People vote for Trump because they're too stupid to see that Democrats are their saviors. That same keen insight and analysis is found in blue cities too

/

Defund-the-police NYC pol says constituents in high-crime area want more cops because “they don’t know better”

A Defund the Police-pushing Bronx councilwoman who represents one of the most crime-ridden sections of NYC all but accused her constituents this week of being clueless for wanting more cops.

“People in my community ask for more cops because they don’t know other solutions,” Councilwoman Althea Stevens told NYPD brass at Monday’s public safety committee hearing while defending legislation she’s sponsoring to eliminate the Police Department’s gang database.

Stevens and members of the Council’s left-wing Progressive Caucus have long pushed for many non-police responses to crime, including using “violence interrupters” where civilians are trained to deescalate violence.

(The lady’s district has the fourth-highest crime rate in the city, with major crime surging 41% since 2019, records show.)

Here’s more on that proposed gangbangers bill

Mayor Eric Adams and police officials took a swipe at a bill pushed by progressives that would abolish the NYPD’s gang database — saying Monday it’ll make it more difficult for cops to nab violent criminals and prevent shootings.

The mayor, during a press briefing at City Hall, said he didn’t buy left-wing critics’ arguments that the Criminal Group Database amounts to racial profiling since nearly all the gang members ID’d are black and Latino.

“There’s a number they leave out — 96% of the victims of shootings in the city are people of color. Let’s keep them in mind ,.. Many [Just many?] gang members “prey on innocent people in their community,” he noted, adding, “Some of them are extremely dangerous. Some [sic] of them are repeat offenders.”

NYPD officials said 500 groups are identified as gangs, and that 25% of members in the database are convicted felons, 33% are on parole/probation, 45% have been arrested previously — and about one-third have been busted 20 or more times and one-third have been involved in shootings.

Queens Republican Councilwoman JoAnn Ariola called the bill straight out of “La La Land,” saying that she’s never met a constituent who asked for the gang database to be abolished — though they do want more police officers assigned to their neighborhoods.

“These people aren’t members of the community. They prey on the community,” Ariola said of gang members.

Bronx Democratic Councilwoman Althea Stevens, a sponsor of the bill, said, “I’m in La La land.”

“It seems like racial profiling,” Stevens said.

Simple problems call for simple solutions

/

(Sigh) The more things change ...

/

Ben Bartee, PJ Media: The Absolute State of the New Fourth Estate!

The established fact pattern as of March 1, 2025 vis-à-vis the Epstein files:

  • Attorney General Pam Bondi claims on Feb. 21 that she has the Epstein client list “sitting on her desk right now,” all set to be published.

  • On Thursday, Feb. 27, Bondi hosts over a dozen MAGA “influencers” prominent on X, many of which you might be familiar with, for a grand reveal of the files.

  • The influencers receive binders labeled allegedly containing the promised files labeled "The Epstein Files: Phase 1."

  • Afterward, the influencers pose outside of the White House for the media cameras, holding up the binders as if they are some kind of big game trophy.

  • Said influencers take to X and elsewhere to post selfies of themselves holding said binders for engagement farming. Some describe the scoop as “exclusive.”

  • It turns out, we learn, that the binders contain nothing of news value whatsoever. There is no Epstein client list; there is no information.

  • Bondi releases a letter claiming that, actually, despite claiming that she had the files “on her desk” almost a week earlier, the FBI only gave her 200 documents and was stonewalling the full disclosure — a revelation she had never made publicly while making multiple media appearances to hype the files she had “on her desk” and was ready to distribute to the public.

  • The government’s failure here is clear, even if the details are scant: someone is lying to the public and covering for whatever interests desperately want to keep the Epstein files secret.

    But what about the “influencers” who allowed themselves, wittingly or not, to be used in this weird stunt?

    Via New York Post (emphasis added):

The Justice Department released a handful of files on notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein on Thursday — though there appear to be no new names or details.

The info first went out to a hand-selected crop of right-wing social media influencers Thursday afternoon — and even those recipients were underwhelmed by what the documents revealed….

When the conservative social media personalities began livestreaming footage of the content after The Post’s initial report, they revealed files that were long available in the public record — such as flight logs — and that all of the boldfaced names in the contact list already were known from prior disclosures…

The document appeared to be a copy of Epstein’s “black book” that was first published in 2021 and later put up for auction.

But wait, there’s more!

After the historic summit to reveal what was already known four years ago, these influencers were then seen sharing social media posts with identical talking points, which would presumably indicate some kind of centralized rather than “independent” media operation.

Bad moments in novice diplomacy

/

September 23rd, 2024: Zalenski traveled to Biden’s hometown, accompanied by Pennsylvania’s governor Shapiro to sign mementos and ask for more of them. My advice: never insert yourself into another country’s political race unless you’re sure, really sure, that the candidate you’re pubicly supporting is going to win. Oops.

And he hasn’t improved his skills since:

Treasury sec reveals Zelenskyy nixed Trump's mineral deal twice prior to Oval Office blowup

"This has to be one of the greatest diplomatic mishaps of all time by President Zelenskyy," Bessent said in an interview Friday with Laura Ingraham, host of Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle." 

Bessent explained that Zelenskyy told him during a meeting in Kyiv that he would not sign a mineral deal, which would exchange billions of dollars in US aid funding for rare earths and other resources from Ukraine.  Zelenskyy also refused to close the deal with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Bessent stated. 

On Friday, Trump and Vance reprimanded Zelenskyy in full view of reporters, with cameras rolling. The tense exchange led to a canceled meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump.

"It was supposed to be a great day and this is one of the biggest own goals in diplomatic history," Bessent said, referencing a soccer term about scoring against your own team. 

"Today, I was shocked that he would behave like this on camera in front of the world," he added. 

Zelensky tries grandstanding for the cameras and attacking the President of the United States; that would have worked with the former occupant of the oval office; now? Not so much.

/

What the Heck Was Zelensky Thinking?

Bonchie:

Volodymyr Zelensky visited the Oval Office on Friday, and as RedState reported, things blew up in spectacular fashion. The latest reports are that the Ukrainian president was kicked out of the White House, with the prior negotiated mineral rights for aid deal shelved indefinitely.

So what exactly happened? That's a good question because I have no idea what Zelensky was thinking. This was not a situation where President Donald Trump was beating him over the head or demanding he submit to a specific narrative surrounding the war in Ukraine. On the contrary, the meeting was essentially over when Zelensky decided it'd be a great idea to try to publicly embarrass Trump and Vice President JD Vance in front of the press.

The sticking point appeared to be Vance, who was wrapping up the press conference, mentioning diplomacy being a means to end the war. Zelensky, for whatever reason, took great offense at that suggestion and asked the vice president if he could ask him a question. The Ukrainian president then leaned forward and began to dismiss the idea of a ceasefire, citing deals that Russia has broken in the past. That's when things touched off, with Zelensky and Vance going back and forth. 

VANCE: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country... Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict.

ZELENSKY: Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?

VANCE: I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you've had problems bringing people into your military? And do you think that it's respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

ZELENSKY: First of all, during the war, everybody has problems. Even you. But you have nice ocean and don't feel now. but you will feel it in the future. God bless, you won't have war.

It was that last line that brought Trump back into the conversation, likely because it felt as if Zelensky was threatening the United States. 

TRUMP: Don't tell us what we going to feel. We trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we going to feel, because you in no position to dictate that. Remember this. You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel.

This was a colossal miscalculation by Zelensky. Trump has never accepted the idea that Ukraine is doing the United States a favor by fighting Russia as a way of justifying unlimited aid. Perhaps Joe Biden found that argument persuasive, but Joe Biden is not in office anymore. Russia is not going to invade the United States or any NATO country (if for no other reason than a lack of capability), and using that as a type of blackmail for support was never going to play. 

Here's the deal. Fairness or being "right" doesn't factor into a situation like this. Zelensky is in a desperate spot, and Trump had largely acquiesced to a very Ukraine-friendly deal over the last few days (including lowering the repayment amount to just $90 billion). The negotiations were over. All the Ukrainian president had to do was show up, shake hands, smile for the cameras, and sign the deal. His attempt to lecture Trump and Vance for the cameras was an ego move that he didn't have the leverage to pull off. 

Trump does not care about the press. You aren't going to bully him into a certain point of view by appealing to CNN or any other legacy news outlet. Whether that's fair or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is the reality of the moment, and Zelensky chose to pick a fight with Vance when it was completely unnecessary. Liz Cheney and David Frum may do performative outrage online, but they are not going to cut a check to Ukraine. Zelensky needed this deal and chose to blow it up for no good reason. What was the point of him even coming to the White House if he was going to publicly denounce any possible ceasefire? 

What this really comes down to is how Zelensky handled this. If he has issues with Trump negotiating a deal with Putin, then he should express those behind closed doors, which is something Vance pointed out during the exchange. By trying to embarrass and undermine the U.S. president in public, he destroyed an already frayed relationship. In doing so, he might have cost his country its war. 

Of course, our Native Embarrassment rushed to put himself in front of the cameras to denounce this grievous betrayal of our most loyal ally and to pull out once again, ho-hum, the Russia conspiracy trope:

Our state’s ambitious lightweight has been positioning himself to run for the presidential nomination since he first crawled out from the muck of local politics (well, sooner than that, actually) and it’s working, so far as his naturally constituency of mouthbreathers and retards is concerned:

By Annie Karni

Reporting from the Capitol

Feb. 23, 2025

As Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, sat seething in his office last month watching President Trump blame diversity requirements at the Federal Aviation Administration for the deadly plane crash over the Potomac River, members of his staff warned him against publicly venting his rage.

The midair collision had happened less than 12 hours earlier, they reminded him; bodies were still in the water and families were still being notified about the deaths of loved ones. Perhaps it would be more befitting of a U.S. senator to be respectful of the tragedy and all of its unknowns, rather than seize the political moment and respond?

Mr. Murphy had no time for that.

“Everybody in this country should be outraged that Donald Trump is standing up on that podium and lying to you — deliberately lying to you,” he said in an impassioned video he recorded and posted within 30 minutes of Mr. Trump’s news conference. “Every single senator and member of Congress should call him out for how disgraceful it was.”

Many did, but none managed to do so quite as quickly or concisely as Mr. Murphy, 51, who has seemed to be everywhere, all at once, since Inauguration Day, staging a loud and constant resistance to Mr. Trump at a time when Democrats are struggling to figure out how to respond to him.

Mr. Murphy, a career politician who rose to national prominence as a gun safety advocate after the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., has emerged in the opening weeks of Mr. Trump’s second term as one of the most effective Democratic communicators pushing back against a president unbound.

In two-minute videos on social media, which he records from his office on Capitol Hill; an almost constant stream of posts on X; passionate floor speeches; and essays he writes on his Substack, Mr. Murphy is attempting to explain in digestible sound bites that what is happening in Washington is very simple: It’s a billionaire takeover of American democracy.

Mr. Murphy in 2013 with activists against gun violence. He rose to national prominence as a gun safety advocate after the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.Credit...Rod Lamkey/Getty Images

He is also seizing a political opportunity to position himself as a future national leader for Democrats who find themselves deep in the wilderness as they seek a strategy for simultaneously rebuilding their party and resisting Mr. Trump.

“It’s an overwhelming moment,” Mr. Murphy said in an interview on Wednesday in his office on Capitol Hill. “Our political brand is fundamentally broken, the rule of law is disintegrating and a lot of people still don’t know what Trump’s actual agenda is.”

Mr. Murphy has spent the past three years immersing himself in the literature and ideas of the “new right,” listening to the podcast “Red Scare” and reading thought leaders like Curtis Yarvin and Patrick Deneen. He credits that immersion for his being prepared for Mr. Trump’s return to power.

“It gave me a window into how thoughtful they were being to make sure they were ready on Day 1,” he said.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said that Mr. Murphy has been meeting the moment “when too many Democratic elected officials seem several steps behind. He’s providing Democrats with a messaging blueprint for how to take on Trump and Musk and win back working-class voters.”

Mr. Murphy, who is aging out of the “boy wonder” phase of his political career (he was 33 when first elected to the House), is not exactly charismatic; he is cerebral and serious. At a recent news conference, he did not crack a smile when Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, made corny jokes about his grandson losing his first tooth, waiting them out stone-faced until it was his turn to speak.

The comedian Hasan Minhaj recently described him as having the look of a McKinsey consultant, “just blending into congressional crowds of white men like an arctic fox.”

At times, Mr. Murphy can sound like a high school history teacher giving a civics lesson.

“Dictators and despots, they use law enforcement to try and compel loyalty,” he said in one video, explaining why people needed to care that the Justice Department had dropped its charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. “They threaten you with arrest if you’re not loyal; they will let you get away with crimes if you are loyal. That’s what’s happening in America today.”

But a constitutional crisis can offer an opportunity for a civics refresher, and Mr. Murphy appears to be breaking through.

So sayeth the echo chamber.

UPDATE: This just in from America’s Paper of Record:

Now, you see? This is why Martha's Vineyard residents were so eager to toss their unexpected unwashed off the island and into an onshore military base (UPDATED)

/

“come back when you’ve learned ironing!”

Remember when Ron DeSantis brought the results of Biden’s throwing open the border to national attention by busing 48 unwashed Venezuelans to Martha’s Vineyard? I’m sure the residents there would like to forget it, because, after pouring out of their mansions to “welcome” the new arrivals and pose for the cameras, they called in buses and shipped the poor people to Otis Air Force faster than you can say “hold my martini”. A certain embarrassment followed for about ten minutes and then faded back into oblivion, but DeSantis and, within days, Abbot of Texas, had changed the national dialogue from one of Episcopalian feel-gooders moaning about no one being illegal, and inviting all 6 billion of the world’s poor to our our shores, to one where ordinary people were suddenly noticing that Biden had loosed 23 million people: that’s the population of 3 NYCs; 6 Connecticuts; or 23 S. Dakotas, to roam our country demanding free food, shelter, medical care and education for their fecund families. It was the beginning of the end for Biden and his fellow anti-American co-conspiracists.

But, while American wised up, those notoriously-slow learners, the French, are still in the discovery mode:

That French theater that invited migrants to a show and then they refused to leave? The owners are now abandoning the building.

The Gaîté Lyrique theatre in Paris opened their doors for a free event called "Reinventing the welcome for refugees in France" on December 10. The conference featured leftist academics, who quickly invited a bunch of African refugees to the event, because who else would come to such a thing?

However, when the conference was over, the refugees remained - and they're still there, occupying the theater.

Halfway through January, when that article was published, the migrants had been there for over a month. Now, they've been there for 11 weeks and counting.

And, because this is why we can’t nice things, here’s the latest development:

Left-wing managers of a Paris theatre occupied by hundreds of homeless African migrants are set to abandon the building because of sex-related violence.

They say the crisis at the Gaîté Lyrique - one of the French capital's most historic arts venues - is now ‘so explosive' that retreat by this Friday is their only option.

…

There are now 446 people living inside illegally, most of them claiming they are minors under the age of 18 who deserve permanent housing.

But local officials have insisted that they are adults and that most are known to the authorities and had been sleeping on the streets before entering the theatre.

HAHAHAHHA!

But there may be an easier, softer way of assuaging the heartbreak of liberalism, one that involves neither discomfort nor inconvenience. FWIW’s Indigenous Peoples Land Reclamation correspondent Susie sends along this photo of a Vancouver Island resident’s simple solution:

UPDATE: I inadvertently used an outdated version of the Associated Press Stylebook to describe the French. The AP’s correction is shown below:

I’m guessing that younger Jews are right there with their peers — after all, they watch the same news, and have been indoctrinated in the same schools

/

Gallup Shock Poll: 60% of Dems Are Anti-Israel; Over 80% Have Positive View of Mexico and Ukraine

Scott Pinsker, PJ Media:

Oy veh. Not a big fan of the Jewish state: Only 33% of Democrats support it. An eye-opening 60% view Israel unfavorably. (4% had no opinion.)

Yet 45% of Democrats supported the so-called “Palestinian Territories”!

Democrats are also big fans of Mexico and Ukraine: Our Southern neighbor is beloved by 83% of Democrats; 84% favor Ukraine. (Republican support for Mexico was 47%; for Ukraine, 54%.)

These were the results of a new Gallup survey that the New York Post dubbed as “shocking.”

  • Israel received exponentially more support from conservatives: 83% of Republicans backed the Jewish state — a 50-point difference between the two parties!

In Gallup’s own words:

The 50 points separating Republican and Democratic positivity toward Israel shatters the prior record of 30 points measured last year, primarily because of a 14-point drop in Democrats' rating. The current gap is also nearly three times larger than the average 18-point difference that existed between 2001 and 2023. Over this time, Republicans have consistently viewed Israel more favorably than Democrats have.

This year marks the first time any party group has had majority-level unfavorable ratings of Israel, with 60% of Democrats expressing that view. Forty-four percent of independents also have an unfavorable opinion of Israel.

It’s a generational problem in the Democratic Party. Younger voters — those between the ages of 18 and 34 — were the most critical of Israel. As older Democrats die off, the Democratic Party will increasingly define itself as an active enemy of the Jewish Homeland.

This ain’t Joe Biden’s party no mo’. The future belongs to AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar.

….

It used to be that supporting the Jewish Homeland was a bipartisan American position.

…. Not anymore.

Joe Biden was probably the last Democrat president we’ll ever have who even gave lip service to supporting Israel. Because that’s not what liberal donors want anymore. 

Nor does it motivate liberal grassroots activists.

In 2020, 67% of Democrats supported Israel. By 2022, it was 63%. In 2024, it was 47%. Today, it’s down to 33%.

In just five years, Democratic support for Israel has been cut in half!

The Democratic Party is now the anti-Jew party. For all its “tsk-tsk” condemnations about hand gestures and/or accusing everyone they don’t like of being a Nazis, they’re now the go-to party for antisemites: If you wanna protest Israel, attack Jews, and make sinister-sounding allegations about “Jewish money and influence,” you’re not welcome in the Republican Party.

But you’ll find plenty of support in today’s Democratic Party.

And that’s bad for the Jews.