CNN says they're sorry for using Dolly Parton impersonator when announcing Dolly's passing

In a display of journalistic excellence so dazzling it could only have been achieved after several intern-led Google Image searches and a solemn prayer to the Getty algorithm, CNN used its prestigious Laura Coates Live platform to honor Dolly Parton roughly twelve hours after her death. They did this by airing a photograph of Kelly Vohnn, a 58-year-old Las Vegas tribute artist whose entire professional existence is built on looking enough like Dolly Parton that tourists will pay money to watch her do it on purpose.

This was not, to be clear, a conceptual statement about fame, simulation, or the death of authenticity. It was just CNN grabbing the wrong blond.

The internet, which has never once failed to notice when a cable network confuses a national treasure with a woman who does her at the Palms, erupted. CNN then issued the sort of apology that newsrooms keep laminated next to the fire extinguisher: “We regret the error and apologize to the Parton family.” 

Four words of regret, one family, zero indication that anyone in the control room can tell a living impersonator from an 80-year-old icon who had just died. 

Vohnn, whose phone immediately became a group chat from hell, told interviewers that friends began texting to inform her she was on CNN. She was already heartbroken. Dolly had given her a career, a look, and apparently enough cultural gravity that a global news network could not tell them apart. Then she watched herself appear in a memorial montage, which she described, with admirable understatement, as “just weird.”

“Somebody at CNN really messed up and didn’t do their research,” she said, a sentence that future media historians may one day chisel onto the network’s tombstone. She added that she felt sorry for Dolly, because the woman left behind decades of actual photographs — concert shots, movie stills, philanthropy portraits, the works — and CNN selected the one that said, in rhinestones, close enough.

Vohnn was also careful to note that she has never claimed to be Dolly Parton. She is a tribute act. People buy tickets knowing this. CNN, apparently, did not.

Meanwhile, the actual news was that Dolly Parton had died after a brief battle with cancer at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, surrounded by loved ones. 

Her representatives released a statement so overflowing with generosity it made the surrounding media circus look even cheaper: joy, laughter, hope, integrity, hundreds of millions of books through the Imagination Library, research that helped produce a vaccine used around the world. Unconditional love as a guiding force. The usual Dolly thing, except now it was an obituary.

The death itself had been announced Monday in a video by her nephew Bryan Seaver, longtime head of security, son of the previous head of security, and the man Dolly had asked years earlier to deliver the news if the unthinkable ever stopped being theoretical. He called her sister, sis, Aunt Granny, Gigi. He said he had imagined the heaviness of the moment for more than two decades and still was not ready for it. It was the kind of announcement that deserved better than a stock-photo fiasco twelve hours later.

Variety, doing the unglamorous work of remembering actual events, noted that Parton’s health had become public in the fall of 2025, when she canceled a long-awaited six-show return to Caesars Palace. The body, it turned out, was not as immortal as the wig. 

So the week ended as all great American weeks now end: a legend gone, a family grieving, a tribute artist fielding texts, and a cable network apologizing for being unable to distinguish the woman who wrote “I Will Always Love You” from the woman who performs her in Las Vegas. 

Somewhere, presumably, an editor is still staring at two photos, whispering, “But they both have the hair.”

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

Tweet

CBC Orders Reporters to Stop Calling 9/11 Terrorism, Says “Some Very Unfortunate Aviation-Related Things Happened”

Canadian public broadcaster unveils new journalistic standard requiring typists to avoid words that might accidentally describe reality.

TORONTO, Canada — The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has issued a stern warning to its typists: under no circumstances should they refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks as “terrorist attacks,” because that would risk introducing dangerous quantities of meaning, politics, emotion and, worst of all, facts into the story.

Instead, CBC typists have been instructed to describe 9/11 as “a situation where some folks did stuff in America as a prescient sign that one day Donald Trump would be President.”

The memo, authored by CBC News senior director of journalistic standards and public trust Basem Boshra, was considerably less colorful but no less bewildering.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said.

The directive instead recommends describing the attacks as hijackings that led to passenger jets crashing in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan.

The World Trade Center was also destroyed, apparently by forces that CBC typists are not at liberty to characterize.

CBC officials defended the policy by explaining that the word “terrorist” is simply too emotionally loaded.

“It is the practice of the CBC to exercise extreme caution before using the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’” CBC Public Affairs Director Kerry Kelly said.

This is understandable.

After all, imagine the emotional trauma a CBC reporter might experience by typing the words “19 al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes and deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 people.”

That is an awful lot of adjectives.

Much safer to write:

“Nineteen individuals participated in an aviation-related disagreement that unfortunately resulted in several buildings becoming unavailable for future occupancy.”

CBC editors reportedly rejected the phrase “mass murder” because it was considered “judgmental.”

“Death,” meanwhile, is apparently acceptable because it can happen naturally.

“Premeditated murder” remains under review.

“Islamist terrorism” has been referred to the CBC’s Department of Extremely Careful Feelings.
CBC: We Don’t Call Terrorists Terrorists Because That Would Be Taking Sides

CBC News general manager and editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon previously explained that the organization prefers to “bear witness” rather than independently determine whether acts are terrorism.

“We bear witness. But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism,” Fenlon said.

Which is an impressive position for a news organization.

It is roughly equivalent to a weather forecaster saying:

“We don't independently designate rain as wet because ‘wet’ is such a loaded term.”

Or a hockey announcer saying:

“We cannot characterize the puck as having entered the net because the phrase ‘goal’ carries political and emotional implications.”

Or a coroner saying:

“We can confirm that the individual is no longer participating in the ongoing experiment known as life.”

The CBC is simply committed to maintaining neutrality.

Even when neutrality requires pretending everyone else hasn't already figured out what happened.
New CBC Style Guide Released

Sources say CBC editors are now considering a comprehensive update to their style guide.

Under the proposed rules:

Terrorist attack: “An event involving unexpected violence.”

Suicide bomber: “A person experiencing a severe disagreement with mortality.”

Hostage-taking: “An involuntary relocation experience.”

Murder: “An unauthorized termination of another person's biological processes.”

Massacre: “A gathering that ended with an unusually high number of people no longer gathering.”

Hamas: “A group whose designation as a terrorist organization should be attributed to Canada, Israel, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and approximately half the planet.”

9/11: “The Sept. 11 attacks.”

Actual terrorism: “Please consult Legal.”

The CBC is particularly sensitive about the word “terrorist” because it might imply that someone who deliberately murders civilians for political purposes is, in fact, a terrorist. And once journalists start making those kinds of obvious connections, there is simply no telling where it could lead.

Soon they might start saying that criminals commit crimes.

Or that people who intentionally kill innocent civilians are responsible for killing innocent civilians.

Then civilization itself could collapse.

There is, admittedly, one small problem with the CBC's position. The FBI describes 9/11 as the most lethal terrorist attack in history.

Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes, killed nearly 3,000 people and triggered the largest investigation in FBI history.

Canada itself lists al Qaeda as a terrorist entity and states that the organization perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But CBC journalists remain bravely unwilling to reach the same conclusion without first consulting someone who has already reached it.

This creates the fascinating possibility that a CBC reporter could stand outside the wreckage of a terrorist attack and say:

“According to witnesses, the FBI, the Canadian government, the American government, the Israeli government, the British government and virtually everyone who has ever looked at this event, this may have been terrorism.”

“But I wouldn't want to speculate.”

New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino condemned the guidance, accusing the broadcaster of disregarding the victims and deliberately undermining the historical record.

“The CBC guidance is frankly outrageous and insulting, but it stands as a stark warning for what happens when you allow institutions of public trust to be taken over by leftists and foreign interests,” Paladino said.

“This is not merely a callous disregard for the memory of those who perished on 9/11, it is a deliberate effort to undermine the fundamental truth of what happened that day in direct service to Islamism, as Europe, Canada, and the United States become increasingly overwhelmed by Islamist politics. We must not tolerate it any longer and dedicate ourselves to fighting this poison with every tool we have available before it’s too late,” she continued.

Conservative Canadian MP Rachael Thomas called the guidance “absolutely shameful.”

“The CBC is choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11. Refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders who witnessed the horrors of that day. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Full stop,” Thomas said.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs likewise accused the CBC of “sanitizing” history and presiding over a “collapse of journalistic standards.”

CBC responded that it was merely following its longstanding policy.

Because apparently the collapse of a building is tragic, but the collapse of a journalistic standard is merely a longstanding practice.

The policy is not limited to 9/11. CBC faced similar criticism following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, when journalists were instructed not to independently call militants or soldiers “terrorists” and instead treat the designation as an attributed opinion.

Which raises an obvious question:

If Hamas murders civilians, kidnaps children, takes hostages and deliberately attacks Israeli communities, when exactly does CBC believe the word “terrorist” becomes appropriate?

Apparently, after the reporter has obtained a notarized affidavit from someone willing to accept responsibility for the adjective.

Perhaps the CBC could establish a new editorial hotline.

CALL 1: “Was someone intentionally trying to terrorize civilians?”

CALL 2: “Did they kill people?”

CALL 3: “Does Canada officially designate the organization as terrorist?”

CALL 4: “Is the answer to all three yes?”

CALL 5: “Sorry, we can't make that determination. Please hold for 45 minutes while we locate a sufficiently neutral adjective.”
CBC's New Definition of Journalism

The CBC's position ultimately leaves Canadians with a remarkable picture of modern journalism.

The journalist sees the plane.

The journalist sees the building.

The journalist sees the fire.

The journalist sees the bodies.

The journalist sees the terrorist organization that planned the attack.

The journalist sees the government's official designation.

The journalist sees the FBI's determination.

And then the journalist looks directly into the camera and says:

“Some things happened.”

This is apparently what “bearing witness” means in Canada.

Not telling people what happened.

Not describing what happened.

Certainly not using words that might help people understand what happened.

Just standing there solemnly while history happens nearby.

And if anyone asks whether 9/11 was terrorism, the answer is simple:

According to the FBI, yes.

According to the Canadian government, yes.

According to the historical record, yes.

According to the victims, their families and the first responders, obviously yes.

According to the CBC?

“The Sept. 11 attacks.”

Because apparently after 25 years, nearly 3,000 deaths, four hijacked aircraft and the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most dangerous thing about 9/11 is still the possibility that a CBC reporter might accidentally call a terrorist a terrorist.

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

Tweet

Judge Reminds Democrat Congresswoman She Does Not Have a Congressional Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card

She looks like a Flip Wilson fan

NEWARK, NJ--A federal appeals court has delivered a devastating blow to Jersey girl Rep. LaMonica McIver’s innovative legal theory that being a member of Congress comes with a complimentary immunity package.

The three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that McIver is not immune from prosecution over her memorable May 2025 encounter at Delaney Hall, an ICE detention facility that left federal immigration officers allegedly getting a little too much congressional “oversight.”

McIver had argued that her arrest interfered with her legislative duties, apparently under the increasingly popular Washington doctrine that congressional oversight means showing up at a federal facility and allegedly getting physical with the people guarding it. Yeah, getting arrested tends to interfere with the arrestee's job.

The court was not impressed.

In a statement, McIver said the court “got it wrong” and that she is “exploring every possible option.”

“To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” the socialist said.

McIver was indicted on three counts stemming from her May 2025 visit to Delaney Hall with other leftist lawmakers. Prosecutors allege that she physically clashed with law enforcement officials during the confrontation.

The facility had already become something of a pilgrimage site for activists determined to demonstrate that the best way to protest immigration enforcement is to try to interfere with it.

McIver now faces the unfortunate realization that federal law does not contain a special congressional exemption reading, “Members of Congress may do whatever they want, particularly if they are really passionate about it.”

If convicted on all three counts, McIver faced up to 17 years behind bars. Fortunately for her, she will likely receive the traditional Washington welcome package of suspended sentences, probation and enough community service to make everyone feel that justice has been served without anyone having to miss too many congressional votes. 

Consequences for thee, but not for she.

The ruling serves as a useful reminder to lawmakers everywhere: Congressional immunity may protect you from certain things you say on the House floor.

It apparently does not protect you from the consequences of allegedly assaulting federal agents in the parking lot. But we will need to wait and see what the consequences are for her illegal actions.

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

Tweet

James "with a nutsack' Talarico trashes "neighbors with a uterus"

Democratic Senate nominee James "With A Nutsack" Talarico has apparently discovered the secret to progressive theology: if you reduce a woman to a reproductive organ, you can then explain why protecting unborn children is somehow oppressive.

The Texas state representative and failed Presbyterian seminarian has repeatedly referred to women as “neighbors with a uterus” while defending the killing of babies in the uterus, apparently deciding that “women” was simply too biologically specific for the modern progressive vocabulary. What kind of Christian believes that garbage?

In one clip addressing a congregation after the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Talarico declared: “Every one of our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the state.”

This is, of course, a rather creative interpretation of what the Supreme Court actually did. The Court didn't announce that women had suddenly become government property. It simply returned the abortion question to the states, allowing voters and their elected representatives to decide whether unborn children should be legally protected. That's why we call our country is a republic, specifically a democratic republic.

Apparently, in Talarico's fake theological universe, allowing citizens to debate whether unborn babies should be protected constitutes government ownership of women. Somehow the unborn child, who is actually the one being killed, manages to disappear entirely from the argument--how convenient.

Talarico has also declared that he wants “our neighbors with a uterus to be able to control their own body.”

The phrase is certainly useful if the objective is to discuss abortion without mentioning the inconvenient biological reality that there are two bodies involved, much like the two tiny nuts in his sack.

A 2024 recording provides another glimpse into Talarico's linguistic gymnastics. While discussing the morality of abortion, he began to say “woman” before correcting himself and returning to his preferred leftist terminology.

Apparently, even the word “woman” has now been placed on the progressive theological watchlist.

Talarico later shared a version of his remarks on X in November 2022, accompanying video of himself bloviating: “This summer, more than half our population became second-class citizens. Every one of our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the State. And nothing is more un-Christian.”

Talarico replaces “woman” with a description from a medical textbook and then declares that anyone who disagrees with you is violating Christianity is contradicts Christian theology.

Jimmy with a nutsack has used the phrase repeatedly when discussing biological women and has even declared that “our trans community needs abortion care too,” apparently overlooking the minor biological inconvenience that men who claim to be women do not become pregnant simply because a progressive politician says they can.

Pro-life observers have condemned the language as demeaning and dehumanizing, arguing that reducing women to a single body part is hardly the great feminist breakthrough progressives claim it to be. Apparently, the movement that once insisted women should be valued as complete human beings has now decided that “uterus” is the preferred substitute for “woman.”

Religious and political figures have also sharply criticized Talarico's theological arguments, accusing him of bending Scripture to accommodate progressive political orthodoxy.

Islam much?

Evangelist Franklin Graham rejected Talarico's claim that Scripture is silent on abortion, saying: “Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico couldn’t be more wrong! The Bible is not silent on abortion as he claims—that’s an absolute lie. God commands us, ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13). Abortion is taking a life—it is murder.”

Graham further warned: “Don’t be deceived by wicked politicians spouting lies like this.”

Daily Wire host Matt Walsh has likewise accused Talarico of twisting biblical teaching concerning life in the womb, describing him as a “creepy-looking heretic and fake pastor who pathologically lies to Christians over and over again about what the scripture says… he is completely insane.”

And evil, if you really consider what he spouts.

Blaze Media host Allie Beth Stuckey has also challenged Talarico's theological arguments, calling his use of Scripture to justify abortion “absurdly evil” and “demonic.”

The controversy, originally amplified earlier this year by groups supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has resurfaced as the Senate race heats up.

And if Talarico's rhetoric is any indication, voters can apparently look forward to a Senate campaign in which the Democratic nominee explains that women are actually “neighbors with a uterus,” unborn children are apparently a secondary consideration, and the Bible becomes considerably more flexible whenever progressive politics needs a little divine assistance.

At this rate, the Ten Commandments may soon require a progressive translation. “You shall not murder” could become “Please respect everyone's reproductive choices,” while “Honor thy father and mother” will presumably be replaced by “Ask your neighbors with a uterus.”

Progressive theology has never sounded so strangely anatomical. 

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

Tweet

PP told Dem AGs to shut down pro-life centers

Democrats Took Notes: Planned Parenthood Handed State Attorneys General a Post-Roe To-Do List

Apparently, overturning Roe v. Wade was not supposed to end the abortion industry’s relationship with government. It was merely supposed to move the relationship into the states, where Democrat attorneys general could continue doing what Washington had been doing for decades.

Just a month after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, Planned Parenthood circulated a 14-point memo giving state attorneys general a handy-dandy checklist for fighting back against the Dobbs decision. The document essentially amounted to an abortion-industry field manual, complete with instructions for targeting crisis pregnancy centers, pressuring federal regulators, enforcing state abortion laws and issuing abortion-friendly legal opinions.

And, according to documents obtained by the Daily Signal, several blue-state attorneys general appear to have read the memo and thought, “Excellent. Where do we sign?”

On July 25, 2022, Brittany Jenkins, policy director of the Progressive State Leaders Committee, forwarded the Planned Parenthood memo to attorneys general and their staffs. Jenkins informed them that Rachel Sussman, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of state policy, would brief them the following day “to continue our discussion of continued actions AGs can take in response to the Dobbs decision.”

The memo declared war on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, organizations that provide expecting mothers with food, clothing, shelter, counseling and other assistance while encouraging them not to abort their children.

Planned Parenthood apparently considered all that assistance suspicious.

“Provide information to the public about CPCs and take steps to curb their misleading and deceptive practices. For example, CA issued a Consumer Alert,” the memo stated. It also urged attorneys general to ask the Federal Trade Commission to “target misinformation perpetuated by crisis pregnancy centers regarding medication abortion.”

In other words, if someone is offering a pregnant woman diapers instead of an abortion, the government may need to investigate.

Less than a month later, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a “consumer alert” targeting crisis pregnancy centers because, apparently, “pregnant people” needed the government to explain which pregnancy-related organizations they were allowed to trust.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin followed in December 2022 with his own consumer alert. He later subpoenaed First Choice, a crisis pregnancy center, demanding the names, phone numbers, addresses and places of employment of its individual donors.

Unfortunately for the subpoena, the First Amendment has an annoying habit of getting in the way.

In April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that donors have a First Amendment right to contribute anonymously.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state Planned Parenthood had already held up as an example, went even further, suing several crisis pregnancy centers. In October 2023, Bonta joined 15 other Democrat attorneys general in an open letter attacking the centers.

“We have watched with increasing concern in recent years as anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) have proliferated in our states, outnumbering abortion clinics by a three-to-one ratio,” the letter said.

Apparently, having three times as many places offering women an alternative to abortion is considered a crisis.

And the abortion industry was not merely making suggestions from the sidelines. According to documents obtained by the Daily Signal through a public records request to the office of Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, Planned Parenthood was coordinating with multiple state attorneys general.

That would be quite a coincidence, except that the memo helpfully provided the blueprint.

The Planned Parenthood memo urged states to use their own versions of the FACE Act, the federal law governing access to abortion clinics, pregnancy centers and houses of worship.

“States should utilize all state laws, including state FACE Acts, to protect health care facilities that provide abortion.”

Eight days later, Platkin announced a partnership with the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New Jersey and issued guidance to state prosecutors concerning enforcement of clinic-access laws.

But Planned Parenthood was not finished handing out assignments.

The memo also encouraged attorneys general to issue legal opinions resolving abortion-related questions, including “guidance explicitly asserting consent to abortion rights for minors.”

According to the Center for American Progress, attorneys general in Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania subsequently issued guidance concerning abortion and medication abortion.

Planned Parenthood also urged states to coordinate legal representation for women seeking abortions, abortionists and abortion funds. Arizona, California, New Jersey and New York later established task forces for that purpose, according to the Center for American Progress.

At this point, calling the document a “memo” seems almost quaint. It looks more like a corporate franchise manual.

Step one: Target crisis pregnancy centers.

Step two: Pressure federal regulators.

Step three: Encourage state prosecutors to enforce abortion-friendly laws.

Step four: Issue legal opinions supporting abortion.

Step five: Establish task forces.

Step six: Hope nobody notices that the supposedly independent government officials are following the abortion industry's homework.

The revelations come after the Biden administration's Justice Department released an 882-page report detailing coordination between the administration and major abortion-industry groups, including Planned Parenthood, in efforts to use federal law enforcement against pro-life activists.

The documents now suggest that the strategy did not stop at the federal level.

Some attorneys general had already begun taking action before the Supreme Court handed down Dobbs. But Planned Parenthood's memo provided a remarkably specific roadmap that closely resembled policies subsequently adopted by several blue states.

Kaul’s office, which fulfilled its legal obligation to provide the records, did not respond to inquiries for this story.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood did not respond to phone and email inquiries.

Neither a spokesperson for the Progressive State Leaders Committee nor the Democratic Attorneys General Association responded to inquiries.

The Progressive State Leaders Committee is a 501(c)(4) advocacy group founded in 2005 that shares an address with the Democratic Attorneys General Association and, according to the Capital Research Center, lists no paid staff on its tax filing.

So there you have it.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe, Planned Parenthood produced the homework, and Democrat attorneys general apparently showed up to class prepared.

The only thing missing from the memo was a note at the bottom saying, “Please remember to turn in your assignment by Friday.”

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

Tweet

Hasan Piker Discovers the Jews Are Somehow Responsible for Antisemitism

Hasan Piker, the multimillionaire socialist who has somehow managed to turn complaining about capitalism into a very lucrative career, is facing backlash after suggesting that American Jews could be responsible for the anti-Semitism directed at them. 

During his Aug. 20 stream, Piker offered a novel solution to anti-Semitism: Apparently, Jews should stop being so Jewish about Israel, or someone might decide to attack them.

“People don’t f–k with Israel any longer. And if Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they’re singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone will come around and take action not against Israel, mind you, but against American Jews,” Piker, a blatant anti-Semite said.

The remark immediately drew criticism from people who apparently missed the memo informing them that blaming Jews for the hatred directed at Jews is not, in fact, a groundbreaking new analysis of anti-Semitism.

Piker, a caviar socialist with a multimillion-dollar home in West Hollywood and a $200,000 Porsche, has become an increasingly prominent surrogate for Democratic Socialists of America congressional candidates. Here's the dude saying "workers of the world unite" from his luxury sports car. 

Among those unwilling to join Piker's latest intellectual adventure was Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI), who blasted the streamer over what she called “talk of violence” targeting Jewish Michigan State Sen. Jeremy Moss.

Scholten, a Christian, called Piker “a hack who thrives on hate, shock and awe because he lacks substance.”

“Hasan Piker’s talk of violence against American Jews, and directly naming a Michigan elected official, and future member of Congress, Jeremy Moss, is unacceptable. Full stop,” Scholten’s statement read.

“We should all be calling out this disgusting rhetoric so it loses its grip on our politics once and for all. It has no place in Michigan, and no place in our country.”

Piker responded in the traditional manner of the modern political intellectual: by attacking Scholten personally and labeling her an “Israel 1st congresswoman.” 

“if i was an israel 1st congresswoman with a possible cheating scandal with a republican in the state, i wouldn’t spend so much time vying for the spotlight by actively defaming a prominent antizionist voice to harm the dem senate majority chances over a 90/10 issue,” Piker wrote on X. He evidently can'tsee how truth is truth, and has nothing to do with her personal life.

The exchange comes as Piker has become a regular presence on the campaign trail in Michigan, where he backed Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, another Jew-hating jihadi who would be a danger to America if he wins in November.

El-Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary earlier this month, despite criticism over his association with Piker and the streamer's increasingly inflammatory rhetoric.

Even El-Sayed felt compelled to distance himself from Piker's comments, although apparently without quite reaching the point of actually condemning the man whose political support he had eagerly accepted.

“I believe all Americans deserve the right to advocate for what they believe without fear of violence. This is particularly true for communities that have been intimidated for their beliefs in the past,” El-Sayed wrote.

He also emphasized that Piker does not speak for his campaign, but clearly they speak the same hateful language. But who doesn't think that political candidates will say anything to get elected?

“nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.” 

Jewish organizations were considerably less diplomatic.

The Jewish Federation of Detroit called Piker's remarks “repugnant and anti-Semitic,” noting that he had discussed violence against Jewish Americans while displaying an image of a Jewish Michigan lawmaker.

“We call on all responsible leaders to condemn this extremist, attention-seeking conduct which divides Americans, foments hate, and makes our Jewish community less safe,” the organization said.

The American Jewish Committee similarly accused Piker of putting a target on Jewish Americans and Jewish candidates and officeholders.

“Blaming Jews for the anti-Semitism directed at them is itself antisemitism,” AJC wrote on X. “Every public official who has shared his platform now has a choice: denounce this and walk away, or be complicit. There is no third option.”

Hillary Scholten 

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt also weighed in, wondering whether elected officials who associate with Piker actually watch his streams or simply notice his enormous audience and decide that the rest is someone else's problem.

“The Jewsplaining is extraordinary: Piker appoints himself an authority on anti-Semitism, lecturing Jews about what is and isn’t anti-Semitic while blaming the Jewish community for the hatred directed against it,” Greenblatt said.

Piker's comments came amid controversy over an audio clip circulating online that purportedly featured Moss saying the “entire purpose” of his congressional campaign was to ensure America's continued support for Israel.

Moss denied making the remarks and said the audio was fabricated, and personally, I believe him.

“We are in a dangerous era of disinformation. Circulating a lie because it affirms your bias or belief is equally bad whether it comes from the left or the right. We all have a choice not to spread fabricated images, videos, and audio about candidates and campaigns. We all have a role in stopping the erosion of our democracy,” Moss said.

Thus, in the latest installment of the Hasan Piker School of Advanced Political Thought, we have learned that anti-Semitism is apparently the Jews' fault, fabricated audio is apparently useful when it advances your argument, and socialism works best when financed by a multimillion-dollar mansion and a $200,000 Porsche.

Karl Marx may have envisioned the proletariat seizing the means of production.

Piker appears to have seized the means of streaming, and anyone believing the garbage he spouts is a fool.

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

Tweet

Mamdani's War on the Bodega: Because Nothing Says “Helping Immigrants” Like Destroying Their Businesses

New York City Mayor and comrade Zohran Mamdani has apparently discovered the ultimate solution to economic inequality: have the government open grocery stores and compete directly with the immigrant entrepreneurs who spent generations building New York’s neighborhoods.

Naturally, the immigrant grocers being targeted by this brilliant socialist experiment are not impressed, especially since their own tax money is going toward the funding of these stores,

The Multicultural Business Coalition (MBC), which represents immigrant-run businesses, has filed two lawsuits against Mamdani’s plan to open government-run supermarkets, arguing that the city’s taxpayer-funded grocery empire could drive family-owned bodegas and supermarkets out of business.

One lawsuit represents “hundreds” of grocers who are “members of groups historically discriminated against,” according to The New York Post. The city plans to open the first of five government supermarkets next year.

Apparently, the revolutionary dream of replacing capitalism with socialism has reached the point where the government now gets to compete with the very immigrants Democrats routinely celebrate as the backbone of American entrepreneurship.

Sure, keep voting for these leftists, my Democrat friends, and quit complaining. You got what you voted for, good and hard.

MBC President Ken Roldan called the plan “a direct assault on minority business by a mayor who claims to be a champion of disenfranchised poor and working-class New Yorkers.”

That's one way to describe it. Another would be: “Congratulations, your reward for building a successful neighborhood business is a government competitor.” Again, on their own tax dollars.

Mamdani, naturally, is naively confident that everything will work out beautifully. On Monday, he defended the proposal, saying he is “fully confident in both the legality and the importance of our initiative.”

Because when a socialist government starts opening competing businesses, the one thing you definitely do not need to worry about is whether the government knows what it is doing.

The second lawsuit raises concerns similar to those surrounding previous efforts to bring Walmart into New York City. Opponents of Walmart argued that the retail giant could drive small storefronts out of business.

But apparently Walmart was insufficiently progressive. Now New York City wants to become Walmart, except with taxpayers footing the bill and politicians deciding what gets stocked on the shelves.

The immigrant grocers also allege that the city “failed to study the discriminatory effects” of the planned supermarkets on family-owned bodegas and supermarkets operated by Hispanics, Arabs, and Asians. The lawsuit asks the city to conduct such a study.

Never held a real job until now

Frank Garcia, chairman of the MBC, explained why the issue is personal.

“My grandfather opened up one of the first bodegas in the late 1960s when East Harlem was burning, and the A&Ps and Walbaums were leaving,” Garcia said. “He established the first Latino Grocery Association to protect the rights of immigrant store owners. I am proud to be following up in his tradition because what Mayor Mamdani is doing is disgracing his memory.”

Nothing says “honoring immigrant entrepreneurs” quite like making them compete against City Hall.

Jairo Guzman, president of the NY State Mexican Chamber of Commerce, called the immigrant-run bodegas “New York City’s great mosaic,” and said that “Mayor Mamdani needs to withdraw his disastrous plan and work with us to find different ways to bolster and sustain what so many (New York City) immigrants have created.”

“The Puerto Ricans were the bodega pioneers and they were followed by the Dominicans, the Arabs, the Koreans, the Chinese, and finally, my Mexican business members,” Guzman said.

There was a time when the American dream meant immigrants arrived with little, worked hard, opened businesses, served their communities, and eventually built something their children could inherit.

Under Mamdani economics, the dream appears to be evolving into something more modern: work hard, build a successful business, pay your taxes, and wait patiently for the government to open a competing store next door.

Mamdani has pledged that the government-run grocery stores will offer products at prices 30% lower than private retailers.

Economists have warned that the plan could lead to supply-chain breakdowns and bare shelves.

But why worry about shortages when you can simply blame capitalism for them?

Venture capitalist Shaun Maguire recently offered a less optimistic assessment.

“This is LITERALLY how you destroy an economy,” Maguire warned, adding, “This is the story of the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Now coming to NYC!”

Of course, New York is not the Soviet Union, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Not yet, anyway.

But if Mamdani succeeds, New Yorkers may soon discover the exciting socialist experience of paying taxes to support a government grocery store while standing in line outside a private bodega that has already gone out of business.

At least the empty shelves will be affordable.

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.

Dem House Candidate’s 2013 Arrest Resurfaces in Pivotal Race for Control of Congress

MICHIGAN: Democrats looking for the perfect candidate to help them reclaim control of Congress have apparently decided that what their party needs is an environmental activist who once chained himself to industrial equipment, resisted police, and later tweeted, "Defund the Police!"

Enter William Lawrence, co-founder of the progressive Sunrise Movement and Democratic candidate challenging Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI), in what could be one of the most closely watched House races in America.

Lawrence was arrested in 2013 during a protest against Enbridge Line 5, the 645-mile pipeline carrying crude oil and natural gas between Wisconsin and Ontario through Michigan.

In the spirit of the cretins who glue their hands to roads, Lawrence and several fellow activists chained themselves to machinery in an effort to stop the pipeline. Police eventually had to cut them loose before hauling them away. 

The defendants were charged with trespassing, as well as resisting and obstructing a police officer. According to court documents, Lawrence and three others had to be physically removed from the equipment before being arrested without incident.

In other words, Lawrence's résumé already had everything modern progressive politics requires: activism, arrest, opposition to fossil fuels and a sincere belief that government should be heavily funded, provided the government is not the police.

That last part became particularly interesting in 2020, when Lawrence posted on X, "Defund the Police!"

The following month, he got even more specific, calling for the Lansing, Michigan, police department to be defunded.

But that was then.

Asked about those comments now that he is asking voters to put him in Congress, Lawrence offered a somewhat more nuanced position, a position known as 'walking it back,' or 'flip-flopping.'

"I don't support defunding the police. I follow the lead of first responders and gun violence prevention advocates I have met with here in the district, who support increased funding for youth programs, mental health resources, and community violence intervention, working in collaboration with law enforcement."

So, apparently, "Defund the Police!" has now been upgraded to "Fund Several Things Around the Police." Lawrence thinks the American public is stupid, and anyone who considers voting for him has to fit that definition.

His campaign also emphasized that his conviction has since been expunged under Michigan law, which is certainly convenient when applying for a job that requires voters to inspect your entire political history.

Lawrence has also addressed the arrest himself. In an Instagram video earlier this year, he said he "took a stand" against Enbridge and added, "Was it righteous? Absolutely. Was it wise? Perhaps not." [Is he a dolt? Totally.]

That's a remarkably sophisticated way of saying, "I was absolutely right, although maybe getting arrested over it was not my finest afternoon."

"The fact is, they were back operating that afternoon, while my collaborators and I faced legal consequences for years," he said. "I wouldn't advise you do what I did, but my conviction remains, and you can always count on me to fight for pure Michigan and our water."

Which is reassuring. If elected, Lawrence presumably intends to fight for Michigan's water using the traditional congressional method of introducing legislation rather than chaining himself to the Capitol plumbing.

Lawrence was backed by progressive groups during his primary campaign, although he has since said he has left the Democratic Socialists of America as the general election heats up.

Naturally, that did not stop House Republicans from reminding voters that Lawrence spent considerable time swimming in the deep end of the progressive pool.

"Socialist felon William Lawrence is a radical far-left liberal who puts his extreme climate agenda ahead of common sense and the priorities of hardworking Michiganders. Lawrence’s extreme agenda makes one thing clear: he is far too radical for Mid-Michigan and can’t be trusted to put Michigan families first," NRCC spokesman Zach Bannon said.

Republicans already face an uphill battle to retain control of the House, with history suggesting that the party holding the White House generally takes a beating during midterm elections. But Democrats have their own problem.

Their increasingly energetic march toward the political left has given Republicans a potentially useful campaign strategy: simply reminding voters who some of the Democratic candidates actually are.

Lawrence's primary campaign was an upset victory over establishment-backed candidates Matt Maasdam and Bridget Brink, who previously served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Now Lawrence heads into the general election hoping to convince Michigan voters that the man who once chained himself to pipeline equipment is exactly the person they want helping write the nation's laws.

At least he has experience obstructing things.

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

Tweet