Gaza-Born Leftist Who's 'Worse Than Abdul El-Sayed' Launches Bid to Take John Fetterman's Senate Seat

In the wake of Michigan Democratic Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed’s election to Congress last week, other Muslim leftists are now coming out of the woodwork to also run for Congress — including one who’s been described as even “worse than El-Sayed.”

Meet Ahmed Moor, a radically far-left Muslim who was born in Gaza and who’s now running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania in a bid to unseat one of the few remaining sane Democrats, Sen. John Fetterman.

“I’m running to end the war in Iran and to promote the dignity agenda: free health care, free child care, and affordable housing,” Moor announced in a social media post published on X early Monday morning.

“I’m calling for accountability for genocide, for ICE and for corruption,” he added. “And finally, for the protection of our civil liberties in America.”

According to DSA Watch, a social media account that tracks left-wing extremism, Moor is arguably “worse than Abdul El-Sayed.” Why? For one, he’s a lot more open about his support for terrorism.

In an op-ed written for The Guardian two years ago, he openly defended Hamas, the ruthless terrorist group that controls and leads Gaza.

“It remains the case that many Palestinians view the Islamist parties Hamas and Islamic Jihad as among the only actors committed to their right to self-defense,” he wrote in the stunning, pro-jihadist op-ed.

“Hamas’s assertion of Palestine’s right to self defense — in defiance of Israel, the United States, Britain and Germany — also acts as one of the few points of leverage available to the Palestinians after decades of a failed ‘peace process,'” Moor continued, letting his terror flag fly high.

Lee Kuan Yimby, a conservative commentator, also alleged in a social media post that Moor “is even more shady than El Sayed.”

According to Yimby, Moor previously worked for a radical publication in Lebanon known as “The Electronic Intifada.”

He later “worked in financial services in Jordan,” Yimby revealed in a social media post published Monday afternoon.

“I’m sure his concern is really working class Pennsylvanians,” the conservative commentator added, with a note of sarcasm.
In another social media post, Yimby further noted that Moor also has a history of defending the separate terrorist group Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, according to American-Israeli Middle East analyst and investigator Eitan Fischberger, Moor sits on the advisory board of the Hamas-linked U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR).

“He worked in Lebanon, ran a business in Egypt and Jordan, called Hezbollah a ‘legitimate party’ and said of Oct 7 that ‘the natives have broken free – good for them,'” Fischberger revealed in a social media post.

Moor isn’t just worse than El-Sayed — he’s arguably among the worst of the worst jihadist sympathizers to ever seek a position in Congress.

The good news is that pushback is emerging fast and hard, thanks to fighters like former Muslim-turned-Christian commentator and activist Dan Burmawi.

In a social media post published on Monday, Burmawi announced that he’s launched a new group, IDI Action, whose goal will be to run former Muslims like himself against far-left Muslim candidates like Moor.

“We will not let Islam destroy the West just as it destroyed the civilization of our ancestors,” Burmawi wrote in his social media post.

Good for him, though it remains to be seen whether it’ll work.

What makes allowing people who subscribe to repulsive ideologies into our society so dangerous is that once they’ve established a foothold, they metastasize and become almost impossible to root out.

https://www.westernjournal.com/gaza-born-leftist-worse-abdul-el-sayed-launches-bid-take-john-fettermans-senate-seat/

I was a deputy state AG — and Gavin Newsom’s pompous death-row commutations betray an entire process of justice By Robert Bell

On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he intends to commute the death sentences of all 548 prisoners on California’s death row to life imprisonment without parole.

His explanation was remarkable.

Executions, he declared, are incompatible with California’s values, undermine the foundations of our legal system and diminish every Californian. He invoked justice and human decency, describing his decision as necessary and righteous.

Whose values? Whose conception of justice?

Officer Josephine Solis opens a dorm room for a prisoner inside C block at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California, June 18, 2024.And by what authority does the governor presume to speak for the conscience of every Californian?

California voters rejected abolition of the death penalty in 2012 and again in 2016. In that second election, they also approved Proposition 66, intended to expedite capital proceedings.

Newsom is entitled to disagree with those decisions. But he cannot plausibly claim that his personal opposition to capital punishment represents an established consensus among California’s citizens.

I served for many years in the California Attorney General’s Office, which represents the state in all capital appeals. I know what it takes to impose a death sentence and sustain it through judicial review.

Capital punishment is not imposed casually.

Jurors hear extensive evidence, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances, before deciding whether a defendant should live or die. Their judgments are reviewed automatically by the California Supreme Court, frequently followed by years of additional habeas corpus challenges.

Consider some of the people whose sentences Newsom proposes to commute.

Randy Kraft was convicted of murdering 16 young men in a series of crimes involving sexual violence, torture and mutilation.

Isauro Aguirre was sentenced to death for the prolonged torture and murder of 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez. The child’s suffering was almost beyond description.

Charles Ng was convicted of 11 murders involving captivity, sexual violence and extraordinary cruelty.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a campaign event in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2026, ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms.

These were not hypothetical moral exercises. They were actual crimes, proved in court, involving real victims and jurors who were required to confront evidence most citizens could scarcely bear to hear.

People can disagree about whether even these offenders should be executed.

But the gravity of their crimes and the painstaking judicial proceedings cannot simply be brushed aside by a governor’s declaration of superior moral certainty.

Newsom argues that our imperfect justice system cannot be trusted with an irreversible punishment. That is a serious argument, and the possibility of wrongful conviction deserves the utmost attention.

But it does not establish that every existing death judgment is unsound, let alone explain why hundreds of separate judicial determinations should be displaced together.

Nor does the announcement adequately explain why no individualized examination preceded this sweeping decision. Contrary to existing norms for commutations and pardons, trial records and appellate histories were not reviewed, prosecutors and surviving families were not consulted, nor were the circumstances of each case considered.

They were simply swept aside.

There is also a constitutional obstacle. Under Article V, section 8 of California’s Constitution, the governor cannot commute the sentence of a prisoner twice convicted of a felony without a favorable recommendation from at least four justices of the California Supreme Court.

That requirement applies to 382 of the prisoners.

Finally, where is the necessity Newsom invokes? California has executed nobody since 2006. His own moratorium has prevented executions since 2019.

Capital punishment remains lawful, and future juries may still impose death sentences. His announcement changes existing judgments without resolving the underlying law.

The governor possesses an extraordinary constitutional power of clemency. Nobody disputes that. But possessing power and exercising it wisely are different questions.

The jurors who heard these cases performed a solemn civic duty. The judges who reviewed them performed a constitutional one. The citizens who repeatedly voted to retain capital punishment exercised their democratic rights.

Their judgments deserve more than dismissal through a proclamation of personal righteousness.

Newsom must surely follow his conscience, but he cannot claim that his conscience is infallible or speaks for all of California.

We elected a governor, not a pope.

https://nypost.com/2026/11/07/opinion/gavin-newsoms-death-row-commutations-an-entire-process-of-justice/ 

It's Finally Official: the California Wealth Tax Failed

Late yesterday the Associated Press finally called an end to Prop. 40 aka the California Wealth Tax. Despite oodles of free media coverage and the best possible environment for progressives, the wealth tax failed.

California voters rejected a billionaire tax, The Associated Press determined on Monday, rebuking a measure that would have created the nation’s first wealth tax by targeting the assets of residents with a net worth beyond $1 billion...

The Democratic voters who dominate the California electorate generally support the concept of making wealthy people pay higher taxes. But Democratic leaders were divided over the proposal — Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed it while the California Democratic Party endorsed the tax. And some of the California billionaires who stood to pay the tax contributed heavily toward a campaign that slammed the proposal with attack ads on TV throughout October...

The failure of the billionaire tax in California, a liberal state, is likely to be used as evidence for years to come that Americans will not stomach similar wealth taxes. The concept is expected to come up during the 2028 presidential campaign, and Mr. Newsom has already said he would be interested in a national wealth tax but not one only in his own state.

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2026/11/10/its-finally-official-the-california-wealth-tax-failed-n3820866

AWESOME: Supreme Court gives Trump another big win on Southern Border

President Trump just got another big win from the Supreme Court, with the high court allowing him to resume border wall construction after Democrat environmentalists tried to block him from doing so in the Big Bend area of Texas.

The only judge to disagree was Biden’s DEI Ketanji Brown Jackson. Of course.

Here’s the news via SCOTUSBlog:

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume construction of a border wall in the Big Bend region of southwestern Texas. In a four-page, unsigned opinion, the justices granted the government’s request to pause an order by a federal district judge that had temporarily halted the project. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated, without explanation, that she would have denied the government’s request.

The dispute began earlier this year, when then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her successor, Markwayne Mullin, issued three waivers of various environmental and conservation laws to authorize construction of the wall in the Big Bend region, which includes parts of Big Bend National Park. Noem and Mullin relied on a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that gives the DHS secretary the power to “waive all legal requirements” necessary “to ensure expeditious construction” of border walls and roads. When they announced the waivers, Noem and Mullin indicated that the Big Bend area “is an area of high illegal entry” requiring additional walls and barriers.

A group of plaintiffs opposed to the construction – an environmental group, a local landowner who works as a river guide, and a group formed to preserve a church – went to federal court to challenge the waivers’ legality. On Oct. 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone temporarily barred the Department of Homeland Security from continuing construction on the border wall in the Big Bend region “until and unless” the government complies with environmental and other applicable laws.

In Monday’s opinion, the justices denied the government’s request to summarily reverse Cardone’s ruling but granted its request to put it on hold. “The Government,” the court explained, “is exceedingly likely to prevail on its argument” that Cardone did not have the power to consider the challengers’ “so-called major-questions-doctrine claim.” That claim, the court emphasized, contends only “that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority,” which is not a constitutional claim. This is true, the court continued, even if the challengers rely on the major-questions doctrine, because that doctrine is a rule used to interpret laws. “There is no such thing as a ‘constitutional’ major-questions claim.”

Awesome. The border wall must be completed before Trump leaves office.

https://therightscoop.com/awesome-supreme-court-gives-trump-another-big-win-on-southern-border/

Jim Jordan becomes new House GOP leader after closed-door vote, defeating Steve Scalise

 House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, will be President Donald Trump's top defender in Congress next year after winning a closed-door election for minority leader on Tuesday, sources told Fox News Digital.

Jordan defeated Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., currently the House of Representatives' No. 2 leader, in what's believed to be a narrow race. Jordan received 106 votes to Scalise’s 73, sources in the room told Fox News Digital. 

Fox News Digital heard loud, sustained applause from outside in the hallway when Jordan’s win became official.

Republicans huddled for a candidate forum on Tuesday morning where all GOP lawmakers running for leadership positions were peppered with questions by their colleagues.

Rep. Jim Jordan leaves a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 10, 2024. 

Sources inside the room for their Tuesday morning leadership forum said Scalise and Jordan both pitched themselves as the best person to unify the conference, but also signaled they would give a wide berth for lawmakers to "vote their districts," as one person put it.

The question-and-answer session for House Republicans before electing their leader was largely cordial, Fox News Digital was told. Several people inquired about how both prospective leaders would unify the conference after their midterm losses and how they would handle leaks to journalists, Fox News Digital was told.

Jordan himself told Fox News Digital he believed the forum went well but declined to go further, stating he does not divulge details of closed-door meetings.

The voting body consisted of incumbent House Republicans and GOP members-elect who are projected to win their races from last week's midterms. Votes were cast via secret ballot, meaning none of those in the room had to reveal who they chose.

Majority Leader Steve Scalise heads to the House chambers ahead of a vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 12, 2025.

And the results on Tuesday show the House GOP was hungry for change. Jordan's victory comes fresh off the back of a historic loss for Republicans across both state and federal races.

The magnitude of the losses forced Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to announce he was stepping aside and not seeking another leadership position for the next two years.

"I personally like Steve, but he's been in leadership since before I was in Congress. And Jim Jordan, while he's a leader in Congress, he hasn't been part of the leadership team. He basically rose through the ranks because he was super effective," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., another Jordan ally, told Fox News Digital the Ohio Republican "understands what we're up against," adding, "His ability to communicate is really kind of unrivaled by anybody else in the House right now."

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., attend a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 30, 2026. 

Jordan has long been among the House GOP's brightest stars, rapidly gaining influence over the last decade as one of Trump's most vocal supporters in Washington.

He will now be the go-to defender as Democrats ready a barrage of investigations targeting Trump's Cabinet, family and business interests.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-jordan-becomes-new-house-gop-leader-after-closed-door-vote-defeating-steve-scalise

X User Asks “Name One Bad Thing a Muslim Has Personally Done to You” and is Flooded with Real World Examples of Violence

An X user claiming to be a Muslim fashion designer and makeup artist took to social media to ask what she presumably thought was a clever gotcha question.

In the post, which had 11+ million views, she asked, “Name One Bad Thing a Muslim Has Personally Done to You” and found her feed flooded with examples of violence and death.

The 15,000+ replies answered her question with the brutal reality.

Editor of The Geller Report, Pamela Geller, shared, “They tried to assassinate me at my free speech event in Garland, Texas. They opened fire. They were shot dead.”

“Then came the Boston plot: a jihadist cell plotting to behead me. They were intercepted en route.”

“They came for my life multiple times.”

One X user was painfully blunt, “That’s easy, killed my grandma on 9/11.”

ACTforAmerica founder and chairman Brigitte Gabriel shared, “They bombed my home when I was 10, buried me under the rubble screaming ‘Allahu Akbar,’ put me in the hospital for months, then forced my family into an 8×10 bomb shelter for seven years.”

“No power, no water, eating grass while snipers hunted us for the crime of being Christian.”

“That’s one. Want the rest of the list?”

Another user shared a list of recent attacks.

YuTube

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/11/x-user-asks-name-one-bad-thing-muslim/