Was James Talarico in a mental institution or did he actually have the flu?

Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has returned to the campaign trail after nearly two weeks out of public view, but a recorded phone call alleging he was discharged from an Ohio mental-health facility has intensified scrutiny of his absence. His campaign insists he was home in Austin recovering from the flu. So far, neither the allegation nor the campaign’s account has been independently verified in full. 

But we all know a politician and his staff, would never lie on their behalf.

The state representative went roughly 12 days without an in-person campaign appearance in late September and early October. His campaign blamed influenza, saying he was diagnosed at a Dallas urgent-care facility on September 30 and recovered at home in Austin.

And we all know a politician and his staff, would never lie on their behalf.

For a candidate hoping to flip a Republican Senate seat, disappearing during a critical stretch of the campaign is hardly ideal. President Donald Trump, Republican nominee Ken Paxton, and political commentators all took notice.

Talarico resurfaced at the festival on October 9. Campaign spokesman JT Ennis posted video of the candidate and declared, “Hate to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but James is still alive and meeting with voters at ACL today.”

Being alive and attending a music festival, however, does not answer every question about an extended absence. If you pay attention to some of the things he had said, including his take on Christianity, you would not be surprised to hear another take on where he actually was during his absence.

On October 11, independent journalists Nick Sortor and Rhein Amacher released a recording of a phone call with an unidentified employee at the Lindner Center of Hope, a residential mental-health facility in Mason, Ohio. According to the journalists, the employee reportedly said, after a pause, that Talarico “was just discharged this evening,” or within the preceding 24 to 48 hours, and confirmed the facility's name.

Sortor and others have presented the recording as evidence that Talarico was a patient there, contradicting the campaign's explanation that he was recovering from the flu at home in Austin. Related reporting has cited private-flight tracking involving a nearby Ohio airport and the fact that Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo previously stayed at the same facility. Neither detail independently establishes that Talarico received treatment there.
 
The campaign has categorically denied the allegation.

Ennis responded: “This is a lie designed to promote a pathetic conspiracy theory. Last week James Talarico was home in Austin, Texas recovering from the flu.”

The facility has issued no public confirmation of Talarico's alleged stay. Subsequent callers, including Brian Krassenstein, reportedly received the standard response that patient information cannot be confirmed or denied.

As of October 11, no official records, facility statement, or independent verification establishes that Talarico was treated at the center. The recording has fueled speculation, but it does not conclusively prove the allegation. Earlier reporting also described the mental-health rumors as unverified.

The distinction matters. Voters have every right to question a candidate's unexplained absence, but allegations should not be presented as established facts without evidence.

Talarico offered his own explanation during a September 30 video appearance at the United States Hispanic Business Council's “In Dialogue: Texas” candidate forum in Edinburg. He had originally planned to attend in person.

“I was starting to feel kind of under the weather a few days ago and last night it got so bad that I went to the urgent care here in Dallas, and I was diagnosed with the flu.”

His last scheduled in-person appearance before the illness was reportedly a September 28 New York fundraiser featuring actor Robert De Niro.

Talarico is expected to resume a full schedule of in-person events. CNN and Jubilee Media have also scheduled a live town hall with him in Fort Worth for October 14 at 7 p.m. Central, with Paxton invited.

That appearance will give Talarico another opportunity to address voters. Whether he can put the controversy behind him remains to be seen.
A Candidate With a Rather Unusual Christian Message

Talarico has made Christianity central to his political identity. His campaign describes him as “a Presbyterian seminarian studying to become a pastor.”

Yet his policy positions include support for federal legislation codifying Roe v. Wade and protecting same-sex marriage, putting him at odds with many traditional Christians.

His longtime Austin congregation, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, has previously listed Planned Parenthood Greater Texas among organizations that shared its “vision and goals for the world.” The church's benevolence budget has also supported the organization, according to The Dallas Express.

Talarico has also attracted criticism for declaring that “God is non-binary” and arguing that there were six biological sexes. He subsequently revised those positions.

In a September Fox News interview, he acknowledged that he had “missed the mark on some of my past statements,” said there are two sexes, and supported a federal ban on sex-alteration surgeries for minors.

The reversal raises an obvious political question: Has Talarico genuinely reconsidered his views, or is he adjusting his message to appeal to Texas voters as Election Day approaches?

Even some on the left have expressed dissatisfaction. The Washington Post reported that Texas Stonewall Democrats leader Robert Vargas III called Talarico's recent remarks “a significant shift,” while Equality Texas CEO Brad Pritchett said, “We expect better.”

Meanwhile, socialist streamer Hasan Piker has applied pressure from another direction. At a September 30 event at the University of Texas at Austin, Piker told activists who helped Talarico win his primary to remind the candidate who put him in power. As The Dallas Express reported, Piker said that “if he wants to maintain it he’s got to play ball.”

Talarico must therefore navigate competing demands from progressive activists while attempting to reassure voters who may be uncomfortable with his earlier statements. His challenge is to explain whether his changing positions reflect genuine conviction or political expediency.
Democratic Unity Shows Cracks

Talarico's difficulties extend beyond Republicans and religious conservatives.

The Congressional Black Caucus PAC endorsed him in September, and Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett publicly supported him after losing her own primary. Yet Crockett's Fueling Individual Rights Everywhere PAC later released an endorsement list that did not include Talarico.

That omission does not establish a falling-out, but it illustrates the complications facing a nominee who must unite competing factions of his party.

Sheena Flanary, a former Collin County Democratic Party chair who now serves as Texas Democratic Party vice chair for voter engagement, also said in an undercover recording that Talarico's campaign had rebuffed her offers of assistance, according to The Dallas Express.

Talarico has faced pointed questions from Black voters before, including at a July 19 town hall in Houston.

Winning the Democratic nomination is one thing. Building a statewide coalition is another. Talarico must persuade voters that his candidacy offers more than carefully calibrated messaging designed to appease whichever faction happens to be demanding his attention.
Why the Race Matters

Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, compared with 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with them. A Democratic victory in Texas would eliminate one Republican seat in a cycle in which Democrats need a net gain of four seats to reach 51.

Texas has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since Lloyd Bentsen won reelection in 1988. Flipping the state would therefore represent a major Democratic victory, with consequences for legislation, judicial confirmations, federal spending, and President Donald Trump's agenda.

For Republicans, the opportunity is to make Talarico defend his record, his shifting positions, and his vision for the country. For Talarico, the challenge is to demonstrate that he can withstand scrutiny and represent Texans rather than simply satisfy the demands of progressive activists.

The allegation concerning the Ohio mental-health facility remains unverified and should be treated accordingly. But the broader questions surrounding Talarico's campaign, including his public statements and ability to manage a high-stakes Senate race, are legitimate subjects of debate.

Voters need neither accept every campaign explanation at face value nor believe every rumor circulating online. They should demand evidence, examine the candidates' records, and judge them on their policies and conduct.

Early voting in Texas begins October 19 and runs through October 30. Election Day is November 3.

Talarico's return to public view may end his absence from the campaign trail, but it does not end the scrutiny. With control of the Senate potentially at stake, Texas voters deserve a clear account of what their candidates believe, what they intend to do in Washington, and why they should be trusted with the responsibility.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Houthi Missile Attack on Saudi Airport Kills 12, Including American, and Wounds More Than 300

Iran-backed Houthi terrorists killed at least 12 people, including an American citizen, and wounded more than 300 others in a missile attack Saturday on Saudi Arabia’s busiest airport. The assault has prompted President Trump to consider joining Saudi-led military operations against the terrorist group.

The missile struck the complex housing Terminals 3 and 4 at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, sending panicked travelers running for cover, overwhelming nearby hospitals, and forcing authorities to suspend operations at the kingdom’s principal aviation hub.

Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation confirmed 12 deaths and 309 injuries, including several people in critical condition. The dead included four Saudis, two Bangladeshis, and one American, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Sudanese, and Palestinian.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the assault was Saudi Arabia’s deadliest attack in more than a decade. It came amid an intensifying Houthi missile campaign targeting the kingdom’s airports and other civilian infrastructure.

The attack also increased the likelihood of direct American military intervention in the renewed conflict.

Asked by reporters outside the White House whether he had decided to join Saudi-led strikes against the Houthis, Trump replied:

“We may. We’re going to look at it. We just found out about the recent attack, so we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly.”

Trump did not announce a decision. His remarks also came before Saudi authorities publicly confirmed that an American citizen was among those killed.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently condemned the attack, acknowledged the American fatality, and expressed Washington’s support for Saudi Arabia.

“The United States strongly condemns the recent attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the terrorist Houthis, including today’s strike on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh that took numerous innocent lives, including an American citizen,” Rubio wrote Saturday. “These reprehensible attacks demonstrate a blatant disregard for innocent civilian life. They must stop now. We stand with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and extend our condolences to the victims and their families.”

Saturday’s assault was the third attack on Riyadh’s main international airport that week. The Houthis had intensified their missile campaign against Saudi Arabia following the launch of a major Saudi-backed counteroffensive in Yemen.

The missile struck the airport complex housing Terminals 3 and 4. The Wall Street Journal reported direct hits on both terminals. Eyewitnesses described scenes of chaos as explosions ripped through the facility.

“I was on gate 403. I saw [gate] 401 hit, I saw injured [people] in front of my eyes. Everyone was running,” one witness told Agence France-Presse.

Ambulances and helicopters transported the wounded to nearby hospitals, where medical personnel struggled to cope with the influx of casualties. Several victims remained in critical condition.

According to Reuters, the attack occurred without an advance public warning from Saudi Arabia’s threat-warning system. The news agency cited people briefed on the incident, including Western officials.

The Houthis subsequently claimed responsibility. The head of the Iran-backed terrorist group’s media office boasted that the attack had “shut down Riyadh international airport.”

The group had previously declared Saudi airspace a military operations zone and threatened commercial aircraft operating without its approval. After Saturday’s assault, the Houthis’ military spokesman reposted a warning that only preapproved humanitarian flights would be permitted to land in Riyadh, adding: “a reminder.”

Saudi authorities diverted or canceled flights and temporarily suspended airport operations. The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh urged Americans to stay away from the area, stating that it “strongly recommends all US citizens avoid this airport and surrounding areas.”

The Saudi-led coalition condemned the attack as a “full-blown war crime” and promised a forceful military response.

Maj. Gen. Turki al-Maliki, the coalition’s spokesman, called the assault a “terrorist act that will be met with a firm response.”

“The Joint Forces Command of the Coalition will respond to this terrorist attack firmly and in accordance with international humanitarian law and its customary rules,” he said.
Yemen Counteroffensive Fuels Regional Escalation

Saturday’s attack occurred less than a week after Yemen’s internationally recognized government announced Operation Yemen Dawn, a major counteroffensive aimed at reclaiming strategic territory seized during a rapid Houthi advance along the country’s Red Sea coastline.

The campaign was announced Sunday, and the Saudi-led coalition launched its own military operation in Yemen’s Hodeidah province the following day. The offensive followed weeks of Houthi territorial gains around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a strategically vital maritime passage connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

The Houthis had threatened to disrupt Saudi-linked shipping through Bab el-Mandeb. Such a move would threaten a critical alternative export route as the broader war with Iran disrupted maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi-backed forces have claimed gains around Bab el-Mandeb and nearby Perim Island, although control of the strategically important territory remains disputed.

The counteroffensive has included Saudi-led airstrikes targeting Houthi missile facilities and military positions. In response, the terrorist group has stepped up attacks against Saudi airports and other infrastructure.

Earlier in the week, Houthi missile attacks on airports in Riyadh and Abha killed three civilians and wounded dozens more. Saudi forces continued striking missile-storage facilities, command centers, and launch sites inside Yemen.

Additional strikes against Riyadh’s airport later Thursday killed three Saudi citizens, including an airline pilot, and damaged a Saudi commercial aircraft, according to Saudi authorities.

Before Saturday’s assault, al-Maliki had warned that the Houthi attacks “will not go unpunished.”

Saturday’s death toll exceeded that of the earlier airport attacks combined, making it the deadliest escalation yet in the Houthis’ renewed campaign against Saudi Arabia.
Trump Weighs Direct U.S. Military Action

Washington has already provided Saudi Arabia with intelligence, targeting assistance, and operational planning support in its campaign against the Houthis. The United States has also facilitated intelligence coordination between Israel and regional partners through U.S. Central Command.

Direct American strikes against the Houthis would mark a significant expansion of Washington’s military role in the conflict.

Saudi Arabia has vowed retaliation, Rubio has condemned the killing of an American citizen, and Trump has publicly acknowledged that he is considering joining the kingdom’s military campaign.

The decision now facing the White House is whether to move beyond supporting Saudi Arabia and commit American forces directly to the fight. Saturday’s deadly assault has raised the stakes, placing the prospect of U.S. military intervention in Yemen more firmly on the table.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

France Confronts an Uncomfortable Truth as Students Celebrate a Terrorists Who Murdered Children

Myriam Monsonego

A rap song invoking the jihadists responsible for some of France’s most notorious terrorist atrocities has surfaced in videos filmed during student protests at a French high school and inside a church. The incidents raise questions that French officials appear considerably more comfortable avoiding than answering.

The track, “MRH” by rapper BORO700, references Mohamed Merah, who murdered a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012, and Salah Abdeslam, who was convicted for his role in the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. The lyrics also invoke the Bataclan concert hall, where 90 people were slaughtered.

The victims murdered by Merah outside the Hatzolah Jewish school in Toulouse were Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, his two sons, Gabriel and Arieh, aged four and five, and eight-year-old Myriam Monsonego, the daughter of the school’s principal.

These were not anonymous casualties of some distant conflict. They were children attending school, a rabbi and a father, people whose lives were ended by a man who had made the murder of Jews his objective. One might reasonably expect their memory to command a degree of respect, even among those who have little regard for France’s Jewish community. Apparently, that expectation is too ambitious.

One video circulating on social media shows students singing the track at François-Villon high school in Beaugency, in the Loiret region, during a school blockade on October 1.

The students could be heard shouting French lyrics translated into English as: “Like Mohamed Merah, dodging the cameras,” and “Bataclan, I shot him with my eyes, manhunt, Salah Abdeslam.”

The Orléans prosecutor’s office opened a preliminary investigation into suspected “apology for terrorism.” According to French media reports citing the prosecutor, three minors were placed in police custody on October 7. The term “apology for terrorism” refers to the public presentation or justification of terrorism, or the favorable portrayal of terrorist acts or their perpetrators, in circumstances that may constitute a criminal offense.

The investigation concerns the song’s lyrics and does not, by itself, establish the intentions of the students who sang them. That distinction matters. But it does not make the content any less disturbing.

The song also appeared in a video filmed on October 4 inside Saint-Hilaire church in Soullans, in western France. This was a separate incident, unrelated to the high school blockade.

A group of Muslim teenagers entered the church, where they sang and danced to the rap track celebrating Mohamed Merah and Salah Abdeslam. The church was subsequently closed following the incident, which was described as a desecration.

The municipality confirmed that the young people involved were minors. It urged residents not to circulate the footage, warning that doing so could expose the teenagers and inflame tensions.

“There is every reason to believe that the young people concerned did not fully appreciate the impact of their actions or the meaning of some of the words that were broadcast,” Soullans Mayor Vincent Jolly wrote on Facebook.

This is a remarkable degree of solicitude for the possible innocence of those involved, particularly when set against the complete absence of any comparable innocence in the crimes being celebrated.

One can understand the desire to prevent minors from being publicly identified and subjected to harassment. That is a legitimate concern. But protecting young people from online vigilantism is not the same thing as pretending they could not have understood the significance of their behavior.

They entered a church and danced to a song invoking men responsible for the murder of Jews and the slaughter of concertgoers. Perhaps some of them did not understand every word. Perhaps some were simply following their friends. The investigation may establish more about their motives. But the instinct to explain away the incident before those facts are known is itself revealing.

At a time when European governments repeatedly insist that social cohesion is paramount, one might ask why the burden of demonstrating tolerance so often appears to fall on the people whose institutions have been violated and whose communities have been targeted.

Between March 11 and 19, 2012, Mohamed Merah, a French citizen of Algerian origin, carried out a series of jihadist attacks in Toulouse and Montauban. He killed seven people, including two soldiers, a rabbi and three Jewish children aged three, five and eight.

Merah, human post-digestive matter

“The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man,” former French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in response to the murders.

Merah had used a GoPro camera to record his attacks, producing footage set to music and verses from the Qur’an.

Sarkozy’s declaration belongs to a long tradition of political reassurance in the face of Islamist violence. The intention is understandable. No serious person should hold every Muslim responsible for the crimes of a jihadist. But the sweeping insistence that Islam has nothing to do with the motivations of an Islamist terrorist is not a serious way to understand the problem.

It recalls George W. Bush’s remarks less than a week after September 11, when he assured the American public that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

Such statements may offer immediate political comfort. They also risk closing down the very inquiry that a democratic society needs to conduct. If a terrorist invokes religious ideas, identifies himself with an Islamist cause and deliberately targets Jews, it is not enough to declare that his actions have nothing to do with religion. One must examine what the perpetrator believed, how he interpreted those beliefs and why others might find his example worthy of imitation.

The alternative is to substitute comforting declarations for an understanding of the forces at work.

The wording of “MRH” employs slang and is difficult to translate precisely, but its references to Merah, Abdeslam and the Bataclan are explicit.

Mohamed Merah was the man who attacked the Ozar Hatorah Jewish day school in Toulouse. Salah Abdeslam was a participant in the November 2015 Paris attacks, in which gunmen and suicide bombers killed 130 people across several locations. Ninety people were murdered at the Bataclan concert hall, while others were killed at restaurants and outside the Stade de France.

These are not obscure historical figures whose names have been repurposed in some incomprehensible artistic exercise. They are among the most recognizable perpetrators of mass murder in modern French history. Their victims included Jews murdered because they were Jews and ordinary people enjoying an evening of music.

When their names appear in a song performed by students in a school protest and in a church, the obvious question is what the performers understand themselves to be celebrating.

That question becomes particularly uncomfortable against the wider background of unrest in France. School protests, confrontations with authorities and episodes of violence have intensified the debate over immigration, integration and the ability of the French state to maintain order. Some reports have described students engaging in destructive behavior and confrontations with teachers and police. Such incidents should be assessed on their individual facts, rather than automatically attributed to the religious or ethnic backgrounds of those involved.

But neither should those backgrounds become unspeakable when they are relevant to a discussion of ideology, integration or political intimidation.

There is a persistent tendency in parts of the European political establishment to treat these questions as inherently suspect. To raise concerns about Islamist radicalism is to risk being accused of stigmatizing Muslims. To question the consequences of mass immigration is to invite accusations of xenophobia. To suggest that some forms of religious extremism are incompatible with liberal democracy is to be told that one is endangering social cohesion.

The irony is that social cohesion cannot be preserved by refusing to discuss the things that undermine it.

President Donald Trump addressed the unrest in a post on Truth Social, writing: “What’s happening in France is nothing less than out-of-control mass migration. This isn’t about schools; this is about Islam wanting to take over a once great country!”

Trump’s formulation is sweeping and politically charged. It does not establish that every protest, every act of vandalism or every incident involving Muslim youths can be explained by immigration or Islam. Nor does the appearance of a single rap song prove a coordinated effort to impose religious rule on France.

Yet it would be equally foolish to dismiss every concern about immigration and Islamist influence simply because Trump expresses those concerns in provocative terms. His language is not the whole argument, and rejecting his rhetoric does not absolve French leaders of the responsibility to confront the underlying issues.

The French government, for its part, has pushed back against outside interpretations of the protests.

Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told a parliamentary committee: “You’ll get the Iranians’ version, perhaps the version from some Israelis, perhaps the version from some Americans.”

He said French diplomatic missions were working to communicate the country’s own account of events “so that we have our own narratives to disseminate, rather than being subjected to those of others.”

The language of competing narratives is revealing. A government is entitled to correct inaccurate accounts of events in its own country. It is not obliged to accept every interpretation offered by foreign politicians. But there is a difference between correcting falsehoods and seeking control over the interpretation of uncomfortable facts.

The question is not whether France should allow Iran, Israel or the United States to dictate its understanding of French society. It should not. The question is whether French officials are prepared to examine the evidence without treating criticism from abroad as the principal problem.

Students have been filmed singing lyrics that explicitly reference men responsible for terrorist atrocities. Teenagers have been filmed dancing to the same song inside a church. Prosecutors have opened an investigation into suspected public justification of terrorism. These are the facts as currently reported. Their significance deserves examination, not dismissal as a foreign narrative.

And if the song is merely an instance of youthful provocation, the authorities should be able to establish that through evidence and appropriate investigation. If it reflects something more serious, they should be prepared to confront that possibility as well.

The danger is that France's political leadership will become so preoccupied with managing the language of the debate that it neglects the substance of the problem.

France has a substantial Muslim population, estimated at around one-tenth of the country, although precise figures vary and religious affiliation is not comprehensively recorded in French census data. The overwhelming majority of French Muslims are not terrorists, and their rights must be protected as fully as those of any other citizens. But a government that takes integration seriously must also be willing to discuss the challenges posed by religious extremism, the persistence of antisemitism and the consequences of failing to enforce common civic standards.

These are not mutually exclusive obligations. A country can defend Muslims against collective blame while insisting that the murder of Jewish children is not a subject for celebration. It can protect minors from public harassment while holding them accountable for misconduct. It can oppose anti-Muslim prejudice while confronting Islamist extremism.

Indeed, a liberal democracy that cannot make these distinctions is in danger of surrendering both its moral clarity and its authority.

The history of Europe offers ample warning about the consequences of political leaders who believe that an uncomfortable problem can be managed by avoiding its name. The lesson of Munich is not that every contemporary crisis resembles the appeasement of Hitler. It is that the pursuit of immediate reassurance can become a substitute for confronting a genuine threat.

France does not need theatrical denunciations or simplistic explanations. It needs a government willing to establish the facts, enforce the law and defend the principles on which its republic rests.

The proper response to a song invoking the men who murdered Jewish children and massacred concertgoers is not to leap to conclusions about every Muslim in France. Nor is it to explain away the incident before the investigation has run its course.

It is to ask, without embarrassment and without intimidation, why these men are being invoked at all, what their names signify to those singing about them, and whether France's institutions are prepared to confront the answers.

A republic that cannot ask those questions for fear of offending its own citizens has a much deeper problem than an offensive rap song.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Palestinian pharmacy student charged with poison, bomb terror plot

JERUSALEM—In what is being hailed as a triumph for modern academic cross-training, local pharmacy student Mohammed Shalabi reportedly decided to put his expensive higher education to good use by skipping the neighborhood CVS and heading straight for global jihad, according to the State Attorney's Office.

Shalabi, a 22-year-old resident of Beit Hanina, was hit with a severe indictment Thursday in the Jerusalem District Court on charges of preparing to commit acts of terror, murder, and receiving terror training. Prosecutors say the third-year student looked at his organic chemistry syllabus and thought, "Why cure a cold when you can fulfill your dream to kill 'a lot of Jews'?"

According to court documents, Shalabi’s radicalization pipeline included systematically consuming content from Hamas and ISIS Telegram groups, proving that modern distance learning has truly expanded its course offerings.

The aspiring chemist's career path nearly took a petty bureaucratic detour in early 2025. Angered by parking tickets issued to worshippers near a local mosque, Shalabi spent two months tracking law enforcement activity with plans to blow up the parking enforcement officers. However, the plan fell through after the enforcement officials simply stopped coming to the location, proving once again that municipal bureaucracy is the ultimate deterrent to domestic terrorism.

Undeterred, Shalabi pivoted to a larger-scale operation. He downloaded manuals from the internet on preparing explosives and meticulously copied recipes into a notebook for poisons capable of causing death by touch, inhalation, or drinking.

Moving swiftly from theory to practical lab work, Shalabi traveled to Ramallah twice to purchase chemical materials in small batches to avoid suspicion. He then conducted a home chemistry experiment in his family bathroom by igniting a mixture to test his materials, successfully violating every known campus safety regulation.

Prosecutors are currently asking the court to hold Shalabi in detention until the conclusion of legal proceedings, denying him any further independent study time in the bathroom.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Mullin Warns Mamdani’s Anti-ICE Rhetoric ‘Dangerous,’ As Mayor Continues Campaign To Make Immigration Enforcement Someone Else’s Problem

Comrade Zohran Mamdani

WASHINGTON, D.C. The Department of Homeland Security has responded to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s latest denunciation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, warning that his rhetoric risks inciting hostility toward the very agency tasked with removing criminal offenders from American streets.

DHS Press Secretary Markwayne Mullin pushed back Friday after Mamdani used an ICE shooting in New York City as an opportunity to renew his call to abolish the agency. The mayor declared Thursday that ICE has "killed far more of our neighbors than they could ever have claimed to save," apparently concluding that the best way to address immigration enforcement controversies is to eliminate immigration enforcement altogether. Either he's a dolt or has a secret plan he's keeping close to the vest.

Mullin was not persuaded by the proposal.

"His words are dangerous and incite hostility," Mullin said during a Friday press conference. "Well mayor, if you abolish ICE, who's going to take criminals off the streets of your own town?"

Perhaps that's Mamdani's feature, not the problem.

Oscar Belgal 

It was an inconvenient question for a mayor whose preferred solution to the agency’s existence appears to be making the agency cease to exist, leaving the practical details of enforcing immigration law for another administration to sort out.

The controversy followed an incident Thursday involving Oscar Belgal, who was shot by ICE officers after allegedly refusing to leave his vehicle and driving into two government vehicles, according to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Executive Associate Director Marcos Charles.

The incident, Charles explained, involved considerably more than an immigration officer knocking on a car window and asking an occupant to update his address.

"He refused lawful orders to exit his vehicle," Charles said. "He then accelerated his vehicle, smashing into two of our government ICE vehicles and then weaponized his vehicle and proceeded to accelerate going towards other officers," he said.

Mullin also addressed reports that a child was inside the vehicle during the confrontation. Authorities, he explained, were unaware of the child's presence at the time. Belgal, however, knew the child was there.

"Oscar knew he had a child in his car."

That detail added another troubling dimension to an incident that had already become a political flashpoint, with Mamdani condemning ICE and renewing his demand to abolish it while federal officials defended the officers' actions.

For Mullin, the broader concern was the mayor's rhetoric toward federal law enforcement. While politicians can debate immigration policy, he argued, portraying ICE as a threat to the public while calling for its abolition risks encouraging hostility toward officers carrying out their duties.

Markwayne Mullin

New York City now finds itself confronting a familiar political question: If ICE is abolished, who will be responsible for removing criminal offenders who are subject to deportation?

Mamdani has made his position on the agency clear. The question of what replaces it, however, remains considerably less clear.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Abdul El-Sayed Calls Pregnant Women “Simply a Carrying Vehicle” for Babies

KALAMAZOO, MI — Michigan Democratic Senate nominee and anti-Semite extraordinaire, Abdul El-Sayed informed a pro-life student that a pregnant mother is “simply a carrying vehicle for a fetus that has not ever breathed air,” after she asked why she should vote for him. 

The exchange occurred at a “Students vs. Billionaires” event on the Western Michigan University campus. El-Sayed did not use the word “woman.” Instead, like a good leftist, he referred to the pregnant mother as “an adult, or sometimes even a juvenile human.” 

“I respect your position insofar as it’s founded in the idea that you want to protect and empower life,” El-Sayed told the student. “The question we have to ask ourselves is, what’s the best way to do that? And whose life gets destroyed in that process?” That is, if you help one life, you are somehow destroying another life--it's the same playbook leftists use to say that billionaires are taking money away from others in order to be rich.

He continued: “Because too often when government says that you cannot have reproductive care, you are creating a circumstance in which an adult, or sometimes even a juvenile human, is being reduced into simply a carrying vehicle for a fetus that has not ever breathed air.” 

He later clarified that restricting abortion turns “the currently existing life of the mother” into “simply a carrying vehicle for a fetus.” Campaign aides confirmed the nominee remains open to other vehicle metaphors, provided the fetus has not completed the required air-intake paperwork.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said the answer treats a pre-born child as if the baby does not count until a first breath outside the womb.

“I’ve carried four babies. I was their mother long before any of them breathed air,” she said. “The Pro-Life Generation knows a pre-born baby is still a baby.”

Hawkins noted that El-Sayed has pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal taxpayer funding of most abortions, to defend government funding for Planned Parenthood, and to keep tax dollars from pregnancy resource centers, which he has called “fake clinics.” Sources say the clinics’ principal offense is offering diapers instead of the correct philosophical category for the occupant.

When Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed him in August, she said, he praised “the tenacity and compassion of the folks at Planned Parenthood” and said he looked forward to partnering with them in the Senate. 

El-Sayed and pro-life Republican Mike Rogers are set to debate Thursday in Grand Rapids. Hawkins said Students for Life Action students plan to be outside, and that the group is targeting the Michigan Senate race ahead of the Nov. 3 election. She also pointed to a leaked Democratic playbook that, she said, puts abortions up to birth and repeal of the Hyde Amendment at the top of the list if Democrats take Congress, with a promise to act within the first 100 hours.

At press time, El-Sayed’s campaign was still refining whether the carrying vehicle retains voting rights once the fetus has been successfully delivered to the curb.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

ICE Arrested Salah Sarsour President of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee!

Photo by: Yaseen Najeeb

Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian-American Muslim community leader and president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the state's largest mosque, was arrested by ICE on March 30, 2026. Sarsour has lived in the US since 1993 and became a permanent resident in 1998.

Sarsour has been detained for more than 80 days and is the subject of a major 2026 immigration case.

DHS alleged that he failed to disclose Israeli military-court convictions on his U.S. immigration application and has raised national-security and foreign-policy concerns, but his lawyers dispute these allegations and claim he was coerced and tortured into confessions as a teenager and that the efforts to deport him is his connection to his advocacy for Palestinian rights.

A federal judge ordered his release in June, finding that he raised a substantial claim that his detention was retaliatory for protected speech, [in spite of his blatant anti-Semitism].

However, on September 30th, a judge ruled that he could be deported on national-security/foreign-policy grounds. His attorneys said they would appeal.

Sarsour also served on the board of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

Not surprisingly, there are older allegations about alleged connections to Hamas and fundraising, with claims contained in congressional documents and court filings. Those allegations are contested and should be distinguished from the findings in the current immigration proceedings.

Regarding a timeline there are two competing narratives throughout the case: the government says Sarsour’s decades-old Israeli military convictions and alleged immigration violations justify removal; Sarsour’s attorneys say the convictions resulted from coercion and that the government revived them because of his Palestinian advocacy.

1988-1989: Arrest and Israeli military proceedings

Sarsour was born and raised in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

He was imprisoned by Israeli authorities in the late 1980s.

Court records and government filings say he was convicted by an Israeli military court of offenses involving attacks on Israeli military personnel, including throwing stones. DHS has characterized the case as involving a Molotov cocktail, while Sarsour's defense disputes that characterization.

His attorneys maintain that he was tortured and coerced into confessing. His former Israeli lawyer, Jawad Boulos, later testified to that claim during the 2026 immigration proceedings.

1993: Comes to the United States and became a conditional lawful permanent resident. He has said the U.S. has been his home for more than three decades.

1995: Second Israeli military conviction:

Israeli military authorities convicted Sarsour of attempting to possess weapons.
Sarsour denies committing the offense, while his attorneys say he was coerced into confessing.

1998: Becomes a full permanent resident

2002: Naturalization application approved

2000s-2020s: Milwaukee community leader Sarsour became president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, described as Wisconsin's largest mosque.
He also became involved in Palestinian advocacy and eventually served on the board of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

His supporters portray him as a longtime community leader with no criminal record in America. The government later argued that his Palestinian activism and other associations raised national-security and foreign-policy concerns.

June 2025: Rubio memorandum Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a memorandum invoking a rarely used provision of immigration law concerning foreign-policy consequences.

 
The government subsequently relied on that provision in seeking to remove Sarsour.

 
The provision had also been used against other prominent pro-Palestinian activists, including Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi.

February 2026: Trump administration intensifies scrutiny of Palestinian advocacy The Justice Department's assistant attorney general for civil rights announced plans to investigate, prosecute and dismantle organizations including American Muslims for Palestine.

March 26, 2026: Canary Mission profile updated

 
According to the federal judge's account of the chronology, Sarsour's profile on the Canary Mission website was updated four days before his arrest.
His lawyers subsequently pointed to the timing as evidence that the government action was connected to his political advocacy.

March 30, 2026: ICE arrests Sarsour

 
Armed federal agents in civilian clothing arrested Sarsour in Milwaukee as he was going to work.
He was taken to the Clay County Jail in Indiana, where he remained in ICE custody for more than 80 days.

 
DHS alleged that his old Israeli convictions made him removable and accused him of concealing information on his immigration paperwork.

April-June 2026: Detention dispute escalates

 
Sarsour's attorneys argued that his detention was retaliation for his protected speech concerning Palestinian rights.

 
They also raised serious medical concerns. He reportedly lost more than 30 pounds while detained and, according to his attorneys, did not receive adequate monitoring of his diabetes.

June 18, 2026: Federal judge orders his release

 
U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered Sarsour released.

 
Hanlon found that Sarsour had presented a "substantial" First Amendment retaliation claim.
The judge also noted that the government had not adequately explained why Sarsour suddenly represented a threat after decades as a lawful permanent resident.

 
Sarsour was released on his own recognizance.

Importantly, Hanlon's ruling did not terminate the deportation proceedings. It concerned Sarsour's detention, while his underlying immigration case continued.

July 2026: Deportation hearings begin

 
Immigration proceedings began in Chicago before Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi.
DHS argued that Sarsour had lied on immigration documents and that his Israeli convictions demonstrated that he was removable.

 
Sarsour's attorneys argued that the Israeli convictions were obtained through torture and coercion and that the government had known about his history for decades.

August-September 2026: Evidence and testimony 

Sarsour's former attorney Jawad Boulos testified that Sarsour had been tortured by Shin Bet and coerced into confessing. 

Experts also testified concerning forced confessions and Israeli military courts. 

DHS challenged the credibility and evidentiary basis of the torture allegations. 

The immigration proceedings continued through September.

September 14, 2026: Final removal hearing
The fourth and final removal hearing was held in Chicago.
Sarsour's lawyers continued to argue that his detention and removal proceedings were politically motivated and connected to his advocacy for Palestinians.

September 30, 2026: Immigration judge rules Sarsour deportable

Judge Salinardi ruled that Sarsour could be deported on foreign-policy/national-security grounds.
However, the judge rejected the government's allegation that Sarsour had lied to immigration authorities about his history. 

The ruling therefore did not establish that he fraudulently obtained his green card as DHS had alleged.

The decisive issue was Rubio's determination that Sarsour's presence could have adverse consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The judge gave substantial deference to that determination.

September 30, 2026: Sarsour announces appeal

Sarsour called the decision "deeply disappointing" and said:

"I will continue fighting to defend the right to free speech and to stay in the country I have called home for more than three decades."

His attorneys said they would appeal. They also indicated they expect to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that Sarsour could face torture if returned to the region.
Where the case stands now

As of October 8, 2026, the September 30 ruling does not mean Sarsour has been deported. His attorneys have said they will appeal, and he may seek protection from removal based on the alleged risk of torture. The government cannot simply remove him while those available legal proceedings are pending.

One particularly important distinction for an article is this:

The immigration judge found Sarsour deportable on foreign-policy grounds, but rejected the government's claim that he lied on his immigration paperwork. That distinction is easy to lose in headlines describing the case as a deportation based on his "criminal history."

If you're researching this for a news article, the 1988-1995 Israeli convictions, the 1993 U.S. immigration entry, the 2002 naturalization approval, the 2025 Rubio memorandum, and the 2026 ICE arrest are the key pieces to examine closely because they form the government's entire chronology for why a man who had lived legally in America for more than three decades suddenly became the subject of removal proceedings.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Schumer, Jeffries Dodge Mamdani Controversy as Fellow New York Democrat Unloads

Chuck "Kapo" Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries

The two most powerful Democrats in Congress have apparently discovered that the best response to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's disgusting lies on Israel and Gaza is to respond to something else.

Mamdani doubled down Thursday on his October 7 statement accusing Israel of carrying out a "genocide" in Gaza, while Senate Minority Leader Chuck "Kapo" Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have so far declined to weigh in on the controversy.

Mamdani’s post on Wednesday briefly acknowledged Hamas’ October 7 blitz against Israel, which left more than 1,100 Israelis dead and more than 250 others captured and held hostage by the terrorist organization. He then devoted most of his statement to condemning Israel for its conduct in Gaza over the past three years.

"The suffering did not begin nor end that day. It instead continued through the Israeli government’s devastating, ongoing genocide in Gaza, in which it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians — including more than 21,000 children," Mamdani said on X, leaving out the October 7th massacre of Israelis, for some reason. "Even since the so-called ceasefire, more than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed."

"That suffering has intensified with every [retaliatory] Israeli bomb dropped on ambulances waiting outside hospitals, every drone strike targeting a residential building or journalist, and every shipment of food aid turned away at a border crossing," he said. "Many New Yorkers are reckoning with this unbearable grief, and we mourn alongside them — all while knowing that our tax dollars fund these war crimes." 

Of course, this human piece of digestive waste had nothing to say of the unarmed Israelis who were slaughtered by the jihadists. He had no problem discussing the city's grief and the make-believe war crimes in Gaza, however. Never once did this disgusting excuse for a man mention the city's one million Jewish residents.

That omission became even more conspicuous when Rep. Dan Goldman, a fellow New York Democrat, decided that someone in his party should actually object. Finally, Goldman got his Hebrew on. 

"This is a reprehensible statement on the anniversary of the horrific terrorist attack by a Palestinian terrorist organization against innocent Israelis," Goldman said on X. "In the guise of ‘grieving’ with those mourning that day, Mayor Mamdani asserts as fact hotly disputed allegations that he knows full well will offend and further upset those same people he pretends to grieve with."

Goldman's response stands in sharp contrast to the apparent strategy adopted by Schumer and Jeffries: say something about October 7, just not anything that requires confronting Mamdani directly.

Neither Schumer nor Jeffries responded to requests for comment on Mamdani's remarks. Both flaming cowards issued their own statements commemorating the October 7 attack on Wednesday.

Schumer, who is sort of Jewish, described the attack as the "single deadliest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust." His support for Israel has increasingly become a problem for some Senate Democrats, who have moved further toward opposing American arms shipments to Israel after three years of war in Gaza. Perhaps he was trying to appease the Party by not challenging Mamdani's bile.

"Today, we reaffirm our commitment to the security of the Israeli people, to the aid and wellbeing of the Palestinian people and the recovery of the devastation in Gaza that the ensuing conflict brought, and to doubling down on efforts for a lasting peace resulting in two states where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in equal measures of peace, security, dignity, and mutual recognition," Schumer said, mostly through his nostrils.

Jeffries struck a position closer to the Democratic Party's left flank while acknowledging that "we are reminded of the painful reality that the Jewish people are in a constant struggle for survival, as has been the case for thousands of years." [But we really don't care.] 

"Throughout the past three years, considerable suffering has plagued the Middle East. The horrific death of Palestinian civilians, destruction of civil society and devastation in Gaza is reprehensible and can never be allowed to happen again," Jeffries said, leaving off the Jewish murders that happen on a regular basis in Israel.

"In order to end the vicious cycle of bloodshed, for the good of the Israeli and Palestinian people, American policy in the region must change dramatically," he continued. "We must commit to the creation of an independent Palestinian state to provide dignity, respect and self-determination for the Palestinian people."

For Democrats watching from the sidelines, the situation presents a remarkably convenient arrangement. Mamdani can denounce Israel, Goldman can denounce Mamdani, and Schumer and Jeffries can issue carefully calibrated statements about peace without having to answer the increasingly awkward question of whether they agree with the Democratic mayor of America's largest city. 

What a bunch of scumcrumpets.

In New York politics, apparently, silence is not merely golden. It is also remarkably well-positioned for reelection.

Dear readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet