New York Republicans Choose Mazi Melesa Pilip, an IDF Veteran, to Succeed George Santos
“She’s really the American success story, the American dream.”
New York Republicans chose Nassau County legislator Mazi Melesa Pilip, an Orthodox Jew, as their nominee for the special election for George Santos’s seat.
The special election will happen on February 13, 2024.
The House of Representatives expelled Santos due to numerous allegations and indictments. Still no word on what the Senate will do to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ).
Pilip was born in the late 1970s in Ethiopia. Her family moved to Israel when she was 12. She’d later become an elite paratrooper in the IDF.
PJ Media’s Stephen Green mentioned how Jerusalem brought in thousands of Ethiopian Jews in the past 40 years. Operation Solomon airlift in 1991 carried Pilip and almost 20,000 Jews to Israel.
Pilip earned a degree in occupational therapy at the University of Haifa and a master’s in diplomacy at the University of Tel Aviv.
Pilip met Adalbert Pilip, a Ukrainian-American, at the University of Haifa. They are married and have seven kids.
This is where it gets interesting. Pilip is a registered Democrat but has run for political office as a Republican.
The Nassau Republicans don’t consider Pilip’s Democratic registration: “We endorse the best candidate, we don’t endorse on political registration.”
Pilip has said her affiliation doesn’t matter because her work “has been nonpartisan or local in scope.” She has a point. From The New York Post:
Two years ago, Pilip decided to enter politics (“You can’t just complain from outside,” she said) and ran for Nassau County Legislature in the Great Neck area, defeating a four-term Democratic incumbent by 7 points.
She still found time to give birth to twin daughters (her sixth and seventh children) just weeks before the election.
She was re-elected to a second term last month with 60% percent of the vote.
Pete King, a congressman from Nassau County for 28 years, is full of praise for Pilip’s candidacy: “She’s really the American success story, the American dream.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hm. Cautiously optimistic.
No
Maybe dem switching sides could be best strategy to win in deep blue state?
Registration is irrelevant. You register as a Democrat if you want a say in the Dem primary, which is usually the real election. It’s got nothing to do with how you vote in the general.
But that’s not what she says.
Assuming that that attribution is accurate, the boast(?) that one is “nonpartisan” tells you everything you need to know. The dems are all treasonous dirtbags whose policies all work towards the destruction of america and general chaos and perversion. There is nothing to work with in that unless someone leans towards that sort of nihilistic retardation.
Pilip is not registered Democrat just to vote in the primaries. It sounds as if she can’t tell the difference between Democrats and people who actually like America.
There’s nothing in what you quoted to support that. Or to oppose it, but that’s the point; we have no information on which to decide whether she’s “really” a Republican or a Democrat.
In today’s environment, when someone says “nonpartisan”, that says all you need to know.
Now you’re just babbling. “Nonpartisan” means exactly what it says. Her work so far has all been on subjects where there are no party differences, or of purely local scope. As LaGuardia said, there’s no Republican or Democrat way to fix potholes. She’s been fixing potholes, so it hasn’t mattered whether she was a Republican or a Democrat. Now that she’s running for Congress it matters, and she’s come out as a Republican.
LOL. What are you, 5 years old?
No, I’m someone who doesn’t just make things up and insist that they’re true, evidently unlike you.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn how she votes in the primaries. I give a damn how she votes as a Democrat in Republican clothing when she’s ensconced in the House of Representatives.
So I don’t subscribe to your “how the sausage is made” mentality. I subscribe to the “if your gonna be a Democrat, be a Democrat, but if you run as a Republican, you better dance with the one that brung ya” mentality.
The point is that you have no basis at all for supposing that she’s “a Democrat in Republican clothing”, or that she’ll vote as a Democrat. How she’s registered to vote is irrelevant.
Oh, so what you are saying is that there’s not a pubic hair’s difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, or democrats or republicans in how they act or vote.
I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently not.
So, why have different parities? Or is it so brown and black people can have a party and not include whites?
What a dimwit.
Isn’t she from Great Neck, Nassau County on Long Island? That region is not overwhelmingly Deep Blue. I guess the question is, if elected, will she be a R-INO or a D-INO?
Different sides of the same coin.
Wow, New York Republicans have finally learned how to check boxes: Ethiopian, Israeli, black, female, Democrat — a combo that’s hard to beat!
You forgot “married to a Ukrainian”!
A box gets unchecked for being Israeli. Unless she’s a leftist.
VA Lt Gov Sears is woman of color, doesn’t have diploma from elite college, immigrant success story.
But after all is said and done, NOT a Democrat.
On the uptick, she is productive. Her education is worthless but she seems to be based in the fundamentals of living life in real time. I like that she feels a duty to represent the people of Great Neck. Hell, that’s the entire purpose of becoming a Representative.
She’s already light years ahead of Puke Romney, Scumbag of Utah.
Productive having kids.
And like SC Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Pilio will quickly learn that those 7 kids will be a detriment to her when the Leftists say “those are some nice kids you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to them.”
A mother’s first instinct (at least with real women, and not identifying women) is to protect her brood.
So, will she vote as a Republican or will she vote based on the security and safety of her kids? Not that they are mutually exclusive.
Only time will tell.
At this point I am not convinced. I hope she proves me wrong.
Need proof? Van Drew. 67% on Heritage Score, with the average Republican 79%.
Most Democrats on the Progressive meter are above 90%.
Did you see the part about serving as a paratrooper in Israel? I too am skeptical about how she will vote but I would not want to be the one threatening her kids. She seems like the kind of mom who might take it personal and feed you your teeth.
I am still skeptical.
She may not be in my district, and I can’t vote for or against her. But her presence puts the Republican majority in jeopardy if she decides to act on her Democratic Party past.
I don’t see where she has stated that “I am no longer a Democrat.”
Van Drew stopped being a Democrat but still votes like one on certain issues.
“Her education is worthless”
So earning a degree in occupational therapy is “worthless.”
Another top notch commenter! Where’s the dude who always comes along to give us a lesson on where blacks fall on the bell curve?
Most fall on the far left side of the Bell Curve, same for most Muslims. Not all, but most in both cases. Evolution left some groups behind. It seems that you understand this and resent it.
You of course have the statistics on the Muslims, right?
Yes, by and large Muslims are low IQ, maybe that is why they buy into ISLAMM
Translation: Trojan horse.
You may think you hate the GOP, but you don’t hate them enough.
Your anti-Semitism is duly noted.
Fûck off. He didn’t make any commentary about her being a Jew.
YOU did you racist piece of shit.
And why would that sentiment be anti-semitism, as expressed?
You are much kinder than I am.
Santos was the most conservative voting Republican in the Senate
Sorry
In Congress
Ignoring the ethics he is gone. Either this Republican or a Democrat who will be a 100% left wing vote in congress.
Sorry but the binary is a binary.
Ethics. What do you or any politician know about ethics?
If ethics were the issue, more than half of those turds would have been flushed by now.
Only half?
“More than half.”
But you are correct. The other half are democrats and not held to the same standards as Republicans.
Example. The black belt idiot of House, Hank Johnson, who believes that Guam will tip over if we put too many Marines on it.
Yet, that low IQ moron (I know, redundant) keeps getting reelected by the other low IQ voters in his district.
NOTE: Cue Danny and Thad to come out and tell everyone that I am a racist because Johnson’s district is predominantly black, failing to take into consideration that whites in his district are low IQ too.
Ignoring Danny is even better!
He was also a crook.
Now this is what I’m talking about
Much much more of this
1 So that Baphomet statue in the Iowa state capitol? Yeah, some dude decided to knock it down and remove it’s head:
http://tinyurl.com/4skb2cvz
Posted by: Blanco Basura – Z28.310
Finally. Phinehas rises.
This is what you cheer? Open defiance of the constitution?!
Defiance of the Constitution?? LOL.
This is called standing up for civilized society and sanity.
Not to condone property destruction but to call the satanists a religion….have you ever spoken to them? It is “I don’t believe in him” this and “ironic that” and “owning the Christofascists” this.
Sorry but it is not a religion, and should not be recognized as one. At the very least they should have to say they believe in it, and are worshipping satan instead of “I am ironically praising satan to make Christians angry”.
It doesn’t matter whether they actually believe in it. Of course they don’t. The whole point is to enforce the first amendment by ensuring that no religion is being given special treatment. If other religious displays are allowed in that space then theirs must be too. What they would prefer is that no religious displays be allowed, but they’re not getting that.
No belief no religion.
A club that is all about attacking someone else’ religion with no religious beliefs of their own is a circle of bigotry not a religion.
Theirs should not be allowed because theirs is not a religion.
At one point the Olympian Gods were worshipped unironically. A professor of Classics who wants to place a statue of Zeus there wouldn’t be considered placing a religious icon, even if every other professor in his department backed the statue.
For there to be no beliefs, no belief system, no system of ethics…….not every club deserves to be recognized as a religion and the United States Government has investigated exactly that sort of thing ever since the tax status became an issue.
The first amendment requires the government to be completely neutral between all religions; it doesn’t say only those religions that have actual believers. Pastafarians and Jedi count too. These people are simply first amendment activists, testing the edges of government compliance. What they want is to drive all expressions of religion out of the public square, just like the ACLU. But they’re not going to get that. So they’re entitled to equal treatment; by allowing their displays the government is making it clear, as it should, that it does not endorse the genuine religious displays that it allows.
May I suggest as a compromise that we erect a tower to represent all?
We can call it Babel, or something like that.
You completely ignored my argument, which isn’t surprising because I don’t think you could come up with any way to claim the club you are defending is a religion it isn’t.
Libertarianism is to the right what socialism is to the left. No calling your club a religion doesn’t make it a religion, from their own official website they admit they are atheists which de facto and de jure makes it not a religion.
What should have happened would have been the courage to say “Listen any religion is allowed to have a display here, we have read your official material and because you are atheists we are not allowing your symbol here.”
To put it in perspective as a Jew which symbol of yours REQUIRES a Christian display to be displayed?
None right?
No matter how you slice it the club that put up the statue is in no way a religion. To recognize it as such you would have to recognize the Communist Party as a religion.
Why not?? Works for Progressives who tore down our statues without a whimper from the elites. Why does THIS statue mean more to them??
WTH does this have to do with the Constitution?
Because the whole point of the criminal who did this damage was that he wants the legislature to establish Christianity as the state religion, and to discriminate against all other religions. That is open defiance of the first amendment.
Which you know because he disapproves of an atheist club insulting everything he believes in with the blessing of the state in an area that is supposed to be for religious display?
You could say no displays by atheist clubs for the sole purpose of insulting Christians without being the theocratic enemy you are describing.
They are open about it in their official material and if you ask them they are not a religion.
The United States is not required to recognize non-religions as a religion.
This is where it gets interesting. Pilip is a registered Democrat but has run for political office as a Republican.
—————————–
Is this double speak for “we don’t have real conservatives so we’re going to put up the least worst democrat instead and hope she’s less fascist than any other candidate”?
New York election law is like a foreign country.
Places I’ve lived have issues with people who don’t fairly represent a party running under the party label, and the party can’t stop their campaign because the candidate is registered with the Secretary of State as a member of that party, regardless of how the party feels about it.
In New York we have a person officially registered as a Democrat running as a Republican, and the Secretary of State does nothing?
Why should the SoS do anything? The Republican party is entitled to endorse whomever it likes. It’s none of the SoS’s business.
In Arizona, if a person who is a registered Democrat attempts to run on a Republican ticket, the SoS gets involved you betcha. A registered Democrat can’t vote on a Republican primary ballot, much less BE on it.
If that is the law in AZ, it’s unusual. I’m not sure it is the law there; if the party says they want someone on their primary ballot, why would the law say they can’t have it.
But in any case, there is no primary here, so no primary ballot. The party has nominated this person, and any law that would allow the Secretary of State to refuse the nomination would be unconstitutional.
SoS for deepest red places like Utah, Alabama and Alaska can’t do anything about that either.
We do not have party registration in Alabama. The political parties decide who runs in their primary based on rules established their respective county or state executive committees.
No, it’s a reflection of the fact that party registration tells us nothing about a person’s political views, or how they vote. The only purpose of party registration is to decide which primary you’re allowed to vote in. If the Dem primary is the real election, and you want a say in it, you register Dem. If you want to be elected in a safe Dem seat, you run in the Dem primary; that doesn’t control how you vote if elected.
A GOP majority approved the NDAA, which also extended Section 702 of FISA. Peter King was one of those that voted for it, so his gushes over Pilip’s candidacy mean exactly nothing to me.
How did he do that? Didn’t he retire from Congress in 2021? Didn’t the NDAA provide a 5.2% pay raise for our warriors?
A woman became a paratrooper in the IDF … I don’t think so. And an “elite” paratrooper? Give me a break. Frankly, I don’t think dual nationals should be allowed in Congress. I know there are a lot there, but they shouldn’t be. Any naturalized American was required to give up all other citizenships upon naturalization. That’s the whole Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance thingy …
It’s all a real shame. Santos was one of the better Congressmen. And he was a funny guy, too. I think most of what they accused him of was complete BS. I mean, those last allegations that he used campaign funds to by Hermes and plane tickets, or something … could any but a handful of Congressmen stand up to that sort of thing?
Your ignorance doesn’t change the facts. The IDF has had female paratroopers since the 1950s, and there are women in the most elite units.
The constitution disagrees with you.
Not sure how that’s relevant to this case, though. Last I heard the USA still requires people who are naturalizing to renounce all former allegiances, so she’s not a dual national. But if she were (e.g. if she was born a US citizen), the constitution says she would be eligible.
No, they have not.
The IDF has employed female instructors for certain courses but, beyond the War for Independence, there were no female paratroopers. Just the idea is silly.
Complete and utter BS. BS of the worst sort. BS that is beyond BS. You have no idea what the heck you are talking about. It’s laughable.
You watched GI Jane too many times. That’s not how the real world is.
Yes, they have. You are simply ignorant.
There are women in Sayeret Matkal. Is that elite enough for you?
That is how the IDF is. Whether the officers like it or not. It’s being imposed on them by politicians and lawyers. .
“Yes, they have. You are simply ignorant.”
No, they have not. Females were not accepted into the Paratroopers for decades after their formation in the mid 1950’s
There are women in Sayeret Matkal. Is that elite enough for you?
There are not woman in most elite units. They are restricted in most of them. There are procedures for woman to try out but very few can handle the physical training.
When I earned my Israeli Jump Wings in the early 80’s I don’t recall seeing one female on a jump. They are currently instructors but do not do full load outs and/or combat jumps. The Paratroopers are considered elite in that their training is far more difficult than US Paratroopers. In the US you do not have to be infantry to go through Jump School, in the IDF all go through infantry training.
Yocheved Kashi and Menucha Fidel became Israel’s first female paratroopers, in 1950.
You are a complete moron and a liar. They are about to open Sayeret Matkal out to women to tryout for … IN 2024.
There are no women in Sayeret Matkal, there have never been women in Sayeret Matkal and there will not be any women in Sayeret Matkal. They can try out all they want but none are going to pass.
For those who don’t know, Sayeret Matkal is one of the most elite units in the IDF. Matkal is the acronym for “Chiefs of Staff” and Sayeret Matkal is the unit that answers to the Chiefs of Staff for very special operations. No woman is going to make it onto that unit unless they make serious allowances for her.
Any women in combat forces are a joke and everyone knows it. They are a dangerous joke, too, as they cannot do what is necessary in combat and they are more of a liability (for a whole variety of reasons) than an asset.
I should also point out that many soldiers serve in Airborne Units without being qualified. My daughter serves right now in a Special Forces unit but is not Q qualified. No wings, no tab, no Green Beret. No shame in that as not everyone wants to jump from a perfectly good aircraft.
Milhouse is wrong about something?!
not as often as you are wrong.
All naturalizing Americans take that oath but almost all of them break it by not relinquishing their other citizenships. I have had arguments with lawyers about this BS for years. The lawyers’ only defense seems to be that one can renounce all other citizenships during the oath but then change one’s mind right after. Of course, that is the sort of “logic” that could only fly in a courtroom or law school class.
Basically, most naturalizing Americans have made their first act as Americans to be taking an oath in bad faith and breaking it. For those who did it, their American citizenships should be revoked … but we are beyond law, these days …
The other country may not recognize the renunciation. That’s what the War of 1812 was officially fought over. There’s nothing the person can do about that, and the naturalization is still valid.
Also, US citizens often swear oaths to other countries renouncing their US citizenship, but under US law if such an oath is made only because the foreign country requires it for some purpose, and it was not meant sincerely, it doesn’t count and they keep their citizenship. So it’s reasonable for other countries to do the same thing.
If you can prove the oath was not taken in good faith, that the person had their fingers crossed at the time, then the naturalization can indeed be retroactively canceled. But only if you can prove that.
There’s no way you can believe any of the crap you write. This is all ridiculous.
When you take an oath to renounce other citizenships you are under an obligation to take steps to officially relinquish those citizenships. It’s pretty friggin simple. And if you claim to renounce a citizenship to become an American but still carry a passport for that other country then you have clearly lied about your renunciation.
Try and make sense some time.
Now, I’ll give you a pass if it’s an old passport with a hole punched through it. I’ve still got my old passports and one for my son when he was little. But I can’t use them, of course.
If you renew your passport in your old country after becoming an American, then I don’t rightly think you’re an American any more.
The other country may not recognize the renunciation. That’s what the War of 1812 was officially fought over.
Exactly. Once you’re an American, you’re an American and not anything else.
but under US law if such an oath is made only because the foreign country requires it for some purpose, and it was not meant sincerely
And if you’re doing it to be naturalized in that country, that would be sincerely. Or it would be fraud in the foreign country for purposes of espionage, and you’ll end up in their gulag. Do you actually think through your pedantry?
If you can prove the oath was not taken in good faith
Not giving up the actual allegiance to a foreign nation when you promise to do so would be pretty solid proof that you took that oath in bad faith. Because you lied.
I don’t understand your argument, but it seems like sophistry to me.
I wonder if you think it’s OK for USA citizens to have dual citizenship, or if it should be disallowed (if it’s legal, as you claim).
The war of 1812 was fought over citizenship and naturalization? What in the actual…?
Where did you ever get that idea?
Yes, the issue at stake in the War of 1812 was the impression of Americans into British naval service. The reasoning by the British Navy was “They were once British subjects, and we don’t recognize them as anything but, despite that late unpleasantness and their jumped-up notion of being a separate nation.” So, yes, it was over the fact that Americans were Americans and NOT anything else, no matter what those countries might claim. And we ultimately successfully enforced that point.
The official cause for the War of 1812 was that the UK did not recognize renunciation of UK citizenship. UK citizens who became naturalized in the USA were still UK citizens, since it’s UK law that decides that. So they were subject to the draft. The UK was busy fighting Napoleon, and the Laws of War allowed combatant warships to stop and search neutral shipping. And when UK warships stopped US merchantmen and found such people on board they would draft them. The USA objected to this practice, and that was the official reason it declared war on the UK.
one can renounce all other citizenships during the oath but then change one’s mind right after
There would seem to be a misunderstanding of the word “oath” in this case….
“The lawyers’ only defense seems to be that one can renounce all other citizenships during the oath but then change one’s mind right after.”
Has anyone informed every husband in the country about this?
The constitution disagrees with you.
You’re wrong there. The current law may allow dual citizenship, but it certainly doesn’t comport with our history to allow that (see the War of 1812, Causes of). And the oath of naturalization (required by law, as authorized by the Constitution) requires renunciation of all other allegiances. However, actual practice (I do not know how much is actual law, and how much is bureaucratic rule-making) is that numerous countries may now exercise dual citizenship, watering down the rights of actual citizens.
No, you are wrong. The constitution is very clear about the qualifications for the various federal elected offices, and for none of them does it require that the person not be a citizen of any foreign country. Therefore the constitution requires that dual citizens be allowed on the ballot, and if elected be allowed to serve, and any attempt to exclude them on that basis would be thrown out in court.
The oath of naturalization has nothing to do with it, as should be obvious to you.
Any naturalized American was required to give up all other citizenships upon naturalization.
Sadly, despite the oath, that’s not true in a huge number of cases.
You left out the part where he admitted he lied his way into Congress.
Will be interesting to see who comes to her defense when she is tokenized.
Article is clear NY Republicans will endorse her, but does not say she will join Republican House Caucus.
Mazi is a wonderful choice by the Nassau County Republicans. She made political history by being the first Republican to be elected County Legislator in area that only voted for Democrats. And she wins by big margins. This is because when the candidate is a person of high quality, it shines through. You go girl!!!
Yeah. Republicans choosing Democrats is such a great achievement. Look no further than Mitt Romney
At one point in their careers, both reagan and trump voted and donated to dem party.
That’s not what the complaint is about here.
Endorsed by the odious Peter King?
Pfft …
With the antisemitism in NY she doesn’’t stand a chance. They basically threw away this seat.
Curious choice. We’ll have to trust the judgment of the local Republicans on this one. At least she is likely to support Israel
Like Chucky Schumer ?? WHERE are the Jewish Democrats in New York, and why aren’t they condemning the rioting of the HAMAS supporters??
Hmmmmm.
I’ll take “Because they secretly support it” for $1,000 Wendybar.
You be talkin’ now, Top.
Wait, this woman is dark-skinned. Contradicts the vile Dhimmi-crats’ offensive notion that all Jews are allegedly “white.”
A LOT of reality contradicts them. Probably the worst part of Progressivism (after the vile morality).
No doubt she will be attacked by woke progressive lefties, like BLM accusing black police of being race traitors.
Ms. Pilip claims to be an Orthodox Jew. They tend to be conservative.
About dual citizenship. Different countries have different rules. Even though you are a US citizen by birth, if a great-grandparent was an Irish citizen, you can get an Irish passport. A great-great-grandmother was Irish, so I do not qualify. Also, the spouse of a Swiss citizen is a Swiss citizen.
It shouldn’t matter what those other countries have to say about it. It’s a question of American sovereignty.
If some other country issues you a passport (because you requested it) because you meet their rules for dual citizenship, that’s fine. But the moment you receive it (because you requested it), your citizenship should be revoked in America, since you’ve taken material steps to obtain citizenship elsewhere. Oh, and you should immediately be asked to leave the country, since you don’t have a valid visa.
Otherwise, you’re a globalist.
Now I know you’re full of crap. US citizenship, once validly obtained, cannot be revoked no matter what you do. So if you were born in the USA and then become naturalized somewhere else without voluntarily renouncing your US citizenship, you remain a US citizen and there is nothing the USA can do about it.
Even if that country requires you to renounce your US citizenship, and you therefore take an oath saying so but you inform the US embassy in advance that you don’t mean it, you keep your US citizenship. What the other country does about it is their business. Likewise if you can prove in some other way that you didn’t voluntarily renounce it.
And of course if you were born in the USA and didn’t “take steps to obtain citizenship elsewhere” because you already have it by birth, you can’t lose your US citizenship merely by exercising your rights as a citizen of that country, e.g. by applying for a passport, or by serving in that country’s armed forces.
This is all completely settled law, and required by the 14th amendment.
And none of it is relevant to this discussion, since there is no indication that this candidate is a dual citizen.
How many passports does hunter hold to access his foreign bank accounts?