Comrade Mamdani: New York's Mayor-Elect, Ready to "Protect" the City from Those Pesky Babies

Oh, joy. Comrade Zohran Mamdani, the freshly minted Mayor-elect of New York City, has decided that his first order of business, after the confetti settles and the socialist chants fade, is to play exterminator with pro-life pregnancy centers. 

During the campaign, he "vowed to 'protect' New Yorkers from pro-life pregnancy centers which he accused of spreading 'false or deceptive information.'" 

This isn't some vague threat; it's aimed straight at CompassCare, the plucky outfit running the city's only three pro-life medical pregnancy centers. Mamdani's tough-guy routine is basically a remix of the lawsuit filed by New York's Attorney General, pro-abortion firebrand Letitia James, who, surprise, endorsed the democratic socialist's bid for the big chair. It's like watching a bad buddy-cop movie where the villains high-five over their shared love of red ink and ruined lives.

Folks are understandably twitchy: How is this self-proclaimed Islamic communist going to treat the already shell-shocked Christian pro-life clinics like CompassCare? These places are dodging lawsuits from New York State busybodies, city ordinances that read like Satan's to-do list, James' endless legal jihad, Big Tech's digital Iron Curtain, and the ever-present whiff of pro-abortion rage-fests egged on by Democrats in Che Guevara drag. It's a miracle they haven't started selling "I Survived Albany" T-shirts yet.

But let's cut the drama: What can these centers actually brace for under Mayor Mamdani? 

It boils down to which of his pet fundamentalisms clocks in on day one. The religious zealot version, or the commie-utopian fever dream? Spoiler: Either way, it's a body blow to America's Constitutional setup, that dusty old Judeo-Christian foundation where "don't murder the vulnerable inconvenient" was kind of a big deal.

Remember the Declaration of Independence? You know, the one where our founders, those dead white guys the left loves to cancel, said we're all endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, starting with the right to, oh, not get vacuumed out of existence. Handing governments the keys to decide who's "human enough" for protection is how you end up with guillotines for the disabled, the sick, the old, the sad sacks, or anyone who forgot to like the right tweet. 

History's littered with dictators who started with "exceptions" and ended with mass graves. Pro tip: Don't be that society.

And don't forget the Bill of Rights, guys. 

First Amendment: Free speech and religion, so pro-lifers can holler about the unborn without Big Brother slapping a gag order. Fifth: No stripping life, liberty, or property without due process, sorry, Planned Parenthood, that "clump of cells" schtick doesn't fly in court. Fourteenth: Equal protection for all persons, not just the ones who've aced their first ultrasound.

Here's the dirty little secret that'd make Mamdani and his pro-abortion Dem pals choke on their fair-trade lattes: They couldn't care less about "women's rights" or "choice." If they did, they'd admit abortion is the ultimate cover for NYC's sex-trafficking slimeballs, glove over the bloody fingerprints, and that it jacks up breast cancer risk by 44%, preterm births by 52%, and suicide odds by a factor of five. No, they love abortion for the power trip: Whip up the sisterhood with feel-good slogans, harvest the votes, then torch the rule of law while everyone's too busy fist-pumping to notice.

In the end, propping up this Frankenstein "right" to abort clashes head-on with the real deal—life for the kid, freedoms in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth. It's a slick legal shell game, funneling control to the elite puppeteers who get off on herding the masses into appetite-driven servitude.

It's about as American as a gulag.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Adam Kinzinger gets schooled on 5th Amendment

He's got tears in his ears

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ms. Adam Kinzinger (R Temp. - IL) is clueless about the principles of the U.S. Constitution. The 'Betsy Wetsy' on the Hill made a fool of himself in yet another tweet on Thursday night when he commented on the Fifth Amendment and the implications it suggests when anyone invokes it. We should all be concerned that people like Kinzinger represent us in Congress.

The soon-to-be-unemployed [until CNN or MSNBC hires him] congress-queen tweeted:

Quick reminder: pleading the 5th is because you don’t want to incriminate yourself. We respect the 5th amendment, but pleading the 5th says a lot

— Adam Kinzinger #fella (@AdamKinzinger) December 23, 2022

Kinzinger making that comment actually says a lot.

He obviously doesn't understand that the Fifth Amendment is our constitutional right that prevents us from being forced to testify and that invoking it cannot be used legally to incriminate us. This is a right that Kinzinger promised to uphold when he held up his right hand and swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Hard to believe that this crybaby is a lawmaker, [at least for now as he's been voted out of office, which I believe I mentioned]. 

Kinzinger doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of the Fifth Amendment, which shows us why he became a 'transocrat' in the kangaroo Jan. 6 Committee clusterfrack.

Folks on Twitter reacted to Kinzinger's remark:

The 5th Amm protects against coerced confessions — which should never be forgotten. Think China, North Korea.
But it also protects the innocent against the overwhelming power of the state, especially in ambiguous circumstances or facts.
Does Kinzinger know this? He should.

— Political Sock (@politicalsock) December 23, 2022

Let’s put Kinzinger under oath and ask some very specific questions around J6. And while we’re at it, we will do a deep dive into the past seven years of his taxes. Let’s see if he too pleads the 5th… This will say a lot. https://t.co/fRq5uRgurt

— Dan Lawrence (@coramdeoDan) December 23, 2022

False: The 5th Amendment protects the innocent as well as the guilty from helping the government prosecute them. It is NOT an admission of a crime. The congressman and the J6 committee know this, but repeatedly used their power to spread and exploit this falsehood. https://t.co/MYdZTmekub

— Mike Columbo (@MikeColumboEsq) December 23, 2022

The Fifth Amendment is one of the items in the Bill of Rights that separates us from dictatorships and Kinzinger implies that using it implies that you're guilty. What an a-hole! He's no different from those on the Left who want to silence free speech as described in the First Amendment and take away our right to self-defense, as laid out in the Second Amendment.

But the good news is his impending departure from Congress--did I mention that?

Hey folks--have a very Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and  a wonderful Hanukkah.

Tweet

Dem Ted Lieu wants to censor speech he doesn' like, is sorry he can't

Comrade Ted Lieu

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) spoke Wednesday on the Communist News Network (CNN) saying that he would like to censor speech, particularly speech he disagrees with but isn't allowed to because of that pesky First Amendment thingy preventing him from his fascistic wishes.

Lieu was talking to the far left-leaning fake news TV station about Google CEO Sundar Pichai's testimony before Congress about the issue of political bias in his company's search algorithm.

Pichai spoke with a thick malayali accent, being that he's from the Indian state of Kerala, and while his accent was cute and all innocent-sounding, he was lying like a Stormy Daniels trying to scrape up the money for Trump's attorney fees.

But this isn't about him, it's about Lieu, a politician who not only has sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, but he wants to change it for his own political benefit.

"The CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, testifying before your committee about a number of concerns," CNN lib-host Brianna Keilar said. "You took an opportunity to push back on Republican claims of bias in Google searches. In the middle of this hearing you Googled Republican Steve Scalise, you Googled after that Republican Steve King to show that there were favorable stories, including from conservative outlets about Scalise, negative coverage of King, and you made the point essentially, that's not because of a Google algorithm, it's because of what these members do and say."

Keilar was trying to also make the ridiculous point that Google actually favors conservatives.

"I will say, it was — it was clever. It caught some attention," Keilar continued. "But I wonder, have you thought that maybe you and other Democrats have missed opportunities to use your time to press Google's CEO at a time when these large tech companies are struggling to manage content perpetuating conspiracy theories, they're so vulnerable to outside interference? Isn't that a focus that could have been a missed opportunity?"

"So it's a very good point you make," Lieu said. "I would love if I could have more than five minutes, to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don't get that opportunity." [That's because nobody does and you aren't special, Lieu. I also really detest people who start half their sentences with "So".]

"However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech," Lieu continued, sounding like a dictatorial schmuck. "The First Amendment prevents me from doing so. And that's simply a function of the First Amendment. But I think over the long run, it's better that government does not regulate the content of speech." [No kidding, genius.]

Lieu then suggested that the tech companies should do a better job of censoring free speech. Yes, any time a dweeb at a tech company doesn't like what someone is saying when exercising his or her free speech, the tech company must put an end to it.

You must be thinking you're living in Communist freaking China, Lieu.

"I would urge these private sector companies to regulate it better themselves," Lieu concluded. "But it's really nothing that I believe government can do. And so that's been my position all along."

It's frightening to find that people in government, people who are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, would want to scrap the most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is why it's the First Amendment.

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

Why Hillary Failed the D.C. Bar exam

Fact: Hillary Clinton failed the Washington D.C. bar exam. 

Perhaps her failure was due to the question about the Second Amendment, a question that George Stephanopoulos asked her on ABC's This Week: "Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in the militia?"

The question came in light of Donald Trump claiming that Hillary would repeal the Second Amendment if she became president.

Well, the answer she gave to Stephanopoulos may shed light on her Second Amendment thoughts, but I think it's confusing, to say the least.

"I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."

Gun safety? That's nonsense. 

Before Scalia was even born, the Supreme Court consistently upheld the American citizen's right to possess firearms. If Clinton was telling the truth (LOL), the only people who would be permitted to own a firearm would be the military because the right of a citizen owning a gun would have long ago disappeared.

Finally, there are practically no gun rights advocates who believe that there should be absolutely no regulations of any kind governing the possession and sale of firearms. All Clinton did was use a straw man argument and then changed the subject to gun safety, which has nothing to do with registration, nor the types of weapons in question.

This is how the Queen of Benghazi operates. She either pretends to be a poor, clueless girly girl, or speaks in circles to confuse us. I suspect she got the exam question on the Second Amendment wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me if she also blew it on the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Liberals have never seen a regulation they didn't like.


Tweet

Pushing Back at the Bullies

I recently blogged about Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, who was forced to resign his position after only ten days on the job, (Gay Rights Bullies, 4/5/2014) I didn't  get a ton of comments, but the one I received was illuminating. Eich had donated $1000 to support California's Proposition 8, and bill that opposed same-sex marriage. The left called for his resignation and a web-based dating service, OKCupid refused to allow Firefo, the Mozilla browser they own, to be used on their site.

Now I admit that the left has a silver tongue (albeit forked) when it comes to framing an issue the way they see fit. They call those who support the bill "anti-gay rights," as opposed to "anti same-sex marriage," and refuse to see this as a moral issue for some and a religious issue as well. Of course, these are the same left wing bullies who are adamant about removing all religious symbols from public display, and I suspect that it's just going to be a matter of time when that will include crosses on church steeples, and the Star of David on synagogues. I don't believe it's going to adversely effect the Muslim community--I bet they'll be able to continue having their crescent moon religious symbol above their mosques along with hijabs and the like. Interestingly, Islamists coined the PC word "Islamophobic" in the same manner the left coins their terms, and both Islamists and the left like to throw around the term "racist" when Islam has nothing to do with race, and the GOP had nothing to do with the KKK.

But I digress.

The person who commented on my post asked why did I believe that un-installing a web browser equated to bullying. He seems to have intentionally missed the point. It has nothing to do with un-installing a browser--that would make the argument weak--it has to do with intimidating people to the point where they resign from their job. That's what they did to Eich.

On one hand, when you disagree with the policies or even the political views of a corporation or smaller company, you have every right to boycott them. Nobody should be able to bully you into using their services or products. There should not be any retribution.

On the other hand, if you agree with a policy or political view, you have every right to support it without having to fear retribution. The left, however, doesn't see it that way. Their attitude is, "It's my way or the highway," and if you don't fall in line, you're sunk.

Yeah, Islam, get over it

The fact is, even if you do fall in line, the fight never seems to end. The left really doesn't care as much as it pretends to about gay rights (except for those that are gay leftists) or even about racism. If they did, they wouldn't give a "free pass" to people on the left who make racist comments, or homophobic statements. Joe Biden would have been figuratively crucified for having made that slur about Indians with their accents, working in fast-food places. Or LBJ's comment about getting "the niggers to vote Democratic for the next 200 years." (This is paraphrased but quite similar to the actual words.) They don't really care for blacks and other people of color because their programs have held them back since the Civil War.

But the left has a silver tongue. They use terms like "anti-gay rights," (for same-sex marriage)  or "obligation," (for taxes), and even say that they have "freedom from religion," (there's even an active, vigorously litigating organization by that title) when, in fact, the Constitution speaks about "Freedom of Religion." 

It's time for conservatives to be vigorously active in how we respond to liberals. We actually have a lot more clout than you may believe. If you agree, then do something about it.

In my latest novel, a New York reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .

Jihad Joe: a Novel  Create Space soft cover book edition

Jihad Joe see it here ebook version

Tweet

Stealing Our Privacy With a Smile and a Lie

Obama spoke at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose, CA today. The topic was the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka the Not Really Affordable Care Act, and after the smoke and mirrors, he took a prearranged question from a reporter, if you can call them reporters anymore. The question was obviously about the most recent scandal to hit the public's attention: the records subpoenaing of all Verizon customers in the United States of America--and that's just what we're aware of at this time.

Limiting Our Freedom, Just in Case

 The First Amendment to the US Constitution is written as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 and while its wording refers to prohibitions regarding the US Congress from enacting laws that would challenge our freedom of speech, in 1925 the Supreme Court used Gitlow v. New York to also prohibit the state legislature from dong the same.  

Of course, there are exceptions to our freedom of speech and this makes sense.  We cannot legally say things that incite crime or use "fighting words" that could lead to violence.  The First Amendment doesn't allow for child pornography nor seditious speech, but even with the latter, it must be clear that this would be a danger to our country--military secret disclosure falls into this category.  And there are other forms of speech that are not necessarily permitted, like public employee speech.

But there is nothing in our US Constitution that prohibits us from speaking out about religious beliefs, or our opinions regarding pretty much anything.  This would include the use of art in this expression.  We have, for example, artists doing renditions of Jesus covered in urine, Mary engaged in sexual behavior, and so on.  Then there's the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, who created a cartoon of Muhammad that shows him wearing a bomb in his turban.  You probably remember the controversy it raised and Westergaard's life was threatened by irate Muslims who look for things to get irate over.  He continues to receive death threats and murder attempts and is under ongoing police protection from the religion of peace.

Most disturbingly is the attempt of our current administration to pass anti-blasphemy laws which would forbid the freedom to speak out against Islam, but probably not deter this from speaking out against Christianity or Judaism.  They say it's the squeaky wheel that gets oiled, but in this case, it's the crazies that get pacified.  It seems like we, as a nation, have amnesia--at least liberals do--we have forgotten those images of the building crashing down.  We have forgotten the "birds" jumping from those buildings to escape the flames.  We have tolerated those who are intolerant of us and that is simply suicidal and stupid.  We have a president who bows to an Islamic king, and who now wants to stop Americans from exercising their freedoms.

I find it hard to understand how anyone in this country could actually vote for Obama, except for the fact that the leftist media controls the message.  But the leftist media is losing ground to the blogs, the social media, Fox News, and word of mouth.  It's about time.

My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       

click here for ebook version  

My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet