Speaking Up, and Not

Van Jones is quite capable of saying bad things.  

After Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Jones appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. He stated that Kirk had sent him a message proposing that Jones appear on Kirk's podcast and he suggested

‘Let’s disagree, agreeably.’”

“I’m going to carry those words with me because he was a words, not weapons, guy… We’re getting away from that now. I was very frustrated with people in my party throwing rocks at the corpse before he could even be buried. Bl00d still on the widow’s shoes, and people want to post every dumb thing he ever said. He was a 31-year-old kid.”

There were a few individuals who slammed Kirk after he was killed, but very few. And a 31-year old, especially an activist such as Kirk, is a "kid."  Still, at times Jones makes a lot of sense.

Van Jones on Abdul El-Sayed ⬇️

"These people are incredibly dangerous... I know Abdul, his positions on Israel and foreign policy are INSANE. They're not reasonable reactions to anything."

"Abdul's position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel,… pic.twitter.com/tKuiuDGXNe

— Sarah Gallagher (@sgallz_) September 1, 2026

Jones, green czar in the Obama Administration before he was prevailed upon to resign, argues that Abdul el-Sayed's

position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel, including defensive weapons, That's an insane position.

Israel wants to pay for infrastructure to stop a rocket coming from Iran or coming from Hezbollah or coming from Iran. We should deny them the right to buy the interceptors and knock down rocket going into Israel, men, women, children babies?

That's an insane position and by the way, it offends me because Barack Obama was a part of creating that Iron Dome. Barack Obama was a part of creating those interceptors. Barack Obama thought the Israeli people were in such a tough neighborhood, they needed to be able to knock down rockets. So you're telling me you're smarter than Barack Obama? You have better ideas about foreign policy than Barack Obama and you want to deplug an defund and take away Israel- half the world's Jews- ability to defend themselves?

Van Jones has exhibited undying love for, and devotion to Barack Obama through the years. He has a blind spot there and evidently does realize that some people do have better foreign policy ideas than the ex-President. (Crimeans would agree.) 

However, Jones is right about President Obama vis-a-vis the Iron Dome. As explained by a guest column published in The Jewish News in 2021 by Doron Levin, the idea for the defensive system was hatched in 2004 as Israel was being bombarded by crude, short-range rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

The project received some funding from the Israeli government but the Bush Administration believed Israel should use the USA's own Phalanx Vulcan anti-missile sytem. However, Colin Kahl, who had been cooridinating USA Middle East policy at the Pentagon, sent to Israel in 2009 experts who discovered that Iron Dome was superior to the Phalanx. His office recommended $200 million in aid and

In May 2010, Obama asked Congress to provide $205 million for production and deployment of Iron Dome, which would be manufactured by Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding later that month in a 410-4 vote. The measure became part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011, approved by the Senate and signed by Obama on Jan. 7, 2011.

Iron Dome went operational in March 2011 and shot down its first missile a month later. Whether the new missile defense ever would have been built without Obama’s support and U.S. funding is questionable.

President Obama, having taken bold and proper action, later cooled toward the Israeli government. Nonetheless, it appears that Jones was largely correct about Obama's assistance for military defense of Israeli infrastructure and citizens. His observation that el-Sayed opposes defensive aid (all aid) to the Middle East democracy.  He is wrong about the reason. El-Sayed is no more "crazy" than the 104 Democrats in the House of Representatives who have voted to cut off all aid to the Netanyahu government.

They had varying reasons to do so, none of them valid I, and presumably Jones, find valid. Unlike some of those Democrats, el-Sayed is actively hostile toward Israel. And in his case, it's not the current government in Jerusalem; it's the very nature and idea of Israel itself. That's not insane, but something else.  AIPAC! AIPAC! AIPAC!  (Liz Lemon/Tina Fey to Jack Donaghy/Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock: "Jack, just say Jewish, this is taking forever.")

Never missing an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama (one Democrat, somewhere, has to do it sometime), I see a rich irony. You don't have to be James Carville (terrible idea, though, James) to recognize the development of a schism in the Democratic Party over Middle East policy. It is not about Gaza or Palestinians or Netanyahu; it is about Israel.  As the Party, and especially the media, contemplate Democratic prospects this November or November two years  hence, Israel looms large as an issue which can do (further) major damage to party unity.

Two voices have yet to be heard from. One is Joe Biden, who has cancer and whom nobody wants to hear from anyway- despite a successful presidency- because of how his term ended. The other is Barack Obama who, though idolized only by Van Jones and a large minority of the Party, is nonetheless beloved by most Democrats. 

And Barack Obama, exhibiting the boldness which characterized his presidency, has remained silent. It is unsurprising but damaging. He cannot unite the Democratic Party by simply snapping his fingers. However, some individuals, Van Jones and many others, are by speaking out forcefully risking their careers, reputation, or at least popularity. It is time that Barack Obama grab a backbone and do the same. I can survive a fainting spell.  

Share |

Not Enough

It's a mixed bag. Rupert Murdoch's right-wing tabloid New York Post noted 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

Share |

Proper Perspective

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

— Joe Wrote (@joewrote) August 27, 2026

As seen in the video/tweet, Nessel comments 

 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.

Share |

Approving the Deplorable

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

— Mike Rogers (@MikeRogersForMI) August 24, 2026

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

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 26, 2026

That "supporter" is not a nobody. He is Hasan Piker, who has been openly pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah, pro-China, and pro-rape, equated "liberal Zionists" with "liberal Nazis," and referred to Orthodox Jews as "inbred". Those are among the "borderline" or "imaginarily" bigoted statements made by a prominent supporter of the Democraric Senate candidate. 

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. 

 

 Share |

Missing the Point, Intentionally

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

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) August 24, 2026

.

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. 

Share |

Harry Truman Is Dead. Unfortunately.

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

— Jamarrius (@YungxJayy) August 21, 2026

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.

Keep it classy, fellow:

god damn this pissed me off let her fucking speak

On the basis of one portion of one interview:

- 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.   

 

Share |

Conduit

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

— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) August 20, 2026

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

— Emoluments Clause (@Emolclause) August 20, 2026

Haberman explains that Harp

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?

Share |