(Note. On July 4, I wrote 2 posts about Mamdani - about his politics and about his antisemitism. What follows are some additional comments, including what appears to be an ever growing anti-Israel, antisemitic Democratic Party.)
Recall that the mainstream media was all in for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump. The same for Kamala Harris. To the point of making up lies and reporting half-truths. Now, let's take a look at two recent articles about Mamdani - one in the 7/25 leftwing New York Times, and the other in the conservative New York Post. In the NY Times piece, we are told that "Mamdani Faces Barrage of Attacks From Republican New Yorkers." Of course, if the Democrats still supported America and opposed antisemitism, they would be attacking Mamdani also.
The first paragraph of that article tells us that Mamdani is "visiting family in Uganda." How nice. If you were wondering what prompted the visit at this time, you would not get that from the Times article. In contrast, here is what we find out from the NY Post: "Socialist NYC mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani celebrated his recent nuptials with a lavish, three-day affair at his family's ritzy, secluded Ugandan compound - complete with masked security guards and a cellphone jamming system."
The Post describes his mother as a "wealthy filmmaker." We already know that his father is an anti-Israel professor at Columbia University in NYC. The property owned by the parents is said to be in a wealthy area in Uganda, home to billionaires and millionaires. And while much of the country was apparently mourning the death of a Supreme Court Judge, Mamdani and his family were engaged in their lavish celebration.
Wait a second. Why didn't the NY Times report all this when they said Mamdani was on vacation? Could it be because it showed what a hypocrite he is? Like many "leaders" of that party. A self-described socialist, who proposes policies that sound communist, who is against billionaires, and asserts that he is a man of the people - somehow has no problem sharing in the benefits of his family's extreme wealth. Rules for thee but not for me?
Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed writer for the NY Times. Last month, one of her articles ran with this title: "Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani." Plenty? She referenced a poll that said Mamdani had 20% Jewish support. Is that "plenty?" You can get 10% of people to agree to almost anything.
Goldberg: "I thought it was a terrible mistake for Mamdani to try to justify the phrase "globalize the intifada" on a podcast this month. He's right, of course, that the literal meaning of intifada is not necessarily violent - it translates to uprising or rebellion - but context matters." Does "uprising" sound peaceful to her? What context does she give? The murder of the two young Israeli Embassy workers in D.C. and the attack on the people in Colorado demonstrating for the release of the hostages held by Hamas.
The context? The context is that there were two violent "intifadas" against the Jewish people in Israel, as discussed in the Part II post about Mamdani written on July 4. Over 1000 Jews - civilians - were murdered during these "uprisings." Why didn't Goldberg mention that? Because that is how "intifada" translates in the real world. And "globalize the intifada" surely means killing Jews wherever on the globe you may find them. And, as discussed in my blog posts, it's already been happening with increasing frequency - here in the U.S. and around the world.
What is wrong with Goldberg? Why is she willing to support someone who has repeatedly refused to renounce the phrase "globalize the intifada?" I won't repeat everything in my July 4 posts about Mamdani. But, recall that he also won't condemn Hamas for the murder of some 1200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. But what's the most important? Mamdani is "young and energetic and comfortable speaking extemporaneously." And, "in a cynical and despairing time, he gave people hope." Other than hope for "free" handouts, what else did he give people? Get over yourself, Goldberg. Over half the country does not feel your cynicism and despair.
So what does Mamdani's predicted victory mean for the future of the Democratic Party and the country? Yes, two prominent Democrats have, to their credit, spoken out against Mamdani. Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, and Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff. Why aren't all, or at least the vast majority, of all elected officials from both parties, condemning Mamdani? Could it be because, as mentioned in my other July 4 post ("Im Sick Of It! Really Sick Of It!") nearly 70% of Democrats now have a negative view of Israel? So what's next for these Democrats? The U.S. should start supporting the terrorist group Hamas (and Iran and the rest of their proxies)? Another Israel hater, Ocasio-Cortez, is said to be a realistic candidate for the Democratic Party's 2028 presidential nominee. G-d help America if that should ever happen.
