Politicians who endorse NYC candidate Zohran Mamdani should earn your complete contempt
Please take note of all the politicians jumping aboard the Zohran Mamdani train — because they're telling you that they're just hunky-dory with an anti-Israel zealot who routinely flirts (at least) with blatant antisemitism.
This holds particularly for Brad Lander and Michael Blake, the mayoral rivals cross-endorsing him: They've thereby disqualified themselves from even a No. 5 ranking by any decent New Yorker.
And of course it applies to Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose Mamdani endorsement dropped Tuesday, as well and Bernie's protégé, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
So much for AOC's efforts to distance herself from Squad-mates like venomous Jew-hating Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib — or ex-Squad-boy Jamaal Bowman, for that matter. (Jamaal's endorsed Zohran, too, natch.)
As well as to the various local pols who've listed Zohran as any one of their top choices among the nine or so who qualified for at least one debate: Remember to vote against Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, Rep. Nydia Velásquez, state Sen. John Liu and state Attorney General Tish James if you ever get another chance.
Look: On top of having basically never achieved anything in life, Mamdani's been an anti-Israel activist since college; he not only refuses to support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, he's declined to sign on to Assembly resolutions condemning the Holocaust.
He's done a friendly interview with sick online influencer Hasan Piker and pretends 'globalize the Intifada' and 'from the river to the sea' merely express a desire for Palestinian rights, when the slogans are all about 1) violence against Jews anywhere and everywhere and 2) the destruction of Israel.
He's a cop-defunder, too.
All he's got going for him is charm and a raging socialist platform that would destroy the city if he got the chance to implement it.
Sadly, that's enough to have him polling No. 2 (albeit in the weakest Democratic field ever) — and that momentum, plainly, is enough for hacks like Lander and Blake to cut cross-endorsement deals with the devil.
Shame on them all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Clinton urges Trump to ‘defuse' Israel-Iran crisis, end ‘outright constant killing of civilians'
Former President Bill Clinton called on President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the current conflict between Israel and Iran during an appearance on 'The Daily Show' on Tuesday. So far, the U.S. has stayed out of direct action in the conflict, but it has helped Israel shoot down missiles from Tehran. Advertisement There are some indications, however, that the Trump administration could move to get more directly involved in the conflict. While the former president expressed skepticism about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump's intentions regarding peace in the Middle East, he urged the current president to calm the situation and end the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' 'First of all — they're not talking about negotiating peace in the Middle East because the Israelis have no intention of… under Prime Minister Netanyahu, of giving the Palestinians a state. And now, they're too divided and crushed to organize themselves to achieve it,' Clinton said. He continued, maintaining that Trump agrees with Netanyahu in believing that the Palestinians 'shouldn't have a state.' Advertisement However, he added that neither leader wants to trigger a full-scale regional disaster. 3 Former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on 'The Daily Show,' calling on President Donald Trump to resolve the Israel-Iran conflict. The Daily Show 'Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' the former president said. 'But I think we should be trying to defuse it, and I hope President Trump will do that.' Advertisement Clinton emphasized the importance of the U.S. protecting its allies in the region, while simultaneously advocating for restraint. 3 The U.S. has not been involved in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, though the Trump administration could get involved. AFP via Getty Images 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. 'But choosing undeclared wars in which the primary victims are civilians, who are not politically involved, one way or the other, who just want to live decent lives, is not a very good solution.' Advertisement Clinton conceded that the U.S. needs to try and stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but again stressed the importance of saving innocent lives in the region. 3 Clinton also said that the 'outright constant killing of civilians' has to end. IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER'S WEBSITE/GPO/AFP via Getty Images 'Do I think that we have to try to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon? I do,' he declared. 'But we don't have to have all this outright constant killing of civilians who can't defend themselves, and they just want a chance to live.' Fox News' Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Israel's military warns people to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Israel's military warned people Thursday to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor. The warning came in a social media post on X. It included a satellite image of the plant in a red circle like other warnings that proceeded strikes. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. In 2019, Iran started up the heavy water reactor's secondary circuit, which at the time did not violate Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Britain at the time was helping Iran redesign the Arak reactor to limit the amount of plutonium it produces, stepping in for the U.S., which had withdrawn from the project after President Donald Trump's decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw America from the nuclear deal.
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
An Iran Strategy for Trump
Nobody, perhaps even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump's demand. If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran's main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases. And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict. Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran's nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers. By contrast, skeptics fear that the lessons Iran's leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid. I'm with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran's prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran's cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
