It's a mixed bag. Rupert Murdoch's right-wing tabloid New York Postnoted on Sunday, August 30 that Michigan Democratic senate nominee Abdul el-Sayed
finally apologized to Jewish Democrats for his response to
the Michigan synagogue earlier this year — when he highlighted that the
terrorist’s family members were killed in Israeli strikes.
El-Sayed expressed regret for his remark that “hurt people
hurt people” after a madman rammed a truck with fireworks and gasoline into the
daycare at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Mich. — a reference to the
attacker’s family being killed in Lebanon.
“I made a mistake,” El-Sayed conceded at a Michigan
Democratic Jewish Caucus event on Saturday.
I should have issued a statement, of course, condemning it, and it just should have been the full stop.
Unfortunately, the candidate later told reporters "my comments may have been misconstrued to justify something I did not mean to justify To anyone who feels like my comments might have been hurtful, I'm really sorry. That was not my intention."
"Anyone" here refers to "people who don't like terrorist attacks" And of course he did not intend to hurt anyone. He made the remark- in an otherwise fine statement- because he believes what the NY Post assumes was "a madman" had a legitimate grievance, one which made his action reasonable.
Given in isolation, the comment would have been reprehensible. However, el-Sayed's apology at the caucus was definitive. He stated "I made a mistake," an admission most politicians don't make after screwing up. He added that he should have condemned the attack "full stop," which is exactly what he should have done.
But he stated also
If you want to make this race about a streamer in California, I just think you're missing the boat. This is about affordability in Michigan. This is about being able to see a doctor in Michigan. This is about Donald Trump's disastrous policies in Michigan. That's what I'm focused on right now. I am not interested in a cnversation about a social media person in California....
The campaign is partly about those things, as it should be. However, reality intrudes. The race also is about Hasan Piker, more than it should be as health care, Iran, tariffs, artificial intelligence, and other critical issues take a back seat. And el-Sayed still has not adequately addressed his relationship with Piker.
The Democratic nominee cannot depend on President Trump's extreme unpopularity to drag him across the finish line, especially with the possibility of an upswing in Donald's approval rating before November. El-Sayed could attempt to turn the tables on opponent Mike Rogers by highlighting the latter's own repulsive association(s) and, of course, denounce Piker. However, remaining on the defensive will only bring a loss in Michigan and virtually doom the righteous Democratic effort to retake the U.S. Senate.
📣 Abdul: I’m *not* a member of the press, I *am* a voter here in Michigan—one who’s actually raising money for you & who has pledged to vote for you—and *I* want to know why the fuck you brought that asshole to Michigan? https://t.co/v9Zynzj5xU
— @charlesgaba.com at Bluesky now (@charles_gaba) August 29, 2026
Dana Nessel is the first Jewish Attorney General in Michigan history, as well as the first openly gay statewide elected official in Michigan. While in private practice, she was the lead attorney for the case which became a precursor to Hodges v. Obergefell, the Supreme Court decision which banned prohibition of same-sex marriage. But she is "wrong" on Israel (AIPAC!), so damn her to hell!
A Democrat, Nessel recently appeared on the podcast of The Atlantic's David Frum. In her last remarks, Nessel made a controversial statement for which she is being ripped by online enemies of Jew- uh, er, Israel, such as this sarcastic one:
DSA needs to back off Israel. The Democrats can't lose Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Who would support Democrats without Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel? There would be riots in the streets if we lose Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. https://t.co/6mlum02c7l
I’ve said this over and over again, that when a Black person
says, That phrase that you’re using, or the way you’re talking about this
issue, to me, is racist. I’d like you to stop doing it—we respect that. When
we’re talking to somebody in the LGBTQ community and say, I don’t like the
phrase that you’re using, or, That term is offensive to me, and here’s why—we
respect that in the Democratic Party. We say, Okay, I’m not going to use that
phrase anymore. I didn’t realize that it was offensive to you. I’m going to
stop. But this has been an outlier for me. I have people saying, You are not
going to tell us what you deem to be anti-Semitic. We’ll decide what’s
anti-Semitic. That’s not up for you, the Jewish population, to decide. And I
find that to be very off-putting and offensive. And I think that’s totally
unacceptable.
But the last thing I will say is this, if that’s the deal
that has to be made—and I’ve been really candid about this—I was Jewish before
I was ever Michigan attorney general. I’m going to be Jewish afterwards. I was
Jewish before I was ever a member of the Democratic Party, and if I have to,
I’ll be Jewish afterwards, too.
This is not a good thing. One black person does not get to say "this is racist"- so shut up. One LGBTQ person does not get to say "this is offensive"- so shut up. And the "Jewish population" does not get to say "this is anti-Semitic"- so shut up. Some things are racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic and thus should not be repeated. But the criteria must not be, as a society, whether feelings will be hurt. Those feelings are subjective and will vary from individual to individual.
Of course, this does not apply to when one is dealing privately with another, wherein politeness and civility must rule. But for too long, the woke left has been the language police, setting the rules for discourse as it sees fit. Too often, that has meant condemnation of an individual for saying something which offends (or which the left and center left believes will offend) one black person or one gay person, somewhere. Voters notice and have spanked Democrats for this illiberal, political correctness.
Now this narrow-mindedness has infused the anti-AIPAC community, in which "but AIPAC" has become the left's analogue to the right's "but George Soros." It has obscured other issues, such as the need to regulate artificial intelligence, which Nessel emphasizes when noting
I don’t know if any of it matters if we have no regulations
of any kind on AI, and we end up in a situation where literally, I mean, you
just saw over the weekend they had the robot competition in China. If you have
literally armies of robots that are driven by AI that are able to—and I don’t
mean to sound too crazy here—but, like, enslave the human race, I don’t think
that’s the craziest idea out there. And I’ve actually heard a lot of these AI
CEOs talk about that. They’ve talked about how AI could result in the end of
humanity.
Climate change. I mean, every day we are seeing the
devastation that’s brought upon us. I don’t know how much longer the human race
is going to be able to continue if we don’t take serious measures to combat
climate change.
The pro- "Palestine," crowd, though often congratulating itself for its progressivism, can fall short. When the GENIUS Act, which reduces regulation of artificial intelligence, recently was passed by the US Congress and signed into law by President Trump, one of its supporters was Representative Ro Khanna of California, who touts his opposition to Israel.
Nessel, however, is not an elected official in California but in Michigan, and so
I’ve said to Abdul, and I’ve said it multiple times, you
can’t make AIPAC the central villain in every story. When you’re talking about
health care, what does AIPAC have to do about that? When you’re talking about
affordable housing, when you’re talking about medications that people can’t
obtain, or people who’ve been price-gouged or environmental issues that we
have, like, what does AIPAC have to do with any of that stuff? But, I got a
text recently from his campaign, and it said, “We’re fighting back against
AIPAC, Mike Rogers, and Donald Trump.” In that order. In that order. And—
Okay. So the impact that this is having to us can’t possibly
be overstated. I mean, you have people who are going to lose everything,
everything, everything, right? They’ll lose their businesses, they’ll lose
their homes, they’ll lose their health insurance. So these are real issues that
I know that Mike Rogers is going to be terrible on, and will do anything that
supports the president no matter how ridiculous his foreign policy may be in a
way that is so detrimental to us in Michigan. And I think that Abdul is going
to stand up to that.
Still keeping things in perspective, Nessel, while decrying anti-Semitism in her own Party, argues that Jews are
already not wanted in the Republican Party, and I think that is, you know, essentially a party of fascism. And we know about ll the excuses that they make on trhe far right, andhow they embrace the Nick fuentes and Candace Owens and all the people, and Tucker Carlsons, all of the enormous anti-Semites on the far right.
Dana Nessel, ineligible to serve another term as Michigan's top law enforcement officer, notes "I was Jewish before I was ever Michigan attorney general. I'm going to be Jewish afterwards" because "my Judaism is so fudamental to who I am, and what my beliefs are." Yet, she recognizes that Mike Rogers "will do anything that supports the President" and
keeping a Republican majority in the Senate is incredibly dangerous. I think Mike Rogers would be a rubber stamp for all of the worst excesses of the most corrupt administration we’ve ever had in American history. So he is a danger. He’s an existential threat to the continuation of the United States as whatever form of imperfect democracy we are right now.
This is not a typical endorsement of a candidate from one's own party. This is far more meaningful because Dana Nessel is speaking to a particular segment of voters, individuals strongly identifying as Jewish. And she is saying that despite the loathing of Israel and, sometimes, of Jews by elements of her own party, grave issues such as A.I. and climate "are of such enormity" that they are
going to have to be considerations for me. And I would say to my fellow Michigan Jews who are members of the Democratic Party, or who typically vote for Democrats, these should also be considerations for you. We shouldn't just be thinking about Israel or even the safety of American Jews when we have all of these other issues that are also incredibly important.
That is someone committed to both her co-religionists and the best interests of the American people. The latter concern is alien to many of her critics.
Hopefully, Abdul el-Sayed will defeat Mike Rogers and become the junior senator from Michigan, bringing the Democratic Party a majority in the chamber or at least within shouting distance of that. It's unfortunate that it will have to be el-Sayed to defeat the Republican but as then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said "you go war with the Army you have, not the Army you want to have...."
Joe Walsh is exactly correct. Here, Tim Miller argues
One thing he has stated clearly is he is committed to Jewish safety and opposes anti-Semitism in all forms and he loves his Jewish brothers and sisters. Are we hearing the same thing from the other side? Are we getting a statement that clear from Mike Rogers about the bigoted attacks against Muslims? I have not seen that....
It's understandable that Miller hasn't seen that. However, Bernie Sanders (presumably) has.
Hey Bernie — unlike Abdul El-Sayed, I have no issue disavowing fringe extremists who promote violence and seek to divide our state and country. Jake Lang is all of those things.
While I have your attention, I would like to know if Abdul will definitely say that he will not… https://t.co/vC0K60j1eg
As Miller suggests, el-Sayed, in response to a stupid question on Meet the Press, did in fact state "I love and revere Judaism and the Jewish people." Of course, if he "loved" Judaism, he could become a Jew. It would be more credible if he had said that he respected Judaism.
And if the candidate loved Judaism, his response to the March attack by a Lebanese-American man on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan would not have included "I also think it's critical for us to understand that hurt people do hurt people and the circumstances happening 6,000 miles away can afftect the lives that we live here..." Loving Jews does not include excusing an attempt at murdering them by referring to a war 6,000 miles away they have nothing to do with. This wasn't a hurt person but a would-be mass murderer.
Miller added
I think it is important that we have a standard here that is equal on both sides and I don't feel that is happening and I feel like every time that el-Sayed goes anywhere, he has to answer for whatever anti-Israel or anti-Semitic or borderline anti-Semitic or imaginarily anti-Semitic statement that some supporter of his said, and Mike Rogers gets to walk around carte blanche....
Respectfully @Timodc, bullshit. Quit making excuses for Abdul El-Sayed. He has welcomed the support of, repeatedly campaigned with, and is very close to a bigoted, America-hating, communist-loving, Israel-hating, antisemite. And he refuses to condemn him. His choice. But bcuz he… https://t.co/QYKmmscMjX
After Piker's latest putrid comment, el- Sayed commented "nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople." That was his way of asserting that he's his own man while lacking the courage- or maybe an actual disagreement- with the guy whose name he did not utter and whom he has not accused of saying anything wrong. His primary reference to Piker, still not mentioning his name, was to maintain that "politicians and pundits" are trying "to make this race about a Twitch streamer."
He would be a Twitch streamer with merely 2.9 million followers and an average of 720,000 live viewers. (The number of dead viewers is unknown.)
This alone does not make Abdul el-Sayed a bigot. It does mean that he condones rabid, virulent bigotry and as Joe Walsh notes, no excuses should be made for that.
I'm not going to make the obvious crack that Meghan McCain, daughter of the late senator John McCain, is herself a vile, abhorrent, pig. Because she is no pig
El-Sayed is an absolute vile, abhorrent, PIG.
Usha Vance is a beloved figure in our country and in my opinion Vice President Vance's most powerful secret weapon. Women in America truly love her - attack her at your own peril democrat psychopaths. It will backfire. https://t.co/8HvbXuWI9d
Democratic senatorial nominee Abdul el-Sayed here remarks
She's like, 'damn, I have to sleep with him?' I mean, like, I guess she's pregnant, so, so I guess something is happening... Yeah, like, you gotta imagine, like, truly zero charisma. Like, Usha, get out, O.K.?
It's a little tasteless. And unlike most of his critics, I don't believe Vance is completely lacking in charisma. Further, we should recall a Vice President who was a presidential nominee in 2000 who garnered more popular votes than his Republican opponent and did so with less charisma than has a cadaver, or Vance (though a great public servant/activist).
However, that's not Madame McCain's argument. Meghan She argues of Usha "women in Amrica truly love her- attack her at your own peril democrat psychopaths".
It would be unfair to suggest that if McCain is intersted in "psychopaths," she should look in the mirror. So I won't. But the object of her ire are "Demoratic" psychopaths, not "democrat," and should be preceded by a comma. What were they teaching in the early 2000s at Columbia University? Fortunately, the reference to "democrat psychopaths" was a tell that she was being hysterical. (And, yes, men also can be hysterical. But for McCain it is all too common.)
Nonetheless, as John Oliver would say, "the point is" that the Senate candidate from Michigan was not talking about Usha Vance. He was talking about J.D. Vance. the "I have to sleep with him," who has "truly zero charisma," might have been a clue.
Republicans did the same thing with Jon Ossoff's criticism of Donald Trump when they pretended that he was slamming Natalie Harp instead of her mentor, Donald J. Trump. Although they'd never admit it, and Democrats would never accuse them of it, there is a whole cadre of woke Republicans. They evidently don't understand that "believe women" means to take a woman's testimony seriously, not to defend a woman against nonexistent criticism, a fine means to deny agency to women.
There is, however, a greater sin committed by the nepo baby. She made me defend Abdul el-Sayed. That cannot be forgiven.
The great Harry S Truman once famously said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
CNN will interview genocidal maniacs like Randy Fine and John Fetterman and allow them to say the most vile, disgusting things with zero pushback, but they got all this energy for Angie Nixon? Very interesting. https://t.co/t5U2mW78FD
To be fair, Angie Nixon, Democratic nominee from Florida for the U.S. Senate, was able to stand the heat and calmly answered Kasie Hunt's questions. However, the candidate's supporters are insistent that the temperature be turned down.
Hasan Piker, the infamous anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah anti-American streamer evidently has seen few progressive black women interviewed in the liberal or centrist media, whether by white interviewers or by progressive black women themselves:
- i’ve never seen kasie hunt treat a white republican man like
this. the way black progressive women get treated in media is shameful.
- CNN is anti-journalism. You ask a question and cut the person off after 7 seconds.... toxic corporate media slop
Not many CNN journalists have the honor of being referred to as "MAGA". Hunt is not the second coming of Edward R. Murrow or Dan Rather but not this, either:
- This is corporate maga media now. It’s not the news and it’s not journalism that’s for sure.
And my "favorite," the fairly prominent anti-Semitic podcaster Emma Vigeland, momentarily turning her attention from the Jews and Israelis, who are bringing the downfall of society. However, as with the others, she does believe anti-establishment radical leftists should go unchallenged:
- This is a shockingly rude and unprofessional interview. Hunt
doesn't let Nixon get a word in about the substance of Medicare For All or her
policies for millions of Floridians. She interjects to ask a DC-brained
question about party leadership as soon as she begins to answer.
And on and on and on. There is political benefit to be seen fighting the system and in promoting extremist views. But there also is a downside to being controversial, in which there will be many questions, some of them confrontational. That is how news should be done.
News networks are more interested in politics than in doing deep dives into issues. Even on Sunday nights, when CNN programming tens to longer shows, they conspicuously refuse to investigate important topics such as Medicare for All. It's frustrating and unhelpful, but not a conspiracy against progressive politics, blacks, women- or even Democrats (not for the most part, anyway). The bills have to be paid and the network believes it has the formula.
Of course, the corporate media generally does have its preferences, often Republicans who are not conspicuously hostile to blacks, immigrants, or the LGBTQ+ community. But that is a generalization, a bias that is not consistent or uniform. CNN does not exist to amplify the voices of the ultra-progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as those tweeters wish. It is not an echo chamber, and should not be.
Someone who frequently tweets from the perspective of a transgendered, moderate Democrat married to a man is properly concerned. But about the wrong individual.
I have very real fears that the Democratic Party has nominated a candidate who is a danger to the national security of the United States.
Here are the objective facts. Abdul El-Sayed is closely connected, through his family, donors and political network, to senior figures at… pic.twitter.com/cn79pWvMXK
El-Sayed, who appears to have a 50-50 chance of defeating Mike Rogers to fill the seat of retiring senator Gary Peters, is highly-educated, accomplished, and charismatic, articulate. He is a nimble campaigner and ally of the anti-Jewish, anti-American Hasan Piker. However, if elected, el-Sayed will be only one of 100 senators, the upper chamber of a branch of government which has been increasingly emasculated the past few decades. On the other hand:
#BREAKING: Jen Psaki pressed Maggie Haberman on the Natalie Harp bombshell: Harp reportedly serves as a conduit for outsiders to get information directly to Trump, feeding him unvetted material in the way he prefers, while sitting in Oval Office meetings and remaining one of his… pic.twitter.com/4AJ566bfli
is a conduit for other people to reach him as an outside source of information on vetting information, which is really the way he likes things. He does not like the processes of government and there is a question about, you know, her own background and her service in government. If she were not sitting in the Oval Office for so many different meetings, if she were not somebody who put pieces of information in front of the President, this wouldn't be especially interesting.
But the fact that his colleagues are among the people who have had concerns about her, not just the Secret Service. not just during the campaign, that has come up over and over again. And while I understand that the White House is upset about some of the reporting around this, you know, this is an issue they should be asking themselves as opposed to suggesting that it is inappropropriate tha reporters are writing about somebody who is one of the top advisers to the President.
The old question was: Donald Trump- sex or no sex with Harp? The new question should be: is Natalie Harp compromised and if so, by whom?
There are two very talented elected public officials in the Democratic Party. There also is one who is not yet an elected official, though he may be in the near future. Democratic Senate nominee Abdul el-Sayed of Michigan, New York City mayor Zohran Mandami, and Georgia senator Jon Ossoff. I very much don't like the first, am not particularly fond of the second, and am unsure of the third.
All three are "political athletes". However, born in Uganda, Mandami never can be President of the USA and el-Sayed even isn't elected yet. But the Republican Party is afraid of the third, and should be.
His conduct here is antithetical to his message. He’s not a man of morals, he’ll throw a female staffer’s name into the media without proof or caution for her to be thrown to the wolves.
While the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he
fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through
his meetings. He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn’t want to do the job.
He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently
defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar.
MAGAT Julie Kelly with allegedly 911,111 followers tweets "shame on him. What a vile thing to suggest. God forbid a young, attractive woman works her butt off every single day for the president and for the country she loves. (Natalie Harp is paid by American taxpayers, but as a personal aide/advisor to the President, she works not for the country but for Trump.) CNN pundit Scott Jennings, believed to be on the President's list to succeed Karoline Leavitt as press secretary, remarks "This is quite a message for the Democratic Party to end to young women working in politics. Party of women? Pretty ugly stuff".
Former Bush 43 press secretary Ari Fleischer calls Ossoff "a bottom feeder" who "should be ashamed". Ex-GOP congressman Peter Meijer of Michigan, who believes the truth is actionable, tweets "just say the thing you're saying and take the resulting defamation sit on the chin like a man". Prominent MAGAT congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna calls the Senator an "sexist arrogant jerk". White House communications director Steven Cheung bleats "Jon Jackoff," or as Trump called him "Pee-wee Herman," "has to be the biggest cuck loser in politics".
A business owner contends Ossoff is a "sweeb" who is"an entitled, trust fund do-nothing". Roman Catholic nationalist Greg Price ("St. Michael the Archangel, Defend us in Battle", "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum") argues that Harp's role, "according to extremely online leftists," "means that she must be sleeping with her boss. In most cases, you'd think a male Senator making a comment like that about a female staffer would be considered sexist, but I guess it's okay if it's the Democrat Party's new favorite mediocrity.".
Republicans get an A for effort trying to turn attention away from Ossoff's criticism of Trump by pretending that the Senator was attacking a woman. Republican wokeism is a sight to behold.
Of course, Ossoff wasn't condemning Ms. Harp. He said of Donald "He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar."
As John Oliver would say: "excellent." Ossoff slams Trump for his kingly aspiration of a ballroom. He refers to travel with Natalie, a coup for a guy who once stated "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy," and who is the star of the Epstein files, which he has moved heaven and earth to avoid releasing. And he takes a swipe at Trump for being given a jet by the Qataris, which may eventually cost the taxpayers 41 billion dollars. All in the space of 22 words.
Ossoff didn't say that the 80-year-old who has boasted of his sexual prowess is having an affair with the 34/35 year-old Harp. He didn't claim that even though, as revealed by "Regime Change" co-author Jonathan Swan on CNN, the aide
has written him numerous letters that she's left for him, including one that says,"You are all that matters to me" or some version of that. It raised the eyebrows of the Secret Service during the campaign....
Some of these letters that were left in some of his private quarters...Ssusie Wiles asked, "where am I" upon learning about the letters.
"Nothing to see here, folks. Move on." At least, it appeared there was nothing to be seen here, nothing particularly controversial in Jon Ossoff's remarks, even though Natalie's "Most Favored Aide status was confirmed when it was Harp, and
not Karoline Leavitt or Marco Rubio, who was asked to share the beverage cart
that covertly transferred the president from one plane to another" in Turkey.
But, alas, now I've been persuaded by the deluge of attacks from Republicans upon Senator Ossoff for a remark which, with no hint of self-awareness, they complain is "sexist" or "misogynist". It's as if they themselves believe that Trump is indulging his sexual thirst in his relationship with Ms. Harp. It's also as if they know that they should be very concerned about one particular senator from Georgia.
Release the Epstein files and then we can have a serious conversation about young women and the creeps who stalk them. Until then, and unless you cut loose the adjudicated sex criminal in the WH, sit this one out. https://t.co/cHuk1WwEtu
Several decades ago, a couple of guys I knew in public school would say "the only race is the human race". I don't recall the names but wish I did, so I might track them down and apologize for doubting them.
In the website Science Oxygen, it is suggested that there are seven races: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; and White.
This imperfect classification is not quite as bad as others. However, Science Oxygen more accurately notes "racial categories are not reflective of the underlying reality", "race" cannot "be found in our genes" and
Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship; to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological identity.
And that is only one thing wrong with the tweet (below) from Mehdi Hasan, who argues
The idea that in a world where Israel is genociding the Palestinians in Gaza, ethnically cleansing them in the West Bank, and blocking their legal right to return the idea that Israel's right to exist is the one we should be concerned about, and not Palestine's, is both ridiculous and, let's be honest, racist.
“Do You Support Israel’s Right to Exist?” Mehdi Hasan FIRES BACK
Mehdi Hasan: I've been debating hardcore Zionists, Israeli supporters of Israel, for years. And the conversation always comes back to one talking point:
“Do you, or do you not support Israel’s right to exist?”
If Hasan had any concept of honesty, he'd recognize that Israel is not committing genocide (and there is no such thing as "genociding"). Also, Palestine is a geographical construct and thus, were there even distinct races, discriminating against Palestinians would not be racist." And if the Palestinians who left Israel in 1948, voluntarily or involuntarily, have a right to return, we'd have to consider that (according to this site) "since 1948, 99% of the 1,000,000 indigenous Jews living in 10 Arab countries plus Iran, were uprooted from their countries of birth- one of the more significant cases of ethnic cleansing in modern history."
Of course, Jews would not return to those countries if given a choice because before expulsion from those lands they were treated much worse than are Arabs/Muslims currently living in the West Bank and far worse than those individuals residing in Israel proper. So much for Hasan's precious right of return for Muslims/Palestinians, and only for them.
It's ironic that Hasan, who supports creation of a Palestinian state, would state "people, individuals have a right to exist. Human beings have a right. Not states, not countries."
Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and a lot of other places would like a word. Also, this: if countries have no right to exist, neither would a "Palestine". But Hasan believes a "Palestine" should exist, but not Israel, created by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947.
And he believes that "Palestine" should exist at the expense of Israel, which he refuses to say should exist. Israel is "a country with sovereignty, it's on the map," he says, as many Republicans still say when asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election: with "he is the President."
Comparison of the Soviet Union to Israel is hideous. In the wake of a failed coup against Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, fourteen republics of the Soviet Union declared their independence. Aside from the three Baltic states, they formed with Russia the Commonwealth of Independent States. And now Russia is "only" approximately 6.6 million square miles in size. By contrast, Israel comprises 8,630 square miles.
And in contrast to that, Saudi Arabia covers 868,730 square miles, more than 100 times the size of Israel. However, Hasan doesn't recommend that the Kingdom relinquish any portion of its nation to help its Muslim brothers. Such an accomodation would not sit well with the Saudis, who accept Palestinian Arabs only as guest workers and forbid them from becoming citizens, a far cry from their status in Israel proper.
Mehdi Hasan has not spoken up about that, however, because his abiding interest is not in a Palestinian state. He does not argue that Gaza should become a Palestinian state. He does not argue that the West Bank should become a Palestinian state.
His interest is in the abolition of Israel. He is not alone in the Muslim community in the West, though unlike most others, his words make it clear that he supports the ethnic cleansing of Mideast Jews. Quite ironic, but not so surprising.
This is bad. But there is something worse- and far more significant.
Adam Jentleson,in the past has worked for John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, and John Fetterman (yes, that John Fetterman). Why he was working for inarguably the most pro-Israel Democratic senator, and arguably the most pro-Israel senator of any, is an intriguing question:
One difference between the war in Iran and the one in Gaza is that while the war in Iran is heinous for many reasons, Netanyahu is committing a genocide in Gaza. https://t.co/Mx1TcvzIeH
Senior Policy Analyst Peyton Lofton of No Labels wrote last September
According to the Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics,
which is based in Palestine’s West Bank and not controlled by Hamas, there were
2.19 million Gazans at the end of 2022. By May 2025, PCBS says, Gaza’s
population was 2.11 million – a decrease of about 80,000 people or 3.6% of the
pre-war population.
While they haven’t released figures for 2025 yet, the CIA is
a little more optimistic than the PCBS. By the CIA’s estimates, there were 1.99
million Gazans at the end of 2022 compared to 2.14 million in mid-2024, an
increase of about 145,000 people or 7% of the pre-war total.
So, Gaza has either shrunk by 80,000 people or grown by
145,000. Which of these figures is more accurate? We’ll probably never know.
My guess is that the Gazan population has declined marginally. However, Lofton notes
During the Rwandan Genocide, for example, an estimated
three-quarters of the Tutsi ethnic group were murdered over the course of 100
days. And in the Holocaust, some 60% of Europe’s Jews were killed or forced out
by the time the war ended – and the population never recovered.
We've all heard of the Holocaust. Yet, the genocide in Rwanda occurred fairly recently, and we have heard as much about that from Jentleson as we have the extermination of Iranian dissidents this past January. Similarly, Beijing's crusade in Xinjian province against the Uygurs, including mass detention, ethnic cleansing, widespread murder, and sterilization of the women seem not to have piqued Jentleson's curiosity.
Anger at Israel over its war against Hamas in Gaza is widespread among American youth, as Jentleson suggests. However, some individuals have more interest in the Mideast and more luxury to be engrossed in the subject. Those would be the affluent and, especially, the college educated, especially whites. Jentleson is too embarrassed or dishonest to admit that, but the truth does not vanish because it is uncomfortable.
Moreover, Tanden's observation that there have been few protests against the war against Iran conducted by the USA compared to anti-Israel protests is obviously accurate. Israel may be committing war crimes, which is a matter of interpretation, and is acting badly. That does not mean it is committing genocide- it is not- and Operation Epic Fury is a U.S. action ordered in our name by an individual we elected President.
And that is the problem- it is being conducted by Donald J. Trump. The vast majority of congressional Republicans are blindly following President Trump and most of them are intimidated by him. In many cases, Trump controls their political future, in which one kind word can lift them from obscurity and one complaint can send them into political obscurity.
Yet, we assume that Democratic activists are immune from such pressure. Protests against Israel are held almost routinely now while protests against Trump's war are uncommon. There may be many reasons for that, but one of them is intimidation, treading lightly to condemn the man who calls his enemies "communists" and far worse, and who once called for the execution of his own Vice President.
And his sway over a large portion of the electorate is unprecedented in American history. The betting here is that Jentleson and others realize this and know that they are far safer attacking Benjamin Netanyahu and the nation he unfortunately leads.
.... which brings us to the bigger potential problem for Israel and American Jews and it's not from the left.
Trump: Chuck Schumer, who's a Palestinian. He's a full-fledged Palestine . In fact, I'm looking for Palestinian garb. I'm going to send it to him for his birthday. I know him very well. pic.twitter.com/qaKsb5lt2y
This is bigoted remark toward Palestinians, whom it is assumed are bad simply because they are Palestinian.
But history teaches us that bias against one group is usually accompanied by bias against one or more other groups. And Donald Trump has accused Chuck Schumer of being "a full-fledged Palestine" (sic), sparing Hillary Clinton, Hakeem the Dream Jeffries, and Nancy Pelosi his ethnic slurs.
Today, Donald Trump is pro-Israel because its head of state is conservative; secular; in power on the basis of support from religious extremists;bent on consolidating power in the executive brandh; being investigated for criminal violations. Sound familiar?
However, Bibi Netanyahu will not be in charge forever, and possibly not beyond this year. Barring death, Donald Trump will remain. It is not unlikely that at some point, he will turn against Israel, and he will not do so by citing serious and significant ideological differences. His base will follow him because his base always does. And if this happens, the likes of Ilhan Omar, Abdul el-Sayed, Adam Jentleson and others will be inconsequential in comparison.
This is an organization, determined that "no other unarmed Black or Brown person is murdered again," that deserves an A for revealing its motive.
In March of 2024, Al Sharpton's National Action Network announced an upcoming forum, Turning Grief Into Action, to beheld at the annual convention of the organization. The NAN noted that moderator Ben Crump, whom Reverend Sharpton had called the "Attorney General for Black America," would be joined by family members of Eric Garner, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Tyre Nichols, and AJ Owens.
Each individual had been, the press release stated, "unjustly killed either by law enforcement or in violent acts of hatred" and that NAN had
covered costs for the funerals, with Rev. Sharp and Attorney Crump delivering eulogies and calls to action at their ceremonies. The organization continues to work with these families either to hold their loved one's killers accountable or advance issues to ensure no other unarmed Black or Brown person is murdered again.
Whatever one thinks of the virtue of Ben Crump and Al Sharpton or of the specific cases in which they've intervened, these activists clearly believe they are acting on behalf of not only the families, but of the black community itself, in the struggle against allegedly unjust violence- especially from police- against blacks.
And so, unless we live in Texas, you- and I- did not hear about this splendid police work four years ago when
Timothy Michael Randall was on the phone with his mother
when a police car pulled up behind his Nissan Altima with its lights flashing.
It was just after 12:30 a.m. on Sept. 14, 2022, and Randall was heading to his
cousin’s house after a night out.
“He had called to let me know that he was going to be home a
few minutes later,” Randall’s mother, Wendy Tippitt, recalled. “So I wouldn’t
worry.”
Randall, 29, pulled over and hung up with his mom. Sgt.
Shane Iversen of the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office walked up to the Altima and
told Randall that he had run a stop sign, police dash camera footage shows.
Randall denied doing so, and Iversen ordered him out of the car.
What began as a routine traffic stop, on a country road two
hours east of Dallas, quickly spun out of control.
As Randall was stepping out of the car, he put his wallet in
his back pocket and adjusted his waistband.
Iversen dug his hands into the front of Randall’s pants and
then told him to put his hands behind his back, the dash cam footage shows.
Randall kept his arms raised.
I don't know the reason for this- uh-- excursion, but I'm straight and it seems odd. Evidently, Mr. Randall didn't understand the importance of keeping one's mouth shut while being molested (searched) and
“Officer, I don’t have anything on me,” he said.
“Officer, please, can you tell me what I’m under arrest
for?” Randall asked moments later.
Iversen didn’t respond. Instead, he wrestled Randall to the
pavement.
“Officer, please,” Randall pleaded again as he struggled to
get to his feet.
Police often are appreciative if the motorist is respectful to the point of being submissive. Not so this officer because
Then Iversen threw Randall to the ground again. He landed on
his back several feet away, but the momentum brought him back to his feet.
Randall began to turn to run away from Iversen, who had already pulled out his
gun and was pointing it at Randall.
“Get down,” Iversen yelled as he fired one shot, striking
Randall in the chest.
Randall continued to run down the street but collapsed face
down. Iversen radioed for help and then tried to render medical aid, but
Randall died on the pavement. The bullet had torn through his ribs, lungs and
heart, according to autopsy records.
After another deputy arrived minutes later, Iversen, then
57, returned to his patrol car and phoned a colleague.
Chastened from just having killed a human being, “I just smoked a dude,” he said in a hushed voice.
It gets worse.
You don't recall (as I didn't) this incident unless you live(d) in Texas, western Arkansas, or southern Oklahoma, or possibly not even there. Nor would you recall the customary arrival of the Crump & Sharpton Roadshow because it didn't make an appearance.
Two days after the incident, Iversen told Texas Rangers investigators that he threw Randall to the ground because he was concerned the man might be able to reach what he thought was gun but Randall quickl got onto his fat. Iversen added "at this point in time, I see him running towards me. I'm on my knees and I'm like he's coming at me." After Randall was cut down, the officer found in his pocket a methamphetamine pipe which he thought be a gun before he searched him.
The case was presented to the grand jury, which issued a no bill, thus failing to indict the policeman. This might strike one as odd, given the a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, or rather, persuade a grand jury to do so. Exceptions, Crump & Sharpton would point out, would include a black man killed by a police officer, especially a white police officer What they won't tell you- and what the media won't tell you- is that sometimes a white man is killed with impunity.
Wait- what? We haven't been told that by police reform advocates, the media, Democrats, and- yes- even Republicans. But if this were a story merely of police sometimes being able to get away with (figurative and literal) murder, it would be a story only half-told. There is an even more important moral to the story because
After reviewing the dashcam footage and the Texas Rangers
report, two police use-of-force experts contacted by NBC News said they saw no
reason for Iversen to open fire during the encounter.
Mickie McComb, a former New Jersey state trooper, said
Randall never made any movement that would suggest he was “drawing or
attempting to draw a weapon” and at no point was he “charging the officer.”
“There was no threat,” added McComb, who now works as an
expert witness on use-of-force cases. “He should have never used deadly force.
It was completely uncalled for.”
David Klinger, a former police officer in Los Angeles and
Redmond, Washington, offered a similarly blunt assessment.
“It doesn’t make any sense why he shot the guy,” said
Klinger, a criminology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who
researches police shootings.
Klinger said he doesn’t understand why Iversen would try to
tackle a man whom he believed to be carrying a gun. If he wasn’t able to grab
the weapon himself, Klinger said, he should have stepped back, drew his own
firearm, radioed for back up and ordered the man onto his knees or onto a prone
position on the ground.
“You give him verbal commands to keep his hands in plain
view,” Klinger added.
McComb said he believes that Iversen would have faced
criminal charges — and likely ended up in prison — had the incident occurred in
the Northeast.
“It’d be a completely different ball game,” McComb said.
“That’s a bad case.”
It's possible that McComb may be informed by his experience in the People's Republic of New Jersey. There, the investigation of the death of any civilian in an "encounter with a law enforecemnt officer" must be presented to a grand jury, and the investigation conducted not by a county but by the state to maintain its independence from law enforcement.
Nonetheless, what McComb said may in fact be not only common, but standard throughout the northeastern USA Here, it is a completely different ballgame than in Texas and no doubt some other states.
It's a radical statement because you will hear it nowhere else. One would think that, as the "defund the police slogan" has brought increasing criticism, there would be questioning of the two premises of the black lives matter movement: police overreach is imposed against only blacks; and 2) police misbehavior is widespread, almost uniform, throughout the USA.
These two things are not true and never were. Democrats will not acknowledge it because the base of the party is black women. Republicans won't acknowledge it because they will not admit that police can be in wrong, and also wish to throw blame upon any combination of Democrats, liberals, the underclass,or the media. The media will not acknowledge it because Democrats and Republicans won't, and thus it is not "news".
But it's reality. Many police officers do their job very well, some poorly, and some merely adequately.... kind of, like, other Americans. But they often are characterized as a whole as God's gift to humanity or racist pigs. Most are neither, and the minnority who are irresponsible are irresponsible to civilians regardless of their race. And when they are, the consequences can range from nothing to very severe, often depending on the jurisdiction in which the act occurred. It's Criminology 101.
Las Vegas-based podcaster Brian Shapiro believes that the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in 2020 in Butler, Pa. was staged and claims (at 2:11 of this video)
It's the same reason Donald Trump is halting- or isn't allowing- an investigation into Epstein's ranch.
Have you heard this story? We've heard alleged (word indistinguishable) that there are children buried on that ranch and Trump is halting an investigation into it. Why would he do that? Why is it that Donald Trump doesn't want all the Epstein files to be released out there? Why is he halting an investigation into his own assassination attempt? I think I might be on to something here. That's what I think.
According to Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino told him that Donald Trump had ordered that an FBI investigation into the Butler incident be terminated, which Bongino denies. An email from 2019 alleged that rapes and murders occurred at the Zorro Ranch, Epstein's property south of Santa Fe. That prompted an investigation by the state of New Mexico. In March of this year the estate was raided after new allegations of serious crimes and the state's Attorney General later filed a lawsuit "to compel the Trump adminstration to turn over files that the state claims it needs to identify victims, witnesses and potential perpetrators connected" to the abuse which reportedly took place.
So it appears that the Trump Administration has been stonewalling an investigation into the Epstein ranch, which since has been sold. It is less clear that the President has directly blocked an investigation into the assassination attempt in Butler, though it's likely that he has discouraged it. Shapiro adds
It's funny, though. The next day he plays golf and his ear grew back. It's intersting. We didn't see any cuts. We didn't see any bruises- nothing on his ear the next day when he was seen in public. I also find that to be a little interesting as well. It's the same reason Donald Trump is halting, or isn't allowing, an investigation into Epstein's ranch.
The Administration has done whatever it could, thus far largely successfully, to block release of anything pertinent from the Epstein files. That is because Donald Trump was deeply involved with Jeffrey Epstein and very likely with Epstein's criminal activities.
Donald Trump's behavior pursuant to Thomas Crook's attempt on his life on 7/13/20 comes from a different place. Medical records from the incident never were released. Recovering so quickly and completely after reportedly being hit by a bullet was extraordinary; such a resurection while daily taking 325 mg of aspirin- which greatly increases bleeding risk- is beyond that.
So how did Donald Trump pull it off? Not a fake assassination attempt, as Shapiro tends to believe he did. Though he probably did not play golf, he did fly to Milwaukee the following day for the Republican National Convention. The President is well known as an avid fan of professional wrestling (a fake admiring fellow fakes) and fortunately, a former wrestler and public official has an explanation: In March, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura appeared on Piers Morgan's podcast and
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 replied.
"You ever hear of a blade job?"
A "blade job" is a term used in professional
wrestling for when the performers actually cut themselves out of view of the
audience so that they bleed during the match.
This does add credence to the notion that the attempt on Donald Trump's life was staged. However, if Trump had kept his head straight rather than turning slightly to the right immediately before allegedly being struck, the bullet would almost certianly have killed him. As it was, the FBI concluded that the candidate was struck by either a bullet or a bullet fragment. Had Christopher Wray's FBI admitted that Trump was not hit at all, Wray would have been in very serious trouble in a second Trump Administration, and very quickly.
Credit is due to Donald Trump, though. He employed all his acting skill- which is immense- to cut himself while pushed down by the Secret Service agents and, fist raised, defiantly yell "fight, fight, fight" It was spectacular optics and became emblematic of his campaign and vision. It was a snow job eclipsing a lake effect winter storm in January in western New York.
There are several reasons prominent Democrats could have cited in endorsing their nominee, Abdul el-Sayed, in his bid to defeat Mike Rogers in the U.S. Senate race in Michigan. This is one of the best:
Democrats are united by a common purpose: putting a check
on Donald Trump by defeating his Republican enablers and taking back the
Senate. We look forward to working with Abdul and Democrats across Michigan to
win this seat in November,” the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, and
Kirsten Gillibrand, who chairs the Democratic Senate campaign arm, said in a
joint statement.
They could have sat this one out, as thus far has Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin, whose courage rivals that of Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who voted for the nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General because, it appears, Donald Trump otherwise would be even meaner to him. Slotkin also did not endorse in the primary race between el-Sayed and Haley Stevens, preferring the Sgt. Schultz approach.
In promoting the nominee, Schumer and Gillibrand might have stated "hurt people hurt people" while explaining the bruising primary battle between el-Sayed and Stevens. Theoretically, they could have endorsed el-Sayed's vigorous campaigning featuring his friendship with Hasan Piker. Piker, who has himself enthusiastically endorsed Hamas over Israel and blamed the USA for 9/11, has added to his greatest hits collection:
More realistically, such Democrats could defend the nominee's scapegoating of AIPAC and defend his constant refrain about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. A few lies from a Senate candidate cannot compare to the never-ending lies from the President. Instead, they gave about the best possible argument for supporting Abdul el-Sayed, that the highest priority is "taking back the Senate".
Certainly, they could have done even better, such as by lauding the party's nominee for supporting "universal health care". El-Sayed goes further by advocating Medicare for All, which is the means to the end of assuring universal health care. Most of the more centrist Democrats, such as Haley Stevens, either oppose Medicare for All of have remained noncomittal.
The sweet spot for centrist or moderates endorsing progressives such as el-Sayed would be to applaud the candidate's support for universal health care while they ignore the issue of the more ambitious Medicare for All. Whatever Americans think of the latter approach, most clearly approve of the goal of health care for all. Done smoothly, Democratic politicians can assert support for universal health care and, if they wish, avoid offering specifics.
For some bizarre reason, prominent centrists and moderates (unfortunately) skeptical of MFA avoid coming out even for universal health care. Nonetheless, Chuck Schumer and the others did their best to rally support for the party's candidate, even though they- wisely- wanted him to lose to Haley Stevens.
They didn't lavish praise on their candidate; they attacked the very unpopular Donald Trump. And they took a dig at his "Republican enablers," subtly ridiculing the opposition, including their own Senate colleagues. Democrats act as if they're allergic to criticizing Republicans lacking the initials "DJT," but here they did.. If other Democrats follow suit, they even have a chance of wresting the Senate from Republicans, even with candidates such as Abdul el-Sayed.
