Tag Archives: politics

Consolidating Bigotry

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democrat and Socialist Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s Mayor-elect, is moving rapidly to do. By naming Tamika Mallory to his Committee on Community Safety, set up to transition NYC to his governance, Mamdani is consciously bringing antisemitic and racist bigotry into his city government.

Mallory is a Black Lives Matter activist, a Louis Farrakhan acolyte, and a close ally of Linda Sarsour. BLM is well-known for its racist and identity politics bigotry. (Its ties to communism strongly supports Mamdani’s socialism, also.) Farrakhan likens Jews to cockroaches and considers them evil incarnate. Sarsour is infamous for her trashing of Israel because of its Jewish nature and for her more general antisemitic bigotry.

NYC residents are about to reap what they’ve sown. For the next four years they are going to live in interesting times. In spades.

Globalism

Posted on by
Reply

New York City Mayor-elect and Progressive-Democrat and Socialist Zohran Mamdani has laid it out quite clearly. In his renewed statement that he would uphold an International Criminal Court (to which the US is not signatory) arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mamdani said this:

I’ve said time and again that I believe this is a city of international law, and being a city of international law means looking to uphold international law[.]

No. New York City is an American city, and so it is bound by American law. And that means that at the city level (at the State level, come to that), international law is irrelevant. In the case of the ICC, this is doubly so. With the US not being a part of the ICC or the treaty that created it, neither the ICC nor any of its warrants or rulings have any standing in the US.

Whatever one thinks of globalism, this is globalism run amok. This is how far to the left the Progressive-Democratic Party has gone.

A Thought on Marjorie Taylor Greene

Posted on by
Reply

The editors of The Wall Street Journal have one take on the Republican Congresswoman from Georgia, and they’re not far wrong.

Consider this riff in the video she taped to announce her early retirement in the New Year: “If I am cast aside by the President and the MAGA political machine and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can never, ever relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.”
There you have the full anti-business, isolationist wing of the MAGA movement in all its efflorescence. Corporations are nefarious and must be politically controlled. Advocates for more defense spending are war profiteers. Donors to the GOP, at least those who don’t donate to her, aren’t real Americans.
And the rest of the world is something to be avoided.

The editors missed one characteristic of Greene, though. She claims she’s resigning from Congress with effect 5 January 2026 in order to avoid inflicting on her “sweet district” a costly and debilitating 2026 primary contest for the Republican Party’s nomination for her district’s Representative.

[I] do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election….

Greene could just as easily could have avoided that hurtful and hateful primary by announcing that she would not run for reelection while she would finish her current term in the House. She chose not to do that.

Greene also is a political coward.

It’s No Choice

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has put on the table a piece agreement between Ukraine and Russia that, if it’s being accurately described, amounts to abject surrender by Ukraine to the barbarian. The arrangement calls for Ukraine to cede to the barbarian occupied Crimea and all of the Donbas, including both the currently occupied and the unconquered parts. Ukraine also would be forced to at least partially disarm and cap its standing army at two-thirds of its current complement, and Ukraine would be forever barred from entering into any sort of defensive alliance.

Even the US would lose in this. Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had agreed a deal wherein the US would develop Ukraine’s mineral deposits, including significant rare earths, in return for which the US would get a significant fraction of the outputs. Under the arrangement on offer now, we would lose access to those minerals and rare earths since the vast bulk of them are in the Donbas.

Zelenskyy addressed his people when presented with the peace “deal,” whatever it is in fact, and said that his nation, his people must choose between “dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner.”

If this “peace” thing is being described accurately in the press, Ukraine already has lost a key partner.

Death for Seditionists?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the six Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who called on senior military and intelligence officials to disobey “illegal” orders, all the while refusing to identify either the illegal order(s) in question or the statute(s) or constitutional clause(s) they allegedly violated.

President Donald Trump (R) has responded in his inimitable fashion:

“Their words cannot be allowed to stand,” Trump said. “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.”

And later,

SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!

Now we have two more Progressive-Democratic Party politicians spouting yet more Leftist conspiracy theory foolishness.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen[.]

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY):

…disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress….

Hmm….

Trump has, indeed, suggested, in 2016 campaign “lock her up” rhetoric style that the Six should be locked up for their seditious behavior. But death threats? No. He’s only saying sedition warrants execution, not anyone in particular. Not even in context.

Thus: the only way he could be calling for the execution of the six is if they actually are convicted of seditious behavior. From that, the only logical conclusion of Schumer’s and Jeffries’ claims is that they’re confessing the Six’ guilt of sedition.