The Anti-Defamation League Is A Tool Of The Left

 Originally published February 1, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Practical Guide To Talking Politics With Your Crazy Leftist Relatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #6 – Don’t make it personal.

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

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

Rule #7 – Know when to walk away.

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

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

Enjoy the Holidays!

Click the following links to subscribe to my various platforms.

Newsletter  Facebook  Instagram  Twitter  LinkedIn

Candidate Trump Is Back!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Competing Forces of The Electoral Process | Opinion

Originally published November 16, 2022 

Voting booths

You don’t need to be a Republican voter disappointed with the results of the midterm elections to know our country’s voting system is broken. Democratshave spent years complaining that elections are rigged, that democracy is in danger, and that every vote could be our last. Republicans look at the endless counting procedures of states like Nevada and Arizona, which all seem to shift in one political direction, and are racked with conspiracy theories and doubt.

On the scales that make up the electoral process, there are two clear and competing sides. On one side is ease of voting; ensuring that people can exercise their civic responsibility in a timely manner. This was a major issue for well over a century of our nation’s existence, as voting was not only difficult, but impossible for certain groups. On the other side of the scale is having an informed electorate; which requires that candidates be visible and accountable to the voters, debate each other, and make their cases to earn the votes that get them elected. When these two competing factors are in balance, there is trust in the system. When they are out of balance, especially to an extreme, trust erodes and the system falls apart.

Democrats put all their focus on ease of voting. The reason for this is simple: they have the money and the means to gather as many ballots as possible in a small area. The Democrats are an urban party, and are the party of the rich and the young. So if they need volunteers, they have plenty of college students willing to help them out. If they need funds, there are plenty of billionaires ready to throw them money. Most importantly, if they need to gather votes, they can do so in a small area.

The Washington Post gleefully described how Gen Z helped stop this cycle’s predicted red wave. It is estimated that 27 percent of young adults voted in this election. In Pennsylvania, they voted 70 percent in favor of Lieutenant Governor John Fettermanover Dr. Mehmet Oz. The Washington Post acknowledges that they aren’t just a voting base:

Gen Z’s allegiance is to issues, not to specific political parties or candidates, said Kenisha Mahajan, a 17-year-old advocate for political and community engagement. Gen Zers are most motivated by candidates who plan to address climate change, gun violence, reproductive rights, racial justice and LGBTQ rights, activists and candidates say.

Seventeen-year-olds cannot vote, but they can knock on doors, hand out literature, make phone calls, and gather ballots. This is why 125 House Democrats voted to lowerthe voting age to 16. They’ll get the activism plus the votes.

Democrats also have the advantage of funding. In Nevada, Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto outspent Republican Adam Laxalt by almost four to one ($46 million to $12 million). In Arizona, Mark Kelly outspent Blake Masters by eight to one ($73 million to $9 million). In Pennsylvania, sweatshirt-wearing man of the people Fetterman spent $52 million, while crudité-eating, 10-house-owning Dr. Oz spent $38 million. The Georgia race is going to a runoff, but so far Democrat Raphael Warnock has spent $76 million to Republican Herschel Walker’s $32 million. In New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan outspent Don Bolduc almost 20 times over: $38 million to $2 million. 

These are just the major Senate races that, until a week ago, looked like they could go Republican. The disparities for congressional and gubernatorial races are similar. Instead of looking at polling, political gamblers could have looked at financial disclosure forms.

So when you have all the volunteers in the world, and you have all the money in the world, what’s the voting procedure that most benefits you? One that emphasizes ease of voting, with a month of ballot requests, plenty of drop-off sites, and weeks of early in-person voting, not to mention same-day registration and no voter IDs requirements. This way you can mobilize your army, focus your attention, and have small cities make decisions for large states.

How many people actually need to vote absentee or early? Even taking high estimates, the entire country has around 1.16 million nursing home residents. Active-duty military, another recipient of mail-in ballots, topped out at around 1.39 million. Millions and millions of absentee ballots were requested, filled out, and processed in this election cycle. In Maricopa County in Arizona, an estimated 80 percent of voters—almost 2 million—cast absentee and early votes. People didn’t need them, but they make voting easy.

This approach yields strong results for the Democratic Party, but is it good for the trust that we’ve built our system on? Yes, we can get people to vote, but do they know who they are voting for, or any of the issues at stake? Let’s take the logical extremes of the “ease of voting” versus “informed electorate” debate. Universal, unrequested, voting by conducting door-to-door surveys, like they do with the census, would be “easiest” for the voter. A civics test that requires voters to know the candidate and the issues on the ballot would ensure the voter is most “informed.”

Neither of these extremes would instill integrity and trust in elections. Door-to-door ballots are rife with risks of fraud or persuasion by the collector. Civics tests could be designed to keep only a handful of people eligible to vote. Trust would be broken.

Yet while we would never dream of turning the ballot into a civics test, we are going further and further towards the door-to-door model of voting. Is that really an informed electorate? Are the candidates making their pitches? Look at some of the high-profile races in the 2022 election cycle. Democrats like Kathy Hochul in New York, Fetterman in Pennsylvania, Katie Hobbs in Arizona, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, and others either avoided debates completely or scheduled a single debate well after hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of ballots had been cast. It’s very conceivable for a Democrat to pull a Joe Biden and hide in the basement for an entire campaign. Is that an informed electorate, or representational democracy?

The issue with the electoral process in this country is that no one trusts each other, yet policies that decrease trust are being maintained or even expanded. There’s also zero evidence that streamlining voting procedures has a deleterious effect on the number of voters. Georgia, for example, was accused of instituting “Jim Crow 2.0” when it passed its voter laws, and it only led to record turnout. Will Biden apologize to Brian Kemp, or will Major League Baseball reimburse the city of Atlanta all the lost revenue from moving its All Star Game? Of course not.

Every state must determine for themselves if their voting procedures are leading to trust in the system. Otherwise, that trust will continue to erode, with no hope of recuperating.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst and columnist. An archive of his columns could be found at He can be found on Twitter @HillWithView

Where Do We Go From Here?

Originally published November 16, 2022

The Fissuring of the Republican Party: A Road Map to Political Chaos 

The 2022 midterm results were a disappointment for Republicans; don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.  What was projected to be a Red Wave with gains of 40 in the House and a 54-seat majority in the Senate, now looks like a slim majority in the House, and the Senate staying in Democrat control. 

Time to break down the good, the bad, and the ugly from the midterms and what we need to do to not repeat a bad election in 2024.


The Good

A few bright spots in this election are courtesy of Florida and, surprisingly, New York.  In Florida, Ron DeSantis carried that state 1.5 million votes, an incomprehensible gain after winning by only 34,000 votes in 2018.  Marco Rubio handily defeated Val Demmings to secure his third term to the United States Senate.  Miami-Dade County, thought to be a bastion of Democrats, went Red in this election cycle.  20 out of the 28 Representatives Florida is sending to Washington for the 118th Congress will be Republican. 

Another bright spot was in New York, even though there was some disappointment there as well.  Congressman Lee Zeldin did not manage to defy the odds and take the Governorship from Democrat Kathy Hochul, yet he did turn out the vote in many areas of the State, especially Nassau County.  Nassau had a +54,000-vote differential for Zeldin, and flipped two seats vacated by Democrats to the Republicans.  Suffolk County, located on the East Side of Long Island and home County to Zeldin, favored their native son by around 100,000 votes and kept their two Republican seats.  

The big shocker was in upstate New York, where Mike Lawler defeated Sean Patrick Maloney, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).  This is the first time since 1992 that the head of the DCCC has lost re-election.  Marc Molinaro, who ran for Governor against Andrew Cuomo in 2018, won his election, flipping another seat.  The New York delegation will send 10 (possibly 11) Republicans to D.C.

This is a shocking turn of events after the Democrats in Albany tried to gerrymander the Congressional map in their favor.  The map going into this year had 27 seats, with 7 leaning or solid Republican, 3 tossups, 2 leaning Democrat, and 15 solid Democrat.  That advantage wasn’t good enough, so the initial approved map, which lost a seat due to massive population loss in the 2010s, had 4 solid R seats, 2 tossups, and 20 blue seats.  The Republicans sued, the maps were redrawn, and now Republicans have increased from 8 seats to 11.  


The Bad

One thing that Democrats have going for them – far more than Republicans – is Party discipline. Democrats keep their members in line, on message, and out of each other’s way. Even leftist outsider groups know this, and they are incredibly strategic in the seats they go after.  The Justice Democrats, which is the group behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tliab, Ayanna Pressley, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, and most of the other names that have pulled the Democrats to the Left in the past few years, picked and chose their targets well. They targeted seats in deep-blue districts that would automatically win the general election, and pushed their candidate past the primary, defeating moderate Democrats. 

New Hampshire, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and even Georgia are not deep-red states.  To win in those states, you need likable, clean candidates with a clear mission and an ability to appeal to independents.  Don Bolduc, Blake Masters, Mehmet Oz, and Herschel Walker do not make the cut under that criteria.  One thing connects all four of these candidates, and it’s not just Donald Trump. They are the pawns in the civil war that has been plaguing the Republican Party since the Tea Party movement of 2010.  

The Republicans, like the Democrats, have the establishment wing and the ideological wing.  While the Democrats readily and publicly accept any ideologue into their ranks (as seen in the embrace of the Squad by Nancy Pelosi on magazine covers), Republicans publicly denounce their own ideologues.  Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert may be the Republican versions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar; they were never publicly welcomed with open arms. Yet the media ties everyone together all the same in a way they would never do with Democrats.

This was a strategic move by the Republicans, who know that the true enemy of their party is the media, who have no issue taking the worst people in the world and connecting them to the Republicans, while actual elected Democrats are saying equally extreme rhetoric and there is no connection drawn. However, the blowback of this is that voters are forced to decide between the “Trump” candidate and the “McConnell” candidate, and many independents basically said, “forget this, I’ll just go for the Democrat.”

This is how Republicans lost the Senate, and only barely took over the House, when they were projected to have massive majorities in both.  These results will repeat themselves over and over again until Republican leadership decides on a clear message and strategy that can appeal to the massive umbrella of voters they’ve acquired, except one side of the umbrella doesn’t like the other side.


The Ugly

This is where the ugly side of this comes in, because Donald Trump is back.  After a bizarre and idiotic rant about Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin on social media and lackluster performances by his chose candidates, Trump is poised to announce his run for President in 2024.  

Trump did a lot of great things for the Republican Party when he ran – and for the country when he was President – but that is not the Trump we see today.  When Trump ran in 2016, he wanted to, as he put on every item of clothing that stood still for more than three seconds, Make America Great Again.  It’s a simple message that got to the gut of people and spoke to them directly.  Then, the message of 2020 morphed into, “They’re not after me, they are after you.  I’m just in the way.” – also a fundamental truth that many in the Republican base instinctively understand.  Now, though, his message has become, “Avenge me.”

Trump is no longer the self-proclaimed warrior for Americans; he is now expecting Americans to be warriors for him.  That message is not nearly as appealing.  Combine that with all of his other character flaws (to put it nicely), and you have the media’s dream, but not an electable candidate.  

Ron DeSantis, however, has all the great parts that Trump has – an understanding of the media, a willingness to fight, a strong instinct of voter appeal – without the flaws.  Whereas Trump lacks political discipline, DeSantis seems to have it.  DeSantis can also play the bureaucratic game better than Trump did in his tenure.  

It’s going to get ugly, because if both of these men make a run for the 2024 nomination, punches will get thrown, and blood will get drawn.  Maybe that’s what the Republican Party needs, however, to get its act together after a dismal midterm showing.

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,, and  

‘The New York Times’ claims that schools, not crime, explain ultra-Orthodox voting

 Originally published November 7, 2022

MAILBAG: Attacking Jews Shouldn't Be More Important Than 9/11, But The  Anti-Semitic NY Times Thinks So - The Yeshiva World

The New York Times has had it in for the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community for some time now. While many communities have problems that deserve diligent coverage and public scrutiny, New York’s ultra-Orthodox have been covered and scrutinized to a degree that is wildly out of proportion to their relatively small population. A group of 50,000 to 100,000 people is not small, but in a city of eight million and a state of 20 million, it is impossible to justify the scorn to which they have been subjected.

Since 2012—although the Times’ disproportionate coverage of the community began well before that—the Times has written about the ultra-Orthodox community’s tendency to under-report crimes, as if this did not happen in many other communities, published long pieces on how difficult it is to leave the community, blamed it for measles outbreaks and mocked it for its stance on Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

The most striking case was a Times editorial in Yiddish that called on anyone who didn’t like their yeshiva education to contact the paper. This corresponded with a massive exposé on the state of ultra-Orthodox education. The Times is the paper of record in a state that is ranked 23rd in education despite more per-pupil spending than anywhere else in the country, yet it did not put out a public call for information on the shoddy state of non-Jewish public schools.

During the current election campaign, New York’s ultra-Orthodox population has largely shunned Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathy Hochul, endorsing her Republican opponent Lee Zeldin. The Times appears to have come up with an explanation why. A push notification sent to all subscribers was labeled, “A Political Force in New York: Challenges to the Hasidic community’s management of its schools pose a rare threat to the outsized political clout its leaders have built.”

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Zeldin has closed the gap with Hochul because of a single issue—crime. Crime rates in the state have skyrocketed over the past few years, and this is especially true in the Jewish community. Hardly a week goes by without someone dressed in traditional Hasidic garb being on the receiving end of a verbal or physical assault. When Zeldin speaks with the Jewish community, that is his primary focus.

Yet The New York Times seems to ignore this inconvenient truth, and implies that Jewish support for Zeldin is solely because of the schooling issue. Running schools as they see fit is important to many of the rabbinical leaders of these communities, but ensuring the safety of the community members themselves is far more important to them.

Under Hochul, and Democratic rule in general, Jews are less safe in New York. There is no doubt about that. But everyone is less safe in New York. The criminals just get to the Jews first. Jewish people, especially ultra-Orthodox Jews who flaunt their identity with such vigor, are the canary in the coal mine. Once something happens to them, watch out.

The same is true of The New York Times’ campaign against the ultra-Orthodox community. That’s where they start, but not where they end. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and ultimately all Jews will not be exempt from the hostility of the left-wing media.

Jewish people can’t vote the Times editorial board out of power, but we can make a difference in who the next governor will be. It’s up to us to make the change in Albany and Washington that we deserve.

Moshe Hill is a syndicated columnist who has been featured in Daily Wire, Washington Examiner, CNS News and others. Moshe can be found at, and

Democrats Push Pro-Choicers Into The Pro-Life Camp

 Originally published November 9, 2022

In the waning days of the 2022 midterm election cycle, Democrats around the country clung to the game plan they have had since the overturning of Roe v. Wade last June: Put abortion on the ballot.  In doing so, however, they revealed how extreme they actually are on the subject, and how they accidentally lumped many pro-choice minded people in with the pro-lifers. 

For years, the arguments surrounding the legality of abortion – not the morality of it, but rather how the government should handle it – had three main camps.  Around 20% said that elective abortion should not be legal under any circumstances (exceptions for life of the mother and an inviable fetus are a core aspect of the pro-life movement, regardless of what the detractors said).  Another 20% were the opposite, abortion for anyone at any time for any reason.  You find out in week 36 that the sonogram was wrong and you’re having a girl instead of a boy, that’s a private decision. Those cases are rare, if not non-existent, but that side said it must be legal.

Then there was where around 60% of the country was, which was some restriction.  Where that restriction was, under what circumstances, was up in the air.  But there must be something.  Since their definitions were so vague, when polled, half respondents would put themselves in the “pro-life” category, and half in the “pro-choice” category.  It was a differentiation without a difference. 

Of course, as partisans do, each of the 20% claimed the 60% for their own.  This is why you hear claims like “80% of Americans are pro-choice” or “80% of Americans want to make late-term abortion illegal.”  The manipulative nature of politics made both claims “true” and both claims “false” simultaneously. 

Then comes the overturning of Roe with the Dobbs decision, and ordinary people – the vast majority who don’t think about these issues – are being asked to weigh in on the topic.  Abortion has become so engrained in the psyche of the nation that many people reflexively believe that there should not be blanket pro-life laws in their state.  This is why even a red state like Kansas blocked a ballot proposal amending the state constitution that provided a right to abortion.  Status quo is extremely difficult to overcome.

Seeing a newfound advantage in the midterms, the Democrats, who have come to represent the pro-abortion side of debate, pushed the topic to the forefront in lieu of any other campaign strategy.  They could not argue on what a masterful job they were doing on crime, the economy, foreign policy, or any other aspect of American life, because they were failing dismally.  So they decided to do a full court press on the one topic they think they have an advantage on: abortion.

The problem for them is that the radicals have taken over the party.  Gone were the days of “safe, legal, and rare.”  Gone were the platitudes of “this is so difficult, but this is a necessary thing.”  We are in the “shout your abortion” era.  Since medicine has gotten so good at showing everyone just what a pre-born baby is, euphemisms had to take center stage. Terms like privacy rights, health rights, reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and (my personal favorite) reproductive justice. 

A style guide created by Planned Parenthood of Michigan and posted to the website even had terms not to use.  Don’t say “pro-life,” say “anti-abortion.”  Don’t say “conception,” it is an “imprecise, non-medical term for the beginning of pregnancy.”  Avoid using the term “viability” because that implies that the baby could live outside the womb, and would then give that baby rights.  Don’t say “heartbeat bill” when referring to some laws; call it a “six-week ban.”  And of course, never say the word “mother” or “woman.”  The style guide gives specific instruction on gender-inclusive language because, as we all know, men can get pregnant too.

This is not limited to a simple guide put out by one organization.  This is commonplace in the Democratic Party.  On multiple occasions, in front of Congressional committees, these terms are being used.  They are part of the lexicon.  When asked on the various campaign trails if they would consider any restriction on abortion, Democrats like Kathy Hochul in New York, Katie Hobbs in Arizona, Stacey Abrams in Georgia, and many others refused to answer the question, using canned responses like “it’s between the woman and her doctor.”  This belies the fact that the government has many things to say on what people do with their own bodies, not to mention with other people’s bodies.  Anything from wearing a seatbelt or helmet to taking drugs to getting a variety of vaccinations are all regulated by the government.  But on this issue, Democrats think society has no prevailing interest.

The consequences of such a radical departure from the 1990s language on the topic is that everyone who was in the 60% of people who think there should be some restriction on abortion now fall squarely in the “pro-life” camp.  They were shoved there, and when pro-lifers helped them up, they were called radicals.  Florida’s 15-week ban was called “devastating” and “an absolute infringement on our rights.”  Fifteen weeks is nearly four months into a pregnancy.  When Lindsey Graham proposed a similar bill to the Senate, it was simply called an “abortion ban,” no ink spilled on the fact that abortions were allowed under that bill well into the second trimester.

With the exception of Sweden (18 weeks) and the United Kingdom (24 weeks), every country in Europe has either a first trimester or complete abortion ban.  Blue states in America are incredibly radical on this issue.  A law like New York’s – which not only allows abortion until birth for any reason, but also pays for that abortion out of taxpayer funds and pays for other people out of state to come here and get an abortion – is unheard of. 

For once, a pro-life politician, when asked about his or her stance on this issue, should say, “I’m running for Assembly/State Senate/Congress/Governor/etc…I’m not running to be dictator.  If I were a dictator, I would make certain laws.  But since I must compromise, I’m willing to do so.”  Then they’ll take out a piece of paper on the debate stage and say to their opponent, “I’ll make concessions on life of the mother, inviable pregnancies, even rape and incest.  Where are you going to meet me?”  Democrats would have no answer.  They have no interest in compromising on this issue.  Their base won’t allow it.  Because of that, they have unwittingly put 80% of the country in the pocket of the Republican Party.  All it takes now is for the Republicans to let them know: “You’re pro-life now.  Congratulations.”

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,, and 

Zeldin And Hochul Make Their Final Pitches To New Yorkers

 Originally published November 2, 2022

The one debate between Governor Kathy Hochul and Congressman Lee Zeldin for the keys to the Governor’s Mansion occurred last week, and the Zeldin team had much to celebrate.  The final pitches to the voters from each side could not stand in further contrast, and that contrast could be enough to flip a deep-blue state.

The opening statements laid out what the next hour was going to be.  Zeldin pushed the issues facing the state under Democratic rule, and Hochul focused on Zeldin himself.  “We’ve experienced on so many levels of attacks on our wallets, our safety, our freedom, your children’s education,” Zeldin began. “You’re poorer and less safe because of Kathy Hochul and extreme policies.”  Hochul claimed that she is focused on tax cuts and public safety, but immediately emphasized the differences between her and Zeldin. “You will see a great contrast here tonight between myself and my record and someone who has been called one of Donald Trump’s strongest and most loyal supporters,” Hochul said. “He helped him on January 6 by supporting the overturning of an election. He sent text messages trying to orchestrate the big lie, and he opposes sensible gun safety laws, as well as opposing a woman’s right to choose.”

Zeldin stayed focused on crime throughout the debate.  He hit Hochul on appointing champion of Defund the Police movement Brian Benjamin as Lt. Governor, only to have him resign in disgrace over corruption charges, and for not doing anything about Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.  He pushed for specific legislation to be repealed, and for unequivocal support of law enforcement.  When it was Hochul’s turn, she demurred by saying, “data is still being collected,” and that she “did focus on bail reform in our budget.”  That focus was to allow judges to consider the “dangerousness” of a defendant when considering bail, yet did not define a “dangerousness standard.”  New York is the only state to not have a standard, meaning that judges are less likely to set a cash bail in any but the most extreme cases so they don’t have to endure the backlash from the politicians. 

Hochul’s main focus on crime is gun crime, and she pivoted every chance she could to that.  Hochul has been pushing for stricter gun laws after the Supreme Court overturned the 1911 concealed carry law in the state.  The law that she proposed and signed since then has had large parts of it held up by the courts for being blatantly unconstitutional.  Yet she claims that to tackle crime, it is “about getting the guns off the streets. That’s the first start. We have more to do, but I’m the one to do it.”

Zeldin punched back, saying that “you got people who are afraid of being pushed in front of oncoming subway cars. They’re being stabbed, beaten to death on the street with hammers. Go talk to the Asian American community and how it’s impacted them with the loss of lives. Jewish people targeted with raw, violent antisemitism on our streets.”  Statistically, he’s right. Violent attacks – especially on the subways and in the Asian and Jewish communities – are up.  The crimes may not be committed with guns, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

Zeldin actually pushed on the crime issue so hard that Hochul actually dropped the ball on her defensive posture, gaffing with the line, “I don’t know why that’s so important to you.”  

This wasn’t the only issue that Zeldin had a complete advantage over Hochul.  Another one was Covid, which is on the minds of New Yorkers after two pivotal decisions came the previous week.  The first is the addition of the Covid-19 vaccination to the CDC immunization schedule – a schedule that is used by many states to determine which vaccines they require for public school attendance or government employee requirements.  The second is a court decision by a State Supreme Court Judge in Staten Island that required the state to rehire all the employees that were fired for not getting the jab, with backpay.  While Zeldin had a clear stance on mandates by saying, “I will not mandate COVID vaccines for your kids ever,” Hochul again demurred, saying, “We’re not talking about mandating a vaccine for children in school at this time” – with the implication that she will sign any law requiring it.  She also attacked the public employees who wouldn’t get vaccinated, saying, “I would do it all over again, what I did last year, that mandate for healthcare workers.”

When offered a chance to ask their opponent one question on the debate stage, Zeldin asked about the pay-to-play corruption scandal that Hochul is in the middle of, where she is accused of giving the contract for Covid tests to a major campaign donor despite the fact that they charged twice as much as their competitors.  Hochul’s question was: “Is Donald Trump a great president?”

Of all the questions that Hochul could have asked Zeldin, she asked about Trump, who (if she didn’t notice) is not on the ballot in 2022.  In fact, she seemed to be obsessed with Trump, mentioning him or the 2020 election multiple times during the debate.  Zeldin handled himself with aplomb, saying that the info he was sending Trump’s team about legal challenges during the election was in early November, before the election was even certified, and that his vote to not certify the election was based on executive decisions in Pennsylvania and Arizona, not because of any “conspiracy theory.”  Hochul had no comeback, and just repeated “Trump” over and over again.  

The full debate is still available online, and should be watched in its entirety.  The contrast between these two candidates is incredibly clear, and even if you’ve made up your mind, you should know what they said.

The aftermath of the debate, at least for the Zeldin team, was one of euphoria.  Even though he still trails in the polls, his performance thus far has drawn the attention of heavy hitters around the country.  Political commentator Ben Shapiro referred to Zeldin as his “sleeper pick” of wins this election season.  Florida Governor Ron DeSantis left his own campaign trail to come to Long Island to speak at a Zeldin rally.  DeSantis’s popularity, combined with the enthusiasm that New York Republicans have not had in a generation, drew a crowd of over 7,000 people to Hauppauge Saturday night.  

Hochul, meanwhile, is still in the defensive posture, like a football team with a lead in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter.  She’s playing prevent defense, but as John Madden said: “The only thing the prevent defense does is prevent you from winning.”  On MSNBC, she spoke with Al Sharpton, notorious race baiter and instigator of the Crown Heights riots, about crime.  “These are master manipulators,” she told Sharpton. “They have this conspiracy going all across America trying to convince people that in Democratic states that they’re not as safe. Well guess what? They’re also not only election deniers, they’re data deniers.”  So, according to Hochul, crime is a Republican conspiracy.  

Hochul must feel comfortable talking to Sharpton, now that she’s done courting the Jewish vote, something she could not successfully accomplish.  Rabbinical leaders in Orthodox communities throughout Brooklyn and upstate are endorsing Zeldin, a massive departure from previous years.  These leaders have the ability to sway thousands of votes from one candidate to another, so their support for Zeldin may be the clincher.

Yet no one should rest on their laurels.  Election day is November 8, but early voting has already begun.  Everyone should get out and vote for Lee Zeldin, Alison Esposito, Michael Henry, Joe Pinion, and every other Republican on the ballot.  That’s the only way we can save our state.

Disclaimer: The Queens Jewish Link does not endorse political candidates. Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

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,, and  

Anthony D’Esposito Visits Chabad Of West Hempstead

 Originally published November 2, 2022

On Monday night, Town of Hempstead Councilmember and Congressional Candidate Anthony D’Esposito attended a Meet and Greet put together by the West Hempstead Young Republicans and the Friends of the West Hempstead School District.  

The event was open to all in the West Hempstead community, and was hosted by the Chabad of West Hempstead.  Over 70 people attended to hear D’Esposito speak, and they were not disappointed.  Covering a wide range of topics from crime to illegal immigration, to the economy and infrastructure, D’Esposito made himself available to the community. In preparing for his run, D’Esposito visited the Southern border, given that it’s one of the most important issues facing the next Congress. “Whatever news you’re watching – CNN or Fox,” D’Esposito said, “multiply it by a factor of ten.”  The candidate also spoke at length about the failures of Democratic leadership, both in Albany and in Washington. “I ask everyone I speak to, ‘are you better off than you were two years ago?’” D’Esposito said. “The answer overwhelmingly is ‘no.’” 

After speaking, the candidate took questions from the crowd, including where he thinks Republicans have faltered in the past, and what can be done to reinstitute stop, question, and frisk in the city.  He took pictures and stayed to speak with anyone who was willing.  

Anthony D’Esposito is running for the Fourth Congressional District in New York against Laura Gillen in a seat that was vacated when Democrat Kathleen Rice decided not to run again.  He joined the Town of Hempstead Council in 2016, representing East Rockaway, Hewlett, Island Park, South Hempstead, Oceanside and Rockville Centre and portions of Baldwin, Cedarhurst, Lynbrook, Malverne, Valley Stream, and Woodmere. Prior to becoming a council member, D’Esposito was a veteran NYPD Detective with over 600 arrests. He was the Chief of the Island Park Fire Department, and is on the Board of Directors of the Nassau County Fire Museum. 

Councilman Anthony D’Esposito (middle) with event organizers Moshe Hill, Founder of the West Hempstead Young Republicans (left), and Aaron Zelig, Founder of the Friends of the West Hempstead School District 

His long record of service provided him not only with the experience necessary to represent New York in Congress, but also a strong connection to the Jewish community. He was awarded “Man of the Year” by the Chabad of Hewlett, and maintains a personal and professional relationship with rabbinical leaders in the area. 

After Ben & Jerry’s joined the BDS movement and refused to sell their products in Judea and Samaria, Councilman D’Esposito led the charge in crafting anti-BDS legislation in Town of Hempstead, one the key reasons why parent company Unilever overruled Ben & Jerry’s decision. 

The attendees ranged from Republican faithful to lifelong Democrats. All saw the need for change in representation after nearly a quarter of a century of a Democrat sent to Washington on behalf of the community. D’Esposito fueled that passion with a call to action to get all attendees to not only vote for him, but for Lee Zeldin for Governor and all Republicans on the ballot, and to bring their friends and family to the polls. “After next Tuesday,” D’Esposito said, “with your help, we’ll not only have a Republican member of Congress, but also a Republican Governor.”

Understanding Jewish Self-Hatred

Originally published October 26, 2022 

 Author’s Note: To Rabbi Schonfeld: Ask and ye shall receive. To everyone else: If I ever get my act together enough, I will complete the book I’ve been working on for the past 18 months. Until then, here is an excerpt.

“Woe to those who say of the evil that it is good and of the good that it is evil – who present darkness as light and light as darkness, who present bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).


The greatest misnomer that the Jewish groups who vitriolically attack the Jewish state receive is that they are “self-hating Jews.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The Jews in these groups are in love with themselves and their Jewish identities. The only thing they hate is Judaism.

To be a self-hating Jew, you would have to eschew your Jewish identity. This occurred many times throughout Jewish history – a prime example occurring in the 13th century. Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, a Jew who converted to Christianity, wanted to prove beyond a doubt to the King of Spain that he was no longer a Jew, so he volunteered to debate the eminent Jewish scholar of the day, Moshe ben Nachman (Nachmanides). The Disputation of Barcelona, as it was called, lasted for five days.

This is not what the Judaism-hating Jews desire. Their entire identity is wrapped in a cloak of Judaism. They perverse Jewish rituals like prayers for the dead and use them for terrorists. They mock the end of Sabbath by inviting politicians who need token Jews to wrap their arms around to a service that is religiously forbidden. They need their Judaism, because it makes them special.

In the modern Left, your value is determined by your placement on the intersectional hierarchy. Intersectionality is a word coined by Kimberle Crenshaw in 1989. In her definition, discrimination is so rampant that one person can be discriminated against for multiple reasons, like a black woman would be discriminated against for her race and gender. The intersectional hierarchy deems that the greatest victims are those who have the most intersectional qualifications. In a society where the more victimized you are, the more value you have, having intersectional characteristics is the coin of the realm.

American Jews mostly emigrated from Europe, so they are Caucasian in appearance. There is nothing worse in the intersectional hierarchy than white skin. The bottom of the hierarchy is the straight white male. As a people who have suffered oppression throughout our history, Jews have some currency (but not much, as they are generally successful in America). So, a white skinned leftist could climb the victim ladder by being Jewish.

This is why the Judaism-hating Jews cannot accurately be described as “self-hating Jews.” They cannot hate themselves or their ethnic Jewish background, because that’s their ticket into the Leftist clubhouse. Otherwise, they’re just a bunch of white people, and would have to resort to becoming a member of the LGBTQ community to gain entrance (although, many do, which allows them to climb ever higher). Want to know if you’re dealing with a Leftist who needs his or her victim status to make a point? If they begin every argument with the words “As a…” and then state their self-assigned identity, odds are you’re dealing with an intersectional believer.

So, what do they hate about Judaism? Judaism is the religion of the Jewish Nation. The Jewish religion directly contradicts the religion that the Judaism-hating Jews are a part of: Leftism.

In 2018, conservative radio host Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, expounded on psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl’s idea that the one thing that mankind finds fulfillment in is meaning. “The greatest provider of meaning for the vast majority of human beings has been religion,” Prager writes. But as religious observance has dwindled down, particularly amongst intellectuals, where can one go to find meaning? If biblical religion won’t work, then that must be replaced by secular religion.

For a time, intellectuals could find solace in communism. After all, communism worked on paper, and that’s where intellectuals live – in the theoretical. The moral evil of stealing one’s labor to redistribute to another didn’t matter to the intellectual, because the fruits of their labor is intangible. Intellectuals aren’t the ones coming home covered in coal dust and joint pain.

After communism failed, where could the intellectuals turn? “The answer was to create another left-wing secular religion,” says Prager. And that is what Leftism is: a secular meaning-giver to supplant Christianity. Left-wing religious expressions include Marxism, communism, socialism, feminism, and environmentalism.

This is the true religion of anti-Israel Jewish groups. Their claims of “what Judaism is” is antithetical to what Judaism actually is, but it matches up perfectly with the Leftist worldview.

“Judaism and Christianity hold that people are not basically good. Leftism holds that people are basically good. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity believe evil comes from human nature, and Leftism believes evil comes from capitalism, religion, the nation-state (i.e., nationalism), corporations, the patriarchy, and virtually every other traditional value.

“Judaism and Christianity hold that utopia on Earth is impossible – it will come only in G-d’s good time as a Messianic age or in the afterlife. Leftism holds that utopia is to be created here on earth – and as soon as possible. That is why Leftists find America so contemptible. They do not compare it to other nations but to a utopian ideal – a society with no inequality, no racism, no differences between the sexes (indeed, no sexes), and no greed, in which everything important is obtained free.

“Judaism and Christianity believe G-d and the Bible are to instruct us on how to live a good life and how the heart is the last place to look for moral guidance. Leftists have contempt for anyone who is guided by the Bible and its G-d, and substitute the heart and feelings for divine instruction.” (Prager)

The practice of the Jewish religion, and the participation in the Jewish nation, is antithetical to the Leftist religion. Judaism is seen as a patriarchal, misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-socialist relic of the past. This is why so many of these Jewish Leftist groups try to redefine Judaism, just as Leftists redefine terms every day. Ask a Leftist for a definition of the word racist, or woman, and they would be stumped. Same thing with Judaism.

This extends to the Jewish state. The idea of a Jewish state forces a Jewish Leftist to confront the inherent contradiction between their given nationality and their chosen religion. Judaism and Leftism are incompatible, and the realities of having a Jewish state force Leftists to confront that contradiction.

Multiculturalism is a key component to Leftist ideology. They obfuscate the issue under the guise of “acceptance” and “tolerance,” but essentially, the idea is that all cultures are the same. If a culture is “dominant” in a particular area and that culture is too low on the intersectional hierarchy, like Jews in Israel, it must be dismantled. If a culture is dominant but that culture ranks high in the intersectional hierarchy, it gets a pass. A perfect example are the Arab Muslim nations that surround Israel.

In the United States, Muslims are considered a victim group, even after 13 Muslims committed the attacks on 9/11 and countless more committed numerous terrorist attacks in the West. Some, as a reaction, began to profile Muslims. The Leftists in the media exaggerated the increased threat Muslims came under in the early 2000s. On a per capita basis, Jews have always been victimized of crime because of their religion at a far greater rate than Muslims, even in the years immediately following 9/11. However, the perception is that Muslims are a victimized group. Therefore, their countries do not need to be dismantled and they are not subject to boycott movements and accusations of apartheid (more on that below).

Jews, however, are not considered a victimized group in America unless it’s politically convenient. When Tree of Life Synagogue and Chabad of Poway are attacked by white shooters, it’s politically convenient for the Left to attack white supremacy and guns. When dozens of attacks on Jews are perpetrated by Black people in New York, the media largely ignores it. “If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York,” said The New York Times in October 2018, “it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far-right-wing group.”

It has become less and less politically convenient for the Left to defend the State of Israel. As a Jewish state, it’s too low on the intersectional hierarchy to be given a pass, like Muslim countries. Even when Israelis are killed by terrorists – a rarer occurrence than decades ago with the addition of a wall on to the East and Iron Dome in the West – the Arab/Muslim assailant is on a higher rung on the intersectional ladder than the victim.

This is an endless conflict between the religion of Leftism and the Jewish Nation. Jewish Liberals wrestle with it, trying to play both sides, but Jewish Leftists have forgotten their Nation in favor of the Leftist religion.

Their Leftist religion is fraught with true anti-Semites, and those enemies of the Jewish people love to hold up the Judaism-hating Jews as props to prove that their problem isn’t with the Jews, it’s with the State of Israel. However, their thinly veiled facade of anti-Zionism is easily torn away to reveal what it truly is: anti-Semitism.