Friday, September 4, 2026

The Mayor Who Cannot Name the Murderers



There are occasions when a politician is required to say what happened. September 11 is one of them.

Nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Islamist terrorists. They were not unfortunate extras in some abstract pageant of global suffering. They were not incidental casualties of an unspecified “war that followed.” They were murdered by men who hijacked passenger aircraft and flew them into buildings on purpose. It is hard to think of a historical fact that requires less interpretation.

Yet the words of New York City’s Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, have raised the awkward question of whether he means to mark the day as an act of remembrance or as another occasion to lecture the public about the consequences of American foreign policy.

A post from 2023 has resurfaced. “Nearly 3,000 New Yorkers died on 9/11; 22 years later, the death hasn't stopped. We mourn our neighbors who died that day. The hundreds of thousands who died in the wars that followed. The unknown millions injured & displaced. In their memory, we work toward a better world,” Mamdani wrote on X in 2023.

There is nothing objectionable in mourning civilians killed in later wars. There is nothing objectionable in wanting a better world. There is something peculiar, however, in commemorating the greatest terrorist attack in American history without mentioning the terrorists.

The sentence contains the dead. It contains the wars. It contains the injured and the displaced. It contains the pious hope of a better world. What it does not contain is the word “terrorists.” Nor does it say that the nearly 3,000 New Yorkers were murdered. This may appear a small matter of wording. To the families of the dead it is not.

Some of those families are now asking that Mamdani stay away from New York’s 25th-anniversary commemoration. Their unease has only grown after his interview with Hasan Piker, who said in 2019, “America deserved 9/11.”

Mamdani first declined to condemn the remark. He later called it “objectionable and reprehensible.” One might have thought that identifying as reprehensible the claim that America deserved to be attacked by terrorists would be the easy part. Apparently even that required a pause for reflection.

Marc Thiessen, who was inside the Pentagon when the planes hit, was less given to philosophical hesitation. “As someone who was in the Pentagon when the planes hit, this is absolutely disgraceful. You have no business ever setting foot at Ground Zero, much less on 9/11. If you dare show up, I hope you are greeted with such a Bronx cheer that you slink away in shame,” wrote Thiessen.

New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov was no more impressed. “I guess they all just ‘died’ in an accident? And then you wonder why the families of 9/11 victims don’t want you at the ceremony. Stay home, Mamdani,” wrote Vernikov.

Florida Rep. Randy Fine was blunter still. “Nearly 25 years later, NYC’s Mayor is in bed with Muslim terrorists and refuses to call out evil for what it is. Unfortunately, it seems the city forgot when they elected Jihadi Mamdani mayor. But we never will,” wrote Fine.


Fox News contributor and former NYPD officer Paul Mauro offered the mayor some advice. “You've made this easy. Don't show up on 9/11 this year -- or any year. We're not interested in your moral equivalency, nepo baby. Stick to the parlor communism daddy taught you. You and your buddy Piker can spend the day practicing Mandarin,” he said.

Michael La Rosa, a former spokesman for first lady DOCTOR Jill Biden, captured the general reaction with economy. “Is this real?”

Nancy Mace had no interest in economy of that kind. “Americans were MURDERED by TERRORISTS in the most horrific way,” she wrote.

Joey Jones, co-host of “Big Weekend Show,” put the matter more personally. “What a coward. They were murdered and sleep well at night knowing I and thousands of my brothers did our part to even the f—–g score,” he wrote.

The argument is not about whether wars produce suffering. Everyone knows that they do. It is about whether September 11 can be spoken of without first stating the most elementary moral fact of the day.The terrorists did this. They chose their targets. They chose their victims. They chose to murder thousands of people. And those who died were not responsible for the wars that followed their deaths.

That is why the language used to commemorate September 11 matters. There are many days in the year for arguing about American foreign policy. There are fewer for remembering 3,000 people who were murdered because Islamist terrorists decided they should die.

Mamdani says he intends to attend the commemoration to honor the victims, survivors, families and first responders alongside Vice President JD Vance and former presidents, including Biden and Bush. Some of the families would prefer that he think again.

A petition organized by several victims’ families asks the organizers to consider whether his presence is appropriate to the purpose of the ceremony. “We respectfully ask that the organizers carefully consider whether Mr. Mamdani’s participation would align with the intention of the ceremony and the expectations of the families most directly affected by the tragedy,” a Change.org petition states.

It is a reasonable question.

There is a difference between remembering that thousands of people were killed and remembering why they were killed. The first requires memory. The second requires moral clarity.


On September 11, 2001, New York did not suffer an unfortunate episode in the general history of human misery. It was attacked. And nearly 3,000 people were murdered. For the families who lost them, that remains difficult to forget. One would hope the mayor of New York could manage the same.

I will always remember the soot from office papers that ended up in the gutters of my Brooklyn home.

What do you remember about that day 25 years 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.


Another Knife-Wielding Maniac Charges Police In NYC, Because Progressive Utopia Is Going Great



Police had to confront and kill a knife-wielding maniac in New York City on Friday. This came just days after a different maniac went on a stabbing rampage, killing one person and wounding another in Times Square

City leaders remain shocked that this keeps happening while defunding the police is never off the table to leftists.

The man was first seen walking on the Brooklyn Bridge cables around 3:30 a.m. Officers scaled the bridge to talk him into coming down safely. That turned into a standoff. The man lunged at them and made threats.

“He stated, ‘I want to die, I want you to kill me, I have a bomb, you’re not going to make me do something bad to the cops,’” NYPD’s Emergency Services Unit (ESU) Assistant Chief Gerard Dowling, told reporters.

Officers spent nearly one hour asking the man to drop his weapon and come down. They tried to reason with a guy who said he wanted to die and might have a bomb. 

Then the knife-wielding man started coming down the cables. He lunged at one officer when he got within three feet. “At that point, a member of ESU who was on the roadbed of the bridge discharged his weapon one time, striking the man,” Dowling said.

The man was rushed to the hospital and pronounced dead. All Brooklyn-bound lanes of the bridge shut down during peak Friday morning commute hours. 

This incident came after another knife attack in New York City on Monday. 

Erin Piacenti, a young wife and new mother who had just returned from maternity leave to her VP job at Bank of America, was stabbed and killed by a mentally disturbed woman. A handful of leftists cheered the murder because of the victim's bank position, just like they did when Luigi Mangione shot and killed Brian Thompson, a CEO for UnitedHealthcare.

Another unidentified man in the Piacenti incident was also injured and taken to the hospital. He was released on Tuesday. Police fatally shot the attacker, 49-year-old Pamela Cisneros, who was armed with two kitchen knives. Cisneros, from Queens, had previous outbursts tied to her mental state. She refused repeated commands to drop the knives when officers confronted her near an NYPD substation.

“During the encounter, she told the officers, ‘I’m not dropping anything. I would rather kill both of you.’ She repeated, ‘I will kill you,’” NYPD Chief, Jessica Tisch said during a press briefing.

Several weeks before that, there was another stabbing near Times Square. A man was stabbed in the head during an argument inside a subway station. Officials are sure the next round of sensitivity training and reduced police presence will fix everything.

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.

Thursday, September 3, 2026

BREAKING: LA Podcaster Arrested After Discovering ‘Kill Donald Trump’ Is Apparently Not A Great Free Speech Strategy



LOS ANGELES, CA: An LA-based left-wing podcaster has reportedly discovered the exciting limits of free speech after FBI agents showed up at his Westlake home to arrest him for allegedly threatening to kill President Donald Trump.

Azariah Southworth, 40, a gay Christian podcast host, was detained after allegedly making repeated threats against the president and stalking Trump's personal lawyer and the lawyer's family, according to the New York Post.

Apparently, Southworth had been operating under the increasingly popular California legal theory that anything can be considered protected speech as long as you say "free speech" loudly enough.

According to court documents, Southworth posted a video on Instagram on April 7 in which he declared, “I have been vocal in calling for the execution of Donald Trump. This government is illegitimate and out of control. It’s time for course correction. Kill Donald Trump."

Authorities apparently interpreted this less as a nuanced commentary on constitutional government and more as a threat, which is the correct interpretation if you understand English.

As police took him away, Southworth reportedly continued expressing his political opinions by yelling, “Donald Trump is a pedophile! The country has fallen!” Chances are Southworth is merely projecting.

Prosecutors said Southworth had called for Trump's assassination multiple times, both publicly and privately.

In a January text conversation with an associate, Southworth allegedly wrote, “If I encounter any Trump official in-person, I’m seriously afraid I will end up in Jail,” before immediately demonstrating an impressive lack of confidence in his own prediction.

“But if I could Kill him, I wouldn’t waste the opportunity," he added.

“I want to funnel this rage into street art. That’s my plan,” he continued. “But GOD I want that motherf*cker and his minions dead.”

Trump's minions

According to prosecutors, Southworth regularly used his podcasting platform to encourage violence against the president, apparently believing that the First Amendment includes a special clause covering people who really, really hate the president.

“I want to practice my free speech as a survivor of conversion therapy for five years,” he said in a video in March. “Kill Donald Trump. Kill that mothef*cking pedophile in the White House. Kill that traitor of the United States Constitution.”

The phrase "free speech" was reportedly invoked so frequently that somewhere, an actual First Amendment attorney quietly developed a migraine.

Then, in April, Southworth allegedly posted another video depicting himself teleporting into the White House behind Trump while raising a knife as though preparing to stab the president.

Southworth had apparently anticipated that his increasingly specific calls for the president's execution might eventually attract the attention of federal law enforcement.

On Instagram, he previously posted a statement to followers explaining what he believed might happen if he were arrested.

“I am making this video today in the event of my arrest. It has been a long-held belief that calling for the execution of the president of The United States will get you put on a list or arrested,” he said. “I have friends who are concerned this will happen to me as I have been vocal in calling for the execution of Donald Trump.”

It turns out his friends may have been onto something.

“It’s time for course correction,” he added.

“Kill Donald Trump.”

And thus concludes another fascinating chapter in the ongoing American experiment in which people discover that the First Amendment protects an astonishing amount of speech, but apparently does not come with a complimentary federal immunity package.

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.

Elaine Luria Wants to Raise Your Taxes, But Apparently Her Own Tax Deadlines Are Just Suggestions




Elaine Luria is running for Congress in Virginia's 2nd District, and she has a bold plan for hardworking Virginia families. She wants them to pay more taxes. 

The Democrat launched her campaign by attacking the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave millions of Americans tax relief. Apparently, allowing people to keep more of their own money was simply too dangerous to leave unchecked.

According to Virginia Public Media (VPM):
In her campaign announcement, Luria wrote Kiggans has “established a pattern of promising Virginians one thing in public, only to turn around and vote the other way in Washington.”

She pointed specifically to Kiggans’ vote on the Big Beautiful Bill, which cut health care subsidies, despite Kiggans previously saying she could not support a federal budget that “come(s) at the expense of those who depend on these benefits for their health and economic security.”

“I cannot sit back and watch as Republicans in Congress create chaos while failing to address the rising cost of living and the issues that matter to Coastal Virginians,” Luria wrote in her campaign announcement.
Fortunately for Luria, there is an easy way to address the rising cost of living: simply raise it.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act gave Virginia families an average tax cut of about $3,600 compared with the previous tax law. It also protected 62 percent of taxpayers from automatic tax increases.

Luria opposed the tax cuts.

She opposed No Tax on Tips.

She opposed No Tax on Overtime.

She opposed the expanded Child Tax Credit.

She opposed the SALT deduction expansion.

She opposed Death Tax relief for family farms.

In other words, if Congress finds a way to let you keep an extra dollar, Luria would apparently like to be notified immediately so she can take it back.

No Tax on Tips is expected to save the average worker about $1,800 a year. No Tax on Overtime is expected to save workers between $1,400 and $1,750 annually.

The Death Tax provision increased the estate tax exemption from $5 million to $15 million, helping protect family farms from enormous tax bills.

Luria apparently looked at all of that and thought, "How can we stop this?"

She has also called for rolling back the 2017 tax cuts.

At a 2018 candidate forum, Luria said, "We need to roll back these tax cuts that we've made."

So Luria wants to roll back your tax cuts.

She wants to tax your tips.

She wants to tax your overtime.

She wants to reduce your Child Tax Credit.

She wants to make sure hardworking Virginians have fewer dollars left in their wallets at the end of the month.

But there is one fascinating detail about Luria's tax philosophy. She has reportedly had some trouble paying her own taxes on time.

According to official City of Norfolk tax records, Luria repeatedly failed to pay her municipal real estate taxes on time, dating back to at least 2005. Between 2005 and 2022, some of Luria's payments were several weeks late. In total, she was late on more than $8,400 in payments.

This is apparently known as the Luria Tax Plan: raise everybody else's taxes immediately, pay yours whenever you feel like it.

Her personal property taxes tell a similar story. In Virginia, personal property includes "automobiles, trucks, manufactured homes, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and aircraft."

According to Norfolk records, Luria's 2005 quarterly tax payment was due December 5. She paid it December 6. That's right. One whole day late.

And she did not pay a penalty or interest.

The pattern reportedly happened several times, with city records showing Luria never paid a penalty or interest for her late payments, unlike us peons.

So while Luria wants to give Virginia families a lecture about paying their fair share, she apparently has occasionally treated the tax deadline like a recommendation from the DMV.

Perhaps this explains her tax philosophy. Taxes are mandatory for you, but apparently negotiable for me.

Luria is now asking voters to send her to Washington so she can help make Virginia families poorer. She wants to roll back tax cuts, tax tips and overtime, reduce the Child Tax Credit and increase the amount of money Washington collects from Americans. Meanwhile, she has a documented history of being late with her own tax payments.

There is, admittedly, a certain consistency here. Luria believes taxes should be taken seriously. Just not necessarily by Elaine Luria.

Virginia voters might want to remember that the candidate promising to raise their taxes has already demonstrated an unusual relationship with tax deadlines.

She wants your money on time. She just apparently doesn't think the rule applies to her.

This elitist snob does not deserve a Congressional seat. She deserves a penalty on her past tax indiscretions. 

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.



House Democrats Vote To Preserve Supreme Court At Nine Justices Until Democrats Get Around To Changing It



House Democrats voted Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would permanently lock the Supreme Court at its current nine justices, apparently deciding that nine is perfectly acceptable as long as Democrats retain the option of making it 13 or more later.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), needed a two-thirds majority because, inconveniently, it would actually amend the Constitution. It received 212 votes to 206, falling well short of the required threshold, with all but one House Democrat voting against it.

The proposed amendment was remarkably straightforward. It would state, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

Biggs explained that the amendment was necessary because Democrats [aka progressives, aka leftists] have increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court that occasionally issues rulings they do not like, leading some on the left to propose the time-honored solution of simply adding enough new justices until the correct answer appears.

“If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,” he said.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) urged Democrats to reject the amendment, arguing that permanently keeping the Court at nine justices would deprive Congress of the ability to change the number whenever circumstances, election results or disappointing judicial opinions make it necessary.

Comrade Clark

“This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,” the leftist argued, adding that discussing the size of the Supreme Court could distract Congress from more pressing matters such as affordability, which apparently has nothing to do with the number of Supreme Court justices.

Of course, the Constitution itself does not specify how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. Congress has historically handled that little detail.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with six justices. Congress added a seventh in 1807, increased the number to nine in 1837, and then added a tenth during the Civil War in 1863.

Congress subsequently reduced the number to seven in 1866, partly to prevent President Andrew Johnson from filling vacancies. In 1869, the Judiciary Act restored the Court to nine justices, where it has remained ever since.

That consistency apparently became suspicious.

Back in the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six additional justices to the Court after the existing justices repeatedly ruled against portions of his New Deal agenda. The proposal became known as the infamous court-packing plan, although it might more accurately be described as an early attempt to discover how many Supreme Court seats were required to produce the desired constitutional interpretation.

The plan generated enough backlash, including from members of Roosevelt's own party, that it was eventually abandoned.

Nearly a century later, however, court packing has returned, this time with considerably less embarrassment.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Nothing says respect for the constitutional underpinnings of the nation quite like ordering a few extra Supreme Court seats from the judicial bakery.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also indicated support for a 13-member Court, suggesting that the idea is gaining momentum among Democrats who apparently view the current nine justices as less of a constitutional institution and more of an insufficiently large focus group.

Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote for Biggs' amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who normally caucuses with Republicans, voted against it.

For now, therefore, the Supreme Court remains at nine justices.

Not because Democrats have suddenly concluded that nine is the ideal number.

Not because they have discovered some timeless constitutional principle requiring it.

And certainly not because they have decided that voters should not be able to change the Court's composition through the creative use of congressional arithmetic.

The Court remains at nine because, for the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to make it larger.

Should the political winds change, however, Americans can apparently expect the nation's highest court to undergo the same basic transformation as a congressional seating chart: If you don't like the outcome, simply add more chairs until you do.

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.


Wednesday, September 2, 2026

American Citizen Busted Spying for China on U.S. Gets a Deuce


An American citizen has been sentenced to merely two years in prison for acting as an agent of a foreign government within the United States, a development that will surely come as a complete shock to anyone who assumed that was still frowned upon.

Thomas Weir Pauken II, 51, an American citizen who lived and worked in the People’s Republic of China, was sentenced earlier this week to two years in prison and 36 months of supervised release with no overseas travel for acting as an agent of a foreign government within the United States. The no-overseas-travel part is expected to be especially inconvenient for a man whose entire business model depended on flying back and forth like a patriotic courier service for Beijing.

Court documents say that from at least 2019 until February 2026, Pauken, a total scumcrumpet, worked at the direction and control of people he knew worked for the PRC, including a person he met in 2017 identified as “Cathy.” 

Cathy, in the grand tradition of international intrigue, was apparently not just a friendly networking contact who happened to work for Chinese intelligence. 

“Pauken exploited his U.S. citizenship and corresponding ability to travel to the U.S. without restriction in order to support Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) operations, recruiting, and gathering of sensitive information from potential assets,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. “Pauken betrayed his country for money. The National Security Division is committed to holding accountable anyone who aids or abets Chinese espionage efforts.”

Cathy provided Pauken with taskings, including meeting with potential intelligence assets, providing them with devices such as a laptop and cellphone to communicate with Cathy, providing taskings for the assets on what information was required, and providing Cathy with reports from the assets. In other words, he was the guy who showed up with the complimentary hardware and a list of homework assignments from the Ministry of State Security.

“Thomas Pauken knowingly assisted a foreign adversary in actively subverting the government of the United States for his own financial gain,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Theophani K. Stamos for the Eastern District of Virginia. “This was not an isolated act; Pauken continued his course of conduct to aid China for seven years. It is unconscionable that an American citizen would not only undermine the interests of the United States, but also facilitate others in doing so.”

Pauken received at least $100,000 for his work with Cathy. Cathy also paid for Pauken to travel several times between 2019 and 2025 from China to meet with individuals in the United States who could provide Pauken, and ultimately Cathy and the MSS, with information. 

Seven years of service, multiple recruitment trips, and a six-figure payout: the going rate for selling out the country appears to have been roughly the cost of a nice suburban kitchen remodel. And all he got was two years and some hand-holding when he gets out.

“Thomas Pauken admitted to working at the direction of China’s Ministry of State Security to attempt to infiltrate U.S. political circles while also providing new recruitment targets for his Chinese handlers,” said Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI’s Counterintelligence and Espionage Division. “This case illustrates the lengths to which the Chinese Communist Party will go to undermine our democratic institutions, and it also demonstrates the FBI’s resolve to defend the homeland from threats to our national security. 

The sentencing provides a clear warning: anyone operating as an agent of a foreign government against the U.S. will be found by the FBI and held accountable.” At least for a little bit.

Pauken worked for two other people in China whom he met in 2017 and knew as “Richard” and “William.” They told Pauken that reports he wrote for them went to Japan, but Pauken believed they worked for the PRC government. 

Nothing says “plausible deniability” quite like two guys named Richard and William insisting the intel is definitely headed to Tokyo. 

Pauken also sold reports to a group of Chinese individuals from Wuhan who sought information about technology and the U.S. Department of Justice. The Wuhan clients wanted Pauken to find an expert to help them engage in cyber espionage. Because when you already have a guy with a U.S. passport and a side hustle, the natural next step is shopping around for a cyber specialist.

The FBI’s Philadelphia Field Office investigated the case with the assistance of the FBI Washington Field Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gavin R. Tisdale of the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Eli Ross of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence & Export Control Section are prosecuting the case. 

Currently, Pauken was reportedly reviewing the supervised-release terms and wondering whether “no overseas travel” includes a strongly worded exception for one last debrief with Cathy, who I doubt is a blond.

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.


House Passes Vote Condemning Socialism



The House passed a resolution condemning socialism on September 1, voting 220–192 with two cowardly members voting as "present."

H.Res.1490, introduced by Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO-5), explicitly condemns socialism in all its forms and names the Democratic Socialists of America as an organization the House opposes. It recommits the House to upholding the U.S. Constitution for some reason that seems to bewilder most Democrats.

The resolution was a key messaging vote for Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections, as the Democratic Socialists of America picked off two House incumbents in Democratic primaries, proving the voters who support this political philosophy actually do get what they deserve, good and hard, but so do the rest of us. 

H.Res.1490 moved through Congress on a compressed timeline. The Rules Committee reported the resolution on August 31 by a 7–4 vote, and it reached the House floor under a closed rule the following day. A closed rule restricts amendments and limits floor debate.

The vote allows the GOP to claim they took action against socialism, a potent talking point in conservative districts and in truth, they did take action against the destructive policies of socialism.

The bill also includes language supporting election integrity measures like the SAVE Act.

The vote was 220-192, with 2 members voting present. All Republicans who voted supported it, joined by 8 Democrats. 192 Democrats voted no.

This was a symbolic, messaging vote ahead of the midterms, following recent primary wins by DSA-aligned candidates. Similar resolutions have passed before (for example, a 2025 concurrent resolution denouncing the “horrors of socialism” passed 285-98).

Unfortunately, although the bill is symbolic, what it denounces is dangerous to living beings, old and young.  

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.


Calif. coffee shop accused of kicking out Jewish dad, 5-year-old son shutters amid anti-Semitism lawsuits


There is a particular sort of establishment that flatters itself as a sanctuary of conscience. It sells coffee, posts murals, and treats the slaughter of Jews as a branding exercise.

Jerusalem Coffee House in Oakland has now closed its doors, at least for the moment, while its owners prepare for an October federal civil rights trial. The pause is not an act of reflection. It is the consequence of having spent years turning a public café into a checkpoint for Jewish identity.

The Palestinian-owned shop remained shut on Wednesday after announcing it would stop operating after August 23. Three lawsuits allege that it discriminated against Jewish customers, among them a father and his five-year-old son. One of those cases is a Justice Department action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, scheduled for trial on October 26. 

A federal judge has already refused to throw it out. The complaint is not complicated. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara and his staff allegedly refused service to Jewish customers wearing Star of David caps and then followed them into the street with insults and threats.

That is the oldest prejudice in the Western world, rehearsed over an espresso machine.The café prefers another story. In an August statement on Substack it blamed its legal troubles on a campaign to silence its politics.

"These lawsuits represent the ongoing efforts of Zionist organizations [read: Jewish organizations] and the federal government to use the courts as a tool to repress free speech and public political commitments to Palestine," it said.

Note the sleight of hand. The Star of David becomes “Zionist harassment.” A father and a child become instruments of the federal government. Israel, the Jewish state that exists because Jews learned what happens when they are left without one, is recast as the aggressor. 

The massacre of October 7, in which Palestinian terrorists murdered more than 1,200 people and dragged children and Americans into Gaza as hostages, is treated as background noise. The Jewish customer who declines to disavow his people is the problem.


Elizabeth Barcohana, the California Republican Party Jewish engagement chair and an attorney, put the inversion with the precision it deserves. "It is ironic that after freely expressing support for terrorism with these beverage names, the café owners appear to now be using the First Amendment as a defense for ejecting two Jewish customers who wore hats with Stars of David on them, in one case calling it a 'violent' hat," she said. "By their own standard, if a hat can be violent, so can an iced tea. The First Amendment protects speech on hats; it does NOT protect businesses open to the public to discriminate against its customers because they're Jews while chasing them in the street shouting 'Jew' at them."

On the one-year anniversary of October 7th, a Palestinian terrorist attack against innocent civilians that killed over 1,200 people and took hundreds of hostages including children and Americans, Jerusalem Coffee Shop in Oakland unveiled a new menu celebrating terrorism. Beverage items named 'Iced in Tea Fada' celebrate Intifada (an Arabic call to violence signifying resistance by any means necessary, including terrorism) and 'Sweet Sinwar' honoring the principal architect behind the attack," she added. 

The cowardly shop owner denied that “Sweet Sinwar” referred to the Hamas leader who planned the slaughter, and claimed the October 7 menu launch merely marked its own anniversary. 

One may believe that if one is determined to. The rest of us can read. Intifada is not a flavor. Sinwar was not a pastry chef. Israel’s war in Gaza is the war that any nation would fight after its civilians were hunted in their homes. To name a drink after the architect of that hunt, on the anniversary of the hunt, and then to call a Jewish child’s father a “violent” presence for wearing the symbol of his people, is not speech. It is a confession.


Barcohana hopes the shutdown lasts. "The owners have temporarily closed the coffee shop while they defend this discrimination lawsuit against them," she said. "Hopefully it remains permanently closed."

The Anti-Defamation League and Benesch sued on behalf of Michael Radice, who says he was refused service and subjected to anti-Semitic slurs. The Louis D. Brandeis Center filed a state case for Jonathan Hirsch, ejected with his young son after Harara confronted him over the Star of David. The Justice Department filed in June 2025. When it did, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division stated the law without the usual throat-clearing. "It is illegal, intolerable and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers," she said. "Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans."


That is the point the café and its chorus refuse to grasp. You may despise Israel. You may chant for Palestine until the cups rattle. You may even, in the moral slum that parts of American progressivism have become, treat Hamas as folklore. What you may not do is open a shop to the public and then decide that Jews, identified by the oldest emblem of their faith and peoplehood, are unfit to sit down. 

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 [but not at the Jerusalem Cafe] 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.

Zionism is not a hat crime. It is the name for the Jewish refusal to be murdered again and then lectured about it. Oakland has produced a case study in how anti-Semitism now travels. It arrives as solidarity. It names its drinks after killers. It tells a five-year-old that his father must leave. Then it files the paperwork of martyrdom and calls the courts a Zionist plot. Israel remains the only democracy in its neighborhood and the only state that would have been condemned for surviving October 7. The coffee shop is closed. The argument it made about Jews is not. 

That argument should lose.

The Mayor Who Cannot Name the Murderers

There are occasions when a politician is required to say what happened. September 11 is one of them. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Is...