Bernie Sanders is Less Sophisticated Than Forrest Gump

The King of the Democratic Socialists, Senator Bernie Sanders, continues to show off his stupid ideas. His latest – capping pay of private companies.

The current salvo is part of Sanders’ “Stop Walmart Act” in which he wants to limit CEO’s pay to 150 times that of a typical employee. Somehow, raising the quality of life for poorest Americans is not sufficient via increases to the minimum wage and work conditions. Sanders is intent on putting the breaks on income inequality by limiting what the top brass earn. So if the average employee made $50,000 per year at a company, the CEO pay would be capped at $7.5 million.

Think about applying the logic to the movie business.

Tom Hanks earned roughly $60 million for his work in Forrest Gump. Taking his pay and dividing by 150 would mean that the average worker for that movie – including hair and makeup, lighting, sound editor, key grip (whatever that means) – would earn $400,000. Needless to say, the average worker on the movie made nowhere near that total. If the average person made $75,000, should Hanks have his pay capped at $11.25 million?

In baseball, Mike Trout earns $33.25 million a year playing for the Angels. The ecosystem in baseball is vast and includes groundskeepers, umpires, gate and parking attendants, people in concessions and advertising and marketing. Does the average person who works in Major league Baseball make $221,667? If they don’t, then Sanders believes that Tout shouldn’t make as much as he does. His perception of fairness trumps the value of his contribution as determined by the free markets.

People can readily appreciate the performances of actors and athletes, and pay money to see them perform. But the management talents of corporate executives is not easy to comprehend or see. A bad CEO could cost a company billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Their work is not simply to amuse people for a few hours, but has dramatic impact on shareholders, employees and customers.

But for new era of American Socialists, income inequality is inherently evil. As freshman member of Congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saida system that allows billionaires to exist… is wrong” and “immoral.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders

The start of this thinking in the Democratic Party can be traced to 2012, when President Barack Obama made the remark “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” While there is a kernel of truth to his broader commentary that most businesses are built with many employees and an ecosystem which enables wealth creation, the current alt-left version of that thinking is that ALL people who have a hand in wealth creation inherently deserve a good portion of that wealth. In the example above, Sanders does not only think that a grounds-keeper at a stadium should get a large raise when the baseball players get huge paydays, but Mike Trout’s Little League coach when he was ten years old should also be entitled to some of Trout’s salary.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is another presidential hopeful from the left-wing who is hyper-focused on income inequality. She has proposed forcing large companies to have almost half of the boards of directors be representatives of the employees. Such efforts are meant to curtail the efficiencies and cost-savings which companies like Amazon utilize to pass cost-savings onto consumers, and instead ensure more employees are hired and make more money relative to shareholders and management. The goal is for unskilled labor to get shielded in a world of automation while trimming Jeff Bezos’s wealth; a double win for progressives. For the people who maximized efficiencies and created new companies, not so much.

Big progressive government is trying to launch the biggest takeover ever – of the entirety of the American business community. It promises to be heavy-handed, very intrusive and punitive as it devalues the contribution of those who innovate and lead.

Bernie Sanders proudly adopted one of the mottoes of Forrest Gump, that “mama said there’s only so much fortune a man really needs… and the rest is just for showing off,” as he pushes to pass laws preventing highly skilled people from making “too much” money. In truth, the Democratic Socialist motto is “stupid is as stupid does.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Progressives are Stripping the Equity of Our Lives

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

Purim 2019, The Progressive Megillah

Bernie Sanders is the Worst U.S. Presidential Candidate for Israel Ever

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Advertisements

As Ilhan Omar Clearly Demonstrates, Not Every “First” is Jackie Robinson

Jackie Robinson became the first black person to play Major League Baseball when he took the field on April 15, 1947. His ten years in the majors were remarkable in many ways, including his incredible talent on the field and his exemplary personal character in an era of tremendous black-white tensions in the USA. His stellar record made it much easier for segregation to come crashing down, and chart a course for an MLB which showcases talents of people with all backgrounds.

Not all firsts are shining stars like Jackie Robinson, as several members of the freshman class in Congress demonstrate, none more than Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

Freshmen members of Congress
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

In just a few short months in office, Omar has already made several antisemitic comments including that Jewish money buys off Congress and that Jews suffer from dual loyalty. Over the past week, she minimized the terrorism of 9/11, and rather than apologize for the statement, doubled-down with stupid and erroneous remarks about former President George W. Bush.

Fellow Democrats have tried to rush to her defense that she’s relatively new at politics. It is worth reminding them that so was Donald Trump, but after repeatedly making offensive remarks, people understood that the man himself is offensive.

The New York Times Charles Blow penned a piece “Demonizing Minority Women” on the 72nd anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s taking the field for the first time. Blow made the Omar incidents about white racism and painted Omar as a victim of the reaction to her repeated vile comments. As someone deeply impacted by 9/11, let me say clearly that such op-ed is bizarre, preposterous and offensive itself.

It is unreasonable to assume that every “first” person – whether black, women, gay, refugee or amputee – will be an outstanding leader. Most white baseball players never approached the level of talent and grace of Jackie Robinson, and why should every black player be held to such a high standard or every “first” person breaking a barrier?

Similarly, why can’t we admit that the first black Muslim woman in Congress has serious deficits that cannot be excused because she is new, or black, or Muslim, or a woman, or a refugee? With so many strikes in such a short time period, the early results are that she is highly offensive, the progressive version of Trump. If that’s the kind of “leader” that Sen. Bernie Sanders respects, he deserves the condemnation heaped on the supporters of another black Muslim anti-Semite named Louis Farrakhan.

To paraphrase Sen. Lloyd Benson, “Jackie Robinson was a hero of mine. Ilhan Omar, you’re no Jackie Robinson.”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Ilhan Omar Isn’t Debating Israeli Policy, She is Attacking Americans

Examining Ilhan Omar’s Point About Muslim Antisemitism

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

Christiane Amanpour is More Anti-Semitic Than Ilhan Omar

The Mourabitat Women of Congress

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Anti-Israel Lobbyists Dwarf Pro-Israel Lobbyists

As AIPAC kicks off its 2019 conference in Washington, D.C., it is worth reviewing some basic statistics about this pro-Israel lobbying group.

Biden_at_AIPAC, once upon a time

According to Open Secrets, AIPAC spent $3.5 million on lobbying in 2018, slightly more than the $3.4 million it spent in 2017. This is a relatively small number compared to the anti-Israel Open Society Foundation (OSF) which spent $31.5 million in 2018 – NINE TIMES what AIPAC spent. That figure is also almost four times the $16 million that OSF spent on US lobbying in 2017. This huge jump in lobbying dollars may coincide with George Soros’s transfer of $18 BILLION into OSF, making it the second largest “charity”/ largest lobbying group in the United States. (By calling itself a charity instead of a lobbying group, Soros was able to avoid paying any capital gains on the billions of investment dollars in his hedge fund.)

In addition to its work lobbying the US government, the OSF directly funds many anti-Israel organizations according to NGO Monitor, including Adalah, Breaking the Silence, Ir Amim and Al-Haq.

That’s just one giant far left-wing lobbying group countering most of AIPAC’s agenda.

The left-wing J Street has likewise repeatedly fought the current Israeli administration and lobbied aggressively against it, and spent more money lobbying Congress in 2018 than AIPAC, a total of $4 million. Not one dollar of J Street went to Republican candidates, which is not surprising as it is really an alternative to the Republic Jewish Coalition, not a broad-based bipartisan group like AIPAC.

When it comes to foreign countries lobbying the US government, the number one country was South Korea, spending $82.5 million in 2018. I do not recall hearing any of the Democratic candidates for president who ran to the defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s remarks about AIPAC talking about South Korea.

Perhaps that is because foreign governments and their companies are mostly lobbying about trade deals which are critical for their economies. The top governments lobbying the US are:

South Korea
Bermuda
Japan
Ireland
Israel
Marshall Islands
Bahamas
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
China

That’s Israel at number five- behind Bermuda and Ireland.

But the liberal media will print articles about the pro-Israel lobby as if it’s a right-wing money machine – even though AIPAC doesn’t give money to candidates while J Street and the OSF do. It will try to defend Ilhan Omar’s AIPAC lobbying comments, while refusing to actually point out that it’s the left-wing groups like OSF and J Street that are really powerful and spending the money to trash Israel.

Perhaps the New York Times is getting money from J Street and George Soros too?


The bipartisan group AIPAC spends less on lobbying than the far left-wing J Street, and a small fraction of what George Soros’s Open Society spends on US lobbyists. The Democratic machine has taken notice what the money spigot is demanding and is taking their anti-Israel talking points to line their pockets. Not that the media will tell you what’s actually going on. #AlternativeFacts


Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street is a Partisan Left-Wing Group, NOT an Alternative to AIPAC

Ilhan Omar Isn’t Debating Israeli Policy, She is Attacking Americans

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

The Anger from the Zionist Center

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

The Evil Architects at J Street Take a Bow

A Basic Lesson of How to be Supportive

The Impossible Liberal Standard

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

The Illogic of Land Swaps

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

When Power Talks the Truth

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Israel Has Much Higher Claims to The West Bank Than Golan Heights

On March 21, 2019, US President Donald Trump said that it was time to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The nature of the timing was viewed by cynics as a nod to help Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu win the election happening in a couple of weeks. For people who understand the nature of the strategic security need for the Golan, the timing had much more to do with the ending of the eight-year civil war in Syria and the rapidly expanding deployment of Iranian forces into Syria. An Iranian-Syrian axis in the Golan Heights would certainly lead to a war with Israel which would kill tens of thousands of people, conservatively.

While there was certainly some benefit politically to Netanyahu for the gesture, the rationale for Israel’s control of the plateau is definitely about security. But the arguments applied to the Golan are relatively weak compared to all of the reasons Israel should have sovereignty over the “West Bank.”

History

Jews lived in the Golan Heights for thousands of years. The ancient Kingdom of Israel occupied most of southern Lebanon and Syria and dozens of synagogues over 1000 years old can be found in the area. But most Jews did not live in that area, certainly compared to the West Bank, over the past 100 years.

Religion

There are no particularly important religious sites for Jews in the Golan. However, almost all of the sacred sites for Jews are located in the “West Bank,” which the Jordanians seized in 1949 including Jerusalem, the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem.

Legal

When the global powers opted to divide the Ottoman Empire after World War I, they set some arbitrary lines. The French took the mandates of Lebanon and Syria and the British took Palestine. While the Syrians wanted control of all of Palestine, the global powers allotted Syria the Golan Heights, and Syria controlled the area until Israel attacked it in a preemptive defensive war in 1967.

The situation could not be more different regarding the “West Bank.” That area has always been a core part of the Jewish holy land for thousands of years. It was set as an integral part of the Jewish Homeland in international law in 1920 and 1922, specifically stating that no person should be denied the right to live there based on their religion.

The Jordanian army seized the land of Palestine and annexed it in 1949, contrary to all international laws, and evicted all of the Jewish inhabitants. The Jordanians then attacked Israel again in 1967 and lost the land for which they never had any rights.

Security

The security situation in the Golan is extraordinary, due both to the height and reach of the area which can cover all of northern Israel, as well as the military operation of an Iranian-Syrian pact.

But the security situation from the West Bank is also severe. The spine of the western West Bank is very high and overlooks all of Israel’s major population centers and airport. The miles of borders dwarf the size of borders in the Golan and Gaza.


The contrast between the Golan Heights and the West Bank is striking:

  • Original rights: Syria was allotted the Golan Heights roughly 100 years ago, while the West Bank was allotted to the Jewish homeland at the same time.
  • Rights of holder: Israel took the Golan from Syria which had rights to the land, while Israel took the West Bank from Jordan which had NO RIGHTS to the land.
  • Method of acquisition: Israel took the Golan in a preemptive attack, and took the West Bank in a DEFENSIVE ATTACK.
  • History/connection: While Israel has a connection to the Golan Heights, it pales compared to the eternal connection to the “West Bank” and Jerusalem.

It was President Barack Obama who saw the Israeli-Arab Conflict as one based purely on security. If he were president today and saw Iran embedding itself into Syria, he might have sought to help secure Israel’s rights and defenses in the Golan, just as Trump announced.

But Trump sees the Jewish State from more than just a security or political standpoint. As he appreciates the long history, deep religious connection and legal rights of Israel to the West Bank, one must foresee Trump embracing Israel’s annexation of that region as well.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Recognition of Acquiring Disputed Land in a Defensive War

I call BS: You Never Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

Obama’s “Palestinian Land”

Israel was never a British Colony; Judea and Samaria are not Israeli Colonies

Maybe Truman Should Not Have Recognized Israel

The US Recognizes Israel’s Reality

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

 

Inclusion versus Attention, and The Failure of American Leadership

The United States of America was founded on the principles of liberty and equality for all. In its early days, it came up short of those ideals, most notably in its treatment of African Americans who were kept as slaves, and of women who were denied the right to vote. Over the course of many years, the discriminatory laws fell and all people were understood to have a right to participate in every part of the public forum.

Some of the restrictions which were impediments to sections of society were marked in law while others were inherently physical. If the communal forum could be described as a public park, the American migration towards inclusion did not only remove the “No Jews Allowed” signs and the separate entrance for African-Americans, but removed the large flight of steps from the entrance, to enable all people to navigate into and throughout the park. The goals and actions of inclusions targeted both the intentional historic biases as well as the manifest material barriers which prevented all people from enjoying our collective world.

There are times when America falls short. As a society, we may not have removed all of the obstructions to enable everyone to join activities or we may have actually facilitated de facto hurdles which prevent certain segments of the community from engaging. Those are critical moments which need our attention, not a repetition of society’s aims.

As a continuation of the park example above, if a physically challenged person fell down stairs at the park, the appropriate action is to address the injury (perhaps with ice) and to fix the problem (build a ramp or smooth walkway). The immediate action should NOT be to pass out ice packs to everyone at the park nor to make pronouncements that the park is a space for all. Inclusion is a mission for our society, but it is not a salve to be uttered when things or people need attention. At those moments, required actions are the appropriate course.

Ilhan Omar Waves the Ice

In the winter of 2019, a new Democratic member of the House of Representatives, Ilhan Omar, seemingly could not stop attacking Americans who supported Israel. She accused Americans of bribing government officials to get them to support Israel, and she said that those pro-Zionists had misplaced and dangerous loyalties to foreign governments. After past comments in which she called Israel an “apartheid” state, “evil,” and a demonic institution that “hypnotized the world,” Omar was widely labeled an anti-Semite.

Many Americans – Republicans and Democrats – called on Omar to be censured from the House floor. They demanded a clear call to denounce antisemitism, the most prevalent type of bigotry in the United States, which has only grown more prevalent in recent years.

But the Democratic leadership under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opted not to do that. She did not strip Omar of her committee assignment (on Foreign Affairs, no less!) nor did she unambiguously rebuke Omar’s antisemitic words. Instead, Pelosi simply offered a general denunciation of all forms of bigotry. It was as if someone was singled out in the public park for injury, and Pelosi handed out ice packs to everyone she could see.

The insult to Jews would remarkably get worse, as Omar used the opportunity to wave her Pelosi ice pack in front of teary Jewish eyes as they remained on the ground in pain. She said:

“Today is historic on many fronts. It’s the first time we have ever voted on a resolution condemning Anti-Muslim bigotry in our nation’s history. Anti-Muslim crimes have increased 99% from 2014-2016 and are still on the rise.”

It is not as though the statement on its own is problematic. However, a call of inclusion at a moment that requires attention is misplaced and is hurtful. The Democratic leadership acted just like the United Nations, which calls for inclusion for “all” people when Jews are victims, but specifically gives attention to Palestinian Arabs when they are victims. It is a disgraceful tacit blessing of antisemitism by those in power in the face of Jews who just suffered from bigotry.

Donald Trump’s “Many Sides”

The Democratic leadership is not alone in missing the boat on focused attention in moments of stress.

In August 2017 a group of white nationalists took to the street of Charlottesville, VA shouting racist and antisemitic slogans and killed a woman counter-protester. Republican President Donald Trump condemned the bigotry – but broadly – on “on many sides, on many sides.” A person was run over in a racist riot and the citizens of the country needed attention at such a fragile moment, not equivocation.

The stain on Trump has not gone away, and the United Nations remains an antisemitic cesspool. Will Nancy Pelosi suffer the same consequences from her failure to clearly and unambiguously call out antisemitism and instead reward the instigator?


Related First.One.Through articles:

Ilhan Omar Isn’t Debating Israeli Policy, She is Attacking Americans

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion – The Musical”

In Defense of Foundation Principles

“Jews as a Class”

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

Ilhan Omar Isn’t Debating Israeli Policy, She is Attacking Americans

Extremist left wing Democratic politicians are coming to the defense of Representative Ilhan Omar over charges that she made a series of anti-Semitic comments, by stating – inaccurately – that Omar is just debating some of Israel’s policies.

  • Democratic-Socialist Vermont Senator and Presidential-hopeful Bernie Sanders saidAnti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.”
  • Alt-left Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren saidWe have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world — and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focus on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse.

Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Bernie Sanders conduct a news conference in
Washington, D.C. on Jan. 10, 2019. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP)

However, the Sanders and Warren comments meant to address Ilhan Omar have nothing to do with what Omar actually said. She didn’t debate policies, she attacked Americans.

Omar Attacking Particular Americans

Omar had two particular offensive comments regarding Israel supporters in America.

  1. It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” was a statement she made about AIPAC, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee. She suggested – incorrectly – two things:
    1. that AIPAC gives money to politicians; they do not
    2. politicians really don’t like Israel, but they support it because they need the pro-Zionist money to stay in office
  2. I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee,” was Omar’s complaint that politicians were being forced to serve a foreign regime. She suggested that such pledge was being forced on her by Americans generally (who must also have dual loyalties to advocate for such a thing), and from politicians who were demanding such pledge because of Zionist money (see 1 above).

These comments aren’t about Israeli policies such as the soft blockade of Gaza or the Security Barrier. These are comments about Americans, and the implication is Jewish Americans as she singled out the one Jewish State. Specifically, Omar was offended about their money, their undue influence in supporting a foreign power, and their powers of blackmail. These are disgraceful anti-Semitic tropes used by Hitler and the Nazi Party (the German Socialist movement of the 1930’s and 1940’s) that are being used by the alt-left today.

  • Jews have the money. AOC said their riches are “immoral.” NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio said that the “wrong” people have the money.
  • Jews use their wealth to support foreign entities, as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, to support and establish a “state within other states.”
  • Jews use the claim of anti-Semitism to shut down debate. This is also straight from Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “It was one of the most ingenious tricks that was ever invented to let this State sail under the flag of religion.” Hitler argued that part of the Jewish conspiracy was to claim that their religion protected it from discrimination while it continued “to expound the the nationalistic philosophy of the Jewish race.” (page 196)
  • Blackmail if demands not met. Omar made her objection clear. So did Adolf Hitler: “in politics, also, the application of economic means of pressure permits the exercise of extortion, as long as there exists a sufficient amount of the necessary recklessness on the one side, and enough stupid, sheepish patience on the other.” (page 63)

The alt-left Democratic Socialist wing has made no bones about income inequality and the rich taking advantage of the poor masses, just as Hitler wrote “they [the Jews] are cheats, characters of political profiteering, who hate the honest work of others. Just as such a folkish moth always appeals to the darkness of the silence, one can bet a thousand to one that under its cover he does not produce, but only steals steals from the fruits of the labor of others.” (page 504)

In the twisted modern world of intersectionality, Ilhan Omar and the alt-left are claiming that the immoral pro-Zionist money is enabling a takeover of America’s foreign policy to protect the racist, colonial Zionist entity. At it’s core, that is not a discussion about a particular Israeli policy, nor about lobbying groups generally. That is a bright red line of anti-Semitism crawling back from humanity’s darkest history into modern US politics.

We are watching the unfolding of a very insidious strain of socialism play out in the Democratic party that brought the world to ruin less than 100 years ago. What are we going to do about it?


Related First.One.Through articles:

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

Is Ilhan Omar’s Mentor the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Christiane Amanpour is More Anti-Semitic Than Ilhan Omar

Is Calling Someone a ‘Nazi’ Simply a ‘Poor Choice of Words?’ Ask a Westchester Democrat

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

When Hate Returns

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

Is Ilhan Omar’s Mentor the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has gotten herself into repeated hot water for attacks on Israel and its supporters, as many people have viewed her comments as anti-Semitic. She is emblematic of a new group of alt-left politicians who squarely focus on Israel and any of its perceived misdeeds.

It is a curious phenomenon, not only because Israel is the most liberal country in the Middle East / North Africa (MENA) region by far, but that people like Omar pay no attention to their native countries as they attack Israel.

Consider an important point for progressives – the death penalty. Only Israel and Oman had zero executions and zero people sentenced to death in 2017 among the MENA countries. In Omar’s native Somalia, 24 people were executed by the government, almost double the total of 14 in 2016.

Israel is one of only five countries in MENA in which being gay is legal. In several countries, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, being gay is a capital offense, with most gays hung from cranes in the center of the city. In Ilhan’s native Somalia, being gay is punishable with jail time.

The dynamic is much the same regarding women’s rights. Israel is one of only five MENA countries that score in the top half of the world’s rankings for inclusion, justice and safety for women. Ilhan’s native Somalia is ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for women. It is estimated that 95% of females in Somalia have forced genital mutilation. It is ranked as the worst country for maternal health.

The problems for Somalia continue. It is ranked as number 180 out of 180 by Transparency International Corruption Index, the worst country in the world. Israel ranked as number 34 out of 180, in the top quintile.

Somalia is considered the worst countries to be a journalist according to the Global Impunity Index of 2017 – worse than even Syria and Iraq.

Regardless of the issue – gay rights, women’s rights, environmental matters, animal rights, freedom of speech, press and religion – Israel performs better than its neighbors. It is in a completely different league than Somalia which is one of the worst counties in the world by every measure.

So why would an immigrant from Somalia to the United States focus so much of her attention on a small country thousands of miles from the United States? Why would a new member of Congress not be concerned with her failed native land? Is it in her constituents’ interests for her to be admonished by fellow Democrats for an obsessive focus on Israel?

As detailed in “Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference,” many Arab and Muslim countries – and their supporters – believe that Israel is an inherently racist enterprise, built on the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinian Arabs and the theft of Muslim holy lands. They believe that the supporters of such evil regime – the United States being the most powerful – are either evil and racist themselves (like Donald Trump), or are being manipulated by Zionist forces.  All of Ilhan Omar’s comments to date seemingly support this viewpoint: the Jewish State is racist and that pro-Zionists are racists and/or are manipulated by racist puppet-masters. Sounds pretty anti-Semitic, no?

Should Omar want to wash the stain of obsessive anti-Zionism which is very much tied to anti-Semitism, there is a simple action she could take: clearly declare that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security. Without such statement, no one will consider anything else she has to say. Other helpful actions would include:

  • Acknowledging the Jewish people’s long history in the holy land going back thousands of years, including being the majority of Jerusalem since the 1860’s
  • Acknowledging that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination
  • Acknowledging that Israel is a liberal democracy
  • Acknowledging Israel’s remarkable contributions to the world in the areas of technology and medicine
  • Acknowledging that all people in the United States have a right to advocate for the causes they hold dear, including the pro-Israel community
  • Considering Israel within the scope of its neighbors, and not pretending it resides in a peaceful neighborhood like Sweden
  • Considering the Israel-Palestinian Conflict within the scope of other territorial disputes, including: Cyprus-Turkey; Morocco-Western Sahara; China-Tibet; and India-Pakistan over Kashmir

No one will ever claim that anyone or any country is perfect; that’s the beauty and shame of being human. In being flawed, there is always room for improvement. Constructive criticism from a friend is an important part of growing. People who love America want America to be better, and people who love Israel want Israel to be better.

However, what is most unwelcome is for someone with no connection and no relationship to the country and who hasn’t shared a positive word, to chastise it on a global stage and urge for punitive actions. How much hatred must such a person harbor to go out of their way and ignore much worse and more immediate issues, to assault a people who have been subject to more hatred and attacks than any people on earth?

Omar tweeted in August 2017 “Syria’s Assad has become an icon of the far right in America,” suggesting that some Americans were interested in murdering hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. She cannot be surprised if some of her fellow Americans who proudly support the Jewish State compare her and her alt-left comrades to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who seeks a new Muslim Caliphate and the destruction of Israel. This is the echo of Omar’s own words.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

Existing While Jewish

BDS is a Movement by Radical Islamists and Far-Left Progressives to Block Your Freedoms

Farrakhan’s Democrats

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

Racist Calls of Apes and Pigs? Forget Rosanne. Let’s Talk Islam

When Hate Returns

Paying to Murder Jews: From Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Palestinian Authority

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

The new far-left member of the House of Representatives Ilhan Omar was unfairly tied to the terrorist attacks against America on September 11, 2001 by Republicans in West Virginia. She was just turning 20 years old at the time of the attacks and had nothing to do with those mass murders, nor has she said anything since that time to suggest that she supported the killings of thousands of Americans.

However, many of Omar’s comments over the past few weeks do strongly correlate to the Durban Conference Against Racism which took place one week before the 9/11 attacks, specifically her invective against the Jewish State and those who support it.


CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewing Rep. Ilhan Omar

 

United Nations World Conference against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

The World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) met from August 31 to September 7, 2001 with a noble goal: to eradicate racism and intolerance and to promote human rights. However, the conference agenda was hijacked into an anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist seminar promoted by several Arab and Muslim countries as early as February 2001 at the Asian preparatory meeting in Iran.  The Arab countries and Muslim countries contended that the “occupation of Palestine” was racially motivated, and that “Zionism is racism,” so insisted on keeping the issue at WCAR.

Several countries, including the United States, Canada and members of the EU attempted to remove any language which dealt with regional issues like Israel-Palestine at a conference meant to deal with racism generally. The US considered not attending WCAR due to the presence of the Zionism-racism language, but ultimately opted to send a mid-level representative rather than US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

At the conference itself, the singling out of Israel continued. The situation became so intolerable for many, that the American and Israeli attendees withdrew, as did the Jewish Caucus at the NGO seminar nearby.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell made the following comment upon withdrawing from the conference:

“Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of “Zionism equals racism;” or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world–Israel–for censure and abuse.

At the NGO conference, Jewish attendees were asked to leave the session about Palestinian rights because Jews were “biased and couldn’t be counted on to act in the interest of general human rights.” The NGO group also stripped language which Jews had requested which stated:

“We are concerned with the prevalence of Anti-Zionism and attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel through wildly inaccurate charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, as a virulent contemporary form of anti-Semitism leading to firebombing of synagogues, armed assaults against Jews, incitements to killing, and the murder of innocent Jews, for their support for the existence of the State of Israel, the assertion of the right to self determination of the Jewish people and the attempts, through the State of Israel, to preserve their cultural and religious identity.”

The United Nations adopted a resolution to endorse the Durban Declaration and Program of Action in March 2002 by a vote of 134 to 2 against (the United States and Israel) with two abstentions (Australia and Canada). The NGO Forum also adopted a declaration, which included language calling for the end of “Israeli systematic perpetration of racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing” and called Israel a “racist, apartheid state.” Many NGOs disassociated themselves from the declaration, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson described the NGO Forum as “hateful, even racist,” and refused to receive or endorse the NGO Declaration.

Sadly, the conference designed to promote tolerance excluded the Jewish State from the umbrella of human rights and dignity.

Several years later, in the waning days of the George W Bush administration, it continued to voice its concern about the April 2009 WCAR Follow-up, and the danger of working with parties who give an outward nod towards peace while seeking to inflame anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Ilhan Omar and the Alt-Left Congressional Freshmen

The 2018 US elections fielded the most diverse class of people ever in the country’s history. There were more women, more immigrants and more people of diverse backgrounds. It appeared to be a moment of break-through for America as a broad welcoming society of the people for the people.

But, like the Durban Conference, the picture of harmony in diversity masked darker forces. Many of those people running were alt-left extremists who described themselves as “Democratic-Socialists.” The group included:

  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York
  • Sarah Smith in Washington
  • Rashida Tlaib in Michigan
  • James Thompson in Kansas
  • Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato who both unseated longtime Democratic incumbents, and Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale.

Ilhan Omar, an immigrant from Somalia, joined Rashida Tlaib to become the first two Muslim women in Congress. And their pro-Palestinian and anti-Capitalist views rapidly conflated into anti-Semitic comments and tweets.

  • On November 16, 2012, Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel
  • In the summer of 2018, when asked to address whether her 2012 comments were antisemitic, Omar responded “These accusations are without merit. They are rooted in bigotry toward a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe.”
  • She later tweeted that Israel is an apartheid state. “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews.

By the time Omar was elected to Congress, she was fully morphing anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

  • In February 2019, Omar claimed that people only supported Israel because of Zionist money “It’s all about the Benjamins baby!
  • She followed up that comment that people who supported Israel have misplaced loyalties to foreign entities “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.

For Omar – and many countries that supported the Durban Declaration – Israel is an evil, racist apartheid state and people who support such an entity are backing evil and the theft of Palestinian land and heritage. They believe that Israel supporters convince politicians to bless the sinister state through bribes, using “immoral” capitalistic riches to absolve and shield the colonialism of the Jewish State.

In truth, Omar and the Durban Declaration have created a modern day blood libel in which Jews take Palestinian Arab lives instead of Christian babies, to create the modern State of Israel, rather than matzah for Passover. For the alt-left Israel-demonizers, the supporters of such a blatantly racist Israeli regime are either racists (like US President Donald Trump) or are being played by the Jewish puppet masters (the non-Jewish Democratic leadership).

The fact that Jews are indigenous to the holy land going back thousands of years is ignored; that Israel is the sole thriving liberal democracy for thousands of miles, sharing western values is falsified; that the Jewish State is a small country with serious security threats in a hostile region which seeks its destruction, and is worthy of US military assistance is rejected. While liberals are often pro-Palestinian, these alt-left “progressives” are actively anti-Israel, rejecting Jewish history and rights.

The Democratic leadership must now take a stand and make a choice: it can clearly condemn the statements and sentiments of Omar and strip her of committee membership, or it can coddle the alt-left wing of the party, to avoid offending the first black woman Muslim in Congress and her backers.

President Bush made a clear decision in walking from the Durban Conference: American values will not let it act as a cloak to vile antisemitism on the world stage. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi make a similar move and remove Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and declare that Democratic values extend beyond the #MeToo movement stripping men of offices who were accused of sexual assault, to #JeSuisJuif and evict Jew-haters from positions of power? If the Democratic leadership and presidential hopefuls were looking for an actual “I am Spartacus” moment, the time is now.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel.

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion – The Musical”

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Progressives are Stripping the Equity of Our Lives

The annual showing at the Davos, Switzerland World Economic Forum is always a spectacle. It is usually due to the who’s-who list of billionaires, celebrities and world leaders in a beautiful location. In 2019, it also featured stupid ideas led by the “progressive” views of worker protection and entitlement.

A Progressive View of Automation

One of the important themes discussed at the WEF was the consideration of the “Future of Work.” The Forum put forward three alternative views of how a world of digitization and automation could develop in the future. The considerations revolved around efficiencies, how to improve the value to customers, and how technology will require a new set of skills as it transforms the job market. The discussion sought to consider the future dynamics of competing aims of shareholders, workers and customers.

While progressives tout the concept of “fairness,” their actual concern is about a particular type of “equality,” which is the equal distribution of money. The status of “wealth inequality” and “income inequality” drives the proposed progressive agenda and thereby hijacks the definition of “fairness” to be one that reaches the conclusion of wealth and income equality.

In such an orientation, the holders of mass wealth – typically owning large stakes in companies – are afforded no leniency. If the future of automation brings an accelerated and inflamed debate of competing interests between shareholders, employees and consumers, the discussion is concluded as soon as it was introduced.

The progressive rag, The New York Times had an article written about the WEF called “The Hidden Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite.” As the title suggests, the article reviewed how the “elite” – those evil one-percenters – were hatching nefarious plans to destroy the workers of the world. The corporate titans at Davos were marketing how automation was going to bring all sorts of new inventions to the world with lower prices for consumers, however, the real goal was to replace people with robots, and hoard all of the economic gains for themselves.

“Automating work is a choice, of course, one made harder by the demands of shareholders, but it is still a choice. And even if some degree of unemployment caused by automation is inevitable, these executives can choose how the gains from automation and A.I. are distributed, and whether to give the excess profits they reap as a result to workers, or hoard it for themselves and their shareholders.

“The choices made by the Davos elite — and the pressure applied on them to act in workers’ interests rather than their own — will determine whether A.I. is used as a tool for increasing productivity or for inflicting pain.”

The progressive argument is plain: the elite / executives / shareholders will hoard the gains from digitization and automation, unless pressure (or new progressive tax and corporate laws) force the benefits to be distributed to workers.

A Progressive View of Employee/ Shareholder Protections

The progressive view of wealth is that it is essentially “immoral” as the recent progressive political star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview. It is a view shared by many progressives who view capitalism as evil at its core.

The notion that someone could build and own a business and become ridiculously wealthy – say Howard Schultz who created Starbucks – is inherently wrong according to the far left-wing. The hard work and risks which Schultz took along the way to create a company that employed tens of thousands of people and produced a product that millions of people enjoy is somehow negated by the tremendous wealth he personally amassed. According to progressives, his earnings and wealth should have been stripped along the way and passed on to the people who made and served the coffee. The salary of the workers was clearly inappropriate compensation if the company became so profitable. For progressives, the redundant task of making venti lattes all day which requires limited skills, no education and no risk – a task that will soon be automated – is not the essence of the discussion. The objection is that the person who owned the company made thousands of times more than the average worker, a conclusion, they believe that is immoral.

This progressive logic takes a bizarre turn when employees don’t help create value but destroy it.

Consider the electric utility PG&E which is being sued for causing the forest fires that killed people and destroyed billions of dollars in property value. Employees at the company are accused of committing a series of terrible errors, including not cutting the power in dry areas suffering from high winds (when the power lines came down from the wind, the electric sparks ignited the dry brush).

Who “paid” for the worker errors? Were thousands of employees fired? Was the employee pension fund stripped? Were line workers lined up before commissions and denounced in the media? No.

The executives and shareholders took the heat. Shareholders – many “women and orphans” who own utility stocks for the “safe” dividends – paid the price. On November 8, 2018, PGE stock closed at $47.80. One week later, on November 15 it stood at $17.74.

Did progressives cry fowl that the economic “windfall” wasn’t being shared equitably? Did they suggest that the workers who caused all of the death and destruction should bear the costs? No. They passed legislation meant to protect customers from rate hikes. Democrat State Senator Bill Dodd said his bill was needed because “without it, ratepayers will be left holding the bag and communities will needlessly suffer.

The Democratic Senator from California, Kamala Harris, who just announced her intention to run for president hasn’t said a word about the large corporate bankruptcy in her state. Any ideas why she would remain mum on such an enormous story? (Please don’t suggest it’s her ties to Democrats aligned with PG&E).


As the Democratic party lurches leftward, it is swaying deeper and deeper into an economic policy based on wealth redistribution over capitalism. The progressives have determined – and are demanding – that a worker whose job can be automated should not only not be fired, but be entitled to profit-sharing.

Progressives are seeking to dramatically revamp the notion of private ownership. They are advancing an economic system where we will collect fixed payouts as determined by federal officials. Workers, one and all. Equal and protected.

Private ownership will only be at the nod of the government. Strict limits will be imposed on compensation, capping salaries and demanding a set number of worker representatives sit on the board of directors. “Private” enterprise will be managed aggressively by politicians through heavy regulation and taxes, not by market forces.

The progressive aim is to strip people of the equity of their efforts and replace the return on their passions with interest payments as bondholders of the state. An “equitable” economy liberated and succored by a large government.

Such a system stymies equity investment and risk taking. It shrinks the economy and hurts innovation. No matter.

US President Ronald Reagan once said “this country is too great for small dreams.” For progressives, the great dream is a small country.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

A Country Divided

If You Want to Take Money out of Politics, Liberal Leaders Suggest Voting for Trump

I Love 5-to-4

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Christiane Amanpour is More Anti-Semitic Than Ilhan Omar

On January 17, 2019, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed the new Democratic member of the House of Representatives, Ilhan Omar. Amanpour asked Omar to comment on a tweet she made in 2012 when she accused the government of Israel of being evil and “hypnotizing the world” regarding the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza, a statement which many people viewed as anti-Semitic.


CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviews Ilhan Omar January 17, 2019

The lead-in by Amanpour was arguably more anti-Semitic than Omar’s tweet (which Omar claimed was simply about her anger about military actions of the Israeli government):

“Can I move on to something that is generally sort of a right of passage for politicians in the United States and that is sort of to profess sort of fealty, or at least pay homage, to AIPAC, the pro-Israel PAC that is very, very prominent.”

To be clear, the expression “professing fealty” is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as “the fidelity of a vassal or feudal tenant to his lord.

Amanpour’s introductory statement was that all US politicians are vassals of (slaves to) the pro-Israel lobby. She made this anti-Israel canard as a casual observance of fact, not a concocted claim of outrageous fiction. She gave the CNN audience the impression that the US-Israel relationship is not based on MUTUAL values and benefits, but one of sinister puppet-masters controlling the US government.

Omar made a disgraceful statement about the Jewish State several years ago, but at least it was born from an anger related to military activity. However, Amanpour used a vile anti-Semitic charge against all Zionists at all times.

It was right and proper for CNN to terminate Marc Lamont Hill for his calls to destroy Israel. It is even more appropriate for the media group to fire Christiane Amanpour for going beyond terrible accusations of dual-loyalty against Americans who support Israel, to actually charging them with abusing the entirety of American politics with selfish Zionist schemes.


Related First.One.Through articles:

CNN Makes Clear the Attackers and Victims in Gaza-Israel Fight

CNN Will Not Report Islamic Terrorism

Don Lemon, Here are Some Uncomfortable Facts about Hate Crimes in America

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

CNN’s Embrace of Hamas

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan

Related First.One.Through video:

Jews and US Foreign Policy (music by Vangelis)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough