Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Republicans operate through a relatively weak institutional ecosystem but a strong coalition leader, creating broad ideological latitude within the coalition. Democrats lack a comparable central authority, yet are constrained by a dense network of activist groups, nonprofits, unions, donors, and media institutions that produce much tighter ideological conformity. That...

Jesse_Leg's profile picture

Jesse Arm

12,851 subscribers

19,536 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Rahm Emanuel Came to Israel to Feed the Alligator There used to be a familiar tradition in American politics. If you were preparing to run for president, you came to Israel. You stood beside Israeli leaders. You spoke about the unbreakable alliance between the United States and Israel. You reminded Americans that Israel was America's closest democratic ally in the Middle East. You met Jewish leaders, reassured pro-Israel voters and donors, and returned home having demonstrated that supporting Israel was both morally right and strategically wise. That was the old Democratic Party. Today's Democratic Party is rapidly becoming something very different. Its loudest voices no longer celebrate the U.S.-Israel alliance. They question Israel's legitimacy. Many refuse to visit Israel altogether. Increasingly, the party's energy comes from an activist coalition that views Israel not as an ally, but as the embodiment of Western oppression. This coalition has become extraordinarily effective. It does not merely argue. It intimidates. It does not seek debate. It seeks ideological conformity. Those who refuse are branded racists, colonialists, fascists, or supporters of genocide. Careers are threatened. Institutions retreat. Politicians learn that silence—or worse, agreement—is often the safest political option. The result is that a vocal minority increasingly dictates the boundaries of acceptable opinion. Rahm Emanuel belongs to a different political generation. He comes from the old Democratic establishment. He understands the historic alliance between America and Israel. He understands why Israel matters strategically. He understands the history of Palestinian rejectionism. In his own speech, he acknowledged October 7, acknowledged Hamas' atrocities, and admitted that Israel repeatedly offered peace only to receive terrorism in return. None of that was new. What was new was what came next. Instead of coming to Israel to strengthen the alliance, Emanuel came to lecture Israel. He accused Israel of becoming a diplomatic liability. He warned that unconditional American support must end. He proposed sanctions against Israeli citizens, Israeli officials, companies, and banks connected to settlements. He argued that Israel had become isolated because of its own choices. It sounded less like a speech to Israelis than a campaign message directed at an entirely different audience. That audience was not sitting in the room. It was watching from American campuses, activist organizations, progressive media outlets, and the increasingly influential ideological wing of today's Democratic Party. Israelis do not vote in American elections. The people Emanuel was trying to persuade do. The speech was not really about convincing Israelis. It was about demonstrating to an increasingly anti-Israel political base that he is willing to confront Israel publicly. In other words, he came to Israel to feed the alligator. There is an old saying: When you feed an alligator, you hope it eats you last. That has become the strategy of far too many establishment politicians. Rather than confronting ideological extremism, they accommodate it. Rather than defending long-held principles, they move the line a little further each time, hoping today's concession will prevent tomorrow's attack. History suggests otherwise. The activist coalition that increasingly dominates parts of the Democratic conversation is driven by ideological purity. Every concession becomes the starting point for the next demand. Yesterday's ally becomes today's target for failing the newest ideological test. Rahm Emanuel appears to believe he can stand in both worlds. He can come to Israel, maintain relationships with the pro-Israel establishment, reassure traditional supporters of the alliance, and then deliver a speech harsh enough to convince the activist left that he is one of them. That is an extraordinarily risky political calculation.
33:07

Rahm Emanuel Came to Israel to Feed the Alligator There used to be a familiar tradition in American politics. If you were preparing to run for president, you came to Israel. You stood beside Israeli leaders. You spoke about the unbreakable alliance between the United States and Israel. You reminded Americans that Israel was America's closest democratic ally in the Middle East. You met Jewish leaders, reassured pro-Israel voters and donors, and returned home having demonstrated that supporting Israel was both morally right and strategically wise. That was the old Democratic Party. Today's Democratic Party is rapidly becoming something very different. Its loudest voices no longer celebrate the U.S.-Israel alliance. They question Israel's legitimacy. Many refuse to visit Israel altogether. Increasingly, the party's energy comes from an activist coalition that views Israel not as an ally, but as the embodiment of Western oppression. This coalition has become extraordinarily effective. It does not merely argue. It intimidates. It does not seek debate. It seeks ideological conformity. Those who refuse are branded racists, colonialists, fascists, or supporters of genocide. Careers are threatened. Institutions retreat. Politicians learn that silence—or worse, agreement—is often the safest political option. The result is that a vocal minority increasingly dictates the boundaries of acceptable opinion. Rahm Emanuel belongs to a different political generation. He comes from the old Democratic establishment. He understands the historic alliance between America and Israel. He understands why Israel matters strategically. He understands the history of Palestinian rejectionism. In his own speech, he acknowledged October 7, acknowledged Hamas' atrocities, and admitted that Israel repeatedly offered peace only to receive terrorism in return. None of that was new. What was new was what came next. Instead of coming to Israel to strengthen the alliance, Emanuel came to lecture Israel. He accused Israel of becoming a diplomatic liability. He warned that unconditional American support must end. He proposed sanctions against Israeli citizens, Israeli officials, companies, and banks connected to settlements. He argued that Israel had become isolated because of its own choices. It sounded less like a speech to Israelis than a campaign message directed at an entirely different audience. That audience was not sitting in the room. It was watching from American campuses, activist organizations, progressive media outlets, and the increasingly influential ideological wing of today's Democratic Party. Israelis do not vote in American elections. The people Emanuel was trying to persuade do. The speech was not really about convincing Israelis. It was about demonstrating to an increasingly anti-Israel political base that he is willing to confront Israel publicly. In other words, he came to Israel to feed the alligator. There is an old saying: When you feed an alligator, you hope it eats you last. That has become the strategy of far too many establishment politicians. Rather than confronting ideological extremism, they accommodate it. Rather than defending long-held principles, they move the line a little further each time, hoping today's concession will prevent tomorrow's attack. History suggests otherwise. The activist coalition that increasingly dominates parts of the Democratic conversation is driven by ideological purity. Every concession becomes the starting point for the next demand. Yesterday's ally becomes today's target for failing the newest ideological test. Rahm Emanuel appears to believe he can stand in both worlds. He can come to Israel, maintain relationships with the pro-Israel establishment, reassure traditional supporters of the alliance, and then deliver a speech harsh enough to convince the activist left that he is one of them. That is an extraordinarily risky political calculation.

Mossad Commentary

36,559 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

Many mocked the DSA when a video from their 2019 National Convention came out. The repeated and increasingly woke “points of personal privilege” looked ridiculous. What many missed at the time was that the Democratic Socialists of America had just entered a massive growth phase which has now made it the largest socialist organization in U.S. history. The organization grew from 6,000 members in 2015 to more than 120,000 today with a notable surge after Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. The median age of members dropped sharply from 68 in 2013 to 33 in 2017 while AOC and Rashida Tlaib became the first DSA members in the House of Representatives in over a decade in 2018. After seeing a lull in growth during Biden’s term in office, the DSA now has winds in its sails again, especially after their member Zoran Mamdani was elected Mayor of New York City last year. It’s now practically certain that two democratic socialists will be heading to Congress from New York (Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, both of whom won their 2026 Democratic primaries with strong Mamdani and DSA backing). DSA’s Melat Kiros can also be certain of reaching Congress after defeating a 30-year incumbent in her strongly blue district in Colorado. Meanwhile, Janeese Lewis George, a DSA member, is poised to become the next mayor of Washington, D.C. after a decisive primary win. What began as a niche organization with a few thousand mostly older members has transformed into a significant force in American left politics. Adam Milstein has just written an article in which he warns that a massive Trojan horse has been built inside the Democratic Party. He argues that DSA is the main vehicle of the red-green alliance in the USA. This cooperation between organisations with a far-left ideology and Islamist groups has also been growing in Europe in recent years. The two forces are building a joint platform on Third Worldism, socialism anti-Zionism to attack broader liberal democratic values. In America, the DSA is working on radicalizing the Democratic Party on issues such as public safety, criminal justice, borders, foreign affairs and Israel policy. Milstein warns that the DSA’s official platform (“Workers Deserve More”) reveals an underlying Marxist framework that seeks not mere reform but the dismantling of core American institutions: drafting a new constitution, creating a democratic socialist republic, nationalizing key sectors, eliminating private health insurance and policing as well as incarceration systems while pushing for open-border policies. The DSA has adopted a so-called “dirty break” strategy, based on using Democratic Party’s ballot line, resources and credibility as a temporary vehicle while building parallel structures to ultimately break away and transform or supplant the Democratic Party. Milstein warns that they could succeed if the Democrats don’t quickly counter the existential threat by a full institutional purge: - Stripping DSA-aligned officials of committee assignments and power - Cutting off campaign funding, resources, and institutional support - Denying the party ballot line to those pursuing the “dirty break” - Aggressively recruiting and funding mainstream primary challengers to unseat sitting DSA politicians. The argument is that continued accommodation only legitimizes a movement whose stated goal is the party’s eventual dissolution and that failing to act risks irreversible colonization of the Democratic Party. You can find Milstein’s full article in the comments below ⬇️
2:49

Many mocked the DSA when a video from their 2019 National Convention came out. The repeated and increasingly woke “points of personal privilege” looked ridiculous. What many missed at the time was that the Democratic Socialists of America had just entered a massive growth phase which has now made it the largest socialist organization in U.S. history. The organization grew from 6,000 members in 2015 to more than 120,000 today with a notable surge after Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. The median age of members dropped sharply from 68 in 2013 to 33 in 2017 while AOC and Rashida Tlaib became the first DSA members in the House of Representatives in over a decade in 2018. After seeing a lull in growth during Biden’s term in office, the DSA now has winds in its sails again, especially after their member Zoran Mamdani was elected Mayor of New York City last year. It’s now practically certain that two democratic socialists will be heading to Congress from New York (Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, both of whom won their 2026 Democratic primaries with strong Mamdani and DSA backing). DSA’s Melat Kiros can also be certain of reaching Congress after defeating a 30-year incumbent in her strongly blue district in Colorado. Meanwhile, Janeese Lewis George, a DSA member, is poised to become the next mayor of Washington, D.C. after a decisive primary win. What began as a niche organization with a few thousand mostly older members has transformed into a significant force in American left politics. Adam Milstein has just written an article in which he warns that a massive Trojan horse has been built inside the Democratic Party. He argues that DSA is the main vehicle of the red-green alliance in the USA. This cooperation between organisations with a far-left ideology and Islamist groups has also been growing in Europe in recent years. The two forces are building a joint platform on Third Worldism, socialism anti-Zionism to attack broader liberal democratic values. In America, the DSA is working on radicalizing the Democratic Party on issues such as public safety, criminal justice, borders, foreign affairs and Israel policy. Milstein warns that the DSA’s official platform (“Workers Deserve More”) reveals an underlying Marxist framework that seeks not mere reform but the dismantling of core American institutions: drafting a new constitution, creating a democratic socialist republic, nationalizing key sectors, eliminating private health insurance and policing as well as incarceration systems while pushing for open-border policies. The DSA has adopted a so-called “dirty break” strategy, based on using Democratic Party’s ballot line, resources and credibility as a temporary vehicle while building parallel structures to ultimately break away and transform or supplant the Democratic Party. Milstein warns that they could succeed if the Democrats don’t quickly counter the existential threat by a full institutional purge: - Stripping DSA-aligned officials of committee assignments and power - Cutting off campaign funding, resources, and institutional support - Denying the party ballot line to those pursuing the “dirty break” - Aggressively recruiting and funding mainstream primary challengers to unseat sitting DSA politicians. The argument is that continued accommodation only legitimizes a movement whose stated goal is the party’s eventual dissolution and that failing to act risks irreversible colonization of the Democratic Party. You can find Milstein’s full article in the comments below ⬇️

Visegrád 24

106,927 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

1/ How did Jane Fonda, Bette Midler, and Robert De Niro become the voices for a communist celebration: May Day? Who is behind the May Day protests today, using workers as a Trojan Horse for communism and socialism in America? I’ve been digging into this for years as you know. In a new article just published with my Fox News Digital colleagues Preston Mizell and Michael Dorgan, we have identified: 🔴 About 600 GROUPS 🔴 With $2 BILLION in combined revenue 🔴 Mobilizing about 3,000 protests nationwide READ THE ARTICLE HERE: Here is an important takeaway: the protests today represent the rise of a RED-BLUE alliance between far-left socialist groups and Democratic organizations, including the California Democratic Party. They include: 🔵The Ohio Democratic Party Progressive Caucus 🔵 North Carolina’s Young Democrats of Moore County 🔵Young Democrats of Wisconsin 🔵 Yuba County Democratic Central Committee They're all on the official list of organizers for a coalition, "May Day Strong," promoted online at 🔵 In Ohio, the Licking County Democrats organization is hosting a "May Day Strong" protest at the courthouse in Newark, promoting the national event’s official mantra: "No Work No School No Shopping." The groups didn’t respond to requests for comment. The new RED-BLUE ALLIANCE isn't spontaneous. It’s coordinated. We'll keep showing you how. We'll be on the ground today. I'm in Washington, D.C., where the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a self-declared communist organization, met inside its “Liberation Center” last night to build signs, prep messaging and drive turnout. Michael, Preston and Louis Casiano are in Minneapolis, Los Angeles and New York. And we've got eyes on the network nationwide. What looks like a protest moment is actually an organizing infrastructure. Organizers are calling it “Workers Over Billionaires,” urging people to skip work, school, and shopping as part of a coordinated action. But two tycoons have funded key organizers: 🔵 George Soros, a Democratic billionaire 🔴 Neville Roy Singham, an American-born tech tycoon living in Shanghai Soros has funded a key organizer: 🔵 Indivisible SIngham pushes the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party and has funded key leaders of May Day: 🔴 People's Forum 🔴 ANSWER Coalition 🔴 CodePink 🔴 Party for Socialism and Liberation 🔴 BreakThrough News Then there is also in the mix: 🔴 Democratic Socialists of America 🔴 Communist Party of the USA 🔴 Revolutionary Communist Party 🔴 Maoist Communist Union 🔴 Freedom Road Socialist Organization And then the unions: 🔵 American Federation of Teachers 🔵 Teamsters 🔵 United Auto Workers 🔵 National Education Association In total: 600 groups, $2 BILLION in collective revenues Critics say this goes beyond traditional labor activism. They argue May Day is being used as a unifying vehicle for a wider political agenda. Democratic strategist Melissa DeRosa told me: “May Day has a proud history of honoring workers, but too many Democratic organizations have allowed that tradition to be hijacked by the activist fringe…” She added: “The increasing willingness of mainstream Democrats to align with extremist socialist groups is a major factor in why the Democratic Party is losing the center…” That’s why it’s important to cover this. Not just the protests—but the network behind them. Thank you to DataRepublican (small r) for her magic helping me connect the dots. Who’s organizing May Day? Who’s funding May Day? How does the messaging spread? Read our coverage to get the answers. May Day, right now, is more than a protest supporting workers. I was a union leader at the Wall Street Journal -- yes. Who doesn't want dignity of labor? May Day is using workers as a Trojan Horse for an ideological mission by groups with key groups that want to destroy free enterprise in America, eliminate military bases, socialize private industry and free prisoners from jails -- yes. It’s a window into a growing political coalition that’s critics say stoke the rhetoric that is leading to political violence from the left. Follow our blog all day at and follow my updates here!
1:43

1/ How did Jane Fonda, Bette Midler, and Robert De Niro become the voices for a communist celebration: May Day? Who is behind the May Day protests today, using workers as a Trojan Horse for communism and socialism in America? I’ve been digging into this for years as you know. In a new article just published with my Fox News Digital colleagues Preston Mizell and Michael Dorgan, we have identified: 🔴 About 600 GROUPS 🔴 With $2 BILLION in combined revenue 🔴 Mobilizing about 3,000 protests nationwide READ THE ARTICLE HERE: Here is an important takeaway: the protests today represent the rise of a RED-BLUE alliance between far-left socialist groups and Democratic organizations, including the California Democratic Party. They include: 🔵The Ohio Democratic Party Progressive Caucus 🔵 North Carolina’s Young Democrats of Moore County 🔵Young Democrats of Wisconsin 🔵 Yuba County Democratic Central Committee They're all on the official list of organizers for a coalition, "May Day Strong," promoted online at 🔵 In Ohio, the Licking County Democrats organization is hosting a "May Day Strong" protest at the courthouse in Newark, promoting the national event’s official mantra: "No Work No School No Shopping." The groups didn’t respond to requests for comment. The new RED-BLUE ALLIANCE isn't spontaneous. It’s coordinated. We'll keep showing you how. We'll be on the ground today. I'm in Washington, D.C., where the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a self-declared communist organization, met inside its “Liberation Center” last night to build signs, prep messaging and drive turnout. Michael, Preston and Louis Casiano are in Minneapolis, Los Angeles and New York. And we've got eyes on the network nationwide. What looks like a protest moment is actually an organizing infrastructure. Organizers are calling it “Workers Over Billionaires,” urging people to skip work, school, and shopping as part of a coordinated action. But two tycoons have funded key organizers: 🔵 George Soros, a Democratic billionaire 🔴 Neville Roy Singham, an American-born tech tycoon living in Shanghai Soros has funded a key organizer: 🔵 Indivisible SIngham pushes the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party and has funded key leaders of May Day: 🔴 People's Forum 🔴 ANSWER Coalition 🔴 CodePink 🔴 Party for Socialism and Liberation 🔴 BreakThrough News Then there is also in the mix: 🔴 Democratic Socialists of America 🔴 Communist Party of the USA 🔴 Revolutionary Communist Party 🔴 Maoist Communist Union 🔴 Freedom Road Socialist Organization And then the unions: 🔵 American Federation of Teachers 🔵 Teamsters 🔵 United Auto Workers 🔵 National Education Association In total: 600 groups, $2 BILLION in collective revenues Critics say this goes beyond traditional labor activism. They argue May Day is being used as a unifying vehicle for a wider political agenda. Democratic strategist Melissa DeRosa told me: “May Day has a proud history of honoring workers, but too many Democratic organizations have allowed that tradition to be hijacked by the activist fringe…” She added: “The increasing willingness of mainstream Democrats to align with extremist socialist groups is a major factor in why the Democratic Party is losing the center…” That’s why it’s important to cover this. Not just the protests—but the network behind them. Thank you to DataRepublican (small r) for her magic helping me connect the dots. Who’s organizing May Day? Who’s funding May Day? How does the messaging spread? Read our coverage to get the answers. May Day, right now, is more than a protest supporting workers. I was a union leader at the Wall Street Journal -- yes. Who doesn't want dignity of labor? May Day is using workers as a Trojan Horse for an ideological mission by groups with key groups that want to destroy free enterprise in America, eliminate military bases, socialize private industry and free prisoners from jails -- yes. It’s a window into a growing political coalition that’s critics say stoke the rhetoric that is leading to political violence from the left. Follow our blog all day at and follow my updates here!

Asra Nomani

236,690 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

MUST WATCH Fox News Digital today: In a jaw-dropping admission, Hasan Piker said the quiet part out loud. 🌹Hasan Piker is a Turkish-American Muslim Marxist influencer who spends about six hours a day on a platform called Twitch, mostly talking to himself to an audience that experts say includes kids. 🌹On Monday, Piker publicly acknowledged that China-based American Marxist Neville Roy Singham acts as a "funding vehicle" for “a lot of political movements” and “political advocacy” operations in the United States. 🌹Singham himself acts as a political operative, cavasing for candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, which uses the rose🌹 as a symbol. 🌹He is the red and the green in the red-green alliance of the far-left and Muslims. 🔍 His remarks are the first candid admission of the political agenda of Singham. The comments could intensify ongoing congressional and federal scrutiny of the far-left nonprofit network Singham has funded and supported: 🌹People's Forum 🌹BreakThrough News 🌹Tricontinental 🌹CodePinkParty for Socialism and Liberation, ANSWER Coalition. WATCH the video below and read my full investigation here at Fox News Digital: Piker said on his livestream Monday: 🌹 “I think that ultimately the target is probably Singham and his operation from PSL to ANSWER Coalition to CodePink — like anything that he has ever financed.” 🌹 “And it’s not new, it’s been around for a while.” 🌹 He defends Singham: “It’s like totally fucking ridiculous to try and stop the political advocacy of an American citizen.” 🌹“Roy Singham is an American citizen. He lives in China now and he's a centimillionaire. I think he has almost a billion dollars.” 🌹“Not sure how much money he has now, but he's been a funding vehicle for a lot of political movements in the country, like a lot of activism, and they hate that shit, so they're trying to jam them up.” 🌹“They're trying to hit him on anything and everything they possibly can. That's it, that's the goal here. That's the broader goal.” 🌹 Piker's comments are important because federal officials and congressional investigators are probing how Singham nonprofits operate as overt political operations and agents of malign foreign influence while maintaining tax-exempt charitable status. 🌹The Singham network has built the infrastructure -- with premade signs, scripted chants and protest gear -- that has mobilized the street protests that have brought chaos to America's streets -- broadcast to the world by foreign adversaries to prove failures in America's system -- all the while, enjoying the privileges and comforts of America. For example, Hasan the Marxist lives in a $2 million home in West Hollywood with his dog Kaya. Do you think these groups should lose their nonprofit status? What should prosecutors done with these groups? Stay tuned for more!
1:26

MUST WATCH Fox News Digital today: In a jaw-dropping admission, Hasan Piker said the quiet part out loud. 🌹Hasan Piker is a Turkish-American Muslim Marxist influencer who spends about six hours a day on a platform called Twitch, mostly talking to himself to an audience that experts say includes kids. 🌹On Monday, Piker publicly acknowledged that China-based American Marxist Neville Roy Singham acts as a "funding vehicle" for “a lot of political movements” and “political advocacy” operations in the United States. 🌹Singham himself acts as a political operative, cavasing for candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, which uses the rose🌹 as a symbol. 🌹He is the red and the green in the red-green alliance of the far-left and Muslims. 🔍 His remarks are the first candid admission of the political agenda of Singham. The comments could intensify ongoing congressional and federal scrutiny of the far-left nonprofit network Singham has funded and supported: 🌹People's Forum 🌹BreakThrough News 🌹Tricontinental 🌹CodePinkParty for Socialism and Liberation, ANSWER Coalition. WATCH the video below and read my full investigation here at Fox News Digital: Piker said on his livestream Monday: 🌹 “I think that ultimately the target is probably Singham and his operation from PSL to ANSWER Coalition to CodePink — like anything that he has ever financed.” 🌹 “And it’s not new, it’s been around for a while.” 🌹 He defends Singham: “It’s like totally fucking ridiculous to try and stop the political advocacy of an American citizen.” 🌹“Roy Singham is an American citizen. He lives in China now and he's a centimillionaire. I think he has almost a billion dollars.” 🌹“Not sure how much money he has now, but he's been a funding vehicle for a lot of political movements in the country, like a lot of activism, and they hate that shit, so they're trying to jam them up.” 🌹“They're trying to hit him on anything and everything they possibly can. That's it, that's the goal here. That's the broader goal.” 🌹 Piker's comments are important because federal officials and congressional investigators are probing how Singham nonprofits operate as overt political operations and agents of malign foreign influence while maintaining tax-exempt charitable status. 🌹The Singham network has built the infrastructure -- with premade signs, scripted chants and protest gear -- that has mobilized the street protests that have brought chaos to America's streets -- broadcast to the world by foreign adversaries to prove failures in America's system -- all the while, enjoying the privileges and comforts of America. For example, Hasan the Marxist lives in a $2 million home in West Hollywood with his dog Kaya. Do you think these groups should lose their nonprofit status? What should prosecutors done with these groups? Stay tuned for more!

Asra Nomani

30,863 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman, allows Mamdani to skate with a non-critical critique. JON KARL: Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL: But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI: I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL: So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI: There -- KARL: That's not your position? MAMDANI: There are prisons. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL: So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL: But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI: Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it.
7:04

Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman, allows Mamdani to skate with a non-critical critique. JON KARL: Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL: But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI: I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL: So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI: There -- KARL: That's not your position? MAMDANI: There are prisons. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL: So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL: But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI: Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it.

Jorge Bonilla

43,262 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

For the last decade, experts across the political spectrum have argued that the proposals by Donald Trump to restrict migration, demand European allies pay more for their own defense, and hike tariffs on imports were racist and xenophobic. Hillary Clinton in 2016 described Trump’s supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, [and] Islamophobic.” In February 2024, Kamala Harris said Trump’s criticisms of NATO were “dangerous [and] destabilizing” and in May of this year said Trump’s tariffs had created “the greatest man-made economic crisis in modern presidential history.” Few high-profile Democrats are making such claims anymore. Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Trump administration’s deportations, but none are criticizing his closure of the southern border. Few Democrats criticized the June agreement won by Trump that European nations increase their spending on their military security to 5% of GDP. It’s not the case that Democrats have embraced the nationalist MAGA vision, notes author Batya Ungar-Sargon . “Democrats can't figure out how to talk about immigration in a way Americans want to hear,” she said in a new podcast with Public. “They haven't figured it out yet. Most working-class people want no more immigration and much more access to healthcare. You say you think that they might be able to make it there, to accept that Trump was right about some things. I don't see any evidence of that.” But in other situations, Democrats are acting as though they were always in favor of the things Trump has done. “Trump will do something utterly revolutionary and then, rather than saying, ‘We were wrong, and he was right,’ and ‘We mocked him and laughed at him and now we're on our knees begging him for a favor because he was right,’ they act like it was the most obvious thing in the world. They do this on issue after issue, like immigration. Now, suddenly, Democrats are saying, ‘Obviously we have to get the criminals out….’ ‘Of course NATO should be paying 5%.’” And today, no high-profile Democrat has publicly criticized the trade deal Trump announced yesterday, whereby the US will increase the EU tariff rate tenfold, to 15%, while Europe will eliminate tariffs on US goods, which even anti-Trump publications like the Financial Times are calling a clear win for the president. As such, the media and Democrats have undermined their credibility. “Democrats and the liberal media hate Trump so much they’ve committed to this view that tariffs are bad and attacks on consumers,” said Ungar-Sargon. “Both of those are wrong. It's not a tax on consumers. With most of these products, the tariffs are not being passed on to consumers. They're either being eaten by the countries or by corporations, which — Hello! — Leftists are supposed to like. They are refusing to acknowledge that we are raising billions of dollars through these tariffs, which are being used directly to pay down our deficit. We were in a surplus as a government for the first time in decades last month.” The EU deal and the Japan deal before it are historic achievements that signal a new era, she says. “With Japan, we kept our 15% tariff on them and they don't have it on us. So we have reversed what was this unfair, utterly unjust anti-American status quo. They totally folded. We will still be raking in billions of dollars in tariffs off of Japan, but they have opened their markets to our cars, which is like an astonishing feat. It is a game changer in that it creates a symbiotic relationship that cuts China out of the picture and closes some of these potential back doors to China that we have through Mexico and Canada.” Why did Democrats and the media get Trump’s nationalist policies so wrong?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
4:08

For the last decade, experts across the political spectrum have argued that the proposals by Donald Trump to restrict migration, demand European allies pay more for their own defense, and hike tariffs on imports were racist and xenophobic. Hillary Clinton in 2016 described Trump’s supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, [and] Islamophobic.” In February 2024, Kamala Harris said Trump’s criticisms of NATO were “dangerous [and] destabilizing” and in May of this year said Trump’s tariffs had created “the greatest man-made economic crisis in modern presidential history.” Few high-profile Democrats are making such claims anymore. Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Trump administration’s deportations, but none are criticizing his closure of the southern border. Few Democrats criticized the June agreement won by Trump that European nations increase their spending on their military security to 5% of GDP. It’s not the case that Democrats have embraced the nationalist MAGA vision, notes author Batya Ungar-Sargon . “Democrats can't figure out how to talk about immigration in a way Americans want to hear,” she said in a new podcast with Public. “They haven't figured it out yet. Most working-class people want no more immigration and much more access to healthcare. You say you think that they might be able to make it there, to accept that Trump was right about some things. I don't see any evidence of that.” But in other situations, Democrats are acting as though they were always in favor of the things Trump has done. “Trump will do something utterly revolutionary and then, rather than saying, ‘We were wrong, and he was right,’ and ‘We mocked him and laughed at him and now we're on our knees begging him for a favor because he was right,’ they act like it was the most obvious thing in the world. They do this on issue after issue, like immigration. Now, suddenly, Democrats are saying, ‘Obviously we have to get the criminals out….’ ‘Of course NATO should be paying 5%.’” And today, no high-profile Democrat has publicly criticized the trade deal Trump announced yesterday, whereby the US will increase the EU tariff rate tenfold, to 15%, while Europe will eliminate tariffs on US goods, which even anti-Trump publications like the Financial Times are calling a clear win for the president. As such, the media and Democrats have undermined their credibility. “Democrats and the liberal media hate Trump so much they’ve committed to this view that tariffs are bad and attacks on consumers,” said Ungar-Sargon. “Both of those are wrong. It's not a tax on consumers. With most of these products, the tariffs are not being passed on to consumers. They're either being eaten by the countries or by corporations, which — Hello! — Leftists are supposed to like. They are refusing to acknowledge that we are raising billions of dollars through these tariffs, which are being used directly to pay down our deficit. We were in a surplus as a government for the first time in decades last month.” The EU deal and the Japan deal before it are historic achievements that signal a new era, she says. “With Japan, we kept our 15% tariff on them and they don't have it on us. So we have reversed what was this unfair, utterly unjust anti-American status quo. They totally folded. We will still be raking in billions of dollars in tariffs off of Japan, but they have opened their markets to our cars, which is like an astonishing feat. It is a game changer in that it creates a symbiotic relationship that cuts China out of the picture and closes some of these potential back doors to China that we have through Mexico and Canada.” Why did Democrats and the media get Trump’s nationalist policies so wrong?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

84,208 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Islamic Conquest of NYC Impact Across America! "The bad news is that if by some chance they win, then we are looking at the almost active destruction of what we call the United States of America." Today Dinesh D'Souza engaged in a candid discussion with host Josh Hammer on the likely victory of Zohran Mamdani, a Communist-jihad running for office in New York, whom D'Souza views as a stark emblem of the burgeoning "red-green alliance": a convergence of leftist ideologies and Islamist extremism. Just a quarter century after the 9/11 attacks, D'Souza expressed deep concern that New York "might be kind of losing its mind," warning that Mamdani's likely victory could signal a broader, ominous shift across the nation. D'Souza painted a vivid picture of Mamdani as more than just a local figurehead, likening him to an "Islamic victory arch," a term borrowed from his wife to evoke the historical practice of Muslim conquerors erecting triumphal arches atop captured churches or cities, such as Jerusalem. "By which she means the tendency of Muslim conquerors over the centuries to put victory arches on top of churches that they conquered or cities that they conquered," D'Souza explained. D'Souza cautioned that a Mamdani win in New York "seems likely at this point," and it would not remain isolated to progressive strongholds like San Francisco or Los Angeles. Instead, he predicted, this model could proliferate to "blue cities in red states," transforming urban centers in places like Houston and Dallas. "This is not something that would be confined to the San Francisco of the world or the Los Angeles of the world," D'Souza emphasized. "We could see it happening all over the country." Hammer and D'Souza delved deeper into the strategic implications for conservatism, underscoring the urgent need for a robust counterforce. D'Souza advocated for "a very strong and powerful conservative movement, a strong and powerful MAGA movement," arguing that only such a unified front could stem the tide of these ideological encroachments. The discussion highlighted an inherent paradox in the Democratic Party's trajectory: a centrist shift might stabilize the country but render Democrats more competitive, while their current lurch leftward—embracing socialism and alliances with "global jihadis" presents both opportunity and existential risk. As D'Souza articulated, "If the Democratic Party pulls further to the left, if it explicitly embraces socialism, if it starts making common cause with global jihadis, well, on the one hand, we could say that's good news because now we can hang that millstone around their neck and they're going to be less electable on the national level." Yet, he quickly tempered this optimism with a sobering caveat: "The bad news is that if by some chance they win, then we are looking at the almost active destruction of what we call the United States of America." Mamdani, in particular, emerges as a political liability ripe for exploitation. "There are some political gains to be had from Mamdani," D'Souza noted. "He is toxic and he will be toxic in national elections. And we will in fact try to hang him around the neck of the Democratic Party." Still, he lamented the long-term ramifications, concluding that "this kind of thing does not bode well for the country as a whole."Throughout the exchange, D'Souza's insights underscored a call to vigilance, framing the red-green alliance not as a fringe phenomenon but as a scalable threat demanding decisive resistance from the right. As a prolific filmmaker and podcast host, D'Souza continues to dissect these cultural and political fault lines, urging Americans to confront them head-on before they reshape the nation's core.
2:48

The Islamic Conquest of NYC Impact Across America! "The bad news is that if by some chance they win, then we are looking at the almost active destruction of what we call the United States of America." Today Dinesh D'Souza engaged in a candid discussion with host Josh Hammer on the likely victory of Zohran Mamdani, a Communist-jihad running for office in New York, whom D'Souza views as a stark emblem of the burgeoning "red-green alliance": a convergence of leftist ideologies and Islamist extremism. Just a quarter century after the 9/11 attacks, D'Souza expressed deep concern that New York "might be kind of losing its mind," warning that Mamdani's likely victory could signal a broader, ominous shift across the nation. D'Souza painted a vivid picture of Mamdani as more than just a local figurehead, likening him to an "Islamic victory arch," a term borrowed from his wife to evoke the historical practice of Muslim conquerors erecting triumphal arches atop captured churches or cities, such as Jerusalem. "By which she means the tendency of Muslim conquerors over the centuries to put victory arches on top of churches that they conquered or cities that they conquered," D'Souza explained. D'Souza cautioned that a Mamdani win in New York "seems likely at this point," and it would not remain isolated to progressive strongholds like San Francisco or Los Angeles. Instead, he predicted, this model could proliferate to "blue cities in red states," transforming urban centers in places like Houston and Dallas. "This is not something that would be confined to the San Francisco of the world or the Los Angeles of the world," D'Souza emphasized. "We could see it happening all over the country." Hammer and D'Souza delved deeper into the strategic implications for conservatism, underscoring the urgent need for a robust counterforce. D'Souza advocated for "a very strong and powerful conservative movement, a strong and powerful MAGA movement," arguing that only such a unified front could stem the tide of these ideological encroachments. The discussion highlighted an inherent paradox in the Democratic Party's trajectory: a centrist shift might stabilize the country but render Democrats more competitive, while their current lurch leftward—embracing socialism and alliances with "global jihadis" presents both opportunity and existential risk. As D'Souza articulated, "If the Democratic Party pulls further to the left, if it explicitly embraces socialism, if it starts making common cause with global jihadis, well, on the one hand, we could say that's good news because now we can hang that millstone around their neck and they're going to be less electable on the national level." Yet, he quickly tempered this optimism with a sobering caveat: "The bad news is that if by some chance they win, then we are looking at the almost active destruction of what we call the United States of America." Mamdani, in particular, emerges as a political liability ripe for exploitation. "There are some political gains to be had from Mamdani," D'Souza noted. "He is toxic and he will be toxic in national elections. And we will in fact try to hang him around the neck of the Democratic Party." Still, he lamented the long-term ramifications, concluding that "this kind of thing does not bode well for the country as a whole."Throughout the exchange, D'Souza's insights underscored a call to vigilance, framing the red-green alliance not as a fringe phenomenon but as a scalable threat demanding decisive resistance from the right. As a prolific filmmaker and podcast host, D'Souza continues to dissect these cultural and political fault lines, urging Americans to confront them head-on before they reshape the nation's core.

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

34,893 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

EXCLUSIVE. Who is funding the anti-Trump #NoKings protests? It's 198 companies with $2.1 billion in revenues. WATCH and READ to learn. I wanted to hear it straight from the source—so on Tuesday, I tuned into a live town hall with AFT’s Randi Weingarten 🇺🇸 🖇️👩‍🎓📚, Reverend Al Sharpton Sharpton from National Action Network, and @LeahGreenbergB of Indivisible Guide ❌👑. They proudly laid out the nationwide anti-Trump protests they’ve planned for this Saturday, June 14, under the banner #NoKings. I recorded the town hall—and I’m sharing the video with you here. They admit they’re organizing these protests. And they’re not grassroots players. These are top-tier Democratic Party operatives, with enormous influence and funding. But when I started following the money behind the full list of protest "partners," I realized that these three are just the tip of the iceberg. According to research by the Pearl Project—a nonprofit journalism initiative I lead, named in honor of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl—the 198 organizations that say they are organizers of the #NoKings protests are not just grassroots citizens. They're all aligned with the Democratic Party, and many claim to be “nonpartisan” despite acting as political operatives. Together, these groups report more than $2.1 BILLION in total annual revenue. 🔹 Read and share my full breakdown Fox News Opinion Fox News: 🔹 Explore the database here: (Enjoy, DataRepublican (small r), and share with me any recommendations to make this better!) Why follow the money? Because from Los Angeles to D.C., we’ve seen these protests escalate into violence—and we must understand who’s behind them to understand why. These aren’t mom-and-pop protestors. This is an elite class of political influencers using nonprofit structures to operate like a shadow government. Just look at their annual salaries: 🔹Randi Weingarten: $474,951 🔹Al Sharpton: $648,786 🔹ACLU’s Anthony Romero: $1.3 million Fairfax County citizen Lissa Kenkel 🟦 Nurit 🇮🇱🇺🇸, who helped me cull the financial data, puts it well: “The very people bankrolling and leading these so-called grassroots movements are the crowned royalty of the nonprofit world, sitting in their air-conditioned offices, collecting six-figure salaries, while encouraging the common folk to torch their own cities in the name of ‘saving democracy.’" "It’s manufactured chaos, sold as revolution, by people who wouldn’t last five minutes in the rubble they’re creating.” Here’s the #NoKings protest funding breakdown, and I'll list all the groups in a thread: 🔹 3 official entities of the Democratic National Committee: College Democrats of America, Manhattan Young Democrats and Westside Democratic Headquarters in Norwalk, Calif. 🔹 16 Democratic political action committees, or PACs, including Friends of Bernie Sanders, Progressive Democrats of America and Vote Blue — with about $19.4 million in spending power for Democratic political candidates. 🔹 18 Democratic-aligned 501(c)(5) labor unions, including lead organizer, the American Federation of Teachers, along with the United Auto Workers, the Communications Workers of America and the National Treasury Employees Union, with a total of $1.1 billion in revenues, most of their political contributions going to Democratic candidates. 🔹 76 Democratic-aligned 501(c)(4) political nonprofits, including the ACLU, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Working Families Organization Inc., Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and lead organizer Indivisible Project, all with another $734.3 million in revenues. 🔹47 501(c)(3) nonprofits, legally restricted from partisan advocacy, including innocuous-sounding groups like the Unitarian Universalist Association, Accountable US and the American Humanist Association, with $286.7 million to the cause. 🔹38 additional Democratic-aligned groups, including Michigan Resistance Coalition, Families Over Billionaires, 50501, Tax the Greedy Billionaire and Mennonite Action, with undisclosed financials. TOTAL: 198 groups with $2.1 billion in annual revenue behind #NoKings But this isn’t just about June 14. Many of the same groups also organized earlier protests like #TeslaTakedown, #HandsOff, and #MayDay. In those protests, we identified 267 more organizations with a combined $1.3 billion in annual revenue. That brings the total to: 🔹 475 organizations 🔹 $3.4 billion in annual budgets 🔹 All aligned against Trump’s movement And we’re not done. My database includes another 1,500+ organizations—many involved in anti-Israel protests, anti-ICE demonstrations, and other coordinated mass mobilizations. Stay tuned for those results. This is not a grassroots movement. It’s a billion-dollar machine dressed in protest gear. If you want to help turn this database into a user-friendly public app, please contact me at asra@asranomani.com, DM me, or visit to support this work. Our vision at the Pearl Project? A Carvana for the protest industry—a searchable, transparent tool that helps moms, cops, citizens, and journalists understand who’s behind the chaos in our streets, using the best practices of AI, natural language processing and gumshoe reporting. Thank you for your support!
3:13

EXCLUSIVE. Who is funding the anti-Trump #NoKings protests? It's 198 companies with $2.1 billion in revenues. WATCH and READ to learn. I wanted to hear it straight from the source—so on Tuesday, I tuned into a live town hall with AFT’s Randi Weingarten 🇺🇸 🖇️👩‍🎓📚, Reverend Al Sharpton Sharpton from National Action Network, and @LeahGreenbergB of Indivisible Guide ❌👑. They proudly laid out the nationwide anti-Trump protests they’ve planned for this Saturday, June 14, under the banner #NoKings. I recorded the town hall—and I’m sharing the video with you here. They admit they’re organizing these protests. And they’re not grassroots players. These are top-tier Democratic Party operatives, with enormous influence and funding. But when I started following the money behind the full list of protest "partners," I realized that these three are just the tip of the iceberg. According to research by the Pearl Project—a nonprofit journalism initiative I lead, named in honor of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl—the 198 organizations that say they are organizers of the #NoKings protests are not just grassroots citizens. They're all aligned with the Democratic Party, and many claim to be “nonpartisan” despite acting as political operatives. Together, these groups report more than $2.1 BILLION in total annual revenue. 🔹 Read and share my full breakdown Fox News Opinion Fox News: 🔹 Explore the database here: (Enjoy, DataRepublican (small r), and share with me any recommendations to make this better!) Why follow the money? Because from Los Angeles to D.C., we’ve seen these protests escalate into violence—and we must understand who’s behind them to understand why. These aren’t mom-and-pop protestors. This is an elite class of political influencers using nonprofit structures to operate like a shadow government. Just look at their annual salaries: 🔹Randi Weingarten: $474,951 🔹Al Sharpton: $648,786 🔹ACLU’s Anthony Romero: $1.3 million Fairfax County citizen Lissa Kenkel 🟦 Nurit 🇮🇱🇺🇸, who helped me cull the financial data, puts it well: “The very people bankrolling and leading these so-called grassroots movements are the crowned royalty of the nonprofit world, sitting in their air-conditioned offices, collecting six-figure salaries, while encouraging the common folk to torch their own cities in the name of ‘saving democracy.’" "It’s manufactured chaos, sold as revolution, by people who wouldn’t last five minutes in the rubble they’re creating.” Here’s the #NoKings protest funding breakdown, and I'll list all the groups in a thread: 🔹 3 official entities of the Democratic National Committee: College Democrats of America, Manhattan Young Democrats and Westside Democratic Headquarters in Norwalk, Calif. 🔹 16 Democratic political action committees, or PACs, including Friends of Bernie Sanders, Progressive Democrats of America and Vote Blue — with about $19.4 million in spending power for Democratic political candidates. 🔹 18 Democratic-aligned 501(c)(5) labor unions, including lead organizer, the American Federation of Teachers, along with the United Auto Workers, the Communications Workers of America and the National Treasury Employees Union, with a total of $1.1 billion in revenues, most of their political contributions going to Democratic candidates. 🔹 76 Democratic-aligned 501(c)(4) political nonprofits, including the ACLU, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Working Families Organization Inc., Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and lead organizer Indivisible Project, all with another $734.3 million in revenues. 🔹47 501(c)(3) nonprofits, legally restricted from partisan advocacy, including innocuous-sounding groups like the Unitarian Universalist Association, Accountable US and the American Humanist Association, with $286.7 million to the cause. 🔹38 additional Democratic-aligned groups, including Michigan Resistance Coalition, Families Over Billionaires, 50501, Tax the Greedy Billionaire and Mennonite Action, with undisclosed financials. TOTAL: 198 groups with $2.1 billion in annual revenue behind #NoKings But this isn’t just about June 14. Many of the same groups also organized earlier protests like #TeslaTakedown, #HandsOff, and #MayDay. In those protests, we identified 267 more organizations with a combined $1.3 billion in annual revenue. That brings the total to: 🔹 475 organizations 🔹 $3.4 billion in annual budgets 🔹 All aligned against Trump’s movement And we’re not done. My database includes another 1,500+ organizations—many involved in anti-Israel protests, anti-ICE demonstrations, and other coordinated mass mobilizations. Stay tuned for those results. This is not a grassroots movement. It’s a billion-dollar machine dressed in protest gear. If you want to help turn this database into a user-friendly public app, please contact me at [email protected], DM me, or visit to support this work. Our vision at the Pearl Project? A Carvana for the protest industry—a searchable, transparent tool that helps moms, cops, citizens, and journalists understand who’s behind the chaos in our streets, using the best practices of AI, natural language processing and gumshoe reporting. Thank you for your support!

Asra Nomani

1,811,583 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Black Simps & Democrats Liberalism is a female trait...so why would a black man be loyal to the liberals? The answer is simple...SIMPIN! Or he's gay. Those are the only two types of black men who vote democratic. Black men who vote for democrats are simply following behind misled black women. They are men without a backbone. The truth is...for the sake of keeping black women happy, black men align with the democratic party. Some of them even feign democrat just to get close to a woman. They have no aura, charisma, and don't take their APEX. So they have to resort to pandering to be around women. They'd rather be a woman's pet than her leader. And they always turn out to be weirdos. While some do it for acceptance, others do it out of coercion and threat. Black women have so much power in America that when they unite, they can ruin your life with only a social media account. Black men have been punked by their own women. Held hostage to the democratic party out of fear. Fear of being labeled a coon or a sellout. Fear of being blackballed. They don't even let black men on the black podcast circuit if they don't align with the democrats. It's that bad. Black podcasts are in the business of making money, and advertisers don't pay black republicans like they do black democrats. Doing so could get your PODCAST blackballed. It's as if black identity is directly tethered and bound to the democratic party. Now, THAT, is some good brainwashing. Do you even have leverage if one party knows that they can count on your vote? Why should they do anything for you when they know you won't defect to the enemy? This is common sense in negotiations, but women don't think; they feel. And all of black politics is about THE FEELS. They didn't like something someone said or how they said it...BLAH BLAH BLAH. But rarely do they examine without bias. The ignorance of the black vote is held in place by black political grifters who get direct checks from the democratic apparatus to lie and deceive our people...to make them believe they only have one option. But what happened after Biden got elected? Black pundits and influencers complained that the job opportunities and checks stopped. Why? Because the job is done and they don't need your black ass anymore. You were a DEI hire! Remember when Ice Cube got canceled because he wanted to meet with Trump after the Democrats didn't respond to his requests, so he quit politics. Could a guy with "Killer" in his rap name get booked if he talked to Trump? Or would the ATL boule collectively cancel him? Now, the thing the black man fears most is the black woman. But it's more like FOMO. He practically begs for her approval. But what if she views you as a tool and not someone to be respected? When you stand 10 toes down, you get respect. And at this point, it's obvious that our women do not respect us. They don't respect us because we are cowards. We're afraid to challenge them. And until we do, our people will never be free.
4:28

Black Simps & Democrats Liberalism is a female trait...so why would a black man be loyal to the liberals? The answer is simple...SIMPIN! Or he's gay. Those are the only two types of black men who vote democratic. Black men who vote for democrats are simply following behind misled black women. They are men without a backbone. The truth is...for the sake of keeping black women happy, black men align with the democratic party. Some of them even feign democrat just to get close to a woman. They have no aura, charisma, and don't take their APEX. So they have to resort to pandering to be around women. They'd rather be a woman's pet than her leader. And they always turn out to be weirdos. While some do it for acceptance, others do it out of coercion and threat. Black women have so much power in America that when they unite, they can ruin your life with only a social media account. Black men have been punked by their own women. Held hostage to the democratic party out of fear. Fear of being labeled a coon or a sellout. Fear of being blackballed. They don't even let black men on the black podcast circuit if they don't align with the democrats. It's that bad. Black podcasts are in the business of making money, and advertisers don't pay black republicans like they do black democrats. Doing so could get your PODCAST blackballed. It's as if black identity is directly tethered and bound to the democratic party. Now, THAT, is some good brainwashing. Do you even have leverage if one party knows that they can count on your vote? Why should they do anything for you when they know you won't defect to the enemy? This is common sense in negotiations, but women don't think; they feel. And all of black politics is about THE FEELS. They didn't like something someone said or how they said it...BLAH BLAH BLAH. But rarely do they examine without bias. The ignorance of the black vote is held in place by black political grifters who get direct checks from the democratic apparatus to lie and deceive our people...to make them believe they only have one option. But what happened after Biden got elected? Black pundits and influencers complained that the job opportunities and checks stopped. Why? Because the job is done and they don't need your black ass anymore. You were a DEI hire! Remember when Ice Cube got canceled because he wanted to meet with Trump after the Democrats didn't respond to his requests, so he quit politics. Could a guy with "Killer" in his rap name get booked if he talked to Trump? Or would the ATL boule collectively cancel him? Now, the thing the black man fears most is the black woman. But it's more like FOMO. He practically begs for her approval. But what if she views you as a tool and not someone to be respected? When you stand 10 toes down, you get respect. And at this point, it's obvious that our women do not respect us. They don't respect us because we are cowards. We're afraid to challenge them. And until we do, our people will never be free.

Hotep Jesus

46,987 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"Our budget situation is grim, but it soon may become dire." These are not my words, but the words of our governor from a foreboding press conference he gave today (watch the entire thing, if you can stomach it). We learned that the budget hole created by the Democrats was not 12 billion dollars, as we feared, but a shocking *16* billion dollars. Just for context, California, which many consider the worst run state in the Union, has a budget deficit of 30 billion dollars. But California has a much larger population than Washington. If we adjust for population, our deficit is the equivalent of almost 80 (EIGHTY) billion dollars 😳 Before you let that bleak fact sink in, consider also our state's rainy day fund is less than 10% of our state's budget, a fact the governor bemoaned, stating that "we're one of just four states in the entire country with Reserves at 10% or less of our annual budget" So what happened? Was there a massive emergency that required us to spend the rainy day fund? Have we gone through a deep recession in the last few years that reduced revenues significantly? How is that Florida has no income tax but is able to RETURN 1billion dollars back to the Federal government, yet Washington seems on the edge of collapse if a single federal dollar does not come our way? The answer is simple my friends. Tax revenues have grown consistently in Washington for over a decade. Last budget cycle the state had a budget surplus of 12 billion, and despite piling on more taxes on the residents of Washington, including a business-destroying capital gains tax, the legislature has managed to swing that surplus to one of the largest deficits in the country. "So if revenues continued to increase how on earth do we have such a huge hole?" you are wondering. It's because our Democratic controlled legislature and past governor, spent money like drunken sailors. Any responsible family or business would quickly recognize the recklessness of such spending and cut back to live, or do business, within their means. Instead of doing this, the Washington legislature proposed a series of harebrained new taxes, including an unprecedented wealth tax. Such taxes have been tried many times around the world and have always failed to raise revenue, because the people the tax is intended to loot simply leave. Our governor flatly rejected the budget proposals from both the Democratic House and Democratic Senate and this has already received much attention, with some suggesting that Bob Ferguson is being true to his inaugural speech: he's going to govern from the center as a unifying moderate. The truth is much darker, however. Ferguson only rejected the wealth tax proposals because he did not believe they would survive a legal test. “We cannot rely on a revenue source with a real possibility of being overturned by the courts,” Ferguson said. He did leave open the possibility of a smaller wealth tax that raises no more than $100 million, just to test the legality of the proposal. A trial balloon to see how far Washington Democrats can take their extremist tax policies. What we are witnessing is the complete implosion of good governance in Washington state. The situation may get even worse as Federal funds may be cutoff with our governor deciding an ideological war with the federal government is a more important priority than solving our own state's urgent problems (like 70% of our 8th graders not being proficient in math.) The Democratic party controls the governorship, has a super majority in both houses, and controls the state supreme court, which is packed with far-left judges. The slow-motion catastrophe we are witnessing is entirely on them, and unless the people of Washington wake up and decide they've had enough of extremist policies, we are, as our governor observed, in a very dire situation.
36:25

"Our budget situation is grim, but it soon may become dire." These are not my words, but the words of our governor from a foreboding press conference he gave today (watch the entire thing, if you can stomach it). We learned that the budget hole created by the Democrats was not 12 billion dollars, as we feared, but a shocking *16* billion dollars. Just for context, California, which many consider the worst run state in the Union, has a budget deficit of 30 billion dollars. But California has a much larger population than Washington. If we adjust for population, our deficit is the equivalent of almost 80 (EIGHTY) billion dollars 😳 Before you let that bleak fact sink in, consider also our state's rainy day fund is less than 10% of our state's budget, a fact the governor bemoaned, stating that "we're one of just four states in the entire country with Reserves at 10% or less of our annual budget" So what happened? Was there a massive emergency that required us to spend the rainy day fund? Have we gone through a deep recession in the last few years that reduced revenues significantly? How is that Florida has no income tax but is able to RETURN 1billion dollars back to the Federal government, yet Washington seems on the edge of collapse if a single federal dollar does not come our way? The answer is simple my friends. Tax revenues have grown consistently in Washington for over a decade. Last budget cycle the state had a budget surplus of 12 billion, and despite piling on more taxes on the residents of Washington, including a business-destroying capital gains tax, the legislature has managed to swing that surplus to one of the largest deficits in the country. "So if revenues continued to increase how on earth do we have such a huge hole?" you are wondering. It's because our Democratic controlled legislature and past governor, spent money like drunken sailors. Any responsible family or business would quickly recognize the recklessness of such spending and cut back to live, or do business, within their means. Instead of doing this, the Washington legislature proposed a series of harebrained new taxes, including an unprecedented wealth tax. Such taxes have been tried many times around the world and have always failed to raise revenue, because the people the tax is intended to loot simply leave. Our governor flatly rejected the budget proposals from both the Democratic House and Democratic Senate and this has already received much attention, with some suggesting that Bob Ferguson is being true to his inaugural speech: he's going to govern from the center as a unifying moderate. The truth is much darker, however. Ferguson only rejected the wealth tax proposals because he did not believe they would survive a legal test. “We cannot rely on a revenue source with a real possibility of being overturned by the courts,” Ferguson said. He did leave open the possibility of a smaller wealth tax that raises no more than $100 million, just to test the legality of the proposal. A trial balloon to see how far Washington Democrats can take their extremist tax policies. What we are witnessing is the complete implosion of good governance in Washington state. The situation may get even worse as Federal funds may be cutoff with our governor deciding an ideological war with the federal government is a more important priority than solving our own state's urgent problems (like 70% of our 8th graders not being proficient in math.) The Democratic party controls the governorship, has a super majority in both houses, and controls the state supreme court, which is packed with far-left judges. The slow-motion catastrophe we are witnessing is entirely on them, and unless the people of Washington wake up and decide they've had enough of extremist policies, we are, as our governor observed, in a very dire situation.

Vijay

51,471 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It’s no secret that I see Pete Buttigieg as a future president. As a short film producer, I spend hours studying politicians on both sides of the aisle. I cut up and dissect their speeches and interviews. I study their writing and often read books about them and by them. Based on my pragmatic assessment of the political players, it helps shape my thinking of how they play a role in politics for today and the future. Democrats are quite literally lost right now. With the exception of a few voices, it appears the majority of them, despite being elected representatives, seem to be doing anything but represent, and that deeply saddens me. I can assure you, self pity while residing in the political wilderness is not a good look. Great political leaders shine in a hostile environment and right now, Democrats are hardly generating enough light to illuminate a basement. I’ve said many times, Dems have a deep bench of talent, yet they are wandering around the political landscape like a shell shocked soldier on Anzio beach. They are in desperate need of effective leadership. These are times that demand an unambiguous vision. Beyond that, they need someone who can communicate and articulate a proposition for a better tomorrow. For an America in which no family gets left behind. Now before you tell me a gay man would never be elected president. I would point you to think back to 2008 and ask if you believed a black man could achieve the same? Right now, Democrats have handed the House, the Senate, the White House and the popular vote to a convicted criminal and adjudicated rapist. So how did traditional thinking go in November? This is a time to be bold and forward thinking. It’s a sad reality that democratic values are now perceived to be toxic to a demographic that has abandoned the Democratic Party. I would simply suggest, no leader can command an army in the modern political battle-space, without being an outstanding communicator and Pete is that man. I hear many of my detractors often say no, but never do they put forward an alternative proposition and candidate. Because so few are stepping up, it’s very difficult to suggest a first team. Until they show us who they are, how can we as activists get behind them? What are we selling? At the moment, the Dem activist space is not about a vision, it’s about attacking fascism. However cathartic that might be, it doesn’t win elections. Right now, the only person who can beat Trump is Trump. There really is no other proposition on the table. On the upside, I do believe the Trump train will leave the tracks. His deeply damaging approach to economic and foreign policy, will definitely not end well. Tariffs are a self inflicted gaping wound. If no tourniquet is applied, it will cause his Administration to bleed out. The bond markets are already firing warning shots which he is ignoring. His narcissism outwardly appears to not allow him to believe that foreign governments do not pay a cent of the tariffs. When you invent an agency for ‘External Taxation’ as a front for a consumer tax on the very people who voted you into power, it demonstrates either a breathtaking level of incompetence, or an act of cynical premeditated deception. Trump’s one hour 40 minutes comedy special last night, was a rambling self congratulatory litany of lies and deceit. Were it not so terrifyingly dangerous, he would receive a comedy award. On the second day of the markets screaming ‘Stop hurting us’, he appears in denial of the potential economic tsunami soon to hit every middle and low income family in America. My friends, we have what seems like an insurmountable task ahead of us. It would be easy to just give up and say ‘I’ll just take care of myself and others are not my problem. But that would mirror exactly who this monster is. I know we are much better than that. This is why people like Pete Buttigieg are important in our fight to liberate America from this stage four cancer that is Donald Trump.
0:55

It’s no secret that I see Pete Buttigieg as a future president. As a short film producer, I spend hours studying politicians on both sides of the aisle. I cut up and dissect their speeches and interviews. I study their writing and often read books about them and by them. Based on my pragmatic assessment of the political players, it helps shape my thinking of how they play a role in politics for today and the future. Democrats are quite literally lost right now. With the exception of a few voices, it appears the majority of them, despite being elected representatives, seem to be doing anything but represent, and that deeply saddens me. I can assure you, self pity while residing in the political wilderness is not a good look. Great political leaders shine in a hostile environment and right now, Democrats are hardly generating enough light to illuminate a basement. I’ve said many times, Dems have a deep bench of talent, yet they are wandering around the political landscape like a shell shocked soldier on Anzio beach. They are in desperate need of effective leadership. These are times that demand an unambiguous vision. Beyond that, they need someone who can communicate and articulate a proposition for a better tomorrow. For an America in which no family gets left behind. Now before you tell me a gay man would never be elected president. I would point you to think back to 2008 and ask if you believed a black man could achieve the same? Right now, Democrats have handed the House, the Senate, the White House and the popular vote to a convicted criminal and adjudicated rapist. So how did traditional thinking go in November? This is a time to be bold and forward thinking. It’s a sad reality that democratic values are now perceived to be toxic to a demographic that has abandoned the Democratic Party. I would simply suggest, no leader can command an army in the modern political battle-space, without being an outstanding communicator and Pete is that man. I hear many of my detractors often say no, but never do they put forward an alternative proposition and candidate. Because so few are stepping up, it’s very difficult to suggest a first team. Until they show us who they are, how can we as activists get behind them? What are we selling? At the moment, the Dem activist space is not about a vision, it’s about attacking fascism. However cathartic that might be, it doesn’t win elections. Right now, the only person who can beat Trump is Trump. There really is no other proposition on the table. On the upside, I do believe the Trump train will leave the tracks. His deeply damaging approach to economic and foreign policy, will definitely not end well. Tariffs are a self inflicted gaping wound. If no tourniquet is applied, it will cause his Administration to bleed out. The bond markets are already firing warning shots which he is ignoring. His narcissism outwardly appears to not allow him to believe that foreign governments do not pay a cent of the tariffs. When you invent an agency for ‘External Taxation’ as a front for a consumer tax on the very people who voted you into power, it demonstrates either a breathtaking level of incompetence, or an act of cynical premeditated deception. Trump’s one hour 40 minutes comedy special last night, was a rambling self congratulatory litany of lies and deceit. Were it not so terrifyingly dangerous, he would receive a comedy award. On the second day of the markets screaming ‘Stop hurting us’, he appears in denial of the potential economic tsunami soon to hit every middle and low income family in America. My friends, we have what seems like an insurmountable task ahead of us. It would be easy to just give up and say ‘I’ll just take care of myself and others are not my problem. But that would mirror exactly who this monster is. I know we are much better than that. This is why people like Pete Buttigieg are important in our fight to liberate America from this stage four cancer that is Donald Trump.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

62,524 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Ever since Donald Trump emerged as a presidential contender nine years ago, America’s most esteemed scholars and journalists have argued that he was violating democratic norms. Trump, they said, was ignoring the stabilizing, unwritten rules and values of American politics. This was evident in his vulgar language, vilification of immigrants, criticisms of the press, lack of cooperation with the intelligence community, and refusal to accept the 2020 election results. But the Democrats’ relentless effort to imprison Trump has undermined the rule of law, faith in the criminal justice system, and democratic norms more than anything Trump has ever done. According to multiple credible sources, President Barack Obama’s Director of the CIA, in the summer of 2016, illegally mobilized foreign spy agencies to target 26 Trump advisors to claim, falsely, that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin controlled Trump. Then, in January 2017, after Trump had been elected but before he took office, the U.S. Intelligence Community falsely claimedthat Putin had favored the election of Trump when, in reality, the intelligence showed that Putin favored Hillary Clinton. After taking office, current and former US government intelligence operatives and Democrats falsely claimed that Russian disinformation on social media had resulted in Trump’s election and worked with the Department of Homeland Security to censor social media platforms. None of this is a defense of Trump. He uses extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, particularly about immigrants, that I strongly disagree with. He was wrong to deny and try to change the results of the 2020 elections. And I think people are right to fear that, if he were re-elected, he could weaponize the government to exact revenge on his political enemies. But that fear is further proof of the danger of Democrats weaponizing the government. Democrats went far beyond anything Trump did when it came to abusing their political power. After the Supreme Court ruled that Biden could not legally forgive student loans, he did so anyway. By contrast, Trump did not violate any Supreme Court rulings. It’s true that Trump has criticized judges, journalists, and intelligence agencies, but why is that a bad thing? We have a separation of powers for a reason. As for the intelligence agencies, they broke the law multiple times in targeting Trump. As for the news media, they deserve criticism for losing the public’s trust after lying about everything from the origins of Covid to the efficacy of the Covid vaccine to the Russiagate hoax. Or consider the prosecution of Trump for supposedly taking and holding onto classified documents. It’s not obvious that Trump put national security in greater danger than Biden. There is evidence that the Biden administration worked with the National Archives and Department of Justice to demand the confrontation. And there is the possibility that the raid was motivated in order to recover documents related to the Russiagate hoax. And the abuse of the court system by Democrats in an effort to incarcerate Trump and keep him off the ballot is far more of a violation of norms than anything Trump ever dreamed of. The recent felony conviction of Trump for falsifying business records relies on the idea that he misclassified campaign payments. Democrats say, “Nobody is above the law,” which is true. But Democrats are wrong to ignore the fact that prosecutors are constantly making choices about whether to pursue certain cases over others. Indeed, Hillary Clinton was found to have mislabeled payments related to the Steele dossier during her 2016 campaign, and she was never prosecuted. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) merely fined Clinton and the Democratic National Convention (DNC)) for this misconduct. In fact, everything about New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recent conviction of Trump is abnormal. For starters, Bragg campaigned on the promise to prosecute Trump. He turned the misdemeanor of falsifying business records into a felony by tying it to election interference. The case was so weak that both the Department of Justice and the former DA refused to prosecute it. The judge in the case donated to Biden and his daughter is the president of a Democratic Party fundraising firm whose clients include Rep. Adam Schiff, who led the Russiagate hoax. The judge told the jurors that they didn’t need to agree on what crime Trump intended to commit by falsifying records. The case confused even legal experts. “At the start of closing arguments,” wrote legal scholar Jonathan Turley, “most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records.” Even CNN’s top legal scholar, Elie Honig, who is also a former colleague of Bragg, said the trial violated norms. “Prosecutors Got Trump But They Contorted the Law,” explained Honig in New York Magazine. “The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly entirely unprecedented,” he said. “In fact, no state prosecutor— in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone for anything. None. Ever.” All of this is a radical change from the ideals of the Democratic Party just a few years ago. In the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats fought to restrict and reform the intelligence community so that it would stop spying on American citizens for their political activities. Democrats defended a high standard for free speech, including the right of Nazis to march through neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors. And since the 1990s, Democrats have raised the alarm about the abuse of prosecutorial power and elected progressive prosecutors, including Bragg, to reduce prosecutions of nonviolent crimes. Today, Democrats are pioneering new ways to weaponize the government....
6:31

Ever since Donald Trump emerged as a presidential contender nine years ago, America’s most esteemed scholars and journalists have argued that he was violating democratic norms. Trump, they said, was ignoring the stabilizing, unwritten rules and values of American politics. This was evident in his vulgar language, vilification of immigrants, criticisms of the press, lack of cooperation with the intelligence community, and refusal to accept the 2020 election results. But the Democrats’ relentless effort to imprison Trump has undermined the rule of law, faith in the criminal justice system, and democratic norms more than anything Trump has ever done. According to multiple credible sources, President Barack Obama’s Director of the CIA, in the summer of 2016, illegally mobilized foreign spy agencies to target 26 Trump advisors to claim, falsely, that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin controlled Trump. Then, in January 2017, after Trump had been elected but before he took office, the U.S. Intelligence Community falsely claimedthat Putin had favored the election of Trump when, in reality, the intelligence showed that Putin favored Hillary Clinton. After taking office, current and former US government intelligence operatives and Democrats falsely claimed that Russian disinformation on social media had resulted in Trump’s election and worked with the Department of Homeland Security to censor social media platforms. None of this is a defense of Trump. He uses extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, particularly about immigrants, that I strongly disagree with. He was wrong to deny and try to change the results of the 2020 elections. And I think people are right to fear that, if he were re-elected, he could weaponize the government to exact revenge on his political enemies. But that fear is further proof of the danger of Democrats weaponizing the government. Democrats went far beyond anything Trump did when it came to abusing their political power. After the Supreme Court ruled that Biden could not legally forgive student loans, he did so anyway. By contrast, Trump did not violate any Supreme Court rulings. It’s true that Trump has criticized judges, journalists, and intelligence agencies, but why is that a bad thing? We have a separation of powers for a reason. As for the intelligence agencies, they broke the law multiple times in targeting Trump. As for the news media, they deserve criticism for losing the public’s trust after lying about everything from the origins of Covid to the efficacy of the Covid vaccine to the Russiagate hoax. Or consider the prosecution of Trump for supposedly taking and holding onto classified documents. It’s not obvious that Trump put national security in greater danger than Biden. There is evidence that the Biden administration worked with the National Archives and Department of Justice to demand the confrontation. And there is the possibility that the raid was motivated in order to recover documents related to the Russiagate hoax. And the abuse of the court system by Democrats in an effort to incarcerate Trump and keep him off the ballot is far more of a violation of norms than anything Trump ever dreamed of. The recent felony conviction of Trump for falsifying business records relies on the idea that he misclassified campaign payments. Democrats say, “Nobody is above the law,” which is true. But Democrats are wrong to ignore the fact that prosecutors are constantly making choices about whether to pursue certain cases over others. Indeed, Hillary Clinton was found to have mislabeled payments related to the Steele dossier during her 2016 campaign, and she was never prosecuted. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) merely fined Clinton and the Democratic National Convention (DNC)) for this misconduct. In fact, everything about New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recent conviction of Trump is abnormal. For starters, Bragg campaigned on the promise to prosecute Trump. He turned the misdemeanor of falsifying business records into a felony by tying it to election interference. The case was so weak that both the Department of Justice and the former DA refused to prosecute it. The judge in the case donated to Biden and his daughter is the president of a Democratic Party fundraising firm whose clients include Rep. Adam Schiff, who led the Russiagate hoax. The judge told the jurors that they didn’t need to agree on what crime Trump intended to commit by falsifying records. The case confused even legal experts. “At the start of closing arguments,” wrote legal scholar Jonathan Turley, “most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records.” Even CNN’s top legal scholar, Elie Honig, who is also a former colleague of Bragg, said the trial violated norms. “Prosecutors Got Trump But They Contorted the Law,” explained Honig in New York Magazine. “The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly entirely unprecedented,” he said. “In fact, no state prosecutor— in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone for anything. None. Ever.” All of this is a radical change from the ideals of the Democratic Party just a few years ago. In the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats fought to restrict and reform the intelligence community so that it would stop spying on American citizens for their political activities. Democrats defended a high standard for free speech, including the right of Nazis to march through neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors. And since the 1990s, Democrats have raised the alarm about the abuse of prosecutorial power and elected progressive prosecutors, including Bragg, to reduce prosecutions of nonviolent crimes. Today, Democrats are pioneering new ways to weaponize the government....

Michael Shellenberger

1,603,595 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The great Dr Jordan B Peterson praises my work exposing corruption in elite academia, but expresses concern, even opposition, to my work reforming New College of Florida. He's wrong. Let me explain why. First, Peterson implies that "political control" over universities is illegitimate. It is not. New College of Florida is a public university, and public universities are the creation of the state—that is, they belong to and should reflect the values of the public. In Florida, voters elect their representatives, who, in turn, charter, fund, and govern the public universities. The takeover of New College was, in this manner, an expression of the democratic will, moving the public university in line with the wishes of the public. It was always this way. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the charter for the University of Virginia, the first public university in the United States, he explicitly stated that the university should promote the virtues of the broader society and that the ultimate authority rested with the legislature. The university's leadership, he insisted, "should at all times conform to such laws as the legislature may from time to time think proper to enact for their government, and the said University should, in all things, and at all times be subject to the controul of the legislature." As Jefferson might remind Peterson, the alternative to "political control" of the universities is not enlightened self-government but bureaucratic rule. The laissez-faire attitude of legislators, who, in recent decades, ceded control of the public universities to unelected administrators and faculty departments, created the precise problem we are now trying to resolve. It is not a betrayal of classical liberal values to insist that political leaders, rather than permanent bureaucrats, govern public institutions—it is, rather, a restoration of those values. Second, Peterson is concerned that creating a "new conservative university," as he characterizes New College of Florida, could represent "an equivalent error on the more conservative side" to that made by “radical leftist universities." No: The equivalent error would be to propose that conservatives rule all of the universities, systemically exclude progressives from faculty positions, and use academia as a vehicle for political activism. We have done nothing of the sort. We have, instead, created a balanced faculty, fostered debate, and revived classical liberal principles at the state’s smallest university—not an equivalence in degree or in kind. I would interrogate Peterson's position a step further. Does he believe that the status quo of left-wing domination is somehow more legitimate than our reforms? Does he think that Florida voters, who elected Governor DeSantis in a landslide and whose taxes bankroll public universities, should be denied a public education system that represents their values? Why should they be compelled to subsidize DEI and gender studies rather than the classical liberal arts? Third, Peterson warns that the ideological should not permeate the educational. On this, I would agree, but with a twist: America’s public universities are too ideological, but insufficiently political. In other words, we should absolutely reject the status quo of activist pseudo-scholarship and cheap left-wing partisanship, but we should remember—and embrace—the fact that public universities are inherently political institutions, with a duty to promote citizenship, cultivate virtue, and pursue the public good. It is not by accident that Aristotle's theory of education appears in the final book of the Politics. Jefferson concurred. The imperative of the public university, he insisted, is to educate the young, and, in particular, the leadership class, into the political regime. He envisioned America’s universities as a place "[t]o form the statesmen, legislators, and judges on whom public prosperity and individual happiness are so much to depend." And he saw clearly that this would require strong leadership, able to maintain the republican character and transmit political knowledge from one generation to the next. This brings me to my final point: prudence. Peterson is intimately familiar with the crisis of the academy. Yet, he hesitates to embrace even the most modest reform. He apparently prefers the posture of the critic and, as a result and perhaps inadvertently, defends the status quo. This is regrettable. The prudent line of action, consistent with the principles of classical liberalism—not to be mistaken for non-interventionism—is to support reforms that restore public trust, rebalance the faculty, and reorient the universities toward truth, rather than power. Read the full essay at City Journal:
1:17

The great Dr Jordan B Peterson praises my work exposing corruption in elite academia, but expresses concern, even opposition, to my work reforming New College of Florida. He's wrong. Let me explain why. First, Peterson implies that "political control" over universities is illegitimate. It is not. New College of Florida is a public university, and public universities are the creation of the state—that is, they belong to and should reflect the values of the public. In Florida, voters elect their representatives, who, in turn, charter, fund, and govern the public universities. The takeover of New College was, in this manner, an expression of the democratic will, moving the public university in line with the wishes of the public. It was always this way. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the charter for the University of Virginia, the first public university in the United States, he explicitly stated that the university should promote the virtues of the broader society and that the ultimate authority rested with the legislature. The university's leadership, he insisted, "should at all times conform to such laws as the legislature may from time to time think proper to enact for their government, and the said University should, in all things, and at all times be subject to the controul of the legislature." As Jefferson might remind Peterson, the alternative to "political control" of the universities is not enlightened self-government but bureaucratic rule. The laissez-faire attitude of legislators, who, in recent decades, ceded control of the public universities to unelected administrators and faculty departments, created the precise problem we are now trying to resolve. It is not a betrayal of classical liberal values to insist that political leaders, rather than permanent bureaucrats, govern public institutions—it is, rather, a restoration of those values. Second, Peterson is concerned that creating a "new conservative university," as he characterizes New College of Florida, could represent "an equivalent error on the more conservative side" to that made by “radical leftist universities." No: The equivalent error would be to propose that conservatives rule all of the universities, systemically exclude progressives from faculty positions, and use academia as a vehicle for political activism. We have done nothing of the sort. We have, instead, created a balanced faculty, fostered debate, and revived classical liberal principles at the state’s smallest university—not an equivalence in degree or in kind. I would interrogate Peterson's position a step further. Does he believe that the status quo of left-wing domination is somehow more legitimate than our reforms? Does he think that Florida voters, who elected Governor DeSantis in a landslide and whose taxes bankroll public universities, should be denied a public education system that represents their values? Why should they be compelled to subsidize DEI and gender studies rather than the classical liberal arts? Third, Peterson warns that the ideological should not permeate the educational. On this, I would agree, but with a twist: America’s public universities are too ideological, but insufficiently political. In other words, we should absolutely reject the status quo of activist pseudo-scholarship and cheap left-wing partisanship, but we should remember—and embrace—the fact that public universities are inherently political institutions, with a duty to promote citizenship, cultivate virtue, and pursue the public good. It is not by accident that Aristotle's theory of education appears in the final book of the Politics. Jefferson concurred. The imperative of the public university, he insisted, is to educate the young, and, in particular, the leadership class, into the political regime. He envisioned America’s universities as a place "[t]o form the statesmen, legislators, and judges on whom public prosperity and individual happiness are so much to depend." And he saw clearly that this would require strong leadership, able to maintain the republican character and transmit political knowledge from one generation to the next. This brings me to my final point: prudence. Peterson is intimately familiar with the crisis of the academy. Yet, he hesitates to embrace even the most modest reform. He apparently prefers the posture of the critic and, as a result and perhaps inadvertently, defends the status quo. This is regrettable. The prudent line of action, consistent with the principles of classical liberalism—not to be mistaken for non-interventionism—is to support reforms that restore public trust, rebalance the faculty, and reorient the universities toward truth, rather than power. Read the full essay at City Journal:

Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️

587,762 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In 2017, senior Republicans joint forces with Democrats, the FBI and the CIA in the attempted a coup against President Trump. They tried to "Nixon" President Trump: threaten him with impeachment over Russiagate, get him to resign, and appoint Mike Pence. When this failed, they appointed Rod Rosenstein, who attempted to invoke 25th Amendment against President Trump. When that also failed, Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Mueller whose goal was to impeach President Trump. The Mueller investigation, in fact ran by Andrew Weissmann and co, handicapped the first Trump administration, cost the taxpayer tens of millions dollars, and divided the country. It was a hoax. John Cornyn was there at the beginning of the plot against President Trump. Here he is in May 2017, repeating the Clinton/Obama talking points. By this stage, Republican senators already knew that: -Russia had no capability or desire to interfere in the 2016 election, -the Steele Dossier, on which the Obama ICA was bases, was Hillary-produced and funded trash. CORNYN: I was listening with interest to our friend and colleague from Minnesota talk about the Russian investigation, and I agree with her 100%, that it is our responsibility to get to the bottom of what exactly happened due to Russian involvement in our elections, much as they got involved in the elections in France, using a combined process known commonly as active measures. It's a combination of cyber espionage, it's propaganda, it's the use of social media through paid trolls who can actually then try to raise the visibility of some of this propaganda such that it then becomes part of the mainstream media and becomes accepted and part of the debate in democratic societies. I believe that we do share a bipartisan and universal commitment to get to the bottom of what happened in our last election. Senator Feinstein has said recently that there is no evidence of collusion between the administration and Russia, but I think she would share with me a commitment to not stop there. People are concerned, and I share that concern, and we need to come up with a program of countermeasures to deal with this because the Russian government has been amping up their game for some time now, and now they are operating at certainly dangerous levels when it comes to trying to interfere in our most basic democratic institutions like our elections. Rod Rosenstein was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94 to 6, and it's because of his distinguished record, most recently as the United States Attorney in Baltimore. That's why the investigation of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is so important, in addition to the hearings we're having on the Judiciary Committee, which the Senator from Minnesota and I happen to be on as well. So we do need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I'm confident we will. It is our duty, and we will get the job done.
2:03

In 2017, senior Republicans joint forces with Democrats, the FBI and the CIA in the attempted a coup against President Trump. They tried to "Nixon" President Trump: threaten him with impeachment over Russiagate, get him to resign, and appoint Mike Pence. When this failed, they appointed Rod Rosenstein, who attempted to invoke 25th Amendment against President Trump. When that also failed, Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Mueller whose goal was to impeach President Trump. The Mueller investigation, in fact ran by Andrew Weissmann and co, handicapped the first Trump administration, cost the taxpayer tens of millions dollars, and divided the country. It was a hoax. John Cornyn was there at the beginning of the plot against President Trump. Here he is in May 2017, repeating the Clinton/Obama talking points. By this stage, Republican senators already knew that: -Russia had no capability or desire to interfere in the 2016 election, -the Steele Dossier, on which the Obama ICA was bases, was Hillary-produced and funded trash. CORNYN: I was listening with interest to our friend and colleague from Minnesota talk about the Russian investigation, and I agree with her 100%, that it is our responsibility to get to the bottom of what exactly happened due to Russian involvement in our elections, much as they got involved in the elections in France, using a combined process known commonly as active measures. It's a combination of cyber espionage, it's propaganda, it's the use of social media through paid trolls who can actually then try to raise the visibility of some of this propaganda such that it then becomes part of the mainstream media and becomes accepted and part of the debate in democratic societies. I believe that we do share a bipartisan and universal commitment to get to the bottom of what happened in our last election. Senator Feinstein has said recently that there is no evidence of collusion between the administration and Russia, but I think she would share with me a commitment to not stop there. People are concerned, and I share that concern, and we need to come up with a program of countermeasures to deal with this because the Russian government has been amping up their game for some time now, and now they are operating at certainly dangerous levels when it comes to trying to interfere in our most basic democratic institutions like our elections. Rod Rosenstein was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94 to 6, and it's because of his distinguished record, most recently as the United States Attorney in Baltimore. That's why the investigation of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is so important, in addition to the hearings we're having on the Judiciary Committee, which the Senator from Minnesota and I happen to be on as well. So we do need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I'm confident we will. It is our duty, and we will get the job done.

Svetlana Lokhova

31,697 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

CHARAMBA - MLISWA CLASH SIGNALS DEEPENING RIFT IN ZIMBABWE'S POWER DYNAMICS : AS AFFILIATES 4ED PARALLEL POWER PROBLEM UNDERMINE STATE AUTHORITY : YET SPOKESPERSONS MUST SPEAK : SECURITY ORGANS MUST SECURE : PROTOCOL OFFICERS MUST CONTROL PROTOCOL : MINISTERS MUST MINISTER : PARTY STRUCTURES MUST LEAD PARTY AFFAIRS. BY RTD DIO MPESWE SHEPHERD The recent exchange between George Charamba & Temba Mliswa has once again exposed the rise of parallel power centres that operate outside formal party and state structures, yet increasingly appear to wield greater influence than the offices they shadow. What should be a matter of institutional authority has become a contest of personalities, patronage and informal command. Charamba, a veteran spokesperson known for his sharp defence of government positions, recently shared an old video of South African EFF leader Julius Malema warning President Cyril Ramaphosa against ignoring critics & Chapter 9 institutions while favouring unelected capitalists. The post was interpreted by Mliswa as a veiled critique of President Emmerson Mnangagwa & his inner circle. Mliswa then accused Charamba of disloyalty, called for his immediate dismissal & also threatened to expose a broader "cartel" that, according to him, is undermining President ED. However, George Charamba’s long public service record cannot be erased by the noise of political opportunists. Personally & of recent, I have publicly clashed with George Charamba several times on X over the handling and substance of CAB3 by Government however it is difficult to deny that he represents a class of seasoned state professionals who understand the machinery of government, the discipline of protocol and the importance of institutional memory. It is sad when such high profile figures are treated as disposable whenever they become inconvenient to the ambitions of informal power brokers. This is not new. Zimbabwe has seen this pattern before. In the last years of Robert Mugabe’s rule, the state was increasingly hijacked by a parallel political ecosystem in which the formal Presidency coexisted with a louder & more reckless inner circle. The result was disorder, quietly deepening factionalism and eventual collapse. Today, echoes of that same disease are visible again. The difference is that this time the parallel structure is more oiled in state loot & more polished in adamancy. However the real danger lies in the erosion of clear lines of authority. When party structures are bypassed, when government offices are undermined by freelance political enforcers and when loyalty to the centre is measured not by competence but by proximity then the state begins to malfunction. Decisions are no longer made through formal processes but through informal whispers, patronage networks and the approval of individuals who hold no official mandate. That is why the rise of figures like Temba Mliswa who is the apparent de facto spokesperson of the Precabe Politburo is so destructive. They create confusion about who speaks for the state, who advises the President and who actually governs. More seriously, they intimidate institutions into silence. Professionals are harassed into submission, while those who thrive on chaos are rewarded with access, influence and impunity. It is very worrisome to hear that during the recent private visit by South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa's to ED's Precabe farm, Charamba reportedly arrived in his official capacity but was denied access to the meeting. This incident alone is indicative of the now rampant protocol and vetting failures which have since normalised convicted figures like Wicknell Chivayo to mingle freely with President ED & other dignitaries. 1 of 2 Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼 mawarire mbizvo jealousy Simba Chikanza TENDAI BITI Ibbo D Mandaza In Conversation with Trevor Sophie Mokoena kerina mujati LynneM 💕💝💎 Rutendo Matinyarare Change Radio TheNewsHawks
2:27

CHARAMBA - MLISWA CLASH SIGNALS DEEPENING RIFT IN ZIMBABWE'S POWER DYNAMICS : AS AFFILIATES 4ED PARALLEL POWER PROBLEM UNDERMINE STATE AUTHORITY : YET SPOKESPERSONS MUST SPEAK : SECURITY ORGANS MUST SECURE : PROTOCOL OFFICERS MUST CONTROL PROTOCOL : MINISTERS MUST MINISTER : PARTY STRUCTURES MUST LEAD PARTY AFFAIRS. BY RTD DIO MPESWE SHEPHERD The recent exchange between George Charamba & Temba Mliswa has once again exposed the rise of parallel power centres that operate outside formal party and state structures, yet increasingly appear to wield greater influence than the offices they shadow. What should be a matter of institutional authority has become a contest of personalities, patronage and informal command. Charamba, a veteran spokesperson known for his sharp defence of government positions, recently shared an old video of South African EFF leader Julius Malema warning President Cyril Ramaphosa against ignoring critics & Chapter 9 institutions while favouring unelected capitalists. The post was interpreted by Mliswa as a veiled critique of President Emmerson Mnangagwa & his inner circle. Mliswa then accused Charamba of disloyalty, called for his immediate dismissal & also threatened to expose a broader "cartel" that, according to him, is undermining President ED. However, George Charamba’s long public service record cannot be erased by the noise of political opportunists. Personally & of recent, I have publicly clashed with George Charamba several times on X over the handling and substance of CAB3 by Government however it is difficult to deny that he represents a class of seasoned state professionals who understand the machinery of government, the discipline of protocol and the importance of institutional memory. It is sad when such high profile figures are treated as disposable whenever they become inconvenient to the ambitions of informal power brokers. This is not new. Zimbabwe has seen this pattern before. In the last years of Robert Mugabe’s rule, the state was increasingly hijacked by a parallel political ecosystem in which the formal Presidency coexisted with a louder & more reckless inner circle. The result was disorder, quietly deepening factionalism and eventual collapse. Today, echoes of that same disease are visible again. The difference is that this time the parallel structure is more oiled in state loot & more polished in adamancy. However the real danger lies in the erosion of clear lines of authority. When party structures are bypassed, when government offices are undermined by freelance political enforcers and when loyalty to the centre is measured not by competence but by proximity then the state begins to malfunction. Decisions are no longer made through formal processes but through informal whispers, patronage networks and the approval of individuals who hold no official mandate. That is why the rise of figures like Temba Mliswa who is the apparent de facto spokesperson of the Precabe Politburo is so destructive. They create confusion about who speaks for the state, who advises the President and who actually governs. More seriously, they intimidate institutions into silence. Professionals are harassed into submission, while those who thrive on chaos are rewarded with access, influence and impunity. It is very worrisome to hear that during the recent private visit by South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa's to ED's Precabe farm, Charamba reportedly arrived in his official capacity but was denied access to the meeting. This incident alone is indicative of the now rampant protocol and vetting failures which have since normalised convicted figures like Wicknell Chivayo to mingle freely with President ED & other dignitaries. 1 of 2 Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼 mawarire mbizvo jealousy Simba Chikanza TENDAI BITI Ibbo D Mandaza In Conversation with Trevor Sophie Mokoena kerina mujati LynneM 💕💝💎 Rutendo Matinyarare Change Radio TheNewsHawks

Chirenje Mzukuru WeTongwe

88,894 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten