RECAPITULATION: THE DSA’S FASCIST AND PREDATORY INTEREST IN MANDANI’S WIN

And now onto our main discussion, being “A Post Analysis of the 2025 New York Mayoral Elections”, and more accurately, an analysis of the cost of or issues with Zohran Mamdani’s leadership in New York. Now, to begin with, the terms “fascist” and “fascism” are continuously bandied about today. But those who use these words most seem to understand them least, such that many of today’s self-styled anti-fascists paradoxically take on the central features of fascism to an extraordinary degree – and this paradox is essentially a recurring theme in ZM’s candidacy and claimed legitimate election as mayor of New York.

In greater detail, and as a point of recapitulation, we see this paradox of self-proclaimed anti-fascists taking on the central features of fascism to an extraordinary degree in the relationship between Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America. You’d recall that we’ve discussed here on The War Room that while  Americans generally value democracy, fairness and freedom of thought, a movement has emerged that directly challenges those ideals — and this is the Democratic Socialists of America (or the DSA), which is the actual entity behind Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy, and not the Democrat party. In fact, as the leaders of the DSA 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!

Now, this characterisation of the DSA is not intended to be an exaggerated depiction of a socialist boogeymen: rather, this narrative is an inference from the communication of the DSA’s leadership and membership base. Furthermore, 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.

I believe additional proof of the longstanding relationship between Mamdani and the DSA, as well as additional proof of their aim towards infiltration of the democrat party is that Mamdani was also actually elected to the New York State Assembly for Queens in 2020 on the Democratic Socialists of America ticket. As a member of the State Socialists in Office bloc in Albany, he can take credit for a negligible three bills and a lot of missed Assembly votes. But, the progression from that was the New York mayoralty, in which the DSA served him up as a trojan horse to the democrat party – which is ironic because it takes a page from the Democratic establishment’s own playbook that has created neo-cons and rhinos like Lindsay Graham and Niki Haley.

ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S CANDIDACY REPRESENTS THE COMMUNIST PROBLEM

Well… a notable American political commentator once quipped that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. These remarks were once a commercial comment on the state of academia and the people it produces, AND YET, in the status quo, this presents an unfortunate reflection, as it appears that (if not careful), New York City is about to be governed by the Columbia University student body. A city that used to think of itself as grown up, and reflective of the ideals of liberty that are so intrinsic to the American socio-political fabric – this very city has just elected a mayor who seems the very embodiment of the American college student: which is uninformed, entitled and self-important, enjoying a regal quality of life that depends parasitically upon a civilization about which he knows nothing, yet for which he has nothing but scorn. American college students regularly act out little psychodramas of oppression before an appreciative audience of diversity deanlets and associate vice-provosts of inclusion and belonging. This is how I would characterise Mandani’s policy focuses.

Now, Mamdani’s campaign focused on four proposals, all allegedly inspired by what he says is the city’s alleged affordability crisis. First, he promulgated that he would freeze rents; second, he would make city buses free; third, he would offer free universal childcare; and fourth, he would open a government-operated grocery store in each of the city’s five boroughs. Now, these four proposals run the gamut from sweeping to weirdly narrow. But they all treat urban governance primarily as a means of shrinking the role of for-profit enterprise, expanding public control and redistributing wealth from its creators to the so-called poor – which sounds a lot like communism (specifically the kind that is pretentiously presented as well-meaning socialism).

And I highlight this because (as has been noted by a number of political analysts and historians), the Marxian message of ‘exploitation of the poor’ helped sweep communists into power in countries around the world in the twentieth century, at a pace and on a scale seldom seen in history – despite those communism claiming ot be well-meaning socialists. Which means that not only is there a political market for the Marxian message of ‘exploitation of the poor’ (hence ZM has a support base), but it also means that communists have a well-documented history of capitalising on this message, and have used it to garner support for their plans, despite how disastrously that turned out to be for millions of other human beings living under communist dictatorships. This is one of the biggest issues associated with Mandami’s candidacy.

AN ANALYSIS OF ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S POLICY FOCUSES: THE 4 YEAR RENT FREEZE

With this in mind, let’s proceed to an analysis of Zohran Mamdani’s campaign promulgations and policy focus. And well, proposal one from the Mamdani camp pertains to decommodifying housing. In particular, Mamdani has advocated for a rent freeze in New York, and this rent freeze would apply to nearly half of all rental units in the city: those whose rents are set by an appointed “Rent Guidelines Board,” not by the housing market. And those million or so rent-stabilised apartments make up one-third of the city’s homes, including owner-occupied homes.

Well, in response to this, even left-wing economists have concluded that rent controls produce only housing shortages. Yet for those with a communist mindset, landlords are greedy for wanting to earn a market rent, whereas tenants enjoying a below-market rent are merely receiving their due. But, what this four year rent freeze would amount to is a decimation of New York’s housing stock. The city’s small landlords are already struggling due to maintenance costs having risen by 28 percent over the last five years, and the regulated rents failing to cover repairs, property taxes or the costs of tenants that do not pay rent. Meanwhile, thanks to the city’s advocate industry it takes about two years to evict a nonpaying renter, during which time the landlord has to provide him/her the same services as paying tenants. Apartment owners shell out their own lawyers’ fees; activist-assisted tenants do not.

In addition, there are also already 50,000 to 60,000 abandoned rental properties in the city. That number would balloon under a rent hike moratorium, adding to the city’s blight. Ripple effects could spill over to the banking sector. But more abandoned properties merely mean more opportunities to move “toward the full de-commodification of housing,” as Mamdani puts it. AND YET, in all this, the rent freeze would do nothing to lower the cost of other housing in the city, in which the majority of New Yorkers live.

MAMDANI’S CAMP HAS AN A-HISTORICAL VIEW OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Let’s proceed to proposal number 2 from the Mamdani camp, and this pertains to farebeating for all, through which Mamdani wants to make city buses free, at the cost of almost three-quarters of a billion dollars a year in canceled fares. This sounds nice on the surface, until you consider what is the cost of this, and who bears it? I say this considering two things: first, nearly half of all New York City bus passengers already do not pay for their rides; second, through the full transit fare – which is $2.90 a ride, with discounts for  those with weekly or monthly passes – is already heavily subsidized, the city offers half-priced transit fares to lower-income residents. But fewer than 40 percent of those eligible have signed up for the half-price fare program.

SO, if the principle of free bus rides is established, farebeating in the subways, which is already pervasive, will actually skyrocket. The cost of this is that the loss to the city will be more than monetary. The greater loss will be in the further degradation of public order in the public transportation system. But, I think truly, the Mamdani camp has an entirely a-historical understanding of public transportation in America, and the contrast in the role of the private sector and that of the government in ensuring its functionality.

It has been noted by many that in politics, highly expensive proposals to have the government provide various benefits ‘free’ to everyone can be very appealing to some voters, when the additional costs to the government are said to be paid for by collecting higher tax revenues from ‘millionaires and billionaires, regardless of whether there is any factual accuracy to such a proposal. But, while such an outcome might seem desirable to some voters (especially from a social justice perspective), it is important not to miss that desirability does not preclude questions of feasibility.

THE DECEPTION OF CONVENIENCE: MAMDANI’S FREE CHILDCARE PROMISE

But, let’s then proceed to proposal number three from the Mamdani camp, and in essence Mamdani is promising $5 billion worth of free childcare to all New Yorkers, starting from the sixth week after birth. He was not very specific about where this new army of social-service workers will come from, but there is an immediate and obvious problem here, which is the encouragement for parents to see it as easy to outsource the care of their children. Make no mistake, Mamdani does not care about the wellbeing of your child more than you.

If anything, this is supposed to make it seemingly cheaper for parents not to be present in the upbringing of their children, thus leaving those children vulnerable to the influence or even abuses of external actors, in what amounts to a conduit of the agenda of creating children of the state.

And I say this considering that governments have a history of using social welfare programmes to undermine the family unit, in a manner that amounts to the destruction or indoctrination of children. This occurs because welfare programmes give greater benefits to unmarried individuals than to a married couple of otherwise identical income. The resulting marriage penalty discourages marriage and rewards single parenthood. Combined marriage penalties across federal and state welfare programs can reach tens of thousands of dollars per year for a given family.

As a n example, one component of the marriage penalties comes from state-level free or subsidized preschool programs. In addition to a failed track record in providing high-quality preschool education, the majority of government-funded preschool programs also have severe marriage penalties. Marriage is highly beneficial to adults, children, and society as a whole. Therefore, policymakers clearly have ignored the implications of their programs on marriage and, in fact, probably see this as a plausible outcome (during the previous administrations) that made identity politics and feminist ideals central to their policy objectives.

Now, as far as strong refutation towards Mamdani’s social welfare aspirations is concerned, I will concede that – from a politician’s point of view, there is not a variety of gentle language available to sell the need to decrease dependency through welfare programmes, but I will not go as far as to say that is something that can or should hamstring pursuing stringent measures to reduce those relying on the state. And the reason is that the issues with welfare programmes are well documented in the US, and even other parts of the world. In essence, welfare states generate systematic and often chronic problems such as excessive bureaucracy, soaring costs, and labour market rigidities—that sometimes even threaten to bring the whole state enterprise into disrepute. And we see this with two primary issues from state welfare programs.

First is the issue of unsustainable funding. This is to say that welfare programs can be expensive to administer, and their costs can escalate due to factors like an aging population, increasing demand, and rising healthcare costs. In addition, finding sustainable funding sources for welfare programs can be a major challenge, especially during economic downturns or when there are competing demands on public resources (such as when a government takes in an influx of illegal immigrants that also receive welfare benefits). Then, some welfare systems are also just heavily reliant on economic growth to generate the revenue needed to fund programs, which can then make them vulnerable to economic fluctuations.

The second issue with welfare programmes is the potential for dependency, which is perhaps the most represented argument in light of the medicaid debate. The gist of this argument is that welfare programs can create a disincentive to work, especially if benefits are generous or easily accessible. Meanwhile, long-term reliance on welfare can also create a cycle of dependency, making it difficult for individuals to become self-sufficient. And I should state here that this argument does not account for all citizens indiscriminately, but rather focuses on individuals who are able-bodied but neither work or volunteer to meet the 80 hour a month requirement – so it targets people who just do not want to contribute to society.

Then, in addition to these two issues, I’d say (especially in light of the American context), there is also the issue of corrupt or inefficient bureaucracies; where bureaucratic inefficiencies and administrative challenges can hinder the effective delivery of welfare services. This is why under the Biden-Harris administration, we saw Americans who pay tax be less prioritised for housing benefits over illegal immigrants. So that was a clear case of a failure to prioritise the state’s duty to care for its citizens first, while corrupt practices were adopted to prioritise illegal immigrants in welfare programmes.

But, the purpose behind this is to highlight that welfare programmes have certain innate and re-occurring issues, and that these programmes do not have the great record that we think they do. In fact, about three years ago, we heard GOP senators express continued opposition to Biden’s Build Back Better policy, on the basis that it was creating an expensive social welfare state in the US.

MAMDANI’S RESPONSE TO FOOD INSECURITY IS ALSO A-CONTEXUAL

We then come to proposal number four from the Mamdani camp, which is a city-run grocery store in each borough. In an October 16 mayoral debate, Mamdani stated that children in New York were going hungry. Now, this is not necessarily a point to disagree with, seeing as the Master Jesus taught us that there will always be those who are poor among us. But, in making this the basis of his response to food insecurity, Mamdani has not considered nuance when it comes to the food issues in New York – especially since obesity is among the health concerns of children in the city.

Furthermore, a significant consideration in the food problem in New York is the relative scarcity of grocery stores in some areas, and not exclusively the cost of their contents. There would be more options if the city reduced shoplifting, but grocery stores have been bombarded by a deluge of crime. For instance, a notable grocery store chain opened its first Manhattan branch in East Harlem in 2010 to great fanfare. The East Harlem outlet boasted a multicultural inventory and low-cost fresh food. BUT, it then proceeded to shut down in 2023 due to retail theft and crime risk to its employees. And so, it would appear that the left’s soft on crime approach in New York, is culpable in issues of food insecurity. This is why I believe Mamdani’s approach to food insecurity in New York is a-contextual: it ignores the very crucial consideration that these shortages are often driven by people and bad government policy. In fact, even his approach to the minimum wage has dire consequences for affordability.

DEFUNDING THE POLICE: A PRECURSOR TO THE CREATION OF A POLICE STATE

Finally, we ought to discuss Mandani’s DSA-inspired inclinations towards defunding the police. For some context, during the COVID era, almost all of the world’s population was locked up in their houses (especially in 2020), and police were given added powers to terrorise those who protested the measures that were put in place at the time. So much so that, people were even terrorised for simply going on a walk! But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. In the US, they also had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that some had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

Ultimately, it seemed like martial law; as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. THAT “something” allegedly had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly people’s social media posts were censored and people were being asked to do things that made no sense, like putting on a mask for a virus that apparently also evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles. BUT here’s the caveat: despite all those stringent measures and increased police presence, crime rose ever further, even inciting citizen anger – especially during the George Floyd riots.

Well, ironically, this provided a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, which was tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system. But, how could it be that these outbursts of crime took place despite restrictions on movement, except there was a manufacture of crime? Well, it seems that crime is manufactured through calls to defund the police and also through the creation of legislation that makes it difficult for people to protect or defend themselves, like anti-gun laws, while simultaneously, ignoring border security and devastating the economy to the extent that emergency services cannot fully perform their duties due to a need to cut costs!

For instance, a 2022 report detailed that police in Pittsburgh would no longer be responding to calls that are not deemed to be “in-progress emergencies,” meaning theft, harassment, criminal mischief, and burglary alarms would essentially be ignored. Such calls would instead be redirected to an answer machine, according to the report which also notes that from 3 am to 7 am, the city’s six police stations would operate without desk officers present. In addition, Only around 20 officers will be available for overnight shifts to cover the entire city, due to “understaffing.”

This was a clear fallout from a ‘defund the police’ mentality. Pittsburgh was essentially experiencing the ramifications of defunding the police mentality, with the municipal city council having approved a budget that called for a reduction in police staffing in previous years. Police enforcement was thus at an all-time low, according to city reports, with arrests in the city having dropped from over 18,000 in 2013 to 6,710 in 2022. Traffic stops also dropped from close to 29,000 in 2013 to a record-low 6,883 in 2022. Meanwhile, violent crime had risen since 2019. Meanwhile, NY had suffered a similar experience since 2020. Gun violence was said to be up 358% in New York City since June 2019 as police are being stripped of resources in Democrat run cities nationwide. A report even stated that “It has been nearly a quarter century since New York City experienced as much gun violence as it did in June 2020 – which was a year after the law was implemented. The report further stated that the city “logged 125 shootings in the first three weeks of the month of June 2020, which is more than double the number recorded over the same period last year.

And yet, legal enforcement experts have spoken out against this. Which makes us question why they were not listened to. But, this is yet another cost of the defund the police mentality that Zohran Mandani advocates for, in alignment with the DSA’s priorities. It is about manufacturing crime that will later serve as a precursor for a police state.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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