Impeachment Inquiry Is A 2020 Electoral Strategy

Originally published November 20, 2019

The partisan impeachment inquiry is in full swing, with testimonies from third and fourth parties, lifelong bureaucrats, and other people who are called before Congress to complain about Trump in the books. All the testimony has not realistically changed one mind in the country. If you thought Trump was guilty and worthy of impeachment before, you still do. If you thought that Trump was innocent and the Democrats are just trying to undo 2016 election results they didn’t like, that thought hasn’t changed either. The only thing that is painfully obvious is that this whole inquiry is the Democrats trying out a new electoral strategy because they know that they will lose 2020.
First, let’s examine the slate of candidates that lead in the national and state polling for the Democrats. Joe Biden can’t speak two coherent sentences in a row. Elizabeth Warren’s cynicism and insincerity is being revealed with every word she utters. Bernie Sanders just had a heart attack. Pete Buttigieg is a 37-year-old mayor. Kamala Harris is basically gone at this point, so is Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, and the slate of Democrats (who are still jumping into this primary) who hope to take the nomination. Things are so bad for the Democrats right now, there are heavy rumors of Hillary Clinton jumping in. Michael Bloomberg is throwing his hat in the ring just because everyone knows that whoever wins the primary has no shot against Trump in the election.
Second, let’s look at the evolution of this Ukraine impeachment inquiry. Originally, it was about a phone call that a whistleblower claimed contained a quid pro quo that Trump was using the power of his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating his chief political rival, Joe Biden. Adam Schiff, the High Inquisitor himself, called for the whistleblower to testify. Then it became known that Eric Ciaramella, the alleged whistleblower, was a partisan Democrat who worked with Joe Biden and coordinated with Adam Schiff’s office, so having him sit through Republican questions, in public or private, was out of the question. Polling data wasn’t showing that the American people were howling for Trump to be dragged out of the White House, drawn and quartered, over a “quid pro quo,” so that was phased out as well.
Over the last week, the word “bribery” has been thrown around more often than a beach ball at a Phish concert. This is not accidental. “Bribery” is actually an impeachable offense, as opposed to a quid pro quo, which occurs in literally every political transaction throughout history. It’s more than that, though. The word “bribery” resonates more with the voters. This is not speculation; this was focus tested by the Democrats.
According to the Washington Post (hardly Trump’s biggest fans), “[t]he shift [from quid pro quo to bribery] came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘extortion’ or ‘bribery’ was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found “bribery” to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public.” So this is no longer an issue of national security or keeping the executive branch in check for the president’s actions, it’s merely an electoral strategy in key House battleground areas.
Third, and most damning of all, Democrats are just saying the quiet part out loud. While Nancy Pelosi claims that the Democrats “have not made any decision to impeach,” and Inquisitor Schiff laughably said he “did not take any pleasure” leading the impeachment inquiry, Democrat thought-leader Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dropped the ball. “At the end of the day,” she said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, “we have to be able to come together as a caucus and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, um, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House.”
“We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” AOC continued. “And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.” While everyone knows that this, to use Trump’s language, partisan witch hunt is merely an electoral strategy, AOC actually saying it on CNN is ludicrous.
That’s not the end of the story. AOC reiterated her point during a press conference later in the week. She claims that impeachment is necessary because Trump doesn’t want to go along with her comically expensive and impractical Green New Deal. After Bernie Sanders, who has been bringing AOC along on his campaign since she endorsed him, said, “Trump should be impeached and he will be impeached,” AOC continued talking about her climate agenda and linking that agenda to Trump’s impeachment. “But let’s not act or pretend that Donald Trump is not a climate crisis unto himself,” she said, “because he has put foxes in the hen house, in the charge of EPA, in charge of public housing, in charge of virtually every federal agency that we have. And so, if we want to protect our planet, we also, you know, we also need to make sure that holding the president accountable in this White House is a part of that too.” So if a president is elected who doesn’t toe the leftist policy line, they must be removed from office, regardless of the will of the people.
Attorney General William Barr said it best this past weekend at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C. “In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion,” he said, quoting Federalist Fisher Ames. “Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursuing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.” Politics is not simply a method of governance or a service to the country to the left. Rather, they are on a holy quest, and they do so with the purpose of a brainwashed religious cult. That is why it is acceptable to use hearsay, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence to use the nuclear option against the president. Hopefully, the American people will see through this and deliver a resounding electoral defeat to the Democrats. They certainly deserve it.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for The Daily Wire, The Queens Jewish Link, The Jewish Link of New Jersey and He is regularly featured on ‘The Josh M Show’ podcast. Subscribe to for more content from Moshe Hill. Like him on Facebook at  and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill. 

Cory Booker Diagnoses Education Problem, Gets Wrong Solution

Image result for cory booker

In an op-ed for The New York Times, Presidential Candidate and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker lamented the Democratic Party’s dogmatic devotion to the public school system.  Touting his own record as mayor of Newark and his personal history of living in an area with good public schools, Booker diagnoses a legitimate problem in the education system.  However, if the goal is to provide equitable education choices for all students, his solution falls short. 

“Parents in struggling communities across the country are going to extraordinary lengths to try to get their children into great public schools,” Booker writes.  “There is even a trend of children’s guardians using fake addresses to enroll them in better schools in nearby neighborhoods or towns — living in fear of hired investigators who follow children home to verify their addresses.”  The issue, in short, is a lack of choice.  Parents in urban, suburban, and rural areas around the country are locked into the public school district in which they live.  The local and state governments decide where your children go, and that could be around the corner from your residence, or miles away.

These same school districts receive funding from local, state and federal sources, which attribute to the quality of the education students who attend their schools receive.  Generally, wealthier neighborhoods with high property taxes have better public schools because they are receiving more funds from their local residents.  Poorer neighborhoods, where most of the residents are renting or perhaps are on public housing, and have high populations, do not have the same funds, and have crowded classrooms as well. 

Booker attributes this educational resource divide to the “ZIP code a child lives in, skin color and the size of the family’s bank account.”  In 2019, only one of those three things are strictly true.  ZIP code is far more influential in the education your child receives than skin color and personal wealth.  While the truly expensive neighborhoods usually have the highest property taxes, there are a myriad of affordable suburban communities available to those who have graduated high school, have a job, and did not have children before they were married (a.k.a. The Brookings Institute’s three simple rules). 

Each state calculates how they fund their schools.  New Jersey, Booker’s home state, funds on a per pupil basis and calculates funding based on the needs of the school.  If a school has a special needs student, or students where English is a second language, that student yields the district more funding.  50 states means there are at least 50 different ways of funding education systems. 

More funding doesn’t mean more success in public schools.  Data pulled from U.S. News and World Report combined with education spending per student by state shows no correlation between amount of money spent per student and their educational results.

New Jersey, for example, spends $18,402 per student, and they are ranked an impressive 2nd on the list.  Alaska, spends a comparable $17,502 per student, and ranks 47th.  While there may be a broad downward trendline (less money ranks lower on the list), there are far too many outliers to say that Dollars per Pupil correlates to, much less causes, positive educational results.

What Booker gets right is his diagnosis that the Democratic party is beholden to the public school system, saying that there is a “false choice between supporting public-school teachers and giving parents options for their kids”.  This is because teachers unions donate millions of dollars ($32 million in the 2016 election cycle alone) to Democrats.  Democrats throughout the country are elected on the contributions of the teachers unions. 

This is where Booker gets his solution wrong.  He blames Republicans for the problems in the education system, and he lauds public schooling.  “[w]e have Republicans in Congress, the White House and state legislatures across the country making problems worse, undermining public education and attacking public-school teachers,” he says.  His solution is to make public charter schools a legitimate alternative to the current public school model.  He also calls for increased funding to public schools.

Booker, by demonizing the school choice alternatives of Republicans, is setting up his own proposal for a widespread failure.  While his proposal is a step in the right direction – give parents some choice in where their children go instead of no choice – he is still reliant on government oversight into the education system instead of letting the parents have more say.  While this may be effective in urban areas that have less parental involvement, this is not a broad solution to the nation’s educational problems. 

What needs to happen is a broad political mandate that simply states that parents get to choose where their children go to school.  That may be the local public school, a charter school, a private school or a religious school.  The dollars per pupil that are allocated by each state should be given to the parents, not the school districts, and the parents should decide where those resources will be directed.  Nationwide, charter schools spend around 40% less per student than public schools.  Those excess funds could go into the public school system, just like the Democrats want.

Booker doesn’t want to provide true school choice, because that will hit the Democrats where they hurt the most, their wallets.  Rather, he’s throwing crumbs at the school choice advocates among Democratic primary voters, hoping they direct their support to his fledgling campaign.  That is hardly the education plan that the country needs and deserves.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for The Daily Wire, The Queens Jewish Link, The Jewish Link of New Jersey and He is regularly featured on ‘The Josh M Show’ podcast. Subscribe to for more content from Moshe Hill. Like him on Facebook at and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.

‘OK Boomer’ Has Become An Intergenerational War Cry

Originally published November 13, 2019

Recently, a new trend has been occurring on social media, pushed forward by the Millennial left for the purpose of shutting up their grandparents’ generation. The response of “OK Boomer” as a dismissive reaction to the thoughts and comments of anyone who espouses conservative ideology has become so pervasive that it was even used by a young member of the New Zealand Parliament during a floor speech. The irony, however, is that the Millennials who think so poorly of those who came before them are poised to repeat, nay, expand on Baby Boomers’ greatest mistakes.

Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) blame Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) for the problems in today’s world: the debt crisis, Climate Change, high costs of housing, healthcare, and college. For the most part, Millennials have a good point. The Baby Boomer generation, particularly through the 60s and 70s, actually did a lot of damage that we are feeling today.

The primary complaints of Millennials are that Baby Boomers have things they will not when they are older, namely pensions, social security, and Medicare. Baby Boomers were able to buy houses more easily, and were not saddled with crippling student debt for decades after graduation. They have, in short, reaped the benefits of explosive economic growth that occurred between the end of World War II and the Economic Recession of 1973. Then, with this newfound wealth and prosperity, they decided to fundamentally and radically shift the American pioneer mentality that occurred since its founding.

America was able to have so many successes throughout her relatively short history (compared to historical world superpowers) because of the adventurous spirit that was only available through the freedoms afforded to individuals upon the founding of the country. This is the spirit that conquered the Western frontier, took on the Nazis, and landed a man on the moon. This spirit, which existed because free people did not want government interference, was replaced because people wanted to be dependent on a strong federal government to fix societal problems. They wanted the federal government to undo state government’s Jim Crow laws. They wanted the federal government to combat poverty. They wanted the federal government to fix healthcare. There were jobs that could only be done, they assumed, by a huge and powerful government.

Much of this sentiment culminated in The Great Society, which started pumping money into more and more social programs. The timing seemed right. Our national debt, in relation to GDP, was half of what it was a few decades before; America was wealthy, but many groups were poor and marginalized throughout the country. The War on Poverty seemed like a good idea. However, in the 55 years since that started, $22 trillion have been spent and poverty hasn’t changed. This is because, combined with the sexual revolution and the breakdown of the American family, single motherhood has skyrocketed, which yields more poverty. Due to the massive expansion of government welfare, the incentive to be a single parent is greater than the benefit of being married.

With healthcare, The Heritage Society wrote all the way back in 1977 that this was going to be an issue. “In 1975, the United States spent $118.5 billion, or 8.2% of its GNP, on healthcare; this was an increase from $38.9 billion, or 5.9% of the GNP, in 1965. From 1965 to 1974, the per capita expenditure for medical care increased from $197.75 to $485.36, or by an annual average increase of 9.4. These cost increases are growing more and more burdensome both to the consumer and to the taxpayer, as the government assumes an increasing share of the burden.” Today, that percent of GDP has more than doubled, to 17.8%.

With jobs, the global economy of the late 1970s, especially with the combination of Nixon opening up China and oil embargos from Arab states, were incompatible with the union contracts negotiated in the 1950s and 1960s. Private sector unions contributed to the collapse of American manufacturing, as costs were too high to stay competitive with the global market. Public sector unions sent healthcare and education costs skyrocketing, and those unions used their dues to get union-friendly candidates elected.

The Millennials and Generation Z’ers who are feeling the brunt of these decisions have a legitimate reason to be upset at the Baby Boomers. They look at what the Baby Boomers were able to achieve, and they want that, too. However, their blame of the Baby Boomers and disrespectful dismissal of the collective wisdom of that generation is leading the Millennials to embrace the one thing that the Baby Boomers know, above all else, will lead them to failure: socialism.

The embrace of and expansion of social programs by administration after administration since the 1960s contributed to many of the issues that Millennials face today. Given the high popularity of socialism amongst Millennials, the same ones who say “OK Boomer,” they are being convinced that there wasn’t enough government intervention in that last 50 years. Only through total government takeover, like Medicare for all, free college, and a totalitarian control of every aspect of their lives, can they truly have “freedom.”

Baby Boomers, who have lived through decades of seeing the results of these terrible policies, both at home and abroad, are trying to warn the younger generations of the consequences of their decisions. In return, they are being dismissed, told that they don’t understand the needs of the current generation, and should go away. Little do these Millennials know, soon they will be warning their grandchildren of the consequences of their decisions. Like the Baby Boomers who once said, “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” they are in for a rude awakening.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for The Daily Wire, The Queens Jewish Link, The Jewish Link of New Jersey and He is regularly featured on “The Josh M Show” podcast. Subscribe to   for more content from Moshe Hill. Like him on Facebook at  and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.

Democrats At J Street Embolden Terrorists

Originally published November 6, 2019

Last week, a strong correlation occurred between two events on different sides of the world. The first was the appearance of major Democratic Party presidential contenders Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg at J Street’s annual conference, where they promised in some degree or another to radically shift American policy towards Israel. The second is the renewed rocket fire from Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who lay dormant for nearly a month.

Here is some background on J Street, which at this point is well known for its rabid anti-Israel stances and policy positions. According to, which tracks contributions to political campaigns, J Street outspends every other Israel-related PAC, and they contribute solely to Democrats. Following the logic of the Left’s attacks on groups like the NRA, top-tier Democrats could be said to be “in the pocket” of J Street.

According the J Street’s website, they believe that “Israel must choose among three things: being a Jewish homeland, remaining democratic, and maintaining control over all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It can only have two: It can only remain both Jewish and democratic by giving up the land on which a Palestinian state can be built in exchange for peace.” This is ignorant of both history and current events. There could have been a Palestinian state half a dozen times in the past century. In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat nearly all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Arafat replied with the Second Intifada. In 2008, when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley and a land bridge to Gaza, Abbas walked away from the table, never to return.

Israel does not have a peace partner, and that is not because of “settlements” or “occupation,” as J Street and other leftist organizations would have you believe. Israel does not have a peace partner because the stated goal of the Palestinian leadership, since 1948, is to destroy the State of Israel “from the river to the sea.” This has become mainstream policy amongst the American socialist Left as well, with the Democratic Socialists of America voting BDS as part of their national platform in 2017 (which was followed by chants of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a clear call for Israel’s destruction).

To prove their socialist bona fides, multiple Democrat Presidential candidates appeared at J Street’s annual conference last week. These same contenders snubbed AIPAC this past year, clearly showing that they don’t have a problem with Israel advocacy groups writ-large, just certain ones.

Pete Buttigieg said he would condition US military aid on settlement construction in Judea and Samaria. This follows the statements he made in June that “the Netanyahu government is turning away from peace.” Buttigieg is of the opinion that it is the Israelis who are unwilling to come to the negotiating table, despite the fact that it has been over ten years and countless terrorist attacks from the Palestinians since there’s been even a hint of willingness to negotiate.

Elizabeth Warren, in a video message, derided the “far right-wing policies of the Netanyahu government” when saying that there can be a peaceful Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank that would “end the occupation.” Elizabeth Warren clearly didn’t get the memo that Israel unilaterally pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, forcibly removing Israelis in the process. Hamas has controlled that area since then. She said that if she becomes President, she would “immediately resume aid to the Palestinians.” That aid was cut by the Trump administration because it was used to pay the families of terrorists and was stolen by Hamas to build terror tunnels. Warren says she will “apply pressure and create consequences for problematic behavior,” and then uses Israeli construction as an example of that behavior (terrorist attacks are not considered good enough examples of “problematic behavior” to Elizabeth Warren). Warren plans to aid the groups that pay for and cheer on terrorist actions, and pressure the state that is not just the only democracy in the Middle East, but also the only Jewish state on Planet Earth.

Not to be outdone by anyone, Bernie Sanders actually endorsed the idea that US military aid should be redirected towards Hamas-governed Gaza. The US currently gives $3.8 billion in aid to Israel, of which at least 75 percent must be spent in the US. Gaza has used the humanitarian aid sent to them for the past decade for the purposes of conducting terror attacks on Israel, shooting thousands of rockets annually into coastal and southern Israeli cities. Those cities aren’t even in the disputed areas of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza is not “occupied” by the Israeli military.

As if to punctuate how terrible these proposed policies are, Hamas launched ten rockets from Gaza this past weekend. Eight of the rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome, and one hit a home in Sderot. It is somewhat poetic that this should occur within days of top Presidential candidates openly saying that they wanted to redirect money from the system that defends innocent Israeli lives to the system that attacks those innocent Israeli lives.

It would be irresponsible to say that the Democrats have that blood and damage on their hands (although that didn’t stop those same Democrats from saying the same about President Trump when there was a mass shooter in El Paso). However, their proposed policies regarding the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people have been proven failures over and over again. They do not care about the historical failures of said policy, nor of the myriad of spurned opportunities there have been for peace. They only see a prosperous Israel sitting next to third-world Palestinian conditions, and make the foolish and incorrect connection that this only exists through Israeli oppression.

This is dangerous, ridiculous, insane, and absolute mainstream Democrat policy towards Israel. If Israel is to be secure, these policies must be defeated at the American ballot box.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for The Daily Wire, The Queens Jewish Link, The Jewish Link of New Jersey and He is regularly featured on “The Josh M Show” podcast. Subscribe to   for more content from Moshe Hill. Like him on Facebook at and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.

Democrats Look To Monopolize Information By Attacking Facebook

Originally published October 30, 2019

Last week, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook and the eighth richest person in the world, was brought before Congress so he can be raked over the coals for his company’s most recent policies. Ostensibly a hearing about Facebook’s proposed cryptocurrency, the inquiry quickly devolved into attacks on Facebook’s unwillingness to go along with the Democrats’ plan to regulate speech and prevent voters from hearing from all candidates.

Facebook, along with other sites like Twitter and YouTube, have been the subject of scrutiny for years following the 2016 election. Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, blame Facebook for President Trump’s victory. Many Republicans are scared of the social media giant, because they look at Facebook as actively trying to suppress conservative speech. The new media hates Facebook, because it gives a large platform to their new media competitors, especially the conservative sites. Politicians and pundits alike don’t know how to grapple with this technology yet, despite the fact that it’s been a prominent part of American life for 15 years.

In their defense, however, Facebook barely knows what to do with their own power, as well. They are constantly attempting to keep up with the social and political pressures put upon them. They barely know how to define themselves. Are they a platform, like the United States Postal Service or the telephone line, or are they a publisher, like The New York Times? Whatever the answer is, they feel a certain responsibility for the content posted by their 2.375 billion average monthly users.

Many of those users are political campaigns, who buy advertisements on Facebook to reach the voters. This is where the controversy comes in, and where the Democrats are seeking to take control of Facebook so they can control what Republicans advertise to the public. Democrat Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters repeatedly questioned Zuckerberg’s fact-checking policies on political advertisements. Ocasio-Cortez went so far as to claim that one of Facebook’s approved fact-checking sources, the Daily Caller, was a white supremacist organization. She should be grateful that nobody is live-fact-checking Congressional hearings.

For those in the “Facebook is a platform” camp, the idea that Facebook should be regulating the political speech of any party, right or left, is absurd. Facebook should no more be fact-checking campaign narratives and spin any more than AT&T should be listening in on phone calls and fact-checking those, or the Postal Service should fact-check mailers that candidates send to houses.

Those who argue that “Facebook is a publisher” have more ground to stand on, because if Facebook is a publisher, then they are responsible for the content that appears on their site. However, if that argument wins out, Facebook will be sued out of existence by all the scorned individuals who have lies posted about them on social media (read: everyone).

The problem that Facebook has is that Democrats used to have a stranglehold on what constitutes the “truth,” as their media allies would give them cover for all of their scandals and provide the narratives for all their policy proposals. This is the only way President Obama could claim that his administration was “scandal-free” or why CNN holds massive town halls promoting gun control and climate change legislation. Facebook has become the vehicle where opinions and analysis from conservative media can be disseminated to literally billions of people without having them subscribe to a magazine or tune in to an AM radio station.

This is not to give the impression that Facebook is a conservative-leaning company; quite the opposite. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google have all been heavily scrutinized by conservatives for manipulating search results, modifying autofill, kicking people off of platforms, and a bevy of other allegations. Dennis Prager of Prager University is suing Google and YouTube for censorship. There are many on the political right, like Tucker Carlson, who think that regulating social media is an acceptable remedy for these issues.

The danger of such regulation became evident in the hearing that occurred. Those who look at anything that Trump says – or Republicans writ large – as a “lie” would use the regulatory power at their disposal to silence their political opponents. Furthermore, if President Trump is as evil as Democrats think he is, they shouldn’t want him to have the ability to regulate Democrats’ ads either. Democrats are repeating the same mistakes they made when they got rid of the judicial filibuster. They had no say in the matter when a Republican won back the Oval Office and Republicans held the Senate.

Mark Zuckerberg should not be fully trusted, given the amount of power he has. This past June, Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, testified before Congress about the findings of his studies of Google’s effect on the 2016 election. According to his research, bias in Google search results may have shifted 2.6 million undecided voters to Hillary Clinton (whom he supported). In 2018, that same search result bias “may have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to the candidates of one political party (spread across hundreds of local and regional races).” Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter all send out notifications to hundreds of millions of smartphone users every day. They know, based on social media posts, search history, and many other data points in their algorithms, who is most likely to vote for which political party. If they choose to only send “Go Vote” reminders to those who vote Democrat, they can swing elections easily. This is a major issue when maintaining election integrity.

Democrats are drooling at the prospect to control that much power (any politician would). It’s a dangerous aspect of our modern world. For now, Zuckerberg’s stance on free speech seems solid. It is incumbent on every American – left, right, and center – to keep it that way. It’s the only way to guarantee that everyone has access to a diverse viewpoint, not just what the left wants you to hear. Any politician who seeks to control that power is doing so for his or her own selfish purposes. The general public in this country should hope that their means of gathering information outside of the left-leaning mainstream remains as far away from Washington bureaucrats as possible.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for The Daily Wire, The Queens Jewish Link, The Jewish Link of New Jersey and He is regularly featured on “The Josh M Show” podcast. Subscribe to for more content from Moshe Hill. Like him on Facebook at and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.

Joe Murray Brings The Fight To Melinda Katz For Queens DA

Originally published October 24, 2019

The Queens Jewish community breathed a collective sigh of relief when the final ballots were counted in the Democratic Primary race for Queens DA. Tiffany Cabán, a progressive socialist in the same ilk as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who endorsed her) frightened people so much that there was an immediate voter registration drive with an urging to register as a Democrat. If Queens is so deeply Blue, then logic would dictate that even the conservative voter should register as a Democrat so that a more mainstream politician would reach the general election. The Democratic mainstream, however, has gone so far to the left that a lifelong Democrat is now running against Melinda Katz as a Republican.

Joe Murray was a police officer in the NYPD from 1987 to 2002. According to Murray’s campaign website, in 2001 he was defending himself in a civil lawsuit, and after a successful verdict, the trial judge encouraged him to go to law school. By 2006, Murray had passed the NYS Bar exam and began practicing law. With his police background, he quickly found his passion: criminal defense litigation.

Murray’s path to the nomination was unconventional (to say the least). The Democratic Primary for Queens DA was tightly contested. Seven candidates vied for a seat that was occupied for nigh on three decades, only to have it come down to a multi-week recount where the victor won by a few dozen votes. While all this was happening, on the other side of the political aisle, the Queens GOP was sitting quietly with their uncontested candidate, Daniel Kogan.

In late August, the Queens GOP leadership, under the direction of Queens GOP chairwoman Joan Ariola, applied the Wilson-Pakula Law, which allows parties to nominate candidates that are not registered members. Kogan was tapped as a judicial nominee, and the Queens GOP leaders unanimously voted to give Joe Murray the nomination for Queens DA. Thus began Murray’s ten-week sprint to the general election against the Queens Borough President and heavy favorite Melinda Katz.

Murray is no stranger to tough battles. He boxed in the police department, competing in heavyweight and super-heavyweight tournaments. A physical fight was the inciting incident for his civil woes, when he broke a fellow police officer’s jaw during a 1993 brawl. After testifying about the incident before the Grand Jury, Murray wasn’t indicted, but thus began an eight-year battle to fully clear his name.

Speaking before the Whitestone Republican Club at their monthly meeting, Murray was upfront about his Democratic Party affiliation. “I come from a union family,” Murray told the crowd. “My son is a union Local One plumber; my brother’s a Local Three electrician. My uncles are all teamsters – truck drivers in the airport. I started out working in the airport,” Murray said. The Trump-supporting Democrat was incredibly grateful for the opportunity to run on the Republican ticket. “That Democratic Party is like organized crime. I’m disgusted. I am a Democrat, but I am here under this Wilson-Pakula. Thank God that the Republican Committee and the executive committee voted me in, because I want to fight them. I’m sick of it. My own party, I’m sick of it, the corruption.”

This is Murray’s first campaign. He “thought about running initially,” but decided against it when he saw that Judge Greg Lasak was running. “Greg is a friend,” Murray says, “and in my opinion, I found him to be the absolute most qualified person” in the Democratic primary. After Judge Lasak came in third place in that primary, when Tiffany Cabán was still considered the victor of that vote, there were rumors that either Lasak or Melinda Katz herself would try to run as the Republican. Murray, however, is disappointed that, in the General Election, he has not received the support of the more “law and order” Democrats, especially in light of the major changes the city and state are implementing in criminal justice.

These changes are occurring swiftly in the State Legislature, where cash bail will become a thing of the past starting in 2020, and in the City Council, which just voted to close Rikers Island and open four new jails in Queens, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. New York State is essentially under one-party rule, and the Democrats have been taking full advantage to push through their policy proposals that have been stymied by Republicans for a decade.

Murray relayed first-hand knowledge of a subcommittee meeting that was discussing closing Rikers Island. “I snuck into City Hall in the subcommittee to hear what was happening,” Murray said. “I was shocked to hear publicly what they were saying. They were actually congratulating each other. How wonderful a job everyone did, and how this is such a great thing. We’re closing Rikers Island, but it’s only the first step. They said this is the first step towards eliminating all jails and prisons. They don’t believe incarceration is a proper punishment. This is where they’re going.” Abolishing prisons is also a proposal made by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said via Twitter: “…We need to have a real conversation about decarceration & prison abolition in this country…A cage is a cage is a cage. And humans don’t belong in them.”

When discussing his chances in the deep blue Borough of Queens, Murray was optimistic. “The Democratic Primary was one of the most publicized, heated arguments that that went on, debate after debate,” Murray said. “There were 731,000 Democrats (primary voters). They got 35,000 each. They’re so beatable. If we could just mobilize and come out and come out together, we can beat them.”

Mobilizing the residents of Queens with mere weeks left before the General Election would be a shot to the Democrat Party heard around the country. Queens has some of the districts that Nancy Pelosi said that a “glass of water with a ‘D’ next to it” would win. On November 5, Joe Murray is going to try to reverse that trend.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for The Daily Wire, The Queens Jewish Link, The Jewish Link of New Jersey and He is regularly featured on “The Josh M Show” podcast. Subscribe to for more content from Moshe Hill. Like him on Facebook at and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.

Demi Lovato, the Portland Trailblazers and you

Originally published November 4, 2019

Of all the enemies of the State of Israel, only one often harms more non-Israelis than Israelis: the BDS movement.

The BDS movement is so ineffective at damaging the Israeli economy that it can more accurately be categorized as an anti-associated-with-Israel group, not an anti-Israel group. Every day, Israel-supporting Americans, now including singer Demi Lovato and the Portland Trailblazers basketball team, become the targets of the BDS movement’s hate-filled agenda.

Lovato, a Christian with Jewish ancestry, traveled to Israel in early October, where she was baptized in the Jordan River, visited the Western Wall, met with special-needs children and toured Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial. She posted pictures about these experiences to her 74 million Instagram followers.

She did not take a political position, meet with Israeli leaders or discuss regional issues. There are unconfirmed reports that she was paid approximately $150,000, partly by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, to take the trip in exchange for posting on Instagram.

For these actions, she was excoriated on social media. CodePink, a “women-led grassroots organization,” claimed on Twitter that Lovato’s actions were “unacceptable,” and that she was “legitimizing apartheid.” Lovato, whose career hinges on her likeability, rushed to apologize.

“I’m extremely frustrated. I accepted a free trip to Israel in exchange for a few posts,” she wrote on Instagram. “No one told me there would be anything wrong with going or that I could possibly be offending anyone. With that being said, I’m sorry if I’ve hurt or offended anyone, that was not my intention. Sometimes people present you with opportunities and no one tells you the potential backlash you could face in return. This was meant to be a spiritual experience for me, NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT and now I realize it hurt people and for that I’m sorry. Sorry I’m not more educated, and sorry for thinking this trip was just a spiritual experience.”

Lovato, like others before her, had suffered the wrath of the pro-BDS left for her association with Israel. In 2017, Nick Cave received public criticism from fellow musicians Roger Waters and Brian Eno for scheduling two (sold out) concerts in Tel Aviv. In 2018, activists in New Zealand pressured American pop star Lorde into canceling her scheduled performance in Israel.

Indeed, praise for or association with Israel is a sure-fire way to show up on the radar of the militant anti-Israel BDS movement. Visits to Israel are not the only unforgivable sin; merely working with a company that sells to Israel is verboten.

A few weeks ago, for instance, it was reported that the Portland Trailblazers had disassociated from Oregon-based manufacturer Leupold & Stevens, which produces rifle scopes for the Israel Defense Forces. The team had partnered with the company as a sponsor with the aim of honoring U.S. service members, as part of the “Hometown Hero” program. The partnership was widely criticized by BDS activists in Portland, the streets of which have been taken over multiple times by Antifa protesters.

The Trailblazers deny that the disassociation was related to BDS pressure, saying in a statement that “Leupold’s sponsorship contract officially expired at the end of last season and Leupold & Stevens made the decision not to renew.” It was not the conservative right that scoffed at the Trailblazers’ claim of innocence, but rather the Socialist left.

The Portland chapter of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) tweeted a mocking reply to the Trailblazers statement, along with a victorious statement of their own.

“We are grateful for the hard work of the many community groups, activists, Blazers fans, and veterans who united around this important issue to stand up for Palestinian human rights,” Portland DSA co-chair Olivia Katbi Smith said in a statement. “We are relieved that the Blazers have done the right thing and finally ended this completely unnecessary partnership with a company that has provided sniper scopes to a brutal occupying force.”

This is not the DSA’s only experience with the Trailblazers. They organized a boycott of the team’s exhibition game against Maccabi Haifa, a visiting Israeli team. They proudly post a picture of their members holding a large banner outside the arena reading “Don’t Play Apartheid.” These incidents highlight the harsh realities of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel BDS movement.

They cannot effectively target Israel itself, so they target anyone who dares associate with Israel, however remotely. Israel, thankfully, has not felt strong economic repercussions since the modern boycott movement was founded in 2005. Boasting an impressive 3.6 percent unemployment rate, the “Startup Nation” is fairing far better than its Palestinian neighbors in Judea and Samaria and Gaza (31 percent and 52 percent unemployment, respectively).

When an Israeli company needs to cut costs to combat BDS, it is the Palestinian laborers who are affected. When an Israeli company does business with Americans, it is the American organization or individual that is targeted. This is the danger of the BDS movement, which claims to be tolerant and pro-Palestinian. It is not pro-Palestinian, it is anti-Israel. It is not tolerant, it is anti-Semitic.

The BDS movement takes any association with the Jewish state as an excuse to attack. Israel is unaffected because it will not bow to their pressure. Those in America should follow that example and be unapologetic in our support for the only free democracy in the Middle East.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst who has written for “The Daily Wire,” “The Queens Jewish Link” and “The Jewish Link of New Jersey.” Follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.

HILL: The Only Way To Keep AOC Off The Public Dole Forever

Originally published November 13, 2019

DES MOINES, IA - NOVEMBER 09: U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) takes the stage before speaking at the Climate Crisis Summit at Drake University on November 9, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa. Ocasio-Cortez joined Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to spoke about the current state of climate change in relation to U.S. policy.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (AOC) has hit the 2020 campaign trail with Bernie Sanders. The freshman congresswoman from New York has frequently been seen with the octogenarian from Vermont since she endorsed him a few weeks ago. Comments on their myriad of social media posts are replete with calls from the Right for her to be voted out, and that people can’t wait for AOC to no longer be a part of public life. Everyone should buckle their seatbelts, though, because AOC will be with us for the rest of her life.

AOC represents a D+29 district located in the Bronx and Queens; the district has been a Democrat stronghold for nearly a century. AOC was the first truly successful story of the Justice Democrats’ plan to shift the Democrats leftward: Primary an entrenched, moderate Democrat in a deep blue district and bank on low turnout. This worked once in her favor, but it’s highly doubtful that the same trick can be used against her.

Currently, AOC has two challengers in her congressional district’s Democratic Party primary in June, both on her political right. Considering that the latest Democratic primary election in the area, the Queens district attorney race, almost yielded a 27-year-old socialist with no prosecutorial experience (losing by only a few dozen votes), AOC’s district is not very interested in moving back towards the Democratic center. At least not without significant contributions of both time and money from the New York political machine.

That political machine, though, is fully invested in AOC, as they know she is the future of the Democratic Party (as stated by none other than Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez himself). She has already raised $3.3 million for her re-election campaign. To steal the seat from Democratic veteran Joe Crowley, she only needed $2 million. If internal polling shows that she has any trouble from the Democrats, she is poised with enough cash to handily win that primary.

As of the general election, historically that district has zero interest in voting Republican. Nancy Pelosi herself said that a “glass of water would win with a ‘D’ next to its name” in that district. At the same time, Republicans are definitely more interested now than they were before.

In 2018, AOC’s Republican challenger raised a little over $8,000, which yielded him 13.6% of the vote. This time around, there is a much more contentious primary, with five confirmed candidates already from very diverse backgrounds. Compared to 2018, those candidates have raised some impressive numbers so far, around $950,000 collectively. But raising a third of what AOC has raised and overcoming such a huge point gap may be one miracle too many.

There’s no shot that AOC decides to resign at some point to pursue another career. Historically, Democrats leave office when they retire or are kicked out. Of the longest-serving members of Congress of all-time, the top 10 are all Democrats. For all the talk of the new freshman Democrats, if you break down the House of Representatives by longevity, the average Democrat has been in office at least one term longer than has the average Republican. If you remove those sworn in in 2019, Democrats have been around two terms longer, by average. Of the 28 members of the House who announced they are not seeking re-election, 20 are Republicans and only eight are Democrats.

AOC clearly looks at Bernie Sanders as a role model for her own political aspirations. From her perspective, why shouldn’t she? He has made a very successful living being the village kook, and is now a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. The path to getting rich and popular while accomplishing nothing is easier in politics than in any other profession. He’s been living on the public dime for 38 years, and only won his first election when he was 40. AOC has an 11-year head start on her mentor, so she can easily be in office for five or six decades, possibly with a future in the Senate or in a Cabinet position.

There are two avenues that the Right can take with a character like AOC. The first, and probably the easiest, is to accept the fact that AOC will be in politics. This route means that the Right will have a foil to argue against — someone so radical and so powerful that her mere presence in the opposition will drive voters to the polls, just to vote against her. The second, more difficult path, is probably the one that Republicans need to take to ensure political future throughout the country. That is to appeal to the innate conservatism of those who reside in urban areas.

Demographically, AOC’s district is 49.80% Hispanic, 18.41% white, 16.24% Asian, and 11.39% black. This is a prime testing ground for spreading conservative messaging throughout urban areas across the country. Family, law and order, education, religion, and prosperity are strong messages. This route will take a generation, at least, to take hold, but this is where Republicans can take a page out of the Justice Democrats’ playbook. There are almost 350,000 registered voters in that district. Roughly a third actually come out to vote. Chipping away at socialist support and driving out the vote are the way forward for this, and many more, urban areas. While this may not drive her out of office, it will send a strong message in the surrounding areas and throughout the country that there are no districts that Republicans are conceding.

There is a lot of noise coming from the 2020 Republican primary candidates in AOC’s district. While this will be a tough road for the eventual nominee, the fight is worth having. Most likely, however, AOC will be in the public sphere for a long time to come. The only difference will be that, in the future, she may be the “moderate” of the Democratic Party.

Like Moshe Hill on Facebook at and follow on Twitter @TheMoHill.