The Liberals in Canada are Following Obama in Turning on Israel

Posted on November 23, 2016 by First.One.Through

It was just a year ago, in October 2015, that liberals swept to power in Canada. It was a continuation of a spate of wins in North America, which included a mayoral race in New York City in 2013, and, of course, eight years of US President Barack Obama winning in 2008 and 2012.

The rush in liberal wins produced a retreat from several conservatives values. Will the liberal Canadian Prime Minister similarly back away from Israel the way Obama did in the US?

Possibly.

The treatment of Israel by President Obama was atrocious from the very beginning. It started with his complete disregard of the April 2004 letter from President George W. Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which assured Israel that it would not return to the 1949 Armistice Lines / the “1967 border.” The treatment of Israel devolved from there, including Obama’s leading a Democratic boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of congress in 2015.

In sharp contrast to Obama, the new Canadian Prime Minister showed early support of Israel, backing the conservative party’s measure in February 2016 to ban the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) Movement against Israel in schools. Trudeau commented “The BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has no place on Canadian campuses.”

A month later, in March 2016, Trudeau said “Israel is a friend, Israel is an ally, Israel is a country that has values and an approach on many, many issues that are very much aligned with Canadians values. But, at the same time… we won’t hesitate from talking about unhelpful steps like the continued illegal settlements. We will point that out.” He continued his general support of Israel saying that “the demonization, the de-legitimization or the double standard that’s often applied to Israel [at the United Nations]is not helping reach the two-state solution of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state alongside a peaceful, democratic Israel.”

The early comments from the liberal leader seemed promising, almost in tune with his conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, a strong ally and supporter of Israel.

But Trudeau’s pivot to the darker forces – and in particular those parties that seek to actively harm Israel – would soon surface.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and US President Barack Obama
(Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

First, in January 2016, Trudeau stated that Canada sought to restart relations with Iran, a country which promised to wipe Israel from the map. By June 2016, it became public that official dialogue with the official state-sponsor of terrorism had begun.

Second, on November 16, 2016, the Canadian liberal government announced that it was resuming funding of UNRWA, the UN relief agency that supports the descendants of displaced Palestinian Arabs. The previous conservative Canadian government had cut off funding to UNRWA in 2010, after it became known that the organization was closely tied to the terrorist group Hamas. Needless to say, the United Nations was very pleased with the C$25 million donation to assist “5.3 million Palestine refugees.” (Note that there are really only an estimated 30,000 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.)

As detailed in “UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews,” UNRWA undermines the possibility of peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs at its core. It fosters a festering Israeli-Arab war, while the organization robs funding from actual refugees from around the world in need of real relief.

International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau says
the Liberals are refunding UNRWA
(Photo: Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Lastly, Trudeau has followed Obama’s lead in never condemning “radical Islamic terrorism,” but only a generic form of terrorism. This was true regarding his comments about terrorism in Orlando, Nice, Paris, Brussels, and those targeting Canadian citizens in the Philippines.

The Canadian Liberals’ resumption of funding UNRWA, and its move to reestablish ties with Iran are disturbing moves against Israel and a reversal of the policies instituted by the previous conservative government. Time will tell whether Canadian liberals follow the US in The Democrats’ Slide on Israel.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA, Fund the UNHCR

Delivery of the Fictional Palestinian Keys

The United Nations’ Adoption of Palestinians, Enables It to Only Find Fault With Israel

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

Is Hillary Clinton as Pro-Israel as George W Bush?

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

Pride. Jewish and Gay

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Money Can’t Buy Clinton Love

Posted on November 21, 2016 by First.One.Through

The 2016 US presidential race was not only contentious throughout the campaign; it remains so post the results. The NeverTrump bandwagon continues to insult every move that the President-elect makes, and other Hillary Clinton supporters trumpet her win in the popular vote.

Yes, the diehards still insist that Hillary Clinton is popular.

Perhaps they should honestly consider the results in light of a glaring fact: Clinton spent an estimated $687 million on her campaign, which averages to $10.84 for every vote that she received. That is a whopping record figure for anyone -let alone someone who is truly “popular.” Consider that Trump spent only $307 million on his campaign, or just $4.96 per vote received. Clinton had to spend more than double Trump’s spend for each vote.

That enormous figure was despite her well known-brand, having spent her lifetime in public service including as Secretary of State, Senator from New York and eight years as First Spouse.
That 2.2x Clinton spend was still required, even though she had the backing of the mainstream media, including TV channels, newspapers and magazines.
Clinton’s incredible overspend to obtain votes was needed, despite the aggressive lobbying by the incumbent president on her behalf.
Hillary’s campaign to shatter that final “glass ceiling,” failed to attract a significant majority of the enormous female voting public.

With so much wind in her sails and running against the most unpopular candidate in history, Hillary was only able to win the popular vote by 2.5%. She was clearly a very damaged candidate.

Note that the Democrats may state publicly that they want to change the influence of money in politics, but they would have been doomed without the money. Liberals may claim they have the majority of America backing their agenda, but all they achieved was carpet-bombing ad campaigns on a confused nation.

Liberals cannot claim to represent the will of the common man, after spending more than double the Republicans in a losing effort. They have only highlighted how much more they have to spend to reach a parity. An election purchased is not smugness earned.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

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

The Broken Glass Ceiling in Politics Hides the Importance of Education

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

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

Posted on November 20, 2016 by First.One.Through

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

Related First.One.Through articles:

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

Posted on November 17, 2016 by First.One.Through

On November 14, 2016, the NY Times published an article about hate crimes in which it deliberately misled its readers in several areas.

The article entitled “U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims,” sought to continue a NY Times narrative that Trump supporters are white racists and xenophobes. In this article, it chose to do this by emphasizing certain facts, redirecting the reader, and omitting some statistics completely.

All crimes are terrible, and hate crimes are particularly noxious. If America wants to confront them with solutions, it needs to review them honestly.

The Focus on Muslims

The title of the article focused on the rise in hate crimes against Muslims, as did the article itself. While there was a significant jump in the anti-Muslim attacks, an average Muslim in 2015 was still 50% LESS likely to be attacked than an average Jew (257 attacks against an American Muslim population of 3.3 million, versus 664 attacks against 5.8 million American Jews).

The Times did say that Jews were the most frequently attacked religious group, while blacks were the most targeted race – in the article’s seventh paragraph. However, it then sought to redirect the reader to the significance of the anti-Muslim attacks:

“Blacks were the most frequent victims of hate crimes based on race, while Jews were the most frequent victims based on religion, according to the F.B.I. data. But the increases in attacks on these groups were smaller than the rise in attacks against Muslims and transgender people.”

Hey reader! Over here! Focus on Muslims and transgender attacks! That’s the real story, not the groups that are subject to the most hate crimes! Never mind that the total number of attacks against Muslims and transgender people COMBINED was LESS THAN HALF of the number of attacks against Jews.

Blame Trump

For over a year, the Times has called out Donald Trump and his supporters as being racists, homophobes and xenophobes. The Times told all of its readers to fear the local radical right much more than radical Islamic terrorism in articles throughout the year. This article began:

“WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. reported Monday that attacks against American Muslims surged last year, driving an overall increase in hate crime against all groups.

The data, which is the most comprehensive look at hate crime nationwide, expanded on previous findings by researchers and outside monitors, who have noted an alarming rise in some types of crimes tied to the vitriol of this year’s presidential campaign and the aftermath of terrorist attacks at home and abroad since 2015.

That trend appears to have spiked in just the last week, with civil rights groups and news organizations reporting dozens of verbal or physical assaults on minorities and others that appear to have been fueled by divisions over the election.”

This is complete editorializing by the Times. The FBI report gave a statistical analysis and breakdown of attacks that occurred in 2015. The report did not get into speculation about what drove people to commit the crimes. It certainly did not cover November 2016 when the report was solely about 2015.

The Times seemed to further add support for its rationale of blaming Trump, by stating “Attacks against Muslim Americans saw the biggest surge. There were 257 reports of assaults, attacks on mosques and other hate crimes against Muslims last year, a jump of about 67 percent over 2014. It was the highest total since 2001, when more than 480 attacks occurred in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.”

For the Times, Donald Trump equals September 11 for Muslim Americans.

Yet, if one were to scratch the surface, it would be clear that the number of attacks against Muslims has up-and-down years. For example, hate crimes against Muslim Americans spiked in the early Obama years compared to the George W Bush years. Under President Bush in 2008, there were 105 anti-Muslim attacks, which jumped by 52% to 160 attacks in 2010 under President Obama. Such attacks also jumped 15% between 2013 and 2014, well before the rise of Trump.

No Mention about the Offenders

The Times did not discuss other statistics from the FBI report, such as the ethnicity of the offenders.

In 2015, whites were twice as likely to commit a hate crime as a black American. Consider that there are over five times more whites than blacks in the US. That means that black people disproportionately are committing hate crimes (if all people are as likely to commit a hate crime, it would suggest that there would be roughly five times as many white offenders as black offenders, not two times).

The trendline about the offenders of hate crimes is also important to highlight, but dismissed in the Times.

In 2001, white people committed 4.5 times more hate crimes than black people (5,149 versus 1,157). That difference is more in line with what would be expected by the larger white population.

However, the New York Times did not report on the alarming trend of black people committing a growing and more disproportionate share of hate crimes, because it undermined the paper’s narrative that white Trump supporters are the bigots and “deplorables.” Shining a light on the SHRINKING number of white attackers (2,657 in 2015 versus 5,149 in 2001), went against the liberals view of the world.

The reason that independents and libertarians are abandoning the Democratic Party is liberal’s blind adherance to a narrative that has no basis in facts. How can such a party hope to arrive at solutions to society’s ills if it will not honestly look at the world as it is?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Obama’s Select Religious Compassion

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

A Deplorable Definition

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Naked Democracy

Posted on November 15, 2016 by First.One.Through

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter.”

-Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Democracy is a system of government in which the people get to decide for themselves who will be their leaders. In some situations, people make their choices directly, in others, they elect representatives who ultimately choose the leaders. In either case, citizens are often guided to their decisions by professionals, both in the media and in government.

The 2016 contest for president of the United States of America was a whirlwind, and the two primary parties took very different paths to nominate their ultimate candidates. Those paths ended with individuals at polar extremes.

The Democrats worked with party favorites and their political machine to nominate a long-time political insider, Hillary Clinton. The Republicans let the American citizens override their guidance to nominate a complete political-outsider.

In 2016, naked democracy won.

Clinton, Arm-in-Arm with the Democratic Machine

Hillary Clinton spent her lifetime in politics. She began as the first lady of the State of Arkansas while her husband Bill was governor (1979-1992), and then of the United States (1992-2000). She served as US Senator from New York (2001-2008) and then as US Secretary of State (2009-2013). Her life was politics, and she craved capping that career as the president in 2016.

Clinton had the Democratic Party backing her the entire way. The head of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, took many actions to favor Clinton in the primaries. It included having only a few debates and revoking Bernie Sanders’ access to voter data. Leaked DNC emails made clear that the Democratic party sought to actively undermine Sanders – including by questioning his religious affiliation – in an incident that forced Schultz to resign.

The immoral actions against Bernie Sanders were embarrassing, but only half of the story. The Sanders’ left-wing fringe campaign could not score many “superdelegates,” (those Democratic party bigwigs that supported the lifetime politician) which undermined a pure democratic process.

The Democratic machinery did not stop pushing Hillary after crushing Sanders. It continued to operate for Clinton in similar ways against Trump.

After Schultz was forced to resign, her position in charge of the DNC was handed to Donna Brazile, who was a commentator with CNN. It was soon discovered that Brazile leaked questions to Clinton before one of the presidential debates, giving Clinton an unfair advantage. Like Schultz, Brazile was subsequently forced out of the DNC.

Hillary Clinton may claim that she is “not a natural politician” like her husband, but she is the very embodiment of a crony politician, in bed with the political and media establishment.

Trump on the Outside

Donald Trump was not just a political outsider who had never run for any governmental office. He was also spurned by the Republican establishment and conservative media.

Many of the Republican candidates for president and other politicians refused to endorse Trump, and several loudly criticized him:

“I also cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative…nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham
“Trump is not a non-interventionist in foreign affairs; he’s a national populist who will adopt any position that advances his political ends.” -Rep. Justin Amash (MI)
A “serial philanderer” and “pathological liar” for whom “morality doesn’t exist.” -Sen. Ted Cruz
A “con artist.” – Sen. Marco Rubio
“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.” – Former Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney

The list goes on, including from various members of the Bush family.

The conservative media treated Trump no better, including Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal and Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.

“I can’t support Trump” – Bill Kristol
“Donald Trump is anti-conservative, un-American, immoral and dangerous.” – Bret Stephens

Cover of the Conservative Magazine National Review

Sarah Palin, who had run for Vice President on Sen. John McCain’s ticket in 2008 called out the Republican establishment for turning their backs on Trump:

“Even today, the G.O.P. machine, they’re attacking their own front-runner, and his base of dynamic, diverse, very patriotic supporters. They’re attacking you! They can’t afford the status quo to go. Otherwise, the gravy train, it stops and they can’t keep slurpin’ from it, not if things change the way that Mr. Trump and all of we know needs to change.”

Trump was not only a political novice. He ran without the support of the Republican party and was saddled with a conservative media which constantly sought to bring him down.

The Naked Democracy

By any account, such a contest would likely have been unfair. A lifetime politician with the complete backing of the political machine and media, AND the backing of the sitting president AND a family foundation which peddled influence for money, stood opposite a complete novice. That first-timer was undercut by his party and the media, AND by the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.

How could the American people possibly ignore all of the money, media, power and politics? The results were clear before the first vote was cast. There was really no reason to vote. Clinton will be your president. So said the establishment.

But the people did not listen. Not to the media. Not to the government. Not to their political parties.

The people decided for themselves, as they went to the polling stations with their own opinions.

Winston Churchill, the venerated leader of Great Britain during World War II and in the 1950s, had very mixed feelings about democracy. While he admired the concept of people deciding upon their own futures, he felt that most people were incapable of properly understanding the issues and proposed solutions to arrive at a logical conclusion. Just have a “five-minute conversation with the average voter,” he would say.

So the Democratic party offered Americans a crafted Hollywood Democracy, full of fake sets, scripts and voice-overs to make them feel good as they were ushered to the voting booth with their ballots already filled in. The Republican party would have preferred that approach as well, but let the American people move forward with a Naked Democracy, without any supporting actors.

In 2016, the American people voted directly for the naked novice. Will they now decide for themselves if they are happy with the results, or will they wait for the media establishment to inform them about their feelings?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

Eyes Wide Shut

Let’s Make America VOTE Again

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Eyes Wide Shut

Posted on November 13, 2016 by First.One.Through

Americans and other people around the world have seemingly decided that the best course of action is to loudly scream and vote with eyes wide shut.

Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton decided to endorse her with the pounding, painful knowledge in the dark corners of their brains that she: was the Secretary of State under Obama who watched Americans butchered in Libya, and then casually observed as that country turned into a terrorist haven; watched Iran march toward a legitimate and complete nuclear weapons infrastructure; saw ISIS emerge in Iraq as she pulled American troops from the country; did nothing as Syria collapsed into civil war killing 500,000 people and watched those refugees flood the world; deleted thousands of emails while under investigation for usage of an improper private server; took millions of dollars into her Clinton Foundation in possible exchange for favors from foreign governments; etc. No matter. Clinton’s #ImWithHer supporters feared Donald Trump, and craved a female president.

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump voted for him, even though they knew he: was accused of sexually harassing women; threatened to ban all Muslims from the country; spoke unfavorably about parents of an American soldier killed in battle; called for a massive deportation of millions of illegal immigrants; had no political experience; etc. No matter. They despised Hillary Clinton and were not going to let the radical left of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders run the country for another four years.

Days after the election, Clinton supporters took the streets and – despite the obvious facts – declared that Trump was not their president. They declared that Trump was a homophobe and would threaten the LGBT community, even though he clearly stated his support for them to loud applause at the Republican National Committee. Whether they somehow thought the electoral college should no longer matter, or that they did not want to be associated with such a leader, they closed their eyes to reality. Willingly.

Protesters hold signs during a protest against the election of President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, in downtown Seattle. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

Americans were not alone in willingly closing their eyes to reality as they cast their ballots.

On October 13, 2016, UNESCO approved a draft resolution which removed any mention of the Jewish names for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site. Dozens of countries voted in favor of the resolution despite the insult, as they moved to give the Jordanian Waqf full control of the Jewish Temple Mount, and to ultimately hand the Old City of Jerusalem to become a capital of a future state of Palestine. Jewish rights and history, and Israeli security be damned.

In September 2016, The European Union took further steps to remove Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations. They did this, despite Hamas waging three wars against Israel over the previous eight years, and having the most anti-Semitic charter of any governmental party in the world, which firmly rejects peace negotiations and calls for the annihilation of Israel.

And in the summer of 2014, while Israel fought to stop the rocket fire into its country from Gaza and to dismantle the terrorist tunnel infrastructure of Hamas, Europeans took the streets in loud protests against Israel. Despite the calls of “Hitler was right,” and the many attacks on Jews and Jewish-owned businesses, the New York Times opted to ignore the condemnation of European leaders that the riots were anti-Semitic, and stated that there was just a “tinge” of Jew hatred. Repeatedly.

Why are people and governments willingly revising history? How do people feel comfortable voting against reality? Are they blind to the facts, or do they hope that a new reality would somehow emerge with their votes?

Historically, people have claimed that there are multiple truths, that “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” Today, that sentiment is magnified by the “progressive” endorsement of “self-identity” in matters such as gender and race.

But seemingly, truth is no longer a debate between traditional views and those with fluid interpretations. Those were old distinctions between the Orthodox (static) and liberals (evolving).

Today, the world has declared that truth can be ignored, openly and honestly. Fixed facts fold before the fantasy of personal belief. People shout their gestating gospels as the thoughts enter their minds and are blessed in their echo chambers on social media and in the streets.

Opinions no longer need an anchor in fact. People need not see nor hear a matter to declare it untrue or irrelevant. The world has become unhinged as the mind emerges as the sole arbiter of the firmament. Society has quickly moved beyond goggles of virtual reality to worship in the chapel of blind delusions.

In a world where facts are extraneous, we are only left with a clash of emotions.

Will we pass judgment solely on which party seems the most sympathetic because they feel the most injured? Does that foretell a future of balms for the pain, rather than solutions for the problems?

We are carrying our emotions across the threshold to deflower our intelligence. That is a marriage that will end poorly for civilization.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

The Impossible Liberal Standard

A Deplorable Definition

Pride. Jewish and Gay

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

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

Posted on November 11, 2016 by First.One.Through

For over a year now, we have heard from the left-wing media that right-wing extremism is more of a threat than Islamic terrorism. We have watched the uber-left decry Republican capitalism as inherently evil and corrupt. Barack Obama made fun of the right-wing’s primitive infatuation with guns and religion, as he sought laws to limit their accessibility to guns. And Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president, proudly declared that she was proud of making enemies with 41% of Americans, the Republicans, whom she derided as “deporables.”

The Republican nominee, and now President-elect, Donald Trump, said that he would seek to deport foreigners that were in the country illegally, and build a wall along the southern border to minimize people from illegally crossing into the US from Mexico. He announced that he would limit Muslim immigration from countries that spawn terror and are at war with America and its allies. Trump declared that he would have an “America First” policy, putting foreign trading partners on alert.

The right targeted non-Americans, as it sought to protect the security, jobs and economy of Americans. The left targeted Americans, as it viewed its flat, “progressive” global view as inherently fair.

Neither side was nice, and neither can understand how they vilified the “other” in a way that was inappropriate.

Whether from fear and concern, or hope and aspiration, Americans wanted to change. But the change that they sought put others in their crosshairs. Their comments blanketed entire groups unfairly, and raised the distrust and anger of people.

Police form a line to contain protesters outside a campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

The aggressive demonization of the right by the American left-wing produced a backlash in November 2016, as Americans elected a political novice to office. Many liberals have doubled down on their taunts, and taken to the streets in protests and riots. Meanwhile, the Americans that nominated Trump are deaf to the protests, as they hope that the global (and American) forces that made them fearful and defensive, will be combatted at last.

We Americans have a corrosive approach to the “other.” The global warming that environmentalists call out, may come from all of us being too hot-headed. We should consider how to improve our situation AND become more united.

The best pathway to unite people is to treat them with respect. The pathway to treating them with respect, is to stop demonizing them. And the best way to stop demonizing them is to stop the screaming and name-calling.

Rather than insulting someone, try simply disagreeing with their position, rather than their person. You might also consider saying “hello.”

Related First.One.Through articles:

Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Crises at the Borders

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Let’s Make America VOTE Again

Posted on November 8, 2016 by First.One.Through

The United States has a long history of terrible voter turnout.

The voter turnout as a percentage of the voting age population (VAP) since 1992 has been: 58% (1992), 51% (1996), 54% (2000), 60% (2004), 62% (2008) and 57% (2012). This compares to countries like Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom which had turnouts around 70%.

It is not that people are apathetic about the outcomes of elections; they just realize that their votes do not matter.

In the US, presidential elections are not based on the popular vote, where every single vote counts. The outcome is awarded by electoral votes, where every state has a set number of electoral votes as roughly determined by the population in the state, in a winner-take-all formulation. Therefore, if a state is a virtual certainty of voting for a Democrat (say California) or for a Republican (like Texas), it makes no difference if any individual casts a ballot. It is therefore possible that a state like Texas can have as few voters as Minnesota, but the 55 electoral votes for Texas would still be cast for the Republican, even as Minnesota only awards its pre-determined 10 electoral votes.

There is a way to get people to participate in the elections, and it does not entail making it mandatory, as is done in Australia.

This proposal is to INCENTIVIZE people to vote by weighing the electoral votes by the percentage of people that vote in the state.

If a state has less than half of the population casting a ballot, that state would only get 50% of the predetermined electoral votes. For every 2% of the VAP that participates in the election, another 10% of the electoral votes would count, up to 58% of the VAP, when 100% of the electoral votes would be counted.

Percent of VAP	Percent of Electoral Votes
Less than 50%	50%
50% to 51.9%	60%
52% to 53.9%	70%
54% to 55.9%	80%
56% to 57.9%	90%
58% and above	100%

Consider Pennsylvania, with its 20 electoral votes. In the 2012 presidential election, it had a 57.8% VAP turnout (5,596,499 votes out of a voting age population of 9,677,000). According to this proposal, Pennsylvania would have only gotten 90% of its electoral votes, or 18 instead of the full 20. The shortfall of 16,161 voters (which would have brought it to 58%) would have netted the state 2 important electoral votes.

This formulation incentivizes everyone in the state to vote, and everyone in the country to care about each state. No state would be considered “secure,” as the drive to get every American to participate in the democratic process would be critical.

A great example is New York, with its 29 electoral votes, which has been a lock for almost every Democrat (as opposed to Pennsylvania which is a “swing” state). Most New Yorkers (yes, a majority) opt to go to work and skip the polls. In 2012, only 6,160,193 people voted, out of the 13,302,000 voting-aged population. Only 46.3%. That’s pathetic. This formula would have penalized the state for the poor turnout, and awarded NY only 50% of the 29 electoral votes, or 15 votes. The loss of 14 votes would have been equivalent to losing the entire states of Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Americans are going out to vote today – in the somber 2016 election – when people have strong dislikes for the candidates. Many will opt to stay home because of that distaste.

Let’s change the current election model, so people don’t withdraw from the democratic process itself.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

The Broken Glass Ceiling in Politics Hides the Importance of Education

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Posted on November 7, 2016 by First.One.Through

Political pundits have been calling out White, uneducated old men as racists and the sole fringe backers of Republican candidates. They suggest that women, minorities and the young are much more balanced and thoughtful in their choice of political preference and affiliation.

They are lying to you.

Look at the actual numbers from the 2012 election:

By Gender: Men split for Romney by 52%/45% (7 point difference), while women voted for Obama by 55/44 (11 point difference). Men were more balanced than women in considering their candidate.

By Race: Whites voted for Romney by a 59%/39% margin (20% difference), while blacks voted for Obama 93/6 (87% difference), Hispanics for Obama 71/27 (44% difference) and Asians 73/26 (47% difference). Whites voted in a more balanced way than minority groups.

By Age: The young were the most unbalanced in their support for Obama. People aged 18-29 chose Obama 60%/37% (23% difference), while the other groups, 30-44 picked Obama 52/45 (7% apart), 45-64 year-olds chose Romney 51/47 (4% difference) and 65 and over chose Romney by 56/44 (12% difference). The older working class (aged 45-64) were the most balanced in their votes for the candidates.

Education: The most uneducated people picked Obama by the widest margin. Those with some high school picked Obama 64%/35% (29% difference), compared to high school graduates picking Obama 51/48 (3% difference), those with some college chose Obama 49/48 (1% difference), college graduates picked Romney (51%/47% (4% differential), while those postgraduate work picked Obama 55/42 (13% difference).

Marital Status: Married people voted for Romney by 54/39 (15% split), versus singles for Obama by 56/35 (21% difference). Interestingly, white non-married people were perfectly balanced (45%/45%), but non-white non-married people almost exclusively voted for Obama (80%/11%). Married people, and non-married white people were more evenly divided.

Religion: Catholics were the most balanced group, voting for Obama by 50/48 (2% spread). Protestants chose Romney 57/42 (15% spread), Jews chose Obama 69/30 (39% spread), other faiths picked Obama 74/23 (51% spread) and the unaffiliated picked Obama 70/26 (44% spread). Mormons chose Romney (who was Mormon) by 78/21 (67% spread).

The most unbalanced group in the 2012 election were uneducated, young, single black women, who almost exclusively voted for Obama. The most evenly split group were older, working, married Catholic white men with some college education, who split very evenly for the two candidates.

But the liberal press continued along a narrative that old racist white men are the last holdouts for the Republican party. They made it sound that there aren’t real and legitimate policy differences between Democrats and Republicans – just people that are progressive-thinking and those that are racists.

This characterization started in earnest in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for president. He said that some people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In July 2016, Democrat Nancy Pelosi continued the same white male-bashing theme that “non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.”

Nancy Pelosi at the Democratic National Convention
(photo: Chad Rachman)

Liberals paint all white men in a monolithic camp, even though they are actually the only demographic that doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to vote in a simplified and unified manner. If Republicans would speak about single African-Americans in such a fashion (and there is statistical reason to do so), there would be a loud uproar.

Liberals biased treatment of white men is a gross disservice to genuine debate about how to govern and put in place policies that serve all Americans. In the 2016 election, where the candidates have only exchanged barbs about being “fit to serve,” the American people have truly been robbed of thoughtful discussion of important issues.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

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

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

Posted on November 6, 2016 by First.One.Through

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president has sought to portray her Republican challenger Donald Trump as a racist, and those that support him as racists. Both she and President Barack Obama should consider that those same people endorsed them as well.

David Duke

David Duke is a leader of the racist group the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and is currently running for the Senate from Louisiana. He proclaimed that he would be the “biggest supporter” of Trump from his position in Congress. Clinton used the endorsement as an opportunity to portray half of Trump supporters as “deplorables” who are “irredeemable.” In doing so, she sought to send a message that anyone that votes for Trump is either a “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” or is happy to associate with such people.

There is no question that David Duke deserves the charge of a deplorable and maintains the views that Clinton ascribed. However, it was that same David Duke that came out in favor of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. Should that have been a warning that the Democrats were advancing a deplorable deal?

Iran

Iran is listed by the US State Department as an official state sponsor of terror (one of only three countries with such designation). Iran celebrated the nuclear deal brokered by Obama. Does its support mean that Obama strengthened global terrorism?

Qatar

The government of Qatar supports Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist group whose goal is the complete destruction of a US ally, Israel.

But the Clinton Foundation was happy to accept a $1 million gift from Qatar in 2011, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Qatar government bought Bill Clinton’s former Vice President Al Gore’s cable channel, Current TV for $500 million in 2013. That deal netted Gore a personal gain of roughly $17 million. That channel and social media site, AJ+, continue to spew anti-Israel commentary and incite violence against Israel.

Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a well-earned reputation of falling into Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.” It is the only country in the world that received a ZERO for women’s empowerment by the World Economic Forum. It kills anyone that converts from Islam (apostasy), a right that is clearly protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The country also condemns people to death for homosexuality – even minors.

This deplorable country gave the Clinton Foundation well over $10 million according to PolitiFact.

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

The Washington Post listed many other problematic parties supporting Hillary Clinton, including Algeria, Kuwait and Oman. The Arab countries continue to support her candidacy.

Donald Trump did not solicit the endorsement of David Duke, but was nevertheless rebuked for not immediately distancing himself from the man (which Trump did do later). But Clinton hammered continuously on the campaign trail and in advertisements that Trump supporters were racists, misogynists, xenophobes and homophobes. (The last claim is pretty remarkable, as Trump stood before the entire Republican National Committee, and drew loud applause for his pro-gay comments).

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton actively courted the support of some of the most deplorable countries in the world, who are homophobic, anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist.

Does Clinton claim that any endorsement from a “deplorable” means that all all (or at least half) supporters are terrible as well? Hillary Clinton often claims that Russia supports Trump and is behind her email scandal. But that same Russia also supported the Iranian nuclear deal. Does she want us all to revisit that toxic deal negotiated by Obama, Kerry and herself?

As Clinton and Obama trash the “deplorable” Trump supporters, they should consider their own tainted glass houses, in which some of the worst deplorables in the world gave them direct financial support and endorsed their most controversial policies.

Related First.One.Through articles:

A Deplorable Definition

Al Jazeera (Qatar) Evicts Jews and Judaism from Jerusalem. Time to Return the Favor

An Easy Boycott: Al Jazeera (Qatar)

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis