The Mayor Has a Problem

Zohran Mamdani, born in Uganda, is a great political talent. However, his narrow-minded extremism on one topic should not be forgotten.

Appearing Sunday on ABC's This Week Without George Stephanopoulos, the New York City mayor did give a very good answer to two questions. One involved the constitutional requirement that the President must be a natural-born citizen which, if not superceded by an amendment, would prevent Mr. Mamdani from ever serving in the highest office in the land.

The other indirectly pertained to Israel. Host Jon Karl noted that an owner of a coffee shop in Brooklyn, at which Representative Dan Goldman had purchased coffee, had in a (since deleted) tweet stated that he would not do so again because of the congressman's support of "genocide." Asked whether he has "a problem with (that)," Mamdani stated "I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that."

That's a good answer considering that the Mayor agrees with the coffee shop's position on Gaza and had supported the challenger who upended Goldman in the state's primary earlier this month. Nonetheless, Mamdani blew a more substantive question about Israel. This is how that segment transpired:

 

Karl: Israel is a Jewish state. That’s in the charter. Do you support that?

Mamdani: I’ve said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights.

Karl: As jewish state?

Mamdani: I believe that any state that privileges one religion over another is… pic.twitter.com/WFIqM9PAib

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 28, 2026

In October of 2017 Pew Research reported that out of 199 nations

More than 80 countries favor a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world.1

Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries (including most in the Middle East-North Africa region) officially enshrining Islam as their state religion. By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.

But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.

Although Christianity is the second most common official religion worldwide

Islam is the world’s most common official religion. Among the 43 countries with a state religion, 27 (63%) name Sunni Islam, Shia Islam or just Islam in general as their official faith.

Most of the countries where Islam is the official religion (16 of 27, or 59%) are in the Middle East and North Africa.

And in how many countries is Judaism is the official religion? That would be, of course, one (Israel), which as of 2017 was one-twenty seventh as many as had one form or another of Islam as its major religion.  For those keeping count at home, that would be 3.7% as many nations fully embracing Islam as there are embracing Judaism. Pew "coded" Israel as having an official religion " in part because the Israeli government gives legal authroity to the chief rabbinate and provides special benefits to Judaism, such as support for religous study."

Moreover, the country can be considered a "Jewish state" merely because 

Jewish individuals can obtain Israeli citizenship almost automatically through a process called Aliyah, which literally means “ascending” in Hebrew. Israel’s Law of Return grants every Jewish person the right to immigrate and receive citizenship upon arrival, and a 1970 amendment extends that right to their children, grandchildren, and spouses. The process involves proving your eligibility, gathering documents, applying through an authorized agency, and completing administrative steps after you land in Israel.

That is the situation within the country itself, which extends westward from Jerusalem to the Mediterranean Sea and northward from the Gulf of Aqaba to the border of Lebanon (in the northwest, to Syria). Its territory is approximately .002% as large as the USA and slightly smaller than New Jersey.

By contrast, Saudi Arabia, which also has a state religion, is approximately 23% as large in area as is the USA. and is far larger than any USA state, including Alaska. Additionally, not only do Muslims have more rights there than do Jews or anyone else, Muslims in the Kingdom have less religious freedom and less political freedom than they do in Israel. And then Mandami and many others describe Israel incredibly as an "apartheid" state.

Still, Israel and Saudi Arabia have a few things in common. One of those is that the mayor and chief executive of the largest city in the USA, who says "I believe that any state that privileges one religion over another is one that I cannot support," has implied that they, along with roughly 80 other countries, should vanish.

Admittedly, Mayor Mandami couldn't be that ignorant. Rather, he was probably thinking only of Israel when made his remark.

Mamdani is smart. He surely knows that Israel has no state religion and that it's a Jewish state in that it's the state of the Jewish people, not the Jewish religion.

But he's playing this little game to avoid saying Israel has a right to exist as it is.pic.twitter.com/C9JDcfXQMv

— Avi Mayer אבי מאיר (@AviMayer) June 29, 2026

And it could have been avoided. Asked whether he supports Israel "as a Jewish state," he might have replied "yes, I support the Israeli people and their Jewish state but vehemently oppose many of its government's actions in recent years."   Few who proudly consider themselves "Zionists" and/or support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have taken issue with that. The objections would have come almost exclusively from individuals and organization, who like Zohran Mandami, have a thing about Jews.

Share |

Just a Sweet Kid

On Tuesday, three candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani for the United States House of Representatives representing New York City districts swept to victory in their respective primaries. This did not sit well with James Carville, co-hosting his regular podcast with very veteran journalist Al  Hunt. And

“I have the quote right here, I’ll get to it. She has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag. Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you. I’m sorry,” Carville said. “I’m just not, and I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk ‘the S-word.’ ‘Schism.’ I really do.”

“Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no, we’re coalition. We’re a big tent,’” he said. “And there’s some – there’s just some s— that I can’t be in the same tent with.”

Carville suggested that many of the recent far-left candidates do not actually like the Democratic Party, but are nonetheless running as Democrats, and proposed, “Let’s negotiate a terms of a schism here. Maybe we can part under some kind of advantageous terms for both of us, but I’m done. And I’m not in that f—ing political party.”

In turn, this sort of thing did not sit well with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York:

AOC: I actually think the more important advice that I would give would be to my incumbent colleagues, which is: you will create a self-fulfilling prophecy by deciding who these young women are before you’ve met them.

And if you are already panicking and sending little messages… pic.twitter.com/xj8CN0xE7F

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 27, 2026

Which of these individuals is correct.... or are they both wrong? One of the two candidates, Darializa Avila Chevalier, is a 32-year-old investiagor at a public defender's office in NYC and doctoral student. She also is different than the other two. Three weeks before the primary, CNN revealed that it had undertaken a

review of hundreds of deleted posts and reposts found ones that called for abolishing police, prisons and borders; tweets about communism; calls for open borders and zero deportations; and expletive-laden attacks on Democrats….

In a statement to CNN, Avila Chevalier said the posts did not reflect who she is today and accused Espaillat of trying to distract from issues facing the district. Three weeks before the primary, CNN reported that it had undertaken a "review of hundreds of deleted posts and reposts (and) found ones that called for abolishing police, prisons and bordrs, tweets about communism, calls for open borders and zero deportations, and expletive-laden attacks on Democrats."  In response, Avila Chevalier explained "I have grown considerably since in the years since these tweets and I am focused on our community and our community's future"...

The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine saved more than 3,600 tweets from Avila Chevalier’s account between 2018–2022. It’s unclear when the account was deleted but the last archived tweet is from May 2022.

In August 2020, Avila Chevalier reposted a tweet responding to a social media prompt that asked, “Israel suddenly disappears, your third emoji is your reaction.” The reposted tweet replied, “Trick question – Israel doesn’t exist!”

“A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward,” read one deleted repost from September 2021.

During a three-day period in September 2021, Avila Chevalier also reposted now-deleted messages declaring, “Yes, literally, abolish the border” and that “all deportation is wrong.”

Her Twitter profile biography also at one point included the phrase “how communist of you,” the hashtags “#BlackLivesMatter” and “#FreePalestine,” and described her location as “Occupied Lenape Land” and later “Lenapehoking (NYC)” — an acknowledgment to Indigenous claims to New York City….

During the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, Avila Chevalier reposted a message calling for a sweeping government takeover of large parts of the economy. The repost advocated nationalizing utilities, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies; suspending rent and mortgage payments; dissolving private health insurance companies; and “seiz[ing] all properties from landlords.”

Other deleted posts and reposts included references to communism and anti-capitalist politics. In one April 2020 post, Avila Chevalier wrote that while most of the political theory she had read was communist, “the pyromania associated with anarchism is very intriguing to me,” adding a laughing emoji.

“Seize the means of production,” she wrote in a since-deleted 2019 post, the phrase commonly associated with Marxism.

The deleted posts also included repeated calls for abolishing police.

During the nationwide protests in 2020 following the killing of George Floyd, Avila Chevalier responded to a user asking what a better slogan would be than “defund the police,” by posting, “F**k you. We’re gonna defund and abolish. You don’t get to water down our movements.”

Two days later, Avila Chevalier rejected an argument that abolishing police meant ending policing only “as we know it.”

“No. It means ending policing full stop. Period. No more police at all ever,” she replied, adding several clap emojis.

In another deleted post, she captioned a selfie showing her wearing a face mask with the slogan “Defund Police.”

“Felt cute. F**k 12,” she wrote, referring to a slang word for the police.

She also reposted a message stating, “In New York they don’t say ‘I love you,’ they say ‘NYPD suck my dick’ and I think that’s beautiful.”

In another repost from 2021 she shared a message declaring that “ALL PIGS EVERYWHERE ARE HARAM,” an Arabic term used in Islam to describe something that is forbidden. Avila Chevalier is a Muslim-convert.

The deleted posts also reflected hostility toward prominent Democrats couched in profane terms after Bernie Sanders ended his 2020 presidential campaign.

“This is for 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐍𝐂 u big 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 white nasty 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐨 bitch why u took 𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐞 off the muhfuckin 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 with ur trifflin dirty 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 ass u 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 ass bitc,” read an April 2020 repost.

“I have no nuance to add. Fuck Kamala Harris,” she posted after Harris told Guatemalan migrants in September 2021 not to come to the United States illegally.

Lovely. Of course, Carville is wrong to recommend that the Democratic Party and some of these more outrageous candidates "negotiate a terms of schism." That would, obviously, result in Republicans being elected almost everywhere. 

But there is a way around this. Hunt (at 6:54 of the podcast) told Carville "They are a great gift to Donald Trump and, uh, unless other Democrats stand up, certainly people like Obama but also some of the younger Democrats, to say "this is not us...."

As he obviously realizes, it wouldn't help much for Carville and other veterans of the Democratic establishment to explain that much of vile invective is going to offend a great many voters. Barack Obama, who for some reason, remains extremely popular with Democrats, and the relatively young figures in the party do need to "stand up."

Reading out all the progressives- or even most- in the party is unnecessary and unhelpful. Hunt and Carville themselves cite Ocasio-Cortez as a reasonable figure, though that was before the congresswoman made it clear she believes that if candidates are "young women,"  all manner of wacky, hateful rhetoric is excused, even celebrated.

The worst offender, Darializa Avila Chevalier may herself deserve a little grace.  On 12/23/19, she boasted on Twitter "I forgot to get napkins so I wiped my hands on the Amrican flag before me."  To her, we should wish "Happy Independence Day!"

Share |

Listening to What Is Said Publically

The President of the USA may not have been lying when

Mr. Trump said in a post on social media on Tuesday that Iran had “fully and completely agreed to the highest level Nuclear inspections,” adding that Iranian officials who claimed otherwise were making false statements. “If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!” he added.

The comments came hours after Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, responded with a flat “no” when asked if Tehran, in the latest round of peace talks, had agreed to permit inspectors from the United Nations to access its war-damaged nuclear sites. Mr. Baghaei told a news conference in Tehran that the two sides had not discussed nuclear issues in any detail, according to Iranian state media.

There also are other differences of opinion on what the agreement which, as described here, establishes "an immediate and permanent end to military operations while opening a sixty-day window to negotiate a final agreement. The sixty-day limit governs the initial negotiation period, not the duration of the ceasefire." 

Additionally, President Trump has contended that any Iranian assets unfrozen as a result of the "understanding" must be used to but agricultrual equipment or medical supplies, while Tehran argues "Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets."  Trump says the Strait of Hormuz will remain completely open but Iran insists it will maintain control of the Strait and it "will never return to its pre-war conditions."

 

One side may be lying. Or both sides may be; this is, after all, Iran and Donald Trump's government, neither of which has any credibilty. However, alternatively, the Vance team may be given assurances, or more likely indications, in private of improved Iranian behavior which don't appear in writing.

In such matters, it is wise to consider the words of Kian Tajbakhsh, a dual Iranian and American citizen detained with five other Iranian-Americans, all released in January of 2016 as part of the JCPOA negotiated by the Obama Administration with Tehran. Nevertheless, Tajbakhash has criticized that nuclear deal and supported President Trump's war of choice against Iran. He has been a professor in the USA in both urban planning and foreign affairs.

Tajbakhsh has periodically appeared on Abby Phillip's CNN NewsNight this year and on June 18 explained 

Unfortunately, they, you know, there's a kind of misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East, in the Middle East.  In the Middle East, what people say to you in private in English is usually irrelevant and meaningless.  It's only- it's only what they will say in their own language publicly that actually counts.  So it's actually the opposite of the U.S., you know.  

I don't want to insult any politicians here but politicians in the, you know, well, you know, politicians will actually say the truth only in public but in private, they'll say whatever you want to hear. So until we actually see what the terms are and how these negotiations go forward, on the face of it, I, you know, first of all, I wouldn't trust those backchannels and those, those commitments.  We'll have to see what they are on paper because that kind of vagueness is exactly where Iran is an expert at, basically using ambiguity for their own purposes. 

That's a little reminiscent of Donald Trump's game.  Donald, a talented former actor, has charmed Bill Maher, Anthony Scaramucci, and others when he has been in private with them. But that's the opposite of most American politicians who are typically more straightforward in private than in public. If Tajbakshsh is correct- as he probably is- it turns out that Iranian leaders are substantially the opposite. In private, they will tell you what you want to hear while being more revealing in public. 

We cannot know for sure whether President Trump and Vice President Vance understand this but know it's advantageous to claim the preliminary agreement is far more advantageous than it is. So they're either lying or being fleeced. Either way, this does not end well.

Share |

On a Unique Plane of Existence

As this website notes, the National Review's Caroline Downey- who is not an over-the-top MAGAT - embodies "thoughtful conservatism."  When I've seen her, she seems earnest, of sober character, and not overwhelmingly partisan. However, she either lives in an extraordinary personal bubble in which politics trumps everything or has enjoyed a very sheltered life.

Downey: And you know why the electoral college really works is because it forces both political parties to try to court moderate voters in swing states.

Blow: 48 of the 50 states have a winner take all electoral college system, there is no reason to go into a state that you… pic.twitter.com/IHuq6UvIH3

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 23, 2026

Charles Blow argues, as is clearly the case, that the electoral college is dysfunctional in part because presidential candidates completely ignore solidly patisan states in favor of focusing on swing states. As the video confirms, Downey really did say "they can vote with their feet. They can leave the sate, which is what people do."  After Blow notes "nobody's gonna pack up and leave just so they can hear a campaign ad," Downey really did respond "yes, yes, if they don't feel represented in their state, they move."

What a charmed life Caroline Downey must live! Imagine a world in which you don't settle in a state because of : a job; family already living there; the climate, which may require you to live in the American south, southwest, or any other place because of health reasons; or a myriad of other restrictions. It would be a world in which you have so few responsibilities, problems, or issues that you can move anywhere you want so as to avoid living in a state in which your party's political candidate (virtually) always loses. You'll have to imagine such a country because it doesn't exist here, and possibly nowhere on the planet.

It's a universe in which you can completely ignore employment status, family, or health in favor of living in Oklahoma, Wyoming, West Virginia, or Mississippi simply because you are a Republican and in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, or Maryland if a Democrat. Even then, the move could backfire. At one time or another, a Democratic presidential candidate has won West Virginia and Republican presidential candidates have won Maryland.  It is not common, but these things happen as political winds blow blue or red.

Nonetheless, a partisan Republican living in Vermont recently goes to the polls in a presidential election year knowing that his or her vote will be irrelevant. Ditto the partisan Democrat in Kentucky. As a Democrat in New Jersey, I don't have to worry about that, at least for now; but if I lived in North Dakota, I'd have to put up with the knowledge that my presidential vote might as well be tossed into the garbage.  Also, with a whole lot of snow.

That's bad for a republic, for democratic governance. Even worse is the outcome when a plurality of voters nationwide opts for the candidate of one party while the other candidate garners a victory because of the peculiarities of the electoral college. Great, though, would a universe in which you could disregard all the needs and cares of this world and move to a state in which the presidential vote goes to the right (as you see it) candidate; the world of Caroline Downey. 

Share |

Jim Crow?

This pro-Israel tweeter believes "of course, to Coates, the specifics hardly matter, as he admits this is less about what you believve, and more about getting elected."

In the relevant portion (way below) of the conversation betwee Ta-Nehisi Coates and Chris Hayes of MSNOW, the two fellows agree that Barack Obama probably wouldn't have been nominated for President in 2008 had he not opposed the Iraq War. (That's another reason for hating that war- that year, Hillary Clinton otherwise would have been nominated, probably would have won, and would have been a better President than Barack Obama. Ask Ukraine.)

Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't know how you stay consistent by claiming an anti-apartheid legacy here in the United States of America while enforcing it abroad."

Coates is implying that Israel, a state that guarantees full rights to all citizens regardless of background, is an… pic.twitter.com/BMTpCRGiJG

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) June 21, 2026

So, too, was Zohran Mandami wise to oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, without which, Coates notes (and Hayes agrees), Mandami likely would not have been elected mayor of New York City. Coates believes Mandami, in taking an anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic, others of us recognize) position "has the right and correct moral view. So I think even from a practical perspective there's no choice."

From a practical perspective, it appears so.  From a "moral" perspective, however, no. Fortunately, the tweeter notes that Coates took "a trip to the West Bank, which he concludes is an apartheid." That trip, "to Israel and teh Palestinian territories in the summer of 2023," formed the basis of an October, 2024 review of Coates' The Message. Helen Andrews writes of the author

The conclusion he comes to is that the Jewish state is the equivalent of the Jim Crow South. “I don’t think I ever, in my life, felt the glare of racism burn stranger and more intense than in Israel,” he writes. “‘Jim Crow’ was the first thing that came to mind, if only because ‘Jim Crow’ is a phrase that connotes an injustice, a sorting of human beings, the awarding and stripping of the rights of a population. Certainly, that was some part of what I saw in Hebron, in Jerusalem, in Lydd.”

 If his luck had been different, and he were less self-involved, Coates could have come up with a better checkpoint anecdote than the lame one he offers. Something like the incident in November 2009 when a Palestinian music teacher on his way to teach a lesson was held at the Beit Iba checkpoint and forced to take out his violin and play it while Israeli soldiers laughed. There you have something more than inconvenience, a vivid and poetic illustration of the dehumanization ordinary Palestinians often face. There, too, you have a rebuttal: The 2001 Sbarro pizza shop bombing in Jerusalem, which killed 16 Israelis including a pregnant woman, was committed by a Palestinian who hid his bomb in a guitar case.

These are the kinds of complexities Coates has no time for.

Many supporters of Israel, especially on social media, also have no time for complexities. Their critics notice that Coates and others are consumed by a blind and ahistorical view of a democratic state while pining for a Judenfrei "Palestine". 

The latter are fabulists whose hatred of a country with a land mass one-sixth the size of Florida and less than 1% of the size of Saudi Arabia coexists with a lingering infatuation for a "'state' with no border, no government, no economy, and no control over its claimed territory".

Sometime after October 7, 2023, Ta-Nehisi Coates and his fellow ethnic-obsessed ideologues found a hill to die on. Worse judgement on the left would be nearly impossible to come by.

 

Share |

Not Again

As Tim Balk of The New York Times reported on Tuesday

Hillary Clinton suggested in a new interview that the Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 boiled down to a “terrible miscalculation” — President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s decision to run for re-election.

At an event in Manhattan on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told The New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, that Mr. Biden had made a “terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country” in trying to run again at age 81.

If Mr. Biden had decided to “pass the torch” and the Democratic Party had held a competitive presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Remnick, “whoever emerged from that contest — whether it was the vice president, or a governor, or a senator or anybody else — would have beaten Donald Trump.”

Chris Cillizza acknowledges that there has been a bit of a rivalry between Biden and Clinton but believes that the latter was correct to note that the President should have bowed out considerably earlier than he did. However, he argues also (at 7:20)

Now, would someone who emerged in an open primary process had Biden dropped out in the summer of 2023- would that person have definitely beaten Donald Trump in November of 2024?

No, I think there was sigificant unhappines with the state of the econnomy, with Democrats, with Joe Biden in particular, with how he had led the economy, how much he understood about the economy. So I don't think it would have- it's not just an easy fix, that they just nominate somebody else in an open primary process and that person beats Donald Trump. But the way that it played out by Biden staying too long, he should never have run for a second term, staying on for too long, the debate, the three weeks of is he going to stay on, is he going to get out- and eventually he gets out and Kamala Harris steps in without any primary or anyone voting on anything, that clearly doomed them, right?

Wrong.

Cillizza adds "I'm not sure the Democrats would have won anyway but the way that played out doomed them.

        "

Of course we don't know if the new candidate, assuming it was not the Vice President, would have won. And Cillizza, admittedly, reflects conventional wisdom, as does The Times' Balk, who wrote "Mr. Biden ultimately left the race in late July 2024, immediately putting his weight behind Ms. Harris, his vice president, but leaving her just three months to build her own campaign before Election Day."

Do you see what they're doing? In the case of Cillizza- a straight shooter- it is unintentional, and perhaps also in case of The Times. 

It's in the title of Harris' memoir about the general election campaign.  Whether it was the decision of the ex-candidate, the publicher or someone else, the title of the book was 107 Days, in part as an argument that the Vice President faced an uphill battle to win the election.

But she did not. Almost to the moment that Biden dropped out, the nomination of Harris was a fait accompli. In a review of her book, Vanity Fair explained that on that day

By 10 p.m. at the Naval Observatory, jigsaw pieces were still strewn across the kitchen table. But the puzzle of Harris’s nomination had been solved. She’d called more than 100 people. Not a single potential rival had challenged her. By Monday, Harris had the backing of a majority of Democrats in Congress. Within 48 hours she had the support of most delegates who would be at the convention. A senior adviser summed up Harris’s two-day marathon as a political tour de force: “A lot of people were like, ‘We need a process.’ Well, there is a process: getting the delegates to commit. We just needed to do it and we did it.”

Aside from incumbents, most candidates for a presidential nomination- especially in the Democratic Party- have to run a gauntlet before securing sufficient delegates. Not so, Kamala Harris, behind whom most prominent Democrats, including virtually any possible challenger, quickly lined up. The national convention was highly successful, Harris won her debate with Trump going away, the Party was united behind the nominee, enthusiasm was impressive, and victory seemed likely. However 

One hundred seven days later, as history will recount, Team Harris hit rock bottom. Yet it didn’t seem so as Election Day dawned. Though Harris was behind in the battleground states, her spokespeople were oddly upbeat. Appearing on MSNBC back on October 27, campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon had declared, “We are very confident we’re going to win this thing.” On Friday, November 1, senior adviser David Plouffe posted on X that late-​breaking undecided voters were going for Harris by more than 10 points.

A campaign has a gravitational pull, and chief of staff Voles was feeling it. “You get sucked into the momentum,” she said. “Like you believe it. I’ve been on winning ones and losing ones, and this felt more like [Bill] Clinton’s [in 1992] than [Michael] Dukakis’s [in 1988].” Voles wasn’t talking poll numbers or analytics, but intangibles. “The rallies were so big and so enthusiastic. People were lining the streets.” But Harris’s pollsters didn’t share the kumbaya cohesion.

Although Biden should have withdrawn from the race earlier, his failure to do so did not doom his replacement on the ticket- far from it. Harris had a great opportunity to win, especially given that the GOP had less timefor opposition research about her than it would have if it had been clear for months that she would be the nominee.  It was not the brief nature of the campaign nor the quality of her campaign; it was her.

After she lost to Donald Trump in 2016, Hillary Clinton could have opted to seek a rematch. However, she realized that she might not win the 2020 nomination and if she did, couldn't be certain that she'd win the general election. She understood the limits to her popularity and electability.

Individuals in or around Joe Biden in 2023 and the first half of  2024 refused to warn the President that he was old and appeared too feeble to mount a successful campaign for re-election. Now Harris, she of  the "107 days," is reportedly eyeing a run for the 2028 presidential nomination.  Self-awarness is not her strength. The Democratic Party cannot afford another loss. For the good of the Party, someone needs to read Kamala Harris the riot act. 

Share |

As If It Never Happened

"I want to be clear that when I spoke of really dumb basketball the other night, I was talking about the players. I wasn't talking about their coach. I don't want to be criticizing young white coaches because we need more young white players in the NBA to maintain diversity."

If anyone had said this, he would immediately, and roundly, be branded a "racist". He wouldn't be, of course, because "racism" is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another, or of one race being inferior to another or all others. However, the speaker clearly would have been racially biased in his words and would have deserved condemnation.

And so,this was a "wait- what?" moment:

Charles Barkley on this comment:

"I got a couple of NBA coaches call me and I want to be crystal clear: when I said it was really dumb basketball the other night, I was talking about the players. I wasn't talking about coach Johnson. I don't want to be criticizing young black… https://t.co/vSvdHclMhX pic.twitter.com/9668GnWQOf

— Oh No He Didn't (@ohnohedidnt24) June 13, 2026

The outcry was.... virtually nonexistent. There were a few individuals on Twitter critical but otherwise, crickets.  And when Yahoo Sports ran a story about the controversy, it pertained to the issue of whether Barkley should have blamed the coach (as he appeared to do initially) or the players (as he did with his clarification).  No one questioned whether a very popular sports personality should be asserting that race plays a dominant role in his commentary.

Charles Barkley should not be fired for this. It is not a capital offense and he should not have been cancelled. But if a white analyst on ESPN (as this was) or on any network had said that he didn't want to be criticizing whites- of whatever generation, for whatever reason- he or she would have been raked over the coals, forced to apoligize, then terminated. A career wiped out in a matter of moments.

What Charles Barkley said was reprehensible. And the virtual complete disregard to this is as reprehensible, and more dangerous.

 

Share |

Politics Begets Politics

On the left, Charlie Pierce is entirely correct, though I'd go further.

I’d like to thank MLB for exercising its longtime power for turning molehills into mountains, and giving the no-life
Right something else to scream about. Let them wear what they want. https://t.co/kTrfD5xLiX

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 16, 2026

 

As The Guardian explained    

Major League Baseball has issued a statement critical of players who wrote Bible verses on their Pride Night hats after an incident at a San Francisco Giants game last week.

MLB celebrates Pride month during June and most teams choose a home game to acknowledge the LGBTQ community and its baseball fans. The Giants, who are based in a city with a large LGBTQ population, often make an extra effort.

However, those efforts often clash with the league’s players, many of whom come from conservative, religious backgrounds. During Friday’s game against the Chicago Cubs, Giants pitchers Landen Roupp and JT Brubaker wrote Bible verses on their Pride caps. Another Giants pitcher, Sam Hentges, chose not to wear the cap at all.

On Monday, MLB issued a statement on the subject. “The writing on the cap violates our rules, and consistent with normal practice, we have warned the players about future violations,” said MLB chief communications officer Pat Courtney.

Roupp wrote “Gen 9:12-16” on his cap. The verse contains a reference to a rainbow, one of the symbols of Pride. The verse reads in part: “Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the Earth.”

Many- disproportionately so- major league players do come from conservative, religious backgrounds. However, one does not have to have been raised in a conservative and Christian milieu to realize that Major League Baseball is wrong.  Ironically, right-wing Rob Schneider, who supports the players, doesn't seem to understand this. "Christians," he tweeted, "cannot be made to wear anything that is against their deeply held religious beliefs" and in another tweet, promised to pay any fines issued and maintained "MLB is ANTI-CHRISTIAN".  

The league has since issued a warning to the three pitchers and the Giants' organization has released a cryptic statement. Republican senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has blasted an "apparent pattern o fdiscriminating against Christians while promoting left-wing ideologies."

As Pierce recognizes, this does give "the Right something else to scream about." And that is supposed anti-Christian bias which, given the content of Genesis 9:12-16, is ironic because the passage in question is theistic, not specifically Christian. Genesis is the first chapter of the Old Testament and is generally believed to have been authored by Moses, a Jew. It is the first of the first five books of The Bible, known as the Pentateuch. Jews, as well as Christians, and Muslims (sort of) are called upon to believe in the Old Testament. Genesis 9:12-16 reads

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come:  I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.  Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds,  I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

But this chain of events was not started by the three players. They did not arbitrarily cite the passage. Major League Baseball sponsors a Pride month- a political act- during the month of June. In turn, the Giants organization decides how to celebrate it- a political act. In response, the players promoted a passage from Scripture which- again ironically- does not pertain in any way to sexual or gender orientation or practice. Pride month advocacy is imposed upon all of the players, and three responded respectfully.

Management/ownership of each baseball team decides for itself how to promote Pride month. Only one, the Texas Rangers, does nothing, similar to what each team does for Heterosexual Month. (No, that does not exist.) That's fine; politics has always been a part of sports and any effort to eliminate it probably would be futile and probably mistaken.

One need not be a card-carrying member, nor be sympathetic to, the Christian right to want to draw attention to the ninth chapter of Genesis. Nor does a professional athlete have to be partial to that specific passage to be pleased that his employer is boosting Pride Month.  Major League Baseball decided to go all in on the cause and and shouldn't be surprised if a few individuals among its 780 players have a mind of their own.

 

Share |

"Girlfriend?" Is That What They're Calling it These Days?

Do you really want to argue this, Gutfield?

Melania Trump has claimed that "Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump" and that she did not know Jeffrey Epstein until she attended a  party in 2000, at which time she was introduced to Trump at a party. That is, generously speaking, dubious.

Fox News clown Greg Gutfield says "I can remember, not too long ago, how often I heard that Melania Trump was an escort."  However, it was only yesterday that a video from May 1, 1999 surfaced in which Bob Sokoles of WHAS in Louisville met up in Kentucky with Donald J. Trump, who

addressed her as “Melania Knauss from New York, from Austria.” The interviewer greeted her and asked him if he was at Churchill Downs by Chapel? The President replied, “It’s certainly beautiful. I can’t imagine a better investment. I’m here because a friend of mine has horse racing today.”

pic.twitter.com/X8nYog72BI This was in 1999
She was a fucking Escort working for Epstein and Donald Trump was married to his 2nd wife Marla

— Irlandarra (@martinez_j7902) June 2, 2026

Few are calling Melania a prostitue, a whore, or even a "slut" passed among the guys. The only serious claim is that she was an escort. And now we have video in which Donald Trump pronounces the last name of his "date" as if the "K" is not silent. 

So he was dating  and didn't know how to pronounce her last name. It is almost as if the relationship the young lady had was a transactional one, with a man who is believed to think that everything is transactional and for whom values always are subordinate to money and pleasure.

Share |

Malingn Influence Almost Beyond Human Comprehension

Democrat Rafael Warnock of Georgia is a great Senator but he's wrong about the last thing he says here:

Raphael Warnock: “JD Vance is perhaps the most craven politician in the American landscape. Here’s a man who called Donald Trump America’s Hitler. He’s just deeply craven. It’s hard to know really what his moral center is. In some ways he’s scarier than Donald Trump” pic.twitter.com/ehLHnsdOqo

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) June 14, 2026

It's hard to determine who the most craven politician is in the American landscape because Vance has a lot of competition in that area. However, the Vice President is not scarier than Donald Trump- and Vance himself is evidence of that.

As noted here, in 2016 J.D. Vance "wrote to his former law school roommate Josh McLaurin, 'I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a**hole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler. How's that for discouraging?'"   On two consecutive nights in March of 2016, DonaldTrump insulted the wife of Senator Ted Cruz. On the second occasion, Trump "retweeted a post showing a side by side image of Heidi Cruz and Trump's wife, Melania. Text on the picture read. 'No need to spill the beans.' The images ae worth a thousand words.'" (The photo was of Heidi appearing extremely unpleasant.) In that same campaign, candidate Trump called rival Marco Rubio, then a Florida senator, "Little Marco", "Mr. Meltdown", and "lightweight choker".

Now, all three are so up Donald Trump's rear end that only their ankles are visible. Nor has the President lost his touch.

Stephen A Smith on CNN: "The president is certainly an upgrade from what we were seeing from Joe Biden in terms of his alertness and what have you" pic.twitter.com/L9yaQKqPf0

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 14, 2026

This was nothing compared to the embrace the likes of Rubio, Cruz, and Vance have given Donald. The response from "Stephen A" to CNN's Kasie Hunt included some criticism of Trump. After Smith, a well-known New York Knicks fan, criticized Trump for having attended the third game of the NBA championship series between the Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs, Trump responded on Untruth Social with

Stephen A. Smith is an arrogant fool, a low IQ individual. In other words, he’s 'dumb as a rock,' and totally unqualified to ever think of running for high political office, or even low political office, for that matter! He’d get annihilated in a debate by the most incompetent of politicians. Joe Biden’s now 'fabled' performance would look great by comparison to anything that this loudmouth huckster has to offer, which isn’t much! Within a few weeks, they’d laugh him out of politics!!!"

And then Smith decided he could pacify Trump by claiming "the President is certainly an upgrade from what we were seeing from Joe Biden in terms of his alertness and what have you". Trump evidently falls asleep periodically during official events, which speaks of his alertness. We would know more about the President's health, were any medical records released. They have not been, and that's by design. 

One wonders: how would SAS have responded had any other public official referred to him as "an arrogant fool, a low IQ individual," and "dumb as a rock"?  Any one with any self-respect- and Smith has more self-respect than almost anyone alive- would have condemned the individual who assailed him.

But this was Donald Trump rudely and obnoxiously condemning an individual. And Smith did what so many others have done when falsely denounced by Donald J. Trump- fold. No other public official has so often humiliated others and profited by it. Trump gets away with it, as no one else has, can, or will. His sway over people, almost demonic, is incomparable. 

And that is why Senator/Reverend Warnock is wrong, uncharacteristically, when he suggests that anyone is scarier than Donald J. Trump.

Share |

Imbecile or Knave in New York

"Okay, Houston. I believe we've had a problem here."  Or in this case, "Israel, we have a difference of opinion here  (alright, not so clever).

Try: "Israel fought a just and proportionate war of self-defense against aggressors who committed mass sexual violence and used civilians as human shields, among other heinous war crimes." https://t.co/VI54k3NdRi

— David Frum (@davidfrum) June 13, 2026

Frum is referring to Darializa Avila Chevalier, a left-wing challenger to Representative Adriano Espaillat, who is trying to hold onto his US Hous seat in CD-13 in the New York Democratic Party primary to be held on June 23, 2026. Espaillat is asked "should we continue to be sending funding and military weapons to Israel"?  She responds

No, and I really believe that we need to stop spending our tax dollars to arm a state that is currently enacting genocide, a word that my opponent has yet to say.

It is deeply important that we recognize that it is the taxpayer money of the American people that is contributing to this atrocities (sic). If you want to talk about accountability to be able to actually create peace, there cannot be peace while American tapayer dollars is continuing to be used to slaughter civilians. It is abhorrent to me that we continue to invest so much of our money n weapons and bombs that are slaughtering communities abroad when so many of our people here are suffering from lack of dignified housing, from lack of access to quality food, from lack of access to the social safety net that make life dignified for so many.

Then asked "in refernce to the last question, do you believe Israel has committed genocide on the Palestinian people since the Octover 7 attacks, you're a yes," Chevalier responded "yes".

Prior to October 7, 2023, many Americans were suffering from lack of dignified housing and access to quality food and the social safety net. The problem has been greatly exacerbated by the Trump Administration and especially by Elon Musk's DOGE. And after President Trump's departure, there still will be indignities foisted upon the American people, especially (not exclusively) upon the poor and working class. If Congress and the President wanted to ameliorate the situation, they would, no matter the exorbitant spending on defense. Or as Vice President Dick Cheney once told the Secretary of the Treasury, "deficits don't matter".

But on to the point Chevalier was trying to make, that we are arming a nation "currently enacting genocide".  No, we are not, and for two reasons.

Al Jazeera, arch enemy of the Jewish state, reported on June 13 "according to Gaza's Health Ministry, at least 983 Palestinians have been killed and 3,122 injured in Israeli attacks on the strip since the ceasefire was reported." That's not from Israel, the United Nations, or an objective observer- that's from Hamas. 

There were 243 days from the date- October 10, 2025- that the ceasefire was announced till, for point of reference, June 10, 2026. According to a government agency representing a terrorist organization devoted to destroying Israel, 983 residents of Gaza were killed by Israeli arms during that period. That amounts to slightly more than four indviduals a day on average by a military widely believed to possess strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.  If Israel is trying to wipe out Gazans or Palestinians generally, it has the most inept military in history, by far.

Even prior to the ceasefire, Israel was not trying to wipe out a people, which is the traditional, valid definition of genocide. This is not to say, contrary to David Frum's implication, that Israel's response to the genocidal attack of Hamas upon Jews in the Southern District of Israel on 10/7/23 always has been proportional. Two months after the terrorist incursion

Almost three months after the start of the war, CNN explained that Israel had

dropped hundreds of massive bombs, many of them capable of killing or wounding people more than 1,000 feet away, analysis by CNN and artificial intelligence company Synthetaic suggests.

Satellite imagery from those early days of the war reveals more than 500 impact craters over 12 meters (40 feet) in diameter, consistent with those left behind by 2,000-pound bombs. Those are four times heavier than the vast majority of the largest bombs the United States dropped on ISIS during the war against the extremist group in Syria and Iraq.

Weapons and warfare experts blame the extensive use of heavy munitions such as the 2,000-pound bomb for the soaring death toll. The population of Gaza is packed together much more tightly than almost anywhere else on earth, so the use of such heavy munitions has a profound effect.

“The use of 2,000-pound bombs in an area as densely populated as Gaza means it will take decades for communities to recover,” said John Chappell, advocacy and legal fellow at CIVIC, a DC-based group focused on minimizing civilian harm in conflict….

Israeli officials have argued that its heavy munitions are necessary to eliminating Hamas, whose fighters killed more than 1,200 people and took more than 240 hostages on October 7. They also claim that Israel is doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties.

Well, maybe not. Arms shipments from the USA to Israel for use in the war have included such items as tank shells; F-35 stealth fighter jets; Hellfire missiles; artillery shells and related weapons; and advanced air-to-air missiles.

And MK82 and MK84 bombs, the former weighing 500 pounds each and the latter, 2,000 pounds. Israel had been receiving both from the USA though, as CNN reported, the big bombs are far ore controversial. In February, the Trump Administration shipped to Israel 1600 of the MK84 bombs, which followed

the lifting of an embargo imposed by the Biden administration in May 2024, which sought to curb the use of American-supplied bombs in densely populated areas due to concerns about civilian harm.

The MK-84 bombs, produced by Boeing, have been a controversial weapon due to their wide blast radius and devastating impact when used in urban settings.

Human rights organisations, including Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), have warned that their use in populated areas frequently results in mass civilian casualties and long-term infrastructural damage.

“The history of air-dropped bombs like the MK-84 tells us that their use in densely populated regions will almost certainly lead to indiscriminate civilian harm,” said Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of AOAV. “There needs to be a far greater emphasis on minimising the humanitarian cost of these weapons.”

Israel has been engaging in a just war, yet, objectively, not a proportionate war. So Frum is not entirely correct

But the House of Representatives candidate, Darializa Avila Chevalier, has nary a clue. If she has any idea- and it's nearly certain she does not- what the USA is supplying Israel, she doesn't let on that she does.  In an abundance of ignorance, she simply repeats the mantra of the naive left, oblivious to the history of the Mideast or what Hamas, were it to expand its influence, has in mind for Israelis, and not only of the Jewish kind.

"A state that is currently enacting genocide" she describes our ally, knowing only that the nation is committing "atrocitiies" of an unspecified type.  

If she has any idea of what constitues "genocide," she keeps it well hidden. She and her fellow travelers should not; "genocide" is an extraordinarily serious charge and means far more than "atrocities".  Mass shootings and destroying food provided by USDA for combatting starvation are atrocities; they are not genocide.

Definition creep is all the rage now. Blood libel is tolerated and in some quarters, encouraged. If Israel has been naughty- very naughty, its detractors believe- it is "genocide," accuracy and honesty be damned. Unless this is denounced, it will not be good for the Middle East, the USA, or the Democratic Party.

Share |

Still a Snowflake

Adding to her MAGA credentials, a Republicn congresswoman is joining the effort to rewrite Donald Trump's history as we learn

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said the allegations that Trump was guilty of colluding with the Russian government were false….

"I will be putting forward a resolution to void the fraudulent impeachment of President Trump during his first term in office. Russia collusion never happened," Luna wrote in a statement on social media.

She did not come up with this idea on her own because the effort of congressional Republicans

first reported by the Wall Street Journal and confirmed by a White House official, would allow Trump to claim a symbolic victory on a key grievance from his first term. But experts say it would have little legal significance, since the constitution provides no procedure for undoing an impeachment.

Trump is the first president in US history to be impeached twice. The first case, in 2019, centred on allegations that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, a political rival. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020.

The second followed the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol, when members of Congress accused him of inciting an insurrection. He was again acquitted after leaving office.

According to the Journal, Trump and his allies are seeking a congressional resolution that would effectively expunge the impeachments from the historical record. While such a measure would carry no legal force, supporters view it as a symbolic repudiation of what they regard as politically motivated proceedings.

I will be putting forward a resolution to void the fraudulent impeachment of President Trump during his first term in office.

Russia collusion never happened. This has been proven by evidence released by ODNI Gabbard. It was a terrible lie that tore this country apart, and was…

— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) June 12, 2026

The two impeachments agains Donald Trump were not based on the Mueller report. The first, pertaining to Ukraine, had little to nothing to do with either "Russia collusion" or Donald Trump's status as a Russian asset and the other pertained to the coup attempt of 1/6/21. 

However, erasing the record has been an obsession of Donald Trump for several years. Even during the presidential campaign of 2024, there was an attempt to expunge the two impeachments of Donald Trump from the historical record, as the NBC affiliate in Birmingham, Alabama reported at the time.

The effort resumed after Trump began serving his second term. The New Republic noted last August 

The Smithsonian has removed Donald Trump from its exhibit on impeachments under pressure from the White House, reported The Washington Post. The remainder of the exhibit focuses on Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, effectively returning the exhibit to the way it looked in 2008.

A temporary label had been plastered on the exhibit since 2021, playfully notifying visitors: “case under redesign (history happens).” The “American Presidency” wing’s updated signage now explains that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal” over the course of American history.

The change was the result of a White House–initiated content review in the wake of an art director’s ousting.

Of course, the two indictments of President Trump cannot be annulled, cancelled, repealed, rescinded, revoked, or voided. (Insert preferred synonym here ______ .)  Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress, gives the House of Representatives the authority to impeach, and the US Senate the authority to convict, a federal official.

The document says nothing suggesting any authority to reverse an impeachement, and clearly neither body of Congress can do so. Congress can pass a resolution to pretend the impeachment(s) never occurred, just as it could pass one declaring that the winner of Super Bowl 60 was the New England Patriots. 

That would not erase the Seahawks' victory or championship. Of course, it would make Donald J. Trump feel good. And there is nothing more important to Donald Trump than feeling good, other than reipping off the American people and making the American people and his adversaries feel bad.

Share |

No Bullet

I don't care about Megyn Kelly's rant about Scott Pelley, her profanity, or even the non-war record of Mr. Bone Spurs, Donald J. Trump. I care a great deal more about the "sacrifices" Kelly claims the President has made on behalf of the country while he has accumulated billions of dollars during his second term in office.

Yet, none of that contributed to Donald Trump now being a two-term President, unlike the "bullet (he took) for his country."  It's a myth which won't die until Trump does, and not even then if the history books are written by historians frightened to report the truth.

"How dare you begrudge Donald Trump and the sacrifices he's made. Trump literally took a bullet for this country so FUCK OFF Scott Pelley. The absolute arrogance and nerve of that asshole!"

- @megynkelly https://t.co/PL1qBgiJXC pic.twitter.com/jakix796AZ

— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) June 9, 2026

Eleven days after Matthew Crooks tried to assassinate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024, the FBI concluded "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle." Good thing, too, that the agency leave open the possibility tthat Trump was struck by a bullet, lest director Chris Wray's tenure not last beyond January 20, 2025 at 12:00 noon. 

Yet, as reported initially by New York magazine, journalist Olivia Nuzzi had

visited Trump's Florida estate in early August. It had been less than a month since he nearly escaped death at his Pennsylvania rally on July 13.

Like many have in recent weeks, Nuzzi appeared to fixate on Trump's injured ear and marveled at how—after a bullet buzzed right past it, leaving it bleeding—it was able to heal so quickly. She asked Trump about his injury, which left his face and ear bloodied on stage, and she reported that he responded by tapping the spot allegedly struck by a bullet fired at him by Thomas Matthew Crooks.

"The particular spot that he identified with his tap was pristine," Nuzzi wrote. "I scanned carefully the rest of the terrain. It looked normal and incredible and fine."

Nuzzi later added: "An ear had never appeared to have gone through less. Except there, on the tiniest patch of this tiny sculpture of skin, a minor distortion that resembled not a crucifixion wound but the distant aftermath of a sunburn."

We all remember Trump in Butler grabbing the right side of his head and dropping to the ground with the help of Secret service agents Secret Service agents. The Republica triumphantly rose back up with a "trail of blood streaked aginst his cheek", then triumphantly yelling "fight, fight, fight" in a dramatic scene worthy of a blockbuster Hollywood film.

And "Hollywood" is the operative term. This past March, former Minnesota govrnor and professional wrestling superstar Jesse Ventura was interviewed on Piers Morgan's "Uncensored" podcast. Morgan

said, “To be fair to Trump, when he got shot, he got back up and said, ‘Fight, fight, fight!’”

“Oh yeah, right, right, right,” Ventura responded. “You ever hear of a blade job?”

In professional wresting, a “blade job” refers to an athlete using a concealed razor blade to intentionally cut themselves to simulate a blood injury during a match.

When Morgan asked Ventura if he believed the assassination attempt was fake, the former Navy SEAL remained skeptical.

“I don’t know,” Ventura said. “Where’s his scar today? Come on, Piers, you’re gonna tell me this guy’s (Trump) a big hero now?”

Donald's WWE (and UFC) fandom is the stuff of legend- and reality. In April of last year, CT Mirror explained

Trump and several Cabinet members sat cageside at the UFC match in Miami; Trump himself holds a spot in the WWE Hall of Fame, where his official bio page notes that he’s the first WWE Hall of Famer to hold the presidency. Ahead of last weekend’s annual WrestleMania, wrestling news sites were abuzz with rumors that the president might again be ringside. At the same time, one of professional wrestling’s biggest stars, Roman Reigns, made headlines for declaring himself as a Trump supporter.

The former CEO of WWE, Vince McMahon, is a longtime friend of the president’s and financial supporter of his political endeavors; McMahon’s now-estranged wife, Linda, is also a former WWE CEO and a current member of Trump’s Cabinet. And the CEO of UFC, Dana White, introduced Trump before he spoke on the final night of last summer’s Republican National Convention — Hulk Hogan also spoke, ripping off his shirt to reveal Trump/Vance campaign merch — and attended Trump’s inauguration in January.

Trump also is a student of professional wrestling and 

The kinds of theatrics baked into the massive success of professional wrestling have been on display throughout Trump’s ascendency in American politics. On the campaign trail and now in the White House, a Trump event has a distinctive feel, a well-honed blend of spectacle, pageantry and hypermasculinity. It’s a style that feels lifted from the professional wrestling handbook, where aesthetics and narrative device choices are central to the delivery. In professional wrestling, this product is a form of entertainment that lets fans — predominantly young men — openly feel and freely celebrate masculinity. In the second Trump administration, the product is a barrage of new policy measures intent on crafting a very specific version of America where the feelings of men are prioritized and their power is irrefutable.

But that's not the half of it. Most significantly:

Central to the concept of professional wrestling is the practice of kayfabe, or committing to the illusion that clearly staged events are real and true. It’s a narrative device that asks audiences to suspend their disbelief, not in a way of passive acceptance, but rather active participation in the creation of what is possible.

 “It really does matter how well you’re doing the performance, but then what also really matters is how much the audience is going to buy into it. If they’re emotionally connected, that’s where the buy-in comes in,” said CarrieLynn Reinhard, an associate professor of communication arts and sciences at Dominican University and an expert on narrative devices in professional wrestling. “When you look at what Trump does, he is very good at getting to people’s emotions and understanding their emotions and — I’m going to say — manipulating their emotions for his own goals, and in doing so, he focuses on a reality that he believes in or at least he performs to believe in.”

President Trump could erase any doubts about being hit by a bullet were he to release the full, unredacted medical records of his care following the incident. Yet, he has not, and will not, do this.

The white Santa, white Jesus woman has conned much of the centrist and center-left media into believing that she has made a break with President Trump or MAGA because she is fed up with the Administration's war in Iran. But that is probably due to her perception that Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of the Jewish state, is pulling the strings of the President. She remains the propagandist who can actually claim Donald Trump "took a bullet for this country" and has made great "sacrifices".

President Trump is not stupid. He knows that, if he avoids disclosure of the most important details of his life and presidency, he will have the mainstream media and people such as Megyn Kellycontinue to  eat out of his hand. 

Share |