5. Surprise! Democrats who are horrified by El-Sayed’s victory are being called “Islamophobic” by the candidate’s supporters. See, in Progressive Land there is never substantive criticism, just sexism, racism, and prejudice.
6. Of course, Islamophobia has its points. Speaking at the Islamic Institute of America’s complex in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, El-Sayed said: “I just want to reflect for a moment on what this mosque represents. Allah tells us in His holy book, the Quran: ‘You are the best nation brought forward for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is evil, and believe in Allah.’” That’s Qur’an 3:110, and is is a declaration of Islamic and Muslim supremacy. Muslims are “the best nation,” or as another translation has it, “the best of people.” The Qur’an also says that unbelievers are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). They are not even human in any genuine sense: “Indeed, the worst of animals in Allah’s sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.” (8:55).
6. Here is how sick ideologically-captured institutions are becoming. On July 30, the American Association of University Professors backed Abdul El-Sayed, and are proud of it, crowing that the decision was its “First-Ever National Political Endorsement.” Todd Wolfson, the AAUP’s president, said roughly 80% of the Michigan members who voted supported making an endorsement and 97% favored El-Sayed. FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff wrote,
“Once the AAUP behaves like a left-wing political organization, it attracts more people who want exactly that while driving away moderates, conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else who does not want an academic-freedom organization doubling as a political faction. The membership becomes still more homogeneous in the process. Internal objections get weaker. The next partisan step seems even more obvious. That is how an organization becomes trapped inside its own box and then mistakes the view from inside for reality.”
Or to paraphrase Thomas More in “A Man For All Seasons,”
“It profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Abdul El-Sayed!”
_________________
**Hassan Piker, a major supporter, is a radical left-wing “influencer” who has said America deserved 9/11, that the fall of the communist USSR was a “catastrophe,” and and denies that Hamas used rape and sexual violence against Israelis in the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack.
Ethics Alarms 
There might be less Islamophobia if the Koran didn’t call for the murder of non believers and a large number of Muslims did take the Koran up on that offer….
Oh, and if every single Islamic dominated country wasn’t a complete hell hole.
His supporters get upset and claim opponents are bigots or racists or something when they use his full name: “Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed”.
To be fair, attempts to use full names of people with foreign names is a form of otherizing. It’s why some people refer to our 44th President as Barack Hussein Obama. It’s why the Trump Deranged call the President Drumpf.
Critics would do better to leave otherizing alone and focus on the candidate’s policy goals. I wish I could say that those goals alone should be sufficient to prevent him from winning but we have large numbers of uninformed and/or biased people who think otherwise.
I agree completely, and find Trump’s use of Obama’s middle name as obnoxious and uncivil, but then I find a lot of what he says obnoxious and uncivil.
Quit referring to candidate William Adolf Hitler Smith by his full name as if it might imply he may have some unorthodox opinions about the direction of our country!
Michael, I agree with much of you write. William Adolf Hitler Smith is a different beast than a candidate with a foreign name. Of course, we would want to know if a candidate has failed to remove Adolf Hitler as part of his name.
I believe Islam is a toxic belief system but candidate Abdul El-Sayad should be judged on his stated policy goals and public statements rather than what his name is.
He’s named by the people who raised him. It’s fair to know a candidates background and hiding your name because it’s indicative of your background is a form of obfuscation.
If you might “feel concerning” to voters, you as a candidate have to go above and beyond to assuage those fears.
I think it’s beyond silly to tell the voting populace “just drop it” when they have valid concerns that a candidate is then obligated to assuage by clearly and earnestly stating their position and resting on their past commentary and actions (which is a whole other monster with Sayed) simply because those of us who don’t think it’s a big deal to have an Islamic-adjacent name are able to “just drop it”.
In this case, I think the name Abdul El-Sayed is Islamic adjacent enough that it’s unnecessary to go into the entire name. Your example of William Adolf Hitler Smith is where it would be appropriate to know whole thing.
His policy ideas are plenty. He would be a frightening candidate if his name was Mickey Johnson.
Obama called and congratulated him on his win.
El-Sayed: “I watched…Barack Hussein Obama run for and win the presidency.” “I was grateful for his advice…I hope that we get to campaign together.”
In this case, context is king. When political opponents and ne’er do wells on social media refer to Obama by his full name, they are otherizing. When El-Sayed says it, he is connecting himself positively to Obama.
That’s too much like the left’s “YOU don’t get to say this word, but WE do” control attempt.
I disagree. The intent is different and that’s where context comes in.
When the Left tells us that a racial slur is so horrible that it cannot be printed in a newspaper, read aloud in a book or even spoken aloud even when it’s not directed at a person, it is hypocritical for them to say that it can be used by members of that racial community without rebuke.
Full names are not the same. I can refer to President Trump’s ancestor as Drumpf because that was his name. I cannot refer to Trump himself that way because now it’s an otherizing attempt as it’s not his name.
If I were to list all of the Presidents by their full names and said, “Barack Hussein Obama”, I would not be otherizing him because I’m including all of the other Presidents. On the other hand, if I am writing a social media post criticizing his polices and refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, that would be an attempt to otherize.
It’s not the same thing.
To be fair people with extremely foreign names who completely hate the concept of America are “others”.
Nevertheless, the concept of otherizing is different from the general word others.
Identifying “others” and “otherizing” look the same on the surface though, don’t they?
Nixon (and others) — brown eyes. This is the worst racist white supremaceist BS you’ve ever written, Jack.
No others, and I thought I had written that Nixon was the sole exception before Obama (he is listed in some sources as having black eyes.)
Long post, and I left that out inadvertently. Shame on you for calling a fact “racist.” I was fascinated by the blue-eyes fact, and hadn’t included it in my study because it only was noted anywhere after Obama. (Trump has blue eyes.) Trump has blue eyes. Guess what color Biden’s eyes are?
What’s racist? Accidentally leaving out Dick, or stating a historical fact that everyone is supposed to ignore? 45 Presidents and just one (or two) brown eyed one? I apologize for mistakes (leaving out Nixon, but not facts.)
You owe me an apology. See correction above.
And there were no “others.” YOUR statement was deliberate misinformation. Shame on you.When I thought the blue-eyed stat had to be wrong about 20 years ago) , I checked. Unethical Leftists just deny or ignore facts they don’t like.
“Nixon (and others) — brown eyes. This is the worst racist white supremaceist BS you’ve ever written, Jack.”
Not the *first* in his eyes, but the *worst*. I wonder what other things you’ve written that he considers “racist white supremacist BS”.
Probably “open borders are bad”, “illegal immigrants” and “statue-toppling is ignorant.”
There was so much more that was objectionable in that post, but I don’t have the stomach to address all of it. I promise I will no longer point out these things, because I think the only way for me to continue as a friend is to unsubscribe from EA. Then I won’t see the emails from EA and my head won’t explode. And I won’t write responses that you feel deserve an apology.
I do deserve an apology, and I will continue to expect one. You owe me one for this comment too. “There was so much more that was objectionable in that post, but I don’t have the stomach to address all of it” is not ethical or fair criticism. “these things,” similarly, is unethical, impugning by non-specific reference. You know better. I really know better, having been sued for liable and successfully defending myself because I stated precisely why I thought my accuser was “a few sandwiches short of a picnic.” You have an ethical obligation to specify “these things,” I assume to won’t because to would have to reveal your kneejerk approval of an anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist asshole because he’s socialist. Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
proe32754 wrote, “This is the worst racist white supremaceist BS you’ve ever written…”
Where the heck do these race baiters come up with these kinds of utterly delusional thoughts? I know these people aren’t likely all morons, but when they write things like this they “sound like” morons. This comment from proe32754 is a great example of liberal magical thinking.
Seriously proe32754, think a lot more critically before you hit the “Submit” button.
I wish I had something intelligent to add, but I don’t. I just spend the past 3 1/2 days in the South Luangwa National Park searching for REEs, and was captured by a Ngoni scouting party. Before I had a chance to escape, they shrunk my head using an accent constriction helmet with my body still attached. Each hour they have the constriction band a hard twist. That was unfortunate enough, but even worse, the left side of my head constricted more than the right — I can barely think straight. My wife has applied a pressure-reversing herbal poultice in concentric circles above my left eye in hopes that I might again be able to comment on the provocative thoughts being expressed on this one-of-a-kind blog. Either that or she’s just put a target on my head…?
Wait. Is your wife applying the head shrinking reversal treatment in concentric circles clockwise or counter-clockwise? It matters. Clockwise will only enhance the cranial shrinkage. Counter-clockwise might help but only if she applies the salve with her left hand. If she uses her right hand, you might just be hosed.
Oh, and if the REEs got mixed up with the cranial shrinkage potion, well, . . . .
I am very worried.
jvb
Ughhh, I hate it when that happens 😦
Nixon(and other) — brown eyes.
There. I fixed it for you. You are very welcome. Have a blessed day.
Apparently there are rumblings about Republicans getting dirty-smart and funding all sorts of fringe candidates in Democratic primaries. If this is true and the bulk of the funding, what will happen in the general election if the candidates are too toxic for the party. Where will the general funding come from?
I’ve heard that there are a bunch of Republicans voting for the progressive extremist Francesca Hong (Socialist/Communist) in Wisconsin’s open primary because they “think” she’s so extreme that she will be easy to beat in the November gubernatorial election. These Wisconsin Republicans better watch out, this could backfire in a very bad way!
These antics are unbefitting our democratic process. Why can’t they just run a good Republican who has sane ideas and the ability to communicate them effectively?
They actually have a reasonably decent candidate but unfortunately he’s being tarred, like any Republican these days, as being MAGA.
Here is a quote from a Republican blogger I know…
As an independent, I never vote in any partisan primaries.
DOGE makes sure the answer is not the taxpayers, where it looks like much of the democrats money came from. It’s not going to come from Jewish people either, another huge source of democrat money.
I suspect this fall’s election is going to have massively lopsided spending.
We cried “We will never forget” in regard to the Holcaust, 9/11, 10/7. Yet within a generation, of the first two and weeks after the last we have forgotten.
Even if every right minded republican/conservative showed at the poll, the demogrpahics of the Democratic importees, and the corruption of the Detroit, Mineapolis, St Paul, NYC, West coast political and voting system has us doomed.
One of the many unintended (or maybe intended…who knows with progressive miscreants) of the pop-cultural/big-media/DNC/progressive blob’s rebellion against Bush, junior, which they mostly centered around opposition to the Iraq (and eventually Afghanistan) wars, was to to sympathize with muslims and eventually make islam seems like a palatable cultural movement.
That we do agree upon. But, then again, Bush II’s administration, as well as the President himself, repeated the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace.
Right. Here we are twenty-five years after 9/11 and an avowed Islamist is about to be elected to the United State Senate? What the fuck? What is wrong with us?
Why doesn’t any of the coverage of this race mention the massive, unassimilated Arab voting block in Dearborn, Michigan? These creeps have quickly learned they don’t have to be able to bring down buildings to take over the United States and establish a Caliphate, all they have to do is run in elections! Easy peasy.
Here’s what we’re up against: The Marxist-Islamist Alliance Feeds On DSA Naïveté | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Who is us? Should this not be rephrased with WTF is wrong with the Democrats? Why is this party taken over by the radical fringe of the DSA? The base of the Democrat Party has gone absolute nuts, and the lunatics are not only winning primaries but also elections (e.g. Mamdani in NYC).
The loyalty of those voters is to an ideology (a variation of Marxism), and for many loyalty to a religion (Islam). Many of those hard left figures are not loyal to the USA at all.
“Not only that, every American President from Washington to Bush except Richard Nixon has had blue eyes.”
Well there goes the accusation that we’re governed by lizard people.
You owe me a keyboard.
Just wait until we get a hazel-eyed President.
Or green. The red hair/green eyes combo has always been a favorite (my Mom had green eyes) but none of our red-headed POTUSes had anything but blue eyes. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren—4 out of the first 8!—and Calvin Coolidge were all “gingers.”
Willie Nelson sings about blue eyes crying in the rain:
jvb
Americans just didn’t elect people who had non American-sounding names.
Small correction here. Martin van Buren, the eight POTUS, had a Dutch name as he was of Dutch descent, like many people in the Hudson Valley.
What’s wrong with the democrats?
The old guard courted the leftists because they have cache with younger voters, they have energy, and because Pelosi and Schumer thought they could control this young, radical crowd. Fools. The radicals have no regard, respect or affection for old school democrats. As we can all see, recent moderate dems are embracing communism. I have been worried for a long time, and letting these radicals loose in a general election is a very dangerous game.
Obama has always been evil. He spoke of unity and behaved divisively. He spoke of moderation, only to quickly join the communists. Michelle was always outspoken about their lack of love for America. This is who he has always been.
As always, we are one election away from losing our republic.
“What’s wrong with the democrats?”
Lefty has their ‘nads in a shredder.
The kicker? They’ve been p!ssin’ on the electric fence for a looooooong time, dutifully ignoring the lesson it repeatedly, and without fail, supplied.
It’s almost too much to take.
Almost…….
PWS
Another comment suggested this: Michigan has open primaries, where Republicans can vote for the Democratic candidate they think will be easiest for their candidate to defeat. (Which is also my assumption on press coverage of Trump’s first campaign. Rather than pay attention to the boring Republican candidates, the Press was happy to led Donald Trump make news for them, “as if he could EVER get elected, much less against Hilary!” It probably felt like a clever strategy when they came up with it; not so clever when he got elected.
“What’s wrong with the democrats?”
There isn’t enough paper or ink.