. But the new litmus test is Gaza and genocide. That’s replaced a lot of these old litmus tests.”

Later, Swan said that he “can’t really make sense of where the line is anymore or what gets you cancelled…but the one issue, as you said before, seems to be Gaza. That seems to be the one thing where they’ve oriented themselves around a litmus test. … Like, you don’t hear candidates say, mask mandates and defund the police, they’re actually running away from all of that stuff. It’s completely oriented itself around Israel.”

Unlike the black lives matter movement, which strongly implied that police practice widespread brutality against black people and only black people, not every Democrat has fallen in line with the "Israel=genocide" myth. Some have, however:

There are several things going on here:

1. When she says she comes from a family "that's been genocided in the 1940s by the Nazis," turning "genocide" into a verb, she indicates that she speaks the new radical speak, which is obviously important to progressives always fearful of… https://t.co/plUPZVzkdn

— Peter Savodnik (@petersavodnik) September 27, 2026

There are numerous reasons to reject the charge of genocide. Among them is the extraordinary child vaccination program in Gaza in 2024. Later suspended and now resumed, this was facilitated by Tel Aviv and carried out by UNICEF and the World Health Organization. Israel is one of nine nations in the world with nuclear warheads. If its enemy- Hamas- in this war were one of the other eight, Israel would be deterred from using them to wipe out Gazan Palestinians because of the fear of retaliation.

Thus, to be clear: with that advantage and an overwhelming advantage in conventional forces over Hamas, Gazans have not been wiped out, and not nearly so. If Israel were trying to wipe out a people, the country is roughly as inept as Hamas is, well, genocidal.

None of that is new, nor should it be controversial. But in the video clip below, the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in the second congressional district of Maine (the largest in area east of the Mississippi), Matt Dunlap remarks (at 1:00) "this has become the moral issue of our time."

Not the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Not the persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world. Most of all, not the terrorist attack of October 7, 2023 with the intent by Hamas of raping and murdering as many Jews as possible. And not the numerous terrorist groups throughout Asia and Africa. They go unmentioned because they are not Jewish, acting on behalf of a democratic state in retaliation for a deadly attack.

In the future, the ignorance, bigotry, or fear of cancellation which undergirds the litmus test, the requirement to denounce Israel dishonestly, will be a matter of extensive debate. However, we do know now that either Woke 1 has been replaced by Woke 2 or that the original has taken a very ugly turn.

Share |

Misinformed Critics

On Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the United Nations General Assembly, defending his own nation while lambasting Iran, Hezbollah, and New York City mayor Zohran Mandami. There were demonstrations and speeches both inside and outside of the building protesting the speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, as well as dozens of diplomats who walked out to show their disdain for Netanyahu. 

It turns out that condemning terrorists is unpopular among many individuals in the area and especially with such performers activist Chelsea Manning, comedian Caleb Headen, state Assembly candidate Helen Gallagher, actors Susan Sarandon and Hannah Einbinder, House of Representatives nominee Darializa Chevalier, and a city councilman.  The last four were arrested, as were 100 or so other individuals, who were individually warned of impending arrest for failure to disperse. They were released pending a court appearance.

Protests are as American as cherry pie and GLP-1 drugs, and there will be little or no penalty assessed upon the persons arrested.  Some of the demonstrators held signs reading "stop arming Israel," a reasonable proposal, and others had signs reading "end the genocide," which would make sense if there were genocide taking place. 

There is not, of course, which anyone understanding the nature of genocide and Israel's ability to annihilate an ethnic group would understand. Fortunately, Scott Galloway does.

• The Holocaust killed 40% of Europe's Jews
• Rwanda killed 70% of the Tutsis
• Cambodia killed 1/3 of the entire country
• In Gaza, it is 3% at most, alongside polio vaccines, 2,500 calories a day and leaflets warning… pic.twitter.com/K8LOm8dUZP

— Max 📟 (@MaxNordau) September 24, 2026

El-Sayed, as he continues to indicate, not only is ignorant about the concept of genocide but, as is now evident, lacks basic decency: 

This is legitimately disgraceful. The young man wasn’t asking for a lecture on US foreign policy. He was asking a question of basic morality. Huge swing and miss by El-Sayed. https://t.co/yIB4tiIcMb

— Ethan Wolf 🇺🇸 (@ethanmwolf) September 24, 2026

Jewish Israeli voters will not be intimidated and won't take kindly to accusations of being a party to genocide.  Their reaction will be to sympathize more with Benjamin Netanyahu and the bigotry of coalition partners Itamar Ben-Gvir and Benzalel Smotrich. It would be ironic if the backlash to the Jew-hating and other anti-Israel fanatics helped return Netanyahu's Likud to power, which probably would be accompanied by right-wing extremists. For some hypercritical detractors, though, that would not be ironic, but a welcome cudgel to use against a nation they wish didn't exist.

Share |

Ahead of Her Time

You'll never guess who now sounds like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It is Joe Rogan who, despite now channeling Hillary Clinton, still slams the left, endorsed Donald Trump in 2024, and doesn't suggest that he regrets opposing the Democrat in her unsuccessful race against Donald Trump in 2016. Speaking at an LGBT for Hillary fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Mrs. Clinton inelegantly remarked

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Once you find yourself saying "to just be grossly generalistic," it's time to stop. Nonetheless, it would have been helpful to evaluate Clinton's reasons for considering them deplorable or suggest that she may have underestimated the number.  (Also, "generalistic" is not a word.)  Even more useful to voters would have been noting that the candidate added

... thankfully they are not America. But the other basket- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas- as well as, you know, New York and California- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out hope that their lives will be different. they won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Innumerable authors, talk show hosts, pundits, and others have since made a career, some a successful and lucrative career, from "discovering" that Donald Trump tapped into widespread sentiment that Americans in the "heartland" have lost hope in government which has worked for the affluent and left them behind.  These individuals, we have been told incessantly the last several years, voted for a savior they believed would throw norms out the window, bust up tradition, and destroy the "deep state".

Hillary Clinton said the same thing. And now an ex-actor and extraordinarily successful podcaster to the dispossessed is saying roughly the same:

"Trump supporters are f---ing nuts, man," Rogan said on a new episode of his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. "They're rabid."

Rogan added that Trump "represents something other than just a person to them."

"He represents a leader that they wish they had, which is a real problem in our society in general with leaders," the host added.  "We look to them as if there's something different than every other person that's ever been a leader before. Like, "This is the one. This is the one that's going to save us, right?"

Rogan did do a couple of things differently than did Clinton. The latter said "half," refusing to imply that all Trump supporters were identical, whereas Rogan referred to "Trump supporters," suggesting his comments applied to all. Additionally, he used a profanity, which has become obligatory for politicians, podcasters, and others to prove their authenticity. 

It was ironic, then, that the remark of the then-Vice President had precisely the opposite moment. In a 2021 analysis, a Washington Post reporter noted that Jonathan Allen, author of the book "Shattered" about Clinton's 2016 campaign, said the remark

seemed to reveal a private thought that she had never dared state in public. In that way, it "ended up being symbolic of one of the things that her critics said they hated about her, which is that they believed that she's inauthentic. And oddly, I think that was a pretty authentic moment.

When Joe Rogan denounces Democrats for what he views as "open borders", "COVID mandates", "forcing people to get vaccinated", and of course, the existential issue of pronouns, he obviously does not sound like Hillary Clinton, whose insult became a rallying call for her GOP opponent.. Rogan's attack, accusing Trump supporters of being "nuts" and "rabid", also is more personal than was the candidate's assessment. Perhaps that was part of Clinton's problem- criticizing them thoughtfully and accurately and with an authenticity that could not go unpunished.

Share |

Fake and Real Transposed

President Trump on September 18 remarked (emphasis obviously his) on Untruth Social that he is

banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW.... and Politico.... directly from the United States Government.... from the White House as a result of their constant "reporting" FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow....

Three days later:

Vice President @JDVance: "If you're going to engage in what effectively far-left propaganda, why would a Republican White House give you special access?"

"They still have the access to free speech. They're just not going to get an office in the White House anymore."

"I think… pic.twitter.com/hPIonF2aLk

— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) September 21, 2026

Perhaps the 92% figure cited by Vance is totally made up. Or maybe he means only 8% of stories from Politico, MSNOW, and CNN kiss Trump's posterior.

In either case, it appears that the Vice President was not asked what constitutes "negative", though it would have nice if he had been asked. But we do know what the President believes is not a "fake news media outlet" because we learned two months ago from Fox News that

President Donald Trump is striking a noticeably softer tone toward China just days after delivering a public address to the nation accusing Beijing of "sinister election meddling."

The fresh set of accusations levied on July 16 raised new questions about the Trump administration's posture towards China, especially as it moves to keep TikTok operating in the U.S. while warning against the hostility of the world power against America.

"President Trump just told the nation that China tried to influence the 2020 election and weaken his presidency. During that same year, the intelligence community identified TikTok as a primary vector of CCP influence in the United States," Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Michael Sobolik, who specializes in U.S.–China relations, told Fox News Digital

"Beijing still controls the algorithm, which means that the very dangers Trump raised persist today," Sobolik added.

Trump has long taken a hard line on China, using tariffs, trade pressure and national security warnings to frame Beijing as one of America's chief adversaries.

In his recent address to the nation, the president accused the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of running a "sinister" campaign to interfere in U.S. elections and influence Americans and undermine his presidency.

Yet just five days later, on July 21, Trump suggested "China is maybe a little bit different today." It struck a softer tone that falls more in line with the president's backing of a deal to keep TikTok operating in the U.S., despite seeking during his first term and at the start of his second to force the app out over national security concerns.

"The CCP hasn’t changed. Xi Jinping hasn’t changed. But President Trump has," Sobolik detailed.

"He’s much more conciliatory toward China in his second term than he was in his first. He risks telegraphing significant weakness to Xi by letting China off the hook."

Trump downplayed Beijing's past election interference, suggesting both countries engage in similar tactics and indicating he was more focused on future negotiations than revisiting China's actions.

The partiality toward TikTok has had real-world implications. Exactly two years after Hamas started the present war with Israel, The Washington Post (possibly behind a paywall) reported

U.S.-based TikTok posters still show overwhelming support for Palestinians as the war rages on in Gaza, according to a report published Tuesday by the nonpartisan research center Cybersecurity for Democracy. It found that for every pro-Israel post that appeared on TikTok in September there were roughly 17 posts supporting Palestinians. That finding, based on an analysis of hashtags that users attach to their posts, is roughly the same as what the center found nearly two years ago.

Not to worry, though. With the expected sale to an American company, the platform probably will go in the opposite direction.  An intensely anti-Israel news outlet last year noted that President Trump had singed 

an executive order for a deal allowing ByteDance to retain less than 20% of TikTok's ownership in the U.S.

In return, American investors will control more than 65% of TikTok's ownership, along with the Emirati investment fund MGX, headed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, which will acquire a 15% stake.

Among the American investors who will acquire TikTok's US operations is Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who donated more than $26 million to the Friends of the “Israel” Defense Forces.

Oracle has also cooperated with the Israeli government in technology and military infrastructure, and Ellison previously offered Netanyahu a seat on the company's board and invited him to his private island in Hawaii.

The United Arab Emirates during the first Trump Administration signed the Abraham Accords and recognized Israel's existence and reportedly informed the Israeli government of an impending attack prior to Hamas' terroristic invasion of 10/7/23.  Larry Ellison is staunchly pro-Israel, as allegedly are a couple of other investors.

So we may be in the process of converting an extraordinarily powerful social media platform from one antagonistic to Israel to one very friendly not only to the nation, but also to its right-wing government.  

This is an improvement primarily because the Butchers of Beijing will, presumably, have less influence on the videos TikTok makes available, especially to impressionable, ill-informed youth. Additionally, it's very likely that the pro-Israel slant will be not as ridiculous as the anti-Israel bias has been.

Nevertheless, this is not good. The remedy for effective, extremist propaganda castigating a democratic nation is not contrary propaganda, just as reverse discrimination is not dramatically superior to discrimination.

TikTok is bad news, both literally and figuratively.  It has been extremely bad news and in the future, probably only very bad news.  It has presented alternative facts which have become alternative reality for a good chunk of young Americans who cannot be bothered by the front page of The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or practically anything not accompanied by video. So of course Donald Trump is partial to it: "I like TikTok. It helped get me elected."

Trump loves himself some TikTok while Politico, MSNOW, and CNN are "fake news" precisely because they report fact, detail, and occasionally context, all things alien to TikTok.  Donald Trump frequently whines about imaginary fake news outlets. But when it comes to hogwash, he's like a pig at the trough.

Share |

"Shut Up and Sing"

Words which I never thought I'd utter: Bill Maher is wrong and Christopher Rufo is right. (So is this tweeter.)

Bill Maher just weighed in on the Macklemore saga and dropped a heavy dose of common sense on the whole thing.

Maher put it perfectly:

MAHER: “Is anyone looking for anything of this at a concert? I mean, do I really need a lecture on politics of any stripe, right when the molly… pic.twitter.com/7O967oiyQ0

— Overton (@overton_news) September 19, 2026

 

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft banned Macklemore from performing at the stadium he owns because of incendiary remarks the rapper had made about Israel/Palestine at two concerts in New Jersey. Kraft argued in part "Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech."

Maher says

Is anyone looking for any of this at a concert. I mean, do I really need a lecture on politics of any stripe, right when the molly is kicking in? It's so arrogant on both their sides.

Sorry to interrupt your mellow with real life, Bill.  Maher continues

I don't need Bruce Springsteen to do it, either. Or Kid Rock is a good friend of mine. I love his music. We agree on very little politically. I would go to one of his shows but it turns into a Trump rally. I'm not going to that.

And you don't have to do that, Bill. It won't kill you to miss a concert. I've been doing it for decades, and so have many people who are still alive. There are several other ways to get or hear music. Maher adds

And I don't want Bruce Springstten to do it, either. You know, why is he doing this? What's the point? Because people who agree with him agree with him. There's a lot of peopl , I bet, who are Trump voters who like Bruce Springsteen and always have. 

Well, yes, there are. And they can do to Springsteen what you can do to Kid Rock: boycott them. That would be an act of principle. 

Springsteen doesn't have to worry about fans who decide not to go to one of his concerts because he makes a political statement or two. There always are others who will fill the seats who, like Bill Maher, have a great deal of money to spend on being entertained. Also: fun trumps principle, almost always. Perform, and they will come. Maher concludes

He looks like one of them. He's a working-class guy. And now, they have to go to the concert, like, okay, I still like the music buy you know, really, I don't love you as much, Mr. Boss.

Oh, yes, a real working-class guy worth approximately $1.2 billion. I'm guessing a carpenter, sheet metal worker, electrician, or plumber- men (occasionally women) who work with their hands would love to make even a small fraction of the tens of millions of dollars he does annually. Some of those individuals who work with their hands themselves are very well off. But they do at least effect a working class lifestyle or mentality which may grant them the status of working class. But a singer and entertainer? Not on your life.

Bruce Springsteen, as with Kid Rock, deserves to earn the money he earns. It's what the market bears. However, unlike a lot of blue-collar workers, he did not have to retire young because he was beaten up physically. Ironically, he seems to understand that while Maher does not.

Maher, Springsteen, and Kid Rock all are entertainers. They are not surgeons. Or cyber security engineers. Or even social workers or garbage collectors, all doing work which needs to be done, at wages far less than Maher or the big names in entertainment.

And that is precisely why Bruce Springsteen or the right-wing, pro-Trump Kid Rock should speak up as they wish. It may suggest, as Maher believes, that they think they know more than you, me, or our neighbors.  But it suggests also that they believe the issues they address (however superficially) may be as important as their music, or at least that their music isn't the be all and end all.

When New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft banned rapper Macklemore from performing at the stadium he owns, he argued in part "Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech."

Christopher Rufo was technically incorrect- naive, actually- when he contended "But I just think any kind of echo of that old cancel culture from the past is going to be a loser in today's environment."  It won't be a loser because both the "progressive" left and the Trump right support cancellation when the victim is somebody on the other side. Now, we find that even Bill Maher- persistent critic of cancel, and of "woke", culture- is fine with suppressing speech when it's speech he finds abhorrent, in this case condemnation of Israel by an anti-Semite.

Rufo has made a career out of attacking the "woke". He understands, though didn't mention, that opposing something because it is characterized as "hate speech" is hostile to the concept of free expression. Oppose something because it is wrong and/or bigoted- or in extreme cases, highly offensive- but "hate speech" can be almost anything. It is very illiberal, shutting down speech simply because we don't like it. We may "hate" particular speech but that shouldn't be grounds to ban it.

Share |

Worthless Critics

The circumstances or context surrounding this incident are impossible to determine from this tweet.

The primary is over. Abdul El-Sayed’s deranged supporters should leave Congresswoman Haley Stevens alone. pic.twitter.com/qenIIV73Kk

— Jake Altman (@TradeUnionJake) September 17, 2026

 

We now know the circumstances, or at least have a theory. Representative Stevens tweets

Earlier today, I was leaving a Science Committee hearing, standing up for science to address climate change, when I was once again followed, shouted at, and harassed by two rogue paid actors attempting to intimidate. Let me be clear: I have always wanted the wars in the Middle East to end. I believe in a two-state solution that gives Israelis and Palestinians peace, security, dignity, and a home. People are free to disagree with me, challenge me, and protest my positions. That is democracy. But disagreement is not license for intimidation or harassment. I’m not on the ballot anymore. So, what exactly are we accomplishing by continuing to tear each other apart? There is too much at stake to spend our energy villainizing people on our own side or like me who are not coming back to Congress. We should be putting our energy into protecting Social Security, defending voting rights, lowering costs, standing up for science, and defending the people who sent us here. Disagreement is democracy. Intimidation isn’t. Let’s get back to work.

In her third to last paragraph and sentence, Stevens makes a good point. Most of the individuals most intent on cancelling supporters of Israel don't mention protecting Social Security. Or voting rights. Or standing up for science. Or reigning in the unchecked power of artificial intelligence. Or the rights of labor, of consumers, or even of minorities in the USA.

Neither do they appear to support a two-state solution. For them, it is "from the river to the sea," from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, a complete elimination of Israel.

They're unlikely to see that dream fulfilled. However, they may splinter the Democratic Party, resulting in the election of more Republicans. They're from the party generally supportive of more Israeli settlements on the West Bank, more offensive weaponry for Israel, continued war against Iran, and whatever development profitable to the Trump family springs up in Gaza. It's irony, but for many it would be mission accomplished.

Share |

... and Buried

John McCain is dead.

Literally, obviously; but figuratively, also- and almost as obviously.

At the time and not being prescient, I was not overly impressed by this:

 

It was on October 10, 2008, during a closely contested presidential campaign featuring Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain that

At a town hall event in Lakeville, Minnesota, a woman in the audience made a false and offensive claim about Obama.

 “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him, and he’s not, um, he’s an Arab,” she said.

Without hesitation, McCain took the microphone from her. “No, ma’am,” he responded. “He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that just I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what the campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab].”

At the same event, another supporter expressed fear about Obama becoming president. McCain again stood firm. “He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States,” he assured the crowd.

Many in the audience were not happy with his defense of Obama. Reports from the time say some people booed and called Obama a “liar” and a “terrorist.” But McCain refused to back down.

“I want to fight, and I will fight,” he said. “But I will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him.”

At the time, a reporter for WRAL-TV in Raleigh, North Carolina was half-right upon writing "it's hard to see how his current appearance today dosn't cut against him.... But he was boxed in and had no choice but to do this."

It did cut against McCain. However, unless the mood in the Republican Party virtually reversed itself- and it didn't- between that point and Donald Trump's presidential run eight years later, Senator McCain did have the choice not to do that.

Donald Trump's words and actions did change everything, not only in politics, but in this country generally. Nonetheless, he less persuaded conservatives and Republicans than he did give license for their worst selves to manifest themselves.

 

The next time Republicans accuse Democrats of "violent rhetoric," Here's ONE of MANY videos as proof that they are full of shit.

Here's sitting US Senator Ted Cruz, doing a call-and-response with every response saying "He should be shot!"

ZERO PUSHBACK.pic.twitter.com/JEedZDljqk

— BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️ (@mmpadellan) September 12, 2026

 

It's here that one is tempted to say "but what of the Democrats and anti-Semitism? Abdul el-Sayed, Hasan Piker, and the DSA?"  Brandon Herrera has a history of making derogatory remarks about American citizens, including women and homeless people. Therefore, to Speaker Mike Johnson, he is "a very serious candidate for Congress and a very thoughtful guy" who will be elected "and help us to save America to presrve freedom and bring down costs for the Americcan people."

HOLY SHIT -- Tapper plays Mike Johnson footage of Republican candidate Brandon Herrera describing moms as "cum trophies," mentions he called Nazi machine guns "the original ghetto blasters," and asks Johnson how he can support him. Johnson says "Herrera has run a very effective… pic.twitter.com/xfz2n8ZzmJ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 13, 2026

Donald Trump called former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman "that dog" and 1996 Miss Universe winner "Miss Piggy." More recently, he targeted New York Times reporter Katie Rogers as "ugly, both inside and out" and told Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey "Quiet. Quiet, piggy." 

Obviously, these are not the only sewer-level insults by Trump against women, just as he has ridiculed others on racial or other putrid grounds. And just as obviously, Ted Cruz has remained silent about all of these, aside from declaring "my favorite attribute about Donald Trump is the guy has cast iron balls at a level that there's no parallel in history." Speaker Johnson and most other Republicans have displayed nearly as much cowardice.  John McCain, war hero and defender of Barack Obama against a racially offensive remark, is dead, as is any sense of decency or courage in the Republican Party.

Share |

Courting Catastrophe, Happily

Last December,  defense analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers wrote

Turkey is the most mercurial member of the NATO alliance and often undermines alliance cohesion.

 Pointing to the threat posed by Iran, Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, has stated that it will pursue an independent nuclear capability if the Shiite country develops its own. Turkey has also expressed concerns about Israel's nuclear weapons.

'We have Israel nearby, as almost neighbours,' stated President Erdogan. 'They scare (other nations) by possessing [nuclear weapons.]'

Currently, there are roughly 50 American tactical nuclear weapons already deployed to Turkey, suggesting that a Turkish bomb is not needed for Ankara to protect its vital interest.

Unless a severe rupture were to happen between Turkey and its fellow NATO allies, such as the expulsion of Turkey from the alliance, a Turkish nuclear bomb is a low-probability prospect.

Not any more.  But let's back up. In July, President Donald Trump

approved a landmark 30-year civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, paving the way for American companies to play a big role in building the kingdom’s nuclear energy infrastructure…

The agreement has prompted strong reactions from non-proliferation experts and members of Congress. Many analysts argue that uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing represent the two principal technological pathways towards producing weapons-grade nuclear material.

They warn that even a civilian enrichment capability could provide Saudi Arabia with what is known as a latent nuclear weapons capability.

Experts also caution that moving away from the IAEA Additional Protocol could weaken established global non-proliferation standards and encourage other countries to seek similar exceptions.

“Whither goes Saudi Arabia, so goes the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt. The idea that this will have a happy ending is delusional,” Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, told WSJ.

And now saying the quiet part out loud:

Trump ADMITS He Would BOW TO IRAN if They Had NUKES

Trump on Iran:
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, I would be calling the Supreme Leader.

I would be saying, "Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you, sir? Is there anything we can do for you?" pic.twitter.com/c81YwORoOd

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) September 10, 2026

 

We knew that Donald Trump is a bully and fascist, from his threats against Cuba and Greenland; the police action and control over the Venezuelan government; and his favoritism toward Russia and Saudi Arabia. In his speech Tuesday evening at the Republican Party's mid-term convention in Dallas, the President made dangerous comments about Iran- more generally, about nuclear weapons- encourage a nuclear conflagration..

The media focused on Donald's promise that every American adult (or every American adult citizen) would be given $5,000 if Republicans retake the House and Senate in November. Possibly illegal, it is a deeply unethical bribe which will never come about but is possibly illegal and is deeply  unethical and worthy of attention. It would go by the wayside, as did Trump's promises of a DOGE dividend, rebate for tariffs, and compensation for Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Even if the President were to follow through, the impact, though harmful, would not be existential.  By contrast, these words about Iran from the leader of the world's greataest superpower will live on beyond his presidency. He wouldn't be around to answer for the consequences.

If they had a nuclear weapon, I'd be calling the Supreme Leader. And I'd be saying "Mr. Supreme Leader, how are you , sirIs there anything we can do for you?"- as opposed to bombing the crap out of them.

It's understandable, albeit reprehensible, that Trump would make these comments.  He will not have to pay a political price for them, not only because they're largely being ignored but also because by the time they'd have a devastating impact, he would be deceased. However, message received- by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other bad actors. As Ana Kasparian, taking a moment's leave from hating on Israel, accurately noted, "greatest ad for going nuclear."

Share |

Trump, Surprisingly Open-Minded

In the manner of Jim Steinman's lyrics for Meat Loaf, two out of three ain't bad.  Donald J. Trump is a  malignant narcissist, yes; pathological (only by definition #3) liar, yes; nuts, no.

He. Is. Absolutely. Nuts.
Beyond delusional. A fantasy making 9/11 about himself. Malignant narcissist & pathological liar. https://t.co/FKvzbTdb8V

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) September 8, 2026

At a 9/28/26 event at the White House honoring first responders of 9/11/01, President Donald Trump, according to CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale, stated

For nine months, rescue and recovery crews worked day and night on the site. I want to just thank my people; I took a lot of my me(n) — I was building a big building in New York, and I took the whole crew down there right after this happened,” he said. “And they were — they had no hesitation — everybody went down with me. We went down, it was a big group of people. Wasn’t too much we could do, I’ll be honest — it was, you know, it was raw, and nobody’s seen anything like it, ever. We had other buildings; the United States Steel building was creaking, really creaking, and we thought it was going to fall down; the truth is it creaked a lot, it creaked. It still creaks. But it never came down, and I re(member) — I’ll never forget two firemen. We thought it was coming down on top of us, and two firemen — big, strong guys — and I’m not the smallest guy in the world — they grabbed me under the arms, said, ‘Gotta get out of here.’ And they literally lifted me up. This is not easy to do. I’m big. They lifted me up and they started running with me. I said, ‘Fellas, I can run myself.’ But they were amazing, but they thought it was coming down; it didn’t come down. 

On 9/11/01, Trump was in Manhattan but many blocks away from the World Trade Center. He did not send a crew of workers to the site. The One Liberty Plaza office building reopened in October of 2001 and is reportedly structurallly sound to this day. Nor was Donald pulled out of the wreckage.

Other than that, most of what Trump claims is accurate. However, it is something else he said, neither true nor false, that got my attention.

After President Trump had jousted for several months with North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un, Trump remarked at a rally in West Virginia

"I was really being tough- and so was he. And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love, okay? No, really- he wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters.

Often, Trump has boasted that he admires a guy because he's "powerful" or "smart"  "tough," "strong," "strong like granite".   He and Kim, however, "fell in love" after he received "beautfiul letters" from the North Korean.

That was before, but apiece with, the playing of the Village People's 1978 hit, the gay anthem "YMCA".  It became common to play the song at Trump rallies despite "the gay messaging in the song, the gay fantasy stripper-costumes, the gay dancing and faux macho posturing."

Just joking. It's not "despite," but "because," as he accompanies the song with his signature dance, the likes of which have never been popular with men in bars or clubs featuring heterosexuals. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

Donald Trump, the "grab them by the p_ _ _ _" guy, who always has flaunted having his way with the ladies, has the perfect cover, especially as the leading man in the portion of the Epstein files held back from the public. This should be reiminiscent of the Village People, each adopting a macho identity as "hard hat, soldier, cowboy, Indian, motrocycle cop, and leather man".  

Ooh, "two big strong guys," Donald says. Homo-erotic fantasies are not illegal and, generously, represent the diversity of the "gorgeous mosaic" of  American culture. At the least, the "G" in "MAGA" more accurately stands for "gay" than for "great".

Share |

Here We Go Again

I don't care about Fat Joe (Joseph Antonio Cartagena at birth), a 46-year-ol former rapper whose father is Cuban-American and mother is Puerto Rican. He's a rapper, not a serious individual.

But the 47-year old Marc Lamot Hill is a serious person. He once was named by Ebony magazine as one of the nation's top 30 black leaders under the age of 30 (clever!) and has been a media personality, activist, professor of urban education, and currently co-host of the Joe Budden podcast. He is nothing if not an accomplished individual- well, a few other things, but accomplished.

And so the question: Is this still a thing?

 

Marc Lamont Hill addresses Fat Joe’s recent visit to the Joe Budden Podcast and his claim that he can use the N word due to his proximity to the culture.

“Fat Joe is not black, I disagree with him using the word due to his relation to the culture, I don’t think that’s enough”… pic.twitter.com/q3ZabDLHK1

— The Art Of Dialogue (@ArtOfDialogue_) September 7, 2026

By" this"  I mean  justifying the use of the n-word by blacks while unironically condemning white racism and racists. In the video below, Hill remarks (beginning at 1:36)

I did say, and I do mean this, that if you do this you should be black. If you're going to use the n-word, you should be somebody who could actually be called the name.That's my position. That's my belief. 

Now, Fat Joe is making the claim here that he didn't make before- "I'm the blackest person." No, he is saying that he is black. I am not trying to police anybody's ethnicity. I am not trying to police anybody's racial identity.

A few moments pass before Hill decides to question, or rather "police," his friend's ethnicity or racial identity as he maintains

Fat Joe has love for black people. Fat Joe is not racist. Fat Joe cares about black people. But Fat Joe is not black. I have no issue with Fat Joe's relationship to the black community but Fat Joe is not black. Fat Joe was basically saying "I grew up around black people, I've grown up in hip-hop,I'm ensconced in the culture. I am a part of the culture.

I agree with all of that. But Fat Joe is not black. So while I love Fat Joe and I admire Fat Joe and I appreciate Fat Joe, I don't share his position that he can use the n-word by virtue of his proximity to the culture or his love for the cultrue, I don't think that's enough.

It would be easy to condemn all others while giving his friend a pass. So Hill deserves credit for not doing that. 

But not for anything else.  In response to the professor's comments, one wise and apparently black tweeter notes (though I don't know if the last statement is accurate)

The n-word derives from the most negative and degrading system of oppression known to human kind. And before slavery here in America, people of color, no matter what part of the world they were from did not call themselves or each other the n-word. I find it embarrassing and repulsive that this guy, Mr. Hill is telling the world community that it is ok to go ahead and identify yourself with degradation, lowliness, illiteracy, poverty, and everything else that is wrong with the use of this word and its ugliness.

Even more disheartening is the fact that people will hear and agree with this foolish endorsement. If you are going to be okay with people of color saying it you ought not be offended when non colored people are saying it. The word is what it is no matter who is saying. I have long ago dispensed with this notion that the word is a term of endearment, IT IS NOT. It is as offensive from people of color as it is from those who are not. This statement by Mr. Hill is miseducation of people of color. My children do not use the word and at least in my presence are forbidden from using it because they should never associate themselves or any other person of color with this word.

We have to do better. I do not know one civil rights leader of seriousness or a true scholar in history on the subject of race who would lend an ear or credibility to this ridiculous endorsement.

It should be obvious that if black people can justifiably use a term- which they can't- then all others should be able to do so. A black person, who is one most likely offended, by the term, cannot use the n-word without giving it his or her de fact endorsement.

If they could do so, accuracy would demand that we make a judgement as to an individual's blackness. Hill recognizes that Cartagena, no matter the cultural milieu in which he chose to move, is Latino. What then of an individual who is racially mixed, black on the side of one parent and whie on the other? Or what if the latter parent is racially Laino, Asian-American, or of tribal background?

Generally, those individuals have credibly been able to claim that they are black: think Kamala Harris or Barack Obama.  However, Barack Obama, for one, was not raised in a culture Hill or anyone else would recognize as being classically African-American. Nor have been most blacks who were born in Africa or whose parents were born in Africa. They- along with individuals from the Caribbean- experienced what is an immigrant culture. Yet, "black".

So there is one simple and fair resolution to this conundrum.  Another Xer- presumably white, but not clearly so- tweets

Maybe we should be having a completely different conversation altogether. Name another group that keeps one of the most degrading slurs used against them in everyday rotation, then spends time arguing over who else is allowed to say it. Some things don’t have to be carried forever just because they became part of the culture. We can decide we’re done and move on.

Let’s just all stop saying it.

Share |

Rula Jebreal Is Not Alone

Rula Jebreal was born of a Nigerian father and mother raised in Palestine. She is described by Wikipedia as "a Palestinian foreign policy analyst, journalist, novelist, and screenwriter with dual Israeli and Italian citizenship."  To her credit, she is not a Johnny-come-lately. As longtime country singer Barbara Mandrell (in a different vein) would have put it, Jebreal was anti-Semitic when anti-Semitism wasn't cool.  But this obsession with hating Jews- uh, her, "AIPAC"- now has gotten out of hand.

How is it that, of all the words in your vocabulary to express dissent against Hakeem Jeffries you landed on “monkey”??? And is it suddenly acceptable because you stuck “AIPAC” in front of it? Enlighten us all, @rulajebreal! https://t.co/EbVUJ3M2ng

— Yemisi Egbewole (@yemisi) September 4, 2026

Jebreal's statement about House Minority Leader Jeffries was

His name is Hakeem. Hakeem in Arabic is an Arabic name which means healer. He’s not a healer. He’s a divider. He is a bought and paid, by AIPAC, monkey. With all due respect, and I don’t mean it in a racist way, he is just basically an errand boy. And we’re done and tired of that.

This doesn't sound as if it was deliverd with due respect  Additionally, calling someone black a "monkey" sounds rather racist. Jebreal understood that ("I don' tmean it in a racist way") as she spoke the words and likely believed she had erred when she did so. After she- and the host, who found it acceptable- received blistering criticism on X, Jebreal responded.

I am disgusted and horrified that Hakeem Jeffries is taking money from AIPAC amidst Israel's genocide in Palestine.
That said, a term that I used to describe him was inappropriate and offensive and should never have been used.
I apologize unconditionally.

— Rula Jebreal (@rulajebreal) September 4, 2026

Jebreal did apologize "unconditionally" for making a racist remark. She not only stated the obvious- that it was "offensive"- but more importantly that it was inappropriate and "should never have been used". ("Errand boy," though, is an old-school slang term which is highly derogatory but unrelated to race.)

Yet, there was something lacking in the apology. Self-described "'apologetically Jewish' author" Trisha Posner notes 

This is not a “Palestinian journalist” born and raised and working in the Middle East who might not understand the sensitivity of this attack on the House minority leader.

It is not a slip when she slurs a Black Democrat:

“He is a bought and paid by AIPAC monkey. With all due respect — and I don’t mean it in a racist way. He is just basically an errand boy, and we’re done and tired.”

 What she means is she’s sorry for any Black insult, she meant it only in her more typical anti-Jewish way.

Posner observed that Jebreal was arguing that the top-ranking House Democrat is an AIPAC toady. Increasingly, everything Israel is AIPAC and "AIPAC" is a diplomatic way of saying "Jew."  That's not true of everyone anti-Israel, of course. However, it's true of enough of them to be a major phenomenon.

And who are these people? Jebreal, Wajahat Ali (the podcaster of the show Jebreal appeared on), Mehdi Hasan, Hasan Piker, Karishma Manzur, and even influencers who are not Muslim have taken on the cause of hating Jews. 

The non-Muslim opponents of Zionism, however, need to be wary. They are typically left-of-center, including on matters of same-sex marriage, divorce, abortion, and other issues sex- or gender- related. 

Most of the Muslims who are allies on Palestine/Israel are laser-focused on that issue and will not hesitate to sell out allies  There are wolves in sheep's clothing and as suggested by Rula Jebreal's charge, more here than in most.

Share |

Ignorant, at Best

In my last post, I half-seriously suggested that Michigan senate candidate Abdul el-Sayed of Michigan heed the words of a fictional character in 30 Rock, who said "... just say Jewish, this is taking forever." No need to say that to podcaster Emma Vigeland, who helpfully, if ignorantly, has done just that.

Why clip the first 40 seconds, in which I make clear that this is about the *aftermath* of the Holocaust, if you’re going to smear me with one short quote? I'm literally saying Nazi Germany deserved harsher treatment.

The Zionist AI bot that scans our episodes is getting lazy. https://t.co/ntHQzUDQj1

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) September 2, 2026

 

In this curious word salad, Vigeland stated

It should be, I think, a teachable moment for people about what Zionism is really about as a white supremacist ideology that has been tied into an ancient religion and should have nothing to do with it and has put so many Jews on the front line of hatred in a failed attempt for reparations for the Holocaust where nobody who really perpetuated it saw much outside of some select few who paid for their crimes of Nazis. Many of them fled to countries with the help of western governments, too, and European governments. The people who bore the brunt of the Holocaust were the Palestinians.

It's easy, though critical, to knock Vigeland for the utterly preposterious statement "the people who bore the brunt of the Holocaust were the Palestinians."  The individuals killed by the Third Reich were European Jews, and not even those residing in the ancient land of Palestine or as Scripture would have it, Judea and Samaria. That should be clear to everyone, especially those possessed of such knowledge and wisdom that they feel a need to present us "a teachable moment.

Some did, indeed, flee to the West with the help of European and American governments. However, they fled to escape likely punishment for war crimes and in general

The Allies recognized the appeal of Nazism to a defeated people. The movement had sprung from Germany's humiliating defeat 27 years earlier. To eradicated the idea, all four major powers- America, Russia, Britain, and France- agreed to a plan of denazification. They would hold the supporters of the Nazi government accoutable for their crimes, eradicate Nazi regalia, and present the country with the scope of Nazi crime.

The West- aside from Germany itself- was not responsible for the rise of Nazism. And the West- including, especially, Germany- has done whatever it could to prevent a similar situation from arising.

It's not entirely clear what Vigeland means by Jews being put "on the front line of hatred in a failed attempt for reparations for the Holocaust."  Presumably, she does not mean the Jews of the USA, who played a prominent role in the civil rights movement at a time, particularly, when such activism was controversial and often dangerous.  Vigeland probably is referring to the Jews of Israel, who live side-by-side with Arabs, who enjoy more rights than in any other country of the Middle East. 

And as Vigeland others on the extreme left conveniently disregard, the establishment of the State of Israel was not a response merely to the Holocaust. (President Obama fell victim to the same myth when in Cairo in June, 2009 when he implied that the people of "the Holy Quran" have always liked Jews.)  Discrimination against, sometimes persecution of, Jews has been taking place in the Arab world for nearly a millenium.

Many of the Jews whom Vigeland believes are such haters include individuals who knew persons who were slaughtered in the October 7, 2023 attack launched by Islamic terrorists with the purpose of killing as many Jews as possible. It was a devastating and, in the short-term, successful operation in which

the attacks by Hamas—the Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement—killed more than 1,300 Israelis and third-country nationals, including at least 29 Americans, in a country whose population is less than 10 million. In America, that would be equivalent to killing nearly 40,000—13 times more than the number of Al Qaeda victims on 9/11.

Jews took offense, about which the anti-Israel (supposedly progressive) far left takes offense. Some Israelis even conflated Hamas with Palestinians, including them in their hatred of Hamas. But Muslim (Arab and Persian) governments and people of their region also are hostile toward Palestinians, which the far left are unconcerned with. 

That is an obstacle in the search for a two-state solution, which few prominent politicians appear interested in nowadays. (Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, and Josh Shapiro appear to be outliers; a pattern, perhaps.)

And, of course, race. Vigeland aargues we must be taught "about what "Zionism is really about as a white supremacist ideology." However, Zionism is not a "white supremacist ideology." It is not a supremacist ideology and not race-based but rather a 

Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland o fthe Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, "the Land of Israel"). Though Zionism originated in easteren and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine. According to Judaism, Zion, one of the hills of ancinet Jerusalem, is the place where God dwells.

Zionism, like it or not, pertains to a Jewish homeland.  Judaism is not a race, but a religion.  Or as God has written

Breaking news from Mt. Sinai: Judaism is a religon. The millions of allusions to me in every single text and commentary and ritual of the past 3,000 years probably should have been a giveaway.

Share |