Rebuking Fascism & Anti-Muslim Hate at Wall Street Journal

The WSJ just published an OpEd by a man who is on record supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians—reminding us once more why trust in corporate media has collapsed

Brandolini’s Law, named after Italian IT professional Alberto Brandolini, states, “The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”

The amount of bullsh*t in a recent Wall Street Journal OpEd by known propagandist Sadanand Dhume is truly breathtaking. At a mere 754 words, his OpEd spews enough bullsh*t to fill an Olympic stadium. While his rantings would normally fail to meet the standard of a high school civics class, unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal decided it deserved a column that may reach millions of readers. Thus, it demands rebuke and rebuttal. I launched Let’s Address This as a human rights project to provide objective, clear, and consistent insights on the critical human rights issues impacting us all. And to debunk bullsh*t. Dhume’s history of anti-Muslim and Islamophobic bigotry is well documented, including his open advocacy for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians—which is a war crime. As a human rights lawyer, I am guided by facts, the law, and an ethical duty towards truth. All of which Dhume clearly lacks.

Below I debunk each absurd claim he makes, with receipts, and with the knowledge that Dhume will neither care, nor be capable, of refuting them. Nonetheless, it is our duty to speak truth, especially as corporate media capitulates to, and further enables, fascism. Let’s Address This.

Zohran Mamdani in New York, July 2. Photo: angela weiss/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Preliminary Note

I’ll begin by noting that despite the Wall Street Journal’s capitulation to Trump, Trump is still currently suing them for defamation. This demonstrates yet again that fascists cannot be appeased, and the WSJ’s strategy to promote fascistic ideology does nothing but strengthen Trump. In any case, I refute Dhume’s OpEd with a simple format. I cite his sentence verbatim in bold, provide my rebuttal, then repeat by debunking his next absurd claim. Let’s dive in.

Debunking Bullsh*t

Dhume wastes no time spewing bigotry and disinformation with the following title to his OpEd:

Mamdani and the Left’s Alliance With Radical Islam: He won’t impose Shariah on New York, but his views give plenty of reason for legitimate concern.

Leading with “radical Islam” and “Shariah” is a classic tactic of shock jock right wing provocateurs who don’t have actual arguments, but want to make white conservatives feel afraid. Dhume appears to be among the class of south Asians who believes his proximity to white supremacy will afford him protection from white supremacy. Little does he realize that the same right wing conservatives who take the fear mongering bait on “radical Islam” and “Shariah” are unable to distinguish him (a non-Muslim) from me (a Muslim) in a crowd. Dhume begins his propaganda OpEd as follows.

Is Zohran Mamdani a radical Islamist? Contrary to what some Republicans have suggested, the answer is clearly no.

Dhume never defines “radical Islamist” or what distinguishes that from a “moderate Islamist” or even what an “Islamist” is. Spoiler: It’s a made up term to stoke fear and hatred of Muslims or anyone perceived to be Muslim. But Dhume does something even more malicious—after leading with an overtly bigoted question that has no real purpose other than to invoke fear, he positions himself as the reasonable person by saying “clearly no, of course Mamdani is not this big scary thing I just insinuated he is.” And the next sentences confirm his vain attempt to mask his own prejudice.

But while the democratic socialist front-runner to be New York’s next mayor isn’t going to establish a caliphate on the Hudson, we shouldn’t be dismissive of Mr. Mamdani’s unhealthy obsession with Israel. It is an indication of how radical Islam is gaining acceptance on the left.

Again, another hot button word “caliphate” to stoke fear. Followed by an accusation of an “unhealthy obsession with Israel.” The irony is truly breathtaking. Mamdani was criticized for saying he had no desire as Mayor of New York City to visit Israel, while every other candidate fell over each other to scream their loyalty to Israel—yet now somehow Mamdani is the one “obsessed?”

And the trifecta of stupidity in Dhume’s paragraph ends with an meritless assertion that Mamdani’s made up obsession with Israel is now an indictment of the entire left with “radical Islam,” which Dhume never defines throughout his piece. He simply makes the blatant statement as fact, and hopes people believe him just because. This isn’t journalism. It’s hate mongering. Dhume then oscillates back to framing himself as the “good guy” in this dialogue.

Over the past few weeks, Mr. Mamdani—a Uganda-born Shiite Muslim of Indian origin—has faced a barrage of attacks and insinuations centered on his Muslim background.

This is a correct observation from Dhume, yet it’s masked under his apparent lack of self awareness that he himself is part of the barrage of attacks and insinuations. He’s literally the bigot making these attacks, while he points fingers at the following bigots.

Silicon Valley investor Shaun Maguire accused the candidate of coming from “a culture that lies about everything” and of advancing an “Islamist agenda.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted on social media an image of the Statue of Liberty in a black burqa. Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer claimed that Mr. Mamdani deliberately chose to become a U.S. citizen in 2018 on the anniversary of Hezbollah’s release of a 1985 manifesto calling for the destruction of Israel.

Again, Dhume should add himself to this list of overt bigots attacking Mamdani for his faith and identity while refusing to grapple with his actual policies. By now I have to believe that Dhume is being deliberately malicious, because I cannot conceive someone is this utterly incompetent in his lack of self awareness. Dhume continues.

These contretemps make little sense. Nowhere has the candidate hinted at imposing Shariah, or Islamic law. Mr. Mamdani’s wife, a Syrian-American artist, doesn’t wear the hijab. He wants to make New York an “LGBTQIA+ sanctuary city” and once tweeted: “Queer liberation means defund the police.” It’s hard to think of an idea less likely to resonate with the Muslim Brotherhood or the mullahs in Iran.

Yes, Dhume, these attacks absolutely make little sense. So why are you repeating them? Dhume never answers, because doing so would undermine his fear mongering narrative. This is a tactic Dhume employs throughout his article—make a propaganda claim, refuse to back it up or address it because doing so would undermine his entire piece, then position him as the good guy while in reality perpetuating the bigotry.

Absurd attacks on Mr. Mamdani enable him to shift focus from statements and actions by him and his family that New Yorkers have legitimate reason to worry about.

Finally, nearly half way through his bigoted OpEd, Dhume alludes to statements and actions by Zohran Mamdani and his family that are of “legitimate reason to worry.” But before we dive in, is the standard now that every time someone runs for office they are accountable to everything their family members said? Or does that only apply to brown Muslim immigrant candidates? Again, Dhume doesn’t answer.

Mr. Mamdani’s father, Mahmood, is a Columbia professor of government who has written of his desire to destigmatize suicide bombings.

Dhume flat out lies about Professor Mahmood Mamdani’s writing. Forbes interviewed actual scholars about Professor Mamdani’s academic research and reports:

“Nowhere in [Mamdani’s] writing has he advocated for suicide bombing. Nowhere in his writing has he advocated for violence. He’s asking us to take a step back and look at it in terms of its causes, in terms of its impact, in terms of its consequences. [Mahmood] Mamdani analyzes the causes of suicide bombing and does not advocate for it, says Nathan Lean, professor of religious studies at North Carolina State University, who told Forbes he has read the book and assigns it in classes he teaches on Islam. Tazeen Ali, a religious studies professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in Islam in the United States, called Maguire’s claims “serious mischaracterizations” of Mamdani’s work, adding Mamdani’s arguments are “not controversial” in academia and his work is “taught widely in undergraduate courses.”

Not content with shamelessly lying about Zohran Mamdani’s father, Dhume then attacks Mamdani’s mother with the following.

The candidate’s mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, reportedly tried to have Gal Gadot disinvited from the Oscars because the actress has “openly and repeatedly expressed her support for Israel’s military actions.”

While Dhume attempts to make it seem like Nair is an angry social justice warrior arguing on Twitter, in reality, Nair joined 21 academy members and at least 75 film makers in condemnation of Gadot’s open advocacy for the Israeli military’s genocide upon the Palestinian people. This affirmation of genocide is a view shared by Amnesty International, The International Court of Justice, the UN Special rapporteur on Palestine, and Israeli Jewish Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov who states:

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

That Dhume finds it “a legitimate worry” that Nair exercised her free speech to oppose genocide is not an indictment on Nair or on Mamdani, but on Dhume for attempting to whitewash genocide. Dhume continues.

Does Mr. Mamdani agree with his parents? Nothing suggests a difference of opinion.

I am confident Zohran Mamdani agrees that we should understand the root causes of suicide bombings as a means to stop them, protect free speech and the First Amendment, and unapologetically oppose genocide. That these are controversial takes for Dhume reaffirms nothing more than the lack of seriousness of his OpEd.

Mr. Mamdani’s old tweets show that in his 20s he appeared more preoccupied with civil rights for the likes of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and U.S.-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki than with the suffering of their victims.

Is this what passes for journalism now? Tone policing what you feel people felt based on how they appeared to you? I looked up what Dhume was referring to, and he quotes verbatim right wing bloggers upset that Mamdani tweeted this article from Slate. Note, Mamdani did not tweet with his own commentary, but literally with the default headline that Slate issues when tweeting the article. And what was that allegedly offensive an unforgivable sin that a then 20-year-old Mamdani tweeted?

This—what about this is offensive, I wonder?

And if one were to read the article, which Dhume clearly did not bother to do, they would find that the article argues, correctly might I add, that

No matter how unsympathetic accused terrorists are, the precedents the government sets for them matter outside the easy context of questioning them. When the law gets bent out of shape for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.

This is exactly right. Due process must apply to all accused people. Period. That’s what the Constitution requires. Similarly, Dhume’s attacks on Mamdani regarding U.S.-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki are likewise absurd. Regarding Awlaki, Mamdani posted about the importance of due process of law, even in the most difficult of situations, because our Constitutional principles are not a pick and choose buffet. I wonder if Dhume supports the U.S. drone strike that killed Awlaki, even though it was in violation of due process? If so, does Dhume also support the drone strike that killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old U.S. citizen son, or the one that killed Awlaki’s 8-year-old U.S. citizen daughter—both children who had no say or influence over Awlaki’s crimes? Would Dhume be okay with a drone killing Awlaki’s nephew and nieces? How about his in-laws? His close neighbor?

If this line of questioning seems absurd, it should, yet this is what opens up when people like Dhume condemn the need for due process of law. The point of due process of law is to ensure the government is not arbitrarily deciding who gets to die and who gets to live—but that those who are accused of horrific crimes like Awlaki was, face accountability after due process, while innocent children are not murdered. Again, what about not murdering innocent children is controversial to Dhume?

In short, Dhume seems to not understand that due process of law applies to all people in this country, for all alleged crimes. It is literally what separates our Democratic Republic from an autocratic regime. The earlier Slate article simply affirms the fact that if we ignore due process for accused terrorists, then we cede the government unwarranted authority to deny due process in other situations as well. And given how right now even Trump appointed judges are condemning Donald Trump for stripping due process from millions of people—many of whom who have committed no crime whatsoever—anyone with common sense can see the terrible resulting implications warned of in that Slate article and tweeted out by Zohran Mamdani. Apparently, due process is a bridge too far for Dhume.

More recently, Mr. Mamdani has appeared alongside the Turkish-American podcaster Hasan Piker, who once said that America “deserved 9/11.”

If Dhume is upset at Mr. Mamdani for appearing next to Hasan Piker for his comments about the three thousand innocent Americans killed on 9/11, wait until Dhume learns about the Wall Street Journal columnist who argued for ethnic cleansing of 2 million innocent Palestinians, which is a war crime. Oh wait, that WSJ columnist is Dhume himself—who affirmed himself as pro-genocide with such grotesque remarks.

As a human rights lawyer, let me be clear. This is unhinged and sociopathic. The U.S. Government forced Indigenous people to relocate. That was genocide. The Nazis forced Jews to relocate to concentration and death camps. That was genocide. The Myanmar Government forced the Rohingya to relocate. That was genocide. What Dhume advocated for in his Wall Street Journal column is more genocide. I simply remain astonished at Dhume’s lack of self awareness. For him, of all people, to object to Piker’s remarks about 3000 innocent people, while himself openly demanding genocide of 2 million innocent Palestinians, speaks to a frightening level of sociopathic behavior. Does Dhume object to Eric Adams cutting a secret deal with 34X convicted felon Donald Trump who may well also be in the Epstein files? Nope. Does Dhume object to Andrew Cuomo serving as counsel for accused war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu even as he commits genocide of the Palestinian people? Nope. Dhume’s “red line” is a Twitch streamer with no political office for a quote made six years ago (for which Twitch suspended him by the way).

Thus, it’s no surprise that at this point in his present column, Dhume gives up any pretense of journalistic integrity and simply lists a laundry list of half truths and fear tactics to further smear Mamdani. Each is more ridiculous than the last.

Mr. Mamdani also has a long record of anti-Israel activity.

Israel is a country. Countries don’t have rights. People have rights. The First Amendment gives citizens and non-citizens the right to criticize whatever nation they want. Mamdani has also criticized his parents’ ancestral nation of India, and called Indian Prime Minister Modi a “war criminal.” Dhume doesn’t bring this up, because doing so risks painting Mamdani as a principled leader who opposes injustice wherever it is, as opposed to Dhume’s weak attempt to allege some special targeting of Israel.

As a co-founder of Bowdoin College’s Students for Justice in Palestine, he backed boycotting Israeli institutions.

Again, free speech is a thing in the United States. Perhaps Dhume didn’t get the memo. But so far, all Dhume has proven is that Mamdani exercises his peaceful free speech, and that Dhume is apparently anti-free speech.

One of his songs during his short-lived rap career praised the Holy Land Five—men convicted by a U.S. court of providing material support for terrorism by funding Hamas.

Again, Dhume shamelessly lies. Extensive academic law review peer review articles have addressed the Holy Land Five. I’ll cite just one published in 2013 in the Washington and Lee Law School Journal of Civil Rights and Justice, written by acclaimed international criminal defense lawyer Nancy Hollander, which reports:

This case involved nothing more than the provision of charity. Food, medical supplies, wheel-chairs, and backpacks filled with school supplies—just charity. The Holy Land Foundation and these men were never accused of, never charged with, and never convicted of a single violent act.

For Dhume to shamelessly lie on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, and for the WSJ to publish it without a single fact check, speaks to the depravity of both.

Mr. Mamdani’s immediate response to the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack didn’t mention Hamas and instead accused Israel of “occupation” and “apartheid.”

Dhume neglects to mention that Mamdani’s statement led with “I mourn the hundreds of people killed across Israel and Palestine the last 36 hours,”—humanizing all civilians killed. And Mamdani did not “accuse” Israel of occupation—it is a factually accurate statement that since 1967 the Israeli military has occupied the Palestinian West Bank. Mamdani did not “accuse” Israel of apartheid—this is the consensus of international human rights orgs including Amnesty international, an independent UN expert human rights panel, and Human Rights Watch. And lest Dhume dismiss all these orgs as “antisemitic,” also affirming that Israel is an apartheid state are the former Israeli head of Mossad Tamir Pardo, the former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair, and globally recognized Israeli human rights organizations like B’TSelem. Dhume hides this from his readers because these facts are inconvenient to his propaganda.

Mr. Mamdani refuses to condemn calls to “globalize the intifada.”

I have never seen media attack someone for something they didn’t say more than how they’ve attacked Mamdani for not saying a phrase. Let’s be clear—Mamdani has never uttered this phrase and has openly discouraged its use. He has additionally committed to an 800% increase in funding to combat antisemitism in New York City.

He has the endorsement of the top elected official in New York City who is Jewish, Brad Lander. He has the endorsement of the top elected Congressman with the largest Jewish constituency in America, and who himself is Jewish, Jerry Nadler.

Brad Lander, right, cross-endorsed Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for mayor and attended his primary night party. | Heather Khalifa/AP

Yet, Dhume ignores all these facts. Doing so is, in my view, an antisemitic dismissal of how Jewish leaders are addressing Mamdani and demonstrating they trust him. Dhume professes to tell these prominent Jewish leaders that he apparently knows better than they do about antisemitism—an absurd hill to die on. Dhume’s arrogance is only surpassed by his persistence to double down on his hate and fear mongering.

Last month, Mr. Mamdani attended a comedy show with Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian-Palestinian activist from Columbia University who the Trump administration has accused of “hateful behavior and rhetoric” that threatened Jewish students.

At this point I have to wonder if Dhume intended to write a parody, and is just a really bad satirist? Or perhaps he thinks WSJ readers are as incompetent as him? Not only is it absurd to quote Donald “Nazis are very fine people” Trump on antisemitism, but perhaps Dhume missed the memo that a Federal judge ordered Khalil’s release from Trump’s gulag because the Federal Government failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. Dhume cites Trump’s accusations against Mamdani, but refuses to cite the fact that the accusation was meritless and dismissed. The Trump regime had 104 days to prove their case against Khalil—and failed miserably. Yet, for Dhume, the mere accusation of antisemitism, made by a known white nationalist who dines with Nazis, is enough. It appears Dhume either does not know, or does not care about our Constitutional guarantee of due process for all people in this country.

All this may not make Mr. Mamdani an Islamist, but it does make him appear sympathetic to Islamists.

Contrary to Dhume’s ongoing statements of propaganda, all of this makes Mamdani actually sympathetic towards upholding the United States Constitution, a document Dhume has clearly never read before. So to compensate for his ignorance (and/or arrogance), Dhume throws out scary words like “Islamist” to appease a conservative base (all while refusing to even define the word).

Once, someone like Mr. Mamdani couldn’t have been a member in good standing of the left. But for at least two decades leftist groups and Islamists have formed a de facto alliance based on their common contempt for Israel in particular and the West in general. The French call this phenomenon Islamo-gauchisme.

This is a statement best described by a phrase borrowed from a high school English teacher of mine, “oral diarrhea.” There’s no facts presented, no argument made. Just nonsensical crap formed into a sentence without a shred of logic, and by God it stinks. What alliance? Who are the alleged “Islamists” that Dhume is referring to? Earlier he admits Mamdani is not an Islamist (without ever defining the word). Now he claims that Mamdani is in “good standing with the left” because “the left and Islamists” have an alliance. So is Mamdani an Islamist now, contrary to Dhume’s statement earlier that Mamdani is “clearly not” an Islamist? I am astonished that anyone thinks Dhume is a rationally thinking human being worth publishing. And what the hell do the French have to do with a NYC Mayoral election?

For Islamic extremists, the alliance with the left provides cover. Someone who seeks to annihilate Israel because he can’t stomach the idea of Jews living on what was once Muslim-controlled land can clothe this atavistic urge in the respectable language of human rights.

Again, Dhume alleging some magical alliance exists does not make it so. Such a statement should be offensive to anyone committed to facts or truth. Moreover, the issue is not “Jews living on once Muslim-controlled lands,” the issue is Israeli genocide, apartheid, and military occupation—three things affirmed by global and Israeli human rights orgs, but something Dhume refuses to have the integrity or courage to address. Again, admitting to such facts would undermine Dhume’s propaganda claims—so he does his best to ignore them altogether.

Finally, claiming Mamdani has an “atavistic urge” to “annihilate Israel” is not only defamatory, it speaks to Dhume’s ignorance about the history of Jews and Muslims prior to western colonialism and the fall of the Ottoman empire. As I’ve written in detail debunking hateful propaganda about Muslims and Jews, for centuries Muslims and Jews lived peacefully in Jerusalem, with both suffering only at the hands of—not each other—but of Christian Crusaders. Crusaders who violently murdered exiled both Jews and Muslims. Meanwhile, it was under Caliph Omar, then General Saladin, then the Mamulks, and in Almoravid Spain, that Jews lived for centuries in peace under Muslim rule, protected from harm, forced conversion, or property seizure.

But the oddness of the left—in theory allergic to God—making allowances for Muslims that it won’t make for others hasn’t escaped notice.

The oddness of Dhume—an avowed atheist—lecturing anyone about being allergic to God is rich. Moreover, the left is not opposed to God, it is opposed to theocracy and the mixing of religion and state. The absurdity of a brown atheist immigrant siding with white supremacist ultra nationalist right wing MAGAs who want to establish a Christian nationalist theocracy is a contradiction so severe that Hollywood would reject it as unrealistic. Yet here is Dhume, the WSJ’s walking talking contradiction.

“Most leftists . . . have no difficulty fearing and opposing Hindu nationalists, zealous Buddhist monks, and the messianic Zionists of the settler movement,” the Princeton philosopher Michael Walzer wrote in 2015.

Dhume using this quote from Walzer is both contradictory and confusing. His citing Walzer is contradictory because throughout the piece Dhume ignores Israel’s illegal military occupation of Palestine, and deems it an illegitimate reason to be critical of Israel. Yet now, he cites Jewish scholar Michael Walzer to state that people are legitimate to “fear and oppose the Zionist settler movement.” So, which is it? Is Mamdani wrong to condemn Israel’s illegal occupation, or is Walzer right to condemn Israel’s illegal military occupation? Dhume doesn’t give an answer because he prefers to twist words to meet his needs, and hopes his readers aren’t intelligent enough to notice his contradictions. Dhume then continues quoting Michael Walzer as follows:

Yet the left won’t blame religious extremism for “Islamist militants who kidnap schoolgirls, or murder heretics, or tear down the ancient monuments of rival civilizations.”

This is a lie. The left absolutely blames religious extremism for the mentioned atrocities—but we also don’t just stop there. We recognize, as scholarship has repeatedly proven, that actions like the illegal invasion of Iraq, the mass murdering of civilians in Afghanistan, and the perpetual bombing of Palestinians, helps ignite extremist groups. This is not a secret. Do Walzer and Dhume assume that people in the Middle East would not be upset that western wars have killed more than 4.5 million Muslim civilians in the 21st century?

Why is Mr. Mamdani unwilling to reassure voters by adopting a more moderate stance? The answer to this question could shape the future of New York.

Finally, despite making this meritless conclusion, the fact is that Dhume fails to state a single extremist position taken by Zohran Mamdani. Instead, Dhume opts to demonize Mamdani for demanding due process of law in all matters, for agreeing with global and Israeli human rights orgs that the Israeli government is committing genocide, and for apparently not strongly enough condemning a phrase he’s never used in the first place. None of Dhume has written amounts to actual journalism, but instead, propaganda dressed up as intellectualism from a man who openly and shamelessly advocates for the genocide of Palestinians.

A Final Note

I must reaffirm and remind the reader that at no point does Dhume even attempt to address any of Mamdani’s actual policies. He ignores Mamdani’s plan to increase funding by 800% to combat antisemitism. His plan to support working class New Yorkers by raising taxes by a mere 2% on millionaires, to freeze rent, or to make childcare and busses free. He ignores how Mamdani’s policies are proven models. How in 2022, when Massachusetts raised taxes on millionaires by 4%, it resulted in a 40% increase in millionaires, a decrease in poverty, and strengthened the overall Massachusetts economy. Dhume’s blatant racist and Islamophobic attacks are an attempt to distract from Mamdani’s proven economic policies. Policies that will combat wealth and income inequality, elevate the lives of ordinary New Yorkers, and demonstrate that we do not need to bend the knee to billionaires. That is the real story that Dhume and the WSJ are trying to bury. Do not let them.

Conclusion

It took me more than 4600 words to debunk Dhume’s 754 word OpEd. Meaning, according to Brandolini’s Law, it took a ~6X order of magnitude to refute Dhume’s bullsh*t.

What Sadanand Dhume published in the Wall Street Journal wasn’t journalism—it is dangerous propaganda. It relied on racism, fear-mongering, and deliberate distortion to smear a principled public servant who dares to speak inconvenient truths. Dhume recycled every tired Islamophobic trope and packaged it as reasoned concern. And corporate media once again gave it a national platform—no fact-checks, no pushback, no shame. And it was disseminated to millions of people in print and online.

So, this is where I need your help to fight back. I thank you for reading this. Now, I ask you to share this across your spheres of influence. In a time when billionaires and billion dollar corporations control major media, when facts are buried beneath dog whistles, and when fascism marches under the guise of “security,” Let’s Address This exists to do what they refuse to do: tell the truth, bring the receipts, name the rot, and demand better.

If this work resonates with you—if you believe in truth over fear, in facts over propaganda, and in justice over bigotry—then I invite you to support this work. Share this article. Talk about it. And if you’re not yet a subscriber, please consider becoming one today. We don’t have the luxury of silence. We must fight disinformation with clarity and conviction. Together, we can hold the line—and push it forward. Because someone needs to say what needs to be said, while citing the receipts to back it up.

I’m up to that challenge, and I know with your support, we can make a difference.