Политический эксперт критикует NYT за призыв к капитуляции перед Ираном и разоблачает лицемерие кандидата Эль-Сейеда

Hey. You’re a loser. Quit. Stop trying. You can’t win. This planet is just too evil and cruel. Way too dangerous for someone like you. But don’t worry: Daddy knows best. Daddy will take care of you. Daddy will keep you safe. Just don’t defy Daddy, or Daddy’s gonna beat your [EXPLETIVE]! We’ve entered a strange new political era, where defeatism cosplays as infantilism. Yesterday, the New York Times actually recommended letting Iran win control of the Strait of Hormuz — just to make sure the mean ol’ U.S. doesn’t start any future wars. (It’s the only way we’ll learn.) More on that in a sec. But first, have you noticed that (almost) all politicians embrace very specific phrases? Certain analogies and word choices are used over and over again — in stump speeches, friendly interviews, and in ad hoc deflections. Part of the reason is human nature: Our ears like the way some words sound better than others. It’s as personal and individualized as our taste in music. Often because it best represents what we really, truly believe. But the other reason is political: Some goofy, self-important PR advisor (hi!) told a candidate that this word choice outpolled the alternative. It’s Machiavellian campaigning. Thirty-two years ago, Ollie North campaigned for Virginia’s Senate seat. To ease concerns over his role in Iran-Contra, North used to say — in every stump speech — “I’m the most investigated man on this planet!” He was trying to communicate that he had nothing to hide. In the first Senate debate, he delivered the line again. Only this time, Virginia’s ex-governor, Doug Wilder, snapped back, “There might be a very good reason for that to be the case.” Boom. The line was instantly dropped from North’s playbook. Wilder killed it. Because some phrases sound clever when you first hear ‘em — but the moment they’re challenged and put under a microscope, they completely fall apart. Which brings us to Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who’s adopted a very unusual phrase for reassuring Jewish voters that he cares about their safety: My statement on Hasan Piker’s comments regarding Jeremy Moss: pic.twitter.com/bUm96ANJXT — Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) August 24, 2026 “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own daughters.” He’s used that phrase quite a bit. He also said it on Aug. 5: NEW: Abdul El-Sayed addresses Jewish Michiganders after repeated accusations of anti-Semitism throughout his campaign: "I want to speak specifically to an issue that has been focused on in this race." "To my Jewish American sisters and brothers... I want you to know that my… pic.twitter.com/kZ3L5bdHkL As well as Aug. 13: To all of my Jewish sisters and brothers, my commitment to your safety, to everyone’s safety, is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters. pic.twitter.com/UV4ZB6c8gs — Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) August 13, 2026 When a candidate repeats the same phrase in multiple speeches and written statements, it’s not accidental or coincidental. That’s not how PR campaigns are orchestrated. Instead, it’s a deliberate, calculated choice. Perhaps because it sounds reassuring: Daddies love their children. Daddies protect their children. It’s a father’s solemn oath. Therefore, El-Sayed will love and protect Jews. Right? And in fairness to El-Sayed, political infantilism isn’t a new thing. Two years prior to North’s Senate run — also in Virginia — President George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and H. Ross Perot debated at the University of Richmond, when a man in a ponytail asked a pointed question: The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs? Back then, we thought the ponytail guy was kind of weird. Now, he’s squarely within the Democratic mainstream. The government is Daddy. We’re Daddy’s children. And Daddy’s responsibility is to “meet our needs.” But listen again to what El-Sayed actually said: He didn’t say he’d love and protect Jewish Americans like they were his children. That wasn’t his commitment. He said he would treat Jews like his daughters — and in Islam, boys and girls are treated VERY differently. Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with. And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺. But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. There’s also this cheery Hadith that’s inspired “honor killings” of disobedient daughters: “A father is not to be killed for killing his child.” It’s relevant because El-Sayed has publicly proclaimed an “obligation” to follow Sharia law until his dying day. And he’s also declared that “preemptively” banning Sharia law in America is discriminatory. But if his commitment to keeping Jews safe is based on his moral code — and his moral code is directly derived from Islamic texts, Islamic traditions, Islamic teachings, and Sharia law — then how can you separate the two? The latter created the former. He’s never said what — if any — Sharia laws he disagrees with and/or considers immoral. Don’t dismiss this as “Islamophobia” because it’s not. El-Sayed’s personal relationship with the Almighty is none of my business, but when a politician’s religious beliefs shape his political beliefs, it’s fair and legitimate to consider the consequences. Because that’s how a representative democracy is supposed to work. Doing so doesn’t make you “Islamophobic” — it makes you a responsible voter! So what would it mean if El-Sayed treated Jews “like his own daughters” under Sharia law and Islamic traditions? Alas, we won’t know until he clarifies what, exactly, he believes: - Does he think a father should “Hang [his] whip where the members of the household can see it, for that will discipline them,” or nah? - Does he think a father should beat a 10-year-old girl who doesn’t pray to Allah? - Does he think daughters must always dress modestly and be recognized as “virtuous,” lest they face harassment? - Does he think daughters who reach puberty must wear a hijab? - Does he think daughters who reject Islam deserve the death penalty? Under Sharia law and Islamic traditions, fathers exert vast control over daughters (as do husbands over wives). Men rule the roost with an iron fist. But is that what American Jews really, truly want from a future U.S. senator: someone who treats them like a Muslim father treats his daughters? Or, when they stop and think about it, does that sound absolutely frickin’ horrifying? Abdul El-Sayed campaigned with an unrepentant antisemite named Hasan Piker. He’s not a random “Twitch streamer” — he’s someone who campaigned for El-Sayed, helped raise money for El-Sayed, and barnstormed Michigan with El-Sayed standing by his side. And the night before Election Day, El-Sayed even attended a pool party with Hasan Piker! After Piker threatened pro-Israel Jewish Americans with violence, El-Sayed released a statement, claiming “Antisemitism is a scourge, and we need to address it in all its forms.” Yet nowhere in his statement did he address ANYTHING Piker said! Because Piker has said plenty of disgusting things (NSFW): Hasan Piker: “We want more immigrants to come into your countries and then they’re gonna fuck your sisters and then your daughters. We’re here to Destroy the White Race, Bitch.” pic.twitter.com/fA5yJuLnNL Instead of “addressing” antisemitism “in all its forms,” El-Sayed chose to pivot: “[W]hile politicians and pundits try to make this race about a Twitch streamer, we’re going to be talking about gas, groceries, good schools, and healthcare.” Gee, that’s odd. During the primary, El-Sayed made his opposition to AIPAC a “centerpiece” of his campaign. He said he “struggles” with Israel’s right to exist. He opposes military assistance for Israel. He accused the Jewish state of “genocide” and “apartheid.” And when a Muslim terrorist attacked a Michigan synagogue, El-Sayed’s original statement blamed Israel for bombing Lebanon. What the heck does Israel have to do with Michigan groceries and Michigan schools? Sorry, Abdul, but you can’t wrap your arms around Hasan Piker when it’s politically convenient — echoing his anti-Israel rhetoric, demonizing AIPAC, campaigning by his side, and refusing to “address” his Jew-bashing — and then pretend he was just some random “Twitch streamer” with no connection to you or your campaign. That’s dishonest. Israel, antisemitism, and Jewish safety became issues because of what El-Sayed said, did, and implicitly endorsed! But don’t worry: El-Sayed promises to treat Jews like his daughters. He’s given us his word. And he’ll treat the rest of us like children: Is this the way you attract useful idiots to vote for you? The internet has found a resurfaced Abdul El-Sayed campaign video, and the Blue’s Clues-inspired pitch is getting roasted. El-Sayed dances through the one-minute parody while asking voters for their support, leaning… pic.twitter.com/pVP3KVV29f Is this Machiavellian political campaigning? Or something deeper? I suspect it’s both: It’s what El-Sayed truly believes — and in the Democratic primary, it also helped him win support of the liberal base, where 65% of Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians — and just 17% with the Israelis. Another 72% of Democrats believe Israel committed Genocide in Gaza. Not surprisingly, 80% of Dems now have an unfavorable view of Israel. But in the general election, anti-Zionist rhetoric can backfire. Israel and the Palestinians aren’t in the top 10 issues that voters care about. (By some metrics, the issue ranks No. 15.) If El-Sayed continued to focus on Israel, he’d sound like a crazy fanatic who prioritizes Jew-bashing ahead of household issues. It’s why he’s so desperate to pivot to “gas, groceries, good schools, and healthcare.” It’s why he’s trying to flip the script away from Hasan Piker. And it’s why, on Nov. 3, I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE YOU El-Sayed won’t close his campaign with a pool party featuring a certain “Twitch streamer” again. Because it’s a losing move. And you don’t win by losing. Unless you’re the New York Times. In the “You Don’t Hate Them Enough” department, the New York Times just recommended a novel solution to the Iran War: “Let Iran control the Strait of Hormuz.” When President Trump isn’t threatening to make the Strait of Hormuz a U.S. territory, his administration is demanding that the strait revert to being a free international passageway for the world’s oil supply. The president needs to face reality: Neither of these things is going to happen. The strait needs to be reopened, even if that means Iran tolls transit through it. This outcome would be a defeat for the United States. But, at this point, it is the least bad option. […] None of this is optimal for the United States. But the sooner we accept this new reality, the better for consumers, the world economy and regional stability. Perhaps the consequences of lasting Iranian authority over the Strait of Hormuz will even dissuade future U.S. presidents — or Mr. Trump — from launching risky and unnecessary wars. [emphasis added] America must surrender to Iran — because otherwise, President Trump might use the military again? Helluva theory, New York Times. It’s defeatism masked as pragmatism, but it’s bigger than that. It’s WAY bigger than that. Because it’s also infantilism: America can’t be trusted not to go to war, so America must be punished — like a naughty child. Bad America! Go to your room! No dessert! Or else “Daddy” will beat you. One Last Thing: 2026 will reach a crescendo with the midterm elections. Nothing less than the future of our country teeters in the balance. Never before have the political battle lines been so clearly defined. Blue wave or red wall, one way or another the 2026 midterms will transform our country. We need your help to win the media war! As a PJ Media VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to our behind-the-paywall content, commenting privileges, and an ad-free experience. VIP Gold gets you the same level of “insider access” across our entire family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, and Bearing Arms). That means: More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING! And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount! Thank you for your consideration.