God bless you too Swordy and all here today.
Tens of Thousands of “New Voters” Registered to Vote for Mamdani
The New York Times has a shallow cheerleading article about where Zohram Mamdani’s votes came from. As I already pointed out, Mamdani benefited from low turnout below 30% and won the vote of some 5% of New Yorkers.
But the Times has some interesting figures in this chart.
Mr. Mamdani’s campaign had focused on registering voters, and he also appears to have drawn thousands of voters to the primary who did not vote four years ago.
Those are pretty incredible numbers. 40,000 voters would make up nearly 10% of Mamdani’s totals. Who are these new voters?
“A review by The Times of the likely ethnic makeup of the electorate found that voters with names associated with majority Muslim countries were far more likely to vote in 2025 than in 2021.”
Not much more than that except that the age makeup is naturally impossible.
The New York Times drops this impossible chart and then has nothing to say about it. Age makeup like this doesn’t exist in elections. Yet we’re supposed to believe that 18-25 year olds voted at higher rates than any other age group in this primary. That doesn’t happen.
Who were these 18-25 year olds? The Muslim settler population in the US is uniquely young so that “roughly a third of all Muslim adults are under the age of 30”. That may offer a partial explanation for what we’re seeing here. Social media trends wouldn’t do this. Organized community bloc voting would. Beyond fraud and numbers like these absolutely raise that question, we are seeing a test of the system that Islamists used to swamp elections in the UK. We may want to wake up before it starts happening on a large scale here.
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/tens-of-thousands-of-new-voters-registered-to-vote-for-mamdani/
MSM Claims MAHA "Threatens To Set Women Back Decades"
An increasing number of Americans are abandoning processed foods and taking control of their own food supply chain—planting backyard gardens and sourcing meat, eggs, dairy, and pantry staples directly from local markets and farms. The trend, which is gaining momentum under the "Make America Healthy Again" movement—and even noted by Goldman—reflects a broader push for food independence and a return to community-based sourcing.
Not everyone is on board with MAHA — especially not the feminist journalists at SELF (owned by the corporate media company Condé Nast), who recently penned an article that reads like a hit piece against MAHA.
Erica Sloan's critique of MAHA is that food independence is unrealistic and burdensome for women in the modern progressive world.
In her article titled "How the MAHA Food Agenda Threatens to Set Women Back Decades," Sloan writes…
But it's what MAHA isn't saying that's most important: Stoking so much fear around these vital industries implies that Americans—more specifically, the mothers of America—need to find a different way to feed their families.
"Women do a disproportionate share of the kind of work that the MAHA movement is asking people to do, which is to grow their own food, to prepare all of their food from scratch, and to avoid processed food and even packaged foods," Norah MacKendrick, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University and author of Better Safe Than Sorry: How Consumers Navigate Exposure to Everyday Toxics, tells SELF. Even today, with approximately 60% of women working outside the home, women still spend about two hours more on housework daily and cook more than twice as many meals a week as men do. The implication that our current food system is inherently unsafe just stands to pile on the labor.
"In order for a family to eat a diet of mostly homegrown or even just homemade meals… that's going to be a lot more work for women and mothers especially," Dr. MacKendrick says. It's an ideal that the MAHA moms have already embodied—and that would be not only unrealistic but unfair to expect from all American families.
More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/food/msm-claims-maha-threatens-set-women-back-decades