Abdul El-Sayed on Track to Be Michigan Democrats’ Choice for Senate. Really?
As Michigan Democrats prepare to select their nominee for the United States Senate in the primary election on August 4, 2026, one name emerges as the apparent frontrunner: Abdul El-Sayed. Yet this development should send shockwaves through every patriotic American. El-Sayed does not merely hold progressive views. He has made public statements that reveal a disturbing alignment with interests hostile to the United States and its closest allies. Recent reports have revealed quotes that should disqualify him from any serious consideration by voters who value American security and the well-being of American citizens.
Consider first El-Sayed’s reaction to the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This was not the passing of some benign figure. Khamenei spent decades leading a regime that chanted “Death to America,” funded global terrorism, killed millions of people and threatened the very existence of the Jewish state.
When American and Israeli actions eliminated this architect of anti-Western hatred, one might expect a Democratic Senate candidate to express relief or at least neutrality. And most did, but not El-Sayed. In leaked audio from a March 1 campaign strategy call, he instructed his team to remain completely silent.
“I also want to remind you guys that there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today,” “So, like, I just don’t want to comment on Khamenei at all. Like, I don’t think it’s worth even touching that.”
El-Sayed suggested pivoting to attacks on President Trump regarding unrelated political matters. This is not political caution. This is willful blindness to the well-deserved death of a terrorist mastermind.
El-Sayed claims to be responding to Democrat voters who will be “sad” to learn of the death of the Supreme Leader. Hard to imagine that any decent American voter would harbor a feeling of sadness over the death of a leader who wants to kill them – and has. El-Sayed places the feelings of those who mourn an enemy of America ahead of any declaration of support for American interests.
The pattern grows even more alarming when one examines El-Sayed’s response to the March 12 terrorist attack at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan. An Islamist terrorist tied to Hezbollah, Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, drove an explosives-laden vehicle directly into the synagogue complex, a site that included a daycare center filled with more than one hundred Jewish children. Law enforcement acted swiftly, and the attacker was fatally shot before he could carry out a massacre. This was not a random act of road rage. The FBI later confirmed it as a Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism, with the perpetrator sending militant videos to family in Lebanon in which he expressed his desire to “kill as many Jews as possible”.
El-Sayed issued a four-minute video statement. He condemned the attack, to be sure. Yet he could not resist drawing a moral equivalence. “We can and must condemn the attack on Temple Israel, and we can and must condemn the violence 6,000 miles away,” he declared, explicitly linking the domestic terrorism in Michigan to Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon – and to America’s military actions in Iran.
In private remarks to his campaign staff, El-Sayed admitted the entire statement was “a risk.” “All of our team was really worried about saying something,” he confessed, “but leadership is being willing to say the thing if you believe it to be true that nobody else is going to say.” On that count, you have to give El-Sayed credit for saying something no one else would – or should – say.
By framing the murder attempt on American Jewish children as part of a larger “cycle of violence” for which he holds Israel responsible, El-Sayed effectively contextualized and softened the terrorist’s actions. He essentially justified them despite his initial condemnation of that West Bloomfield terrorist attack.
These are not isolated slips of the tongue. They reveal a candidate whose worldview places the sensitivities of anti-American constituencies above the interests of Michigan families and the strategic interests of the United States. Dearborn mourners who grieve the loss of an Iranian theocrat receive deference. Jewish children targeted in their own synagogue receive lectures about distant Middle East conflicts. This is not the profile of a senator who will defend American citizens. It is the profile of an activist who views the United States and its allies through the lens of its adversaries.
One must ask in disbelief how the Democratic Party and its voters in Michigan can rally behind such a figure. Have they learned nothing from years of radical rhetoric that excuses terrorism abroad and endangers lives at home? Do they truly believe that a Senate candidate who refuses to denounce the death of America’s sworn enemy — and who ties domestic terror to Israeli self-defense — represents their values? El-Sayed’s candidacy exposes a party that has drifted so far left that it now tolerates sympathies incompatible with basic American patriotism.
Michigan deserves better. The United States Senate deserves better. And the American people deserve leaders who place their nation and its citizens first without hesitation or apology. The fact that El-Sayed remains the likely Democratic nominee should serve as a warning to every voter in the state. If Democrat voters succeed in nominating El-Sayed as their standard bearer, we can only hope that the voters of Michigan will give El-Sayed the crushing defeat he deserves in November.
So, there ‘tis.
A raghead??? Seriously????
Yes Larry, the. United States does deserve better, but here we are stuck with the incompetent fool in the Oval Office (who you support). While I personally do not have any grief at taking out the supreme leader of Iran in the early attacks on the country-I do have a lot of concern that our military under trump and hegseth is not operating under international law-we are not a country that I can be proud of at this time. I am currently on travel out of the country (something you cannot do, I understand) and am very cautious when people ask where I am from-America (and specifically trump) is hated worldwide. As for Israel-they ceased to be a decent country many years ago. While the attacks they endured by Hamas were heinous, they continue to bring hatred on themselves (much as trump is doing for us). They made an agreement in 1993 to set up a Palestinian state in their conquered territory from the ‘67 war, instead they continue to move settlers pinto the area and treat Palestinians as second class citizens. So I can well understand why a candidate in Michigan would tread very softly when discussing Trump’s illegal actions in Iran, but of course you prefer to finger point and make him out to be a ‘bad guy’. You are simply too nutty to be believed….
So tell us mike f as in fag. Who would you rather have as the president? Surely not retard joe or the cackling ho. Trump is doing very good. Throw your hat in the ring for 2028. Who knows? Get enough communists to support you and you can show us how it’s done. Dunger could be your running mate and the both of you could spoon in the presidential suite
Ben, Almost anyone would be a better choice than the ignorant, incompetent demented fool we have occupying the Oval Office now and the group of ass lickers he has surrounded himself with. The presidency is not (normally) based on one person making all the decisions independently (for reasons like the completely ignorant statement ‘trump is always right about everything’) but rather surrounding themselves with competent people who the President will listen to for sound advice. The ass lickers surrounding trump tell him only what he wants to hear, so we get completely illegal actions like the Iran attacks, abducting madero from Venezuela so the US can take charge of their oil, blowing private boats out of the water in the Caribbean, initiating illegal tariffs-the list goes on (and on). So yes, Kamala would have been a far better choice, even if she might not have been my first choice (trump would have been last choice in any competition…)
Bendung; until you prove what you say about my lying with facts and sources; why would I respond to even more specious spew. Either prove me a liar, point out a lie of fact, or be a real man and apologize for your mistake. You spew and spew, but still have not stepped up and proved your accusations and continue to scream like a little colicky baby. It’s been days and you are unable to respond. Weak tea, dude.
Larry, in response to your out-of-context quotes, FOX reported he responded: “There are many people who see the downfall of the regime as a good thing, but the question of whether or not it was pursued legally, that’s a different question,” makes sense to me.
He added: “Whether or not its worth $31 billion of our taxes and counting a billion dollars a day, that’s another thing. Whether or not we should be paying higher rates at the pump every single time we try to just get where we’re going and pump gas… that [is] a big question, and I’ll tell you what, there are a lot of people who are really sad about the fact that they thought that the era of foreign wars, of never-ending regime change wars were over, and here we are,” makes even more sense to me. And I think the numbers are low and do not include the losses of one of only 17 radar planes at $350M, the F15, the Warthog, and the damaged Blackhawk. The radar plane was undoubtedly targeted by the Russians for Iran, but we lifted their oil sanctions.
When asked about the fact Iran’s radicals make decisions for the people, he responded: “Radicalism of any sort is bad, which is why this MAGA movement taking us into yet another war in my lifetime, and I’m only 41, is so ridiculous,” I am starting to like this guy: No New Wars used to be important to Maga too.
I think Larry and the right are conflating things while throwing a hissy fit over a American Egyptian Muslim using faith as their bogeyman. He is American, you can find no radical actions, and someone take a few words to build your weak case.
Born to immigrants in 1984 Detroit, this guy did U of Mich, then a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Does not seem like a terrorist in training. In college, he went on a mission to help people in Peru, radical stuff. A three way athlete, he did wrestling, football, and lacrosse — firebrand no doubt as captain of the Oxford lacrosse team. Did his commencement speech with Bill Clinton in his audience. Written over 100 scholarly articles, youngest US health director for a major US city. I see no radical actions in his career. Who would he be a sleeper for? Egypt? He is a progressive Democrat liked by Sanders. He is anti-war and has criticized Israel’s Gaza war, and now, their brand-new Lebanon war but supports more US efforts in Ukraine as “the good fight” which Trump defunded. He supports abolishing ICE; I do not agree with that and feel the metric is ICE needs to act like any other US policing organization and must be re-engineered, re-trained, and reorganized. Don’t care, pick any police organization. These guys are OOC.
Larry, I see progressive, not radical, and I see you going over the top fanning fears of faith. This guy seems as American as any of us, and he has already done some great service to and for our nation and the world. If you have actual acts of radicalism, I am all ears, but you are hyperventilating over very little as you attempt to equate your love of war with patriotism. Israel is hawkish and has dragged us into Bibi’s world of possible war crimes where we bomb civilians and civilian infrastructures seemingly at will and our DOD head calls to lower the bars of risk to civilians and “no quarter” for combatants which he has accomplished a number of times.
Not to worry, not doing too well in the polls, you can sleep tight.
Frank Danger,,, “You write :When asked about the fact Iran’s radicals make decisions for the people, he responded: ‘Radicalism of any sort is bad, which is why this MAGA movement taking us into yet another war in my lifetime, and I’m only 41, is so ridiculous’,” That was not his original comment, it as his later crafted public comment after getting the pushback from is private candied comment in the staff meeting.
Larry, you are correct which I tried to indicate by saying they were in response to your out of context “candid” quotes, all reported by FOX.
IMO. the first quotes, the candid ones, were just locker room braggadocio easily understood given what an athlete he is and without bone spurs too.
Frankly, for public service, the only checkbox missed in military service.
Seriously Larry, he clarified his meaning, his intent, and you really have little evidence of radicalized actions throughout his life and work. Just fear mongering based on religion.
Second chance, remember?
Happy Easter. I just love the movies round now: Demetrius, Ben-Hur, The Robe, Ten Commandments, and Silverado. Who can forget Kevin coming back from the dead! Note the scene where his horse is leaning against a pole in town. Two shots, two different horses. Gotta watch them pintos.
Larry, this is certainly a tangent and not in any way a response to your piece, but it is in response to things I think you have said and I wonder what else you might add. It’s based on things you have said about taxes, defense, and big government that I researched to my surprise.
The other day I saw Trump spewing about the State’s responsibility to provide daycare support while the Federal Government is just about defense; a key tenant in conservatism that I believe, you have said as well. The Constitution does not qualify the Federal government’s role and size beyond a 10x10mile area (DC). While I don’t believe that’s true today, and while I believe the founders would be first to create social programs, I took a peek at two issues: 1) the history of taxes and 2) the history of social programs — both from a Federal Level.
I am sure this is old news to you, but apparently news to me, I fault public education, and wonder if you have sage words to put on top. I can’t believe my teachers did not think this notable both in date and to better explain conservatism.
TAXES: we have always been taxed, but the Federal Income tax program started in 1913, not sure why. Before, we used excise taxes, tariffs, and the like, That’s a sales, usage, tax or value add tax on imports, some of your favorite strategies. Lincoln charged 3% on incomes over $800 to fund the Civil War as our first income tax taxed the rich, not the poor. Short-lived, not law, but the 1913 tax was a Constitutional amendment; living document, times change, but once law, hard to change. One reason they did it was that tariffs, excise taxes, could not support the growing needs of a growing country. Income, which is progressive and focuses on those making more, was deemed fairer than jacking up the price of foreign goods even more. It was a progressive program from the beginning, by choice, for fairness, or so they believed.
The first social program was 1935 with Social Security and, because of the Constitution, SS was created as a tax program which was divorced from the Federal Budget, it’s a sinking fund, a annuity, an insurance program too, but while “parked,” it’s used to finance our Federal debt receiving Federal profit rate, very low, but safe, so we basically invest in ourselves. That’s really amazing that the State did whatever was done all the way to 1935. While the framework for SS is an artifact of our Constitution, it is deviously financially brilliant too. I think the founders would be impressed by this clever structure that, for some strange reason, we abandoned with Medicare, to our financial demise.
I was floored that my grade school American History did not pay attention to those dates and meaning. I better understand your position and heartbreak over the “enhancements” to these Constitutional items, defense, taxes, and social programs from a federal level over the years.
Next, I went to the Constitution and AI told me that the primary Federal responsibilities are “regulating interstate commerce, declaring war, raising armed forces, taxing, coining money, and managing foreign relations.” (is that where Trump marries Melania? Kidding.) OK, that’s a big more than just defending the nation, but not much. Seems that interstate commerce worked well. The founders were brilliant in that a great teacher once said to me that many of the world’s ills could be solved with use of a single money supply; same is true for our nation. The money supply is the glue that binds us. Can you imagine 50 different supplies? Our founder’s original documents are incredibly grand.
Thing is time marches on, and the Constitution is a living thing, both in content, which can be added and deleted, and in meaning, as in interpretation by the Congress, Executive, but especially the courts for a final interpretation. The first changes came from the founders themselves.
.
In the beginning, we were really thirteen countries linked only by our founding documents and not much else. Commerce, news, travel, all moved slower, these 13 countries could never be managed from a central anything, at least not well based on technology alone. It took 3-4 weeks to travel North to South, news and info travelled at the same speed as we humans. Today, info is at the speed of light, humans take hours, not days, not weeks, to travel end-to-end across all 50 states. Instead of 50 countries joined by our founding documents, we are really one country with 50 subdivisions. IF in 1776, all programs were by the State, today, the Country is the State and I think the Founders would have had similar discussions on the modern role of the Federal Government based on the Constitution’s directive that we do: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .” That damnable “general Welfare” clause. The founders were indeed brilliant and our back n forth over defense, taxes, and social programs seems to be fostered by the Constitution itself. They wanted us to debate these issues and probably foresaw the changes in the country that would lead us this way. We have had Federalists and Anti-Federalists from the beginning and I can see why. Seems a good debate to have.
Any comments?
Thanks for pointing this out; I can see not only where you are coming from, but also how you got there based on a strict Constitutional reading. I also see the Constitution opening the door for social programs without providing any guidelines over how many or how big. Makes for interesting times. I was amazed my public school education did not emphasize this more, or maybe I skipped those days, as I was prone to do :>)
Thoughts? Especially in how is too big determined, and how do you determine Federal versus State Social programs? Any rules?
Keep all Muslims out of American governance. Their goal is to put in as many as they can get to turn our country into an Islamic nation.
Impeach the ones in there now and don’t elect anymore. They are trying to take over America! Qaddafi the dead Libyan dictator said to the Muslim nation that they can’t beat America in a war, but they could beat them by migrating to America and putting Muslims in government and making Muslim policies when they get enough in there.
Don’t be so stupid to fall into their scheme!