Why Does the New York Times Delete Stories of Attacks on Jews?

The New York Times has a tag line “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” When it deliberately omits stories of attacks on Jews within its articles, it must believe that such information is unworthy of telling its declining number (and quality?) of readers.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in New Jersey

Consider the August 2, 2017 article “Uneasy Welcome as Ultra-Orthodox Jews Extend Beyond New York.” The article described the movement of Ultra-Orthodox (Hasidic) Jews into newer neighborhoods where they hadn’t previously lived including Jersey City, NJ and other towns in New Jersey. The article described the Jews as pushy and anti-liberal, with quotes such as “They literally go door to door and can be very pushy trying to purchase someone’s house,” and “They have become a more muscular political and social force and have turned the generally liberal profile of the area’s Jews more observant and conservative. Lakewood Township, near the Jersey Shore, voted for Donald J. Trump last year.” Lions AND tigers AND bears? Oh My!

Picture in NYT with caption “Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, where Hasidic families converted a dry cleaner into a community center. Some critics claim the center is a synagogue and violates zoning rules that ban houses of worship.”

Is the article trying to suggest that liberal communities in the New York City metropolitan area should be worried about aggressive, law-breaking conservatives moving into their neighborhoods? The article clearly doesn’t believe that it has anything to do with anti-Semitism as it wrote ““People felt threatened,” Mr. Kelaher said. “This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. This is strictly based on the type of behavior. We welcome people to move in legitimately,” and ““We live among Chinese. We live among Spanish,’’ said Mr. Sumpter, who is a cook. “It don’t matter. People is people. If you’re good people, you’re good people.””

The paper made clear that liberals like all different kinds of people. Just not these aggressive, pushy law-breakers who just happen to be ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Is there another side to the story?

How could the liberal paper write about this topic without also including the current situation in Mahwah, NJ, where over 1,000 residents posted vile anti-Semitic comments to get the town to block the establishment of an eruv which facilitates ultra-Orthodox communities to move into a neighborhood. Just the week before the Times article, residents of the town started to destroy the eruv in an act that the police are investigating as a hate crime. If you want to judge whether this matter has anything to do with anti-Semitism, read the comments in the online petition, Protect the Quality of our Community in Mahwah. “Uneasy Welcome?” Seriously?

The Times deliberately omitted any mention about the clear anti-Semitism related to ultra-Orthodox Jews moving into a new community in New Jersey in an article about that specific topic, because it added a narrative outside of its sales pitch to its liberal readers: object to Orthodox Jews because they’re pushy conservatives; it won’t make you an anti-Semite.

Israeli Soldiers Killing Arab Assailants

The July 31, 2017 print version of the New York Times had a slightly different version of the current online piece called “Israel Court Rejects Appeal for Elor Azaria, Soldier Who Shot Wounded Assailant.” The story described how Israel is debating how soldiers should react to Arab terrorists. Its opening:

“When an Israeli soldier fired a single shot through the window of a home in a West Bank settlement this month, wounding a Palestinian assailant and putting an end to a stabbing rampage that killed three people, many Israelis hailed the soldier as a hero.

But others criticized the unnamed soldier, who was home on leave in the settlement, for merely incapacitating the Palestinian intruder, not killing him. They suggested the soldier held off for fear of ending up like Elor Azaria, the former sergeant whose legal case has rocked Israel.”

The article described the story of Elor Azaria, a soldier who shot and killed an incapacitated Palestinian terrorist who went to jail for a “disproportional use of a weapon” despite his claim that he thought that the terrorist was moving and was about to detonate an explosive. The story went on to discuss the debate within Israeli society that seemed to have aggressive right-wing politicians on one side, and dovish liberals on the other: “several prominent Israeli politicians declared that Palestinian perpetrators should not emerge alive from such attacks, which liberal critics said amounted to a shoot-to-kill policy.

One would imagine that the Times would cover one of the most significant stories of the immediate past when writing such an article: the attack by Israeli Arabs on Israeli police men on the Temple Mount on July 14. Not a word.

Three Israeli Arabs shot and killed two police officers on Judaism’s holiest site. One of the Arabs was on the ground – seemingly incapacitated – when he suddenly sprung up and lunged at the police officers with a knife to stab him. Two police officers were killed as were the three Arab terrorists. Here is a video clip of the terrorist jumping to his feet.

In an article with a headline about a soldier accused of using too much force against an incapacitated terrorist, how did the Times not mention  how a seemingly incapacitated killer jumped to his feet in an attempt to kill yet more people? Because that would make the use of “disproportionate” force seem like an appropriate response, whereas the paper wanted to show that simply injuring a terrorist was enough.

The paper’s story was that right-wing Israelis want to kill people for no reason. Showing logic for their position would abuse their narrative.

The New York Times is touting itself as “a leader in its evenhanded coverage of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.” It  is nothing of the sort. It has become a distorted far-left, anti-Jewish paper, touting a single biased narrative.

Related First.One.through articles:

In Inversion, New York Times Admits “The Truth is Hard to Find”

The New York Times’ Select Defense of a Civilian

The New York Times Pre-Occupation with Lies

New York Times’ Small Anti-Semitism

The New York Times Thinks that the Jews from Arab Countries Simply “Immigrated”

The New York Times Wrote About Computer Hackers Charged by the US and Israel. Differently.

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Liberal’s Protest Bubble Harms Democracy

I still remember the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in January 1981. It was not Reagan himself that made the day memorable, but the thrill of seeing the incompetent Jimmy Carter leave the White House.

I had spent my mornings during my 1979-80, 1980-81 high school years driving to school past a gas station which posted the number of days that the American hostages were held in captivity in Iran. Each day the sign would update the count, and my anger would rise along with the revised total. But on January 20, the day of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were finally released, just as the embarrassment of a president vacated Washington, DC.

On that day, my liberal high school classmates chose to wear black armbands, in protest of the election of a Republican. They had convinced themselves that there was nothing so terrible as capitalism and free markets, and they opted to show the world their disgust at Reagan’s ascent. While the country celebrated the release of hostages and dawn of a brighter future, these liberal teenagers saw a dark day.

I would see the silent liberal protests again. In January 2001, liberals would claim that George W Bush wasn’t really their president. I saw bumper stickers all over town that had a “W’ with a slash through it. I read about how Bill Clinton’s staffers removed all of the “W”s from the computer keyboards in the White House. Real mature.

This year’s election of Donald Trump has brought yet a new wave of liberal protests. Some schools cancelled exams after the election. Family celebrations which had once included a wide range of divergent political views began with declarations “No political discussions!” before anyone had a chance to say hello.  Now we are hearing that many elected Democratic officials are going to boycott the inauguration. Some liberal rabbis have even said that they will mark the day by fasting – I kid you not.


I don’t know what kind of president Donald Trump will be at this moment in time, any more than predicting Reagan 36 years ago. I do know that I am glad to say goodbye to eight terrible years of foreign policy, and am not surprised at the immature liberal cries of anguish I have seen for decades.

The silent protests don’t upset me. Free speech is an American right, and everyone is allowed to express themselves.

Granted I do not know any non-liberals that carried on in such a fashion over the past eight years. I never met someone that placed a “Nobama” sign on their front lawn or fasted at Obama’s election. I couldn’t catch any black armbands when Bill Clinton asumed office or any Republican officials boycotting the ceremony. No matter.

The problem with the liberal actions are not the protests themselves. It is the withdrawal from reality and debate.

For the last eight years people debated issues ranging from transgender bathrooms to the use of drones to kill Americans to Obamacare. People accepted the presidential election results and engaged in a discussion about policies.

Yet now, liberals claim “he’s not my president” and shout at friends “no talking politics!” when they dislike the results of their democracy. After eight years of a constant comfortable exchange while the president echoed and enshrined their worldview, will people discuss important matters with people with whom they disagree, or just rely on the liberal mainstream media to attack Trump?

President Obama saw the problem in his own party. In his farewell address, he asked people to get out of their bubbles and engage in a healthy debate with people with different opinions:

“For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste – all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.

This trend represents a third threat to our democracy. Politics is a battle of ideas; in the course of a healthy debate, we’ll prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.”

I strongly disagreed with Obama on many of his policies, and I made my case to people of all political persuasions. But in this instance, I agree with him. Healthy debate is critical for a healthy democracy. I wish Obama would have followed his own advice during his presidency, and not walked out on people, such as boycotting speeches (as Democrats did to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), or supporting Democrats when they fled the Wisconsin state house, or the Indiana state house. Or as Democratic officials now plan to do in boycotting the inauguration of President Trump.

I don’t care about your armbands, your fasts or your walkouts. If you have a coherent argument, make it. Engage in the debate and understand your fellow Americans without name-calling. Our democracy will be better off if you left your liberal bubble.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

A Deplorable Definition

American Hate: The Right Targets Foreigners, The Left Targets Americans

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

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

On December 16, 2016, Preisdent Barack Obama held his last press conference as president.  In his remarks, he discussed why the Democrats lost the election.  He said that “People feel as if they’re not being heard. Democrats are characterized as coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks.”


President Barack Obama at his final press conference

Some liberals were upset by Obama’s comment. They noted that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes, so they claim that the Democrats’ message was indeed heard and appreciated by the majority of Americans.

However, that margin of victory was indeed found in the coastal liberal areas. Look at election results in just eight counties in California:

County  Clinton   Trump   Margin 
Alameda        486,351        91,189        395,162
Contra Costa        286,658      105,819        180,839
Los Angeles     1,893,770      620,285     1,273,485
Sacramento        273,768      163,024        110,744
San Diego        567,243      386,807        180,436
San Francisco        312,443        34,493        277,950
San Mateo        219,580        53,731        165,849
Santa Clara        483,472      137,452        346,020
 TOTAL         2,930,485

Hillary Clinton’s entire margin of victory in the popular vote was eclipsed in just these eight coastal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch counties.  Other California liberal counties like Marin, Sonoma and Orange counties added hundreds of thousands of incremental votes for Clinton.

Put another way, Republican President-elect Donald Trump won the popular vote as well as the electoral college outside of the California coastal counties.

What kind of liberal laws are found in these counties that are not typical of the rest of America?

  • Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants
  • First in transgender laws in bathrooms and locker rooms
  • Most liberal abortion laws in the country
  • First cities to increase minimum wage to highest levels in the country
  • Highest income taxes
  • Highest “sin taxes” for alcohol and tobacco
  • Toughest gun laws
  • Right to Die laws
  • Equal pay laws making it easier for women to sue bosses
  • Voting law that automatically registers people who get licenses to vote
  • Cities make it illegal for grocers to provide plastic bags
  • Legalizing marijuana

A liberal neighbor to the north – Portland, Oregon – just passed a law that makes it a crime for a CEO to make too much money relative to his other workers.  Another push by the liberal coast to advance a measure counter to American values.

So when Obama suggests that Democrats “have to be in the [non-liberal] communities,” to retake the White House, he simplified the Clinton and Democrats’ problem. The reality is that the Democrats have to reengage the entire country, not just a couple of isolated “communities,” and consider whether the entire country wants to embrace its left-wing platform.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Money Can’t Buy Clinton Love

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

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis



Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts is the Most Racist State in the Country

On November 14, 2016, the FBI released its statistics for hate crimes in the United States. Most media outlets opted to cherry-pick facts from the report. As detailed in “NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes,” the media pushed a focus on the jump in crimes against Muslims as it implied that hate crimes were coming from angry, racist white Trump supporters, even while the media refused to publish the steep decline in whites as the attackers, from 61% of the total in 2008, to 49% in 2015.

So with the backdrop of the far-left wing Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren saying that President-elect Donald Trump is “doubling down on racism,” it is worth telling people what the media refuses to publish: Massachusetts is the most racist state in the union.

The FBI’s 2015 Hate Crime Report broke down the number of hate crimes by state. It also included the population in the areas that report the crimes, as different counties and regions do not always file reports, and it enables an easier comparison between states with a wide range of populations.

Massachusetts had the greatest number of hate crimes by a wide margin, with one hate crime on average for every 16,000 people.

By way of comparison, states that had race riots in 2016 such as North Carolina and Missouri experienced one hate crime for every 61,000 people.  Maryland, which had riots in 2015 after the police killing of Freddie Gray, had one hate crime per 146,000 people. The deeply conservative state of Texas had one hate crime for every 143,000 people.

Massachusetts faired terribly compared to liberal states of similar size as well. New Jersey (one per 27,000) and Washington (one per 26,000) were the typical averages for hate crimes in 2015.  More conservative, but similarly sized Arizona (one per 24,000) and Tennessee (one per 30,000) give a sense of the national average among states with 6-7 million people.

So why did Massachusetts, which elected a radical liberal to the senate, have 63% more hate crimes on average than most states? Why has the frequency gotten progressively worse in her state every year (one hate crime per 17,300 people in 2014, one per 18,500 in 2013)?

The two primary choices are either that: 1) Massachusetts residents are much more inclined to label acts as a “hate crime” compared to the rest of the country, or 2) Massachusetts is the most racist state in the USA.

Either way, it makes the shouts of “racist” coming from the Warren fringe, a bit problematic.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

Related First.One.Through articles:

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The Impossible Liberal Standard

I was amused by a post that a friend shared from The Onion called “Area Liberal No Longer Recognizes Fanciful, Wildly Inaccurate Mental Picture Of Country He Lives In,” which poked fun at liberals who were dismayed at the election of Donald Trump.  The piece relayed that the Republican victory led an uber-liberal “to call into question everything he thought he knew about his spectacularly unrealistic, wholly imaginary conception of the nation he calls home.

That comedy is the unfortunate reality of many liberal Jews when it comes to Israel.

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman speaking at the Temple Israel Center
in White Plains, NY on November 9, 2016

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is the President of the Shalom Hartman Institute, which describes itself as a “pluralistic center of research and education deepening and elevating the quality of Jewish life in Israel and around the world.”  It does this by bringing together roughly 70 scholars in different areas of Judaism.  However, in reviewing the bios of the scholars, one would be hard-pressed to find any Yemenite, Syrian, Tunisian (actually any Mizrachi Jew which constitute over half of the Jews in Israel), Ethiopian or any ulta-Orthodox Jews in this “pluralistic center.”

No matter.  It identifies itself as progressive.

Rabbi Hartman came to talk to New York Jews about “Israel and the Future of Jewish Peoplehood.”  His 35-minute talk was passionate and interesting (at least to me). He advanced an argument that Jews have a “Covenant of Being,” in which every Jew is defined as such by birth, as well as a “Covenant of Doing,” which relates to how a person engages in Jewish values.  The Covenant of Being connects all Jews to the Jewish State by DNA, while the Covenant of Doing fosters a more complicated relationship with Israel, as every denomination in Judaism focuses on different values (or to use Rabbi Hartman’s terminology, they all have “different Torahs.”)

Hartman said that he hoped that everyone would find a way to respect the various opinions and values as it relates to Judaism (which is easy to accomplish in the US), and in Israel (which is a much harder task).  He alluded to “tools” and studies that the Institute developed to enable constructive dialogue and respect.

He then took a few questions.  His responses did not offer a particularly welcoming view of Israel.

The Israel Defense Forces

In response to a question about the challenge of Israel on the world stage, Hartman stated that he was unimpressed with the notion that Israel should be “a light unto the nations. Let it just be a light.”  He seemed to be dismissive of Israel’s morality in the absolute, let alone relative to the world.  He belittled the arguments about Israel’s army, the IDF. He snorted, “‘Israel has the most moral army in the world.’ Really? More than Finland? More than Canada?


When was the last time that Finland fought in a war? World War II? When were terrorists launching missiles into 80% of the population centers of Canada? Have either Finland or Canada been threatened with annihilation and being wiped off of the map? Are terrorists firing into their countries from United Nations schools?

For those familiar with his writings, Hartman had stated in the past that he sees no immediate path towards peace with Palestinian Arabs. “Like many Israelis, without absolving in any way my country’s failures and responsibilities, I am increasingly hard-pressed to justify the claim that the Palestinians desire to live side-by-side with me. It is not the terror of individuals, but its aggrandizement by too many, including the Palestinian Authority, which makes me doubt whether peace can be a reality in my lifetime. If someone who attempts to murder my people is considered by Palestinian leadership “a martyr who watered the pure earth of Palestine with his blood,” where does the future lie?

If Hartman believes that Palestinian Arab leadership endorses terror, why is he dismissive of Israel’s defense?  Why belittle the disproportionate DEFENSES of Israelis and Arabs? How can he suggest that the Israeli army should behave like a country that hasn’t been fired upon since 1945?

Even if Hartman had no interest in hasbara, advocating on behalf of Israel, is it too problematic to acknowledge that Israel’s peers and neighbors are not the same?

The Ultra-Orthodox / Charedi Jews

Another question posed of Rabbi Hartman related to his thoughts about a “demographic time bomb” in Israel that could threaten its position as a Jewish State and a democracy.

He responded that there is no risk of the Arabs outnumbering Jews in pre-1967 borders (he advocates for giving up Judea and Samaria).  He continued that the real demographic time bomb in Israel comes from the ultra-Orthodox (Charedi) community which has very large families.  According to him, they are the real threat to the Zionism that he loves.  He assured the audience that the Hartman Institute is doing everything it can to advance a Jewish and democratic state that will minimize the corrosive effects that ultra-Orthodox Jews may have on the state.

Quite a view from a “progressive” think tank.  Its staff has more Arabs than Mizrachi Jews, while it seeks to undermine the viewpoints of Charedim.  These liberals have excluded – by accident or design – the majority of Jews in the country (Mizrachi) while they develop thought pieces that will marginalize the fastest growing group of Jews (Charedi).  These elitist Ashkenazi Jews then congratulate themselves on their progressive, open-minded ways.  How? I don’t know.

The Hartman Institute is not The Onion.  Its leaders do not perform stand-up, and the speeches are not parodies.  The institute stands as a progressive think tank that considers itself at the forefront of Jewish thought.  And for some reason, it will not congratulate Israel on being the most liberal country for a thousand miles in any direction.

American liberals, ensconced in their echo chambers, imagine a fictitious America, and Jewish liberals dream of an Israel that cannot exist in today’s reality. The former feels that America has fallen short by electing Donald Trump, while the latter refuses to believe that Israel is greater than it imagined.  What each group of liberals has in common is the belief that it is enlightened and open to all points of view, even while ignoring the opinions of the majority.

Related First.One.Through artciles:

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

The Color Coded Lexicon of Israel’s Bigotry: It’s not Just PinkWashing

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Israel: Security in a Small Country

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused Russia of trying to influence the US election by leaking thousands of Democratic National Committee emails to embarrass the Democrats.  The emails showed how the DNC sought to discredit Senator Bernie Sanders in an effort to promote Clinton, and to disrupt Trump rallies, among other things.

The veracity of the emails were not questioned by Clinton or fellow Democrats.

Clinton claimed that the Russians leaked such emails to help elect Donald Trump, and she made a point of connecting Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in her third debate with Trump.  Interestingly, some of the leaked emails connected Clinton herself with Putin.

In another twist of hypocrisy, just a few months earlier, various left-wing groups decried Israel’s new NGO law which required Non-Governmental Organizations that lobby the Israeli parliament and run various agencies within Israel and its territories, to disclose if they receive more than half of their funding from foreign governments.  The left-wing groups even got the United Nations to chime in that such identification transparency law was anti-democratic, even though the NGOs would still able to continue to lobby and function.

It is a remarkable bit of hypocrisy for liberal groups to try to stop a foreign government from simply publicizing emails that Democrats actually wrote, while supporting various foreign governments efforts to ACTIVELY lobby and operate inside Israel anonymously.

New Israel Fund CEO Daniel Sokatch

The New Israel Fund (NIF) is an organization that helps create such NGOs that receive foreign funding, loudly voiced its opposition to the Israeli Transparency Law. The NIF CEO is also on the Advisory Board of J Street and the Founding Executive Director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, which ultimately became Bend the Arc, a Jewish PAC which endorsed Clinton for President.

It would appear that liberals are transparently hypocritical.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Hillary’s Transparency

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

Adalah, Dismantling Zionism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

A Deplorable Definition

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton described millions of Trump supporters as being a bunch of racists in a campaign fund-raiser in September 2016.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

It was quite a charge to label millions of people – all Trump supporters – as racists. Does she really think that none of her supporters are racists also?

Hillary Clinton addressing liberals at a campaign fund raiser
September 9, 2016

There are indeed a good number of racists in the country, belonging to both political parties. But to say that there are millions of them is likely a gross over-statement, unless one uses the new “progressive” approach to labeling someone a “deplorable.”

Extending the Definition of “Racists, sexists, homophobes,
xenophobes, Islamophobes – you name it”

The last several years in American history have witnessed an amazing expansion of name-calling by the radical left, as they have sought to extend the broad parameters of inclusiveness. In particular, the “progressives” have championed two general civic courses for society to learn: self-identity and celebrating diversity.


In the new “progressive” social dictionary, a person’s self-identity trumps any physical reality. Specifically, self-identity is not simply a matter of the personal definition of self, but the imposition of that position onto society, which must accept and adapt to that person’s preference.

Consider the case of Rachel Dolezal in June 2015, a white woman who headed the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP. She argued that she “identified as black,” and rose to become head of a local minority organization. Some progressives were happy to welcome her to the cause of black-empowerment, while others were not willing to grant her a new self-defined racial make-up, as doing so would undermine the fight against the “structures of white empowerment.” This was actually a matter of serious debate and discussion.

The case of transgender people impacted Americans on a broader scale than a local Washington group. In May 2016, the Obama administration passed a law that public schools must allow students to use restrooms of their “gender identity.” This ruling impacted millions of children in school. Young girls would now be in a position of changing in a locker room with a person who identified as a woman, even though he had XY chromosomes and male genitalia.

This was too much for wide swaths of America.

When Gov. Pat McCory of North Carolina fought to block the transgender ruling, the progressive community went on a rant that he was a homophobe and against the LGBT community. Various artists and organizations began to boycott the state in solidarity with the progressive ruling.

These days, progressives quickly label people who choose not to recognize self-identity over biology, as racists and homophobes.  Add more people to the “basket of deplorables.”

Missing the Celebration

Another way that Hillary Clinton may have been able to reach her millions of people in her “basket of deplorables” was by including people who do not “celebrate diversity” the way that she envisions.

In Clinton’s opening remarks during her second debate with Trump in October 2016 she used that phrase twice:

  • We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity
  • “we will respect one another and we will work with one another and we will celebrate our diversity

What could Clinton have had in mind?

In August 2015, a court in Colorado ruled against a bakery that would not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery owner claimed that while he would sell anything to a gay couple, making a specific “gay” wedding cake went against his Christian values. However, it seemed that the baker’s opinion went against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s 2014 ruling that dictated that he must create cakes for gay couples.

The ruling put conservatives in a rage.

Questions arose whether the bakery must also create cakes in the shape of a swastika if so ordered by a patron. Would a vegetarian store have to serve meat? A kosher store be forced to open on Saturday? A tattoo artist inscribe something they considered personally offensive?

Conservatives wanted to understand whether the line defining discrimination had moved.

If a store owner was willing to sell anything in the store to anyone who sought to purchase it regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or anything else, how can there be discrimination? To force a company or store owner to create something that is against their beliefs is a completely different hurdle.

The progressives were nonplussed. Of course the store owner should celebrate the gay wedding. To do otherwise would be homophobic.

If that case seemed too narrow and unusual, consider the case of Hobby Lobby that went to the Supreme Court in 2014. Hobby Lobby had fought for the right to not fund contraceptives in the company’s employee health coverage plans, as it offended their Christian beliefs. The court narrowly ruled in the company’s favor.

Millions of people either applauded or cursed the ruling.

Before you could blink, the progressives had minted millions of new “homophobes” and “racists” that disagreed with how to celebrate diversity.

Diversity is part of what makes America great, similar to free speech. We are a better country for having a rich tapestry of people with different backgrounds, races, religions and colors, the same way the country benefits from people having different opinions and approaches to life.

However, the same way we vigorously defend the right of free speech, we are free to disagree and ignore the views completely. As a friend of Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That should be the logical approach to “celebrating diversity” as well. Every person has the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies and lives, but not to force people to endorse or promote those personal decisions.

That does not seem to be the stance of progressives regarding diversity today. They do not just simply seek a world without discrimination, they want an America that endorses and celebrates their progressive stances. Woe unto the person who didn’t cheer Caitlyn Jenner (fka Bruce) winning the Arthur Ashe Courage award.

There are only two choices in a “progressive” society: accept, adapt and celebrate the new progressive agenda OR be labeled a “deplorable.”

And in the likely President Clinton future, either be fired, boycotted or hauled to jail. She made clear that you are not part of her “America.”

Related First.One.Through articles:

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Pride. Jewish and Gay

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

The left-wing fringe has a few favorite bogeymen, particularly Wall Street and the National Rifle Association. Liberals claim that these two groups are corrupting politics by lobbying and buying Congress for their evil gains.

Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.

Wall Street and Goldman Sachs

Consider the comments of Democrat-Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders about Wall Street: “The business model of Wall Street is fraud.”  He didn’t just attack a particular firm that may have committed a crime; he vilified an entire industry.

The left-wing media applauded the Sanders approach. Consider The Young Turks, a far left media site which celebrated Sanders’ video ad describing the corrupting influence of Wall Street on politics. They were convinced that Wall Street was buying and lobbying their way to unfair riches. The Sanders ad stated “The ultra-rich employ an army of lobbyists to write tax codes to avoid paying their fair share. It’s part of a corrupt political system.” TYT cheered.

That ad was meant as a direct challenge to Hillary Clinton who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking with executives at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is the most famous and wealthiest M&A investment bank. The firm’s leaders are close to Democrats and many ultimately left banking and went into Democratic administrations, including Bill Rubin who served as Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, and Jon Corzine who became the Democratic Governor of New Jersey.

Interestingly, the liberal-wing of the Democratic party attacked its own front-runner in the political middle for being part of a corrupt Wall Street-political scheme.

National Rifle Association

The NRA is a favorite target of every stripe of Democrat. Hillary Clinton proudly declared the NRA as one of her favorite enemies in an October 2015 Democratic debate. Her response drew loud applause from the audience.  (She didn’t mention that her campaign does fund-raisers with NRA lobbyists.  Shhh.)

Maybe that’s why Bernie Sanders sat unhappily at the Democratic convention.  He saw his party taking money from the groups that he opposed.  He claimed it was a matter of principle.  But was it?

George Soros Lobbyists Dwarf them All

While Sanders and far-left extremists like Jill Stein of the Green Party carry on about the evils of lobbyists – and of Wall Street and the NRA in particular – their hypocrisy should be noted as they never mention the liberal billionaire George Soros.

Billionaire George Soros speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative
(photo: Reuters/ Brendan McDermid)

During President Obama’s first term, George Soros’s Open Society Policy Center spent $10 million on lobbyists.  That was a warm-up for Obama’s second term, when Hillary Clinton was no longer serving as Secretary of State, when the OSPC paid lobbyists $34.7 million – and counting. Leaks of the Soros’s emails about influencing American policy were recently made public.

In comparison, over Obama’s second term, the NRA spent $12 million on lobbyists and Goldman Sachs spent $12.6 million. That means that George Soros spent over 40% more on liberal lobbyists than the two biggest liberal enemies spent COMBINED.

Further, Soros has already donated $6 million to Clinton’s superPAC – 10 times as much as she was paid by Goldman Sachs.

Soros’ Open Society supports many of the far-left policies of Sanders and the Green Party. It seeks to influence congress by crafting laws to its liking, much the way that all paid lobbyists do.

It makes it a bit hard to listen to Sanders and Stein yell about lobbyists, when the biggest lobbyist of them all is bankrolling their agendas.  Soros just happens to not be bankrolling them.

Quite the bitter cocktail of hypocrisy and sour grapes.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

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

Pride. Jewish and Gay

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

Pride. Jewish and Gay

If only Jewish Democratic leaders had an Iota of Pride in Being Jewish as they have for the gay community.


Pride is a bit of a confusing word. It has different meanings and is understood and used by people in peculiar ways.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary, defines “pride” as: 1) “inordinate self-esteem : conceit” or maybe something more modest like 2) “a reasonable or justifiable self-respect” or yet a more refined 3) “delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship.”

Consider these definitions in reviewing pride of being Jewish and/or gay.

Pride in Judaism

Judaism frowns upon pride when it means conceit or arrogance.

The greatest prophet in Judaism was Moses, who was described as humble in the bible: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.” (Numbers 12:3).  It is a trait that rabbis preach for Jews to emulate to this day.

Humility is the opposite of pride. The rabbis take issue with pride that is associated with conceit and arrogance. However, they have no issues with pride that relates to reasonable self-respect or elation. Leaders in the Jewish community can often be found discussing their appreciation for the value system embedded in Judaism. It is not meant as boastful, as much as a sense of deep admiration.

Pride in the Gay Community

The gay community has used the word pride in its own way. The gay pride parades that happen in cities around the world are not meant as a show of conceit. They are expressions of a community that was shunned for years, that is now declaring publicly that they have no shame in their actions and will no longer hide. It is not an arrogance, but a public affirmation of themselves.

Israelis and American Jews have their own approaches to pride as it relates to being Jewish and/or gay.

Israeli Pride – Being Jewish; Being Gay

Israelis have not been shy about their accomplishments. They are boastful of their “Start-up Nation” that is a technological marvel, that turned a desert into a flowering democracy. One blogger actually listed 66 different companies which made her “proud to be an Israeli.” Is this conceit? Is it a justifiable self-respect? An elation arising from various acts? Probably all of the above.

The Jews in Israel also reflect on their being Jewish. In a March 2016 Pew Research poll, 93% of Israeli Jews said they were proud to be Jewish. The majority of Jews also stated that their being Jewish was a matter of ancestry- something in which they had no control. That implies that the majority of Israeli Jews – regardless of the level of religious observance – felt pride in something in which they had no active involvement.

Israelis also displayed support of gay pride, one of the only countries in the entire MENA (Middle East and North Africa) that holds a gay pride parade. (In contrast, it is a capital offense to commit a homosexual act in many countries in MENA, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.).  Beyond annual parades, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he was “proud” to welcome the first openly-gay Likud Member of Knesset.

The parade in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem was attended by thousands in July 2016. The mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat saidI hope, with all my heart, that we come together, on this day, against every manifestation of incitement, hatred, and violence, and that we unite around the right of every individual and community to exercise their freedom of expression, regardless of gender, race, or religion.”  This was not arrogance. It was affirmation.

US Pride – Being Gay; Being Jewish

Democratic leaders have for years championed the rights of the LGBT community. The cause of same-sex marriage was almost exclusively fought by left-wing activists and politicians for decades. When the courts ruled on the legality of same-sex marriages, Democratic President Barack Obama, and many Jewish Democrats celebrated.

The Jewish Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders claims to have always been a proud supporter of gay rights, even going back to the 1970s.

The head of the Democratic party, Deborah Wasserman Schultz (who is Jewish), also celebrated same-sex becoming recognized in Florida with a statementToday, we proudly turn the page on marriage discrimination and look toward a future that is more loving and closer to our ideals as a state.”

Are these Jewish Democratic leaders also proud about their own Judaism? Not so much.

Democratic National Committee chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks at a press conference promoting the endorsement of David Wecht, Kevin Dougherty, and Christine Donohue for Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Heather Arnet for State Senate, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015, in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Democratic National Committee chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz  (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

In January 2016, Bernie Sanders effectively punted on his religion. Consider this exchange on the Jimmy Kimmel show:

“You say you’re culturally Jewish, you don’t feel religious,” Kimmel told Sanders. “Do you believe in God, and do you think that’s important to the people of the United States?”

Sanders didn’t skip a beat. In fact, he didn’t even let Kimmel finish the question before jumping in.

“Well, you know, I am who I am,” he replied. “And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we’re all in this together. That I think it is not a good thing to believe that, as human beings, we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,” he continued, as the crowd applauded and cheered so loudly he had to pause. 

“And you know, this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.”

Members of the DNC knew that Sanders dodged the question, and in their effort to discredit him and boost Secretary Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, they used his lack of positive Jewish affirmation against him.

In July 2016, several emails from the DNC came to the public light.  The DNC commented that Sanders seemed to skirt around his being Jewish and that he only associated with being Jewish as it related to the Holocaust.  Here is an exchange on that point:

One email from DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall read: “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Marshall added in a later email: “It’s these Jesus thing.”

In response, CEO Amy Dacey said: “Amen.”

The head of the Democratic National Committee, a Jew, decided to trash another Jewish leader, over the extent of his affirmation and pride in being a Jew. On the national stage.  With the US presidency on the line.

Democratic leaders trip over themselves to show their affinity to the LGBT community that they aren’t even part of.  Yet they distance themselves from the very community to which they were born.

The New Liberal Definition of a Jew

The Pew Research showed an interesting divide between Israeli Jews and American Jews.  In particular, it found that 57% of American Jews found “working for justice and equality” as an essential part of being Jewish, while only 27% of Israeli Jews thought that it was “essential.”

That is why Bernie Sanders can talk about Pope Francis when asked about his own religion.  Sanders doesn’t feel pride in his ancestry or religion; he feels pride in fighting for social justice and equality.  He may have been born a Jew, but his religion is liberalism.

That is the mantra of the leading Jews in the Democratic party.  Their non-Jewish colleagues can only learn about Judaism from them.  Judaism is not so actually a religion with 613 commandments; it’s essence is social justice.  It is not a religion of 14 million members; it is a global mission in which everyone is part.  It is not tribal nor particular; it is open and universal.

That is absurd.

No liberal would say that there is no such thing as an LGBT community.  Then why do they feel no compunction at dismissing a religion as simply a set of liberal values.  Is that the only part of Judaism that makes them proud to be a Jew?  Or are they not proud of Judaism at all?

Perhaps the leading Jewish members of the Democratic party can seek some guidance from Lord Jonathan Sachs of Great Britain.  He made an easy to watch video available for all to see that doesn’t need to be hacked to unveil the truth. “Why I am Proud to be a Jew.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Israel, the Liberal Country of the Middle East

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

The Color Coded Lexicon of Israel’s Bigotry: It’s not Just PinkWashing

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Wearing Our Beliefs

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis


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

On April 19, 2016, the people of the State of New York vote in presidential primaries. The U.S. state with the greatest number of Jews has the opportunity to vote in presidential primaries where a Jew is running on a major ticket for the very first time.

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders

Remarkably, the Jewish candidate is  – by far – the most aggressive and confrontational in his views of the Jewish State:

These positions are actually held by other left-wing groups who consider themselves pro-Israel, as does Sanders. J Street (the home of Sanders’ Jewish outreach person) has even proposed that the United States begin punishing Israel at the United Nations Security Council, where the US is often the sole vote that prevents Israel from being subject to many biased laws. How’s that for pro-Israel?

J Street and Sanders still like to use the term “pro-Israel” in their tagline as they believe that Israel has the right to exist. Maybe they should consider the fact that most people think Peru should exist too, but don’t brand themselves as “pro-Peru.”  A “pro-Peru” person would presumably not call for boycotting Peru’s goods or sanctioning it at the UN. Approving a country’s existence does not grant bona fides.

Radical left-wing people and groups like Bernie Sanders, Jewish Voice for Peace, Neturei Karta and J Street use their Jewishness as a red herring for their anti-Israel blood libels.  If they were not Jewish and held these positions and made these statements, people would call them out as “anti-Israel” easily and immediately.

The Democrats have been moving away from Israel since Barack Obama was elected to office in 2008. The relationship blew up in full in 2012, when the Democrats opted to remove the long-standing pro-Israel positions in the party’s platform including:

  • No longer stating that the US will isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism
  • No longer called for the Palestinian “refugees” to be settled in a new country of Palestine rather than Israel
  • No longer stating that it is unrealistic to expect the border contours to follow the 1949 Armistice Lines
  • Barely approved recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

The Democratic party moved away from Israel these past eight years, and the radical socialist-wing of the party has moved it further still. (And this is while Sanders’ running for the office of president. One can only imagine how much more aggressive he would be if he actually won the office.)

The anti-Israel wing of the Democratic party has a champion.  How many people will embrace him?

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel.

Has the “Left-Wing” Joined the UN in Protecting Iran and the Palestinians from a “Right-Wing” Israel?

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

Squeezing Zionism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis