UPDATES ON EARLY VOTING FOR THE NEW YORK MAYORAL ELECTION

And now onto our main discussion, and to begin with, we ought to look at the New York Mayoral Election. Now, in the New York City mayor’s race, early voters are continuing to flock to the polls in record numbers.  Officials say over 223,000 people have already cast their ballot after three days. In this mayor’s race, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams joined independent candidate Andrew Cuomo on the campaign trail. Both men launched broadsides at Mamdani, attacking him for having little experience to handle the job. And for some context, while Andrew Cuomo is member of the Democratic Party, having even served as the 56th governor of New York from 2011 until his resignation in 2021, he is currently running for Mayor of New York City as an independent, because he lost the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani.

But, despite this seemingly technical reason for Cuomo’s running as an independent mayoral candidate, he is nevertheless trying to maximise the benefits of the “Independent’ title, especially in a world where the “Independent” stamp or association has become a new marker of credibility – in the same way we think of the independent media and press as being far more factual and accurate in their reporting, or in the same way that there is a war against activist judges who are bought by George Soros, as we advocate for more judicial independence. And so, being aware of the appeal of independence, Andrew Cuomo is seemingly trying to demonstrate his association with this word, and the political capital now it carries – in very interesting ways, seeing he is (afterall) a Democrat, he just happened to lose the primary to Mamdani.

And I say this because, for instance, while Cuomo campaigned alongside incumbent mayor Adams, both men tried to convince voters Mamdani is not a real Democrat. Adams said (quote) “We need a Democrat; We don’t need a socialist masquerading as a Democrat.” Meanwhile Cuomo notably said that (quote) “Mamdani is a socialist who happens to be on the Democratic line. I’m a Democrat who happens to be on the independent line.” In any case, Cuomo is said to be gaining on Mamdani, according to polls.

Then also in the mayoral race is Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa. Sliwa has been a figure of New York City politics since founding the Guardian Angels safety patrol group in the 1970s. The Republican considers himself a “law and order” candidate and says he wants to hire 7,000 additional police officers.

He previously told Kramer he hopes to be viewed as a combination of former Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. Giuliani has since endorsed Sliwa in the race, after Bloomberg came forward to endorse Cuomo in the primary. By contrast, and as you would probably have imagined, in Mamdani’s camp is AOC and Bernie Sanders – who have endorsed his mayoral candidacy – with Senator Bernie Sanders even attacks Democratic leadership for refusing to endorse Mamdani, while he pledged to go all-out to help him win.

THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA IS ATTEMPTING A HOSTILE TAKEOVER OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

This is what they want people to think: that Mamdani is a man of the people, with aspirations to represent the people, even in service of disillusioned plans to frustrate the works of the Trump administration. But, when you consider the fine print, and nuances, Mamdani’s campaign is not the product of grassroot support for a man who wants to tax the rich – it is a carefully curated anti-American agenda.

Now, for the most part, Americans value democracy, fairness and freedom of thought. Yet a movement has emerged that directly challenges those ideals — the Democratic Socialists of America (or the DSA). As its leaders repeatedly state, the DSA are NOT Democrats. They are an external force that has infiltrated the Democratic Party to reshape it in their own image. If successful, this project would transform one of America’s notable political parties (being the democrat party) into an unrecognisable entity hostile to the institutions that define America. In other words, think the democrat establishment that we already know to be diabolical – but worse!

And, so we’re clear: this narrative is not a product of exaggerated inferences or misguided deductionist reasoning. In fact, on the 1st of September this year, Canary Mission released its first report on the DSA. The findings revealed that the DSA is not only engaged in a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, but has itself been further radicalised through its ties to the terror-linked Palestinian Youth Movement. These influences have created an organisation whose goals and alliances make it one of the most destabilising political forces in American history.

The combined goals of this alliance include: (1) To destroy Empire (the USA); (2) Replacing the market economy with state-controlled Marxism; (3) Defunding the police and using the funds for DEI programs; (4) Supporting terrorist groups and terrorist entities, i.e., Hamas and Hezbollah; (5) Normalising antisemitism and supporting violent extremist groups; and (6) Promoting foreign policies that align with authoritarian regimes. Here’s more on the predatory relationship between the DSA and the Democrat party – from the words of DSA members themselves – including how Zohran Mamdani features in their plans to infiltrate and destroy the Democrat party.

WHAT DOES THE DSA HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH FROM A TAKEOVER OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY?

Now, the NYC DSA wing is the entity responsible for building and leading Zohran Mamdani’s field operation, even organising roughly 50,000 volunteers who knocked on over 1.6 million doors and made 2.3 million calls citywide, which is said to be the most extensive grassroots canvassing effort in New York City politics. But, of course, this is not a product of organic grassroots support, it through the curation of an organisation that long planned to infiltrate the Democrat party, thus proving that the grassroot support that is associated with Mamdani is not a product of him having proven to be a man of the people, it is a product of a curated hostile takeover.

In any case, the DSA used a four-tier field organising model (that encompassed canvassers, field leads, field coordinators, and then staff) and this was to scale quickly, aid volunteers, and sustain a decentralised, volunteer-driven operation rooted in socialist organising principles.

Now, the question becomes, what does the DSA hope to accomplish from the takeover? Well, first, it is notable that DSA ranks and associations are riddled with “defund the police advocates” and it appears intrinsic to their model to try to replicate what they are doing with Mamdani in New York, in other parts of the US. For instance, Willie Burney Jr is a DSA-endorsed politician running for mayor of Somerville, Massachusetts – and even touted by the DSA run newsletter, Working Mass as “Somerville’s Zohran.” Burney Jr is also co-founder of the “Defund Somerville Police Department” campaign, which seeks (quote) an “abolitionist future … without police and prisons”. Following the fatal police shooting of Sayed Faisal, who advanced on an officer with a foot-long knife, Burnley Jr posted, “police have no business dealing with someone in crisis” and that such incidents require an “unarmed, alternative emergency response”.

If this sounds familiar, it is because Mamdani has actually articulated a similar position, before modifying it a bit close to the election date. Mamdani has previously promulgated the message that the NYPD is (quote) “racist, anti-queer and a major public safety threat”, even going on to call for defunding the police. But, recently he has modified this stance, stating that on crime and safety, he would create a Department of Community Safety, and this department would employ mental health outreach workers who would be deployed to subway stations. And just to give you an idea of how annoyingly out of touch and incommensurate this is, you would have to recall that Mamdani is proposing this response to the jarring problem of violent crime in New York, where people are being stabbed or thrown in front of moving trains in the subway.

In any case, when the DSA and Mamdani are not advocating for defunding the police, they are strengthening ties with terrorist organisations or associated persons. For instance, Imam Siraj Wahhaj is a Brooklyn-based imam listed as a potential conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Several people connected to the bombing attended Wahhaj’s mosque. Wahhaj himself even testified in support of the “Blind Sheikh,” who was sent to prison for life for his part in the bombing. In addition, Wahhaj says politics should be used “as a weapon in the cause of Islam”, and in light of this, Mamdani has appeared in public events with Wahhaj and describes him as (quote) “one of the nation’s foremost Muslim leaders”, while Wahhaj has endorsed Mamdani and donated to his campaign.

In addition, the DSA also just plainly endorses terroism. We see this in how DSA member and congresswoman from Michigan Rashida Tlaib, is virulently anti-Israel and regularly spreads lies about the Jewish state. On October 8, 2023, a day after the October 7 attack and while Hamas terrorists were still in Israel, Tlaib audaciously called the attack a form of “resistance”. In addition, Mahmood Mamdani, who is Zohran Mamdani’s father, and a professor at Columbia University, he participated in the pro-Hamas encampment, and promulgated the narrative that (quote) “Suicide bombing needs to be understood as a feature of modern political violence rather than stigmatized as a mark of barbarism”. These are just some of the tenets of the DSA, and what they seek to accomplish with the infiltration of the Democrat party through Mamdani.

This is a reminder of why we pray for leaders and nations, and so we ought to pray especially that New Yorkers receive leadership selected by God, who are moved to rule in righteousness, for Proverbs 29:2 teaches us that “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn”.

Now, let’s also talk about the slightly more comical implosion of the Democratic party; and to kick things off, let’s talk about Karine Jean Pierre’s press tour, and the unique contributions that her recent comments in media platforms add to the discourse on the implosion of the democrat party. So, in more detail, Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre published a new book. Jean-Pierre, who served in the role for former President Biden from mid-2022 until he left office, writes in her book “Independent” about the shocking end to her boss’s reelection campaign, then-Vice President Harris’s unsuccessful bid for the White House, and the challenges she faced in the briefing room and behind the scenes. And by the way, the book’s title is a reference to Jean-Pierre’s shifting political identity, as she no longer considers herself a Democrat — which was an announcement that she made public prior to the book’s publication.

Now, in the book and the subsequent press tours, Jean-Pierre pushes back on reports of Biden’s cognitive decline. In particular, the former press secretary states the democrat party betrayed Joe Biden by removing him from the race, and she is adamant that she saw no evidence that Biden’s faculties were dimming — including at the disastrous TV debate with Trump that proved to be the beginning of the end. She blames Biden’s poor performance in that encounter on a cold and travel-related fatigue.

Jean-Pierre also takes issue with the book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that alleged Biden and his aides concealed his mental diminishment. She writes that she “saw Biden every day and saw no such decline,” adding that she has no intention of reading the Tapper and Thompson book, as its central thesis “does not track with what she saw in the White House.” Jean-Pierre also makes plain her frustration about what happened during the turbulent weeks when Biden was pushed out of the race — including the role played by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Here’s an excerpt from one of her press tours.

This excerpt and many others like it reveal two crucial points about the internal implosion of the Democrat party. First, the interview excerpt we just watched was from MSNBC – which is a known leftist media entity. And so, it is fairly unexpected that they would push Karine Jean Pierre to the extent that they did, seeing as she is part of the so-called protected class, (which is unmissable, given how she always manages to fit in the fact that she is a black and queer women into almost every sentence). BUT, then we would have to remember that she is now technically an independent (even though she stated on one occasion that she would never vote republican, which would mean she still leans left?) – but since she is a self-proclaimed independent, she no longer enjoys the loyalty and protections of the democrat establishment – which brings to mind something we’ve stated prior here on The War Room, which is that, the Democrat party will not hesitate to eat their own: they are vicious in their approach to politics.

And to KJP’s credit, yes: there was a collusion against Biden, after the Democrat party used him, and then saw him as a liability; this is why the likes of Nancy Pelosi instituted a coup to remove Biden, while completely undermining electoral precedent in placing Kamala Harris as a the democrat presidential candidate as opposed to having a primary. As you’d recall, Biden exited the presidential race through a letter (that was alleged to be from Biden), and which was posted on Biden’s X account, which stated that he was withdrawing from the race and endorsing Kamala Harris as his successor. However, the fact that the announcement was made via a letter on social media, rather than a live statement led to speculation that Biden may not have made the decision voluntarily. Secondly, many political commentators and social media users proceeded to suggest that the letter may have been put out on Biden’s behalf, forcing him to accept a fait accompli, being a situation that has already been completed and is therefore irreversible. In fact, some even went so far as to suggest that Biden may not have been cognitively aware of what was happening, due to his mental challenges.

But, what made that development interesting were also the remarks that came from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, regarding the agenda of those in the Democrat party. And while I do not agree with a lot of what she tends to say (or even her support for Mamdani), I think she was worth listening to in that respect. And this is especially because she has been a close ally of Bernie Sanders and saw previously what the Democrat establishment did to Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton. In that, years ago now, Wikileaks released information that resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign; where – in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership’s publicly stated neutrality – several DNC operatives were found to have openly derided Sanders’s campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton’s nomination.

And so, my problem with KJP’s remarks about the Democrat Party’s betrayal is that she is painting this as an issue that uniquely targeted Joe Biden (with subsequent fallout on voters). But, this is a misdiagnosis of the issues with the democrat party because it had long ceased to be a political party, and has been functioning as an establishment for years – that corrupts and infringes on democratic processes from the time they refused to give African Americans the right to vote, and then proceeded to curate plans to “have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years” as was said by Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1964, after signing the Civil Rights Act. And so, the correct diagnosis is that the Democrat party is a disloyal, vicious and establishment entity period – and not that it is bad because it betrayed Biden. The latter is a consequence of the former.

MEANWHILE, KAMALA HARRIS SOLD OUT THE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE… FOR HER BOOK

But, then the Democratic party internal implosion plot continues, because Kamala Harris also wrote her own book reflecting on the events leading to her running for president, and in which she blames everyone but herself for her failures as vice president. And as if that was not jarring enough, she proceeds to then sell out the Biden White House.

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY: HUNTER BIDEN ADMITS WHY KAMALA HARRIS WAS PICKED

While all of this is happening: while KJP is trying to defend Biden and his White house, and while Kamala Harris is selling it out, Hunter Biden makes one of his fairly random media appearances that never fare well for his father’s legacy. But, in this one, Hunter Biden makes an incredible admission about why his father allegedly picked Kamala Harris, and he ties this to political expediency and loyalty – which frankly he questions.

The reason he questions this is seemingly tied to how Kamala Harris had made the Biden White House her scapegoat for her political failures. But, inadvertently, this questioning of political expediency by Hunter Biden also speaks to whether Kamala Harris was ever qualified to be Vice President outside of the identity politics optics of the “first female, Indian/Black vice president”.

And the fact is, there was nothing sensible or meritocratic about her appointment: If you remember the Democrat primaries and debates before the 2020 election, Joe Biden and Kamala Harirs were ripping at each other, before Kamala Harris dropped out of the race fairly early. She had accused Biden of being racist, and Joe Biden had accused her of unfairly incarcerating black men. Then suddenly, when Joe Biden was trying to win the black vote, he picked her for VP – it was incredibly inorganic!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

FU.S. President Donald Trump has reignited claims that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was a politically motivated hoax, directly accusing former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of orchestrating what he called the “crime of the century.”

Trump repeated long-standing allegations that the now-concluded investigation into possible ties between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russian operatives was a deliberate attempt by political rivals to sabotage his presidency.

“Obama, Biden, and Clinton weaponized federal agencies to smear, spy, and undermine my campaign,” Trump wrote. “Russiagate was a hoax and the greatest political crime in American history.”

Trump’s comments refer to the U.S. intelligence community’s and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference. While Mueller’s final report in 2019 found insufficient evidence to charge members of the Trump campaign with conspiring with Russia, it did conclude that Russia engaged in widespread efforts to influence the election.

The controversy surrounding the origins and conduct of the investigation has remained a divisive political issue. Trump and his supporters have consistently claimed the probe was a politically motivated attack, while critics argue that concerns over foreign election interference were legitimate and warranted investigation.

Adding to the renewed discourse, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk linked the ongoing war in Ukraine to the aftermath of Russiagate. In a recent interview, Kirk argued that “the war happening in Ukraine and the U.S. support of it is an extension of Russiagate.” He claimed that the Democratic Party had become ideologically predisposed to opposing Russia, stating, “It desensitized the Democrat party to hate Russia far beyond a normative Western view.”

Kirk’s remarks echo a broader narrative among some conservative voices who believe anti-Russia sentiment in Washington was exacerbated by the investigation and has influenced subsequent foreign policy decisions, including the Biden administration’s continued military and financial support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Democrats and national security officials, however, defend the support for Ukraine as a necessary stand against aggression and a reinforcement of international norms, not an outgrowth of domestic political narratives.

As the 2024 election fallout and geopolitical tensions continue to shape U.S. discourse, the legacy of the Russia probe remains a flashpoint deepening partisan divides and fueling ongoing debates about election integrity, federal overreach, and foreign policy.

And now onto our main discussion, regarding the ever questionable future of the democrat party; and we ought to begin with the question on whether AOC is going to be the next democrat presidential nominee? And as we stated earlier, AOC has recently raised $9.6 million in the first quarter of 2025. This financial success has then fueled speculation about her potential candidacy for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Furthermore, recent polls indicate she is currently polling at 21% in the Democratic primaries, behind Kamala Harris. Despite this, political commentators and her supporters on social media are actively discussing her prospects, although there has been no official confirmation from AOC herself regarding a presidential bid. Nevertheless, let’s address the subject.

So, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could run for president in 2028 according to The Hill. One Democrat strategist said their party is impressed with AOC’s ability to “cut through the noise and does not talk like Washington.” Well, this off to an interesting start, seeing that this was among the reasons that Donald Trump became such an interesting and popular presidential candidate and figure. In any case, Democrats also believe that the congresswoman has a unique ability to connect with young voters. This, they believe, would allow her to utilize social media and podcasts to help win the election. This is also interesting because this was a significant strategy that Trump implemented to engage and gain young voters – in fact this was especially a strategy that he credited his Son Barron Trump for championing in his 2024 campaign.

SO, thus far, it appears that AOC is considered as a potential nominee because she has the best chance at mimicking or implementing the same strategies that were crucial aspects of Trump’s campaign. Well, there is not something inherently wrong about this, if this is the strategy Democrats prefer; HOWEVER, this approach does not make it clear why AOC is a valuable and winning candidate outside of her youthful appeal. More specifically, Trump had dominant policy narratives that made him stand out – from build a wall, to drill-baby-drill, or removing men in biological women’s sports, deportations, and MAHA – there are a number of dominant policy narratives that we associate with Trump, and that the strategically uses as a yardstick for his efficacy and progress through the White House reports, especially in these 100 days of his presidency.

Therefore, not speaking like a career politician was a selling point – and not the essence of the Trump campaigns. Similarly, engaging the youth through platforms like podcasts was a strategy that the Trump campaign utilised. Both of these things did not replace the vision and policy narratives that he had already been associated with. AOC does not have this. Which is not to say that she has no policy narratives at all – that would be disingenuous; rather, it is to say, she does not have enough dominant policy narratives for her to be an inherently good candidate.

In fact, in the recent polls alluded to earlier, AOC is at 21%, behind Kamala Harris with 28%. Surely, democrats cannot be impervious to the fact that both AOC and Kamala Harris – despite being leading figures – do not have dominant policy narratives that make them appealing to voters; in fact, this is one of the main reasons that Kamala Harris lost the election!

That said, Trump certainly has made genuineness a factor for relatability. The Trump campaign has made it essential and appealing for a presidential candidate to be genuine – despite their differences with the diverse voter demographics they speak to. And not only does this expectation exist exclusively towards Trump as a result of his frankness when he speaks; but now every other politician in contrast, explicitly or implicitly, is now required more than ever also to present themselves in genuine fashion. But, despite trying to replicate this, what the democrats do not realise is that relatability is not based on somatic features and characteristics like a youthful appearance or being a black woman. It comes down to genuineness.

WITH AOC, DEMOCRATS ARE STRUGGLING TO MOVE AWAY FROM IDENTITY POLITICS

But, here’s what I think this exposes from the get go: it exposes that Democrats care more about the optics of a presidential candidate than the substance of what they propagate as policy. This is why Hillary Clinton capitalised on being a woman, despite going up against Trump who was associated with popular policy narratives. This is why Kamala Harris went from being an Indian Senator to a black female vice president, and presidential candidate. Then, AOC is also a young, female congresswoman with Puerto Rican heritage, who lived in the Bronx – which is a textbook image for “relatability” for people who are obsessed with identity politics.

For Democrats, this makes AOC an easy candidate to sell to voters who make choices based on identity politics, as opposed to policy substance. But, obviously, identity politics does not make good policies. It is often the reason why affirmative action laws and associated policies drag out more than they should, it is the reason for aggravating developments like CRT and gender studies, it is also often the reason for the creation of special laws for different races, which ironically perpetuate the same protested principles of segregation. BUT, democrats know this, and they have for a long time. In fact, it is how they went from a party that defended slavery and opposing civil rights for black people to being the party associated with progressive racial policies. This shift is perhaps encapsulated in the words of former US president Lyndon B. Johnson, when he said he’ll have them niggers voting Demcorat for 200 years, in response to black people receiving the right to vote, after Demcorats had fought hard trying to prevent that.

DEMOCRATS PUSHING AOC IS FURTHER PROOF OF HOW LITTLE THEY REGARD PRIMARIES

But, in addition to exposing how Democrats care more about optics than policy, the popularity of AOC also exposes how little the Democrat establishment regards primaries. I say this because in knowing that identity politics do not make good policy, the democrat establishment still pushes this approach to politics! And the reason is because whoever is a presidential candidate is often a placement, and not a genuine choice – all so that this figure can implement the will of the establishment.

For instance, in 2016, Jullian Assange’s WikiLeaks published internal Democratic Party documents that revealed the extent to which the party organisation had interfered in the primaries against Bernie Sanders to tilt the scales in Hillary Clinton’s favour. And not only is Bernie Sanders a victim of their willingness to corrupt the primaries, but Democrats proceeded to manipulate primaries again last year with Joe Biden by instituting a coup against him. And the reason is that the Democrat establishment already has focuses that these figures are supposed to appropriate. For instance, former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne revealed how he worked with the FBI to arrange an $18 million bribe to Hillary Clinton from a foreign government to allow the deep state to control her in 2016 (although, of course, she thankfully lost that election).

AOC IS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH UNPOPULAR SOCIALIST INCLINATIONS IN POLICY

Now as alluded to earlier, that AOC does not have a popular or dominant policy narrative is not to say she does not have policies she is known to advocate for. Generally, she advocates for policies that include Medicare for All, tuition-free public colleges, a jobs guarantee, a Green New Deal, abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and (the arguably most famous) taxing the rich. First, on her most notable advocacy on taxing the rich, it should be noted that at a time when America’s population is feeling the brunt of the economy, this message is not only unpopular, but has further resulted in measures that expectedly have made people desire less to have their wealth adjudicated or regulated by the AMerican government.

Furthermore, on abolishing ICE, this has made AOC necessarily appear as an individual with a clear disregard for law enforcement, especially when illegal immigration became such an obvious issue to security and resource distribution in the US. AOC’s disregard for the law was especially evident when her approach was juxtaposed with that of figures like president Trump and his border tzar, Tom Homan. In essence, Tom Homan appears to be clear on the basics of law enforcement and immigration, which is that if you enter the US illegally, that is a criminal offence, and also that there is nothing wrong with seeking asylum, as long as you utilise the legal process to do this.

But, all of this is not to say that she should be undermined as an actor. I think AOC is smarter than most voters and politicians give her credit for. I say this because, much like Kamala Harris, she is clearly playing a character. In her case, she plays the “seemingly simple-minded, energetic” character to be relatable and get attention and it has worked to her advantage in a number of respects. And she knows this and even talks about it herself.

And in playing this simple-minded relatable character, she seemingly also intends to use this to potentially fool dejected young people the way Obama did in 2008. She has also used this character to gaslight AMericans, and accuse the Trump team of doing what Democrats – including her have been advocating for.

And so, the Trump team needs to focus well on making the MAGA vision so popular and practically undeniable in its benefits, that she never has the chance.

GAVIN NEWSOM IS ALSO NOT A WORTHWHILE CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATS

But, while we’re discussing the ever questionable future of the democrat party, it is also worth looking at Gavin Newsmom, who served as the Governor of California, and why he is also not a good choice for the democrat party. First, in 2024, there was clearly a desperate attempt at rigging election results when political leaders digressed from common sense, and implemented corruption through the law – which is exactly what senate Bill 1174, which was approved by California lawmakers, was about. This approved Senate Bill is about prohibiting voter ID requirements in local elections. And this move overrides Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy, slated for 2026. Meanwhile, in support of the bill, state senator Dave Min argues that voter ID laws suppress turnout, while Republican efforts to exclude illegal immigrants from voting fail.

But, (once again) who EXACTLY is state senator Dave Min concerned about? Who would actually get disincentivised from voting due to a law that requires them to show proof of citizenship in order to vote? Well, someone who not only does NOT have an ID document, but who also also lacks the capacity to get one because they are not a citizen – which then nullifies Dave Min’s concern, because non-citizens should not be voting in a foreign nation’s election anyway! ALl this was was condescension, as we;ve established previously.

Again Newsom has also become notorious for election manipulation through voting machines. In essence, on the voting machines in California, there was a time during the voting period when Trump did NOT even appear on the first screen as an option for President. You had to click a button that says ‘more’ to be able to vote for him. It is atrocious that bias has manifested in the voting machine; however, it certainly is not astounding that this is seen in California. California is the State where Harris served as the attorney general and later the Senator, before her questionable and staged promotion to Vice President. California is also the state governed by Gavin Newsom, who proclamed to implement many laws targeted at elections and voting, including Senate Bill 1174 which prohibits voter ID requirements in local elections.

But, as part of election manipulation, his other laws interestingly also touched on political expression, which in an election period, stiffles political discourse. In particular, Gavin Newsom signed a bill that could essentially make posting memes and parodies illegal in the state. But according to Gavin Newsom, he simply signed a bill to make deep fakes (specifically) illegal in the state of California. In fact, he adds that what the bill means in essence is that people can no longer knowingly distribute an advertisement or other election communications that contain materially deceptive content — including deepfakes.

Well, in addition to all of this, there has now been a requested an investigation into Gavin Newsom’s Medi-Cal scandal. He’s bankrupted the program by giving $10B in free healthcare to illegal immigrants—and there’s strong evidence he illegally tried to get federal Medicaid reimbursements.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso