Bernie Sanders’ New Book: Nazi Germany Had Clean Streets

A satire.

 

In response to the attacks on him about comments he made about Cuba’s Fidel Castro overseeing a great educational system, Senator Bernie Sanders opted to double down with a short book about his top dozen favorite leaders. It is called “Nazi Germany Had Clean Streets.” The Table of Contents is below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi Eradicated Evil Large Multinational Corporations
  2. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein Significantly Reduced the Size of His Standing Army More Than any Leader in Modern History
  3. Uganda’s Idi Amin Had a Free Public Transportation System, Especially for Jews Entering the Country
  4. Korea’s Kim Jong II Oversaw the Single Largest Decrease in any Country’s Carbon Footprint
  5. Vladimir Lenin Was Efficient at Separating Church and State
  6. China’s Mao Zedong Instituted the Greatest Redistribution of Wealth Over the Past Century
  7. Chile’s Augusto Pinochet Provided Free Child Care
  8. Pol Pot Provided Free Burial Services to Everyone
  9. Hitler Introduced Taxidermy as an After-School Program
  10. Joseph Stalin Had More White People Than Blacks in Prison
  11. Syria’s Bashar al Assad Leveled the Housing Market for Everyone
  12. Finally, My Hero: The Architect of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, was at the Vanguard of Grass Roots Socialism

When asked by reporters why he didn’t include Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu in the book, he responded “I cannot find a single positive thing to say about that racist.”


Related First One Through articles:

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion – The Musical”

Ben & Jerry’s New Flavor: Milano Zio

ObamaCar to Address Garage Inequality

Ilhan Omar and AOC Try To Reclaim The Word ‘Holocaust’

How Many Polacks Does it Take to Deny the Holocaust?

Netanyahu’s Doctoral Thesis on the Nakba

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Mike Bloomberg, Where #NeverTrump Meets #NeverBernie

It was a mild January evening in Westchester County, New York, and a number of people assembled in a private home to consider promoting the former mayor from New York City, Michael Bloomberg, to become the Democratic candidate for president.

The Democrat Party already had an over-supply of people running for president but people in this liberal enclave were concerned that none of them could defeat Donald Trump. So thirty middle-aged Jews assembled to consider how they could help propel Mike into the coveted role to challenge the president.

A member of Bloomberg’s campaign responsible for bringing out the Jewish vote was already speaking when a Libertarian who had walked away from the Democratic Party and his teenage son joined the presentation. The two grabbed seats and listened.

The audience was clearly liberal and talked about how they wanted anyone but Trump but feared that none of the candidates could actually beat him. Bloomberg’s point man essentially said that Bloomberg gave Jews all of the things they liked about Trump (the strong economy and support of Israel), without any of his terrible policies regarding immigrants, the LGBT community, the environment and a host of other failures. The audience nodded in approval.

Except for the Libertarian.

“I’m not here as an anyone but Trump person. I’m here as an anyone by Sanders or Warren person. Those two will lead this country into a civil war and/or an abyss. If Sanders wins the nomination, not only will I vote for Trump, I will actively campaign and raise funds for him.”

An awkward silence filled the air. The liberals could not fathom a fellow Jew despising a progressive.

The Bloomberg point man broke the tension by asking people to bring up items which were most important to them. A hand sprang up and a 60-year old man yelled “abortion!” Another person said “income inequality.” A third said “gun control.”

The sole teenager in the room offered “addressing the ballooning national debt.” People paused and noted that they appreciated that a young person was concerned about the outrageous debt he was being handed as an inheritance, but one sensed that they were disappointed that he did not say “climate change.”

When the moderator asked about people’s concerns about the mayor, several people talked about his stop-and-frisk policy which seemed racist, and whether the country was interested in voting for a Jewish billionaire. The Libertarian silently took notes and didn’t offer up his concerns, of which there were plenty:

  • Stop-and-frisk was not a policy designed to attack minorities but one designed against gun ownership. One could call it the Beto O’Rourke “Hell Yes, I’ll Take Your Gun” plan, which narrowly targeting minority neighborhoods in New York City where crime and gun ownership was highest. Will that be Bloomberg’s plan nationwide?
  • The mayor banned super-sized sodas, in what was called “Nanny-gate.” How many freedoms will this man shut down as president because he thinks he knows better what’s good for you?
  • He rammed through his third term as mayor, even though there was a two-term limit in New York City. He’s every bit as pompous and egotistical as Trump.

But that night was not about trashing Bloomberg as much as trying to get him off of a slow and cold start.

Bloomberg’s Jewish liaison made a point that Bloomberg was not going to run a campaign focused on attacking his Democratic rivals; he believed that they were already too weak, with the exception of Sanders who Bloomberg felt could never win. But left unsaid was the objection of Bloomberg and the attendees that night to the other moderates running:

  • Former Vice President Joe Biden is clearly showing his age, and not in a good way. He was famous for putting his foot in his mouth during a long political career, but now nobody thinks he can even find his mouth today. Add his propensity for smelling women’s hair in the #MeToo moment and his son’s sweetheart deal in Ukraine and all realize he has as much of a chance at a return to political office as W Bush.
  • Pete Buttigieg clearly is a very sharp debater, but everyone knows that vast swathes of the country – including religious and black communities – will not vote for a gay person. Yes it’s 2020, but those are the facts and would you rather acknowledge them or go down with them?
  • Amy Klobuchar seems to have no truly objectionable traits and could gather broad appeal from moderates in the Democratic and Republican parties. But she may have as much charm as fellow Minnesotan Walter Mondale who was routed in his presidential run.

So enter sandman, Mike Bloomberg, playing Yankee reliever Mariano Rivera in the late innings. Will he save the Democratic Party from embracing the alt-left? Will he do it by ultimately putting his money behind either Klobuchar or Buttigieg, rather than backing himself?

Time will tell.

For now, Bloomberg is the only name which brings #NeverTrumpers and #NeverSanders into the same room.


Related First One Through articles:

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

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

When the Democrats Opposed the Palestinian “Right of Return”

Farrakhan’s Democrats

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

John McCain 2008 / 2018

The U.S. is Stealing Real Choices from the Voters

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

I Love 5-to-4

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

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

Liberal’s Protest Bubble Harms Democracy

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

“Coastal Liberal Latte-sipping Politically-correct Out-of-touch Folks.”

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

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

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Vaping Bernie Sanders

Vaping has become the latest craze. Its popularity has skyrocketed, particularly among young people. Studies show that Americans aged 30 to 64 were four times as likely to vape as those aged 18 to 29, and that group was four times as likely to vape as the oldest Americans over 65. Polls highlight that the younger generations do not believe that vaping is harmful, and its appeal continues to rise despite all of the evidence which shows how terrible the activity is for a person’s physical well-being.

In a very similar vein, Senator Bernie Sanders has wide appeal among younger people than older Americans. Sanders’ loyal base draws mostly on uneducated and low income people. Not surprisingly, the millions of younger, poorer people love Sanders’ formula for redistributing money from wealthier Americans. Unfortunately, these recipients cannot fathom how terrible Sanders’ socialism is for the overall economic health of the United States.

Meanwhile, the federal government has been considering a range of laws to ban or limit vaping, including the marketing of flavors that appeal to younger people. However, the more systemic risk to the nation posed by the exposure to the radical socialist ideas of Bernie Sanders has not garnered such attention. Is it time ban Bernie ads and pull him from the Democratic debates?


Senator Bernie Sanders at J Street conference


Related First.One.Through articles:

Bernie Sanders is Less Sophisticated Than Forrest Gump

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

From “You Didn’t Build That” to “You Don’t Own That”

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

J Street is Only Considered “Pro-Israel” in Progressive Circles

J Street held its annual conference in late October 2019 where it had several Democratic presidential candidates address the left-wing crowd. The loudest applause was, not surprisingly, heard for the most progressive candidates: Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Sen. Bernie Sanders addressing J Street Conference October 28, 2019
It is interesting that J Street bills itself as “pro-Israel” when the crowd at its annual event gave a standing ovation to the most anti-Israel presidential candidate since the founding of the Jewish State. Sanders has accused Israel of war crimes, being racist and wants to divert funds meant for Israel’s security to the Arab people in Gaza who have launched three wars against Israel since 2008. Sanders may be the only Jew among the leaders of the Democratic presidential pack, but he is without question the most critical of the Jewish State.

And it is not a coincidence that Sanders if the most left-wing of the presidential contenders. It is only through the narrow prism of a progressive worldview that J Street and Sanders can be viewed as “pro-Israel.”

For most people, being pro-“fill-in-the-blank” means actively supporting that entity. It may be with words of support and encouragement to that entity. Perhaps its with active lobbying for trade and aid on that entity’s behalf. Speaking about it positively and with enthusiasm to others.

However, for J Street, being “pro-Israel” simply means believing that Israel has a right to exist and should have secure borders. I believe that Costa Rica should exist and have secure borders, but I don’t think that makes me “pro-Costa Rica.” Maybe if I associated with people who hated Costa Rica, I would be considered pro-Costa Rica for an otherwise benign point of view, but not among most of the world.

Which is precisely the J Street dynamic.

Inside the echo chambers of the progressive halls, suggesting that Israel has a right to exist is considered extraordinary and extreme. Vocalizing that it is and should remain the Jewish homeland is considered vulgar. That it has a right to defend itself against terrorism is deemed shocking.

That’s the sad reality among J Street’s peers. Groups like the New Israel Fund actively support organizations which try to dismantle any Jewishness of the Jewish State and fund global tours for people to demonize the Israel Defense Forces. IfNotNow fights to undermine Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Code Pink supports a boycott of Israeli products. Jewish Voice for Peace has supported terrorists who have killed Israelis. And the Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis on the boards of these institutions question whether Israel should exist at all.

The progressive stances on Israel can be seen in the “Women’s March” whose leaders are against “humanizing” Israelis and in BackLivesMatter which has a platform which calls Israel an “apartheid state” and advocates for B.D.S. (boycott, divest and sanctions of Israel). These are appalling statements and opinions.

With such a peer group of progressives, it should not shock people that in that narrow “coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks” as Barack Obama once said, J Street actually believes that saying the Israel should exist as a secure Jewish State is considered “pro-Israel.” Outside of the far-left extreme, that’s an opinion which is considered neutral – “pareve” as they would say in the Jewish community.

Actually being “pro-Israel” for groups like AIPAC means ensuring bi-partisan support for Israel, keeping trade and military cooperation intact, advocating for U.S. support for Israeli positions at the United Nations. J Street is against all of those ideas.

One could perhaps argue that it is useful for J Street to engage with their co-progressives and get them to upgrade their views on Israel. It is clear that the “Squad” of socialists in congress are not going to listen to AIPAC or the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).

But it is horribly incorrect and out-of-bounds for the general public and media to quote J Street as the mainstream pro-Israel forum when it is nothing of the sort. It is merely the fringe “meh-Israel” segment of a radical leftist anti-Zionist ideology which is regrettably beginning to permeate the Democratic party.


Related First.One.Through articles:

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

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

The Left-Wing’s Two State Solution: 1.5 States for Arabs, 0.5 for Jews

The Evil Architects at J Street Take a Bow

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

Anti-Israel Lobbyists Dwarf Pro-Israel Lobbyists

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

A Basic Lesson of How to be Supportive

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

Unity – not Unanimity – in the Pro-Israel Tent

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

Students for Justice in Palestine’s Dick Pics

The Three Camps of Ethnic Cleansing in the BDS Movement

The Anger from the Zionist Center

Rick Jacobs’ Particular Reform Judaism

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

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

Anti-“Settlements” is Anti-Semitism

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Will Bernie Sanders Push Birth Control in Gaza?

The CNN Town Hall discussions on climate change had a little something for everyone. When it came to the poorest places in the world, Bernie Sanders was thinking birth control.

In response to a question about human population causing climate change, Sanders pushed beyond the questioner’s point of education, to introducing the notion that abortion is a solution which the United States should aid, particularly among the poorest countries, saying:

“the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd. So I think especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.”

There is one place in the world which is not only poor and crowded with high birth rates but has thousands of United Nations feet on the ground already managing the health of the population: Gaza.

Poverty: According to a Palestinian Authority report, the 2016 GDP per capita in Gaza was $1,822. That would place the region as number 147 of 194 countries. The unemployment rate for people over 15 years old was 43.9 percent, around the same rate as the failed states of Venezuela and Yemen, the highest in the world.

Crowded: There were 1.9 million people in Gaza in 2017 in an area of 365 square kilometers, or 5,205 people per sqkm. That would rank the strip as number 6 behind the wealthy enclaves of Macau, Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar.

High birth rates. In Gaza, approximately 41.7 percent of the population is under 15 years old and the average household has 5.6 people. The high percentage of young people is a phenomenon found in poor African countries (Gaza rank #24) while the large average family size is found in the Middle East, North and western Africa. The fertility rates of the women in these countries are the highest in the world, in sharp contrast to the lowest fertility rates found in the small, densely-populated wealthy countries of Singapore and Hong Kong mentioned above.

Gaza has the poverty and birth rates of large African countries in a compact area that is typical of wealthy capitalistic enclaves. But Gaza has the advantage relative to the African countries of having a large United Nations presence – 13,189 in UNRWA staff as of January 2019 – to service them.

UNRWA provides free health services to the Gaza population which identify as refugees, and services close to 100 percent of all pre-natal and post-natal visits. Yet the use of contraception in the West Bank and Gaza stood at only 56.5 percent according to the UN, even though UNRWA has complete access to the population and provides free services. Additionally, as abortions are banned by the Palestinian Authority, women would have to seek regular means of seeking birth control as provided by UNRWA, or travel to Israeli hospitals for the procedure.

Which all brings us back to Bernie Sanders’ comment about allowing US funds to flow into poor countries to facilitate abortions and actively promote birth control.

Sanders is known as a foreign policy lightweight, never delving much into the issue during his decades in Washington, D.C. Now, for his presidential-run education, he has surrounded himself with pro-Palestinian voices like James Zogby and Linda Sarsour who have made Gaza a central theme in his short script.

So, will Bernie spend US dollars on getting the Palestinian Authority to legalize abortion and actively push birth control in one of the poorest and compact regions? Does his allegiance lie with with his climate change clientele or with his Arab activists?


Related First.One.Through articles:

UNRWA Is Not Just Making “Refugees,” It’s Creating Palestinians

Sanders Accuses Israel of Deliberately Killing Palestinians

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

In the aftermath of Israel barring entry of two far left-wing anti-Israel members of Congress, Democratic politicians began to worry that Israel was becoming a wedge issue rather than an issue with bipartisan support. Staunch pro-Israel Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) saidrefusing entry to members of Congress looks like Israel [is] closing itself off to criticism and dialogue. This decision will only strengthen the anti-Israel movements and arguments many of us find so troubling, further politicize support for Israel in the United States and ultimately play right into the hands of Israel’s enemies.

Engel has been a member of Congress since 1989 and knows better. He has seen his own Democratic party moving away from Israel since President Barack Obama made deliberate efforts to create daylight between Israel and the United States in his outreach to the Muslim world.

If one were to look at the 2008 Democratic Platform, it would be hard to see much of a difference from the Republican Platform regarding Israel. Both parties considered Israel a strong ally and backed Israeli positions.

But Obama made a strategic pivot away from Israel running as an incumbent in 2012. With the blessing of left-wing groups like J Street, the Democratic Party officially changed course on several key issues:

  • Refugees. Until 2012, the Democrats agreed with Republicans that Palestinian refugees would find a home in a new state of Palestine, not Israel.
  • Hamas. Until 2012, Democrats agreed that Hamas should be isolated until it renounced terror and recognized Israel’s basic right to exist.
  • Borders. Until Obama, Democrats agreed with Republicans that a new Palestinian state would NOT be established along the 1949 Armistice Lines, but reflect current realities and need to ensure Israel’s security.
  • Jerusalem. Until Obama, the Democrats and Republicans agreed that Jerusalem would remain a united city and the capital of Israel.

Those points – with the exception of Jerusalem which was bitterly contested on the convention floor – would disappear from the 2012 Democratic platform.

Years before Donald Trump considered running for president and the rise of the alt-left, the Democratic Party pulled back from supporting Israel’s position regarding establishing peace with the Arab world.

The pro-Arab camp would gather steam with the presidential aspirations of Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election season. In an effort to placate the Sanders camp when Hillary Clinton became the official party nominee, the Democrats allowed the Sanders team to help craft the official platform. Sanders chose anti-Israel figures to help draft the language, including Cornel West who calls Israel an “apartheid state,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and James Zogby who back the boycott of Israel movement.

In the end, the Clinton camp killed the Sanders’ team proposed languageaimed at criticizing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, demanding ‘an end to illegal settlements’ and supporting the re-building of the Gaza Strip.” But the anti-Israel movement inside the Democratic party had taken yet another step, moving from pro-Israel (until 2012) to neutral (2012) to critical (almost in 2016).

The 2020 presidential race is underway, and three of the four top Democratic candidates are deep in the far-left fringe of the party, including Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). With the rise and remarkable defense of the anti-Israel ‘Freshmen Squad,‘ one can expect the ‘Senior Squad’ will likely draft an official party platform that will actively attack Israel on issues which once had strong bipartisan support.

Trump has not made Israel a wedge issue in politics; the Democrats have been actively doing that themselves since Obama.


Related First.One.Through articles:

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

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Bernie Sanders Supports America’s Targeted Killings While Banning Israel’s

The Insidious Jihad in America

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

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

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists

The July 30, 2019 debate with Democratic candidates for president covered little ground. Much of the discussion centered around healthcare in which the two leading contenders – Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – were calling out the terrible role that pharmaceutical and insurance companies play in the ecosystem of healthcare. Each took a turn to slam the amount of money the industries spend on lobbyists.


Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Sanders said that the pharma and insurance industries spent $4.5 billion on lobbyists last year. He was wrong. They spent a total of $441 million according to OpenSecrets.org, off by a factor of ten times.

Put that aside.

Sanders asked all of the Democrats running for office to pledge that they would not take any money from these two industry groups, as it put them in direct conflict in being able to negotiate healthcare honestly and effectively after these groups paid their way into office.

However, what was not discussed is the much more toxic money that public sector UNIONS pay into elections. These are groups that are sitting directly across the table from elected officials in negotiating their salaries and benefits. The union lobbying dollars are blessed bribes. Graft. It is a direct conflict of interest worthy of banana republics.

But the Sanders/Warren camp won’t discuss the poison, because they contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats. The socialist psychos would rather paint the entire lobbying fight of mega multi-national corporations squashing the poor little guy.

Here are some union lobbying figures for 2018:

Carpenters and Joiners Union $41.5 million
Service Employers International Union $41.5 million
Laborers Union $31.5 million
American Federation of Teachers $31.1 million
American Federation of State/County/Muni Employees $14.1 million

That’s $160 million just from these five unions, of which 99% went to Democrats.

By way of comparison, here are top multi-national corporations payouts for lobbyists:

Bloomberg $95.9 million (100% for Democrats)
Las Vegas Sands $62.4 million (100% for Republicans)
Microsoft $14.1 million (87% Democrats)
Amazon $13.6 million (69% Democrats)
Koch Industries $12.1 million (99% Republican)

Sanders called out the Koch brothers, and in the past he has slammed Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas Sands owner. Those two are the epitome of the bad billionaires for the socialists, presumably because they are top givers to the Republicans.

Somehow, they neglect to mention the lobbying money of “Fahr LLC” which gave a whopping $73.1 million in 2018 – all to Democrats. Fahr is the middle name of Tom Steyer, a billionaire Democrat who is spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying people in congress to fight climate change and to impeach Donald Trump.

The leading liberals talk about the evils of lobbying money – but very, very selectively. They pretend to be more ethical in talking about the corruption of lobbying dollars, but only for those contributing to Republicans.

There is nothing more pernicious that allowing government unions to contribute money into elections, and it happens at the federal, state, county and local levels every day.

In New York, “government unions collectively spent more on lobbying last year [2017] than the state’s biggest trial lawyers, landlord, tobacco and hospital interests combined. And topping the list, as usual, was New York’s powerful conglomerate of public education unions.” Would it surprise you that New York is a deep blue (Democratic) state?

While I admire the socialist twin’s calls to stay away from pharma lobbyist money, I consider their voices vacuous unless there are louder calls to stop the most sinister lobbying in the country: from public sector unions.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

New York Times Reprints Union Manifesto

Bernie Sanders is Less Sophisticated Than Forrest Gump

Progressives are Stripping the Equity of Our Lives

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Insidious Jihad in America

Yesterday’s post called “Linda Sarsour as Pontius Pilate” got quite a bit of pushback. People wanted to know what was the point of attacking a Muslim woman who wasn’t even elected to office. They asked why there wasn’t an article written about President Trump and other calls of whataboutery.

Linda Sarsour is just one data point about an insidious jihad taking place in the United States.

On April 20, 2019, another Muslim woman – this one, an elected official, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) – posted a feed on her Twitter account that rebuked Christians for not realizing that Jesus was a Palestinian, the same sort of inanity produced by Sarsour on July 6.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) before Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
A few days later on May 9, the most power Democrat in office, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, invited Imam Omar Suleiman to give a prayer before Congress. Suleiman was the original source of Omar’s retweet.

In reaction to Suleiman addressing Congress, Rep Lee Zeldin (R-NY) rebuked Pelosi for inviting such a divisive person to address the august body, stating.

“Totally unacceptable that had Omar Suleiman give the opening prayer yesterday in the House. He compares Israel to the Nazis & calls them terrorists, supports Muslim Brotherhood, incites violence calling for a Palestinian antifada & the end of zionism, etc. Bad call”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) went into high gear with accusations of “Islamophobia,” rather than address the issue that a national platform was given to a virulent basher of a strong American ally. As described in cnsnews.com:

“Ekram Haque, acting executive director of CAIR’s Dallas-Fort Worth chapter, accused “anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian groups” of having “launched a smear campaign against yet another person of color and American Muslim leader in the hope of maligning and marginalizing our communities.”

A brilliant continuation of lies whereby the anti-Zionists deflected the charge with charges of Islamophobia.

The CNS news site continued that Suleiman has 1.35 million followers on Facebook and 282,000 followers on Twitter where he posted comments like these:

  • Facebook post, May 15, 2018: “Apartheid Israel, with American funding and cover, continues to terrorize with impunity.”
  • Facebook post, 10 August 2015: “Want to know what its [sic] like to live under Nazis? Look no further than how the Palestinians are treated daily by apartheid Israel. Sickening.”
  • Twitter post, 30 October 2014: A third intifada is near insha’Allah.”
  • Facebook post, 3 August 2014: “How symbolic: 2 books buried in the rubble of a destroyed home in Gaza: One about Moses and the other about Muhammad (peace be upon them both). The Zionists are the enemies of God, His Messengers, sincere followers of all religions, and humanity as a whole.”
  • Twitter post, 24 July 2014: “God willing on this blessed night as the 3rd Intifada begins, the beginning of the end of Zionism is here. May Allah help us overcome this monster, protect the innocent of the world, and accept the murdered as martyrs. ameen.”

Suleiman/Omar/Pelosi are far cries from an innocuous and impotent “social activist” making silly remarks about Jesus being a Palestinian. This is a man calling for the destruction of Israel who is parroted by a congresswomen and speaking before Congress.

Sarsour herself has many other friends at the top of the Democratic Party that are furthering the demonization of Jews and the Jewish State.

Linda Sarsour and Cornel West, right, listen as Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks in a roundtable discussion April 16, 2016, at the First Unitarian Congregational Society in the Brooklyn borough of New York. (Mary Altaffer / AP)

Sarsour has developed a very close relationship with one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders proudly posted her endorsement of his 2020 presidential run on his website. He clearly believes that her voice carries weight and will win him votes. (It should be noted that Sanders also posted the support of another loud anti-semite, former British MP George Galloway as well as Cornel West and James Zogby.)

Another 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand loudly and proudly complemented Sarsour for her role in the Women’s March stating: “It was an honor to write about them.” In addition to Israel-hater Sarsour, the other women Gillibrand wrote about were people like Tamika Mallory who is proud of her relationship with noted anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. (Gillibrand has company in another Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Cory Booker who also stands with Farrakhan).

Sarsour is also close to current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a fellow Israel-basher (who happens to be Muslim) who was the Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The two back each other all the way.

In short, Sarsour is not some low-level un-influential community organizer. She has a loud platform and ears of the leaders of the Democratic party.

These pages have focused on far-left wing anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist elected officials including “The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe,Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism,An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters and “Farrakhan’s Democrats” among others.

This problem is systemic and growing.

The “progressive” intersectionality movement is merging the radical Muslim jihadist sect like Sarsour/ Omar/ Ellison with the far-left Democratic leadership like Sanders, Booker and Gillbrand as well as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris who both excused Ilhan’s Omar’s anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist comments. Rather than criticize the essence of the hateful American jihadists comments, the Democratic leadership is opting to condemn the targets of the smear attacks (including pro-Israel Republicans, religious Christians and and Jews) as racists. Appreciating the results, the jihadists do it again, further binding the alt-left to its cause, as the Democratic leadership seems unwilling or unable to pull itself out of the tailspin.

The insidious jihad is just getting started, and will roll over the Democratic Party should it elect a member of the far-left as its presidential nominee.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Considering Nazis and Radical Islam on the 75th Anniversary of D-Day

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

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

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

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

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

Politicians React to Vile and Vulgar Palestinian Hatred

Ben & Jerry’s New Flavor: Milano Zio

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

US elections have become affairs seemingly as much about who people will NOT vote for as much as who they actually do endorse.

In that spirit, with a crowded field of Democrats vying to become the next US president, let’s toss out the clearly unacceptable candidates, those who will tear this country apart – the extremists.

Both Republicans and Democrats have them, and the current nature of the primary season is unfortunately to cater to the radical base of the party. But it is a recipe for disaster and a continuation of the fracturing the great United States.

Three of the Democratic candidates for president are among the most extremist liberal fringe of the senate, as compiled by GovTracks, an independent monitoring group which tracks the voting records of all members of Congress.

Look at the five most extreme liberal voters in the US Senate for 2018:

Rank Score Senator

#95 0.09 Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA]
#96 0.05 Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA]
#97 0.03 Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
#98 0.01 Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
#99 0.00 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Three of the most extremist members of the US Senate are running for president. Voting for such people to the highest office is akin to trying to initiate a civil war in the country between the blue states and the red states, between the rural and the urban, between the religious and the secular.

Similarly, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is a far left-wing fringe politician and should be shunned on the national stage.

When Barack Obama was leaving the political stage, he warned his fellow Democrats not to let themselves be “characterized as coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks.Well they’re not be characterized as such – they are the very epitome of the alt-left.

If Americans actually want to heal the divide, it is time to encourage the moderate voices from both parties to take leadership roles in the national debates, not the lunatic fringe embodied by Gillibrand and Sanders.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

The U.S. is Stealing Real Choices from the Voters

Let’s Make America VOTE Again

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Progressives are Stripping the Equity of Our Lives

Eyes Wide Shut

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

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