“Ms. Marvel” Tries, and Fails, To Hide Its Strong Conservative Message Behind SJW Characters

MINOR SPOILERS BELOW

The latest Marvel show wrapped on Disney Plus, and the critics are raving. Ms. Marvel, which featured a young, Pakistani Muslim heroine, checks all the intersectional boxes and is the archetype for “owning the cons.” Despite their best efforts, however, Disney managed to push a strong, conservative message in its show. 

The dirty little secret behind the American Muslim community is that they are extremely socially conservative. The basic tenets of social conservatism include a strong nuclear family, preferably religious but at least with a deep connection to the local community. It is more modest than the overtly sexual society in which most coastal liberals participate in, and more respectful as well. 

Ms. Marvel checks all these boxes, and then some. Kamala Khan’s parents are deeply involved in her life, as is her mosque and her faith. She attends services, community events and even shares heartfelt conversations with her mother on the difficulties of immigrating to the United States. “America was my mountain,” her mother says. “Your father and I dreamed so much of coming here. And when we finally came it was so hard. He worked very long hours for very little money, Aamir was barely out of diapers. My English was not so good. To tell you, I never felt alone in my whole life.” When Kamala asks what her mother did, she simply responds. “I found the mosque… I found my family and let them love me. Whatever mountain you’re facing, you don’t have to do it alone.”

No conservative could have written a better script than that to portray the American dream.

Possibly knowing what they had on their hands, Disney needed to obfuscate this message with intense social justice messaging of its own. Multiple characters fill this role. First, the high school guidance counselor is clearly gay, insists on students referring to him by his first name, and generally doing the progressive “I’m your buddy” routine. That character has a minor role, yet primes the audience not to worry, the social conservatism is limited.

The most egregious example of SJW mentality comes from one of Kamala’s best friends Nakia Bahadir. If anyone wanted to know what Ilhan Omar was like in high school, Nakia is a solid stand-in. She’s introduced by claiming that “History is written by the oppressors” because her school puts more emphasis on Ancient Rome than Ancient Persia. She is constantly claiming, without evidence, that anything that happens to her is because of her race, religion or gender. When campaigning to be a board member of their mosque, she guilts Kamala’s father to vote for her instead of his best friend by essentially saying he was sexist if he didn’t. “Women’s suffrage, we fought for this, people died for this. You wouldn’t… You wouldn’t kill our dreams, would you? Vote for Nakia.” Not one syllable on what makes her a better candidate, only a demand for his allegiance because she is a woman. (Of course, she wins the election.)

When one of the series’ antagonists, the Department of Damage Control, becomes involved because of the wanton destruction that is occurring because of the enhanced powers in the neighborhood, Nakia is only focused on alleging islamophobia. Marvel viewers have seen Damage Control interact with Peter Parker and Adrian Toomes, both notably white and male, and treat them the same way. Yet now they would have you believe that Damage Control is only interested because Kamala is brown and Muslim, not because of her superpowers.

So when Kamala complains that “It’s not really the brown girls from Jersey City who save the world,” Marvel is trying to get audiences to dislike all the white men that they spent billions of dollars and 14 years promoting. Yet what audiences should be focussing on is the brother who is praying at the dinner table or the Sheik who is leading his congregation. That is far more representative of what America is and should be than a group of whiny SJWs.

Moshe Hill is a political commentator. He can be found on his website www.aHillwithaView.com, Facebook.com/aHillwithaView and Twitter.com/HillWithView

Can Lee Zeldin Pull Off An Upset Victory?

Originally published July 13, 2022 

https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6926-can-lee-zeldin-pull-off-an-upset-victory

Any other year, any other president, and any other governor, and the race to lead the Empire State would be decided well before Election Day in November. With this year, under this president, and this governor, all bets are off.

Congressman Lee Zeldin is taking on Governor Kathy Hochul, and the deep blue New York State may be under Republican leadership for the first time in decades. Hochul, who replaced disgraced Governor Andrew Cuomo, has a major advantage in registered Democrats. It is the only area in which she has an advantage over Zeldin, and that may be enough.

First, the campaigns themselves have vastly different focusses. Hochul will be focusing on abortion, guns, and January 6, three issues that Democrats believe to be nationally popular but essentially non-factors in New York. Abortion is state law, and that will not be changed unless there is a massive demographic shift in New York. Gun control laws will actually hurt her among Upstate and Long Island voters, and will not help her enough with the New York City vote because they get their laws from the City, not the State. January 6 is just not resonating with independent voters; there are too many other issues.

Contrast that with the Zeldin message: crime and the economy. Crime is up 25% on average – in some places far more. The Defund the Police movement was a wild bust, and Hochul’s first Lt. Governor (more on that in a moment) was the advocate for it in New York. Similarly, the Democrat cashless bail law is similarly a bust. Running against it led the Republicans in Nassau County to victory in 2021, when Nassau District Attorney Anne Donnelly won. When Hochul had the opportunity to make changes to the law, she demurred. Meanwhile, Zeldin promised that his first act after being sworn in as Governor will be to fire Alvin Bragg, the disastrous Manhattan DA, something he can do unilaterally, and he will do everything he can to repeal the no cash bail law, which he must do through the legislature.

Regarding the economy, wealthy New Yorkers are leaving in droves because of the disastrous tax laws in the state. While the 300,000 who left in the past few years is only a fraction of a percent of the state’s overall population, an outsized portion of those who emigrated are wealthy. According to the IRS, the collective annual income of those who left is approximately $21 billion. While it will be very difficult for anyone to convince those earners to return to New York, with a Democrat in charge it will be nearly impossible.

The second issue that the candidates have is choices of running mate. Normally, this is a non-factor, as most New Yorkers didn’t know who our Lt. Governor was until she suddenly became Governor. Now that it’s a realistic possibility in people’s minds that this position has importance, a magnifying glass will be on the candidates.

Hochul’s first choice for Lt. Governor would have been a drag on the ticket already, but his very public arrest and resignation for federal campaign finance fraud made him an anchor. His alleged crimes cast doubt on Hochul’s judgment, as he was apparently under investigation when she chose him. She did so not based on qualifications, but she wanted to appeal to the radical leftwing base with a BLM radical. Her current Lt. Governor and running mate, Antonio Delgado, was an attempt to keep her intersectional bona fides while also staying closer to the political center, but the damage was done.

On the Republican side is Alison Esposito, former NYPD officer and now the running mate for Lee Zeldin. Esposito, who has not run for office before, will bring with her the police union support. This is a key endorsement in any race but has more importance lately with the attacks on cops that have run rampant. Esposito is also incredibly talented on the stump, able to electrify a crowd with ease.

Yet still, the math is against Zeldin. There are 6.2 million registered Democrats in New York compared to 2.75 million registered Republicans. Those without Party affiliation number around 3.2 million, and Zeldin will need to win a lot of those to make it competitive. This will be a turnout election, and Republicans must be energized to vote in larger numbers than they normally do.

2021 saw some wild elections. The first one that comes to mind is the Virginia gubernatorial election where Glenn Youngkin pulled off a shocking victory. Yet just as shocking, even though he lost, was when Jack Ciattarelli almost defeated incumbent Governor Phil Murphy in New Jersey. The 2021 surprises weren’t limited to out of state. Nassau County saw the election of Bruce Blakeman as County Executive, winning that seat back for Republicans. And a write-in campaign in Buffalo put moderate Democrat Byron Brown back in the Mayor’s office over the far more progressive candidate on the ballot.

The year 2022 is shaping up to be even crazier. We’ve already seen the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin and the flip of a deep-blue Texas district with the election of Mayra Flores. The incompetence of the Biden administration is paying dividends for Republicans around the country. New York can shock the world, but only if New Yorkers show up.


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.  

Kathy ‘I Don’t Need The Numbers’ Hochul’s Power Grab

Originally published July 6, 2022

https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6894-kathy-i-don-t-need-the-numbers-hochul-s-power-grab

After the Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not pick and choose who is allowed to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense, Democrats mobilized to pass a law that says they can pick and choose who is allowed to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense.  Every New Yorker should be outraged at this egregious power grab based on nothing but a determination to keep their own citizenry in line.

The New York Metropolitan area, which encompasses the five boroughs, Long Island, Westchester, and other areas, is home to a majority of New York residents.  For generations, the culture of gun ownership has been non-existent to most people who live in these areas.  Even if some own guns, it is not something that most people fight to protect like they do in other states.  So it is difficult to feel invested in a right that you don’t personally exercise.  To understand the reason to fight the gross abuse of power that passed in Albany, it must become a personal fight.  

For decades, the CDC and other government agencies that normally track and study a variety of topics have shied away from studying the use of guns.  While each side of the political aisle blames the other every time a gun is fired, the simple reason for a lack of research is that nobody wants to know.  The Left doesn’t want to know about the ineffectiveness of gun laws and the Right doesn’t want a federal government agency to make broad centralized recommendations based on national findings.  So the latest government data on the defensive use of firearms is approximately 10 years old, yet other research firms have confirmed that the trend is consistent.  That is that there are approximately between 500,000 and 3 million defensive uses of a firearm recorded per year.

That is a wide range for a reason.  Many defensive uses of firearms are not reported to law enforcement or the media, so they had to gather the information that was available and extrapolate it based on other statistics. Defensive use of a firearm could be as dramatic as a gun fight or as benign as someone seeing an armed citizen and changing his mind about committing a crime.  Even on the low end of this statistic, guns are used far more defensively than they are in committing homicides, by a factor of around 50.  An armed populace means that you don’t need to wait 5-10 minutes for police to arrive, an amount of time that can be the difference between life and death. Combine this with the increase in crime in New York as a result of a variety of policies, from no cash bail to defund the police, and people cannot be blamed for wanting to secure themselves and their families.  

So when the Supreme Court ruled that the 1911 law that said that New York can decide who deserves the right to carry a weapon is unconstitutional, many cheered.  Until this point, you needed to prove why you needed to carry a gun.  Legitimate excuses were proving that you carry a lot of cash for your business, proving that you had a credible death threat against you, or if you were big enough of a celebrity.  Regular people couldn’t exercise the right, which set up a two-tier system of rights in the state.  

After feeling unsafe in public spaces over a spate of mass shootings, ranging from houses of worship to grocery stores to schools, people were starting to get accustomed to the idea that they can prevent a tragedy before it happens and then wait for the police to take over, as opposed to cowering and waiting for someone else to do something about it. This is what makes the new law so outrageous.  

According to the new law, concealed carry permits must now be renewed every three years instead of every five.  Plus, there needs to be 16 hours of classroom training, 2 hours of live range training, and a written test with a minimum score of 80%.  Then you need to be interviewed by a licensing officer, where you need to provide personal information of all members of your household and four character references.  You also need to provide all current and past social media accounts for investigation.  When you go to purchase a gun, instead of the normal background check, a background check is done by the state police.  There is no time limit on how long that can take. Then, if you are fortunate enough to pass all of that, nearly every place where you would be able to carry, you are barred from doing so.

In a statement about the bill, Kathy Hochul said, “to the legal gun owners: we will protect your rights.”  That’s like creating a college-level civics test before being able to vote and then telling voters, “we will protect your right to vote.”  Or like requiring a PhD before you can exercise your right to free speech.  This is not protecting rights; this is creating legal mazes to discourage or prevent people from doing so.  The same people who cheer this were apoplectic when states made it very difficult for abortion centers to stay open.  The difference is, one has always been an explicit constitutional right and the other never was (at best it was implied). 

Hochul’s explanation of this law is as bad as the law itself.  When asked what data was used when making the law to explain to conceal-carry holders and law-abiding gun owners, Hochul replied, “I don’t need to have numbers.  I don’t have to have a data point to point to say that this is gonna matter.  All I know is I have a responsibility to the people of this state to have sensible gun safety laws.” When pushed on the issue that this law won’t stop a mass shooting like the one in Buffalo – or any other shooting – Hochul conceded, “I never said there was any correlation between our solution here and the Buffalo case.”  

Hochul and her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, have overseen the greatest reduction of civil liberties in modern New York history.  They are the poster children of a tyrannical government that requires an armed population. There are great hopes that this new law will be declared unconstitutional, like the old law was. Regardless, this should be a wakeup call to all New Yorkers that these people cannot have power. 

Trump’s Legacy Week

 Originally published June 29, 2022

https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6864-trump-s-legacy-week

Victories abound for life, religion, and self-defense rights came down from the Supreme Court over the past week, reaffirming and protecting freedom for at least one more generation.  While Democrats, the media, and Never Trumpers are trying to distract from the real issues of the nation with the irrelevant and wasteful January 6 committee, the true legacy of President Donald Trump is sitting in those three big chairs in the Marble Palace down in D.C.

Obviously, the biggest headlines are going to the Dobbs decision, which overturned the heinously-decided and morally-abhorrent Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The decision that came was nearly identical to the leaked draft that attempted to threaten one of the concurring votes into changing their minds. In a sheer act of bravery, however, the conservative justices did not waver, even after a man was arrested outside of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house with a gun and zip ties.  They held their ground, and made history.

Whether or not Trump is a true conservative who shares a similar judicial philosophy with his nominees, he kept his promise to his voters in 2016 when he chose people who would read the Constitution as written, not as they want it to be read.  “Well, if we put another two, or perhaps three justices on, [overturning Roe v. Wade] is really going to be happening, that will happen,” said Trump on the debate stage in 2016. “And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life Justices on the Court.”  Promise made, promise kept.

Yet the Dobbs decision was not the only major victory this week.  In Maine, a law that allowed the state to not give school vouchers based on if the school was religious was struck down, a big win for school choice advocates.  In New York, the law that said that the state can determine if someone deserves to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry arms was overturned, changing nine states’ “May Issue” license laws into “Shall Issue” laws; it was the biggest gun rights decision since Heller in 2008.  In Washington, the Court ruled that a football coach was allowed to kneel in prayer on school grounds, a phenomenal shift in freedom to exercise religion.  

These are the dividends that all Americans, whether they supported Trump or not, are receiving because of those who did vote for Trump back in 2016.  Even if you despise the idea of Roe being overturned, the fact is that allowing judicial activists to decide the law, as opposed to the legislature, is a terrible precedent. This is what Roe did.  From the Dobb’s decision: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Consider the alternative, and a Hillary Clinton presidency nominated two or three Justices to the Supreme Court (it’s possible that Anthony Kennedy would not have retired during a Democrat presidency). There’s no need to speculate, because the three hardcore leftwing Justices’ dissents to the various decisions are available for anyone to read.  For Dobbs, the dissent did not take into account the Constitution; rather, they opined on the notion that this decision will make women “second class citizens” if abortion isn’t federalized.  In the case of the Washington coach kneeling, Justice Sotomayor claimed that he should not be allowed to kneel in prayer because the students who may witness it are “particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection.” One should ask whether Sotomayor would say the same about the influence of Pride month and Drag Queen story hour.  And no one should forget that the Leftists in the Supreme Court would have allowed OSHA to completely exceed its Congressional authority to mandate vaccination for every employee in the nation.  That’s how close we came to complete judicial tyranny.

The Never Trumpers, however many remain, are quickly claiming that this is not Trump’s victory.  Leading the charge is Kevin Williamson writing for National Review in a column simply titled, “This Is Not Donald Trump’s Victory.”  In it, he ridiculously compares Trump to a lucky lottery winner and says that “Trump’s role in this could have been performed by a reasonably well-trained monkey.” He gives credit to President George W. Bush for nominating Justice Alito, and President George H.W. Bush for nominating Justice Clarence Thomas, both great nominations.  But he takes for granted that Justices nominated by Republicans have hit as much as they’ve missed.  Justices Roberts, Souter, Kennedy, Rehnquist, and O’Connor were all nominated by Republicans, and conservative law scholars have few nice things to say about any of them.  Even Justice Gorsuch, Trump’s first pick, has made conservatives unhappy with some of his decisions, like expanding Title IX to include transgender people.  

This was Trump’s legacy week.  He deserves all the credit for these decisions, as do his supporters from 2016 (an award that I personally cannot claim). Anyone who thinks that the Constitution of the United States is something to be protected should thank him as well, even if you don’t like him.

Knesset Dissolves; Israel Prepares For Fifth Election In Three Years

 Originally published June 22, 2022

https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6826-knesset-dissolves-israel-prepares-for-fifth-election-in-three-years

The fractious coalition between right-of-center, left-wing, and Arab parties that made up the Israeli Knesset majority disbanded this week, prepping the Jewish state for its fifth election since April 2019. This will end the one-year tenure of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, and the first time an Arab party was included in the majority coalition.

This eventuality came later than most critics predicted but was written on the wall when Idit Silman (Yemina) announced back in April that she was retiring. That turned the bare 61-seat majority into a 60-seat tie. Analysts at the time said that without a new coalition formed within the existing Knesset, something that the Arab Joint Lists would likely not support, a new election was inevitable.

This opens the door for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, to regain control of the Knesset. Netanyahu, who served as PM from 1996 to 1999 and again from 2009 to 2021, was overjoyed with the news. “This is an evening with great news for the masses of citizens in Israel,” Netanyahu said. “After a determined struggle by the opposition in the Knesset and the great suffering of the public in Israel, it is clear to everyone that the most failed government in the country’s history has ended.”

“A government that was dependent on supporters of terrorism, that abandoned the personal security of the citizens of Israel, that raised the cost of living to levels we never saw before, that imposed unnecessary taxes, that endangered the Jewish character of our country – this government is going home,” he said.

The former prime minister promised: “My friends and I will form a broad national government headed by the Likud. A government that will take care of you, all Israeli citizens, without exception. A government that will lower taxes, lower prices, will lead Israel to tremendous achievements including expanding the circle of peace. A government that will return the national pride to the citizens of Israel so that you can walk the streets with your head held high. With G-d’s help, we will do this and succeed.”

Unsurprisingly, other members were decidedly less jubilant. “It is a pity that the state has to be dragged to elections,” reacted Defense Minister Benny Gantz. “We will continue to function as a transition government as much as possible. I do not judge the decision.” Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar was far more candid. “Just as I warned, the irresponsibility of certain MKs in the coalition brought on the inevitable result,” he said. “The goal in the next election is clear: preventing the return of Netanyahu to power and enslaving the nation to his interests.”

Some Labor politicians are showing gratitude to the coalition for helping return them to the majority for the first time in a generation. “Well done to Lapid and Bennett who are being responsible and choosing to lead rather than be pulled along,” said Labor MK Eran Hermoni. “I wish Lapid luck in his role as prime minister.”

“The change government has begun to return Israel to its citizens,” said Labor leader Merav Michaeli. “The change coalition united different sections of Israeli society. I am proud that Labor took part in the coalition.”

The head of the transition government will not be Naftali Bennett, but rather Foreign Minister Yair Lapid. Lapid is expected to be sworn in when the dissolution is finalized, and he will be the Prime Minister during the expected visit of President Joe Biden on July 13.

Naftali Bennett decided to dissolve the coalition over the regulations regarding Judea and Samaria. The regulations, whose passage failed the plenum vote earlier in June, have been instrumental to the governance of the settlements in Judea and Samaria since the Six-Day War. “I am not willing to accept blackmail and threats. If I harm the state because of the non-approval of the Judea and Samaria regulations, I will go,” Bennett said.

Bennett’s political future is unknown. He became Prime Minister based solely on the massive desire to see Netanyahu defeated, and he made many enemies among his base of support in doing so. Mere days before joining the coalition, Bennett publicly signed a vow to never join the left wing. When offered to become Prime Minister, the office was too good to pass up. Now he is alone, and he knows it. “Right now, I intend to run alone and not join up with anyone,” Bennett said. “I will consider my steps in the coming days.”

The next election is currently scheduled for September.


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.  

Religious Freedom Destroyed; Jews Cheer

Originally published June 22, 2022

 https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6824-religious-freedom-destroyed-jews-cheer

“Pride goes before ruin” – Mishlei 16:18

The above quote, which the Christian community translates to “Pride comes before the Fall,” has greater significance today than in generations past. Unless you are incredibly fortunate, the relentless avalanche of “Pride” has been blinding you with their aggressive seizure-inducing barrage of colors, and the accompanying displays wouldn’t be appropriate for a Las Vegas nightclub, let alone public consumption. The Jewish community is not immune from this, not by a long shot.

Last week, a New York State Judge ruled that Yeshiva University was not a religious institution, so it could not be exempt from disallowing the Pride Alliance from having their student club on campus. While YU is planning to appeal the ruling on the grounds that it is obviously a religious institution, many Jews are celebrating the “victory.”

Rachael Fried, the director of Jewish Queer Youth and an alumna of YU, said, “The ruling is a victory for human dignity, mental health, and safety on campus. We could not be prouder of the heroic plaintiffs, and the hundreds of queer Yeshiva students (past and present) who have persevered in making Yeshiva University an even better Jewish institution.” Bina Davidson, former co-President of the YU Pride Alliance, claimed “This fight has been going on for so many years, and so many students have dedicated their student life at YU to making it a safe place, but no matter what we do it seems like YU doesn’t want to listen to us,” she said. “Even when a judge says this is something legally you have to do, YU still wants to fight with us.” She claimed that other students were thrilled with the decision. Social media is filled with Jewish accounts congratulating each other for the “progress” and celebrating “Pride” when doing so. Molly Meisel tweeted, “I am so proud of my fellow plaintiffs. This is monumental. Happy Pride.”

Even if you are on the progressive end of this conversation, the celebration of forcing an obviously religious institution to violate its own faith is not something to cheer. It’s a clear erosion of First Amendment rights on a technicality. “Any ruling that Yeshiva is not religious is obviously wrong,” said Hanan Eisenman, a university spokesman, in a statement. “As our name indicates, Yeshiva University was founded to instill Torah values in its students while providing a stellar education, allowing them to live with religious conviction as noble citizens and committed Jews.”

The Coalition for Jewish Values weighed in, as well. “Like all other American citizens, Jews should be afforded the right to remain faithful to their religion, free from government interference,” said CJV Southern Regional Vice President Rabbi Moshe B. Parnes in a statement. “For millennia, the Jewish religion has condemned same-sex relationships and reserved marriage to the union between a man and a woman. This ruling, forcing Yeshiva University to discard Jewish principles for the ideology of others, is a direct assault on the religious freedoms due every American.”

This is part of a growing trend – among Jews and non-Jews alike – to forgo traditional values with the ideology of the “woke.” Drive through any liberal city in America and you’ll see churches flying the rainbow flag this month. When there is even slight pushback, the moral outrage is too much for many to bear. One school in the Massachusetts area was told by their diocese that they could no longer be identified as Catholic because they refused to stop flying the rainbow flag and the BLM flag. Catholic universities are being sued by students to allow Pride clubs on campus, same as the YU case. This is the new normal.

The question is not one of a slippery slope. That time has come and gone. When the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of gay marriage in 2015, religious institutions were rightfully worried that the overruling of State’s Rights as enumerated in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution would lead to the erosion of Religious Rights as enumerated in the First Amendment. This, while Barack Obama shone rainbow lights on the White House in celebration.

The assault on religion, especially Judaism, is not new. It’s a tradition as old as any. Neither is the fact that the frontline of the attack comes from within members of the religion. This is not a call to demean or attack members of the LGBT community. This is a request from that community to not shoot yourself in the foot. Destroying Judaism in the name of progressivism is not going to end with a simple Pride club on a religious campus. And celebrating that destruction puts you in league with those who wish to end all Jewish practices, not just the ones you disagree with.


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.  

Breaking Down The Bipartisan Gun Bill Framework

Originally published June 15, 2022 

https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6786-breaking-down-the-bipartisan-gun-bill-framework

On Sunday, a group of 20 Senators – 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans – revealed a framework for a gun control bill.  While not the sweeping legislation that activists desire, this legislation is the closest thing to a compromise on guns that has occurred in Washington in decades.  Like everything coming out of Capitol Hill, there’s the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

Support for state crisis intervention orders

This is the so-called “red flag laws,” and the framework doesn’t create a national red flag law, rather it “provides resources” to “create and administer laws.”  Only a bureaucrat would know what resources are necessary to create laws, so this is likely to be the provision to watch when the full text of the bill is created.  This could be good, or it can be very, very bad. 

The problem with red flag laws in general is twofold.  First, like in the Buffalo shooting a few weeks ago, they are not used properly because there needs to be a community around the person that needs the crisis intervention.  When profiling the people who commit these heinous acts, they usually don’t have a strong support system that is willing to go to the authorities to ensure that there is no gun.  

Second, if the law is written too loosely, it could seriously violate the rights of an individual without due process.  Given the complete collapse in institutional trust that has occurred in this country, it’s not far-fetched to believe that a Leftist stranger can see your American flag in front of your house, think you’re a crazy white supremacist, make a claim against you in court, and a Leftist judge take away your rights.  

 

Investment in children and family mental health services, funding for school-based mental health and supportive services, funding for school safety resources, telehealth investments

Four different bullet points in this framework were centered around funding, so they should all be addressed together. This is something that is incredibly important, but the mechanism is the key.  If the idea is to provide grants to local communities, then this can be incredibly useful.  If the idea is to create another bloated federal agency for top-down control, this will be more money down the drain.

 

Protections for victims of domestic violence

There are currently a lot of ways in the law for someone convicted of domestic violence to not have that show up on their background check when trying to purchase a firearm.  This would close that loophole. 

Clarification of definition of federally-licensed firearms dealer, penalties for straw purchasing

These two provisions are actually already illegal, so what is actually going to be written in the bill is incredibly important.  This could be a way for the Left to sneak in “universal background checks,” or another way to block private gun sales.  

The inherent problem with that is that to enforce it, a national gun registry would have to be created and maintained.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to know if guns were inherited or sold from one neighbor to another.  Since the entire reason for the Second Amendment is to prevent an authoritarian government from taking over (as opposed to hunting or sport shooting, which is what the Left claims guns are for), it’s obviously ridiculous to give the federal government a list of where all the guns are.  This would completely undermine the point of the Second Amendment.  So the verbiage on these provisions will be very important.  

 

Under-21 enhanced review process

From the framework, “For buyers under 21 years of age, requires an investigative period to review juvenile and mental health records, including checks with state databases and local law enforcement.”

At first glance, this one seems like a no-brainer.  An 18-year-old doesn’t have a record to background check if their juvenile record was expunged the moment they legally became an adult.  A violent teenager should not pass a background check as a birthday present from the federal government.  However, this provision may not be palatable to the Left. 

The Left has been pushing to release criminals from jails at an exorbitant rate – if they arrest them at all.  New York’s No Cash Bail law is just one example, but this has been a trend amongst Soros-backed prosecutors around the country.  One such prosecutor, Chesa Boudin, was recently recalled in uber-liberal San Francisco, so even hardcore Democrats are getting sick of the rising crime in cities.

That won’t stop some, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who expressed reservations about background checks into juvenile records.  As she told CNN, “I’m disappointed to hear a focus on increased criminalization and juvenile criminalization instead of really having the focus on guns.”  When explained, the problem that those like AOC have is that America is so incredibly racist that this provision would be disproportionately applied to minorities. In classic Leftist mentality, she doesn’t account for the fact that a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by minorities.  She would rather see mass gun confiscation than the possibility of inequity, even if that prevents a bad person from getting a gun. 

The devil, as they say, is in the details.  This bill could die as soon as it’s written if it’s too radical.  Or it could fail in the House if it’s not radical enough.  It’s too soon to tell, and everyone should wait until the actual text is released before committing themselves one way or another.  The fundamental rights of every law-abiding American to keep and bear arms is too important to do otherwise.  


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.  

Sparks Fly On Debate Stage For NY GOP Gubernatorial Primary

 Originally published June 15, 2022

https://queensjewishlink.com/index.php/opinion/6782-sparks-fly-on-debate-stage-for-ny-gop-gubernatorial-primary

Republican candidates for Governor of New York squared off on Monday night, making their cases to win the primary vote to be held on June 28.  Congressman Lee Zeldin, former Westchester Executive Rob Astorino, Businessman Harry Wilson, and Andrew Giuliani had many differences over the evening, but one message was clear: New York can no longer afford to be a one-party state.  

For anyone watching who thought that there were two debates going on, in a way there was.  Giuliani was barred from the debate stage for not showing proof of vaccination against COVID, so he was in a separate room from the other candidates.  So for much of the debate, Zeldin actively went after Wilson and Astorino, and vice versa, while Giuliani went largely unscathed.  

The fireworks occurred early and often, with Zeldin calling Wilson a “Never Trumper” and Astorino “Rolex Rob.”  Wilson fired back, calling Zeldin a child and claiming that Zeldin asked Wilson to run on his ticket – a claim Zeldin vigorously denied.  

All the candidates were attempting to mold their vision of the future of New York and how they would achieve it.  Astorino leaned heavily on his experience as County Executive of Westchester, claiming that he lowered deficits in the County during his tenure.  Wilson pushed his business experience, referring to himself as a “turnaround specialist.”  Zeldin’s experience in both Albany and Washington was, at times, used as a weapon against him by Wilson and Astorino, yet he felt no need to flaunt his resume.  Zeldin, who has the backing of the New York GOP, seemed eager to show off his ability to be tough on the debate stage, knowing that Republicans in the post-Trump era look for a more aggressive candidate.  Giuliani, to his credit, didn’t directly say he would govern like his father, but he certainly echoed the policies that made Mayor Giuliani so popular in the ‘90s, like broken windows policing.  

The moderators seemed determined to frame the debate from the beginning around national issues, rather than local ones.  The first question of the evening from the CBS moderators was not about inflation, gas prices, or skyrocketing crime in the state, but rather about January 6 and if Trump would run again.  The candidates gamely answered, all saying they would support Trump if he were the nominee.

In fact, the candidates had far more similarities, policy-wise, than differences, despite the on-stage showdowns.  They all claim that the current abortion law in New York goes way too far, yet only Wilson said he wouldn’t try to get it changed, claiming he’s not running on “social issues.”  They all think Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should be fired, and they supported adding the ability to recall DAs to the state constitution.  They are all pro-fracking and drilling for natural gas to help with energy costs.  They are all against congestion pricing.  

The debate highlighted two important characteristics that are going to be needed from the Gubernatorial candidate for the General Election.  The first is a strong understanding of the issues plaguing this state and this nation and conservative solutions to those issues.  The second is the strength to take the fight to the Democrats, who heavily outnumber Republicans in registered voters.  The clear winner in both of those categories was Lee Zeldin.

Zeldin went after Harry Wilson from his first statement on the debate stage, and Wilson was on the defensive for the rest of the evening.  While that sort of tactic may turn off more genteel voters, it resonates with many Republicans who no longer care about civility in the face of Leftist lunacy.  Zeldin displayed a force of will that many have not seen out of him before, and that’s something that won’t be soon forgotten.  

While he performed admirably, Giuliani was at a severe disadvantage being relegated to the sidelines.  He was ignored by the other candidates, and the only verbal scraps he got into was with the moderators, who seemed to treat him with more disdain than they have for the other three candidates.  Some may see it as him rising above the scrum, but it seemed like he was playing a different game. 

Whoever the nominee is, the primary is just a small hurdle compared to what is coming after.  New York is deep blue, and there will be a severe uphill battle to win the Statehouse.  The nominee needs to be committed, tough, and unrelenting.  They will be going against a strong Party and a strong media.  On their side, however, is the awful track record of the Democrats, both statewide and nationally.  The onus will be on the nominee to make sure that the state knows who to blame for the problems they face.