A few weeks ago the big news out of Michigan was that Jewish Democrat Dana Nessel, the state’s elected Attorney General, their chief law enforcement officer, heavily guarded by police and paramilitary state troopers, would not be able to attend the state party convention. The reason: professionals assessed that no amount of security could adequately guarantee her safety.

That was a very sad-and very telling-revelation about the current state of the Michigan and national Democratic parties. The elected state AG cannot be successfully protected against people in her own party at her party’s convention.

It’s understandable why every morning Jewish Democrats across America wake up wondering what we’re doing in party like this.

Well, it just got a lot worse, and a lot worse in Michigan. This time it is not really about Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a separate issue. It’s about Attorney General Nessel and the monumentally irresponsible, false and dangerous advice she’s just given the American Jewish community.

After a bitterly divisive Senate primary in which El-Sayed was accused of being an anti-Zionist and an antisemite (with credible evidence on both counts) Nessel, who had supported pro-Israel Rep. Haley Stevenson against El-Sayed, endorsed the winner. That’s her choice, and as a leading Michigan Democrat officeholder, she likely feels she has obligations the rank and file don’t share. It’s not the fact that she endorsed Abdul El-Sayed that is the problem here.

In endorsing El-Sayed and speaking before a Michigan Democratic Party Jewish Caucus, Nessel acknowledged that he and other (DSA) candidates present a bitter pill for American Jews to swallow, party affiliation notwithstanding. The degree of hostility towards Israel and the blatant antisemitism we have seen make it impossible for many of us to support DSA Democrats. (By the same token, many DSA Democrats say they won’t or can’t support pro-Israel Democrats.) So what advice does Attorney General Nessel offer her fellow Jews? Falsely citing Queen Esther of the Purim Haggadah as an example, Nessel advises Jews as follows:

“It is perhaps up to us now to follow in her path and sacrifice the comfort, safety and security and even the very future of our own people in exchange for the opportunity to save the rest of humanity.”

This is not just “take one for the team,” or “you can’t always what you want.” This is an irrational call for Jews to needlessly sacrifice themselves because the Democratic Party cannot deal with radical antisemites in their midst.

It’s especially galling coming from a hypocrite who won’t set foot in a party convention even when surrounded by a platoon of combat-ready warriors. She won’t risk her own safety, but she’ll gladly sacrifice you or me in the name of a make-believe party unity that she hopes will keep electing her so she can declare that she cannot protect all citizens and the Jews just have to accept taking a hit. Except for her, of course.

The way to unify the bitterly divided and rivened Democratic Party is not by asking Jews to sacrifice their safety and well being. The way to unify is to drive out the antisemitic radicals who have made it impossible for the state AG to attend a party convention and who by her own admission present an existential threat to Jews.

I’m having difficulty finding that she’s not hopelessly insane.

Nessel Doesn’t Know Jewish History. She Has It All Wrong

As any Jew who celebrates Purim knows, Esther absolutely did not advocate accepting the planned annihilation of the Jewish people of Persia. Instead, she acted with her uncle Mordechai to marry the King and save our people. Esther did the exact opposite of what Nessel advocates.

Esther is a great figure and heroine in Jewish history. She represents the indefatigable spirit of the Jewish People, the spirit that enabled us to survive all these many millenia. There is no Jewish spirit calling for Nessel’s senseless sacrifice of innocents simply because it’s easier than confronting the evil that threatens them. If Nessel really understood Jewish history and values, she’d understand that contrary to her surrenderist and defeatist views, Jews are obligated to fight to the last drop of strength against those whose motivating purpose is to harm and destroy us.

Nessel Does Not Understand Her Role As AG. She Has it All Wrong.

Beyond Nessel’s profound ignorance of Jewish history, she demonstrates as profound an ignorance of her role as the chief legal officer of the State of Michigan. If there are threats to any citizen, Jews or anyone else, she should be acting to track down and charge those who threaten people for racist reasons. That’s her job. She’s supposed to protect victims, not create more.

As the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Michigan, Dana Nessel is responsible for the safety and protection of civil rights of all her citizens.

Her statement evidences that she doesn’t get this.

Instead of advocating that Jews submit to pain, suffering and physical threats, she should be protecting all people instead of just herself!

Can you imagine the outcry if any other minority group were urged by one allegedly their own to accept persecution and violence so other people fare better than we do?

American Jews: Listen to Rabbi Hillel, Not AG Nessel

Rabbi Hillel, the great Jewish sage who lived in the first century CE taught that “If I am not for myself, then who shall be for me, but if I am only for myself, what am I worth? And if not now, when?” Nessel has forgotten the first part. We as Jews do have a duty to stand up for others and for what is right, but since the dead can’t help anyone we can only stand up for others this if we stand up for ourselves. And the time is now.

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Share

I went so far as to earn an MA in Creative Writing at San Francisco State University, positive I would become a writer of both fiction and non-fiction. One of my teachers, the late and exquisite writer, Kay Boyle, invited me to a lecture by the legendary SF trial lawyer, Charles Garry. I was immediately hooked, applied to law school, and spent forty years as a criminal defense lawyer, branching out into deportation defense. I barely wrote any fiction during those years, aside from a few rare false starts, and kept an on-and-off journal.

The writing itch never ceased, and when I retired, my wife and I spent three and a half years living in Bangkok, Thailand, where I finally became “a writer.” No one was reading me, as I’d published nothing, but anyone who sits down every day and writes is a writer. I joined a local English language writing group named Keybangers Bangkok, and they provided invaluable assistance in writing my first novel, Bangkok Shadows, published in 2018 while I was in Bangkok. The protagonist is a criminal lawyer from San Francisco, who stumbled upon a cache of drug money which he used to set up an easy new life in Thailand. (Easy up until the CIA came calling.) He spends a great deal of his time in Bangkok’s mysterious NJA Club, with an eclectic crew of friends. Since then, I’ve written six more novels in the NJA Club Series. I call them “exotic noir thrillers.”

I’ve also written a historical novel, based loosely on my days as a wannabe rock ‘n’ roll manager in NYC, circa 1970. I began that novel, Queensborough Rock, when I was still a student at SF State. I put the manuscript down when I applied to law school, and found it in a suitcase almost fifty years later. I made some changes and finished it a year later. Going through all those handwritten and typed drafts- that’s how we did it in those days- made me appreciate word processing.

(I’ve posted about writing Queensborough Rock after a fifty year hiatus. It covers a lot of different ground than this post, much more about the background of the book, my experiences as a creative writing student, and the difficulties of “going back in time.”) Click Here to Read "Finishing a Novel Fifty Years After Starting It."

I’m an independent, self-published author. I have no agent or major publishing house. I find my own professionals for cover design, formatting, or any other artistic or technical needs. I’m “Amazon exclusive,” meaning I opt to sell my ebooks only through Amazon in exchange for certain promotional opportunities. (Amazon does not care about exclusivity for print editions, and Barnes and Noble and other book dealers can offer the print books through Amazon.) I’m quite content with the whole deal. Amazon controls close to 80% of the ebook market, and claims to sell 40% of all print books in America, even higher in print-on-demand internet orders, as competitors fall by the wayside. Amazon also owns Audible, which sells approximately 2/3 of all audiobooks. (You can also buy audiobooks directly from Amazon.) It just does not seem worth it to me to invest much time and effort into a collection of small and relatively obscure players. I’d rather be writing!

There is another reason I chose to become Amazon exclusive. Amazon operates a book service called Kindle Unlimited (KU), sort of the the Netflix of Amazon ebooks. For roughly ten dollars a month, subscribers can access any of millions of ebooks, magazines and audiobooks KU pays authors per every page anyone reads. KU subscribers are highly unlikely to buy books they can read whenever they want, and in fact, are highly unlikely to pay for books not on KU. (How many Netflix or Hulu subscribers are prone to paying to watch movies outside their subscription?) When an author enrolls in KU, they are tapping into a huge market of which they would otherwise not have access. While a KU reader earns the author generally a third of a sale of the same book, we’re talking about quite a volume. Most months I earn almost as much from KU as from sales. Unless an author is exclusive to Amazon, they can’t be on KU. My advice to my fellow indie authors, especially series writers is that the value of being on KU far outweighs being on the minor players.

I have looked at other options, and have found it is best for me to use Amazon KDP to produce and distribute the print and audiobook editions. No one does it better than them and no one offers better royalties. (It’s print on demand, which is best handled by a company like Amazon that can do it right and get in the print reader’s hands ASAP.)

I also write this newsletter on Substack, and post articles on Medium and LinkedIn. I write about US and international politics, law, history, music, and fiction.

I am happily retired, and I never thought of being a writer solely for money at this point in my life. That’s good, because it prevents a lot of disappointment.

So you can earn something. But does it pay the bills?

Yes, one can achieve great financial success as a self-published, or independent writer. Amazon, which for all practical purposes is the “publish” in self publishing, is actually quite generous with royalties; ebooks priced below $2.99 are paid 35%, but those above that figure, which is most books, receive 70%. (For other formats, the actual dollar amount paid ultimately may vary, particularly in print, where costs are deducted first.) You’ll see that most self-published ebook novels on Amazon are currently priced between $4.99 and $6.99. (The overwhelming percentage of sales for independent authors are ebooks.) Several ebooks cost more, many go for less, and authors are always lowering prices or giving ebooks away as promotions.

I'll let you do the math.

It’s not easy to sell books when you are a self-published author. I know of a few who have sold millions of books and earned many millions of dollars; more power to them, but they are a very rare exception. For the most part, the millionaires made their money writing romance, young adult, and for a long time, fantasy. There is always a market for science fiction, mystery and thrillers. Non genre novels generally don’t fare as well when written by independent authors. A series that creates a bond or relationship between author and audience is the Xanadu for most indie writers.

(Advertising and promoting books are a whole different kettle of fish than actually writing them. That’s for another post!)

I’ve read in many places that the typical self-published book barely sells a hundred copies. I can believe that, because up until recently, Amazon was rather cavalier about what they allowed to be published; today, they have started cracking down on books filled with errors, plagiarism, AI creations, and according to one post, smut and porn. As the self-publishing world grows and becomes more lucrative by the day, Amazon wants to enjoy both high income and the respectability of more traditional publishers. That’s good for all of us Amazon writers; anything that strengthens the public image and reputation of KDP is good for its writers!

But can you make a living at it, as my parents would have asked. When they were alive, no one could have imagined the development and expansion of self-publishing/independent authors. It would have been viewed as a vanity press operation, not a way to gain a reputation or make a living. That’s why after getting my MA, I went to law school. There was no doubt about being able to make a living with a law degree, at least not back then.

How about today? Could someone make a living as a writer on Amazon?

I’ve already mentioned people who have made millions. There are many more who earn a full-time living doing what I’m doing, just with greater financial remuneration. But most earn next to nothing, or what we might generously call “pocket change.” Of course, what constitutes “pocket change” varies from person to person. One writer might think earning only a few hundred dollars a month is not worth the effort, another might feel it is a wonderful income supplement, or they just are in love with what they are doing.

No doubt, it’s easier to be a self-published writer when you have a separate steady income stream that covers all expenses, like being retired with adequate SS and pension. For me, being a lawyer might be one reason why I didn’t write very much for so long, but today, being retired allows me to write without worrying how much a book earns.

(Note: the fact that I did not write while practicing law was my decision, right or wrong, not something that goes with the territory. Scott Turow, Louis Auchincloss, John Grisham, among others, managed to write very fine books while practicing law.)

Earnings do matter in one important way besides the obvious: they mean people are reading the books. If a self-published novelist on Amazon is earning four, five or six hundred dollars a month, it means people are reading their work. They might buy an ebook or print edition, or audiobook, or they joined KU. I definitely do not call hundreds of dollars a month “pocket change” for the average American. More important, the fact that it was earned because people read my books makes it many times more valuable in my eyes.

If you want to make a large-or at least larger-income as a self-published writer, absent a rare a one-off book that goes viral, the best method is to write a series. It’s a good bet that if someone likes one of the books in the series, they will buy others or read them on KU. Shortly after releasing a new book, there is a temporary surge in sales of my earlier novels. I believe that’s because the Amazon algorithm alerts all previous of the author’s readers of the new release and any buyers learn about the back catalogue..

Once an author has developed a name and a following, they can experiment with different novels, different series, with a reasonable expectation that many current readers will buy the books, and many new readers will learn of the writer and their back catalogue. If a writer is willing to sit down every single day and write an average of 1,000 words- quite a task in my eyes- they can self-publish at least four books a year. If they are really driven, they can finish more. Those writers, if they’ve developed a reader base, and maintain quality, can count on each book doing at least as well if not better than previous novels. The idea is to keep old readers while bringing in new ones. However, writing strictly for the money will eventually be reflected in the quality of the writing. A hectic writing pace should be kept where the author is getting more out of it than a steady income stream. They should be proud of what they are producing.

I average about a book a year. That’s not a particularly high rate of productivity in the self-publishing world, but it allows me the opportunity to learn, develop, and improve. Getting actual feedback means seeing how the book moves, understanding what I did right and wrong. These need time to percolate and filter through my writer’s system. Plus, I have other aspects to my life; I don’t want to be compelled to write all day long because of money. I also doubt my style of writing would allow for very good books with that approach.

What do I like most about being a self-published author?

That’s easy. Number one on my list of joys through writing is the thrill of seeing a work of fiction I created eventually being read by thousands of people. The reason I write is because I want people to read my words. That’s the case whether fiction or nonfiction, but since writing a novel is more difficult, the joy is even greater.

Of course, it’s equally about telling one’s own story. I have said many times that every character a writer develops is always in part the writer themself. No matter how hard we try to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, we are mostly looking through our own eyes. Nothing bad about that, and that’s why character types are different in books by different authors.

Every plot and every subplot contains a great deal of what happened to the author in their lives. It’s my firm conviction that all writers are constantly telling their own story in one form or another even they don’t realize it.

Don’t you get upset if you see a bad review?

A writer should understand and accept that anyone who purchases a book, or even reads it, earns the right to weigh in. The last person on earth to respond neutrally is the author. If you like a review, say a silent thank you. If you don’t like it so much, see if there’s any truth in it from which you can learn, and then move on.

If it’s of any comfort to souls more sensitive than this tough old criminal lawyer, take comfort in my well-informed opinion that written reviews are highly overrated as a measure of a book’s success. Only a handful of readers will ever take the time to write a review, and human nature being as I have observed, an angry person is more likely to leave a bad written review than a satisfied reader is to leave a good review. I have seen no consistency or relationship between the number or quality of written reviews and the number of readers over eight novels. When it comes to the star ratings and placement among all books, they are similarly consistent. The number and quality of written reviews does not seem to have any bearing on sales and the seven NJA Club novels generally sell equally.

Star ratings require a lot less effort or emotion, so they greatly outnumber written reviews. They are a much more reliable indicator of how a certain pool of readers feels about the book. Amazon also shows potential readers a breakdown of how the stars were awarded.

Note: Amazon limits written reviews and star ratings to those who have spent $50 or more on Amazon in the preceding year.

I’m really delighted that my ratings are always 4 stars or above, and my place in the Amazon sales pyramid is almost always in the top ten percent. Therefore, on the rare occasion where a reader points out an error, typ or some editing critiques, I view them objectively and when they show me they are correct, I’v fixed an error or kept in my mind a suggestion that might be useful in another book down the road. There is something called feedback, something called constructive criticism, and authors should not be afraid of or upset at them.

The only negative reviews that puzzle me are a few attacks and negative reviews from Trumpies; the series’ protagonist, Glenn Murray Cohen, is a passionate liberal Democrat who despises Trump. While there are other characters who are conservatives, anarchists, Tories, monarchists, or apolitical, only the Trumpies complain about a fictional character’s views. It reminds me of the time Dan Quayle went public in an argument with Murphy Brown, seemingly unaware she was a television show character, not a real person.

Like I said above, learn what try can from reviews, and let a bad review go. They’re buying your books, aren’t they? Never get mad at your readers!

Remember: Everyone’s story and path are different, but they all require actually writing

If you take one thing from this piece, here’s what it should be: the part where I said just because I took an effective forty year hiatus from writing when I was a lawyer does not mean it had to be that way. No matter what you are doing with your life, if you really want to, you’ll find the time to write. Unless you actually write something, none of the rest matters.

WRITING- JUST DO IT!

Also remember what Stephen King said

Stephen King is not only a great writer, a master of the horror genre and others; he has also written the very best book on writing, one of the very few I’d ever recommend. (On Writing.) In the forward to the edition I read years ago, Mr. King recounted how one of his friends tried to discourage him by pointing out that after agents fees, publisher ripoffs, and other expenses, and taxes, maybe it wasn’t worth it. (Stephen King? The guy was an idiot!) Mr. King replied as we’d expect:

“If you’re writing for the money, you’re a monkey.”

Well said, Stephen King! It’s an honor to share a first name with you!

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

WHY YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO THIS SUBSTACK EVEN THOUGH IT IS FREE

Substack allows writers to see where their traffic comes from, and if this Substack is delivered by email, how many opened it. They also let us know how many have read through to the end. All of this is very helpful in determining what people want to read, but unfortunately, Substack only gives this information about subscribers. I don’t charge for a subscription, and am happy if readers purchase some of my fiction work. (Many do, and a heartfelt thanks!) Most readers see no reason to subscribe to a free newsletter, since they can become followers and receive emails about posts, or just check me out as they like. If one is a follower or reader, but not a subscriber, I don’t get stats on their engagement, and don’t have the full picture of what readers like or don’t like. So if you enjoy reading this newsletter, please subscribe!

Today a “moderate” Democrat can best be described as one who is slightly left of center, with a light enough touch to still be called a “centrist.” I can see that throughout the USA such moderate or centrist (I prefer the term “centrist”) candidates are winning Democratic primaries and either leading or tied in key Senate races. Centrists Mary Peltola, James Talarico, Sherrod Brown, Josh Turek, Roy Cooper are favored to win or in a dead tie respectively in Alaska, Texas, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. None of these states can be called Blue and maybe North Carolina can be called purplish. These states have had few Democratic Senators over the past decades, yet Democrats are likely to win anywhere from 3 to all 5 of these seats.

The DSA candidates, by comparison, are trailing in the three states where the party nominated them: Michigan, Maine and Florida. The first two were considered most likely Democratic before they nominated DSA radicals; today the Republicans are favored (though a minority of analysts say they are tossups.) We Dems likely snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when we nominated outright socialists and radicals in states where the Republicans, rightly or wrongly, will cast themselves as moderates. (That’s Michigan and Maine.) In Florida, the reelection of appointed incumbent Ashley Moody was always the most likely outcome, but with a DSA candidate fracturing the Florida Democrats and scaring away No Party Affiliation (NPA) registrants Moody’s reelection is all but guaranteed. That is very troubling, because our gubernatorial candidate, David Jolley, could certainly defeat the Republican Byron Donalds, but not if the top of the ticket (US Senator) is a turnoff for so many Democrats who stay home or even worse, vote Republican.

I am quite confident that were the Democratic nominee for Senate not a DSA member, Jolley would become the first Democrat to win the Florida goverhship since 1994. Our superb candidate for Attorney General, former State Senator and public interest lawyer JJ Rodriguez would have had a far better shot at taking out the scandal-plagued appointed Republican AG. Annette Taddeo, our experienced campaigner candidate for CFO would have a better chance of beating the inept appointed Republican CFO trying to out-Musk Elon Musk. It has all become a lot harder, courtesy of DSA.

As a Hillsborough County Democratic Voter, I’ve Got a Full Plate of Great Candidates.

(Note: a very abbreviated version of this section was posted on my FB page earlier today. So if you think you’re experiencing deja vu, you are. :) )

Below is a photographic collection of Democratic candidates in partisan races I can get behind unhesitatingly, 100%. Some are statewide, others local to Tampa Bay. Some are seeking federal office, some are state. Some are local people, others from the Atlantic side. Everyone of them comes to the race with records of service and common sense approaches in line with the things most Floridians are concerned about: affordability, insurance, public health, housing, job security.

Candidate montage, clockwise: Luis Salazar (running for Florida House District 64), David Jolley, JJ Rodriguez, Aileen Rodriguez (running for Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners) , Annette Taddeo, Luis Viera (running for Florida House District 67).

Another montage, from left: incumbents County Commissioner Harry Cohen, State Senator Brian Nathan, , U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor.

Except for JJ Rodriguez, Harry Cohen and Luis Viera, who were not challenged, all of these Democrats had to make it through a primary. Harry Cohen and Tampa City Councilman Luis Viera are experienced campaigners and public servants and ready to do battle against their Republican opponents. Both are favored to win, but we aren’t taking any chances and run every race as if we were behind.

How Come The List Does Not Include Every Democrat Running Statewide or Locally?

Of course I knew you’d ask that question, so I just posed it for you.

We are in strange times, navigating uncharted waters.

The Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to the party I joined way back in 1970 when I became old enough to vote. It looks little like the party I have served as a precinct captain in Presidential elections from 1976-2012 and 2020, and as a member of the County party organizations in California and Florida .

The Democratic Party of today is an obviously fractured and divided party. There is no risk in saying this known fact, and the same is true of the Republicans,

In the Democratic Party, the split is between traditional Democrats, mildly left of center, and the newly ascendent Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a radical Marxist group I have no problem calling inherently antisemitic.

It remains to be seen whether or not a party can combine radicals and centrists, Marxists and capitalists, Jews and the tolerant alongside bigots and Jew haters. Two parties-the Democratic-Republicans and then the Whigs- which had success in electing Presidents and controlling Congress dissolved and disappeared because they were irrevocably divided over slavery. The Democratic Party was completely transformed after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964; the right wing racists from the South who ran the party with urban liberals decided to leave and became Republicans.

We could see a major realignment once again.

We’ve seen half of the Latino Democrats and half the union member Democrats become Republicans, and we’re starting to see Jews join the parade. The “anti-Zionism,” more accurately called “antisemitism” of DSA is sure to increase the flow out of the party.

Indeed, this lifelong Democrat is unable to support certain nominees of my party for those very reasons. I cannot support any candidate who signs on with a DSA that advocates abolishing the US Senate, ICE, NATO, USAID and prisons along with defunding the police, allowing non-citizens to vote, and having open borders. I can’t accept a candidate who would affiliate at all with people who want to close all overseas bases and cut off all ties to Israel, which they refuse to recognize as a Jewish State.

They sound crazy, don’t they?

What the DSA proposes and what they stand for are dangerously radical and decidedly un-American.

If the DSA had their way, there would be one house of Congress, and they will make sure it is “worker” oriented. That Congress will pick the President. That Congress can approve or reject any decision by the Supreme Court. (Goodbye to the judicial independence that is the last guardrail against Trump.) Of course, the DSA would nationalize and control whatever they can. It’s all in their platform.

Some of the DSA candidates are trying to walk back their affiliation by saying they don’t believe in certain of the proposals. In that case, quit DSA, reject their endorsements, and then at least all doubt about affiliation will be eliminated. Once out of DSA, they won’t have to toe the extreme anti-Israel and antisemitic liness of the group or their Marxist socialism. Until then, soft-pedaling the relationship won’t persuade many people.

For me, and I speak only for myself, there are certain lines that cannot be crossed if a candidate is to get my vote and my open support, let alone any money.

First, they cannot be “anti-Zionist,” and they must acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State with the Right of Return. (No problem adding a Palestinian State as well, and I’m for a two state solution.)

Second, they must state clearly the distinction between criticizing the Israeli government and its policies and leaders as opposed to delegitimizing the entire nation.

Third, they must state unequivocally that American Jews are not personally responsible for anything they hold against Israel and any manifestation of antisemitism must be condemned. (No problem saying the same about Islamophobia.)

Fourth, I’m a capitalist and not any type of socialist. Nevertheless, I can easily distinguish between the “soft” version of “democratic socialism” promoted by people like Bernie Sanders, AOC and Elizabeth Warren. They are really promoting a “mixed economy” Scandinavian style. I am not up in arms about any of that. We can have Medicare for all, livable wages, affordable housing and free two year college education without nationalization or doing away with separation and balance of powers. But the crazy Marxism of DSA is for me a nonstarter. I’ll never vote for or support a single one of them.

If a Democrat Can’t Stomach a DSA Candidate, What Do They Do About That Line on the Ballot?

I am assuming we are talking about a matter of conscience, not a personal grudge or anger at losing the primary. A matter of conscience means that in order to support or vote for that candidate you would have to go 100% against one or more of your deepest and most strongly held principles.

In my individual case, there are three potential disqualifiers: anti-Zionism and other manifestations of hatred towards Israel; antisemitism; socialism. A candidate who belongs to or is affiliated with DSA in their campaign checks off all three boxes for me, their convenient denials and soft-pedaling notwithstanding.

If you cannot in good conscience support or vote for a Democratic candidate on any level of office, you can simply say and do nothing about that candidate and you can either abstain, write someone in, or if you truly and honestly believe the only way to go is to vote for one of the other candidates, no one is going to know.

It’s not necessary to tell the world of your decision, though it’s not barred unless you are one of a handful of Democrats who have signed the so-called “loyalty oath” required to hold any position in the party. There is no affirmative duty to say or do anything in support of a candidate. The oath precludes the signer from “opposing the election” of a Dem candidate in a partisan contested election, as well as endorsing the Republican, and presumably a signer cannot go around telling people not to vote for a Democatic candidate.

Saying or doing nothing, even saying one is not voting for or supporting a candidate is non-support, different from outright opposition. Non-suppport is not prohibited. It should be noted that back in 1983 a Democratic AG’s office in Florida held that this oath violated Florida election law, but the party uses it anyway. I have to wonder about a party so fearful its officers won’t support their candidates that they force them to sign a written promise to not openly oppose them.

If you never signed such oath you are free to say and do as you choose.

Hopefully an inability to support DSA candidates does not spill over into a Democrat saying things that might hurt the candidates they want to see elected. Just remember that non -support can be quiet and not hurt anyone else, but public statements about unacceptable candidates might tar totally fine candidates you want to win.

Exercising one’s conscience can be done in conjunction with the concept of “do no harm.”

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

I’ve got plenty of wonderful Democratic candidates I believe in and can fully support in November, locally and statewide.

The best news for me personally was the impressive victory of my dear friend Luis Salazar in Florida House District 64. Luis will go on to beat the Republican and will serve this district, my own, with great distinction and will be a representative for all the people in our diverse district: Hispanic, white, Black, Asian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, no faith, old, young, in between, able bodied or disabled. Elect Luis!

In November we will reelect our State Senator, Brian Nathan, who comes from the unions and speaks for and to the working people. Keep Brian!

We have two great and fantastic Congressional candidates in the Tampa Bay area, Cathy Castor, seeking reelection in CD District 14 and retired General Leela Gray in the 13th CD over in Pinellas. Help them in every way you can!

Luis Viera, who courageously has spoken out against Jew hate and been attacked for it, is leaving the Tampa City Council and is the nominee for House District 67. His GOP opponent is weak, but we take no chances, so feel free to work or donate to that campaign.

We elected two outstanding lawyers as judges, Nina McCutchen Alvarez and Sara Peacock.

Two fabulous school board candidates, incumbent Karen Perez and Danielle Simic have advance to the runoffs in November.

Incumbent Commissioner Harry Cohen is running for reelection. He is a classic centist and a magnificent public servant.

Aileen Rodriguez also strikes me as a most qualified and worthy candidate for County Commissioner.

On the statewide level, David Jolly won easily and he has grown into a strong and viable candidate. JJ Rodriguez and Annette Taddeo are far superior to their GOP opponents for Attorney General and Chief Financial Officer.

Now to the Surprises and the Conundrums for Florida’s Centrist Democrats (Like Democrats Everywhere This Cycle.)

There is no doubt that most observers failed to detect the effectiveness of Florida State House Rep. Angie Nixon’s grass roots campaign or her charismatic appeal to so many Democratic primary voters. Alex Vindman started with greater name recognition and ten to fifteen times the money, but he could not match her energy, her personality, or her ground game. Nixon ran a much better campaign. She won fair and square and she won the old fashioned way, pulling out voters one at a time, without paid ads.

The problem many Dems and NPAs have with Rep. Nixon is the affiliation with the radical and antisemitic DSA and her extreme anti-Israel stances. Rightly or wrongly this is very often perceived as personal antisemitism or at a minimum a callous indifference to the suffering of the Jewish community as a result of out-of-control Jew hate on the left, largely promulgated by Nixon’s DSA.

I’m a lifelong Democrat and a very active one at that. However, I despise socialism because too many family and friends have suffered under it, and I see it as a foreign ideology that has failed everywhere it has been tried. No nation that rejected it ever went back, and we can accomplish goals like universal health care, affordable housing and fair wages without the extreme Marxist solutions offered up by DSA. It is asking me to cross the proverbial bridge too far to tell people they should vote for a socialist if I can’t do it myself.

And why should I? I joined the Democratic Party, not the Democratic Socialists of America.

I myself can’t vote for anyone who expresses a willingness to cut off aid to Israel when they are under attack by Iran. I am a Zionist and won’t support any candidate who cannot commit to their firm belief in a Jewish State and that Jewish State is Israel. Criticism of Israel and its government is fine, I do it all the time, as I loathe Netanyahu and his policies, but delegitimizing the Jewish State is Jew hate plain and simple and I won’t stand for it in any candidate. I would not be true to myself if I told others they should vote for someone like that..

That makes supporting people like Angie Nixon exceptionally difficult for someone like me. There are many issues that come into play, not just Israel, but when we are talking DSA, we are also talking antisemitism, a line that I can never allow to be crossed and any candidate I support or ask others to support must be 100% clear of even a hint of Jew hate (or any hate). A DSA candidate at present inevitably fails short by my measure.

This does not at all mean that there is no possibility of breaching these divides. There always is. Candidates change their views, they can modify them, they can explain them. Were I persuaded that a DSA candidate fully accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish State with the Right of Return, and they stopped demonizing Zionists and stopped misusing terms they don’t understand, I would certainly be moved quite a bit.

I’d also like to hear all DSA candidate say they reject the insane parts of their platform: abolishing the Senate, having the House pick the President, ending judicial independence by requiring Congressional approval of Supreme Court decisions, creating special committees of “workers” to make sure the government is run for “workers,” nationalization of key industries, pulling out of NATO and closing all overseas bases, ending incarceration and defunding police. They even want to close USAID, shades of Trump and Musk!

Any one of thee loony-toon ideas is enough on its own to disqualify a candidate in my view, so embracing a whole platform of lunacy means the candidate is beyond hope.

DSA Lost No Time Demanding Unity-At Least From Centerists to Them

This morning I have been receiving countless appeals from the DSA side to unite behind Angie Nixon and other DSA candidates in order to win. I have been waiting to hear the DSA express their support for victorious pro-Israel centrists they opposed, like Jared Moskowitz, Lois Frankel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor and Lee Gray. From my perspective, that would be a huge sign that their hope of unification is sincere and they are looking to compromise and modify their extreme positions. (Maybe.)

Angie Nixon is By No Means the Biggest DSA Problem in the US or Florida.

In fairness, by national DSA standards, Angie Nixon is not even close to being the worst. She’s not engaging in poorly-camouflaged support for terrorists, like Zohran Mamdani, Rashida Tlaib, or Abdul-El Sayed. She has never expressed open support for communism as have NYC Madani Congressional candidates Dariazila Avila Chevalier and Claire Sanchez. As far as I know, she’s never sported a Nazi tattoo or beaten up and raped women like the procession of Bernie Sanders & Mamdani Maine candidates. She does not want to cancel out Thanksgiving like the nutty Wisconsin chef who fortunately lost to David Crowley, and unlike Abdul El-Sayed, she’s not promising to maintain a close relationship with Hamas supporter Hasan Pike.

In other words, there is space for Rep. Nixon to distance and disassociate herself from crazy views, crazy people, and from any suspicion of antisemitism. We must understand: she is the candidate, we are the voters. We have no obligation to support or vote for anyone. As the late, great House Speaker Tip O’Neill reminded us, if a candidate wants someone’s vote they have to ask them. and when they ask, they better be prepared to answer questions and concerns.

Rep. Nixon deserves that chance and I for one am waiting to hear from her.

The DSA Radicals Have Opposed Two Centrists Candidates in Tampa Bay: Rep. Kathy Castor and Retired Gen. Leela Gray. Both support Israel and Rep. Castor Voted Against Cutting All Aid to Israel. Let’s Hear the DSA Express support for These Two If We Are Expected to Support DSA Candidates.

Hillsborough County Has Three DSA Candidates and It’s Hard for Me to See a Way for Centrists to Support Them

The Democratic primary was won in two Republican-heavy Congressional districts by candidates backed by the DSA. Both are extremely hostile to Israel. One has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism and the other is suspected because of the DSA tie and statements about AIPAC and control by foreign governments, very often a smokescreen for Jew hate. (There’s time to retract or explain these statements and perceptions.) The third DSA candidate faced no primary opposition for a Florida House seat and is rabidly anti-Israel and associated with radicals including antisemites.

It does not look like any of these three have even a remote chance of winning in their Republican districts, and it would be a waste of resources to offer them any help. Even good candidates with sounder views would have to struggle in these districts, though it would not be as utterly hopeless as with these radicals with DSA ties and antisemitism in the air, who are going to get creamed. That’s what happens when such characters are nominated. Don’t blame me, I warned people that nominating radicals only makes it harder to persuade voters our party has changed. It’s not my job to dig them out of the holes they dug themselves into. My time is better spent helping elect good candidates like the ones I’ve mentioned.

A Quick Word on the GOP Primary

As expected, Byron Donalds won, but with less than a majority. This might indicate that his hold on his party, even with Trump’s endorsement, is not as strong as he hoped. That’s good news for David Jolly, our centrist candidate for governor.

There were no GOP surprises on the level of Angie Nixon but Cory Mills, accused domestic abuser, lost his primary despite Trump’s endorsement. That saves the seat for the GOP.

Two blatant and outspoken antisemites, gubernatorial candidate James Fishback and Congressional candidate Dan Bilzerian, each got 10% of the vote, contrasted to several antisemitic DSA nominees winning on the Dem side.

In Hillsborough, two far right nut jobs in the 14th CD slugged it out over who was more MAGA. The winner, “MAGA Mike” Beltran appears to be little more than a loudmouthed, pear-shaped right wing kook and with a unified Democratic Party, Kathy Castor will overcome a slight Red registration advantage and make mincemeat of this fool. “Progressives” are threatening to withhold their votes from Kathy because she voted against cutting off all military and humanitarian aid to Israel. I’m sure “MAGA Mike” Beltran loves hearing this. I’m struggling to figure out what’s “progressive” about that stance.

Ironically, the same “progressives” seeking to do in Rep. Castor are pleading with folks like me to hold our noses and vote for DSA candidates.

There were no other surprises or earth shaking news out of the GOP primary.

That’s what I have to say about the Florida Primary!

If the two very different wings of the Democratic Party can reach some accommodation and compromise, David Jolly can win the governorship and we can win Congressional and state legislative seats we’ll otherwise lose. It must be the candidates who start the dialogue. They are asking for our support.

Remember: the world of a Democratic primary is not the world of a general election.

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

No one wants to hear any more prognostications or assessments. Why would anyone, when in less than 24 hours we’ll have the actual results?

I’m most interested in seeing by how large a margin the gubernatorial candidates win. I’d expect both Byron Donalds (R) and David Jolly (D) to steamroll over opponents who pose no serious, credible or even possible threat. If either wins by less than 40 points, it could spell trouble in November.

The Democratic Senate race is one being watched by political scientists to see if the DSA wave was slowed in Michigan and then halted in Wisconsin. A close race between Alex Vindman and DSA candidate Angie Nixon might portend further division in the party, and a compelling victory by Vindman may signal the beginning of the end of DSA fever and that it has no traction in most parts of America.

The real question is: what will a close election result means? For the same reason we’ll watch Congressional races where DSA radicals are facing mainstream Democrats. This includes the 25th CD, the 12th and 15th.

All eyes will be on the 20th CD, where Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seeks a win in a traditionally Black Congressional district. Personally, I don’t think she should have run there and have so written, but tomorrow the voters of the 20th decide who they want to represent them.

There’s a primary on the Dem side for Chief Financial Officer, with newcomer Earle Ford, a former IRS attorney assigned to track down high income tax cheats versus former one term State Senator Annette Taddeo, who has spent most of the past several years seeking one office or another without success. I don’t see her as being remotely qualified, but the voters decide, not one person.

While there are many interesting state legilsative races, the one drawing all the attention is the race in the 16th State Senate District, where current Florida House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell is in a brutal primary fight with Rep. Michelle Rayner. Surprisingly-or maybe not-data centers have become the main issue in the closing days with Driskell defending a vote that sems pro data center and then receiving substantial money from pro-date center interests.

Tomorrow night after the results are in, I’ll write about what the results seem to be to em and how the winners will likely fare in November.

Stay tuned.

Way back in 1895 the great American humorist Finley Peter Dunne created a fictional character named Mr. Dooley, an Irish immigrant bartender in America who opined on all matters and famously said “Politics ain’t beanbag.” It still isn’t.

In 1949 President Harry Truman told his advisers that “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” That will always be true.

This cycle, though, I’ve seen a new low I didn’t expect to see, certainly not here in Hillsborough County, Florida.

We have seen a tight and hard-fought battle for the Democratic nomination for Florida House District 64 among other heated primary elections.

Luis Salazar, candidate for District 64 has provided evidence that his opponent, Mike Suarez has been an insurance lobbyist who asked for and received two $10,000 checks from Republican insurance PACs. It’s reasonable to ask what they expect in return and why he reached out to them. The Salazar campaign also demonstrated that within the past two and a half years, there were $63,000 in unpaid federal tax liens filed against Suarez, reported in the local papers, and his explanation that this was a courtesy “placeholder” did not pass the laugh test. Now we are hearing from a former campaign manager that Suarez refuses to pay a prior bill for thousands of dollars that is still outstanding. (Suarez lost his last two races for Mayor and City Council.)

These are not capital offenses, but they certainly are recent and relevant when running for office.

Suarez has lobbed but one critique against Luis Salazar: that he had driving under the influence cases between twelve and thirty years ago, the latter as a teenager. Mr. Salazar has led an exemplary life since, leading Democratic caucuses, working in the Hispanic and LBGTQ+ communities, standing up for the Jewish community when they were subjected to antisemitic attacks and bringing young people into the party.

So what is the relevance of these prior incidents which constitute the sole argument the Suarez people lodge against Luis? Even worse, in an act of inexplicable cruelty, Suarez supporters in the misnamed Progressive Caucus published the arrest records of an individual whose only offense was to be a supporter of Luis Salazar.

Why?

Is there a suggestion that once a person has had an adverse alcohol experience in their life, they can never recover, can never again be trusted and equal members of society? Does any real Democrat believe that?

Anyone who has engaged in professional recovery work knows how wrong and harmful that line of thought really is. Anyone who has been through alcoholism and recovery themselves or with a friend or family member knows that recovery requires a belief that it leads to societal acceptance again. It’s a long and difficult process, and those who make it deserve to be honored, not scorned. They are positive examples, not negative ones! They certainly do not deserve to have a scarlet letter painted on them by campaigns crawling out of the political cesspool.

What made these dangerous attacks even more reprehensible was that the Suarez campaign team utilized the assistance of a known Republican homophobic operative to publicize them. This is even more offensive when we consider that the top brass of the Suarez campaign team includes gay men. We’re talking about the Suarez team taking some deep dives into political sewage and worse to attack Luis Salazar.

People will not seek recovery if they are told it makes no difference. People will be afraid to reveal themselves as successful recovery stories if they think people like Suarez and his campaign team will attack them.

Perhaps this explains why a key Suarez supporter publicly called Mike Suarez “a flawed candidate.” (No Salazar supporters consider Luis “flawed,” but I agree with that Suarez supporter about their guy.)

Democrats should not vote for candidates who engage in such reckless mudslinging and never stop to consider the societal harm they are causing. Candidates should not hire consultants who practice these tactics and donors should not fund such campaigns.

I belong to three Democratic Caucuses: Hispanic, Jewish, LBGTQ+ and all three have endorsed Luis Salazar. (Just as you don’t have to be Jewish to join the Jewish Caucus, one need not be Hispanic or LBGTQ+ to join those other two incredible organizations.) Luis represents all of us and he’ll represent us against Big Insurance. in ways his opponent never will. Now that’s a fair campaign issue the Suarez campaign would rather not discuss.

I’m proud to support Luis Salazar. He is one of the most honorable and sincere people I’ve ever met. He talks about the real issues and he talks to real people every day in District 64. He wants to help all people in need of help, and he’ll never ever hurt anyone. He won’t stoop to just about anything just to get votes.

The same can’t be said of Mike Suarez.

Vote for the best Democratic candidate for Florida House District 64, Luis Salazar!

The Truth Will Win If It Is Told!

Share

A few days after DSA candidate Abdul El-Sayed confirmed yet again his refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish State, calling every Israeli-and by implication all Jews- “bloodthirsty.” and his refusal to disassociate from antisemitic Hamas propagandist Hasan Piker, he eked out a marrow victory in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary.

Hours after this hardline refusenik on Israel was nominated the appeals began flowing in: Jewish Democrats must not abandon the party. They need us. Abdul El-Sayed suddenly realized he needs us. They implore us to think about people other than ourselves.

Is that really fair?

I don’t live in Michigan, but I am Jewish, Zionist and reject entirely the DSA and its platform. I am not socialist and think it is a terrible system.

There are plenty of people just like me in Michigan. There are plenty of people just like me in other places around America where the Democratic nominee is someone as bad or worse than Abdul El-Sayed.

As Jews, we are being offered without asking a variety of justifications that are unfounded. First, instead of listening to the members of a minority and seeing why we feel offended, we are told to take our offenses and our fears and stuff them, because people who got nominated by spreading hate about us now need our votes. (Not to mention our money.)

This Kind of Thinking is Wrong in More Ways Than There is Space to List, So I’ll Give You the Major Flaws.

Jewish Americans know the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and outright antisemitism.

Let’s clear the air on one thing: the fears and objections of concerned Jews are not because we think Israel is above criticism. Anything but. We have a wide range of opinion in our midst, but very few are favorable to Netanyahu or his policies. There are of course also opposition parties in Israel, and the prevailing sentiment among the community at large here is that the sooner Netanyahu goes, the better. The Florida State Democratic Party Jewish Caucus called for Netanyahu to step down way back in January, 2024!

What concerns American Jewish Democrats is not the fact of criticism or disagreement. It is due to the combination of delegitimization of the State of Israel, conflating terms like “Israel,” “Zionist,” “Jewish,” “AIPAC” and assigning them meanings not tethered to reality, and then holding all American Jews personally responsible for whatever Israeli policies they dislike.

We have seen American Jews physically threatened and actually killed over Gaza. We have seen AIPAC used as a code for Jews. We have seen Israel judged by standards totally different than used in the case of other nations.

Attacking a person because they don’t accept another’s definition of genocide, or because they are a Zionist, or in most cases, just because they are Jewish, is not legitimate criticism of Israel.

It’s antisemitism or Jew hate as I prefer to call it.

Dana Nessel, the Jewish elected Democratic Attorney General of Michigan could not attend the recent state party convention because her safety could not be guaranteed! How can a party in that situation deny they have a problem with antisemitism and are failing their Jewish members?

The Democratic Party Leadership, to the Extent There is Any, Is Not up to the Task of Combatting Antisemitism

For the entire period since the October 7 genocide by Hamas, the leadership of the Democratic Party has quivered in fear of a radical fringe of antisemitic leftists, mostly but not entirely DSA. There has been virtually no pushback and in fact the party leadership is more concerned with this fake image of a tolerant big tent than they are about the wellbeing of their Jewish members.

Zohran Mamdani ran an openly antisemitic campaign. He focused more on the Middle East than on local issues. He refused to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” even after Jews were murdered on the streets of DC by a radical socialist and in Boulder Colorado by a radical Islamic extremist who had immigrated to this country. Upon election, his very first acts were to revoke the City’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and ending a police unit that protected synagogues and other Jewish facilities.

Recently, Mamdani has called any American Jew who joins AIPAC to be a”monster” and a few days later a Jewish man was stabbed outside his synagogue by a slogan-screaming assailant. Most recently, Mamdani appointed an 18 member judiciary advisory panel and in a city with 1/3 lawyers being Jewish, he didn’t appoint a single one.

Like El-Sayed, Mamdani refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, and his stated reason is opposition to “ethno-religious states.” He won’t march in the Israel Independence Day parade for that alleged reason. That didn’t stop him from marching in the Pakistan Independence Day parade under a banner reading “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

Darializa Avila Chevalier, one of Mamdani’s successful DSA Congressional candidates in NYC, is on record as saying October 7 was a great day and she joined in a celebration the next day, Oct 8. She also thinks we need to teach Marxism so people will become communists. Mirat Kiros, the successful DSA Congressional candidate in Denver, is her clone. And of course, we will never forget the departed candidate Graham Platner, he of the 17 years of wearing a Nazi tattoo.

Mamdani, El-Sayed and most of the DSA Congressional candidates are antisemites and quite open about it. So why are we denying this and why aren’t the leaders speaking out?

Above all, why do they expect Jews to vote for these antisemites?

All of these miscreants were nominated and they represent our party.

Voters Often Compromise Their Views and Vote for Candidates With Whom They Differ on An Issue. That’s Different Than Voting for Someone Who Hates You.

Most Americans are not one issue voters, and Jewish voters are no exception. While there are some Jews who base their vote solely and exclusively on Israel, for most of us it is a balancing test. Most American Jews share the social values of the Democratic Party and are appalled by the Republican opposite mirror versions of the same. We understand that there are many shades of opinion of Israel, and there are going to be times when our views are not in the majority. However., denouncing Israeli policies and its government is a far cry from denying the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish State. Calling all Israelis “bloodthirsty” and all AIPAC members “monsters” does not look like serious and legitimate criticism of anything.

It looks like Jew hate, because that’s what it is.

I am not assigning a political death sentence to every Democrat who voted to cut off all aid to Israel, demonic a vote as that may have been. I am supporting Alex Vindman for the Senate nomination here in Florida, but I don’t refuse to support candidates supporting his opponent who is to be blunt, anti-Israel and hasn’t convinced everyone she’s not an antisemite. Politics and the world at large are too complex for simplistic litmus tests.

But refusing to recognize a Jewish State, associating with Hasan Piker, being in or working with DSA, calling Jews names, withdrawing police protection while stirring up hate against us; those are all over the line and as far as I’m concerned, 100% disqualifying Jew hate.

Are Any Other Groups Asked to Do as Jewish Democrats are Being Asked to Do?

Imagine being called upon to ask members of the LBGTQ+ community to vote for a Democrat who opposes marriage and adoption equality. How about asking Latinos or Asian Americans to support a Dem candidate who favors immigration restriction or wants to end Birthright Citizenship? Or asking Muslims to support someone who wants to ban them from the country. Would you feel comfortable trying to persuade a Black Democrat to vote for a candidate who expresses reservations about the Civil Rights Act and thinks maybe interracial marriage can be banned if a state so wishes?

Muslim Democrats, long with other Dems) are constantly told not to support pro-Israel candidates or Zionists and party leaders say nothing.

So why the uproar when so many Jewish Democrats say they cannot support Mamdani, his Congressional candidates, Platner, El-Sayed or any other DSA or antisemite?

Why are we supposed to overlook “monsters,” “bloodthirsty,” “Zionist” as a pejorative, and worse? Why must we accept physical assaults on Jewish Dems like Alex Vindman and Scott Weiner? Why must we accept the Jewish Attorney General of Michigan unable to be safe at a party gathering?

We Don’t Have to Accept It and We Won’t!

Note: The American Jewish community is not monolithic and within it you will find every shade of opinion on every issue. (Remember the old saying, “Two Jews, three opinions.”) I am by no means suggesting every person who might be considered a Jewish-American shares my views at all. What I am certain of is that the vast majority do, and will react in some way to the plague of Jew hate being visited upon our party by DSA. I further believe this threatens the future of the Democratic Party

The first step: withhold votes and campaign contributions.

I am quite certain that the number of Jewish Democrats who will not support DSA candidates will be significant, noticeable, and consequential. It will eventually spill over to more Democratic candidates.

It’s early, and the DSA candidates could theoretically change and make amends, but I’m not holding my breath, and I am afraid that Abdul El-Sayed loses badly to Mike Rogers, and Dems lose a seat they never thought was in jeopardy. Had Haley Stevens won, it would have been Likely Democrat and now it is between Leans Republican and heading towards Likely.

The mess created in Maine by voters listening to extremists in the party like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani and Khanna led to nominating a nut with a Nazi tattoo and a penchant for beating and raping women. With the party continuing its march to madness with more DSA nominees, I predict Maine voters are likely to decide the devil they know is better than the one they don’t know, and Susan Collins wins another comfortable victory.

I'm further afraid that the radical tinge of the party scares independent voters in states like Iowa and Alaska where we have great candidates. Those voters may decide the risk of a radical Dem Senate is too much to bear.

Socialism is a scary word to many, and people like El-Sayed and Mamdani are the reasons why.

Losing Jewish votes may not matter everywhere, but it sure matters in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina. It also matters in state constitutional office and legislative and Congressional elections in Ohio, parts of New York and New Jersey, California and Florida.

Even more devastating would be the loss of contributions. Jewish voters have among the very highest rates of turnout and just about the highest rate of contributing, the highest average donation, and a large number of very big donors to the party.

Rest assured that among an overwhelming majority of Jewish Dems, people like Abdul El-Sayed, Zohran Mamdani, Darzila Chevalier and Miros Kirat are getting nary a vote nor a dime. This will inevitably spill over to refusal to support party events that benefit such candidates.

The party will feel far more than just a financial pinch. They are going to lose elections they would have won without the antisemites. These radicals are going to be hung around the neck of every Democrat.

For Republicans, the DSA is the gift that keeps on giving.

Second Step: Jews Start Leaving the Party

Leaving can mean many things. One can remain a registered Dem, vote in every primary and the straight ticket and have nothing to do with the official party apparatus. One can remain registered and vote as they wish. Or one can leave the party by changing registration.

Where Would Dispossessed Jewish Democrats Go?

The most likely choice would be no party affiliation, or NPA in Florida. (In other states may be called “Independent” or “Decline to State”.)

Aside from a pro-Israel and somewhat more friendly atmosphere for Jews, the GOP offers little ideological compatibility for most American Jews. We vote for Dems about 70-75% of the time; there are exceptions, like Mamdani getting only 28% and Abdul-El-Sayed giving him a run for the money.

Republicans like Ted Cruz are fighting Jew hate in the Republican Party, and the Florida GOP refused to allow antisemitic gubernatorial candidate James Fishbeck the opportunity to speak at their state convention. They’ve also disbanded Young Republican groups that were antisemitic. Democrats, by comparison, have done virtually nothing to fight Jew hate.

Republican stances on LBGTQ+ and general civil rights, willingness to ignore science and history, and rigid ones at that, rejection of the social safety nets in a mixed economy, climate change and election denials….all of these are anathemas to most American Jewish Democrats. They are currently unlikely to become Republicans in large numbers.

What is more likely: the Democrats modifying on Israel and curtailing Jew hate, or the GOP moderating on social issues?

That question will in fact determine the future political home of American Jews.

One thing is clear: things can’t go on as they are, with an endless and dangerous torrent of physical and verbal abuse heaped on Jewish Democrats by far left socialists simply because they are Jews.

After the midterms, after we see the results, there will either be a coming together, which I see as unlikely absent a quick reversal of course, or the start of the party unraveling and joining the Whigs as failed parties.

Right now I don’t see any sign of the fever breaking in the Democratic party, no sign the crazy train is coming to a halt. I see a weak, powerless and discredited Ken Martin at the head of the DNC, a missing in action and ineffective Nikki Fried as the head my states’s Florida Democratic Party (FDP). There is effectively no official party operating in the State of Florida or on the national level either. They are of no real help to anyone except the consultants they hire to keep giving them terrible advice.

Democrats talk of a big tent, but fail to grasp that Jews and antisemites cannot exist in the same party. Neither can Zionists and anti-Zionists, as we are starting to see. Nor can capitalists coexist with those seeking a radical transformation to a Marxist Socialist society, as the DSA platform sets out.

We are at the start of a civil war within the Democratic Party, and only one side can prevail. It will be either the DSA and its radical wing or the more moderate and centrist traditional Dems.

I agree with James Carville. Sooner or later we have to either kick out the radicals, the crazies and the haters before they bring us all down, or else one side leaves and forms a new party. It may turn out someday sooner than we think that the radicals inherit a worthless, bankrupt shell of a disintegrating party, while the rest start out as NPAs and eventually form some sort of fusion party with independents and the few rational Republicans.

Form a new party? Easier said than done.

It might take several years before a new party could qualify in every state and run quality candidates for all federal, state and local offices.

I’ve said it is unlikely judging from the present moment that anyone is going to bring the Democratic Party back towards the center, rid it of extremism and Jew hate and really and truly be a “Big Tent” where we are all welcome, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or personal views on Israel.

But it’s by no means impossible. Stranger things have happened. Abdul El-Sayed and others in the DSA wing may have an epiphany, realize they could have handled things differently, admit this, and find acceptance among Jewish Dems.

There’s no sign of any of that happening, nothing to lead us to think it’s right over the next hill. It’s actually growing worse.

As noted, Republicans are taking significant steps to chase Jew hate from their party. While admirable and appreciated, that alone is unlikely to lead to massive migration of American Jews to the GOP.

However, imagine if the Republican Party yielded on its most indefensible positions. Imagine if they offered what was at least as acceptable as we’re likely to get as a minority party.

What if the GOP adopted a platform of full freedom of choice up to 15 weeks, enshrined marriage equality and sexual orientation as a protected status, admitted to climate change and Biden’s election, and brought back science and competence?

Along with their strong pro-Israel stance and better record on antisemitism, that kind of Republican Party might seem acceptable to many American Jews. Once in, they are more likely to fight for any further changes within their new party as opposed to pining over the bad old days of the party that didn’t really want them anyway.

There’s no more reason to expect sudden moderation in either party. So Many American Jews might be without parties for several years.

Politics abhors a vacuum.

Jews without a party constitutes a vacuum.

Either the Dems, the GOP or a third party will realize that these free agent donors and voters ought to be locked itno them as best as can be. Whoever moderates first will have the upper hand.

What Could Be the Final Straw That Sets off an Exodus? (No pun intended)

There are three possibilities that come to mind:

1.) The party conventions in the state and national levels adopt in their platforms a cut off of aid to Israel;

2.) A majority of Democrats in Congress vote for the same;

3.) The 2028 Presidential nominee is an anti-Zionist.

Any of those would trigger a massive departure of registered members and donors from the party and they would not all be Jews but a very large percentage of Jewish Democrats would be gone rather quickly.

It would be a possible death spiral for the party, the start of a free fall.

There isn’t much chance the Republicans are suddenly going to do anything that creates a mass movement of Jews towards them. But down the road, who knows?

One Thing We Do Know: A Democratic Party Without Jews Can Be Spelled W-H-I-G

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Chutzpah is a wonderful Yiddish word with no exact English counterpart. As one who grew up in a Yiddish-speaking household, my own definition is a heightened form of gall or nerve, self-professed confidence or arrogance that is not only unsupported by any facts but actually flies against what is known to be true. Spain criticizing Israel for occupation while occupying pieces of Morocco is a clear example of chutzpah.

Currently, Spanish occupation of Ceuta in Morocco has set off a firestorm as Moroccans flood the city and seek entry into the mainland EU, which their right once they set foot in an EU country. Spain claims pieces of Morocco are actually pieces of Spain and won’t relinquish them. Once in “Spain,” the Moroccans have the right they demand. The EU is not thrilled at the prospect.

Spain’s government is headed by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who has held the job since 2018. He is also Secretary General of the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE in Spanish), and if that’s not enough to discourage foreign investment in Spain, he is also President of The Socialist International, a worldwide collection of economic nincompoops. It comes as no surprise that Spain’s unemployment rate of 10% and rising inflation rate of 3.5% dwarfs the already frightening overall EU unemployment rate of 5.9% and 2.9% inflation. Denmark and Malta have “social democrats” as Prime Ministers, but neither they nor their parties are as extreme or far left as PSOE, which officially renounced Marxism in 1979 but many of its members are apparently unaware this happened. All of the other 27 nations of the EU reject socialism, many having tried it and watched it fail miserably or drive their nations to the brink of bankruptcy.

As good leftists, the PSOE and Mr. Sanchez are stridently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and often flirting with antisemitism to boot.

Spain rightfully denounces British occupation of Gibraltar on the tip of Spain’s South, and they regularly rail against the denial of a Palestinian State. They’ve actually recognized one, not in any meaningful way, but as a Gilbert and Sullivanesq diplomatic parody, making believe real ambassadors are being exchanged with a nation that exists only in their minds and on their papers. Every now and then Spain may put on a fake “state dinner” for their imaginary friend, but they never actually do a thing to help the people of Gaza or the West Bank. Farce is neither diplomacy nor assistance.

Spain’s Love of Self-Determination and Nationhood Comes to a Halt When the Basques and Catalans Demand It.

Spain is not one big homogenous nation. What we think of as “Spaniards” are likely Castilians, but there also are distinctly non-Spanish regions filled with Andalusians, Gallegans, Roma, North Africans and the two ancient indigenous minorities under Spanish rule, Basques and Catalans.

Things are not as bad as under the fascist Franco regime, when the Basque and Catalan languages could not be spoken in public and any talk of independence or even autonomy were met with the harshest repression. Today there is a fair amount of autonomy, but that has not quelled the desire of these two distinctly non-Spanish peoples to crave independence and freedom from Spain, though in differing degrees regionally.

Both the Catalan and Basque regions of Spain have their own unique cultures, languages and histories. To me, Catalans always seemed more French than Spanish, and they definitely did not seem to be Spanish for that matter. It can’t really be said that Catalonia voluntarily joined with Spain to form a nation. It’s more like they were forced into it, first by the Spanish monarchy, then by Franco, now by the Socialists.

Spain Says Give a State to the Palestinians But Not to Catalans.

A few years ago the autonomous government of the Catalan region demanded a referendum on independence from Spain.

All of a sudden the statehood-happy Spanish leftists reversed course.

“No state for the Catalans,” the Socialists, including Mr. Sanchez, screeched. “Every inch of Iberia belongs to the Kingdom of Spain,” they bellowed. (Spain has a constitutional monarchy like the UK.)

The Catalan government gave Spain the finger and held a referendum, which Spain tried to block but the vote was overwhelmingly for independence.

After the Catalans Voted for Independence, the Socialist Government Rejected the Result and Arrested and Imprisoned the Catalan Government and Political Leaders.

They Were Ordered Free By the European Court of Human Rights, Which Found the Spanish Socialists’ Actions Reprehensible Violations of Human Rights and Clear Persecution.

Can you even imagine the Spanish Socialist howls if Israel arrested the PA government for demanding a state?

While there is a strong and peaceful independence movement in the Basque regions, there does not appear to be the same degree of desire for immediate separation from Spain as in Catalonia. The Basques are a unique ethnic group with a language unlike any other and a culture that developed over centuries of relative isolation. They were greatly persecuted under Franco. They resisted violently, mostly through the ETA, a group that disbanded and entered the peaceful political world decades ago. There are parties advocating peacefully for independence.

Up until now, the focus on Spanish hypocrisy has been on Catalonia, to the extent it has been focused upon at all.

Now a Very Old Controversy Has Been Reignited

Spain’s occupation of Ceuta and Melilla, two Moroccan cities seized centuries ago and occupied ever since over Moroccan demands that Spain leave is front and center.

It’s come into the news because of a wave of Moroccans who swarmed Ceuta, knowing that once they were in what Spain asserts is EU territory they could travel to the mainland and hopefully find a better life. This does not sit well with Spain, which has sent additional troops and police. They consider this occupied piece of Morocco to be the same as if it were a piece of the Iberian Peninsula. If so, the Moroccans who make it into the occupied city are indeed legally entitled to travel to the EU and seek a more lasting status in Europe.

Q: Are the Moroccans breaking through barriers really invading Spain?

Can we really say that these Moroccan people are invading Spain? Or is it more a case of them saying “if you claim this is Spain, then here we are, and I’d like a ticket to Madrid.” They are simply going from one part of Morocco to another, but if Spain claims Ceuta really is part of the nation across the ocean, the EU rules say once in an EU nation, you’re good to go. How and if they achieve full legal status is a different story, but they are entitled to seek such under EU laws. (Image courtesy Washington Post.)

Aside from Spain liking the idea of making believe they are still a world power with colonies, there really is no reason why a European nation should stubbornly cling to land that they couldn’t possibly have any claim over. There is a huge body of water, the Mediterranean, that stands between Spain and Ceuta. Spaniards do not claim to have originated from Ceuta, nor do they claim any historic ties prior to their invasion four hundred or so years ago. It’s their last real toehold outside Spain. It’s long past the time for them to let go.

Considering how Spain feels about England holding on to Gibraltar, a piece of Spain, you’d think the Socialists would be more sensitive and receptive to Morocco’s well-founded insistence that the Spaniards get out and get out now.

Spain was successful in persuading the UN back in 1967 to term Gibraltar a colony, which it is. However, Spain has persuaded enough of their fellow anti-Israel nations to carve out an exception in their case, as they have unilaterally incorporated Ceuta and Melilla into Spain itself, and thus they are as much Spanish soil as is say Madrid or Cadiz.

Well, I guess that means that Spain recognizes Israel annexations when they do so. (Spain of course does not recognize the Golan as part of Israel, but they want Israel and everyone else to recognize Ceuta as part of mainland Spain.)

This seems to be the Spanish logic based on their long antipathy to Israel, which they didn’t even recognize as a state until 1986 and have questioned the need for a Jewish State at all:

1.) England has no right to colonize a part of Spain;

2.) Israel has no guaranteed right to be a Jewish State in their ancestral homeland;

3.) European Jews, descendants of Middle Eastern (Israeli) Jews, should not be allowed to immigrate or live in Israel;

4.) Self-proclaimed Palestinians living anywhere in the world, with no proven genealogical ties to Israel, should be allowed the unlimited right to immigrate and live there;

5.) All People have an inherent right to self determination except Jews, Catalans and Basques;

6.) Spain has a right to declare parts of Morocco to actually be part of Spain;

7.) The usual rules do not apply if they work against the Spanish Socialists’ desire to keep occupying Moroccan land.

Are we expecting consistency and integrity from a party that calls itself “The Spanish Socialist Workers Party?” A party that is actually creating less workers through the unemployment its failed socialist idiocy has caused?

The EU is Equally Hypocritical. They Are More Worried About Moroccans Coming to Europe Than About Spanish Occupation of Morocco.

In That Case, Why Don’t They All Just Shut Up about Israel!

Morocco Has Excellent Relations With Israel

Morocco and Israel are part of the Abraham Accords. They enjoy full diplomatic relations and are developing increasing economic, strategic and defense alliances. Israel has over a million citizens descended from Moroccan Jews and they visit in large numbers as welcome guests.

Israel and Morocco get along a hell of a lot better than Morocco and Spain or Israel and Spain.

So maybe Spain is the bad guy here!

Click here to read the Washington Post article about the Moroccan citizens storming Ceuta. Can we really call them illegal inaders?

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani surprisingly has a lot of spare time on his hands. While NYC suffers under the dual blow of a heat wave and raging wildfires from Canada polluting the air, along with unaffordable housing costs and balancing the budget by curtailing COLA increases for municipal retirees, the antisemitic Marxist is focused on a long-time obsession: arresting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on a warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Netanyahu is scheduled to appear in the Big Apple this September to address the UN; he’ll be entering on a diplomatic visa issued by the US Department of State.

Neither the US or Israel are members of the voluntary international pseudo court that lacks any genuine authority. In fact American law precludes any assistance or cooperation with ICC and has sanctioned the organization and its leaders.

Netanyahu was indicted by the ICC for committing war crimes. The ICC rules require that a country with a functioning judiciary be allowed to exhaust it before the ICC steps in. Israel has a world-class judicial system, capable of hearing cases against their own leaders. and have sent a former President and Prime Minister to prison. ICC refused to follow its own rules and preempted any Israeli investigations. The ICC prosecutor who brought the case, Karim Khan, was recently suspended for committing sexual assaults against a colleague. His word may be good over at the Gilbert and Sullivanesque ICC, but he’d be through in any court I’ve ever practiced in.(Maybe he can start hanging out with Mamdani candidate Graham Platner, also recently out of work.)

Mamdani is Considering Outright Lawlessness and Interference With Diplomacy

As we all know, those entering on diplomatic visas are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or anyone trying to use the US legal system. The decision to issue a diplomatic visa and admt a person on one is solely and exclusively the province of the federal government under Article II of the Constitution. No state or local officials have any say in admitting or denying entry to diplomats, nor do they have any authority at all over them.

Under our laws, Mayor Mamdani cannot even make a diplomat pay a parking ticket nor can he enforce any warrant of any sort on a diplomat. The only option is for the US government to deport or refuse entry, and rest assured that’s not happening here.

Why Netanyahu But Not Putin?

It is curious as to why Mamdani is so intent on arresting Netanyahu, yet he gives a pass to Vladimir Putin, another attendee at the UN meeting who is under ICC indictment for kidnapping Ukrainian children. In other words, Putin is a human trafficker and that’s fine with Mamdani. (By the way, kidnapping Ukrainian children and having them adopted in Russia is a clear example of genocide, yet Big Mouth Mamdani hasn’t called Putin any names. Mamdani is not against genocide, at least when it’s perpetrated by Russia, China, Turkey, Syria, Iraq or Brazil.He’s certainly not against genocide when Hamas practices it against Jews.)

We don’t really have to ask why Putin gets a pass from Mamdani as we already know the reason: Netanyahu is Jewish and Putin is not. Mamdani never looks at the merits, only the religions and ethnicities.

Sounds inconsistent, doesn’t it?

Don’t expect consistency from a Marxist demagogue. With them, the ends justify the means.

It’s Not Like There’s Any Dispute About the Law

Any lawyer-and I mean any lawyer, even Ron DeSantis or Todd Blanche-would agree that when a person is here on a diplomatic visa, they are immune from all legal process. Any lawyer would also have to agree that it is against the law to interfere with a diplomat here on official business:

18 USC sec. 112 (B) reads as follows

(b)Whoever willfully—

(1)

intimidates, coerces, threatens, or harasses a foreign official or an official guest or obstructs a foreign official in the performance of his duties;

(2)

attempts to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties;

(is guilty of a felony.)

Just in case Mamdani thinks there is some special exception for ICC warrants, think again. On February 6, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order under his authority pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act and other security related statutes. The order clarifies that under US law, the ICC has no jurisdiction over anyone anywhere in the world, and that its attempts to prosecute allies of America, particularly Israel, posed a threat to US security. The order imposes sanctions on the ICC and its leaders and prevents Americans from rendering any assistance to the ICC, financially or otherwise. This Executive Order retains the full force of law unless Congress or a subsequent President makes a change. (This is a rare instance where I agree with a Trump Executive Order.)

Our laws hold that diplomats cannot be harassed and they have immunity from legal process. Our laws also preclude cooperating or enabling the ICC in any form or fashion.

Thus, it is clear that any attempt by Mamdani to use NYPD or any other local law enforcement against Netanyahu is a violation of the statute and Executive Order. The Mayor knows that US law does not recognize ICC jurisdiction.

We know Mamdani is SOL on this one, but we also know he couldn’t care less. This radical antisemite has little interest in governing or in formulating serious policy. He’s a far left racist demagogue whose tactic is to promote hate and use it ss a political stepping stone. It’s worked in isolated places for DSA this cycle, but of course, in the end, the American people are going to reject socialism, Marxism, antisemitism, and Mamdani.

If you think I’m going too far by calling Mamdani and other members of the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) “Marxists,” I suggest you read their recent platform and literature. They want a government of “workers,” abolish the Senate, pull out of NATO and close all foreign bases. They are very big on nationalization, the heart and soul of Marxism. They join with Trump in demanding an end to USAID, because they want Marxism spread, not capitalism.

They are not Democrats, they are really a separate party, an antisemitic, Marxist and profoundly unAmerican political party driven by foreign ideologies that have never worked anywhere and run as counter to our American ideals as possible.

We’re hoping to curtail the power of Trump, a right wing demagogue who has no respect for the law.

We won’t achieve that goal by following left wing demagogues like Mamdani and his DSA ilk.

I previously posted on the striking similarity between Trump and Mamdani, two populist demagogues promoting themselves with fear and hate.

Click here to read why Trump and Mamdani are just different sides of the same populist demagogue coin.

If Mamdani Tries Anything, The Feds Will Arrest and Prosecute Him

Zohran Mamdani is entitled to hold any beliefs he wishes, and he’s shown us quite a few: he’ a Marxist, an antisemite and is also anti-Hindu, and he doesn’t care much about retirees, because he just condemned municipal retirees to two full years of no pension increase in this era of runaway inflation.

Some Marxist socialist he turned out to be!

While Mamdani can hold any radical and off-the-wall ideas he wishes, he must nevertheless obey the laws he has sworn to uphold as Mayor. Those laws include respecting the integrity of a diplomatic visa issued by our state Department, complying with the law that says no interference at all with visiting diplomats, and abide by the Executive Order precluding what Mamdani threatens to do.

Listen folks, we cannot have every two-bit Marxist demagogue decide what laws they will obey and which they won’t. We can’t allow unAmerican leftists promoting dangerous foreign ideologies to so blatantly disrupt American diplomacy.

We are having Congressional and Senate elections in a little more than 100 days. We will elect a new President in a little over two years. Those are the arenas in which federal laws are discussed and if the federal officials change them, we have new laws. Until then, everyone, loyal Americans or unAmerican Marxists like Mamdani, must yield to the rule of law.

If Mamdani elects to violate laws and threaten American diplomacy and security, he must be prepared to face the consequences. The first consequence would be arrest and prosecution. I have no doubt that if Mamdani so blatantly violated important federal law, the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY will charge him, convict him, and send him off to prison.

Under New York State law, the Governor may remove a Mayor who violates laws or threatens the security and safety of the public. Clearly, trying to arrest a diplomat on an illegal warrant will not only land Mamdani behind bars, but presumably out of office.

Don’t Worry, This Marxist Blowhard Talks a Good Game But Lacks the Guts to Do As He Claims

Like his counterpart, Donald Trump, Mamdani talks a good game but when all is said and done he, like most demagogues, is a coward and a punk. Both men gained well-deserved reputations as teenagers in NYC for talking tough but hiding behind their mothers’ skirts for protection.

Do you seriously think that a spoiled rich brat like Zohran Mamdani is willing to spend some time in the showers of a federal lockup? You think he’s looking forward to a few years of baloney sandwiches and candy from the commissary? Think again, he’s nothing but a big mouth with no courage.

Of course, in this limited instance, it is a good thing that New York City’s mayor is a cowardly blowhard. Were he to actually attempt to break the law in such a brazen fashion, it would set off a legal, political and diplomatic firestorm. In the end, Netanyahu would suffer nothing, and Mamdani would be in jail and out office, but it is not worth putting the City and the nation through such an unnecessary ordeal.

Anyone, let alone a mayor, who would consider such lawless and reckless behavior is indeed unAmerican. His supporters need to ask themselves how they can attack Trump for deciding what laws to obey and then excusing this Marxist bigot.

Now That America Sees How Mamdani Ignores the Law and Hates America, It’s Time to Stop Listening to His Advice on Primary Choices!

The DSA are not really Democrats. As explained above, they are radical Marxists. They’d do away with all jails, all border controls, all military protection, and they want to defund local police. They hate and are obsessed with Jews and Israel to the point it is now a dangerous fixation.

They’re nuts!

Should Democrats actually campaign on that insanity?

Listening to Mamdani has resulted in the nomination of radical and antisemitic DSA candidates in New York City, Denver and a smattering of other locales. While they may have fans in a handful of places, for almost everyone else, they are an anathema. The Republicans will hang them around the neck of every Dem candidate, you can bet on that. It will work too often for comfort.

The day after Trump was elected in 2024, Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) wrote on social media, "Donald Trump has no greater friend than the far left, which has managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like 'Defund the Police' or 'From the River to the Sea' or 'Latinx.'"

We should not listen to a fanatic like Mamdani, who has brought our Democratic Party so much grief in such a short time in office.

I call them crazy radical antisemitic Marxists.

Republicans call these folks “the gifts that keep on giving.”

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Governor FDR Was the New Sheriff in Town

FDR tackled the corruption problem head on. By 1930 he had worked with allies in the state legislature to create a joint committee of the Assembly and Senate (lower and upper houses) to investigate crime and corruption in New York City. 37 year old State Senator Samuel Hofstadter chaired the committee. Hofstadter, was a Jewish immigrant born in Krakow when that Polish city was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He immigrated to the US at the age of 15 in 1899. In 1913 he graduated first in his class at New York Law School and by 1925, at age 31, was elected to the Assembly as a reform-minded Democrat. In 1928 Citizens Union voted him NYC’s “best qualified assemblyman.”

After the committee complete its work, Samuel Hofstadter was appointed as trial judge in 1933 and in 1947 became an appellate judge, where he remained until retiring in 1964.

After taking office, FDR arranged for attorney Samuel Seabury to be the committee’s legal counsel and lead investigator. Seabury was originally a Republican, the scion of a distinguished American family, an Episcopalian and 21 years older than Senator Hofstadter. He had run for office as a Democrat and a Progressive, all without success. He was also a graduate of New York Law School and had previously served as a Justice on the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest tribunal in the Empire State. (When this famous committee assignment was over, Seabury returned to private practice and served a term as President of the New York City Bar Association from 1939-1941.)

This unlikely duo of a patrician WASP of Old New York and young Jewish immigrant representing the New America rocked the foundations of the corrupt NYC political machine and brought much-needed reform. They did a hell of a job, interviewing and calling over 1,000 witnesses and proving the allegations of bribery and other corrupt acts by police, judges, court officials and the Sheriff. Before Hofstadter and Seabury came along, if someone had enough money, they could bribe their way in or out of anything. It wasn’t totally eliminated, but became far less brazen and much more rare.

As a result of the work of the committee, known colloquially as the “Seabury Investigation,” crooked Mayor James Walker resigned, as did the Sheriff and several judges and court officials. A state senator and a Deputy City Clerk were arrested and prosecuted.

Hofstadter and Seabury Begot La Guarida

In the 1933 Mayoral elections, the incumbent Mayor was John P. O’Brien of Tammany, who won the special election held in November of 1932 after Walker resigned. The Republicans ran Congressman Fiorello LaGuardia, who also appeared on the Fusion Party, an alliance of reform Democrats and good-government Republicans and independents. Former Mayor Joseph V. McKee, who served briefly after Walker quit and before O’Brian was elected, ran on the Recovery Party.

La Guardia won with 868,000 votes, 446,000 on the GOP line and the rest on the Fusion line. McKee finished second and O’Brien a distant third. It was the first time in 32 years NYC had elected a Republican Mayor and it was the very worst performance of any Democratic candidate in history.

Although LaGuardia was a Republican, he supported the New Deal, FDR and many Democrats. In 1937 he ran as a Republican and on the leftist American Labor Party and the Fusion Party and beat the Democratic opponent by 20 points. In 1941 he again beat a Democrat with the support of the Republicans, American Labor, Fusion and United City parties. This time his opponent was the popular Brooklyn District Attorney, William O’ Dwyer, a machine Democrat, and Fiorello won by 6 percentage points.

(Ironically, O’Dwyer would be elected Mayor of NYC in 1945 after La Guardia did not run for a fourth term, but O’Dwyer resigned in August 1950, less than a year into his second term when placed under criminal investigation for corruption. President Truman, a product of the crooked Prendergast Machine in Missouri, made O’Dwyer US Ambassador to Mexico, a job for which he was utterly unqualified. In Mexico City the crooked political hack was out of the clutches of the criminal justice system.)

La Guardia was one of the most fascinating political figures in American history. Known as “The Little Flower,” he was essentially a liberal or old-school “progressive” who hated crime and corruption and loved “the little guy.” He was the child of an Episcopalian Italian father (I didn’t know they had any) and a Jewish mother. (Fiorello considered himself Episcopalian and indeed he was buried in an service of that faith. He spoke several languages fluently, including Yiddish, Italian and Spanish as well as German, Serbo-Croatian and Hungarian. He had spent a few years in the US. Consular Service.

La Guardia was essentially non-partisan and interested in getting things done; were he simply a Republican, he would never have won any of his three terms. (He ran in 1929 as a Republican and lost to Walker. That was before the corruption was exposed.)

La Guardia was somewhat of a populist who read the comics over the radio during a newspaper strike and who personally led police raids on illegal gambling operations. I see him as somewhat of a Teddy Roosevelt-Robert Lafollete style Progressive, before left wing wackos hijacked the term, which was originally meant to imply reform, reason and fairness, definitely not socialism or antisemitism.

Many New Yorkers as well as most historians specializing in NYC consider Fiorello La Guardia to be the best Mayor the City ever had. I’m in that camp.

If you want to learn more about this fascinating figure, you should read any or all of the following books:

The Great Mayor: Fiorello La Guardia and the Making of the CIty of New York, by Alyn Brodsky;

City of Ambition: FDR, La Guardia, and the Making of Modern New York, by Mason B. Williams;

Fiorello H. La Guardia and the Making of Modern New York, by Thomas Kessner;

I Never did Like Politics: How Fiorello La Guardia Became America’s Mayor, and Why He Still Matters, by Terry Golway.

(You can also watch the 1963 musical film Fiorello!, a pleasant and fun way to hear the story.)

Can We Create Another Fusion Party Today?

You would think it could be done, since polls and our own experiences show that nearly all Americans are unhappy with their own political party and have no plans to join the other. Like Jimmy Walker, Trump is a crook, and that’s not a matter of opinion; there are 34 felony fraud counts, and civil trial fraud verdicts, not to mention a 25 million dollar settlement on the Trump University scam. Now he is using the Oval Office to rake in bribes in the form of dales of useless crypto and gifts of airplanes from pro-Hamas Qatar.

If people have had it up to the gills with the two parties, and the top official in the nation is an open and notorious crook and scam artist, it would seem that good people of all viewpoints would want to get together and elect another La Guardia, who did lower crime, root out most official corruption and restore faith in government.

It worked in NYC in the past. Can it work elsewhere in America in the present and the future?

Who Could Possibly Run as a Fusion Candidate?

A Fusion Party will gain no traction without a “fusion” candidate, one who can bring people together across all divisions. (Another Fiorello LaGuardia!)

For starters, it can’t be anyone who ran and lost before in either party. So among Democrats, that rules out Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigeig, Kirsten Gillibrand, and any other retread and has-been I may have missed. I’d also exclude Dems who have outlived their shelf life, and right now it looks like that includes California Governor Gavin Newsom.

A Fusion party of today would necessarily need a centrist tone. People are being chased away by the extremism from the right in the Republicans and from the left in the Democratic Party.

Democrats who could run as a Fusion candidate include Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Those are by no means the only ones.

Over on the Republican side there are fewer pickings, as today’s GOP is not known for its moderates and centrists. However, there are a handful among current and past office holders. I’m thinking of people like former Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, former Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, Vermont Governor Phil Scott, current Representative Dan Bacon. (If I think of any others, I’ll let you know.)

A Fusion ticket could have a Democrat and a Republican on it, and it shouldn’t really matter which runs for President and which for Vice President. Former parties will be forgotten.

If the money and the infrastructure and the popular support were presented, we might see people outside the political world give it a look. Billionaire Mark Cuban comes to mind, as does Citibank Chair Jamie Dimon. Both have expressed interest in the past. (Personally, I’d prefer a Fusion candidate not com from the 1% I’d rather go with someone who does not have a personal vested interest in maintaining income inequality on such a massive scale as we have in america today. That’s something upon which Teddy Roosevelt, Fiorello La Guardia, Bernie Sanders and me can all agree!)

With all of the military officers running as Democrats these days, we might see a retired officer offer themselves. Out here in Florida, we have Democrats like retired US Army Alex Vindman running for Senate, and retired Air National Guard Colonel and doctor Darren McCauley running for Congress in the 12th CD, retired Brig. General Leela Gray running in the 12th, and retired Admiral Bale Dalton running in the 7th CD. (If I have omitted others, my apologies.)

We will always welcome veterans as candidates, especially a good former high ranking military officer. All veterans add to the ticket, and veterans are great in relating to working people, as Florida State Senator Brian Nathan proved in his recent special election victory, but the higher up in leadership, the more stature the commission brings to the election.

Or it could be anyone else. A solid political party base will attract candiates like honey attracts bears.

A potential Fusion Party is like the ballfield in Field of Dreams: “If you build it, they will come.”

What Views Would a Fusion Party Espouse?

By its very nature, a fusion party would be a bipartisan amalgamation including people of different political perspectives but bound by enough commonality to be an effective political force.

In other words, we would unite around the issues that matter most to Americans and which must be addressed immediately. This means issues that anyone can see and understand, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. Things like rising prices, endless wars, increasing spread of infectious diseases we had wiped out, respect for our government institutions, restoration of separation of powers and federalism and the other Constitutional doctrines so badly impaired by Trump’s illegalities.

A Fusion Party will be faithful to the Constitution.

A Fusion Party’s views would be as significant for what they do not address and advocate as for what views they do espouse and advance.

Unless there is some amazing economic turnaround, the number one issue, indeed for all practical purposes the only issue, will be affordability. This is going to be the case for the next several election cycles. Trump has savaged our economy and thrown a monkey wrench into our economic engine. It won’t be fixed overnight.

This means explaining how a Fusion Party program will make life affordable for all Americans, and affordable means able to live in decent housing, eat a healthy diet, receive necessary medical care, be able to work on a safe job and be able to get there, and children attend decent schools that educate them and keep them safe.

It means investing in physical infrastructure as well as education and healthcare.

It also means being tolerant. Personal matters like religion would not be part of a political platform as that is a purely personal choice. No Ten Commandments hung in classrooms, no teaching the Christian Bible or any scripture of any religion in a public classroom. as truth. A Fusion Party would dismiss the myth that America was founded as a “Christian nation.”

(We can hang the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the walls of classrooms.)

Equality for people regardless of gender or sexual orientation will be non-negotiable but also won’t be the opening line in a campaign. When a party stands for equal rights for all, it has to mean equal rights for all. It just does not have to be an argument. People obsessed with hating LBGTQ+ are not going to be part of this movement; let’s just accept this and move on.

A Fusion Party must be pro-union because they must be pro-working person, and no group in America is more pro-working person than labor unions.

Compromise must be reached on a woman’s right to choose. We don’t want the issue of choice to be so divisive as to rule our millions of voters who are open to compromise that the rest of us can live with. I was quite happy with the Roe v. Wade rules but we are in a different time and place. I am confident that a 15 week window with exceptions for rape, incest or to have the life of the mother or another extremely compelling medical reason would pass just about everywhere in America. That has to be a lot better than what we have now.

Between 93 and 96 percent of all abortions are performed within 15 weeks, so in almost all cases, a 15 week window would afford relief to almost all women in America. There would be those exceptions for the remainder. That surely sounds a lot better for women than what we have right now, where some states ban it altogether, others limit it to six weeks, some have exceptions and others do not.

The above compromise sounds like it would work for almost everyone.

Firearms, like social security, is a third rail in politics. Touching it can kill.

Most Americans agree that the private sale and gun show loophole that avoid background checks must be plugged up and that felons and mentally ill people should not be allowed to possess firearms. Most Americans also believe in “red flag laws” that allow a police officer to seize firearms from someone they reasonably believe is a danger to themselves or others, with due process rights to have the firearms returned when the situations has changed. But this would only be discussed when necessary and isn’t a topic to bring up. The Second Amendment has been held to be a personal Constitutional right that includes the right to possess firearms to protect “hearth and home.” Everything else is for the legislatures and the courts, so the less said about this third rail, the better.

Other topics that won’t be brought up all that often-because the truth is most Americans don’t base their votes on then at all-include an obsession with Gaza, the make believe threat of transgenders ruining girls sports in schools, drag queen shows, election fraud, Deep State, attacks on science and medicine.

Health care is a major concern. A Fusion Party needs to do more than make vague promises about bringing down premium prices. It would have to reverse the horros of the Big Ugly bill that gut Medicaid and Medicare and close rural hospitals. It must promote the expansion of Medicaid to the states that have refused, so poor people in those states can receive immediate coverage.

We have to examine the notion of single payer and ask ourselves why nearly all other industrialized democracies have implemented such coverage, but we allow tens of millions of americans, children included, to go without medical coverage. This is not socialism, as the doctors and the hospitals would not be government owned or controlled, they would just be paid by the government out for taxes we all pay.

Let’s face it: there are some things only the federal government can do effectively, and providing health coverage for all Americans is one of them.Keeping us all safe from infectious diseases and people whose physical and mental issues make them a danger to themselves and others is a public benefit, not a private one. A Fusion Party will need to eb able to explain this.

A Fusion Party would reject racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, and anti-LBGTQ+ hate. That stuff is killing the Democrats and Republicans and people are fleeing them because of it, so it must be kept out of a new party.

A Fusion Party must reject socialism. I know in La Guardia’s days, he worked with the leftist American Labor Party, but they were later found to have been infiltrated by communists and disappeared. So of all the wonderful accomplishments of La Guardia, that relationship was not necessarily the greatest. Live and learn. “We won’t get fooled again,” as the Who insisted.

A Fusion party should be a capitalist party within the American framework. A “mixed society” with regulations to protect and a safety net to guarantee that those in needs actually see those needs met are not ideas found only in communist or socialist states. (Indeed, those goals are never realized under Marxism.) As explained above, we can have single payer health insurance in our mixed economy capitalist system just like many other modern nations. We are a mixed economy and let’s stay that way with improvements.

Socialism is a foreign ideology that has failed wherever it has been tried and has no place in America. We can address people’s’ need in our own and better system.

Socialists, especially DSA members, will not be wanted in this kind of Fusion Party. They would be a virus that spreads and kills. There’s no room for either their hateful antisemitism or their socialist gibberish. They can and should form their own party if they fail in taking over the Democratic Party. (If any DSA folks straighten up and fly right, genuinely renounce the hate and the craziness, they’ll always be welcome.)

What the DSA and the Mamdani wing are pushing is not Bernie Sanders or Sweden. Read the DSA platform and their other documents: it’s hard core Marxism and sounds like it could have been written by Stalin. I loathe Trump and deem him a colossal liar, but when he calls these people “communists,” he’s not really off the mark. Just read the DSA platform and materials if you doubt me. You’ll see that they would like to replace our system with one run by “the working class,” whatever they mean. They want to nationalize most means of production and distribution. They want to eliminate ICE, police, and jails. They want an end to aid to israel and an end to Israel as a Jewish State. They want to end US participation in NATO and to close all overseas bases. /They deeply admire terrorist groups like Hamas and idolize rogue nations like Iran, but they hate America and our allies. If you take the time to read in detail what they have outlined in various writings the past three years, it is all there.

A few days after Mamdani won the Democratic primary little more than a year ago, their platform was summarized by William Daley, President Obama’s Chief of Staff during his final two years in office. Here’s what Mr. Daley had to say in the Wall Street Journal back then:

“Mr. Mamdani is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America. So it’s worth examining this group’s official platform. It seeks to “defund the police” by cutting “budgets annually towards zero,” to “disarm law enforcement officers,” to “close local jails,” and to “free all people from involuntary confinement.” It calls for “social ownership of all major industry and infrastructure” and “the nationalization of businesses like railroads, utilities and critical manufacturing and technology companies” as well as “institutions of monetary policy, insurance, real estate, and finance.”

There’s more. The DSA would “dramatically slash US military spending,” “close all US foreign military bases,” and “immediately withdraw from NATO.” It would “end all deportations,” “demilitarize the border and end all immigrant detention and abolish ICE.” It would allow noncitizens to vote and “abolish the Senate.” Mr. Trump beat the DSA to two of its goals: abolishing the U.S. Agency for International Development and Voice of America.”

The respected Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a century-old civil rights group, has issued a report on DSa that should concern every American.

Click here to read the ADL Report on DSA,

You don’t even need to do that much to know what DSA is really about. Just listen to Mamdani and his DSA posse screeching anti-American and antisemitic lies at every opportunity. Look at the dangerous radicals winning Democratic primaries as part of the posse. See the violence against Jews it has caused. Why do you think the Democratic Party is on a precipice, in danger of splintering and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory just as they are on the verge of a midterm victory? It’s because people all over America are scared of these extremists, as they should be, just as right wing extremists should be feared.

They’re nuts! Every single one of them, filled with hate and crazy left wing conspiracy theories. They are utterly useless for anything except stirring up hate against Jews.

DSA is especially worrisome for the Democratic Party, just as the White Christian Nationalists pose a clear and present danger to the GOP. Since I’m a Democrat, I’m focusing on the internal divisions that are destroying the party I joined 56 years ago.

The Democrats of today are not even close to that party, and I feel increasingly uncomfortable, unsuited and unwelcome in what is not-so-slowly becoming a far left and antisemitic party. If there were an acceptable alternative, I’d be more than willing to check it out. (For the record, I’m not only a registered Democrat, but I work to elect moderate and centrist Democrats. I just do so through direct campaigns, PACS, and have no serious or meaningful relationship with the “official” party. I never attend any of their events and contribute no money to them and I urge all other Dems to follow suit and help good Dem candidates without working with or funding the joke of an “official” party.)

Even worse than the Marxism is the antisemitism the left wing of the Democratic Party demands of its followers. It is destroying the Democratic Party from within, much as slavery destroyed the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans and Whigs. As a Jewish Democrat, I see the party steamrolling to a place where folks like me are neither welcome nor desirous of being part of a radical, Jew-hating party. It’s the main reason I have nothing to do with the “official” party or any of its events. If I ever left the Democratic Party it would be to completely escape from such fiends.

They won’t be part of any Fusion movement.

Who Would Accept Such a Fusion Party?

The number of disaffected people in both major parties and among independents informs us that many people are waiting for something they can join.

Among Democrats, who would support a Fusion Party? Here’s a partial list:

Jews driven out by rampant antisemitism;

Business people driven away by socialism;

Latinos driven away by socialism and both parties taking them for granted and ignoring their needs;

Labor unions who feel the Democrats don’t understand or care about them and don’t deserve their support;

Young people who feel unheard and don’t want to jump on a train to nowhere;

Black people growing increasingly discouraged by the lack or progress on their concerns.

What Republicans would join?

Decent Republicans appalled by the stench of racism, xenophobia, homophobia snd antisemitism in the party;

Moderates and traditional conservatives appalled at the extremism they see on the social issues front, the insane foreign policy and abandonment of allies and sane security;

Business and financial people who see how the Trump Tariff Tax, the Big Ugly Bill and Trump’s Endless War have wrecked the economy;

Business people who fear Trump’s influence on the Fed and his using the White House to advance his own personal fortunes, usually in dangerous and reckless ways;

Those just sick and tired of the endless craziness.

As for Independents of No Party Affiliations, Most Have Been Waiting for Something Like This.

How Long Would It Take to Organize a Real Fusion Party?

Of course there isn’t going to be any movement towards a Fusion or any other third party between now and the November elections. There really is not sufficient between now and 2028 time to organize a national party running candidates for the Presidency and all federal legislative offices, let alone state office. The seeds can be laid now.

Fist, candidates can run as independents in selected places. Right now we are seeing candidates run for Senate as independents in Nebraska, South Dakota and Montana. These are all states where the reputation of the Democratic Party is so bad that it’s just about impossible to be elected with a D before one’s name. They seem to be willing to listen to what someone has to say if they call themselves “independent,” even if they sound an awful lot like a Democrat.

In Nebraska, the Democratic Party has accepted reality and is not running a candidate, giving the indie a real shot. In the other two states, the stubborn and impotent Dem parties prefer another humiliating defeat to eliminating one MAGA Senate seat.

Where an independent has a chance and a Democrat has none, Dems should face reality, not run a candidate, and support a moderate, centrist independent against a Republican. A future fusion Party can start by running independent candidates under the Fusion or another label as early s 2028. Pick the races and the candidates carefully, focus on the most winnable, and people will be attracted to sane, rational, pragmatic voices they can understand and relate to. The momentum will keep building and by 2032 there may be a Fusion candidate for President if the two major parties continue their escalating descent into self-destruction.

Both parties must drive out the haters, the extremists and the crazies before they bring us all down!

The sooner we start, the better. If a Fusion Party is more attainable than ridding the parties of the destructive forces within, then form a Fusion Party.

It worked for La Guardia.

Why can’t it work for us today?

If the parties won’t clean themselves up, we can start over again!

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

In a bitterly divided nation, perhaps a Fusion Party is the answer. Look to La Guardia as guidance.

Note: this post was originally published in May of 2025. It is simply astonishing how not only has nothing changed, it’s actually gown worse and our President has evolved into little more than the Grifter in Chief. It is as relevant and frightening today as it was over a year ago, even more so.

Now that the bribe is completed and the plane has been refitted and flying, it’s appropriate to take another look at how Trump is breaking the law and enriching himself illegally through the office he disgraces every minute he holds it.

You will see a link within this post linking to another one addressing the cryptocurrency scam being run out of the White House. That scandal has also been festering for well over a year without Congress acting. Please read that as well.

You’ll also see a few places where I have updated with relevant comments.

As practicing lawyer I never had occasion to even reference the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution, which reads:

And no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, Without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The Constitution could not be any clearer: we don’t want any of our government officials, certainly not the President, subject to bribery, or even the appearance of bribery which would undermine faith in the integrity of our government at home and abroad. (The term “Emoluments” refers to any fee paid by a foreign entity, as opposed to a gift, also barred by the Constitution.) We don’t want even lingering suspicions that a President acted out of gratitude for a personal gain, and not in the best interests of America.

One reason why I never had occasion to look at the Emoluments Clause until Donald Trump became President in 2017 is because there have not been other instances where Presidents were shown to have accepted such lavish gifts or accepted such huge fees from foreign governments. In Trump’s first term, questions were raised about violating the Clause by charging the Secret Service for staying at Trump’s own hotels; those cases were never decided because of a variety of reasons: plaintiffs who lacked standing, questions about whether the funds were “gifts” or “emoluments” as described in the Clause, and mostly because aside from the Emoluments Clause, there are no legal ethical rules or restrictions on the Presidents. The only available option is impeachment, and with these Republicans in charge of the House and Senate, forget it.

Just last week I posted about the blatant conflict of interest and Emoluments Clause violation triggered by Trump’s entry into the cryptocurrency market.. Click Here to Read Conman Don’s Crypto Scam.

(That is the other post I mentioned. As you can see, the crypto-scam preceded the airplane scam. You can click and read now or wait until you are done here and then read it.)

It didn’t take long for another, equally dangerous conflict to emerge from the shadows.

Now there’s a new conflict of interest and violation of the Emoluments Clause:

Trump plans to accept from Qatar a gift of a “luxury” jet airplane worth 400 million dollars, which he will use as Air Force One through the remainder of his term. This is not a gift to the United States government; it is a gift to Donald Trump personally during his Presidency. Once Trump leaves office, the latest being January 20, 2029, ownership of the plane transfers from Trump as President to the Donald Trump Library, which at this point is merely a government website, not a functioning private institution.

Trump claims this is just in recognition for the friendship between the two nations and their appreciation for his great leadership, but many, including many in Trump’s party, aren’t buying. America has economic and strategic ties to Qatar, and having this kind of influence and leverage over the President gives Qatar, let us say, a leg up in any dealings.

We don’t have to be Constitutional scholars to understand this is exactly what the Founding Father wanted to prevent when they wrote the Emoluments Clause into the Constitution. Do any of us believe that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay or any other Founding Father sat around dreaming up ways for future Presidential grifters to make an easy and blatantly transparent end run against the Emoluments Clause they themselves wrote?

Were the Founding Fathers open to technical loopholes allowing emoluments and fees from foreign governments?

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Or maybe some worthless Trump cryptocurrency, or a diploma from Trump University.

There is absolutely no need for Trump to accept a gifted airplane from a Gulf State Monarchy. The US government by law pays the hourly cost of operating Air Force One, as well as the salaries of the crew and the Secret Service protection. Does Trump plan to charge the US government for the hourly costs of operating a plane he owns? Shades of his hotel rip-off scam!

Trump is trying to be too clever by half in arguing he is only using the plane as President and then when he leaves he no longer has personal control over it. It’s a scam, and the sheer arrogance of this Grifter-in-Chief has him boldly showing us that it’s a ruse to maintain ownership and control. There’s a legal principle called “piercing the veil,” where the fact-finding process goes beyond what the ownership documents say, and determines who is really the owner in fact.

Concerns have been raised by Senators in both parties, raising questions of conflict of interest, with or without a prohibitive code of ethics to bar it. The Emoluments Clause, national security, safety of the aircraft, alleged Qatari support for Hamas, and a general angst about “Greeks bearing gifts,” as per the “Trojan Horse” chapter of Homer’s Iliad, have all been cited as reasons to stop this bribery scheme from coming to fruition.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has announced a hold on all Trump appointees until this deal is stopped. It’s about time Chuck started using whatever leverage he has at his disposal.

Note: once again, we see the ineffectiveness of Democratic leadership. Over a year ago, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to hold up all of Trump’s nominations until Trump renounced his bribery schemes Trump is still taking bribes, and nominations are going through. Dems need better leadership if they are going derail the Trump Grifting Machine.

And Trump got his plane.

It’s Not Just Democrats Raising Concerns:

Florida Senator Rick Scott, a Republican, calls the Qatari safety record subpar, says he wouldn’t fly on one and neither should our President. Besides, Scott says, Qatar supports Hamas terrorists.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz of the GOP raises the same concerns, adding more emphasis on potential threats to our national security as well as Qatar’s terrible human rights records. Senator Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky also raised his voice in opposition, citing Qatar’s human rights violations and national security.

I’m no expert in aviation safety, but there’s a reason all these GOP Senators are worried about it. As for national security, we ought to assume the plane is loaded with eavesdropping and recording capabilities for the Qataris to listen in and hack at will. How certain can we be that these bugging and hacking devices are found, with a Defense Department headed by Pete Hegseth, Homeland Security by Kristi Noem, and the FBI by Kash Patel?

I’ve no more faith in those clowns doing their jobs well than I do in Attorney General Pam Bondi (Now Trump lawyer Todd Blanche in the Acting AG role while his nomination awaits committee review.) or Secretary of State/ National Security Advisor Marco Rubio giving the President the correct law, because they know that’s not what he wants to hear.

It sure sounds like this is the kind of gift or Emolument that needs Congressional approval. It also sounds almost certain that approval would never be granted.

Will Trump attempt to carry out the deal in the face of loud Congressional outcries?

My guess is he will, unless Congress acts to block this “gift.”

I doubt Republican lapdogs will muster the votes in either the House or Senate to stop Trump. Even if enough Republicans joined with Democrats to pass legislation preventing the gift, Trump could veto it, and it is extremely unlikely there would be 2/3 in each house of Congress to override the veto.

Note: Sadly, I was correct in this prediction. It wasn’t hard one to make, considering the mostly lap-dog GOP legislators and the generally weak and ineffective Democratic opposition.

That means it is up to the federal courts. They have the Constitutional authority to hear cases arising out of the Constitution, (Article III, Section 2), and for the past 222 years they have the power to strike down executive actions. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).

(Note: the last time this reached the court, they declined jurisdiction as Trump had lost the election to Joe Biden. I fear that if a new case reaches them they GOP majority will figure out a different way to let him off the hook.)

Will Trump abide by either a law or court decision?

As noted, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about a law being passed, and if one were to survive his veto, Trump would appeal to the federal courts, claiming separation of powers and his role as Chief Diplomat and Head of State. It would likley drag on until he is gone and the Court can again duck the issue.

Nevertheless, the matter will come before the Court because some party with legal standing will bring a suit. So far, while it appears some Trump DOJ lawyers have played footloose and fancy free in interpreting judicial orders, there has not yet been a blatant and open statement of defiance. (Trump has instead preferred to attempt to intimidate judges with threats of impeachment.)

The question is what would happen if Trump runs out the string, and the Supreme Court rules against him? They should find that this arrangement violates the Emoluments Clause; in effect, the Court would “pierce the veil,” reject the straw man ownership charade, and determine this is precisely what the Founders were out to prevent.

Would Trump abide by the decision and reject the plane? My guess is that so much pressure would be put on him from Republicans in the House snd Senate, not to mention his own political advisors, that he would grudgingly, ungraciously, and bombastically accept the decision of the Court.

If I’m wrong, and he accepts the plane and uses it after the Court says no, we will be in the midst of a genuine Constitutional crisis. The only way out would be to elect a Dem House in 2026, so they can engage in real oversight of the deal and open an investigation into possible impeachment. (Note: this remains the only viable option.) Do Republicans really want to have to defend this deal? From the words of Senators Scott, Cruz and Paul, definitely not. Even if the matter did not result in conviction, even if a Republican Senate blocked the trial, the pressure that a Democratic House could apply is far greater than even Schumer’s holding up appointments. (Note: A threat he soon abandoned.)

For Democrats, indeed, for democracy, all roads lead to the 2026 midterms.

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He advises campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Check out my author’s website at: www.stephenshaiken.com

Share

James Carville knows a thing or two about how the American electorate thinks. In 1992 he carried Bill Clinton to victory despite enough the Arkansas Governor hauling enough baggage to keep a dozen Pullman porters occupied full time. His secret: he understood and taught “It’s the economy, stupid!”

It still is.

The American people are waiting for a candidate for President and for many other offices who addresses their deepest and most important concern: the collapsing economy and the fallout from economic distress caused by Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants. Some voters may have strong feelings about Gaza, or transgender rights, or choice, or guns, certainly voting rights, but those are not what are at the top of most voters’ minds right now.

Voters want someone to present sane and rational plans to get out of the endless inflationary spiral Trump has dragged us into through his tariff taxes and reckless foreign wars. They can’t afford insurance, medical care, and now even food and shelter. Their interest in foreign policy mostly extends only as far as it can be related to increasing prices at the gas pump and grocery checkout.

So far no one is really giving them anything close to a candidate who meets the moment aside from a few isolated local or state races. Reshuffling old faces as possible Presidential nominees is, as Terry Malloy said in On the Waterfront, “A one way ticket to Palookaville.” Adding crazy new faces is not better, and is even worse.

The Republicans are stuck defending Trump’s absurd lies that affordability is a Democratic hoax and prices are actually coming down and peace is at hand. They are stuck with a war no one wants but Trump and he has no idea how to get out of it. The Republicans are afraid to tell him he has lost and it’s time to come home. It’s not really our war, but it really is Israel’s war, and the best thing we can do now is leave and allow Israel and their Gulf State allies to do as they see best for their nations.

The Democrats are split between more moderate, centrist and traditional Democrats and an emerging extremist socialist-Marxist movement marked by deep antisemitism. These radical extremists offer a toxic blend of socialist gibberish, false promises and hate speech, nothing of substance and nothing the American people will ever accept.

The more centrist and much larger wing of the Democratic Party does not know how to deal with the extremists, the haters or the crazies. They tried to bring them into the tent and that did not work. They tried fighting them in NYC and that didn’t work.

Now we are stuck with at least two extremely radical Marxists and antisemites from NYC who the Republicans are already waving in voters’ faces.

I can hear it already:

“The Democrats tell you they’ve changed? Sure, take a look at these Congressional candidates.”

Carville Says It’s Too Far Gone, It Can’t Be Fixed and We Have to Split Off From the Socialists, the Extremists, the Haters and the Crazies Before It is Too Late and They Bring Us All Down. Is He Right?

Let’s Look at the History of Party Splits

From 1788-1796 America had but one political party, the Federalists. It was largely the party of Washington, Hamilton and Adams. It stood for a relatively strong central government with an active role in the economy. Hamilton and Adams supported the abolition of slavery. The Federalists represented the emerging industrial and urban centers of America.

By 1800, there was an established second party, the Democratic-Republicans. This was the party of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, who never agreed with the Federalist visions. The Democratic Republicans wanted a less powerful and less involved central government and strong states’ rights. The favored a rural, agricultural and plantation based economy which required human beings as slaves. In order to grow they had to expand their geographical reach and that mean bringing in people who were not slaveholding plantation owners.

The Federalist slowly disappeared after Jefferson became President in 1800. The Democratic-Republicans won every single Presidential election from 1800-1820 and only lost in 1824 because John Quincy Adams, who lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson, won the vote in the House after no candidate managed to cobble together enough electoral votes. John Quincy Adams called himself a “National Republican” in office though he was really without a genuine party. All four candidates for President in 1824 ran as Democratic-Republicans, and all were running with different views, which explains why the party promptly dissolved after the 1824 election and why Quincy Adams promptly started a new party which ended with his loss to Jackson in 1828. The main reason the Democratic-Republicans died out was the split over slavery. Many Northern members, many former Federalists and many religious Christians were abolitionists.

In that 1824 election, the popular vote was handily won by Andrew Jackson. He started a list followed by Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as candidates who won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College. (Note that every candidate who lost that way was a Democrat.) After the 1824 election, Jackson and his best political friend, Martin Van Buren of New York, founded the Democratic Party. They appealed to the “common man,” often in the same way Trump does today. Martin Van Buren himself was an abolitionist as were his followers, and this eventually caused problems for the party decades down the road.

Whatever Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren cooked up, it worked. Jackson served two terms and Van Buren succeeded him. Between 1828 and 1860 the Dems won 6 of 8 Presidential elections. the other two being won by the Whigs, including their beating Van Buren for reelection in 1840. (Who could ever forget William Henry Harrison’s stirring campaign cry: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!) [“Tippecanoe” died after only 40 days in office, but the cry lingers on forever.)

That Whig Party rose from the ashes of the Democratic-Republicans, chiefly appealing to middle class, professional and business people (all voters then were men) who saw Jacksonian democracy as a collection of raggamuffin frontiersman ill-suited to run anything. (Jackson proved them correct. He was a stubborn and economically ignorant boob who destroyed the central bank of the day and caused the Panic of 1837 and the resultant depression and cost his pal Van Buren reelection. Jackson was also a vicious slaver and a genocidal murderer of Native Americans.)

If the Whig Party could beat the Jackson machine, why did it disappear in 1856 to be replaced by the modern Republican Party?

The same reason that split the Democratic-Republicans: slavery. Some Whigs were willing to tolerate it to preserve the Union, others felt it was an abomination that could not be allowed to continue. The Republican Party was solidly abolitionist and for equal rights, at least as they understood the term.

Compromising meant allowing some states to be slave states and others Free states, but to allow escaped slaves to be returned from Free to slave states. It also meant balancing the status of newly admitted states and territories.

The Civil War tarnished the Dems as the party of slavery and rebellion for decades. The GOP was the party of Lincoln and freedom. Between 1860 and 1932, the Republicans held the White House for 56 years and the Dems for only 16.

Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860 with only 40% of the popular vote. (Fortunately for America and the world.) The Democrats were splintered over slavery, though neither side was anti-slavery. The Northern Democrats ran Stephen Douglas, who wanted to compromise with slavery to avoid war and keep the union together. The Southern Democrats ran John C, Breckenridge, the sitting Vice President under the hapless and horrible James Buchanan. Breckinridge said “it’s slavery forever or the South leaves.” True to his word, he betrayed the United States and became a General in the traitorous Confederate Army.

That’s how bad party splits can get!

The Dems managed to hold together from the election of FDR in 1932 through the landslide victory of LBJ over the unhinged Barry Goldwater in 1964 except for the two Eisenhower terms. The post-Civil War Democratic Party was an unwieldy hydra-headed monster of Neanderthal racists and Northern and Midwestern union workers, Blacks, and ethnic white minorities and liberals.

Such a coalition could not continue once Black Americans rose up and demanded equal rights. LBJ pushed through Voting Rights, Open Housing, Equal Rights, Immigration Reform, Medicare and Medicaid. The right wing Southern Democrats who would take “pork” while attacking the federal government all became Republicans. With rare exception, the South has been solidly Republican ever since. Dems have only 4 of 22 Senators, less than a third of Southern House seats, two governorships and the states of the Old Confederacy almost always vote Red for President, save Virginia and occasionally North Carolina and Georgia.

Today’s Split in the Democratic Party Combines the Worst of All Past Splits

In the past the Democratic Party split over race. In the 19th century it was slavery, in the 20th it was Jim Crow racism against Blacks, and now, in the 20th Century, the most visible reason for the potential rivening of the party is antisemitism or Jew-hate.

The party is divided on other issues, such as the relation with Israel, connected of course to the Jew-hate, and the party is also divided on what to do about socialism creeping into the party. (Today, socialism and antisemitism go hand in hand. While one can be an antisemite and not be a socialist, one can’t be a socialist and not be an antisemite. The socialists won’t allow that.)

It might be somewhat different and less pressing if the socialists avoided hate speech and violence directed against Jews. We have all seen the leftist mobs surrounding synagogues in New York City, being egged on by Mayor Mamdani. We have seen Jewish students attacked on campus by leftists. We see pro-Israel figures harassed and threatened in public. In all of these instances, we find the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) , the BDS-holes, and Mamdani’s racist mobs.

None of the above is what America is supposed to be.

Sometimes I look around and wonder if I am in the same country I grew up in.

The radicals, the extremists, the haters and the crazies are clearly an electoral threat. More ominously, they are a physical threat.

The operative word is “threat.”

In 1964, the Southern Racists Voluntarily Left the Democratic Party and Became Republicans. The Far Left Radicals By Contrast Are Planning a Takeover

In 1964 I was a fifteen years old JFK Democrat rooting for LBJ’s Civil Rights package, As far as I was concerned, when the racists departed over the next few years, my attitude was “Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.” If the price of keeping them was racism and segregation, I was more than willing to be part of rebuilding a better, non-racist party.

And we Democrats did just that. In 2008 we elected the first Black President and in 2020 the first Black and woman vice President.

Today the party is once again infected with racists. This time instead of conservative and right wing Southern Democrats, the racists of today are far left socialists and instead of Blacks this time Jews are targeted. Both instances are examples of racists spreading their hateful virus throughout the party. Just as the party improved by ridding itself of the Southern racists and segregationists, we will better ourselves by getting rid of the extremists, the haters, the crazies, and that means DSA and their ilk.

The contemporary racists of DSA are not going to leave just because we have a split. They will manipulate that split to continue inserting themselves into the party and by winning in left wing areas where they can knock off normal people who hold the seats.

The radicals are emboldened by their electoral success, the inability of the stodgy Democratic Establishment to deal with them, and the boosts they get from the media. Example: the three wins by the antisemitic socialists have been trumpeted nationwide. Meanwhile, the most pro-Israel members of the House, Ritchie Torres of the Bronx, won with 72% of the vote. A pro-Israel retired military officer won the Dem primary in suburban NY to take on the loathsome fraud Mike Lawler. Moderate and pro-Israel Tom Suozzi cruised to victory across the City limits in Nassau County. If any of those three were raving racists or preached Marxism and beat Establishment candidates, their victories would have been on the front pages.

The extremists are now setting aim at House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. They are doubling down on Jew hate. They definitely are not looking to compromise in any way with anyone.

They are looking to take over the party and the fools who run the Democrats are enabling them. Ken Martin and the DNC have no idea how to deal with the extremists, neither does Nikki Fried and the Florida Democratic Party, or the local Democratic Party here in Hillsborough County.

In other words, if you are Jewish and a Democrat, and you get attacked from within the party, you are on your own. There will be no help, no cavalry is coming, and a lot of people will tell you should rejoice in having people like Zohran Mamdani, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and the three fanatic socialists who won nomination in NYC, two of them gutter level antisemites and the third a Jewish stooge of the far left.

I don’t know about you, but I could never support a single one of them or anyone like them for any public office anywhere.

If the DSA and Other Extremists, Haters and Crazies Won’t Leave On Their Own, Can’t We Just Kick Them Out?

Of course, it that’s what the party really wanted.

A political party is a protected group under the First Amendment guarantees of Free Speech, Assembly, and the right to Petition the Government. A political party is a messaging group, a private association, and they can decide who they choose to admit as members. The government can make it easy to register with a party but cannot have any say in what that party believes, what it says, or how it governs itself.

We sane Democrats can petition the Florida Democratic Party to change the current bylaw saying any registered Democrat can hold party office. I would like to bar DSA members, since as James Carville has stated, they are not really Democrats, but are a different political party trying to take over the Democratic Party.

The Republicans seem to be making some attempt to clean up their party as they drift into the twilight of the Trump Era. Ted Cruz has openly attacked both antisemitism and homophobia, the latter much to everyone’s shock.The Florida Republican Party refused to allow a racist and antisemitic gubernatorial candidate a platform at their convention.

Sadly, I don’t see the leaders of the Democratic Party doing anything like Cruz is doing or like the Florida GOP just did. To the contrary, I see a lot of fear and quivering, and a lot of fools who think that this radicalism is just the message we want to send going into a midterm election we should by any measure win handily. Are we looking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing the public to think we are all a bunch of crazy and racist socialists?

There’s no reason to believe the radicals will leave on their own volition to start their own party as Carville urges. That would be wonderful but it’s unlikely. It’s easier to take over a party currently run by fools.

There is even less reason to believe that official party can or will do anything.

Will Non-Socialist Democrats Ever Leave and Form Their Own Party?

That is the question that won’t be answered unless and until there is an actual rip in the fabric of the Democratic Party, but I’d bet no.

Most non-socialist Dems will likely remain with the party until it becomes impossible to reconcile their own values with the new party tone or to associate with people spewing such hateful and crazy views.

The only way we would ever see a viable new party emerge from the ashes of a leftist-burned party is if labor unions, elements of minority communities and small businesses formed a broad and wide-net party. A party that is narrow by ideology or makeup will get nowhere.

This would require a tremendous amount of money and effort and would probably take several years to get ready for a campaign. Such a party would have to organize across the nation and would have to start by recruiting candidates for state and local offices where affordable and winnable. A Presidential run would take even more time.

Note we are not talking about a one-time self-funded campaign. That is not the same as forming a lasting organization like a major political party.

Third parties have been tried, but they generally are merely platforms for one charismatic candidate and die immediately after the election. That was pretty much the case with the Progressive Parties of 1912 (Teddy Roosevelt), 1924 (Robert LaFollette) or 1948 (Henry Wallace.) There were at least two noticeable racist campaigns that featured one-time parties: Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats in 1948 and George Wallace’s third party run in 1968, which went by different names in different states.

Ross Perot garnered almost 20% of the vote in 1992 with a mostly self-funded campaign under the so-called Reform Party, which more or less collapsed after that campaign.

In other words, third parties have a sad history and little to offer as a hope that one will catch on any time soon. The cost, the logistics, the number of candidates, the work and thought that needs to be put in and the long wait for success all militate against it.

Joining the Republican Party is Not Very Likely, Is It?

While they’d love to win over all disaffected Democrats, especially Jews, it is very unlikely.

Much as we hate socialism, antisemitism, radicalism and craziness, we also hate the latter three when the template is fascist.

For a Democrat, Jewish or not, to become a Republican would require either the very rare elected official who stands to benefit, or a one issue obsession, like Israel. That’s a small sliver of the community.

For the GOP to lure over Dems, especially Jewish Dems, the Republicans would have to say that it is okay to continue to hold and express our deeply held views on LBGTQ+ rights, separation of church and state, civil and voting rights, choice, immigration, science, medicine and the environment and responsible participation in the international community.

Would they really want us in their party if we hold such views, views that are different than theirs and so often an anathema to them? What would we offer them?

We’d offer them votes for starters and in politics, that’s the end result. We’d also offer them money, knowledge, and entree into communities they have not seriously penetrated.

While the GOP has taken noticeable and admirable steps to fight antisemitism and now to a lesser extent, homophobia, at least by Ted Cruz, that’s a far cry from seeking out and recruiting people who think like we Democrats think.

What About Becoming Unaffiliated, No Party Preference, Independent, or Whatever It’s Called in Your State?

We would all be free agents, up for grabs, untethered to any party.

None of us would be taken for granted as the Democrats take us or granted today.

Not Jews. Not Latinos. Not Blacks. Not unions.

No one of us will be beholden to or expected to support anyone or any party.

Every vote would have to be earned.

Every candidate would have to make their case to we former Dems.

They’d have to “sing for their supper,” and if they want our votes, they better sing the right songs!

A Final Political Clash is Inevitable

It’s not feasible or reasonable to think that socialists and non-socialists can be in the same party or that Zionists and anti-Zionists or Jews and antisemites can co-exist in one party.

They can’t. Only one side can be left standing.

I’ve outlined three possible scenarios: the sane Democrats leave and form their own party, join the Republican Party, or they become unaffiliated and up for grabs on a case-by-case basis.

I did not consider it the radicals leaving and forming their own party. If that was what they wanted they would work on developing the DSA as a separate party rather than using it as a Trojan Horse to take over the Democratic Party, which is exactly what they are doing now.

If the Socialists and Antisemites Gain Control of the Democratic Party, The Party I’ve Been With for 56 years, I’d Regrettably and Sadly Become No Party Affiliation.

Those Dems with whom I share values and goals would not lose my support or my votes, but the others sure would. If a Republican or an independent or third party candidate can’t persuade me in those races where the Democrat is a radical, I could just skip that line.

Let’s hope it never comes to such a day.

Do you think I am the only Democrat weighing these different futures?

A takeover by the socialists and antisemites would mean the end of apolitical party celebrating 200 years of existence in 2028.

Remember: Democrats Need to Rid Themselves of the Extremists, the Haters and the Crazies Before They Bring Down the Party.

“Antisemitism is the Socialism of Fools”

(Ferdinand Kronawetter, 19th Century Viennese liberal and pro-labor politician.)

Share

The Truth Will Win If It is Told!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

NYC’s Marxist and antisemitic Mayor is determined to guarantee his reputation will be as a racist demagogue who put peoples’ lives in danger.

On May 21, 2025, two young Jewish professionals, an engaged couple, were leaving an event at the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. As they walked down the street after leaving the building, they were shot and killed by a gunman named Elias Rodriguez. Rodriguez is a radical antisemite who previously served as a spokesperson for the Party of Socialism and Liberation, a radical Marxist and antisemitic group with a long history of promoting hatred and violence. They are still active and still promoting hatred and violence against Jews. Rodriguez awaits trial in federal court, and the government is seeking the death penalty.

Ten days later, on June 1, 2025, an 82 year old Jewish woman at a peace rally for the release of the October 7 hostages was fatally burned when Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an antisemitic Egyptian man living in the US attacked her with a flame thrower and a Molotov cocktail. He screamed “Free Palestine” as he tossed a half dozen incendiary devices at US citizens exercising their First Amendment Right to peaceably assemble. Soliman had entered the US on a tourist visa in 2022, illegally overstayed and then applied for political asylum. His victim died 24 days after his attack. The killer plead guilty in a deal to be spared the death penalty. Soliman is now deservedly serving a sentence of life without parole in a maximum security federal prison, which is where he belongs. (I oppose the death penalty.) It’s a safe bet he never gets any legal status in the US. (I’m sure he would accept deportation to Egypt, but that’s not on the table.)

After the brutal Colorado attack, Zohran Mamdani, days away from the NYC Democratic Mayoral primary he was to win with just over 50 percent, was repeatedly asked if he would disavow the cry of “globalize the intifada,” popular and common among a swathe of his many Jew-hating supporters. He steadfastly refused when pressed by interviewers, most famously by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press on June 29, 2025. Months after the murders, and after facing the brunt of criticism for failing to speak out against incitement to murder, Mamdani grudgingly said only that he wouldn’t say it himself and hoped others would not. He continued to defend the phrase as a valid exercise of free speech.

All of this matters because Mamdani is a leader in the surging far left socialist contingent of the Democratic Party, which has now mandated antisemitism be part of its platform whether openly stated or not. Mamdani’s influence is so great in NYC that he just succeeded in his hand-picked radical candidates winning three primary races, two against respected incumbents and the other against a powerful Brooklyn elected official. All three winners are on the far left and are socialists, two being outright Marxists. All are anti-Israel, two are antisemites and the third is a Jew who arguably prostituted himself to win favor from far leftists who still hate him because he is Jewish and claims he is still a Zionist, though real Zionists reject his self-labeling.

In the closing days of what degenerated into an antisemitic campaign against Rep. Goldman, Mamdani publicly denounced AIPAC and its Jewish supporters as “monsters.” We are talking About American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to express their opinions. In Mamdani’s eyes, anyone who doesn’t buy into his far left and Jew-hating narrative is a “monster.”

When a high ranking government official does this, it’s a direct attack on the freedoms we cherish. It’s inherently un-American.

Mamdani Owns His Reckless and Irresponsible Words

Every law enforcement in America, from the FBI to the NYC Police Department, reports a rapid and alarming escalation of hate crimes against Jews, and they are growing more and more violent. We have seen violent attacks on Jewish students on campuses, attacks on synagogues and open hate speech and discrimination against Americans who are Jewish simply for that fact.

So much of the hate and violence can be laid at the feet of antisemitic demagogues like Mamdani and the people he supports for public office.

“Globalize the intifada” means one thing and one thing only: promote violence against Jews.

Mayor Mamdani should be telling his followers that whatever they think of Israel or its policies, American Jews are not legitimate targets in any way. In America, we don’t harm people because of who they are or what they believe.

Mamdani’s words are hardly a condemnation of racist murder.

Hardly an understanding that words have consequences, that leaders carry responsibility, and one of them is to restrain the worst impulses of their supporters.

Mayor Mamdani does just the opposite.

Wherever there are flames of antisemitism, you can count on Mamdani to blow on them and hope they grow more fierce.

We saw that when he sided with and egged on violent protesters surrounding a synagogue and railing against what these leftists claimed were sales of illegally seized West Bank properties.

There is no indication that Mamdani is qualified to say what overseas land purchases are legal in that country or under so-called international law. It is beyond doubt that nothing in the NYC Mayor’s job description includes weighing in or having jurisdiction over such matters. One responsibility Mamdani’s did have which he absolutely has is to protect his Jewish constituents.

He’s failing on that count.

Even more ominous than his hateful words are his hateful actions.

Mamdani has eliminated the previous International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism used by NYC, has ended special police protection for Jewish institutions, and has appointed outright Jew haters to important posts. He supports Jew haters for Congress. He stirs up hate and potential violence against Jewish Americans who support Israel. He applies a double standard, as he judges Israel and Jews differently then he judges everyone else.

By Calling AIPAC and Its Supporters “Monsters,” Mamdani Doubles Down on Hate and Threats of Violence

(Note: an earlier version of this section was previously posted on Facebook.)

Whatever one thinks of AIPAC, and I’m hardly a fan, we must question the basis and the motives for the endless stream of vitriol directed at one PAC. The anti-AIPAC narrative goes something like this: AIPAC is not just another PAC, they are an extraordinarily powerful lobby that interjects itself into the body politic and exercises control above and beyond any other political force in America, and can force it’s will on the US government any time it wants.

The narrative may have gained traction on the far right and far left, but the facts don’t bear it out and show the contrary to be true.

AIPAC is no different that any other political group. They are by no means the largest or the richest and are no more or less successful than most other PACs. The NRA, the Chamber of Commerce PACS and Big Pharma and the financial industry spend more money on more candidates and wield greater control over government and political decisions than AIPAC.

It’s just that AIPAC supports Israel, and Israel has been under attacks that have morphed into antisemitism.

AIPAC is a convenient avenue for expressing antisemitic concepts that could not otherwise be stated. When Zohran Mamdani refers to AIPAC and its supporters as “monsters,” that is not a constructive, objective or helpful critique of anything. The last time Mamdani refused to condemn demands to “globalize the intifada,” was literally days after two Jews had just been shot dead on the streets of Washington DC and a Jewish woman was burned to death by a firebomb in Boulder, CO. Hate crimes against Jews continue to rise thanks to political leaders like Mamdani.

This is Not About AIPAC. It’s About Jew Hate and an Antisemitic Demagogue Mayor of NYC

I do not support AIPAC, because they endorse both Democrats and Republicans and I’m a Democrat. To them, Israel is the overriding and virtually the only issue they advocate for, whereas I advocate for a wide range of issues. AIPAC supports Netanyahu, and I blame him for allowing the October 7 genocide to occur and for prolonging the war in order to stay out of jail.

That’s my opinion. AIPAC supporters have different views. The radical, antisemitic Marxists around Mamdani have their views.

As American, we are free to hold and express our views without fear that the government will call us “monsters.”

Words have meaning and consequences. AIPAC is not my ideal of pro-Israel politics, but they are not any more in control than any other PAC and less so than many. And they and their supporters are certainly not “monsters.”

Calling people “monsters” will surely cause some to be killed by real monsters like Elias Gonzalez, Mohamed Sobray Soliman or other dangerous people fired up by demagogues like Mamdani.

What Does a Real Monster Sound Like? Meet Darializa Avila Chevalier, Mamdani’s Chosen Candidate for Congress

Darializa Avila Chevalier is a 32 years old far left activist, like Mamdani, a member of the radical Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Ph.D candidate at Columbia University who just won a NY primary against Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the first Dominican-American to serve in Congress. By all accounts, he is a typical left-of-center progressive. His sin was apparently that he supported Andrew Cuomo in the primary but switched to Mamdani when he became the official nominee and he was not an antisemite.

Like Trump, Mamdani demands total and unconditional loyalty.

During the campaign it came out that over the past few years this young nominee has railed against interracial marriages, called for the end of all police and to end all immigration enforcement of any kind. She used barnyard epithets to describe Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and called them war criminals and genocidists.

She led violent student protests at Columbia in 2024 and supported terrorist groups, even saying the October 7 genocide was justifiable. On October 8 she attended a rally celebrating the pogrom.

If that isn’t crazy enough, she spreads a wacko theory that COVID was developed in a laboratory in France an secretly spread here.

Sounds like a real nut, right? And a dangerous, terrorist-loving nut to boot.

She is an unhinged person drawn to violence who has no business sitting in Congress. James Carville, Bill Clinton’s “Ragin’ Cajun” consultant, advises the Dem House Caucus not to admit her as a caucus member and give her no committee assignments. She would float around the House braying hateful nonsense but not harming the operation of the legislature. We Democrats could disown her and call her New York City’s problem, not ours.

The GOP is going to go to town showing voters everywhere that while the Democrats claim they have changed and have ridden themselves of out-of-touch leftists and haters, take a look at who they are running for Congress. It won’t matter that those three extremists could only be nominated and elected in New York City. The Republicans will use these extremists to scare people into voting against Democrats..

It’s going to be exceedingly difficult to defend the radicals.

In fact it’s nearly impossible.

Mamdani is making it even harder.

Calling our fellow citizens “monsters” because they don’t agree with his views on Israel is thinly veiled Jew hate, the kind we’ve come to expect from Mamdani and other far-left Democrats, especially the socialists, or Marxists, or whatever they call themselves.

An American citizen joins an organization which is perfectly legal under our laws, because they want to advocate their position, a protected right under the First Amendment.

It’s a vile and disgusting abuse of power when a Mayor calls them “monsters” for doing so.

It’s also quite dangerous and intimidating.

Fortunately Jews don’t intimidate easy and we will fight back. We don’t want a major political party to be hijacked by far left haters. (Especially when we’re the ones they hate!)

We’ve come to expect this from a Mayor who does not send police to protect synagogues under attack, but instead uses the power of government tell them what kind of activities that can have in their house of worship.

He ought to read the First Amendment. Government should stay out of religion, keep their noses out of houses of worship. Protect them, don’t assail them.

Mamdani may have become an American citizen after immigrating from Uganda but he obviously never gained an understanding or appreciation of what it actually means to be an American.

Mamdani is on record as saying that “Zionist Jews” who are “aggressively pro-Israel” are not welcome in his far left coalition. He has also proposed taking “rich white neighborhoods.” He stands by his antisemitic wife’s horrible Jew-hate posts of recent years.

He sure sounds like a racist to me.

Mamdani is Only Against One “Ethno-Religious State,” as He Puts It, and That’s Israel. He Loves Islamic Republics and Marches With Them

He says he won’t march in the Israel Independence Day Parade and does not recognize the State of Israel as Jewish because he claims he is against all “ethno-religious states.”

Oh Yeah? Then why did he march in the Pakistan Independence Day Parade last year under a banner of “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan?”

In case you doubt me, here is a clip of him marching.

He is not at all against ethno-religious states. He loves Pakistan and Iran.

He just hates Israel.

Personally, I don’t see any problem with people marching in the Pakistan Independence Day Parade, and whether Pakistam-or Israel- are ethno-religious states are up to those nations, not the Mayor of New York.

I just think Mamdani is a hypocritical racist liar, that’s all.

The Democratic Party Will Suffer Because of The Socialists and Jew Haters. New York City is Not The Rest of America

Mayor Mamdani scored a major political victory in ousting two incumbent Democratic Congressman and defeating the party establishment choice in a third. In two cases, the Mamdani-backed winner are Marxist socialists and antisemites and in the third they had a fellow traveler. .The defeated Congressmen were Rep. Adriano Espaillat, Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, and Dan Goldman, a leading pro-Israel Democrat. Both are progressives and aside from the fact that they are not far left socialists or antisemites, no rational Democrat could have major issues with them.

Plenty of Democrats all over America will have serious problems with socialists, Marxists, antisemites, and wild-eyed inexperienced radicals driven by a foreign ideology.

I live and vote in Tampa, Florida, in Hillsborough County. I think every astute political observer of any stripe would be compelled to conclude that neither Zohran Mamdani, his three far left Congressional winners or any of their similarly-situated supporters could be elected to any office in just about any part of the Sunshine State. The Florida Democrats furthest to the left, like Florida State Representatives Angie Nixon, Anna Eskamani, US Rep. Maxwell Frost, or former Rep. Alan Grayson never even come close to the dangerous and hateful extremism of the aforementioned. Those who do hold such contemptuous views may run but will never get elected. Not in Florida anyway.

These radicals will be used against Dems everywhere and used rather effectively. At a time when we are trying to persuade alienated voters that we have changed and we understand their needs and are going to talk about them, we offer up crackpots who want to spew an extreme ideology that at bottom is just Jew hate dressed up as ideology.

As the Viennese political leader Ferdinand Kronawetter noted in 1889, “Antisemitism is the socialism of fools.”

Mamdani and company sure prove that!

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

As a 49 year veteran of the bars of three states, I am reeling from the shock of regularly hearing about lawyers being sanctioned by courts for citing nonexistent cases in their written pleadings.

It’s not that we have a sudden outbreak of lawyers intentionally engaged in case citation fraud or lunatics impersonating lawyers and making up cases as they go along.

It’s because the art of legal research and the insight and strategizing it produces has been lost to lawyers who are content to type search criteria into legal research engines in the hope of slapping together a coherent pleading or even worse, lawyers who upload the facts and ask AI to write the motion or brief.

I practiced law full time from 1977 through 2015 with a semi-reemergence in 2019-2020, and since then it’s been pro bono work and writing about the law on Substack.

When you read something I’ve written on the law, be it about the Constitution or a municipal ordinance, I’ve done all the research and writing on my own. AI did not play a role in my research or writing other than a search engine referring citations requested by name, case number or subject matter.

I write my own legal summaries and arguments.

Now, exactly was that mean these days?

Back to the Beginning: Shepard’s, Hornbooks and Daily Journals

When I first became a lawyer, way back in 1977, I was a criminal defense attorney with the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn. There is a seriously mistaken myth that criminal lawyers don’t have to produce as much paperwork as other lawyers do, in the form of motions and briefs. This is sheer nonsense.

Criminal law turns on the most precise definition and application of all levels of law. A good criminal lawyer is a Constitutional authority, at least on Amendments IV, V, VI and VIII, as well as state and federal criminal statutes. When a criminal lawyer asks a court to suppress evidence, be it physical evidence or a statement, the lawyer can’t just walk in and ask. They must prepare a carefully drafted motion setting forth the relevant facts and law and explain why the law and facts require the relief sought. In federal and many state courts, there is no evidentiary hearing if the pleadings don’t persuade the court there is a need for one. It’s a really critical stage of a criminal matter on the trial or appellate levels. Every case presents different facts and different challenges.

Back then, if I thought I had a righteous motion to suppress physical evidence or statements, I had to do some heavy duty legal research. Sure, I knew all the major US Supreme Court cases and the leading criminal case law and statutes in New York State, but there are tens of thousands of other cases on these issues in the state, and how was I to find case law that most closely matched the facts and issues I had to deal with?

The first thing I needed was the citations of cases on point or as close as I could get. Not just the big name cases everyone knows, but the ones that are known only to lawyers who have the same issue. Sometimes I knew these cases because as a diligent and eager young criminal defense tiger, I avidly consumed the new case reports in the legal journal every single morning. I would make photocopies for my files as computers, hard drives and the cloud were decades away. I kept copies of all motions I filed as another research tool.

Whether I had case citations or not, I always looked at the fabled hornbooks, or bibles of the law. For example, in New York State, the hornbook on evidence law was Richardson on Evidence. By a stroke of good fortune, the first edition was written at the turn of the 20th century by Dean William Payne Richardson of Brooklyn Law School, where I graduated, Class of 1977. When I was there in the mid seventies, the Dean Emeritus was Jerome Prince (Dean 1953-71), who had inherited the role of editor of the constantly updated work. I was especially fortunate to have had Dean Prince as my professor of evidence law for both terms. Thanks to him, I became one of a handful of Americans who actually understand the Rule Against Hearsay and the innumerable exceptions.

There were books of indexes which were broken down into categories and sub- categories and they were a good starting point if you had nothing else; they didn’t offer the broader explanation of a hornbook or reading the full case.

There were some subscription based hornbooks which are legendary. In California, I swore by Bell’s Compendium, which was the authoritative source for researching 4th Amendment search and seizure issues. A supplement of new case law was mailed monthly and if there was a major case decided, a special bulletin was issued. That was how we kept up to date in those days. Bell broke it all down by category and sub category, sort of what one does on a search engine. It explained the cases as well If you already knew the law, this service saved a lot of time.

Once I had sufficient citations, usually meaning whichever I could find, I picked up the most recent volume of Shepard’s as well as the thin monthly supplement. These were staples in every law library and most well-run law suites. A well stocked law library was a major inducement when looking to rent space in a law firm’s suite for one’s own law office as it was far too expensive for a solo practitioner or even a very small firm to have thrir own library.

Shepards’s was and I assume still is a citation updating service. It lets lawyers know that a case was published, it's subsequent history, especially it it was overruled or it’s ruling stayed on an appeal, and when and how it was cited in other cases. We could use the name or the court case citation number to track it down and discover its progeny. Frequent paper supplements were the most recent list available from Shepard’s, but they couldn’t guarantee you’d know of a newly published case when you ought to, another reason why I read the law journals every morning. (Lawyers call the reports on new cases “advance sheets.”)

It was not easy to find time to research the law when one is busy in court and in the office dealing with clients and other pressing matters. In pre-internet days, I considered myself very fortunate to live in a county in California with an excellent law library that was well staffed and open on weekends. In a pinch, I could pop in and out and do an hour or so of research without the oppressive drive to the City and ruining an entire day.

By the early 1990s, Shepard’s had been digitized and there was no need for the ponderous volumes. They could trademark their name, but they couldn’t monopolize the ability to offer legal citation finding and case histories. It was costly to access online at first, but as explained below, that eventually ended with competition and today online research is often an addon for free with some other service. Just type in the cite or even just the name and you an get all that Shepard’s gave plus more options, often for free. Among those options offered online were the ability to search by topic or phrase. I spent increasingly less time in law libraries and was doing most legal research at my desk.

By the 21st Century, The Computers Were Doing the Research But At Least It Was Attorney Directed and the Data Base Was Accurate.

This in itself was not bad. Lawyers still had to know the law and in all likelihood, especially experienced lawyers, they knew the principle cases and statutes and just needed citations of subsequent cases and to see how other lawyers argued the same or very similar issues.

In other words, a lawyer had to have at least a working knowledge of their field of law in order to ask the computer to help perform the right task, i.e., address the issue with an understanding of real facts and real law. The computer could find case law, and everything else was up to me. That is something that comes only with education, experience, passage of time, absorbing and understanding wins and losses. We are referring to real human beings.

When online research was first made available to all lawyers, it was a positive change.

At first, online legal research was very expensive. Only the biggest firms or the government could afford it. Today, it is very often given away for free with bar association memberships and anyone can use Google Scholar. If you need case law on any subject today, you can find it easily online for free.

It actually made things fairer. It took away the huge advantage the state prosecutors and US Attorneys had over most defense lawyers with their well-stocked libraries and paralegals. We all had access to the same tools. One lawyer on their own could research and write a winning pleading.

When it went from digitalization replacing manual research to AI allegedly doing the thinking lawyers are hired to do, things started going sideways.

Getting the Law is Not the Same as Writing the Motion or Brief. That’s Where AI is Causing Real Trouble.

Without bragging or exaggerating, I can say that over the decades of my legal career, I must have had some abilities or people would not have kept hiring me all those years. (Besides, do you think I’d be sitting here, happily retired and pontificating, if that were not the case?)

People were hiring me because they wanted me, and that means they wanted me to do the thinking, not AI, because even had AI existed, they would want a human lawyer like me to decide what the case case was about and what to say to judges.

I don’t blame them. No machine knows how the system works and what judges want to hear like a good and experienced lawyer does. No machine or program can duplicate this wealth of wisdom and experience.

Courts and other lawyers can now spot an AI pleading a mile away. That’s good news.

Lazy Lawyers Have Asked AI to Write Their Motions and It Hasn’t Always Worked Out That Well

The most famous case was in New York, where a judge was shocked to see that several cases a law firm cited did not exist. The problem of AI inventing citations and even evidence is so widespread that courts have increasingly imposed sanctions and now have strict guidelines prohibiting the use of AI in anything other than ministerial tasks like creating lists or tables of contents. Spell check isn’t banned, but sometimes I think it should be. It causes as many problems as it supposedly solves.

Here in Florida, the courts have taken the problem very seriously and have issued some rules that are starting to be adopted around the nation. I’ve taken a few continuing education courses on AI and the courts. (I m retired from making money as a lawyer, not from being a lawyer, so to keep my license current, I myst complete 36 hours of continuing legal education every three years and perform 20 hours year of pro bono service.) It’s great that they’re nipping it in the bud. AI is with us to stay, and while it can’t be avoided, it can be managed and regulated.

I have zero respect for a lawyer who signs off on a legal motion or brief and has not personally checked the citations to see that they are both correctly cited in form and substance. If I see that there are a half dozen fake cases imagined by AI, and a lawyer signed the pleading, what am I supposed to think of such a lawyer?

If someone does not wish to use their brain, don’t be a lawyer! If someone wants the easy way out, go look for a job where that is possible because it is not an available option in the practice of law. In the old days they said “The law is a harsh mistress,” and in these days of gender equality, we can say the law is a demanding profession.

There is no room for lawyers who think they can get away with feeding a police report or other document into AI and asking for a brief to be written. It is a fraud on the court and on the client, who could do that work themselves. The client wants a professional with judgment, knowledge, experience, and wisdom, not a data input operator. Lawyers who practice like that should have their tickets pulled and booted out of the profession.

What Kind of AI Regulation Is Needed in the Legal Profession?

Obviously, lawyers cannot delegate their own professional obligations and judgments to a machine or computer program.

AI has great use as a tool for searching large volumes of documents for keywords or specific information. It is very valuable in arranging any written product so that everything is in correct order. It can adapt content to required forms or format.

But content must be the exclusive product of a human lawyer. Real lawyers must have done the research and made the arguments. They can use all sorts of platforms to find case law but they must be the ones doing the search and reading the cases and writing the pleadings. (They can delegate most research to skilled paralegals but the lawyer must still read the cases and frame the argument.)

I’m wary of grammar and spell checks. They often miss errors and sometimes replace a perfectly good word or phrase with an awkward one. If a program does not make substantive changes, only catches all kinds of errors, okay, but more than that, stay away. You have to carefully proofread with or without spell check.

Penalties for improper use of AI must be stiff. In addition to monetary and possibly disciplinary sanctions, an AI pleading should be stricken. This means a party may lose by default on a part or even all of the case.

That’ll teach ‘em to cheat!

Besides, Why Give Up to AI the Intellectual Challenge of the Law?

When I was practicing law, I always found researching, writing and arguing Constitutional motions to be perhaps the most interesting and exciting intellectual component of the law. (By by”Constitutional motions” I mean legal challenges under the 4th Amendment to illegal searches, or under the 5th Amendment for violation of the right to remain silent, or of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel. Once in a rare while, there was an 8th Amendment argument about either excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment.)

Other than the drama of a trial, these Constitutional issues were the best part of lawyering. It was exciting and invigorating to pour through police reports until you knew them by rote, then sketch out your basic theory of attack, then research the law to find as much support for you argument as possible, and finally, write the motion or brief. Then of course, there were arguments and evidentiary hearings. I loved it all.

Wasn’t that exactly what I went to law school to do? Isn’t that skill the kind that gets better as one practice longer? Isn’ it enjoyable because it is so intellectually challenging?

So who wants to give that part to a computer program that is only going to get it wrong?

Advice to would-be clients of any lawyer:

Ask if they use AI and if the answer is yes, ask exactly in what way. Ask specifically if AI is used to draft or write pleadings. If the answer is anything less than a clear and unequivocal “no,” take your business elsewhere.

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Joe Lieberman made it clear that his Orthodox Judaism was the basis of his moral values. No one doubted him.

Today, Republicans are practically forced to swear allegiance to the notion of a “Christian America” and the false revisionist history that the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. They would like nothing more than to force their religion on all of us.

On the other hand, we have Democrats like James Talarico and Josh Shapiro who are sincerely religious in the way of Joe Lieberman; rather than seeking to make their views the law for all of us, they simply tell us from where their values stem. It gives insight into who they are and where they come from, but what really matters are the values espoused and how they will impact their office. Their personal religious views by themselves are irrelevant.

The Founding Fathers Did Not Want Religion Playing A Role in Government.

One reason why I am unconcerned what religious views a candidate or office holder possesses is because that’s exactly how our Founding Fathers felt.

How do we know this?

Easy, just read the Constitution.

Article VI, Clause 3 declares “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Could it be any clearer? A person’s religion, as matter of Constitutional law, has absolutely no bearing on their qualification to hold any public office, elected or appoined. Zero, zilch, should not even be considered.

Even this was not enough to satisfy James Madison, sole author of the Bill of Rights, who began Amendment I with “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the fre exercise therof;”

In other words, religion is a purely private matter where the government has no role and must stay out and remain neutral in every way. There can be no official or favored religion, and all must be allowed to practice and be treated equally in the sense that none are exalted over the other and all are equally protected. Non-belief must be treated equally with belief, and government cannot favor having a religion over not having one. Nothing about religion has a thing to do with qualifications to hold office or to run the government.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the religious wars of Europe and the violence that religious hatred had engendered, and they wanted none of that here in the new nation. They made that abundantly clear in the Constitution they bequeathed us. Two colonies, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, were founded on the principles of religious freedom. Maryland was established as a refuge for English Catholics, who were persecuted and denied full equality by the Protestant rulers.

We have been spared the religious wars and the official religious discrimination that has plagued Europe and other parts of the world. Let’s keep it that way. Talarico shows us that being religious and honoring the Constitution is not at all difficult.

It’s Fine If a Candidate Says Their Religious Views Shape Their Values, But What Really Matters Are Those Values

Values can be formed by a number of ways. Religious belief and practice is one way. So is a non-religious spiritual practice, so are philosophical reflections and investigations, and let’s not forget that life itself teaches us what is right and wrong if we keep our eyes and ears open.

What concerns me are the particular values that someone says have been shaped by whatever force is attributed.

If a candidate tells me that they believe we must assist the least fortunate among us, I don’t care if they reached that righteous conclusion through religion, philosophy, meditation, or if it came to them while cooking or playing the guitar. What matters is the specific value.

If a candidate tells me their values were shaped by their religion, but those values include complete denial of a woman’s right to choose when to terminate a pregnancy, unequal treatment for LBGTQ+ people, limitations on the practice and teaching of true science and history, well, in that case, I don’t care where those values came from, I don’t want them turned into law and where they are the law I want them changed. I definitely don’t want public officials who think their job is to impose their religion on society.

James Talarico Shows One Can Be Religious and Also Believe in Separation of Church and State.

James Talarico is a Texas State House member who is running as the Democratic nominee for the US Senate. He is 37 years old, with a BA from University of Texas, a Masters from Harvard, and a Master of Divinity degree from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He is not only a sincere and practicing Christian, but also has the background as a scholar and man of faith. As a seminarian, he can be offered a ministry by the Presbyterian Church as he is now fully qualified and authorized to assume that role, though he has chosen a more secular path. He is a Christian who knows what he is talking about. He’s not some backwoods preacher or huckster who memorized a few Biblical passages without having a clue as to their meaning.

When the Texas legislature voted to require posting the Ten Commandments in all classrooms, James Talarico argued forcefully that this violated both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. He opposes any and all attempts to impose one or any religion on all of the American people. He believes in the separation of church and state, just as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and a host of other Founding Fathers.

Instead of posting the Ten Commandments-or someone’s favorite version of it-in every classroom, we ought to be posting the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, which we call the Bill of Rights.

Instead of teaching articles of religious faith in public schools, we should be teaching the Articles of the Constitution.

One’s faith does not make one an American. It is the lack of any official religion and our guarantees that there can be none that defines us as Americans, free to believe or not as we choose.

It is not being subject to any deity or religious doctrines that make us Americans, not at all. It is our freedom from theocracy and official religion, and our submission to the Constitution and the rule of law that make us Americans.

When James Talarico Tells Us His Religion Has Shaped His Values, He Means So in the Best Ways

The values that have shaped Mr. Talarico are those of compassion, fairness, equality, and hope. They also include tolerance, acceptance, diversity, and the understanding that the fact that another person believes differently than you do poses no threat to you and in fact is one of our nation’s great strengths,

As I hear Mr. Talarico, he sincerely believes in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, but he is not at all attempting to force anyone else to accept this in any way. (Thank you, James!) He accepts as his personal creed the teachings of his Savior to feed the hungry, heal the sick, treat the prisoner humanely, love the stranger, stand against hatred and bigotry, love everyone, even those who hate you.

As far as I’m concerned, if he holds those values, it matters not to me whether he formed them from reading the New Testament, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist Sutras, the Koran, or the scriptures of Sikhs, Jains, Bahais, or any other of the world’s numerous faiths. Any wise tradition will teach these values.

Religion is By No Means the Only Place to Find Values.

The last few Popes have agreed one need not have any religion to be a good and moral person, and atheists and agnostics can be very good while professed Christians can be very bad. We all know that to be true.

The author Somerset Maugham asked a question posed by so many others: if one abides by the rules set forth by a purported deity, what difference does it make whether or not the person believes in the deity?

It makes no difference at all. It is the belief put into action that matters.

Values, good ones, are found in philosophies that have no relation to a deity. Values are found in codes that govern many aspects of life, from military to professional. There are spiritual practices like meditation that do not require anything along the lines of what we would call “religion.” If you are looking for good values, they are easy to find. (Unfortunately, so are bad values.)

A society that does not develop and incorporate certain universal values will not survive very long. There are reasons why the Jewish and Hindu cultures have survived thousands of years and others don’t make it past several centuries. They all had some form of religion or values but what often made the difference were the values or the religion and how they were applied. Societies and cultures collapse for many reasons and this is one.

Everyone Can’t Be Right Now, Can They?

There is a simple and basic reason why I am not overly interested or concerned about a candidate’s religious views unless I think they are trying to force them on the rest of us. It’s because what were are talking about is one person’s personal opinion, not some established or irrefutable fact that is somehow relevant to governing America. It seems there are as many religions as their are Americans!

The religious folk can’t even agree among themselves, so how can one religious view be all that relevant?

On many a fine Sunday, I’ll have visitors at my doorstep. They are always Christians and they all hold wildly different viewpoints. One view that all share: their religion is the only true and correct one.

I get Baptists telling me I’m going to Hell unless I embrace their Savior. They warn me all other people claiming to be Christians are fakes, especially those idolatrous Catholics. (Actually the Catholics never come to bother me, for which I thank them.) The next week, along come the Mormons, arguing they are the only True Church, the only ones who know that Jesus came to America. Then come the Christian Scientists, another claimant to the sole true church, telling me the way to Salvation is to avoid medicines and blood transfusions, Next week it is the Jehovah Witnesses, arguing against all other Christian churches and warning me the end is near. Then there are new churches popping up all the time and it seems like every one wants to claim my soul. Good luck to them, not a chance!

Q: how come I never get a visit from Quakers, wonderful people who preach love, peace and tolerance, or Unitarians, who are perfectly fine with whatever you believe and however you want to worship, even in their church? Why do I only get the extremists? And why do the non-Western religions leave me alone and don’t try to change who I am?

James Talarico Seems to Have Found the Happy Medium

If he has achieved nothing else, James Talarico has managed to persuade Democrats that we have room for people of faith. Unlike the GOP. we consider faith to be a personal matter and so long as the person advocates for the same values as other Dems, it makes no difference what religious views they hold. Actually, it can be a benefit as someone like James Talarico can reach people other Democrats cannot.

I have no doubt that James Talarico reached many if not most of his political positions as a result of his faith. I share virtually all of those views, and I arrived there through a different route. I do not at all deny that my being part of the Jewish People and my own religious upbringing played a major role in the views I hold, but they are by no means the only ones and many of those views have been modified and even displaced by other streams of influence. I consider myself spiritual and proudly Jewish but not especially religious or observant, to put it mildly.

It doesn’t really matter how observant I or any other Americans are, or what religious beliefs if any we hold, does it? All that matters are our observed values and actions. I hope James Talarico becomes the next Senator from Texas, because we think so much alike.

James Talarico is running against Ken Paxton, one of the most unethical and slimy politicians in America. He has been indicted, sued, and his crackpot lawsuit claiming Trump won the 2020 election caused several lawyers to lose their law licenses for arguing it in court. He barely escaped conviction at his 2023 impeachment trial before an overwhelming majority Republican Texas State Senate. His wife, a Texas State Senator who is divorcing him for violation of what she calls “Biblical” rules, and we can imagine what she means, recused herself during his impeachment trial.

Yet Ken Paxton claims to be a good Christian and his supporters actually believe he fits the definition better than James Talarico.

I have heard Paxton over the years and all I have ever heard are lies, division and bigotry. Talarico on the other hand believes in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, practicing love and not hate. I believe him when he says he became this way through his faith, though it doesn’t really matter to me how he got there.

As for Mr. Paxton, well, if the issues are feed the hungry, heal the sick, welcome the stranger, love they enemy, it looks to me like the thing Paxton and his followers hate more than anything on this earth are the teachings of the man they claim to be their personal guide and Savior.

If you have interest in maintaining separation of church and state and protecting both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, there is good news:

There is an organization dedicated to promoting separation of church and state, guaranteeing both freedom of religion and freedom from government-mandated religion. It is called Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Click here to visit the website for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

As one who spent 40 years appearing in front of federal judges, as you might imagine, I hold some pretty strong opinions about them. Several I deeply admired, a handful I deeply reviled, but most I saw as intelligent, dedicated, honorable and hard working lawyers trying to do the best they could in what were often complex and divisive issues.

Being a Federal Judge Has Become a Dangerous Occupation

One thing I came to appreciate was that whenever a federal judge rendered an opinion or ruling on anything controversial, just as surely as they made some friends, they accrued their share of enemies.

Enemies of federal judges can be violent. The first documented case of a federal judge being murdered occurred in New Mexico in 1867, when the Hon. John P. Slough, the Chief Judge in the District, was shot and killed by a political opponent. In 1979 Judge John H. Wood, Jr. of the Western District of Texas became the first federal judge assassinated in the 20th Century when he was gunned down in front of his home in San Antonio by drug dealers angered by the stiff sentences he imposed on their colleagues.

It keeps getting worse.

In 1988, Judge Richard J. Daronco of the Southern District of NY was assassinated at his home by an aggrieved litigant.

In 1989 Judge Robert S. Vance of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was killed by a letter bomb sent by a right wing extremist angered by the Judge’s rulings in extremist cases.

In 2011, Chief Judge John M. Roll of Arizona was killed in a drive by shooting carried out by a deranged man.

In 2020 the son of US District Court Judge Esther Salas of the District Court of NJ was murdered and her husband gravely wounded by an attorney-assassin aggrieved by feminism and an adverse ruling from the Judge.

Between March of 2024 and March 0f 2025, the US Marshal’s Service reported threats against federal judges rose by 327% and reached an all time high of over 500 threats. The Marshals report an even greater upward trajectory this year. Courthouses are now necessarily guarded like military installations.

Judges have regularly “pizza doxed” with unwanted orders and publicly harassed and even threatened, but we have moved into an era of genuine and more widespread violent threats against judges on all levels of the federal judiciary. All are protected at work and if necessary, at home and in public.

The hostile and inflammatory rhetoric of Trump and his minions are certainly not helping the situation.

This is why I so admire those federal judges willing to stand up to Trump, be it on tariffs, immigration, a slush fund for domestic terrorists, improper and illegal modifications of the White House, ending his egotistical and imperial renaming of federal properties after himself and a whole host of other violations of statutory law and the Constitution.

The Judiciary Has Stepped in Where the House and Senate Have Failed America

The lapdog Republican majorities in the House and Senate have effectively surrendered their independent Constitutional authority to Trump and are there simply to do what he asks. It’s starting to change a little when it comes to Epstein, Iran, slush funds and ballrooms, but we have yet to see this turn into any meaningful legislative actions. As of today, aside from the famously independent and libertarian Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, quasi independents like Lisa Murkowski, and retiring Senators like Mitch McConnell and Thom Tillis-maybe Bill Cassidy-when Trump yells “Jump1” the GOP Senators and House members ask “How high, Sir?”

That’s why it has been necessary to bring these Constitutional offenses before the courts. These judges have preserved the Constitutional doctrines of separation of powers and Congressional supremacy even where the quivering and cowardly Republicans-and many Democrats as well- stand in the shadows, afraid to act against the Orange Buffoon. (While the Republicans, who control everything are primarily to blame for their enabling of Trump, I criticize the Democrats for being unwilling to use all the available resources they have. They folded on the budget and they have allowed a handful of dissidents to undermine them all along the way. The Dems need new and more vigorous and more confrontational leadership against today’s Republicans.)

I am hoping for a Democratic victory in both Houses of Congress come November. Controlling the Senate means controlling the judicial appointment process, where we can make certain that unqualified political apparatchiks are not placed in lifetime judicial slots.

(Note: when I say “nominated” I refer to the Constitutional process of advice and consent, where the President nominates judge and the Senate votes to approve or not approve.)

It Hasn’t Just Been Democratic Judicial Appointees Ruling Against Trump

If we were to give credence to what the Orange Buffoon has to say about the federal judges who rule against him, we’d have to believe that it was strictly political, and those federal judges appointed by Democrats are out to get him, and good Republican appointees make the right rulings, except when they don’t.

That’s a total lie and I can prove it.

On May 20, 2025, Stanford Professor of Political Science Adam Bonica undertook a statistical study and found that Republican appointees ruled against Trump 72% of the time while Democratic appointees ruled against him 80% of the time. Several months saw Trump losing 90% and above and the loss rate among his own appointees wass not all that dissimilar from the rest. The loss rate and the united stand against illegalities continues at the same rates. It’s rare when Trump wins in federal court.

After Ruling Against Trump, Federal Judges Are almost Certain to Receive Threats and Require Protection from the Marshals

The US Marshals have requested additional funding to protect all federal judges, from magistrates to Supreme Court in the face of rapidly rising and increasingly violent threats. (Magistrate Judges are chosen by the district court judges to serve for ten year terms. They are not lifetime appointments under Article III of the Constitution, but are what we call “Article I judges,” meaning they are creations of Congress. They handle arraignments and bail, misdemeanor trials, discovery and many legal rulings, and whatever else the district courts ask them to do.) Whenever a federal judge-or magistrate-rules against the Trump Administration or against Trump personally, it is almost guaranteed threats, implied or explicit, will follow. These threats can be “pizza doxing,” public revelation of personal details and addresses, and actual written and verbal threats. And of course, we’ve seen the outright murders.

Why It Matters

For over a thousand years, Western societies have had some form of a legal system by which disputes can be resolved by neutral and detached triers of fact whio apply these facts to laws. (So have other societies, but I’m talking about ours.) These Anglo-American systems are by no means perfect, but they have continually improved, and no one has come up with a better or fairer system. The Anglo-American tradition of having juries of one’s peers decide civil and criminal cases has become one of the hallmarks of our modem legal society and widely admired throughout the world, especially among people who don’t live in places that have any fair system.

In a democratic republic like the United States, our federal laws are passed by legislators we elect by direct popular vote, and enforced by an executive we elect through a hybrid system of direct election of “electors” in each state, who actually vote for President through the “Electoral College” not linked to a national popular vote. Whether the laws are being properly applied and what proper application means is the province of the judiciary.

In order to maintain the neutrality and independence of federal judges, once they are appointed it is for life and they can only be removed through impeachment, for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This system is infinitely superior to a primitive one where all disputes are resolved by force and where whoever has the might has the “right.” Fairness, equity and rationality play no role in such a system. No wonder they don’t last very long. In America, if we have a dispute over real or personal property, OJ Simpson notwithstanding, we don’t rely on self help; we use the court system. When someone violates the rights of another in a criminal fashion, we don’t seek personal revenge; the system prosecutes on behalf of all of us. When we suffer reputational damage to ourselves or our businesses, we no longer hold duel but go to court.

When violence or even the threat of violence infects our courts, it has an intimidation effect not so much on judges, who remain brave, but certainly on witnesses and litigants. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, coupled with his use of the Department of Justice to illegally seek retribution against political opponents presents our republic with its greatest internal threat since the Civil War. The breakdown of legal authority will lead to either repression or anarchy, neither even close to what Americans want.

How Do We Counter the Assault on An Independent Judiciary?

The very first thing we can do is elect a Democratic Congress in November. If the Senate is in Democratic hands, it can prevent Trump from nominating flunkies who have any chance of approval. With the House in Democratic hands, they can issue subpoenas, open investigations, hold hearings, and break the DOJ and FBI financially until Todd Blanche and Kash Patel start serving the American people instead of Trump. (They can’t, so any negotiations with the White House must include demands that those two get the boot.)

We also have to make certain that good lawyers who are honorable people continue to aspire to the federal bench, and future Presidents must nominate only those lawyers with proven scholarship, legal acumen and personal integrity.

Threaten Judges, Go Away for Years.

Finally, we must treat these attacks on judges for what they are: acts of domestic terrorism. Sending a ton of pizzas to the home of a judge may not be even close to killing one, but the message is the same and the intimidation is the same. When someone is arrested and then convicted for these offenses, they should be treated as domestic terrorists and sentenced accordingly.

What this means is that if someone “pizza doxed” a person in what they saw as a harmless prank, or to get revenge for a real or imagined slight, it is hardly the crime of the century, and barring some extraordinary facts or a bad record, the offender should not be burdened with a criminal records that will haunt them forever. That’s exactly where diversion or other rehabilitative but non-record ruining approaches are needed.

On the other hand, if doxing is done because someone does not like a judge’s ruling and wants them to issue a different one, that is domestic terorism and it calls for prison. Maybe not the draconian and possibly life time sentences for more violent acts against judges, including murder, but the message must be clear: attempting to intimidate judges will send you to prison, and how long depends on how bad was the behavior. When a judge or another is killed, the killer must never again be allowed to see the light of day as a free person. If the judge or another is injured but does not die, it calls for a prison term of at least 20 years. Even where there is no injury, the mere violent attempt calls for at least a decade behind bars. Those with no prior record who dox judges should spend a few months in federal prison and a few years on supervised release to hopefully keep them from a repeat performance.

There are few acts of domestic terorism that strike at our nation’s heart more than an attack on a free and independent judiciary. We simply cannot tolerate it.

Honor Our Federal Judges

Stop all this nonsense about federal judges “overreaching” and substituting their own judgment for the President’s. That’s political claptrap.

Forget as well the idiocy that if we appointed “strict constructionists” “textualists,” “originalists” or “judges who will uphold the Constitution,” Trump would have a better record in court.

The result would be the same, because you see, judges appointed by every President since Jimmy Carter have ruled against Trump. Trump’s own appointees rule against him at almost the same frequency as those appointed by Democrats. Federal judges appoined by Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump himself have excoriated the man and his government in blistering decisions overturning Trump’s actions.

I’d like to see a day where we honor all judges, state and federal, as all too often those on the state level face the same threats and violence. A commemorative stamp would be fitting, but that is only symbolic. What I’m suggesting is that we as a society defend judges, who cannot speak out and defend themselves. We defend them by continually teaching and explaining that judges have no political bias, or at least are not supposed to, and in almost all cases they rule based on the law. (Not necessarily on the Supreme Court, but in most other courts they do.)

Our educators must constantly alert students to the fact that a nation ruled by law affords the greatest rights and the greatest protections. We must instill once again the American tradition to accept the finality of the law, be it a court decision or an election result, whether we like it or not. The Republican lapdogs who out of cowardice enable Trump are to a great extent culpable for the current state of affairs. Instead of standing up for separation of powers and three independent branches of government, the GOP lapdog legislators kowtowed and bowed to Trump and surrendered to him their exclusive Constitutional powers over revenue and war and rubber-stamped even the most unqualified of appointees and nominees. No Congress before has ever surrendered even a fraction of what these do-nothings have given away.

Those of us who are lawyers have a special duty to explain and defend the judiciary from such unfounded attacks. Regardless of our personal political affiliation or beliefs, we should tell anyone who asks that in almost all cases federal judges-or any judge, for that matter- do their best to decide cases on the facts and what they sincerely believe to be the law. Just because we disagree with a court decision does not mean that they were either acting out of malice or even incorrect in the ruling.

Instead of posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms, we ought to be posting the First Ten Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. Instead of teaching religion we should teach the Constitution. Let our free houses of worship teach their articles of faith and let the schools teach the Articles of the US Constitution.

As soon as children are old enough to understand, they should be taught how the court systems work, why we have them, and why all of us must accept the decisions of courts even if we disagree or are disappointed.

We should teach that it is unfair and unethical for politicians to attack judges, as judges are forbidden by their office from any effective responses.

In other words, we should teach Americans to view and act towards judges the exact opposite of how Donald Trump thinks and acts.

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz(“DWS”) has represented Florida’s 25th Congressional District as a Democrat since she first won election in 2004. She’s been a Democratic powerhouse, even chairing the DNC during a rather contentious time when she was forced to resign in 2016 over allegations she favored HRC over Bernie Sanders to the latter’s detriment.

Governor Ron DeSantis steered through the lapdog GOP legislature a redistricting plan that seeks to eliminate four Democratic Congressional seats. One of them was DWS’s current seat. That district was divided five ways. Apparently DWS didn’t like her chances in many of them. She liked the 20th, in which she is not a resident, because it is an absolutely safe Blue district. She is running against several Black candidates, all of whom live in the new district.

The 20th was created in 1992 as one of three seats designed to guarantee Black Congressional representation in Florida. The DeSantis redistricting map vastly reduced the 20th in size but concentrated a majority of Black voters so the original intent is at least remaining in effect. The elimination of four safe Democratic seats set off a mad scramble for political survival. DWS decided to run in the reconfigured 20th, which was greatly changed but in such a way that it offers that rare Black majority district and also a certain Democratic win.

As one could imagine, this provoked a strong reaction and it wasn’t favorable. DWS does not even live in the district and the law does not require her to so long as she lives in Florida. It is a real slap in the face to the many qualified Black Dems who do live there and are invested in their community. Many in the Democratic Party feel that in a time when the right wing Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise Black voters in every way they can, trying to squeeze out one of those rare Black Congressional reps is just sending the wrong signal to everyone. Many Dems feel it is morally and ethically indefensible aside from the bad politics of it all.

I’m one of them.

I have no doubt that when DeSantis and his crew drew up the new maps, they anticipated a mad dash for seats to run for, and understood that some white politicians were going to forget their commitment to Black voting and representative rights in furtherance of their own careers.

DWS counters that she has represented several cities in the new district and that she spoke to somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 political and community leaders who wanted an experienced hand representing them in Congress and were encouraging her to run.

It is quite possible that in DWS’s mind, that’s how it went down. However, I find it hard to believe that is the landscape in the 20th CD.

I am not Black and I don’t live anywhere near the 20th. However, after a lifetime of working as a Democratic Party activist and with many political leaders and elected officials who represent the Black community, that would be contrary to my observations. Those inform me that Black political activists, especially Democrats, want to protect and preserve the few Florida Congressional districts that allow a Black person to be elected.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that a Black majority Congressional district is filled with political and social leaders who want to bypass their own local talent and bring in a person outside the boundaries, a non-resident white woman who has been around for nearly a quarter century and represents the past, not the future. DWS may believe they do, but objectively. it lacks the ring of credibility.

Black people are the most pragmatic of voters, and they do not automatically vote by race. Kamala Harris and Corey Booker fell very bar behind Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries. And majority Black districts have elected and re elected white candidates, even against Black candidates, like Steve Cohen in Memphis. However, those were people who had long histories with the district and the community, not just political opportunists looking for a safe port.

We are referring to a very special case in which districts were created for the purpose of electing Blacks. Whites were not and never have faced being shut out of offices because of their race. Democrats have long embraced this concept of Black districts as necessary for fairness and representation.

Let’s keep it that way. There’s no DWS exception.

Luther Campbell, one of the Black candidates in the race, said it best:

“This moment is bigger than one politician. This is about whether Black people still have the right to determine leadership in historically Black districts or whether power and political ambition matter more than principle.”

Mr. Campbell went on to accuse establishment Democrats of taking Black votes for granted and said the race is about protecting Black political representation and keeping political power “with the people, not party insiders and political machines.”

(As reported by CBS News Miami on 5/22/26.)

[For those who don’t know, Luther Campbell, aka “Uncle Luke,” was a member of the rap group 2 Live Crew and and later with a solo career. He resides in the 20th and is a long time community activist. He is the brother of Stanley Campbell, a brilliant scientists and businessman who ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2024. Stanley is one of a handful of Black golf course owners in America . His wife was an important official during the Obama Administration. I supported him and felt he did receive not fair treatment from the party, which had anointed someone else.]

It looks like another Campbell is speaking out about the same kind of treatment.

We need to raise our voices as Florida Democrats and let the party know we want to protect the majority Black districts.

It is unfortunate that DWS was unfairly gerrymandered out of her district. That in no way justifies what she is doing now, and we ought to say so. Eleven terms was a good run and now in the 20th the time belongs to someone else, not to DWS.

I just did.

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

On February 3, 1943, the USAT Dorchester was carrying 902 service people and civilians when it was torpedoed in the North Atlantic by a Nazi U-Boat. The ship quickly began to sink, with no hope and apparently not enough life jackets either.

Among the passengers were four US Army Chaplains: Lt. George L. Fox, a Methodist minister, Lt. Alexander Goode, a rabbi, Lt. John P. Washington, a Catholic priest, and Lt. Clark V. Poling, a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church.

These four heroes gave away their life jackets to others and did what they could to keep people calm as they tried to escape the sinking vessel. At the end, they were seen holding hands in a circle and praying as they ship descended beneath the waves.

230 people survived that attack, presumably four of them because of the selflessness of these men.

Heroism, patriotism, love of humanity, all take many forms and the acts of the Four Chaplains stands as a shining example of all of these virtues.

When I was a young boy, I collected stamps. It was a relatively low budget collection, an album, hinges and packets of stamps bought by the mail and discovered on the back pages of comic books.

Most of my stamps were by economic necessity cancelled or used, and since every other kid collector I knew had the same, it was fine with me. But I remember the first time I ever bought an unused or “mint” stamp. It was at the old stamp counter at S. Klein’s a relatively low budget department store on 14th Street in Manhattan. I can assure you it was not a costly purchase. It was the stamp pictured below, and through some inexplicable reason it has followed me around my entire life and I still have it.

The stamp was the Four Chaplains stamp. (Scott #956 for any past, present or future collectors.) It is a rather inexpensive stamp that can be purchased mint for between one and two dollars. Considering that the stamp was issued in May, 1948, it’s proven itself inflation-proof in the wrong direction. It’s value to me is not as an investment.

I bought the stamp because I had been told the story many times even as a young boy. My father, a proud WWII veteran, mentioned it several times as an example of what genuine selflessness and courage meant. To veterans who fought for our country, the sacrifice of these four men exemplified what it meant to be an American. Four men of different faiths reached the same conclusion and died together in joy not fear. The Nazis took their lives but not their spirits.

The Four Chaplains were awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross but were ineligible for the Congressional Medal of Honor since that can only be awarded to combat soldiers. Instead, on July 14, 1960, Congress created a one-time Four Chaplains Medal, the equivalent of the Medal of Honor for these great Americans.

On Veterans Day in November, we honor all who have served. On Memorial Day we honor those who have fallen. Veterans Day, once called “Decoration Day,” has been celebrated since the end of the Civil War. Memorial Day, formerly “Armistice Day,” started after WWI.

Below: The Four Chaplains Medal

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

One thing is 100% certain: Israel will vote for a new government, and the election must be held no later than October 27, and quite possibly even sooner. The coalition that kept Bibi Netanyahu in power has fractured and the departure of one party means required elections are likely to be moved ahead of schedule.

As a secular American Jewish Zionist and strong supporter of Israel, I sincerely hope Bibi Netanyahu joins Viktor Orban on the list of illiberal authoritarians unable to defeat democracy. The sooner he is gone, the better for everyone involved.

The irony is that this is not the Opposition bringing down this current and most extreme iteration of Netanyahu. No, the blow came from perhaps the staunchest of staunch Netanyahu allies, the ultra orthodox religious people, referred to in Hebrew as “Haredim,” actually the term they themselves prefer. What makes this ironic is that for decades, in order to cobble together a rightist coalition, Netanyahu has given these folks the skies: generous grants and subsidies to individuals and yeshivas so they don’t have to work and can increase Israel’s ranks of Torah “scholars,” choice housing, and most of all, exemption from the mandatory draft. These religious people often refuse to recognize the secular state, waiting for the arrival of the Mashiach, the promised Messiah who many religious Jews believe has not yet arrived but eventually will) for them to acknowledge a Jewish State. In the meantime, they’ll live there for free. Other extremely religious people recognize the state but think they should be left to their state-funded studies.

The haredim constitute perhaps 10% of the country but because Netanyahu needs them to stay out of jail, they exercise a disproportionate sway in a nation where 42% of Jews call themselves secular and at least 20% of the country are not Jewish. Hopefully a new government will put an end to this outsized control.

When David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, supported a program of Torah study, it was because the Holocaust had wiped out most of the real scholars and learned men and it was necessary to replace them to maintain the cultural and historical identity. Ben Gurion, who was as secular as they come, had in mind a small program for genuine scholars, not a vehicle for an entire segment of the population to freeload off everyone else. Ben Gurion understood religion was part of Jewish history and culture, but just like it is supposed to be here in the US, it’s an individual choice and early Zionists did not see religion as driving the train by any means. Netanyahu drove the train off the rails and it’s time to get back on the right track.

The rest of the country profoundly disagrees with the special treatment for the ultra-religious, and even all of Bibi Netanyahu’s political skills are not enough to permanently spare young Haredim the same obligation as all other Jewish Israelis. Bibi told this to the Haredim, that he just didn’t have the votes to keep the exemption and even his own people were against it.

In Israel, the draft laws apply only to Jews, Druze, and Circassians, but all others may and do volunteer. Major Ella Waweya, an Arab Muslim citizen of Israel and the spokesperson for the IDF’s Arabic language, is the highest ranking Muslim in the military and is a well-known and well-liked figure in the country. That didn’t sit well with the Haredim, who are not exactly the most reasonable of people to deal with in politics. Maybe they think they can maneuver for an even more right wing government who will placate their every demand. Good luck with that.

Just because this Netanyahu government is collapsing does not mean another one won’t replace it with him at the helm. Israel recently held four elections in a little over two years and he kept winning. In a multi-party parliamentary system, the secret sauce is putting together a coalition, and Bibi has been a master at that task. He has always been able to pull together right wing nationalists, religious extremists, secular Russian immigrants, old Likud loyalists, and a minor party or two that would like a ministerial post. Don’t let it happen again, don’t make the same mistakes that allow him to keep rising from the political dead.

The opposition parties have sometimes been hampered because of the reluctance to include Arab parties. This is wrongheaded and bigoted. The government just before this latest Bibi disaster was an exception, and they included a group of 20 or so Arab legislators from a sub-coalition. The Arab population of Israel is around 20%, and the idea that there can be a policy of excluding them from government is a failed policy as it seems to require a coalition of the extreme, a coalition that has not been helpful to Israel or its allies. Please don’t make that mistake this time, bring in Arab parties that like most other Israelis are sick of Netanyahu and want a better way forward.

Just as the US cannot function under a leader whose mind is focused on avoiding consequences for illegalities and seeking revenge agains the organs of state that protect against people like them, neither can Israel. More precisely, neither nation can function they way they are supposed to, the way that will yield the most good.

Netanyahu’s Departure Would Open a Door

Bibi Netanyahu can never agree to resolve the Palestinian issues, because his freedom and financial successes he and his family have reaped while he is in office depend upon maintaining a constant state of friction with the West Bank. In order to hold his coalition together, he must adopt a policy of no Palestinian State, endless development in the West Bank, and the appointment of racist and often deranged individuals.

While there is no basis for thinking Gaza at current is ready to be part of a Palestinian State, the West Bank is a different story. Instead of promoting settlements and development, the Israeli government should be looking for ways to create a functioning Palestinian State in the West Bank and integrate it into the rapidly growing alliances between Israel and the Gulf States. At this point, there are few barriers to Israel and the Gulf growing closer, and those Gulf States have repeatedly said relations will grow even closer if Israel moves in the direction I’m suggesting.

Nothing close to this can occur so long as the government is headed by a man who is so enthralled to the most extreme elements in the country and must kowtow to them to stay a free man. Once out of office, it’s right back into the defendant’s chair at a criminal trial.

A new government that is directed at what is best for Israel and not what is best for Bibi will immediately begin enjoying warmer relationships with the rest of the West and much of the rest of the world as well. It would make it much more difficult for other nations to support the Rejectionist Block of Iran and their surrogates, and would end a diplomatic situation that does not seem to be helping Israel in any way. Israel and Jordan cooperate on security, and adding in a serious Palestinian security apparatus will be a better protection for Israel than an endless state of war.

The terrorists are losing everywhere. The new governments in Lebanon and Syria want them out. The Gulf States seem done with their attempts at trying to work with the terrorists in any way. (Being bombed by Iran can have that effect.)

It would be interesting to see how Trump reacts to a new Israeli government that maintains the same vigilance and willingness to use force against Iran and terrorists, but accepts the principle that a Palestinian State of some sort is inevitable, and tries to shape one that is an integral member of a regional community. It is obvious that neither Israel, Jordan or the Gulf States are going to agree to a radicalized state, or even a militarized state and they are in a position to make certain that does not happen.

Gaza Presents Different Challenges and is a Long Way From Being a Functioning Society

Gaza is a very different story, one a new government will have to address, hopefully differently than the current one. Disarming the remnants of Hamas and paving the way for a very different future for Gaza is the first step. Rebuilding both the physical infrastructure and the social and governmental institutions will take a longer time, likely decades. That mission will be undertaken by nations and organizations other than Israel but approved by them.

The future of Gaza is a difficult one and is unclear right now. Israel is not about to agree to a dedicated passageway through their nation to allow Gaza to be joined with the West Bank anytime over the next couple of decades at leas. It would in any event be unwise to consider such a joinder until the rebuilding is accomplished. It may be as much as generation or more before it can be a stable entity able to survive on its own or joined somehow with the West Bank. It doesn’t mean these can never happen, but not for quite some time. The emphasis should be on removing the remnants of Hamas and making life better for the Gazans each and every day after that is accomplished, moving in the direction of a normal and functioning society.

The future of the West Bank is very different from that of Gaza and they can be functioning as a state much sooner and with far fewer obstacles to overcome. The status of the West Bank should be addressed as soon as possible when a new Israeli government is formed.

A New Israeli Government Can Restore Relations with the World But It Must Be the Nations of the Region That Put Forth Local Solutions

Netanyahu has managed to alienate almost all of Israel’s allies along with everyone else. This is untenable. One man seeking to stay out of jail should not be able to so badly damage a nation’s standing in the international community.

If a new and rational government succeeds Netanyahu in a few months, they should continue to reach out to Jordan and the Gulf States to consider ways to accomplish what I’m suggesting and address matters of common concern such as Iran, the remaining terrorists, and of course the plight of the Palestinians. You will notice I am not saying that they should bring in the US, the EU, the UN, or any other outsiders. This is a matter to be solved between Israel and the Palestinians, with input and cooperation form regional partners. Outsiders can’t impose a resolution this time, it has to be local. As the great Speaker of the US House of Representatives Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local.”

That applies everywhere, even on the international scale. A local problem became a worldwide problem but it still must be solved locally.

Over the next few months one expert after another will opine on what the next Israeli government should look like, what its priorities should be, and how the rest of the world should respond.

I’m beating them all to the punch. Here are my thoughts:

What should it look like? It should look somewhat like the government that preceded this one, with a mix of mostly right-center and left-center parties, some more conservative and some more liberal, with a sub-coalition of Arab parties and a religious party that is not off the rails and accepts the modern State of Israel. It will be a secular government, where one’s religious views will not drive the train.

Priorities? First order of business is to clean house of all the Netanyahu appointees who hold extreme nationalist or religious views or who lack competence, which seems to be a universal problem with his appointees, chosen for loyalty rather than skill. (Shades of Donald Trump.) Second, appoint the best diplomats as Ambassadors to all the nation’s important allies and have them and the new Foreign Minister assure the world they are dealing with different people. Third, call a conference of the regional allies to form a long term and permanent common front against Iran and terrorism and to begin the groundwork for a peaceful and demilitarized Palestinian State in the West Bank.

It’s my oft-stated view that while Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US, and thus a war of choice is not justified, Iran does pose such to Israel and the Gulf States, and they are justified in taking what action they deem necessary to eliminate this existential threat. They have every right to degrade Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities in any way they can and they have the absolute right to remove the current regime that has threatened to destroy them and in fact has tried.

What should the rest of the world, i.e, the sane world, do? That’s easy. If Bibi goes down, break out the champagne and after the celebration be eager to speak to the new government. (That means you too, Donald Trump!) Let Israel and the Gulf States deal with Iran as they must; outside interference will only make things worse. They know the region and they have the motivation. Let’s support them in any way we can short of fighting, and let Iran know what the consequences will be should they drag us in by attacking our facilities in the region.

As a secular American Jewish Zionist and strong supporter of Israel, it is necessary to speak out on what is best for America as well as for Israel and all others. Replacing Bibi Netanyahu is the easy part. The harder part is what comes after. A Zionist supports Israel as a Jewish homeland, but does not necessarily support Bibi Netanyahu as a lifetime leader with a get-of-of-jail free card. His policies are far too often utterly indefensible. There is a world of difference between supporting Israel and supporting Bibi, just as there is a world of difference between supporting America and supporting Trump. Both countries will benefit by taking a different direction, and both are holding crucial elections around the same time. Here’s hoping Israel boots Bibi and America hands control of both Houses of Congress to the Democrats.

(For those who want a deeper dive into Zionism and what it actually is and its goals, Click here to read about Zionism and its history and meaning.

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Note: this post was first published in the late Spring of 2023, and I have updated it in 2024 and 2025. This makes it an annual tradition, doesn’t it? It has been among the most popular pieces on my blog, to the dismay of the brilliant posts of political and social analysis. Since the piece was first published, I have been learning and developing even greater techniques for killing these hostile and unwelcome property invaders who prefer broad leaves but will eat and destroy anything they encounter if they are hungry enough. And they always seem to be hungry.

2026 Update:

Diatomaceous Earth Will Kill ‘Em While They’re Young

Lubbers have virtually no natural predators. Some small animals and birds eat the nymphs, but as adults, lubbers are hard to crack open and are highly poisonous.

I wish there were some easy to unleash natural predators on lubbers. Their steel-like body covering, their resistance to toxins and the fact that they themselves are poisonous to anyone who eats them, pretty much keep others away.

Ther loggerhead shrike kills the lubbers with its sharp beak and lets toxins drip and dry before enjoying a meal. There actually are some of them around here on the Gulf of Mexico, but none seem to visit my lawn.

I have read that peacocks actually hunt down and snack on lubbers, which makes these beautiful birds even more appealing, though I understand that some neighborhoods that have wild peacocks would prefer the lubbers. Not me. Bring your neighborhood peacocks over for a visit.

Probably the single most important information I can pass on to my fellow lubber hunters is that the best practice is to kill as many as you can before they grow larger. Many experts told me that once they are full grown they can survive any poison, incredible heat and cold, and are exceptionally hard to drown unless dropped in soapy water, which pulls them down. This is all true, as I have learned over the years of battling them.

One day not long ago I passed the bag of food quality diatomaceous earth I keep in my garage as a natural ant control. (I doubt the food reference refers to human consumption, but when ants eat it, it bloats and kills them.) It is essentially a certain kind of rock that is crumbled into powder. Could this talcum powder-like substance also kill lubbers, I asked myself. I did some research and learned that many entomologists and plant experts agreed that this material could kill lubbers up to a certain size, as it will be heavy enough to crush their exoskeletons. Since lubbers lay their eggs under the soil, and since adult lubbers go back there when not destroying our plants, laying the diatomaceous earth around planted areas and fruit trees seemed like the way to go. I know lubber nymphs emerge around late April, so I put down the earth at that time, before any had been spotted, sort of like my garden’s version of the Maginot Line.

Sure enough, lubbers that had overwhelmed planted areas in large numbers as small nymphs to medium sized lubbers appeared this time in extremely low numbers. Presumably they were trapped below or died tried to break through. When I later saw a few on an orange tree, so I covered the base with the material and for a week I saw none but found a lubber corpse or two in the white stuff.

The problem is that when it rains, the white stuff gets washed away. But it is really cheap and easy to apply and it does have some impact. Plus it gets rid of ant invasions naturally and safely, not counting the ants.

Once the lubbers are full grown the diatomaceous earth is unlikely to work. But you can keep using it until they begin to look like that ugly son of a bitch in the photo above.

Certain Pesticides Work When Sprayed Directly on Young Lubbers. It’s Controversial and Each Gardener Must Decide Their Approach

After reading countless articles in scientific and lay journals, as well as posts by many fellow Florida lubber victims, it’s clear that if a pesticide has one of certain chemicals in it, lubbers will die if they are young and small and there is direct contact. (Since I do not want to promote the use of chemical pesticides, only discuss their potential as a treatment, I leave it to each reader to Google this on their own.)

Most of the folks I know are averse to using any pesticides unless they are 100% natural. I have used some of those natural products, many containing neem oil or garlic. It does seem to work if sprayed directly upon the smaller creatures, killing them as dead as the poisons, and it my conclusion that if you regularly spray that organic or natural pesticides on your plants, it does tend to keep away lubbers. My suspicion is that if they get hungry enough they deal with it as I have seen some on plants shortly after a spray. There’s no harm to people, plants or pets with the natural stuff and I say give them a try when the baby lubbers start to rear their ugly heads and keep spraying periodically on the plants likely to be attacked.

Many people rely on their gardens for fruits and vegetables. Many have worked long and hard to make their gardens look they way they want and provide them with foods. A lubber invasion can undo all of that in days. Each gardener will decide for themselves what is right in their situation. I encourage the use of natural products, at least give them a try.

My Main Weapon Remains a Pair of Shears.

Once lubbers reach full maturity, starting to happen right now, there is no easy way to kill them. Crushing them is difficult as their bodies are like tanks and if they are on soil it’s very hard to smash and mash them dead. I inspect my plants and trees as often as possible, first thing in the morning, before light goes away and whenever else I have time for a quick glance. When I see one, I get my pair of pruning shears, grab the monster with the ends of the blades (lubbers are incredibly slow and stick around the same spot for a while) and cut them in half and some times in half again. There is no room for mercy or mistakes in this business.

And Now the Original Post With Prior Annual Updates:

The delightful creature above is a Florida lubber, a disgusting-looking member of the grasshopper family. They love to destroy thicker-leaved plants. I have found them on citrus trees, Ti plants, bushes and shrubs. This one was clinging to a sampaguita (jasmine) plant, not especially thick-leaved. These guys are really hard to kill; I do not use chemical pesticides, and even if one does, they have to spray it directly on the lubber. Fortunately they are relatively few in number. I tried organic products that made everything smell like a pizza and kept them away temporarily. I found another organic spray that weakens them enough to knock them off their perch-they cling like nothing I’ve ever seen- and then smash it to smithereens. No mercy for these guys.

Note: they can only be easily smashed and mashed when small. When full grown, use the shear method.

                                                UPDATED TECHNIQUE (2024/2025)

Since this post was published, I have continued to kill lubbers at every opportunity. I conduct visual inspections of all bushes and plants they are known to favor, generally broader-leafed plants, but they can pop up anywhere. 

The new technique is to use a pair of garden shears, the bigger you can handle, the more effective. These creatures are slow-moving and if you catch them between the blades of the shears, you can usually pull them from the plant and cut them to pieces. If the plant’s branches are strong enough, you can apply the right amount of pressure on the shears and sever them while on the plant. It’s a good idea to cut them into as many pieces as you can, to make sure one doesn’t get away with a wound but still able  able to feast on your plants.

As long as lubbers plague us, I’ll be looking for new ways to kill them!  

Now Back to 2026:

Dear Readers: If You Have any Tips on Fighting Lubbers, Feel Free to Share Them in the comment Section. All Florida gardeners are in this fight together!

Better looking than any lubber, right?

Share

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar. He is an advisor to campaigns and candidates.

And please check out my fiction.

You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE