This morning, Democratic leaders are doing all they can to discredit one of their own: Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan. She dared to stand against the party’s most dangerous, far-left Senate candidate, Abdul El-Sayed. So she’s not only persona non grata, but the subject of rumors that she’s unhinged or untrustworthy. (I don’t hyperlink to such drivel, but it’s plentiful.) Many of the people pushing these rumors praised her until yesterday.
CNN is helping by playing up a Sunday night interview with Stevens. She didn’t come across as a polished politician. Instead, she came across authentically — as a woman who dared to do the right thing and is now in the cross-hairs of murderous activists. Her own party is handing her over to them. Of course she’s not sure what to say.
The Michigan Democratic Party announced that she is no longer a part of their organization. So there’s room in today’s Democratic tent for people who support Islamist terrorism and the antizionist hate movement (AZHM), but not one person who stands against the man who would lead that hate movement in the Senate.
CNN is just one of the outlets responding with a historic level of hypocrisy. The same news giants that praised Republicans for standing up to Trump are now on the attack against Stevens. It’s like a journalistic apocalypse. Any commitment to truth, fairness, and sensibility are gone.
On Sunday, Stevens did what I called on her to do in the Wall Street Journal: she withdrew her endorsement of El-Sayed in the Senate contest. She chose to go a step further and announce that she’s voting for his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers.
Other prominent Michigan Democrats have made the same decision. As I explained previously, for all of Rogers’ problems, his movement is not slaughtering, raping, and beheading people or carrying out terror attacks.
The movement El-Sayed aligns with is doing all those things. The Global Terrorism Index warns that Islamo-leftism is on the rise. Terror killings in the West have nearly quadrupled. This isn’t an opinion. Note to the media: Facts exist.
El-Sayed remains the front-runner. While he has long led the polls, he’s using Stevens’ move to claim underdog status. If he wins tomorrow’s elections, the hate-mongers who support him will feel emboldened. If he loses, they’ll blame imaginary Jewish (“Zionist”) powers pulling strings.
We know this because they’re already saying so. On social media, someone sent me a post by an AZHM activist vowing a “reckoning” either way. This is how anti-democratic, antizionist hate mongers operate: heads I win, tails you lose.
Amid all this, Democrats are taking no responsibility for choosing horrible nominees. People screaming about the balance of the Senate or the threats of Trumpism need to get clarity on why Trump won in 2024. People are over the crazy excesses of the left.
El-Sayed might win over a majority of people who show up to the polls in Michigan, but of 12 U.S. political figures in a recent poll, he was America’s most unpopular politician.
The solution is not to deliver people to the Senate who, like El-Sayed, take funding from terror-linked groups. The solution is not to call legitimate criticism of El-Sayed “Islamophobic.” The solution is to stop rewarding extremists in the primaries.
JL
P.S. See my reply to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer here.
Watching the news this morning, what was so conspicuously absent from the discussion what the ad in question.
Having set the precedent with Hasan Piker who went from important supporter in the primary to some “California influencer” whose name El Sayed never uttered, now the media accepts as sufficient El Sayed’s deflection that he “didn’t agree with the language” and the ad was not created by his campaign - having forgotten that, during the primary, he himself blamed Israel for higher prices.
According to congresswoman Debbie Dingle, Stevens was acting out of confusion and anger at having lost the primary. She studiously avoided the ad which for Stevens was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
So Liz Cheney destroyed her political career out of principle. It seems that Haylee Stevens may have done the same.
As an aside and on the related issue of the Muslim Brotherhood, the following occurred to me.
According to reports, Israel had stolen a copy of Hamas’ plans for what became the October 7 invasion and massacre year or so before. The plan was dismissed as “aspirational” and beyond Hamas’ capabilities to carry out. After October 7, this failure to take Hamas at its word is among the central critiques of the “conceptzia” that left Israel vulnerable to Hamas’ barbarity.
What troubles me is that back in the 1990s, the FBI seized a copy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s long term strategy to gain political control in the U.S. Since then, we have watched as it has consistently implemented its phased strategy, while tarring anyone who notices with the charge of Islamophobia. Few if any politicians or media outlets are saying anything.
If the Democratic circling of wagons around El Sayed is any indication, far too many are (one hopes, inadvertently) running cover for CAIR and other MB related, anti-American groups.
How many times have those in power made the losing bet that they could ultimately control people whom they see as helpful to their short term interests but whose calling card is the ruthless application of violence? The French miscalculated with Napoleon, the Germans with Hitler and the Communists and assorted Leftists with Ayatollah Khomeini - and this list is far from exhaustive.
The Muslim Brotherhood has told us (thanks to the FBI search warrant) what their plans are and what their strategy and intentions are for us. Will the American people - if not its leaders - awake from their own “conceptzia” in time?