Mamdani's 9/11 Aunt Hoax: It's Not Islamophobia, It's Just Calling Out Bullcrap--what hijab?

Folks, let's dive headfirst into the steaming pile of progressive nonsense that's Zohran Mamdani's NYC mayoral campaign. This guy's out here accusing New Yorkers of "Islamophobia" like it's the new gluten: totally made-up and only bad if you're trying to virtue-signal your way to City Hall. But let's get real: It isn't islamophobia, it's islamorealism. "Islamophobia" as Christopher Hitchens once said, is "a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

Mamdani decided to go full offense mode, painting New Yorkers as a bunch of hijab-hating bigots in the final stretch of his campaign. The only "specific victim" of 9/11 he bothers to trot out? His late aunt, who supposedly "stopped taking the subway after September 11th because she did not feel safe in her hijab." Oh, the humanity! In fact, it seem like 'aunty' was a modern woman and wasn't a hijab-wearer. [I discuss this below.]

Meanwhile, zero mention of the 3,000 innocents slaughtered on that black day by radical Islamic jihadists. Not a peep about the Twin Towers crumbling, the Pentagon smoldering, or those brave souls on the planes who fought back. Nope, in Mamdani's woke wonderland, the real tragedy is one lady's subway jitters. 

But hold onto your MAGA hats, because plot twist: This whole "emotional" sob story is faker than a CNN fact-check. Turns out, Mamdani's aunt lived in Tanzania during the attacks and didn't wear a hijab and didn't take the New York City subway. 

Boom! Caught red-handed in a lie so blatant, even AOC would blush. Vice President JD Vance nailed it on X Saturday, roasting this clown: "According to Zohran, the real victim of 9/11 was his auntie who got some (allegedly) bad looks."

Look, the very word "Islamophobia" is a BS fictional construct, straight out of the fascist playbook. As journalist Claire Berlinski lays it out crystal clear: "The neologism 'Islamophobia' did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia….Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. 'This loathsome term,' he writes, 'is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.'"

That's right, it's a weaponized buzzword designed to shut down any peep of criticism against jihad terror and its roots in Islamic ideology. 

Dare to point out the obvious? Bahadahbing, you're the bigot! 

It warps our entire fight against terrorism, slapping "off-limits" signs on the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and anything that smells like actual scrutiny. It's basically importing Sharia blasphemy laws to the U.S. A., one guilt-trippy lecture at a time. And Mamdani is the poster boy, turning 9/11 into a pity party for Muslims while the real victims get memory-holed faster than Hunter Biden's laptop.

Byron York sums it up perfectly: Zohran Mamdani has apparently decided to make accusing New Yorkers of Islamophobia the theme of his NYC mayoral campaign's final week. Here, Mamdani again discusses 9/11 only in terms of post-attack 'hatred and bigotry' toward Muslims, without saying a word, not one word, about the nearly 3,000 people killed in the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and on the planes hijacked by radical Islamic terrorists. The only specific 'victim' of 9/11 Mamdani mentions is his late aunt, who [magically] 'stopped taking the subway after September 11th because she did not feel safe in her hijab.' Will this strategy work in the NYC campaign? Will it work in any campaign in the United States? (York).

And get this, Mamdani's big "lesson" from 9/11? Straight from the comrade's mouth: "Time and again, it is the lesson that safety could only be found in the shadows of our city, that it is in those shadows alone where Muslims could embrace the fullness of our own identities, and that if we are to emerge from them and it is in those shadows where we must leave our faith. These are lessons that so many Muslim New Yorkers have been taught again and again and over these last few days" (Mamdani).

Lessons? How about the lesson of 19 hijackers turning planes into missiles in the name of Allah? How about a single syllable for the firefighters who ran up those stairs? Or the office workers vaporized in a heartbeat? Nah, too "problematic." This isn't leadership; it's a grievance Olympics gold medal for Most Insensitive Grift.

New Yorkers, don't let this Taqiyya-taught tale-spinner fool you. Mamdani's not running for mayor—he's auditioning for the Squad's sympathy squad. Vote for sanity, not shadows. 

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

Tweet

Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador might be illegal: libs used it as pretext for Michael Flynn probe

Van Hollen schmoozes with MS-13 wife-beating gang mamber: allegedly

Senator Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD), decided to play cowboy diplomat, jetting off to El Salvador to spring a deportee named Kilmar Abrego Garcia. 

This isn’t just a bad look—it’s potentially illegal. 

Enter the Logan Act of 1799, a law that says, in no uncertain terms, you don’t get to freelance America’s foreign policy. The statute? Clear as day: any American who corresponds with foreign officials “with intent to influence the[ir] measures … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States” faces fines or jail time.

Now, let’s rewind to the namesake of this act, George Logan, a Pennsylvania senator who thought he could charm French diplomat Charles de Talleyrand into ending the Quasi War after Paris gave President John Adams the cold shoulder. Logan even had a letter from Vice President Thomas Jefferson in his pocket, trying to sweet-talk the French. Sound familiar? It should, because conservatives are now asking if Van Hollen’s little Salvadoran adventure crosses the same line.

Roger Stone, never one to mince words, took to X and dropped a bombshell: “Why hasn’t this U.S. senator been arrested for violation of the Logan Act? It’s illegal to conduct your own foreign policy.” 

Boom. 

WMAL’s Vince Coglianese went further, reading the Logan Act on air and posing the million-dollar question to his listeners: “Is Chris Van Hollen violating the Logan Act?” He pointed out the hypocrisy, noting, “Because this is what they accused General [Michael] Flynn of doing … the incoming national security advisor … who was merely having conversations with foreign diplomats [after] people had chosen President Donald Trump.” 

The left clutched their pearls when Flynn chatted with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak before Trump’s first inauguration, screaming “Logan Act!” until it sparked an FBI probe that torpedoed Flynn’s career. Notes from FBI agent Peter Strzok literally read, “VP: Logan Act,” hinting Joe Biden himself pushed the idea, while Jim Comey shrugged that Flynn’s talks seemed “legit.” Double standards, anyone?

Fox News contributor Byron York, always a voice of reason, chimed in on X, admitting he’s long called the Logan Act a “dead letter.” But here’s the kicker: “But politically, it’s useful to know that Sen. Van Hollen traveled to a foreign country to bash the President of the United States.” Ouch. The American Accountability Foundation isn’t letting this slide either. They fired off a letter to Senate Ethics Committee Chairman James Lankford, (R-OK), demanding a probe. AAF’s Thomas Jones didn’t hold back, calling Garcia “essentially an enemy combatant in the ongoing invasion … by transnational gangs.” That’s not hyperbole; that’s the border crisis the left pretends doesn’t exist.

The Logan Act’s been weaponized before. Trump’s critics screeched about it when Bob Woodward’s book claimed the former president had calls with Vladimir Putin between White House stints. The Lincoln Project and Kamala Harris piled on, naturally. FBI notes from the Flynn saga even show agents debating whether to trick him into admitting a Logan Act violation: “What is our goal?” ex-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap wrote. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Charming.

This isn’t new. Ronald Reagan floated using the Logan Act against Jesse Jackson for his Cuba and Nicaragua jaunts in the ‘80s. Trump called out John Kerry and Christopher Murphy for their Iran contacts in 2019 and 2020. Murphy’s response? “It’s literally my job to meet with foreign leaders,” he said, hiding behind his Senate subcommittee role. 

Cute. Yet, here’s the rub: no one’s ever been convicted under the Logan Act. George Logan himself got a pass, grandfathered out. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, (R-PA), tried to repeal this relic, but no dice.

So, what’s the deal? Van Hollen’s stunt reeks of hypocrisy, undermining U.S. policy while the left stays silent. The Logan Act may be a dusty law, but it exposes the left’s selective outrage. If Flynn was fair game, why not Van Hollen? The answer, folks, is politics. Pure, unadulterated politics.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine! No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Byron York: Vindman, the driving weasel behind Trump impeachment

When retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified against President Trump at the impeachment trials, a congressman referred to him as "Mr. Vindman" rather than using his rank. I believe that congressman was Jim Jordan (R-OH) but I could be mistaken and it isn't important enough to go back and namecheck that factoid. What't important is that hearing Vindman's response made me realize that this guy is a scumcrumpet. He's like the PhD who insists you provide the honorific "Doctor" before his or her name. These are people who have deep-seated feeling of being insignificant and require you honor their title, like the left does with Doctor Jill Biden, whose PhD is in education.

Anyway, Mr. Vindman was a key witness and, as it turns out, was the "original source" of the Trump-Russia collusion delusion, not the whistleblower, says Byron York.

York reveals in his new book "Obsession Inside the Washington Establishment's Never-Ending War on Trump," that Mr. Vindman, who retired from the Army in July after he was fired from the National Security Council in February, was the driving force for Democrats' impeachment.

"It didn't take a real rocket scientist that the source of this, the original source of this, was Lt. Col. Vindman," York told Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle,"
Wednesday night. He laid out the facts of the case.

"If you remember early on in the Ukraine matter, the Democrats said they wanted the whistleblower to testify, and then they changed their mind and they didn't want the whistleblower to testify and they began to shut off any Republican attempts to find out who the whistleblower was," he said.

Then-National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents.

York, the Washington Examiner chief political correspondent asked, "So the question is if the whistleblower wasn't in the White House, how did he learn what was going on?"

He points out Vindman was one of several people who listened to Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, "but [Vindman] was the only one who was disturbed by what took place. He was the only one who thought there was a problem there."

Vindman testified to the Intelligence Committee that he only told two people outside the White House, George Kent, who was a State Department official who specialized in Ukraine, and a member of the intelligence community.

"At that point, Adam Schiff, other Democrats interrupted, you cannot say, you cannot ask the other person he spoke to, and Republicans said well, why can't we ask about that? And they said because it would tend to identify the whistleblower."

Republicans had a "very difficult time handling" Vindman because, although they felt he was the "origin of all this," he was a decorated military officer, York said.

And a scumcrumpet.



C'mon, man. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear.

Tweet

Golf Before Honor: POTUS Putts

President Obama inserted his opinion about a shooting in Florida where a "white Hispanic" man named George Zimmerman, shot a young black man by the name of Trayvon Martin. If Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon, he said. This was a "white-Hispanic-on-black shooting.

Now Mr. Obama gets involved in a shooting in Ferguson, MO. where a white cop shot a black man. In fact, the Reviled Al Sharpton, that race-baiting bag of sparrow farts, was at the town of Ferguson in order to stir up racial tensions. The Rev. knows how to stir up racial tension even when the person he's doing it for is a liar (see Brawley, Tawana). But Obama got involved because it was a "white-on-black" shooting, just like Sharptongue.

When it comes to the military, our POTUS always seems to take the wrong side of any situation. 

Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post and was taken captive by the Taliban. Bergdahl wrote home about how much he hated the USA, and somehow the enemy got better at killing Americans with Bergdahl in their camp.

In a post written by Jon Williams on June 4, 2014, he gives his thoughts about Bergdahl. The post is entitled: "I WAS THERE: My perspective on Bowe Bergdahl" (and the post can be found at: http://www.iamatexan.com/).

Williams, an Army veteran, worked as a contractor to the 25th Infantry Division, (the same Division as Bergdahl).

He writes: "A few days ago, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel took the stage at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan and excitedly started with what he thought would be a big applause line. "We got him back!" he exclaimed.

"Silence.

"Not. Even. One. Clap."

Williams writes that numerous White House leaks revealed that Obama and his administration thought Americans would be elated by the news and would be a great moment in Obama's second term. Williams writes that the Obama team is clueless about the military because soldiers don't see a deserter as a "brother in arms."

Maj. Gen. Harold Greene

"When a soldier deserts his post, when he writes that he is ashamed to be an American, when he gives the enemy secrets (and he did), he is no longer "one of us." He is a traitor. He is not a brother-in-arms," Williams writes, and goes on to explain how Bergdahl is lower than whale excrement, which is at the bottom of the ocean. (He didn't actually say it those words, so I improvised.)

But, as you know, Obama met with the parents of Bowe Bergdahl. It looked like an Occupy White House meeting as the traitor's father, Robert, dressed like a slob, wore a nerd-nob ponytail hairdo, and spoke Arabic to his traitorous kid as Obama hugged his wife, Jani who left her Che tee-shirt at home for the occasion. They did not, however, take a selfie, nor, do I suspect, a shower.

Meanwhile, Major General Harold Green was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. He was killed by a devout Muslim and is the highest ranking American serviceman to be killed in the Afghan war.

Crickets in the White House. 

People wondered why the Commander-in-Chief didn't attend the funeral of such a high ranking officer while he made the time to fuss over a traitor whose spelling would make a 5th grader cringe.


Journalist Byron York confirmed that Mr. Obama was busy golfing at the Vineyard Golf Club at the time of the funeral. He made an A-hole in one.

Two things for certain, President Obama sucks at golf but sucks even more as a Commander-in-Chief. It is unacceptable and outrageous that he snubbed the General's funeral. Maybe he didn't know about the murder of the General because he didn't watch the story on the news like the rest of us folks.


Tweet

Hypocrites Call for a Clown's Life Ban--Seriously

Obama Clown 

In the Missouri State Fair, officials banned a rodeo clown from ever clowning around there for life, maybe even longer. The reason for this ban was due to his wearing a Barack Obama mask and saying stupid things to the audience. The Associated Press said, "The rodeo clown won't be allowed to perform or participate at the fair again." Fair officials are reviewing this despicable, racist incident to determine if they should take action against the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, but if they don't, perhaps the IRS or NSA will--as I write this, Verizon is checking into the clown's records for evidence of terrorist ties. Missouri Democrats want to impose a financial penalty on the perpetrators responsible for this horrible event, much like they do on taxpayers.