5 Takeaways from the Griner Release

Brittney Griner released from Russian prison in swap for convicted arms  dealer | Fox News

The Biden administration secured the release of Brittney Griner, WNBA player, who was held in Russia after being convicted of drug possession.   Here are my main takeaways from the story

It is good to get Americans home

People have been saying to let Griner rot in a Russian prison since her initial arrest.  They do this because Griner actively belittled America when she said that she does not want the National Anthem played before WNBA games.  “I honestly feel we should not play the national anthem during our season,” Griner said in 2020. “I think we should take that much of a stand.”  She added that if it was played, she would not be on the floor. 

WNBA players should be applauded for taking a stand on issues

Many on the Right took this to heart, and claimed that if she hates America, she should stay in Russia.  However, Griner is an American citizen.  My view on Griner is the same as my view on all Americans, they deserve the protection of America.  It doesn’t matter if she hates the USA, the USA has a responsibility to her citizens, regardless of the citizens feeling toward the home country.  

I’ve said all along that the U.S. must establish herself on the world stage as a vengeful and irrational parent regarding U.S. citizens.  If any country detains a U.S. citizen, that country should be deathly afraid of getting on the bad side of the world’s most powerful military.  Same is true for targeting U.S. military personnel.  Americans should walk around with confidence that no matter what, the U.S. has their back.  

We traded too much for her

To get Griner, Biden traded a notorious Russian arms dealer named Viktor Bout, a.k.a. The “Merchant of Death.”  Bout was a former Soviet military officer who was 10 years into a 25 year sentence.  He was convicted of conspiring to kill Americans, acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, and provide material support to a terrorist organization.  The Russians really wanted this guy back. 

Viktor Bout: The Russian arms dealer touted for US prisoner swap | CNN

Bout clearly has the know-how and connections to aid the Russians in their war with Ukraine.  He also has no moral qualms with dealing with terrorists.  A world with a free Bout is less safe than with him locked up.  

For Bout, we should have gotten far more than one prisoner.  He should have been used as a bargaining chip in not only getting Griner, but also the Paul Whelan, the U.S. Marine being held in Russia for four years, and as a predicate for ending the war in Ukraine.  Which brings me to my next point.

Biden looks weak

No one on the world stage takes Joe Biden seriously.  He’s pushing 80, can’t form coherent sentences, and has no consistent foreign policy.  He cares more about the Pride flag than the American flag.  His military puts out laughable cartoon recruitment videos about female recruits with their two moms.  His CIA just hired its first chief Wellbeing officer.  He begs human rights abusers to drill for oil in their countries because he’s too busy listening to a teenage high school dropout.  

Any strongman dictator in the world, like Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, Nicholas Maduro or the Ayatollah, knows they can take advantage of Joe Biden.  This is just the latest in a long line of examples of Biden’s weakness – the “Best Hits” being the pullout from Afghanistan, the overtures to getting back into the Iran Deal, begging the Saudis for oil, and telling Putin that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine was acceptable.

Paul Whelan was jobbed

Paul Whelan is a former marine who is a US, Irish, British and Canadian citizen, was detained at a Moscow hotel in December 2018 by Russian authorities who alleged he was involved in an intelligence operation. He was convicted and sentenced in June 2020 to 16 years in prison in a trial US officials denounced as unfair.

Russia sentences American Paul Whelan to 16 years in prison on spying  charges

When speaking to CNN, he admitted he was surprised that he was left behind.  “I am greatly disappointed that more has not been done to secure my release, especially as the four year anniversary of my arrest is coming up.” 

The White House is claiming that they couldn’t get Whelan released because Russians are treating him “differently.”  “The choice became to either bring Brittney home or no one,” Press Secreatry Karine Jean Pierre said. “As the president said this morning he will never stop working to secure Paul Whelan’s release and he will not give up.”

My bet is that you won’t hear Whelan’s name again for a very long time, if ever. Once this story dies down in our 24 second news cycle, Whelan will only be remembered by his immediate family and the State Department representative who is tasked with lying to his immediate family.  

This is, assuming that the Biden administration is not already lying, and they didn’t have a choice between Griner and Whelan. According to Jordan Schachtel, the Biden admin could have taken either one of them, and they chose Griner. This is because…

Griner’s sexuality is more important than anything

No one can name either one of 144 WNBA players or one of 40-50 Americans held by foreign nations.  There is a reason why Griner’s case got so much attention.  She is a black, gay woman, so she checks multiple intersectional boxes.  Whelan has been in Russia for years and no one knew his name before today.    This is not a secret.  Karinne Jean Pierre, who is a black, gay woman, said it out loud. “On a personal note, Brittney is an important role model, an inspiration to millions of Americans particularly the LGBTQI+ Americans and women of color,” she said.

As Matt Walsh tweeted, “They didn’t trade for Griner because she’s in the WNBA. Nobody cares about that. They traded for her because she’s gay and black. She had more intersectional points than the other American prisoners so she moved to the front of the line. That’s the way the system works now.”

Her wife Cherelle” is a phrase that politicians and the media loved to say when talking about this.  Secretary of State Tony Blinken, former Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Nancy Pelosi, along with the AP, CNN, Bloomberg, and every other media outlet covering the story repeated “her wife” so many times it makes your head spin.

Can anyone imagine that much coverage given to a spouse if Griner was married to a man, or, perish the thought, a white man?  It would never happen.  Her sexuality adds to her credibility at the same time they refer to any gay person in America as “marginalized.” 

Sign up for the newsletter here

Check out all my social on my Linktree

The Growing Libertarian/Conservative Divide

 Originally published November 30, 2022
(Getty Images)

For years the terms “libertarian” and “conservative” were interchangeable. Both espouse limited government, both push individual freedom, and both laud personal responsibility. Yet the recent surge from the Left’s social agenda helped clarify the differences between a conservative and a libertarian, as the moral responsibility of government and society are being called in to handle a myriad of issues.

Former Secretary of Labor and Berkeley Law Professor Robert Reich makes this point frequently on Twitter. “News flash: If you outlaw abortions, criminalize providing gender affirming care for trans youth, dictate what educators can teach in schools, and stop people from voting, you’re not the party of “limited government,” he said in the latest of many tweets on the subject. 
Reich has a point, conservatives are not the party of “limited government” in the sense that he is talking about. Conservatives are the party of government usage of powers enumerated in the Constitution and the moral guidance of the Declaration of Independence. Conservatives are not looking to grow the power, size and scope of the government, but are not shy about using the government’s existing power to protect the rights and lives of the citizenry, at times from themselves. 
Reich is confusing Republicans and Conservatives with more of a Libertarian mindset, one that says that there should be fewer taxes, but also abortion should be legal and it doesn’t matter who does what to their bodies, regardless of age. Reich is trying to find common cause with Libertarians, who want these activities to be allowed, with Leftists, who not only want these things to be allowed, but want government and society to pay for it. He’s doing so through Radical Individualism
Radical Individualism is not a new concept, but it has taken on a new life in today’s society. The idea is that not only should the individual have the rights to do what they want, but that the individual’s thoughts, feelings and desires should be the moral compass from which all of society is derived. Essentially, as long as it’s not directly harming another, whatever an individual wants to do, it is moral, because the individual wants to do it. 
Professor of Psychology at Merrimack College, Michael Mascolo, wrote about this in December, 2016. “Individual rights are essential for a free society,” he said. “However, they are insufficient for a free and moral society.” Yet what the Left is doing now is taking the most radical individuals and using them as the moral compass from which to govern. This is why the loosest abortion restrictions in the world exist in deep blue states like New York and California. This is why there is such pushback in states like Tennessee when laws get proposed to ban child mutilation.
“There is more to moral life than our claims to our rights,” Mascolo continues. “A moral society cannot sustain itself in the absence of a quest toward some shared sense of virtue, goodness, caring and so forth. To become a truly moral society, we must seek to identify, negotiate and coordinate the values and virtues that define how we should act, who we should be, and how we should live.”
This societal push is being helped by the libertarian-minded, who recoil at the notion that the government should put limits on individuals. What they are missing, and what Conservatives are keeping in mind, is the countervailing factors. Abortion limitations are not about the woman, but about the baby. Age restrictions on transgender medication or procedures are about the age of consent. Limiting what educators can say in the classroom is about parental rights. Strong voting procedures are about an informed electorate. Those who have moral inclinations towards libertarianism will see this and get shoved into the conservative camp. The radical individualism isn’t as cut and dry when multiple factors are taken into account. 
And what of the government’s role in this? The Senate just passed the “Respect For Marriage Act”, a bill that legalizes what was already legal. Democrats may claim that the passage of the bill was necessary because the Supreme Court overturned Roe, so they may overturn Obergfell in the future. Yet the issue with the passage of this act is far from simple redundancy. It’s an admittance that the Federal Government is willing to reflect what was once considered radical only a few years ago. Barack Obama circa 2011 was against same-sex marriage. Now every Democrat and 12 Republicans voted for it. 
To think that this couldn’t happen with child mutilation in the name of “gender affirming care for trans youth”, Joe Biden explicitly endorsed the idea. ““I don’t think any state or anybody should have the right (to restrict gender-affirming healthcare). As a moral question and as a legal question, I just think it’s wrong,” Biden told trans-activist Dylan Mulvaney. 
Libertarians need to decide which side of the gap they are going to end up on with these issues. Extreme government overreach is a major problem in this country, yet losing track of the morality of the country in the name of radical individualism is just as dangerous. 

Is It Okay To Be Jewish In Public?

 Originally published December 7, 2022


Everywhere we look these days, it seems like America is descending further down the rabbit hole of hatred, partisanship, division, and accusation. What’s been happening over the course of the past decade has not seen any marginal reversal, despite the promises from many to make it so. Actors from both the Left and Right side of the political aisle raise the question of “Is it acceptable to be Jewish?”

The threats to anyone who is openly and obviously religious vary. Chasidim could be attacked in the street for simply walking down the block. Verbal assaults could be thrown by Black Hebrew Israelites who parrot the talking points expressed by Kanye West. And your business could be sued out of existence if you don’t support gay marriage. All of these threats are equally real, even if not equal in their risk of bodily harm.

The Anti-Defamation League (no right-wing outlet) reported an increase in anti-Semitic attacks for the year 2021. Acts of harassment, vandalism, and assault all had a marked increase from the year before, focusing on the areas with the highest Jewish population. Videos abound, displaying acts of violence ranging from a simple knocking off of a hat to a far more severe beating simply for “looking Jewish.”

Black Hebrew Israelites marched in support of Kyrie Irving at the Barclay Center in Brooklyn, proclaiming, “We are the real Jews.” There’s a video of them claiming that they “like Hitler” and that Hitler was killing the Jews because he knew who “the real Jews were.” The killers behind two separate attacks in 2019, one that killed four people in a kosher supermarket and another that killed a rabbi, claimed to have been a part of these groups.

These are the threats and violence that Jews specifically must face, and these are the types of attacks that have strong universal condemnation. It is severely disingenuous for anyone to claim that politicians don’t care about this issue, yet everyone has his or her blind spots. On the Right, there are those who will not wholeheartedly condemn Trump for a dinner with anti-Semites like Kanye West or Nick Fuentes because they know that doing so is a political landmine. Your words are wielded against you as a weapon on the very next question by the media, because you will be asked, “Will you support Trump in 2024” or “Isn’t Trump worse than Hitler” or some other nonsensical question. On the Left, there will always be those who refuse to fully address the problem with rising anti-Semitic attacks, because the attackers are members of a “marginalized” and protected group, namely Black men. When Jews are attacked by a white man, Democrats can’t find news cameras fast enough to denounce the scourge.

Yet these are not the only threats Jews face, and the other threats actually affect all religiously observant people. This is the threat from the government to punish people for adherence to their own religious precepts. Congress passed the inaccurately named “Respect for Marriage Act,” which enshrines gay marriage into law. This passage is made even more remarkable because it did not include one of the three amendments offered by Republicans that would explicitly protect religious people. The bill makes clear that institutions, organizations, or employees of organizations are protected from performing services for gay marriage, but it does not protect individuals outside of said organizations and institutions. This does not protect, for example, Jack Philips of Colorado from baking a cake for a gay wedding against his religious beliefs. This bill would not protect any kosher bakery or flower store or photographer from refusing to participate in a wedding that they do not condone for religious reasons.

This is a case that is in front of the Supreme Court this week. “303 Creative” is a website whose founder did not want to create web pages for gay couples. The State of Colorado pursued this to the Supreme Court. The liberals on the court made the case that there is no difference between objections to same-sex couples and to interracial couples.

This is dangerous ground. There are legitimate distinctions between the two, even outside the confines of religion. This would be the equivalent of the State of New York forcing a website like OnlySimchas to post same sex couples, with the claim that not doing so is the equivalent of refusing a post between a Sephardic and Ashkenazic couple.

To say this isn’t a threat on Jews is to pretend that Judaism as a religion is not worth preserving. Judaism is very clear where it stands on these issues, even if many Jews themselves have no issue with it. If you care about Judaism and the Jewish people, it’s imperative to recognize not only attacks on the Jewish body, but also the Jewish soul.

Moshe Hill is a political columnist and Senior Fellow at Amariah, an America First Zionist organization. Moshe has a weekly column in the Queens Jewish Link, and has been published in Daily Wire, CNS News, and other outlets.  You can follow Moshe on his blog www.aHillwithaView.com, facebook.com/aHillwithaView, and twitter.com/HillWithView.   A Hill With a View is now on YouTube! Subscribe today to get the latest content. Just search “A Hill with a View” to get started. Get A Hill with a View directly to your inbox! Text HILLVIEW to 22828 to sign up to the newsletter.

AOC Pushes Wild Conspiracy Theory

 Originally published November 24, 2022


The political attacks by Democrats on Republicans for not buying into the massive social change that they’ve been pushing found a new hammer to hit with when a madman shot up an LGBT bar in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Forget taking seconds to figure out anything about this attacker, the same people who have the same agenda made the same attacks on their political opponents, to the accolades of their sycophantic fanbase.  The most egregious example comes from New York’s very own Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The target of AOC’s ire is Lauren Boebert, who happens to be the representative from Colorado Springs.  Boebert is part of this new cadre of Republicans who follows the mold created by Donald Trump and perfected by emulating AOC herself.  This mold is not about legislation or delivering to your constituents, but rather about making national headlines or getting Instagram and twitter followers.  

Boebert, being a right-wing version of this type of politician, has said some insane things about inserting LGBT ideology into child rearing and education – well, insane by AOC’s standards.  The most outrageous things Boebert have tweeted include, “Take your children to CHURCH, not drag bars,” referred to “kid-friendly drag shows” as “depravity,” and accused the Left of trying to groom children into their social norms.  

So when Boebert tweeted in response to this shooting, “The news out of Colorado Springs is absolutely awful. This morning the victims & their families are in my prayers. This lawless violence needs to end and end quickly,” AOC and others had to respond.  AOC wrote back, “@laurenboebert you have played a major role in elevating anti-LGBT+ hate rhetoric and anti-trans lies while spending your time in Congress blocking even the most common sense gun safety laws. You don’t get to ‘thoughts and prayers’ your way out of this. Look inward and change.”  

As if that wasn’t enough, AOC continued by blaming all Republicans. “After Trump elevated anti-immigrant & anti-Latino rhetoric,” she wrote, “we had the deadliest anti-Latino shooting in modern history. After anti-Asian hate w/COVID, Atlanta. Tree of life. Emanuel AME. Buffalo. And now after an anti-LGBT+ campaign, Colorado Springs. Connect the dots, @GOP.”

The response to AOC was an outpouring of adoration.  The tweets got 260k and 110k likes, respectively.  People love blaming Republicans for the actions of a psychopath who was previously arrested for allegedly trying to kill his own mother.  

Let’s also examine the actual claims that AOC is making.  Because Boebert advocates against taking children to drag bars and doesn’t want children to mutilate themselves, she is the bad guy in this tragedy?  She can’t even offer a prayer for her own constituents?  

And while ACO clearly connects invisible and non-existent dots from mass shootings to the GOP, does she do the same for the Democrats?  Does she connect the shooting of Dallas police officers in 2016 to BLM and Barack Obama? Does she connect the Congressional baseball shooting to Bernie Sanders? Does she connect hundreds of violent riots around the country in the summer of 2020 to her own rhetoric? Obviously not.

According to AOC and her ilk on the political left, their rhetoric is perfectly fine and acceptable, and if someone acts based on it, they are a “lone wolf.” However, on the right, the rhetoric is the problem, and they are looking to shut it down any way they can.  Parents who want to safeguard their children are the problem.  Legislators who want to prevent men from taking off their clothes in front of kids are a problem.  “Right wing fanatics” who don’t buy into the latest social trend are the problem.  They need to be taken down by any means necessary, and if that means that the dead have to be used as weapons against them, so be it.  

Let’s call this what it is: a conspiracy theory.  Blaming Republicans for this is like saying that George W. Bush planned 9/11 or Hillary Clinton has a nefarious operation at a pizza store.  AOC should be treated like Alex Jones, who is one of the few people Elon Musk is not allowing back on twitter.  Boebert should seriously consider a defamation suit against AOC, because it is unacceptable in our political discourse to be blaming fellow members of Congress for mass murder because they prefer church over drag bars.  

Progressives Seek To Abolish Gang Database For ‘Equity’

Originally published November 24, 2022


Progressive Democrats on the New York City Council are pushing to abolish the database that the NYPD uses to track gang activity in and around New York City, and to prevent any other database from being formed. Progressives are working around the clock to ensure that criminals are able to run rampant and the city turns back the clock to the 1970s.

“This bill would abolish the police department’s Criminal Group Database (Database) and prohibit the establishment of a successor database with the same or substantially similar features,” says the description of the bill in the NYC Council website. “Pending the ultimate destruction of records in the Database, no employee of the city would be permitted to access the Criminal Group Database for law enforcement purposes.”  This bill gets the full endorsement of the Council Progressive Caucus, which tweeted, “We are proud to support this crucial piece of legislation to abolish the NYPD Gangs Database. This unaccountable and racist surveillance tool has no place in our city.”

The Progressive Caucus of the New York City Council has 34 members out of the 51 total members of the NYC Council.  They control a 67% supermajority of the council, so if they want anything done, it happens.  

This bill, which was introduced in May, gained traction as a report on the Gang database is expected to be released.  The report, which began in 2018, is scheduled to be released by the end of the year.  In September, a protest in Brooklyn brought greater attention to the bill.  As per Gothmaist, “New York City criminal justice advocates called on the City Council to abolish the NYPD’s gang database, decrying the listing as the new ‘stop and frisk’ on the steps of Brooklyn Borough Hall.”

Any modifier to the word “justice” means that no justice will be found.  Climate justice, social justice, and criminal justice are all euphemisms for the same radical leftist ideology that the same people push all the time.  

One of these radical leftists is Tiffany Caban, who was a dozen votes away from becoming the District Attorney for Queens, but now sits on the City Council.  Caban, who was one of the sponsors on the bill, calls the database, “a tool in a failed toolbox as part of a system that is selling us false safety.”

The reason why the progressives hate this database is that of the 18,000 names that are reportedly in the database, the overwhelming majority of them are people of color.  In fact, according to 2018 testimony by Former Chief of Detectives Dermot F. Shea, 99% of the people in the database are black or Hispanic.  

There are two ways of looking at that statistic.  The progressives look at that and say that the database is the problem, so let’s get rid of the database and prevent any other database from replacing it.  That’s what the bill is.  

Another way of looking at that is to ask some questions.  What is happening in the black and Hispanic communities that so many young members (the average age of someone on the database is 27) are either in gangs or suspected to be in gangs?  Is there massive data missing from the database of white gangs that we don’t have?  What can we do to make this database more accurate and inform the parents and families of the people on the list that their loved one may be in trouble?

Nope, none of that for the progressives, because that harms “equity.”  Equity means we must all end up in the same place.  If that means lowering the bar on acceptable activity so fewer black people are in jail, then so be it.  The prison population must reflect the general population, regardless of actual crimes being committed. (Never mind that the prison population is 90% male, which far exceeds the general population. Men aren’t a marginalized group.)

Former NYPD Detective and Congressman-elect Anthony D’Esposito weighed in on this story.  “Not only do the far-left NYC radicals let violent offenders out of jail via [cashless bail],” he tweeted, “but they also want to prevent the [NYPD] from tracking GANG MEMBERS now too? We should provide MORE resources to anti-gang PD units, and not help criminals evade arrest.”

Julian Phillips, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of public information, defended the database. “Calls to abolish the NYPD’s Criminal Group Database are misguided,” Phillips said in a statement. “It would be irresponsible for the NYPD to not understand these groups.”  

Governor Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams have made criminalizing gun owners a core aspect of their respective platforms, so they should be against getting rid of the database.  According to Phillips, a “significant portion” of city shootings each year are members of a gang, and police need to understand gangs’ size, scope, members, and the crimes they’ve committed in order to combat gang violence.

If the database is purged for equity, that will be another step in preventing the NYPD from properly doing their job.  As the crimes in the city get worse, and those who can are fleeing en masse, a complete collapse of the Big Apple is inevitable.  This is what the City Council calls “progressive justice.”

Felonies Rise And Convictions Plummet In Single-Party NY

Originally published November 30, 2022



With 2022 winding to a close, the results are starting to come in regarding crime rates in New York City.  As anyone with a pulse and a set of eyeballs could determine, crime has been rising steadily for the past few years, with 2022 being no exception.  The data, however, is even worse than previously thought.

Newly-released NYPD statistics show that felony crimes on the subway system are up by 40% as compared to last year.  Felonies, which include rape, murder, and robbery, hit 1,917 incidents from January through October of this year.  2021 had 1,367 in the same time period.  October had 210 felonies, an increase from September’s 198.  

The New York Post did a comparison from the Manhattan District Attorney’s website of 2019 – the last pre-pandemic year – and 2022, Alvin Bragg’s first year on the job.  The results are in: Bragg couldn’t convict a jaywalker in the middle of the street.  Felony cases resulting in convictions are at 51%, down from 68%.  Misdemeanor cases are at a measly 29%, down from 53%.  

Those are just the ones that Bragg chose to prosecute.  Felonies that Bragg declines to prosecute hit 1,119, up from 828.  52% of felonies were downgraded to a misdemeanor, up from 2019’s 39%. Bragg didn’t ask for more bail in a majority of felony cases; rather, he allowed the accused to be released back on the streets.  

This shouldn’t be any surprise, as Bragg clearly informed his Assistant District Attorney’s about his standard of prosecution in his infamous Day One Memo released last January. He specifically said that the DA will not seek a jail sentence except in homicides and a few other cases.  Armed robbery would be a misdemeanor, “provided no victims were seriously injured and there’s no ‘genuine risk of physical harm’ to anyone.”  So if you were shot at, but it barelyinjured you, that’s a maximum of 364 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, as opposed to what the law says it is, which is a maximum of 25 years.  Same with dealing drugs, which Bragg downgraded to a misdemeanor, without legislative approval.

Bragg is getting all the support he needs from Albany to keep the city as crime-ridden as possible.  In addition to the no cash bail law, the state made radical changes to the discovery law, and didn’t fund those changes, which makes it increasingly difficult for DAs who actually want to prosecute criminals the ability to do so.  Tight deadlines, incompatible technologies, and demoralizing working conditions have forced attorneys to flee DA offices.  Turnover is the highest it’s been in decades.  In April, the New York Times reported that “This year alone, 36 have left the Brooklyn district attorney’s office and 44 Manhattan’s. At least 28 have left the Bronx, and the 9 Staten Island assistant district attorneys who have left this year represented about 10 percent of that office’s prosecutorial staff. The Queens office told the New York City Council that it was on track this year to more than double last year’s resignations.”  That was April.  

This is what Lee Zeldin was warning us about in his campaign, but New Yorkers didn’t listen.  Now that Kathy Hochul has been elected to a full term, does she have any intention to try and fix the problem? During the election, she infamously hand-waved the crime issue a number of times.  At the debate, she said, “I don’t know why that’s so important to you” when Zeldin kept bringing up crime.  She called the GOP “master manipulators” in a “conspiracy” when they talk about crime.  She told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle that New York will “never be San Francisco” when Ruhle said she felt unsafe in the city.  

Among a normal populace, any one of these statements would have cost Hochul the election, but in New York it meant that she only won by 5 points instead of 25.  Hochul’s entire anti-crime agenda is based on plans that will have no success: more cameras on subways (so we can have more video of crimes to show on social media), hate crime prosecutions (so criminals can get hit with two charges instead of one when politically convenient), and going after guns (with no distinction made between illegal guns and legal guns).  None of this will address the fundamental, foundational issue at hand. Democrats care more about looking nice than protecting their constituents. 

The problem with the legal system in New York City was not imagined out of whole cloth when Democrats passed these laws and changed their standards of prosecution.  Yes, black people were a disproportionate share of the prison population.  Yes, poor people were being held in jail because they couldn’t pay the bail to get out.  No, it’s not fair that a rich guy gets better lawyers than a poor guy for the same crime.  These are societal questions that should be grappled with.  

Yet there is no mistaking the fact that this botched experiment, which turned every New Yorker into a guinea pig, is a failure.  There is a converse to coddling criminals, and it’s harming the innocent.  It’s time for Democrats in Albany to decide if they want to actually protect the people they are charged to protect, or stay the course until the state devolves into complete and utter chaos.  

Kanye West, Donald Trump, and Democrat Hypocrites


Kanye West is an insane, bipolar, manic depressive, anti-Semite.  His comments up to this point have been inexcusable, but he really went over the top in his appearance on Info Wars on Thursday.  Donald Trump has had a connection with Kanye West for years now, but he must sever that connection immediately if he has any chances.  That being said, no one should allow themselves to be lectured by anyone on the Left, who have no leg to stand on regarding anti-Semitism.

Kanye West literally said on Alex Jones’ show, “I like Hitler…I’m not trying to be shocking, I like Hitler. The Holocaust is not what happened, let’s look at the facts of that and Hitler has a lot of redeeming qualities.”  He followed this up with proclamations about Jesus, and loving everyone, and pictures of a swastika inside a Star of David.  The man is clearly unwell, and no media outlet, no matter how large or small, should give him a platform.

Kanye West Says He Owes the IRS $50 Million in Taxes

Donald Trump has a few key flaws regarding this story.  First, he values loyalty to his own detriment and likes people who flatter him.  This is why he can threaten to nuke Kim Jong Un and then exchange love letters with him.  Second, he has no capacity to admit that he made a mistake.  These qualities actually helped him great in 2016 and during his term as President.  The same qualities were tiring in 2020, though, and running up to 2024 they may end his political life.  

The media has been desperately trying to tie Kanye and Trump together, with outlets like Vanity Fair proclaiming the headline, “Kanye West, Donald Trump’s Dining Companion, Tells Alex Jones, “I’m A Nazi,” Lists Things He Loves About Hitler.”  Kanye West has been one of the world’s most famous musical acts for the past 2 decades, but now he’s just “Trump’s Dining Companion.”  The Washington Post’s picture about the Alex Jone story was Kanye West, wearing a MAGA hat, clasping hands with Donald Trump. Because of Trump’s flaws, he will likely not outright blast Kanye West, instead opting to “disavow” when asked and never really mentioning West again.  This is a weak response, and Trump needs to be stronger when calling out West, and anyone associated with him.

All that being said, the Democrats who are trying to tie Republicans to West’s comments should kindly shut their mouths.  While the Right did embrace West (albeit foolishly, even at the time) when he proclaimed his Christian faith and declared himself to be pro-Life, they disowned and excommunicated him once he revealed his true feelings.  Same happened with elected representatives like Steve King.  The Left, however, embraces their racists and anti-Semites well after they reveal themselves to be so.

The most obvious and prominent examples are Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar, and Al Sharpton.  Farrakhan was photographed with Barack Obama in 2005, and was hugged warmly by Maxine Waters in 2018.  Farrakhan has close ties to Keith Ellison, who was at one point the Deputy Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.  Linda Sarsour regularly appears with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, speaking at events and rallies together with them where she spouts her anti-Semitism.  Al Sharpton has a primetime show on MSNBC, and was a visitor of the Obama White House at least 80 times.  When Ilhan Omar continually made anti-Smeitic statements, Democrats watered down their official “rebuke” of her to the point where she, herself, voted for it.  

Then there’s the connection that the Democratic Party has with the Black Lives Matter movement, which was founded by anti-Semitic marxists, and the Women’s March, which was also founded by anti-Semitic Marxists.  Patrisse Cullors of BLM explicitly endorses the economic destruction of the Jewish State, or BDS.  Marc Lamont Hill, formerly of CNN and a professor at Temple University, specifically ended a speech to the UN with “Free Palestine, from the river to the sea,” to applause. (To their credit, CNN fired him over that statement). Since no Palestinian state would allow for Jews to live there, this is calling for a Second Holocaust.  Ignorance would not be an excuse there just like it wouldn’t be one if you ended a speech with “Heil Hitler.”  Hill also said that BLM seeks to “dismantle the Zionist Project,” speaking, of course, about the one Jewish state. 

As the Democrats move further and further to the left, they should be aware of who their strongest base of support is, the Democratic Socialist of America. The DSA boasts at least 4 members of the House of Representatives, including Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, and Jamaal Bowman, as well has many more in state and local governments.  DSA also overwhelmingly supported the BDS movement at their convention in 2017, and after passage of the resolution, chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

This is merely a sampling of the anti-Semites that infuse the Democratic Party at its core.  This doesn’t take into account other Leftwing parties around the world, specifically the Labour Party in the U.K., where the anti-semitism was so prevalent it forced multiple resignations.  

This is not to say that Democrats should not call out anti-Semitism, they absolutely must.  But the idea that they would lecture anyone about anti-Smeitism in their own ranks is laughable.  No one should take them seriously, and no one should care.  Republicans are the only ones who can police these issues within their own ranks.  Democrats have zero credibility to do so.

The Anti-Defamation League Is A Tool Of The Left

 Originally published February 1, 2022


Since its founding over a century ago, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been on the forefront of calling out violence and movements directed against the Jewish people.  Ever since the elevation of Jonathan Greenblatt to the top role, however, the ADL has reduced themselves to just another progressive organization, one that ignores real problems of the Jewish community for the sake of catering to the American woke Left.

The latest iteration of this nonsense came when the ADL hired their new Director of Jewish Outreach, Tema Smith.  Smith, who signals her virtue to the woke left by including her pronouns in the bio of both her regular and ADL twitter accounts, has a long history of attacking Jews when there is an opportunity.  As Daniel Greenfield described in JNS, “The ADL’s idea of “Jewish outreach” is an identity politics hire who spends her time castigating Jews for opposing critical race theory and intersectionality because of its inherent anti-Semitism.”  Smith has justified the actions of Hamas terrorists, insisted that Jews repent for defending Israel, and claimed that black people could not be anti-Semitic, but Jews are inherently racist.

After Smith’s hire, an even more ridiculous and bizarre ADL decision was uncovered.  In June of 2020, the ADL changed the definition of “racism” on its website.  The old definition was fairly straightforward, and one that anyone with an elementary school education could intuit.

“Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.”

The new definition is one of those ideas that, as George Orwell puts it, is so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it.  “Racism”, according to the ADL, is “The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”

The timing of this change coincided with the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, in which dozens of people were killed, scores more injured, and billions of dollars in property damage occurred.  There was also video after video widely disseminated online of black rioters verbally and physically attacking white people.  There was endless commentary in leftwing media that blamed “whiteness” for the death of George Floyd (it should be noted that racism was never an accusation made in the trial of Derrick Chauvin.  Regardless, his actions were seen in the public as racist in intent and nature).  So the ADL did the bidding of the Left, and literally changed the definition of the word.

Changing definitions is now a common tactic on the Left.  Aside from normal words like “man”, “woman” and “marriage”, there are changes to newer words like “anti-vaxxer.”  According to a recent change made by Merriam Webster’s dictionary, “a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination” is an anti-vaxxer.  So even if you oppose mandates, but pro vaccination, that is insufficient.

The problem is that while most of the religious Jewish community does not take the ADL seriously, the perception of the group among non-Jews and unaffiliated Jews is that it is representative of the Jewish people.  This means that when a leftist anti-semite like Ilhan Omar, who the ADL called “inspiring” is looking for cover, she can use the ADL.  This means that when Human Rights Watch wants to attack Israel, the ADL will stand right next to them.  This means that when there is a series of attacks on Jews in New York by black people, like there was in 2018, the ADL will run and hide, because black people are impervious to criticism because of their skin color.

So it is important for the Jewish world to announce in a loud and clear voice that the ADL is not our representative.  The ADL does not speak for Jews, and Jews should not fund an organization that works against their interest.  The ADL received over $47 million in donations in 2020, and has assets in excess of $200 million.  Defund them until they decide to no longer be the puppets of the left-wing authoritarians who could care less if the Jewish nation continues for another generation.

Moshe Hill is a political columnist and Senior Fellow at Amariah, an America First Zionist organization. Moshe has a weekly column in the Queens Jewish Link, and has been published in Daily Wire, Washington Examiner, and other outlets.  You can follow Moshe on his blog www.aHillwithaView.com, facebook.com/aHillwithaView, and twitter.com/HillWithView.

A Practical Guide To Talking Politics With Your Crazy Leftist Relatives

Thanksgiving is upon us, and with it comes a bevy of familial characters that you would normally avoid just to save yourself the headache.  In this joyous time of year, the wisest among us would forgo the political banter and try to keep things as civil as possible – leaving conversations on simpler things like weather, sports, or movies.

Except the weather is now climate change, sports is taking a knee, and movies are indoctrinating children into perverse social and gender ideology.  So lets create a practical guide to approaching the most delicate topics so you can put your socialist relatives who never paid for anything in their life in their place. That way they can continue blasting capitalism from their iPhones while wearing their designer jeans and driving the cars that their parents bought them without being bothered by your “facts” and “logic”.

Rule #1 – It is not your job to defend the actions of politicians.

This is a classic pitfall that many fall into when discussing politics. Donald Trump did many great things as President, but he did many many dumb things as well.  You do not need to defend him.  He’s a big boy, he can take care of himself.  

However, if you happen to know the context of the attack, feel free to point that out.  Example: “Trump said there were good people on both sides, he meant white supremacists.”  You can reply with, “Do you think that Trump believes that Antifa are good people?”  The obvious answer is no.  If Trump was talking about white supremacists, then he was also talking about Antifa (the other side).  But he wasn’t, as he clearly said.  

Another example: “Trump incited a riot on January 6th.”  You can begin with, “I don’t love what Trump did on and before January 6th…” because Trump’s actions and rhetoric were not great, but he did not incite a riot.  That’s clearly false.

Rule #2 – ALWAYS get them to define their terms.

“What is a woman?” has become a rallying cry of the common sense brigade for a reason.  The Left loves to redefine words as it suits them, but they don’t have a new definition, they just get rid of the old one.  What is marriage?  Is it between any two people?  Why not more than 2?  Why not brother and sister, or other incestuist couples?  

The Left’s arguments are a house of cards.  Just keep asking until it all falls over.

Rule #3 – It’s okay to give credit where credit is due.

Hate to break it to everyone, but Joe Biden is actually a very consequential President.  Just because more than half the country dislikes him and the legislation he got through doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.  And there is a large cadre of people who like that he passed gun control, climate funding, and an infrastructure boondoggle.

White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain put out a tweet of talking points that Biden supporters can use at the Thanksgiving table when talking to their “crazy uncle”.  It’s filled with enough half-truths and lack of context to make your head spin.  That’s what they’ll be using when bolstering their arguments.  So when they say, “Biden funded the police” or “Gas prices are down since the summer”, you can easily say that those are good things, but that’s not a success.  Sneaking in a good piece of policy in a multi-trillion dollar omnibus package doesn’t make the whole piece of legislation good.  And always remember that you can define the terms as well, like when starting to measure gas prices or inflation.  What was it in January 2021, not June 2022.  

Rule #4 – Don’t automatically believe “experts” or “studies.”  Question everything.

This is similar to making them define terms, but with an added wrinkle – an appeal to authority.  You must believe what they are saying because the person who told it to them has letters before or after their name and they appeared on TV.  

51 intelligence operatives said the Hunter Biden laptop was fake.  Every prediction made by climate scientists has failed to come to fruition  And Covid…covid.  They got everything wrong about Covid.  Masks, vaccinations, social distancing, plastic barriers, lockdowns, mandates.  It was ALL wrong.  

If they say they “did the research,” ask them if they did, or if someone on social media or cable news did it and they’re just regurgitating it.  That’s not research.

Rule #5 – Once you start getting angry, stop the conversation

Politics can be incredibly infuriating, but the only way to get through this is to find the humor in it. Kamala Harris is fun to make fun of.  Donald Trump is fun to make fun of.  Joe Biden is, well he’s a tragic figure, but it’s still funny when he tries to shake hands with nobody.  

The anger will kick in though, especially when they are talking about social issues. “Drag queens exist, so why can’t kids hear a story from them?” is a favorite of the Left.  Well, a lot of people exist.  Porn stars exist.  Strippers exist.  Why not hear a children’s story from them?  And if they don’t see why not, then keep going.  Pedophiles exist.  Sadomasochists exist.  Plenty of people exist.  We don’t confuse children with a variety of sexual lifestyles that adults engage in.  It’s infuriating, but take a breath before the retort.

Rule #6 – Don’t make it personal.

This may be the hardest one, because the Left will make it personal.  They throw around terms like “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobe,” “transphobe,” and “bigot” with wanton abandon and ease.  They’ll accuse you of being in league with mass murderers if you don’t think the Second Amendemnt should be repealed.  They’ll say you’re a traitor if you pose any questions about elections.  

There are plenty of hammers to attack people with, especially on their personal decisions.  Hypocrisy and double standards are a way of life.  Try as best you can to keep it as non-personal as possible.  Remember, these people will be speaking at your funeral.  You don’t want to be this guy.

Rule #7 – Know when to walk away.

A good rule of thumb is to never have a conversation with a Leftist without an audience.  There is no chance you are changing any minds at a holiday meal, but you will have people who don’t pay much attention to these issues that will be swayed.  

If you do find yourself in a one-on-one conversation, know when to walk away.  When there’s a certain smugness and condescension in their tone that they have won a round, even when you think they haven’t, you know they’re not even trying to listen.  Looking down at the plebeians is something that the Left thoroughly enjoys.  Just walk away, because they are in a zone and it’s not worth your time.

Enjoy the Holidays!

Click the following links to subscribe to my various platforms.

Newsletter  Facebook  Instagram  Twitter  LinkedIn

Candidate Trump Is Back!

Fact check: 20 false and misleading claims Trump made in his announcement  speech | CNN Politics

As expected, President Donald Trump announced his run to regain the Oval Office.  In a speech that many considered toned-down from his usual rally rhetoric, Trump spoke about the problems facing the country, his accomplishments while in office, and the failures of the Biden administration.  This was the re-emergence of Candidate Trump, who is at times hilarious and infuriating.

Candidate Trump has not been seen since he won in 2016.  Candidate Trump is an outsider, a buck against the establishment Republicans, the Democrats, and – most importantly – the media.  Even when he was running in 2020, he was President Trump, which meant he was in defense of his own policies – especially around Covid.  President Trump could not be as effective as Candidate Trump.  

Candidate Trump speaks to the problems that middle America cares about, and does it in such extreme rhetoric that it forces his opposition to have conniptions, leading to far more coverage on a topic than the topic would have normally received.  The 2015 version of this was about the southern border.  “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

Now Trump brought the same linguistic style to the fentanyl problem in this country, calling for the death penalty for drug traffickers.  “I will ask congress for legislation ensuring that drug dealers and human traffickers, these are terrible, terrible horrible, people who are responsible for death, carnage, and crime all over our country. Every drug dealer, during his or her life, on average, will kill 500 people with the drugs they sell, not to mention the destruction of families. But we’re going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts. Because it’s the only way.”

This is the good side of Candidate Trump, the 4-D chess side.  Take a topic that the media wants to ignore, talk about it in extreme rhetoric, and get everyone talking about it.  They’re going to say that he’s talking about the high school student with an ounce of weed when he’s clearly talking about the major dealers that kill thousands of Americans each year. By sheer force of will, he’ll blow life into these stories and earn himself some positive points among the voters.

Candidate Trump has plenty of negatives, as has been seen in the past few weeks.  Trump loves to go after any threat to his success, and he makes lists and takes names.  Even though there hasn’t even been a declaration of intentions to run, Ron DeSantis is getting hit by Trump on social media and in speeches as a chief political rival to the nomination.  His supporters do the same thing.  Hardcore Trump fans are already badmouthing DeSantis to clear the field for Trump.  Scott Greer links DeSantis to Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, and other “RINO” Republicans.  Other accounts like Dr. Darrell Scott call people like Candace Owens, who supported Trump for years, a traitor because she had some gripes about her interview with him.  

Yet there are far more pragmatic leaders of grassroots Republicans groups, like Gavin Wax, the President of the  New York Young Republican Club President.  Wax, who has been the most successful person to draw in Young Republicans in New York City since Teddy Roosevelt, had his organization endorse Trump even before the announcement.  But Wax also refuses to pit Trump and DeSantis against each other.  “I hate the false dichotomy that you either have to love DeSantis and hate Trump or hate DeSantis and love Trump,” he tweeted.” I like both and think they both bring a great deal to the table for the GOP, far more than the spinless losers in Congress and the RNC. Reject divide and conquer.”

This is a good approach, and one that Trump himself would be wise to heed.  He’s the only one in the field right now, but he won’t be for long.  Whether it’s a joke challenger like Liz Cheney, who couldn’t even get past her own primary, or a serious contender like DeSantis, the field will have more than one person by the 2024 primaries.  Trump should do what he did in 2015 and 2016 – wait for someone to get in the mud with him.  When Jeb Bush went after him, Trump clobbered him.  Ted Cruz eventually realized that he would have to go after Trump directly, and once he did he was toast.  Trump is a mud monster, no one can beat him down there.  Don’t attack Republicans unless they attack you.  Keep the focus on the Dems, the media, and the issues. 

Candidate Trump could also be the most infuriating person in the world, someone who you can’t imagine voting for.  He says dumb things repeatedly.  He attacks the wrong people.  He has more baggage than an airliner.  You can hate him and think you’ll never support him in a million years one day, then love him and pledge your undying support the next.  Its a roller coaster. 

The question is: do enough people in key states have enough buyer’s remorse that they either will change to Trump or won’t show up for the Dem nominee (assuming it’s Biden).  He would need to flip at least 38 electoral college seats to his cause.  From 2016 to 2020, he lost Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin.  He would need at least three of those; four if he loses Pennsylvania. It will be a hard road for him to traverse, as all of those states have been turning bluer in the last few election cycles.  

Candidate Trump also brings out the worst in the media, who have been falling over themselves to be more and more deranged over Trump’s announcements.  Here are some of the headlines that arose.  NPR: “Donald Trump, who tried to overturn Biden’s legitimate election, launches 2024 bid.”  NBC News: “Trump, whose lies about the 2020 election inspired an insurrection, announces third White House bid.” The Washington Post: “Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection,says he is running again.” The Guardian: “Trump announces 2024 run nearly two years after inspiring deadly Capitol riot.”  Hilariously, when CNN didn’t follow suit, Ilhan Omar was flabbergasted. Titling their push notification to her phone with a simple, “Donald Trump announces another run for the White House, aiming to become only the second president ever elected to two nonconsecutive terms,” Omar replied, “CNN needs to switch their progressive Dem headline writes to the Trump headline writers. This is embarrassing.”

So who is the Trump voter for Candidate Trump?  They aren’t always the same people who voted against President Trump.  They could be people who are voting against the media, or against Joe Biden.  But they will only flip back to Trump if he doesn’t give them a reason not to.  There’s little to no evidence that Trump will be a more disciplined candidate this time around, but if miracles can happen once, maybe they can happen again.