MI rabbi says he'll vote for Mike Rogers as local Jews worry about El-Sayed's anti-Semitism

In the heart of Michigan, a state long accustomed to the predictable rhythms of Democratic loyalty among its Jewish voters, a note of profound disquiet has begun to sound. 

Rabbi Asher Lopatin, an Orthodox rabbi who serves as director of community relations at the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor, has announced that he will cast his ballot for the Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers in the November election. The decision, made in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the federation, stems from the Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed’s positions on Israel and his associations with blatant anti-Semites. 

Lopatin, who, like many uninformed or possibly suicidal liberals has typically voted Democratic, declared: “I’m going to vote for Mike Rogers,” adding, “I have concerns, but I have to do whatever I can to make sure this candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, does not win.” 

His choice comes amid a wider stirring among Jewish leaders in the Wolverine State who naively back Democrats, yet now find themselves contemplating support for Rogers and urging others to do likewise out of alarm over El-Sayed. 

The context is clear enough. El-Sayed narrowly defeated US Representative Haley Stevens by about one percentage point in the August 4 Democratic primary, setting the stage for a November contest against Rogers, a former congressman and the Republican nominee. 

El-Sayed, a Detroit-born physician and progressive former health director in the city, swiftly positioned himself as the most anti-Israel figure in the primary field. He has called for an end to US military support for Israel, accused the Jewish state of genocide [while not making much of what the Hamassholes did on Oct. 7, 2023] and apartheid, branded it a “rogue state,” and insisted that its government and the Hamas terrorist organization are both “evil.” 

He has questioned American support for Israel remaining a Jewish state, asserting that no interpretation of a Jewish state can be reconciled with liberal values. He has further claimed that the only reason a Democrat might support Israel is money, [a scummy anti-Semitic trope] and that it is impossible for a Democrat to back Israel while believing in “human rights.”

Such rhetoric has not gone unnoticed. Lopatin acknowledged the broader Democratic preoccupation with retaining control of the Senate and resisting the administration of President Donald Trump. “I’m sympathetic” to Democrats, he said, yet insisted that “someone like Abdul El-Sayed is unacceptable.” 

The rabbi reserved particular criticism for Senate Minority Leader Chuck "Nostrils" Schumer, a JINO, for endorsing El-Sayed despite these positions on Israel.

El-Sayed’s record includes further episodes that have deepened the unease. In March he hesitated to condemn a terrorist attack on a Michigan synagogue that involved an attempted mass killing of Jewish children. Reports indicated that in private meetings he voiced concern that condemnation might alienate potential voters sympathetic to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist group [and it's rumored he a fanboy of  Sheikh Naim Qassem and has a photo of the Hezbollah leader above his bed.]

He even hesitated making a comment on the US-Israeli strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in late February, citing support for Khamenei among some of his prospective constituents.

The candidate has campaigned alongside the execrable political streamer Hasan "Crapweasel" Piker, whose past remarks about Israel, Jews and terrorism have drawn widespread condemnation. El-Sayed made the political decision and has disavowed Piker’s claim that “America deserved 9/11,” but Lopatin maintains that the distancing has been inadequate. “He’s never disavowed Hasan’s anti-Semitism,” the rabbi said, referring to Piker’s comments about Orthodox Jews.

Rogers’s campaign has moved to capitalize on these concerns, launching a “Democrats for Mike Rogers” coalition to spotlight Democratic voters who say they cannot support El-Sayed. 

Lopatin appeared at the event and underscored that his decision marked a significant departure from his usual pattern. He suggested that the Democratic nominee should “recognize the State of Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation and not cavort with Hasan Piker, a known anti-Semite.” 

Of the Democratic Party he observed: “There should be a long list of things that concern them about him.” 

Earlier this week a group of Michigan Jewish leaders circulated an open letter urging the state’s Jewish population to support Rogers over El-Sayed. 

The letter stated: “If El-Sayed were to win the general election in this important swing state, we fear the far-left and anti-Jewish elements in the Democratic party would become dominant, including in the imminent 2028 presidential race. We cannot allow him to become the Democratic standard-bearer or Michigan’s senator.” 

Jews remain an overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning constituency. Yet the combination of rising anti-Semitism and El-Sayed’s evident antipathy toward Israel has led some to consider whether their traditional allegiance can endure. The Republican campaign is wagering that these anxieties will persuade enough habitual Democrats to cross party lines. 

Whether that calculation yields tangible results in November is far from certain, but the debate itself reveals a fracture that few would have anticipated only a short while ago.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Another Mother Does The Unthinkable: Murders 2 of Her 3 Children, One Expected to Survive

A horrific case out of Mandan, North Dakota, is raising questions that should sound painfully familiar by now.

Twenty-two-year-old Kailey Erhart has been charged with murdering two of her children and attempting to murder a third. According to court documents, Erhart was captured on video holding a pistol and telling her husband, “Say goodbye to your kids,” before the unthinkable unfolded.

Police responding to the home found a scene that would haunt anyone for a lifetime. Officers say Erhart, covered in blood, was holding a knife to her own throat and demanding that police kill her. Inside the home, they found three children suffering from severe neck wounds. A 1-year-old survived after emergency surgery. A 5-month-old and a 3-year-old did not.

According to investigators, Erhart later told police she remembered placing the children on a bed after their throats had already been cut. She also reportedly said she could not remember everything that happened.

The details become even more troubling when viewed through the lens of what happened before the killings.

Court records indicate that Erhart's husband had previously contacted mental health services because she had threatened both herself and the children. She had recently been committed to a psychiatric facility and was taking medication. Despite those concerns, she had been cleared to be around her children.

That last fact should make every parent stop and think.

Whenever a tragedy like this occurs, we are immediately told that we need to have a serious conversation about mental health. Then the conversation usually lasts about fifteen minutes before everyone returns to arguing about politics on social media. Meanwhile, families are left trying to understand how someone with documented mental health struggles and prior threats against her children was nevertheless deemed safe enough to return home.

The case also arrives while Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy is standing trial for the deaths of her three children. Clancy admitted to killing the children before attempting suicide herself. Supporters have rallied around her defense, raising substantial sums of money and arguing that mental illness was the driving factor behind the murders.

The Clancy case has produced a strange cultural divide. When fathers commit acts of violence against their children, public sympathy tends to be scarce. When mothers do it, many activists immediately begin searching for systemic explanations, social failures, inadequate support networks, and medical complications.

Mental illness is real. Postpartum disorders are real. But so are dead children.

The difficult question is whether our institutions are actually getting better at identifying truly dangerous situations or whether they have become so afraid of making the wrong call that they routinely ignore glaring warning signs until it's too late.

In North Dakota, a father reportedly warned authorities. Mental health professionals were involved. Medication was prescribed. Hospitalization occurred. Yet two children are dead and another barely survived.

At some point, society has to ask whether the system's definition of "safe" bears any resemblance to reality.

Because for the families burying children, explanations offered after the fact are little comfort. The warnings existed before the tragedy. The intervention existed before the tragedy. The professionals were involved before the tragedy.

And still, the tragedy happened.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Iranian Cleric Claims Lingering Aroma of 'Burned Flesh' Near Late Supreme Leader's Compound Is Proof of Divine Favor: turns out he was very wrong

Gone but not forgotten

An Iranian Shi'ite cleric [which, when you consider what religion is generally thought to be, makes the claim of cleric an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp] has confirmed that the blessed scent of "burned flesh" continues to perfume the air near the compound of Iran's late supreme leader, according to video circulated by Iranian media and shared Friday by Iran International.

This is the same Iranian Shi'ite 'cleric' who had once claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei's body odor caused by overdressing in the summer, was also a blessed scent, as was also his flatulence.

"Someone told me that when you go near the Supreme Leader’s compound, you can still smell burned flesh. I went there myself and found it was true — you can still smell burned flesh," the so calledcleric told a nighttime gathering of Islamic Republic supporters in Tehran's Tajrish Square.

The guy further clarified that Western media had wildly understated the glorious intensity of the assault.

“Our leader had a frail body, but contrary to reports that seven or eight bombs were dropped on the site, they hit the Supreme Leader’s compound with 110 bombs and missiles,” he said, slightly exaggerating to the extent by about 102 bombs.

Iran International did not identify the cleric in its X post or provide independent confirmation of his account, though regime loyalists insist the persistent odor serves as a fragrant reminder that martyrdom comes with the ultimate barbecue.

Ironically, it was later discovered that the actual cause of the malodorous environment was a sewer pipe that had ruptured from the attack. 

The cleric is said to be in hiding.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

FBI evidently confronted Eric "Boom Boom" Swalwell over the weekend and hoo boy

It has been a rough stretch for former Rep. Eric "Boom Boom" Swalwell. You know, the guy who's known for the fart heard round the world.

First, the sexual misconduct claims torpedoed his time in Congress and his dreams of running California.

Then came word that he allegedly scooped up illegal donations from a suspected Chinese spy. Now the FBI has decided to stop by for a chat. 

Sources report that federal agents met Swalwell at San Francisco Airport on Saturday armed with search warrants. They confiscated his electronics, including his cell phone, as part of an ongoing federal criminal probe into the sexual misconduct allegations. Agents later used additional warrants to search his Washington residence on Sunday and carted off more potential evidence.

Swalwell began Saturday in Washington, where he still keeps a home with his wife and three kids. He flew west to California later that day, only to find the feds waiting when he got off the plane. According to sources, he played nice and cooperated.

Authorities have not said exactly what they grabbed from the D.C. house, per news outlet The Daily Mail. 

But on the not so bright side, at least four women have accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including a former staffer. One woman claimed he drugged and raped her in 2018. Two others said he sent them unsolicited pictures of his private parts. Incredibly, his wife stands with him for some inexplicable reason.

Swalwell has stayed mostly out of sight since quitting the California governor's race and resigning from Congress. He continues to deny any wrongdoing tied to the sexual assault and misconduct claims.

In related news, the same guy who once lectured the nation about democracy and foreign influence is now watching agents dig through his devices over claims that range from creepy texts to far more serious allegations. The Chinese spy donation story just adds a nice layer of extra flavor to an already eventful week.
 

I wonder what Fang Fang thinks.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Baby Gabriel’s “Parents” Blast Ken Paxton for Saving Him From Abortion

DALLAS, TX: In a stunning development that proves the phrase “pro-life” can apparently be controversial even after the baby is born, the California couple who wanted Baby Gabriel aborted before birth are now furious with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for making sure the child receives lifesaving medical care. 

These so called parents are nothing more than ghouls.

Gabriel was born August 12 in Dallas with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious but treatable condition requiring a series of surgeries beginning in the first weeks of life.

Surrogate mother McKenna West, an Alaska nurse and single mother of two, refused the biological parents’ request to abort the child after a prenatal diagnosis revealed the heart defect. The surrogacy contract reportedly contained a clause allowing the baby to be killed if an “anomaly” was discovered.

West instead traveled to Texas before giving birth, where she would be recognized as the birth mother under Texas law, and named the boy Gabriel.

Naturally, this did not go over well with the people who had apparently commissioned a baby but wanted a return policy if the baby came with a defective heart.

Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of Los Angeles, Gabriel’s biological parents, obtained a temporary court order granting them decision-making authority and took physical custody of the infant less than 24 hours after his birth.

The couple has now taken issue with Paxton’s office for intervening to ensure Gabriel receives medical treatment, arguing that the state lacks standing and that only the Department of Children and Family Services can intervene.

They contend that the state’s actions would deprive them of their “fundamental constitutional interest in the care, custody, control and medical decision-making for their child without constitutionally adequate notice, process, and opportunity to be heard … in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Because apparently the most pressing constitutional crisis in Texas right now is whether the government has given adequate process before insisting that a newborn with a serious heart condition be allowed to live.

The parents also denied any intention to withhold medical care, saying they have “consistently sought the opportunity to consult” with doctors and make informed medical decisions for the child as his “parents.”

Their attorney said they “had frequently sought involvement in the medical process and had made the decision, which they felt was best for the baby.”

Yes, that decision was the one where the baby doesn't get to participate in the decision because he would have to survive long enough to have an opinion.

Attorney Lee Budner added that the couple is “continuing to place their baby’s health and well-being first, following the advice of the baby’s medical team, as they always have and just as any loving parent would.”

The couple is also “devastated to see their family tragedy transformed into political theater by the Texas Attorney General’s office and McKenna West.”

Nothing says “political theater” quite like an attorney general going to court to make sure a newborn receives lifesaving surgery.

Paxton’s office rejected that characterization, issuing the following statement:

“Once the child is born alive in Texas, he will be a complete legal person, and Texas will protect his life without regard to the circumstances of his conception or the terms of any private agreement.”

It is difficult to imagine a more outrageous concept than the radical Texas idea that a baby who has been born is, in fact, a person.

Paxton subsequently secured an emergency court order requiring lifesaving medical care, including intensive treatment and at least one surgery, while also barring the infant from being removed from Texas.

Pro-life advocates have credited Paxton’s intervention with protecting Gabriel after his intended parents had sought to have him aborted because of his heart condition.

West is challenging the parentage orders, with her attorney arguing that Texas law recognizes the woman who gives birth as the mother. A separate order currently prohibits West from having any contact with Gabriel.

Meanwhile, the custody and medical decision-making battle continues as Gabriel receives specialized care at a Texas facility with an excellent track record of treating children with his condition.

For now, Baby Gabriel is doing something that has apparently become politically controversial in certain parts of America: he is fighting to live.

And Ken Paxton is apparently guilty of the shocking offense of helping him do it.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

El-Sayed’s Mom Clocked Time at a Designated Terror Outfit That Funneled Cash to Osama bin Laden

It turns out the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan is everything we thought he is.

Apparently, the party of pink hair, open borders, endless virtue-signaling, and creative definitions of “moderate” decided it was time to add a little international intrigue to the résumé.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed recently highlighted how his mother “taught me so much about both how to stand with others, and how to stand alone.” Of course, he meant that he doesn't stand for America and is a blatant anti-Zionist [which is the same as being anti-Semitic].

So far, so wholesome if you don't count the America/Israel stuff.

Then the family biography takes a turn that sounds less like a Senate campaign introduction and more like something the FBI might have filed in a folder marked “Please Explain.”

“They ended up getting divorced,” El-Sayed said of his birth parents during a 2017 speech before the Islamic Foundation. Maybe dad refused to be anti American and anti-Zionist; I don't know.

“And my mother, she remarried a gentleman who was working as a translator in the Middle East and moved back to the Middle East.”

But according to reporting by the Midwesterner, El-Sayed’s birth mother, Fatten Fathy Elkomy, worked from 1999 through at least 2004 for the Islamic American Relief Agency, also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency, a jihadi organization that would love to impose sharia across the globe.

The IARA operated more than 40 offices around the world and publicly focused on health care, orphans, and disadvantaged people in conflict zones. The organization no longer exists as it was dissolved after a federal criminal case, and while they claimed to provide aid and assistance to all people without regard to religion or race, that claim doesn't sit well with those who know how Islamic charities tend to work.

So, in October 2004, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated the worldwide network and five senior officials as supporting terrorism. Treasury said the organization had ties to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

According to a 2004 Treasury announcement:

“IARA is identified as a non-governmental organization (NGO) formerly affiliated with Maktab Al-Khidamat (MK), which was co-founded and financed by UBL (Usama Bin Laden or Osama bin Laden) and is the precursor organization of al Qaida”

Now, obviously, none of this means Abdul El-Sayed personally supports terrorism. A person's family history is not automatically their political ideology, but let's not disregard some of the things he has said. 

Here are a few examples: 

He described America's political system as a "disease" and President Trump as its "worst symptom." In his view, the "disease" is a system that allows "corporations and billionaires and special interest groups like AIPAC to buy and sell politicians to rig the system against us."

In 2021, he posted publicly (and later made private) about Trump, comparing his role in the Jan. 6 to Osama bin Laden's role in 9/11, saying Trump "recruited, radicalized and reassured" rioters in a parallel way.

He has called ICE a “rogue agency” that “has nothing to do with immigration” or the southern border, instead “normalizing paramilitary forces,” “weaponizing the idea of immigration against the Constitution,” and that “cannot be reformed” but “has to be abolished.”

Statements critical of Israel:

He has repeatedly accused the Israeli government of genocide in Gaza, apartheid (in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza), and war crimes. He has called Netanyahu a war criminal for conducting a genocide and described Israel as having become a “rogue nation” or “rogue state” due to its government’s choices, saying the U.S. should treat it accordingly under international law (stop selling weapons, end diplomatic cover at the ICC/ICJ/UN).

When asked if the Israeli government is “as evil” as Hamas, he replied: “Yes. Killing tens of thousands of people makes you pretty damn evil… Hamas, evil. Israeli government, evil. You can say both.” He has also called the Israeli government “bloodthirsty” (not limited to Netanyahu; referencing a long-standing “illegal apartheid regime”).

He strongly opposes all U.S. military aid to Israel (offensive and defensive, including systems like Iron Dome—“Weapons are weapons”), arguing it funds genocide/apartheid, annexation efforts (e.g., southern Lebanon), and wars “we don’t need to fight” (including involving Iran). He wants the money used instead for Michigan priorities and has criticized AIPAC heavily as spending tens of millions to influence races for “one more vote” supporting this aid.

On Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state,” he has said he “often struggle[s]” with the question because it requires defining “Jewish state” and whether that is consistent with “liberal values.” He has disputed the idea of an “ethnostate,” noted that no one asks about Palestine’s right to exist (which “doesn’t exist”), and emphasized that Israel “exists” while the key issue is whether it has a right to U.S. tax dollars. He supports equal rights to “peace, dignity, and self-determination” for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, leaving the ultimate form (one state, two states, or otherwise) to them.

In interviews, he has said he is “haunted” by “nightmares about the children who’ve been orphaned at the hands of the Israeli military” (contrasting with positive “dreams” about Israel attributed to others).

But for a Democratic Party that routinely demands a 47-point background investigation before allowing Republicans to exist within 500 yards of public office, this is certainly an interesting family résumé to explain.

After all, when your party has spent years insisting that everybody's background matters, somebody might eventually notice when the background of your own Senate nominee comes with a footnote from the U.S. Treasury Department.

And that's when the campaign slogan “stand with others, and stand alone” starts sounding like extremely useful advice from the communications department.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Democrat Sends ‘Condolences’ To Hasan Piker After Florida Primary Defeat

WASHINGTON, D.C. Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz celebrated defeating Democratic Socialists of America-backed challenger Oliver Larkin by doing something rarely seen in modern Democratic politics: winning an election and then immediately sending his condolences to Hasan Piker.

Moskowitz offered his “condolences” to the far-left, anti-America, anti-Zionist streamer who had enthusiastically backed Moskowitz’s execrable opponent, apparently demonstrating that there are still Democrats who would prefer socialism remain a theoretical concept that works beautifully in countries that somehow still have capitalism to pay for it.

Larkin lost to the more moderate Moskowitz in Florida’s 25th Congressional District, proving that at least some Democratic voters remain reluctant to hand the controls of the American economy to people whose primary qualification is having memorized the word “oppressor.”

The heavily redrawn swing district is expected to be one of roughly two dozen House races that could determine whether Republicans retain their razor-thin majority in the midterm elections.

Naturally, Moskowitz knew exactly whom to thank for his victory.

"My condolences to @hasanthehun," Moskowitz wrote on X with the kind of graduate-level snark normally reserved for academic journals and congressional group chats.

Piker, apparently unable to witness a congressional election without immediately locating Israel somewhere inside it, responded:

"its pretty wild that his first thought was a prominent critic of israel, before even thanking his constituents lmao. really worried about his genocidal emotional support apartheid state."

Piker refused to capitalize Israel, apparently saving his capital letters for more important subjects, such as Islam.

Moskowitz eventually got around to thanking his constituents the following day, along with his wife, children and late father.

"I want to thank the voters of District 25 for continuing to have the faith in me to deliver results for Florida," he wrote. "I want to thank my wife and kids who I have spent a lot of time away from. My dad died of cancer 4 years ago. He would have enjoyed all of this. I miss him. Onward!"

So, to recap: Moskowitz won an election, thanked his voters and family, remembered his deceased father, and then apparently committed the unforgivable political sin of noticing Hasan Piker.

Moskowitz later argued that Democrats should stop treating Piker like the embarrassing relative who arrives at Thanksgiving, insults the host, declares the family business exploitative, and then gets quietly ushered into the garage whenever respectable guests show up.

"Democrats shouldn’t play hide the Piker now," Moskowitz said after his victory, according to Politico Playbook. "For all those people who thought it was a great idea to campaign with him, as Jay-Z once said, ‘Bring ’em out, bring ’em out.’ They shouldn’t be hiding him now."

Piker was not exactly thrilled by the invitation to step into the electoral spotlight.

"I’m genuinely concerned for his mental well-being."

In reality, Piker is not concerned about anyone's mental well-being. He's only concerned with hating on the American people.

"I think he should stop posting on the internet and focus on defeating the Republican in his newly redistricted congressional seat," Piker added.

Apparently, according to Piker, Moskowitz's mental health became endangered somewhere between winning an election and mentioning the guy who campaigned against him.

Moskowitz then called DSA members "anti-American at their core."

This presumably did wonders for the atmosphere at Piker's online headquarters, where the American flag presumably remains classified as hostile propaganda.

Piker has become something of a political flashpoint for Democrats, who are now wrestling with a fascinating strategic dilemma: Should they appeal to ordinary Americans, or should they continue taking electoral advice from a millionaire internet celebrity whose political worldview sometimes sounds like it was assembled from the comment section of a college freshman's TikTok video?

Piker has campaigned with several far-left candidates, including Francesca Hong, who lost her gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin, and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has argued that Democrats should include people like Piker because the streamer reaches a large audience. Democratic strategist James Carville, meanwhile, has expressed considerably less enthusiasm about turning the Democratic Party into a group project with Piker.

This leaves Democrats facing the sort of strategic question that political consultants usually charge six figures to avoid answering: Is Hasan Piker an electoral asset, or is he what happens when a campaign accidentally gives the microphone to the internet?

Commentator Kaivan Shroff noted that Piker probably would have been celebrating loudly had Larkin won.

"One of the asymmetries in Democratic politics right now is that when a DSA candidate wins, it is immediately treated as evidence of some enormous ideological realignment in the party," Shroff said. "When a more moderate Democrat wins, there is usually much less hype and almost no corresponding narrative.

"We saw that with David Crowley beating Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, and now Moskowitz has beaten a DSA-backed challenger in Florida," Shroff continued. "Imagine the coverage if the result had gone the other way, and imagine the victory lap Hasan Piker and the online left would be taking right now.

"I actually think there is value in Moskowitz picking this fight," he added. "Piker backed his opponent and made himself part of the race. By going after him publicly, Moskowitz is forcing people to tell the other side of this story, and, frankly, here we are talking about it because he did."

Indeed, Piker's involvement in Democratic politics has produced an electoral strategy that appears to have been designed by someone who believes America is simultaneously an oppressive empire and the most important audience on Earth.

After El-Sayed won his Michigan primary, Piker rejected calls for the candidate to repair relationships with skeptical Democrats ahead of the general election against Republican Mike Rogers.

"Like everyone being like, Abdul has a f--- ton of work to do mending bridges. Here's the f---ing take nuke for you, OK? You are all unbelievably Islamophobic pieces of s---, OK?" Piker said.

Which is certainly one approach to coalition building.

Nothing says “let's expand the Democratic coalition” quite like immediately informing large portions of the existing coalition that they are human garbage.

And now Piker has another Democratic primary loss to contemplate, along with the horrifying possibility that a Democratic congressman might actually want voters to know who his political allies are.

Moskowitz has apparently decided that if Hasan Piker wants to help Democrats win elections, Democrats should at least have the courtesy to introduce him to the voters.

"Everyone, this is Hasan. He thinks America is terrible, Israel is worse, capitalism is evil, and somehow we're supposed to believe he's helping us win Florida."

The condolences, it seems, were entirely appropriate.

In the strange new world of Democratic politics, apparently the most controversial thing a congressman can do is win an election, thank his constituents, remember his father, and then point out who was rooting for the other guy.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Tyler Robinson was a Stevie Wonder marksman in practice shots, thus bystanders at risk says prosecutors

Fox News correspondent Matt Finn reported on the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson in Provo, Utah, where prosecutors prepared to unleash what they described as overwhelming evidence in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. 

The evidence reportedly included video testimony from Robinson's former roommate and text message confessions, because apparently this case decided to skip the subtlety phase entirely. 

Retired FBI supervisory agent James Gagliano also weighed in as the Kirk family demanded transparency, with cameras now permitted inside the courtroom. And prosecutors offered another fascinating detail about Robinson's alleged marksmanship. According to Utah prosecutors, Robinson "seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target completely" while practicing with the suspected murder weapon.Which, prosecutors argued, was rather important when your alleged plan involved climbing onto a rooftop and firing at a man surrounded by thousands of people.

The state attempted to establish that Robinson knowingly created a substantial risk of killing someone other than Kirk when he allegedly fired from a rooftop toward the crowd. Kirk was taking questions from the audience at a small stage in the campus courtyard when he was struck in the neck. 

Robinson's defense previously argued that the fatal shot came from above the crowd and did not travel through it. The defense noted that only one shot was fired, it struck the intended victim, and no bystanders were hit. 

The prosecution's response, essentially, was that "Nobody else got shot" is not exactly the strongest argument when you are allegedly firing a rifle toward thousands of people. 

An image of shooting targets was displayed during the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, who is accused in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, at the Fourth District Courthouse in Provo, Utah, Thursday, July 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Spenser Heaps, Pool)

Prosecutors had to prove an aggravating factor at trial if they wanted to seek capital punishment. They alleged that Robinson's shooting created a great risk of death to someone other than Kirk and that Robinson knew about that danger.

The defense wanted that aggravating factor removed before trial, which would eliminate the possibility of a death sentence if Robinson was convicted. 

The allegations were contained in a reply made public Tuesday in response to an earlier filing by the defense. The filings followed a week-long preliminary hearing in early July designed to determine whether sufficient probable cause existed to send the case to trial.

Judge Tony Graf Jr. said he would issue a final decision on Sept. 1. 

Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. Kirk was speaking at his "American Comeback Tour" when he was shot in the neck and killed. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images)

Prosecutors told Graf that Robinson's case should not only be sent to trial, but that the defense team "violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court" by allegedly ignoring basic case law governing how evidence is evaluated during a preliminary hearing. 

When drawing inferences, prosecutors wrote, the magistrate "must" draw all reasonable ones in the state's favor. In other words, if a man allegedly fired a rifle from a rooftop toward a crowd of thousands, the court was apparently allowed to consider the radical possibility that someone in the crowd might get shot. 

Robinson's cartridge had "Catch" engraved on it. (AP Photo/Spenser Heaps, Pool)

Robinson had not yet entered a plea. 

He was accused of driving from his home in southern Utah to Orem and fatally shooting Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Prosecutors alleged that he subsequently confessed to several people before surrendering to authorities in his hometown. The case then moved forward with prosecutors arguing that firing at a target from a rooftop into a crowd created, rather inconveniently, the possibility that people other than the target could be killed.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet