The Beginning of the End for the Establishment-led Democratic National Committee

Posted on August 6, 2026 by First.One.Through

For a decade, Democratic leaders have sought to preserve control of their party. Each decision made sense in the moment. Together, they have steadily eroded the confidence of both the activist base and, increasingly, the donor class.

The first crack appeared in 2016.

Bernie Sanders inspired millions of Democrats with a vision that challenged the party’s Clinton-era consensus. Yet the Democratic establishment rallied behind Hillary Clinton. Leaked DNC emails and the resignation of Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz convinced many progressives that party insiders—not Democratic voters—were choosing the nominee.

And maybe the DNC’s action could have been excused had Hillary won. But she lost to Donald Trump.

Rather than disappear, the Sanders movement organized.

In 2017, former Sanders organizers founded Justice Democrats with a simple mission: elect a new generation of progressive Democrats and replace incumbents they believed had become too close to corporate donors. The movement was no longer asking for influence. It was organizing for control.

A year later, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress and a presumed future Speaker of the House. At the same time, the Democratic Socialists of America expanded from a fringe organization into a national political force.

For years, party leaders dismissed these victories as isolated upsets. They can win in Brooklyn. They can win in Berkeley. But they cannot win statewide.

So the Democratic establishment continue to abuse its base. It lied to the country that President Joe Biden was fit for office long after it was clear he was not. The party leaders then coronated Vice President Kamala Harris to be the party nominee for president without a vote, in what many viewed as an act of treachery.

And now, Michigan has proven that the local alt-left phenomenon is much larger than the DNC pretended.

Representative Haley Stevens was exactly the kind of pragmatic, mainstream Democrat the party once expected to lead its next generation. Her defeat by Abdul El-Sayed, backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, suggests the insurgency has moved beyond city councils and safe House districts. It is now capturing statewide nominations in one of America’s most important swing states, predominantly with the support of young people who are turning out to vote in record figures.

Now even the donors are beginning to revolt.

According to a recent Politico report, major Democratic donors are openly questioning the direction and competence of the Democratic National Committee. Fundraising has weakened. Confidence has faded. One longtime donor summarized the mood in four words: “It’s beyond embarrassing.”

At the same time, the party’s ideological center has moved toward jihadists.

For generations, military support for Israel during wartime against those seeking its destruction was a bipartisan assumption. During Israel’s current multi-front war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran itself, most congressional Democrats voted to block or condition additional military assistance. A position that would have been unimaginable when Barack Obama entered office has become increasingly mainstream within today’s Democratic coalition.

Trashing Israel has even become a primary tool to get out young voters on social media.

The struggle inside the Democratic Party is no longer about one primary, one chairman, or one election cycle.

The DNC establishment that repeatedly tried to manage its succession is undergoing a hostile takeover by the far-left. The donor class got the message and is leaving. Only older lifelong Democrats seem blind to the transformation of the party, or unable or unwilling to vote Republican to turn the tide.

Hamas and the DSA: Ideology + Grassroots Mobilization to Power + Destruction (January 2026)

Racism In The Old and Antisemitism In The Youth (February 2024)

New York’s Supermajority: The Real Election Is the Legislature

Posted on July 28, 2026 by First.One.Through

Worried about New York City Mayor Mamdani’s politics going statewide and national? You need to do a lot more than show up to a protest with placards.

New York is not simply a Democratic state. It is a Democratic supermajority state.

The governor, Governor Kathy Hochul is a Democrat. Democrats hold 41 of the State Senate’s 63 seats and 103 of the Assembly’s 150 seats—more than enough for a veto-proof supermajority in the Assembly and just one seat shy of one in the Senate. The practical result is that currently, Republicans have little ability to force negotiation or compromise. The state’s most important political debates now occur almost entirely within the Democratic Party.

That is critical at a moment like this.

When organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) succeed in electing candidates or moving Democratic primaries to the far-left, the effects are no longer confined to activist circles. Ideas that gain traction within the Democratic caucus can become state policy without needing bipartisan support. Whether the issue is criminal justice, taxation, housing, energy, education, labor regulation, or Israel policy, the decisive battle is often the Democratic primary, not the general election.

This does not mean every progressive proposal becomes law. Democratic legislators disagree on many issues. But a supermajority means there are fewer institutional checks when one faction gains influence.

For New Yorkers who want a different direction than being advanced by the DSA and NYC Mayor Mamdani, the answer is not simply to oppose legislation after it is introduced. It is to change the composition of the Legislature itself.

That is why a relatively small number of competitive districts carry outsized importance this year.

Competitive legislative races do more than elect a senator or assemblymember. They build volunteer networks, raise money, increase turnout, and strengthen candidates throughout the ticket.

Congressman Mike Lawler’s race in the Hudson Valley is a prime example. His campaign in New York’s 17th Congressional District is again expected to be one of the nation’s most competitive House races. A strong Republican legislative effort in the region can reinforce his campaign, just as a strong Lawler campaign can help Republican candidates for the State Senate and Assembly. The same dynamic applies across Long Island, Staten Island, and other competitive suburban districts.

Among the key legislative opportunities Republicans will target are suburban Senate districts on Long Island and in the Hudson Valley, along with competitive Assembly districts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Staten Island, Monroe County, Onondaga County, and the Capital Region.

Every election cycle, voters are told that one legislative seat cannot make much difference. In New York, the opposite is true.

A handful of seats in New York’s election can determine whether the Legislature remains a near-unchecked trifecta supermajority allowing radical far-left motions to become law or becomes a body where broader consensus is once again required. Those races will shape not only who governs in Albany, but how New York is governed.

How New York City Was Lost

Posted on June 25, 2026 by First.One.Through

There was a time when many New Yorkers dismissed the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) as a fringe movement. Their rallies were loud. Their rhetoric was provocative. But surely the city that built Wall Street, welcomed millions of immigrants, and was attacked on September 11 would never hand real political power to a movement whose rhetoric after October 7 shocked so many Americans.

Rally in Times Square the day after the massacre of 1,200 people in Israel and abduction of 251.

Yet here we are.

The new mayor is part of the DSA. DSA-backed candidates continue to win elections across New York City.

This is not merely a debate over tax rates or rent control. After Hamas murdered more than 1,200 Israelis on October 7, the New York City chapter of DSA helped organize demonstrations almost immediately afterward. Slogans and statements in Times Square celebrated the attack as “resistance” and chanted for it to continue “long live the Intifada!” DSA-NYC had long argued that Israeli civilians should not be viewed as innocent because they were participants in a “settler-colonial” society.

One might have expected that such rhetoric would permanently marginalize it. Instead, it grew. How?

Because its opponents fought the wrong war.

Organizations such as AIPAC concentrated enormous resources on defeating individual candidates where the ground game already indicated it could win. Sometimes they succeeded spectacularly. Millions of dollars were spent. Headlines proclaimed another victory over the anti-Israel Left.

But every expensive primary also reinforced the story DSA wanted to tell.

They were no longer simply neighborhood activists. They became the underdogs standing up to a wealthy political establishment. Every television advertisement became another fundraising email. Every outside dollar became another recruiting tool. Every victory over one candidate left the movement itself intact and often stronger.

AIPAC won campaigns but DSA built a movement.

Politics is ultimately about culture before it is about elections. Elections simply reveal where the culture already stands.

While establishment organizations measured success by defeating a particular candidate, DSA measured success by opening another neighborhood chapter, training another organizer, recruiting another volunteer, and persuading another generation that its worldview represented justice.

The results are now visible. A virtual sweep of DSA candidates in New York this week.

New York did not suddenly become socialist. It was organized into becoming more receptive to socialist candidates over many years. One neighborhood at a time. One group at a time.

J Street spent considerable time and effort over the past few years bashing AIPAC to build better alliances with the far-left. Now that multiple anti-Israel extremists have entered office while effectively echoing J Street’s smears of AIPAC, the left-wing “pro-Israel” group stayed mum and didn’t print a single press release.

That should be the lesson – not only for those who support Israel, but for anyone concerned about the city’s future.

Money can influence an election. It cannot substitute for a movement.

If New York is to change course, it will not happen because one organization writes larger checks. It will happen because people who believe in liberal democracy, civic responsibility, pluralism, and the moral distinction between murdering civilians and defending them begin organizing with the same patience and persistence that their opponents have displayed for years.

*Jacobin lead is that Socialists defeated “AIPAC, racism” before anything else*

Cities are not lost in a single election. They are lost one neighborhood at a time.

Overwinning (Sept 2025)

The Richest Campaign in Congress Still Wants Your Money

Posted on June 11, 2026 by First.One.Through

A text message arrived from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asking for money.

The appeal struck her familiar tone of class warfare.

“I don’t spend hours every day calling wealthy people to ask them for money,” she wrote. “No call time with wealthy donors or billionaires.” Instead, she said, her campaign is powered by “regular people giving what they can.”

The imagery is deliberate: a grassroots insurgent taking on powerful interests.

The reality is that that Ocasio-Cortez is so 2018. Today, she has become one of the most powerful fundraising forces in American politics.

According to campaign finance disclosures, she has raised roughly $27.5 million this election cycle—more than the two largest Republican House fundraisers combined. Nearly 88% of that money came from outside New York. Even the portion of her fundraising that comes from larger individual donors totals roughly $8.4 million, a figure that by itself would rank among the strongest fundraising efforts in New York politics.

Those are not the numbers of a beleaguered local fighter. They are the numbers of the richest campaign in the nation.

The irony becomes even sharper later in the appeal. Ocasio-Cortez warns supporters that one of her primary opponent is “a former Wall Street banker.”

The phrase is meant to tell readers everything they need to know: Wall Street. Banker. Establishment.

But AOC is the money. She’s the power in politics. She’s the institutional heavyweight.

That is what makes the fundraising appeal so jarring. Millions of Americans are struggling with rent, mortgages, groceries, tuition, insurance bills, and credit-card debt. Yet the wealthiest campaign in Congress continues to ask ordinary people for another $5, pretending that it’s the underdog.

Before Palestinians Can Hold an Election, They Must Decide Who Is Palestinian

Posted on June 5, 2026 by First.One.Through

On November 1, 2026, Palestinians are scheduled to elect a new Palestinian National Council (PNC), the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Before they can choose their leaders, however, they must answer a more fundamental question: Who gets to vote?

The PNC claims to represent Palestinians everywhere, not merely those living in the West Bank and Gaza. Its members help determine the leadership and direction of the Palestinian national movement itself. The question of voter eligibility is therefore inseparable from the question of who is represented.

The new electoral framework approved by President Mahmoud Abbas reserves 200 seats for Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, and 150 seats for the diaspora.

The allocation itself reveals a dilemma.

The Palestinian national movement claims to represent over fourteen million people worldwide. Yet more than nine million live outside the territories. A fully proportional system could allow voters in Jordan, Europe, North America, and elsewhere to dominate institutions that claim to represent Palestinians living in Ramallah, Hebron, Nablus, and Gaza. The 200-150 split appears to give preference to those who live with the consequences of Palestinian political decisions over the larger voices from around the world.

That raises a more difficult question.

Who qualifies as Palestinian?

Should Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin – like Queen Rania – vote? What about Americans, Canadians, or Europeans whose grandparents left the region decades ago? How many generations removed from Palestine remain eligible?

*Queen Rania of Jordan, also a Palestinian*

The question may be most consequential in Jordan, where millions of people of Palestinian origin – estimated at 70% of the population – already participate in the political life of another state. Would Jordanian citizens vote in elections for a body that claims to represent Palestinians globally? If so, how many generations removed from Palestine remain eligible?

The question becomes even more complicated inside Israel.

Roughly two million Israeli Arabs vote in Israeli elections and participate in Israeli political life. Many also identify as Palestinian. Will they vote in elections for the Palestinian National Council?

Jerusalem creates an additional complication. Palestinian leaders seek participation from Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem, which they view as part of a future Palestinian state. Israel considers Jerusalem part of Israel, and many Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem hold Israeli citizenship.

If eastern Jerusalem residents vote while Arab citizens of Israel elsewhere do not, Palestinian leaders will be drawing distinctions that many people may find difficult to explain. Why should an Israeli citizen in eastern Jerusalem participate while an Israeli citizen in Haifa, Nazareth, Acre, or Jaffa cannot?

*Arabs in the Old City of Jerusalem. Some are Israeli citizens while others only residents. Who will be invited to participate in Palestinian elections? (photo: First One Through)*

The Jerusalem question raises another issue Palestinian leaders will eventually have to address.

If current residency in eastern Jerusalem or the West Bank is enough to qualify someone to participate in Palestinian national elections, what about the hundreds of thousands of Jews who live in those same areas?

Palestinian leaders consider eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank part of the territory of a future Palestinian state. More than 700,000 Israeli Jews live there today. Will any of them be eligible to vote for the Palestinian National Council?

The issue extends beyond contemporary residents. Before 1948, the term Palestinian was often used in a geographic sense. Jews living in Mandatory Palestine carried Palestinian passports and considered themselves Palestinian.

A descendant of an Arab family that left Jaffa, Haifa, or Jerusalem generations ago may be eligible to vote despite never having lived there. A descendant of a Jewish family that lived continuously in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, or Tiberias for centuries almost certainly will not be allowed to participate in PNC elections.

The distinction reveals that eligibility is not based solely on current residence, geography, or even historical presence in the land. The electorate is being defined through a more specific combination of ancestry, identity, and connection to a particular historical community.

For decades, Palestinian leaders have often left the boundaries of Palestinian identity deliberately broad. Political movements can operate with ambiguity. Elections cannot.

The voter rolls will reveal whether Palestinian nationhood is principally based on residence, citizenship, ancestry, ethnicity, geography, national affiliation, or some combination of all six. Ethnicity alone cannot fully explain the answer. Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and many others share substantial linguistic, cultural, familial, and ethnic ties. The decisive factor appears to be a connection to a particular place and to people who lived there at a particular moment in history.

That is what makes the exercise so unusual. A Palestinian born in Chile, Canada, or the United States may qualify because a grandparent once lived in Jaffa or Jerusalem. A Jordanian or Syrian whose family never lived in Mandatory Palestine may not qualify despite sharing many of the same cultural and ethnic characteristics. A Jew – regardless of where he currently or historically lived – may be excluded.

Every eligibility rule will draw a line. Some people will be included while others will be excluded. Every decision will reveal how Palestinian leaders understand nationality, citizenship, ancestry, and belonging.

In many ways, Palestinians are attempting something few modern national movements have ever attempted: defining a political nation across multiple countries, generations, and citizenships while simultaneously deciding who belongs to it.

Imagine a movement claiming to represent all Black people whose families lived in North Carolina before 1948. Descendants living in California, London, or Johannesburg could vote even if they had never visited the state. Non-Black current residents of North Carolina could not. The electorate would be defined by ancestry tied to a place and a moment in history.

Whether one finds that model compelling or problematic, the Palestinian election will force its architects to explain where they draw those lines.

Whatever rules emerge, millions of people will discover whether they are considered part of the Palestinian political nation, observers of it, or something in between.

Most elections choose leaders. This election may do something far rarer: define the nation itself.

Before Palestinians can elect their leaders, they must first answer a more difficult question:

Who is a Palestinian?

How Safe Districts Turn Fringe Candidates Into Members of Congress

Posted on June 3, 2026 by First.One.Through

One of the most important political developments in America is happening long before Election Day.

Across the country, congressional districts have become so politically lopsided that the general election is often a foregone conclusion. The real contest takes place in party primaries, where turnout is lower, activists are more influential, and crowded fields can allow candidates to prevail with only a fraction of the vote.

New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District offers a striking example.

The district is one of the safest Democratic seats in the state. Thirteen Democrats entered the race to succeed Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman. When the votes were counted, Adam Hamawy emerged victorious with roughly a quarter of the vote. In most elections, winning 25 percent would mean defeat. In a heavily gerrymandered district where the Democratic primary effectively determines the winner, it may be enough to send someone to Congress.

*Egyptian-born Adam Hamawy wins Democratic primary in NJ12 with backing of popular anti-Israel streamer Hasan Piker and alt-left politicians Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez*

That reality changes the type of candidates who can reach Washington.

Candidates who would struggle to build broad support across an entire electorate can succeed by assembling a passionate faction within a low-turnout primary. Once nominated in a safe district, they often face little risk in November.

Hamawy’s victory illustrates the dynamic.

Critics pointed to Hamawy’s testimony as a defense witness for jihadist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” convicted for his role in terrorist plots linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They highlighted his volunteer work in Bosnia with the Benevolence International Foundation, an organization later shut down after investigators linked it to Al Qaeda. They questioned statements he made during the Blind Sheikh trial and raised concerns about past associations with individuals and organizations connected to radical Islamist movements.

Controversies like these that would likely receive intense scrutiny in a competitive district carried relatively little political cost in a race where winning roughly one quarter of a divided primary electorate may be sufficient to secure a seat in Congress.

The problem is not unique to Democrats. Deep-red districts have produced candidates whose views would struggle in a competitive statewide race. Deep-blue districts increasingly do the same. The common factor is not ideology. It is political geography.

Competitive districts reward coalition builders. Safe districts reward faction leaders.

Every society contains fringe movements. The question is whether political institutions force those movements to persuade a broader public before gaining power.

When candidates must compete for swing voters, controversial ideas are subjected to wider scrutiny. When victory depends on energizing a narrow slice of primary voters, the incentives change. Candidates can thrive by appealing to activists rather than assembling broad coalitions.

This feels much like social media. Inside echo chambers, radical ideas become normalized. As algorithms reward engagement, more extreme ideas ultimately push out the normalized-radical in the quest for eyeballs. Moderation is lost, and dissent is met with expulsion.

Ideological social media communities are the online equivalent of heavily gerrymandered deeply blue or red districts.

That dynamic helps explain a puzzle in modern American politics.

Polls consistently show that overt antisemitism remains a minority view in the United States. Yet some of the most visible antisemitic and anti-Israel voices in American politics emerge from districts where the decisive election is the primary rather than the general election.

Most Americans do not spend their time vilifying Jews, questioning Jewish belonging, or treating the world’s only Jewish state as uniquely illegitimate. Yet politicians can gain prominence by appealing to activist networks – online around the nation and local physically – where those themes carry political currency.

That does not mean those views represent America. It means they do not need to represent America; only enough primary voters in enough safe districts.

The same political system that elevated Adam Hamawy in New Jersey has elevated figures such as Rashida Tlaib and, on the Republican side, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Their ideologies differ dramatically, but the electoral formula is remarkably similar. A candidate builds an intense following within a safe district, wins a primary, and arrives in Congress with little need to appeal beyond that niche radical base.

NOVEMBER 30, 2018: (L-R) Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MN), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) take questions during a news conference about Islamophobia. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The result is a Congress increasingly populated by politicians whose views are more representative of the most motivated primary voters than of the broader American public.

The problem is bigger than any one candidate. It is a system in which winning 25 percent of a primary electorate can matter more than winning the confidence of the country.

ACTION ITEM

Demand a change to primaries.

Any election in which the winning candidate fails to receive 40% of the vote automatically requires a run-off between the two highest vote getters
Stop radical gerrymandering and mid-decade gerrymandering
Enable open primaries in which everyone can vote, regardless of party afiliation
Institute ranked-choice voting, especially in races with more than four people running
Ban entities that negotiate with municipalities (like teacher unions) from endorsing or donating to candidates

Vote ‘No’ On New York’s Proposition 1

Posted on October 22, 2024 by First.One.Through

New York State is putting forward a proposal on the November ballot to change the state’s constitution. Specifically, it adds categories of “protected classes” and enables judges to override them if they feel that a situation is warranted.

The text reads:

Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to section 11 of article 1 of the constitution, in relation to equal protection

Section 1. Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That section 11 of article 1 of the constitution be amended to read as follows:

§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.

b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.

§ 2. Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That the foregoing amendment be submitted to the people for approval at the general election to be held in the year 2024 in accordance with the provisions of the election law.

Explanation – Matter in underscored is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.

New York State is a Democratic super-majority trifecta: The Democratic Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature, of Assembly (100 to 48) and Senate (42-21). Democrats are using their muscle to push forward a controversial proposal which sounds benign but gives judges wide latitude to advance preferred classes of people over others.

Advocates for the constitutional amendment like Governor Hochul argue that its about abortion rights. Yet many have written articles suggesting that such argument is absurd as New York already amended the constitution to permit an abortion until the moment of birth for any reason. Asian New Yorkers see the proposition as “reverse racism” which will kick qualified Asian students out of better schools in favor of preferred minorities. Others argue that this is a “pernicious” attempt to “throw out the New York human rights act,” in favor of pushing DEI everywhere (diversity, equity and inclusion).

Religious institutions are alarmed by the proposition and urging voters to vote ‘no.’

The president of Houghton University, a 141-year-old Christian university, said “the proposed amendments to the state constitution would adversely affect our institution, our students and our employees. The most significant of those adverse effects are related to parental rights, women’s athletics and religious liberty…. Proposal 1 and other similar inclusion measures overstep constitutional religious liberty protections when they prevent people of faith from freely exercising their religion. It is not inclusive to force people of faith to believe or behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs, to force them to raise their children in a manner that contradicts their religious beliefs, or for the state to attempt to raise their children in a manner that contradicts their religious beliefs while hiding state actions from their parents.”

Jewish institutions are similarly against the proposition, with Agudath Israel releasing a statement on October 15 urging everyone to reject the amendment to the constitution.

The Empire Center produced a detailed and balanced analysis of equal rights laws and the ramification of Prop 1. It concluded that the language in this proposition is so vague that it will pit one class of protected persons against another, spur constant litigation and give judges tremendous leeway to create policy of their personal preferences. It suggested that New Yorkers vote ‘no’ and “hold out for an equal rights amendment that solves more problems than it creates.”

The Deep Blue super-majority trifecta of New York State government is attempting to upend protections that have existed since 1938 to enforce DEI mandates in every aspect of New Yorker’s day-to-day lives. Vote ‘no’ to Proposition 1 and send a clear message that New Yorkers reject the government pitting citizens against each other.

‘Tis The Season To Vote And Donate Jewish (April 2024)

Vote To Sanctify The Separation Of Powers (November 2022)

Vote Purple (October 2020)

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist (November 2018)

The Most Important Congressional Races For Your Engagement

Posted on September 15, 2024 by First.One.Through

American citizens in 43 states will have no say on the presidential election in November 2024. Seven “purple” states – Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Nevada (6), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19) and Wisconsin (10) – with a collective total of 93 electoral votes, will ultimately decide the election. All of the other states are deeply Democratic or Republican so an individual’s vote there will not change anything, despite how vocal or passionately they feel about the candidates.

It does not mean that there is nothing for the vast majority of Americans to do.

For those who are moderate and do not want to see the country continue its divisive path towards the fringes, it is incumbent to try to help separate the party of Congress from that of the presidency. That means, that as Democratic nominee Vice President Harris continues to gain momentum and looks to secure the White House, people should try to ensure that Republicans are the majority in the House and/or Senate to avoid a Democratic administration tacking to the socialist-jihadi extreme of the party.

House of Representatives

The current split in the House of Representatives is 221 Republicans and 213 Democrats. Of these, fifteen are running for a different office (12 of which are Democrats), fourteen are retiring (8 of whom are Democrats) and three are resigning (1 Democrat).

Roll Call identified ten of the most contested races in the House of Representatives; I have added one more, NY17. In every race, the pro-Israel bipartisan lobbying group AIPAC endorsed the incumbent, of which seven are Republican. Those races are (incumbent listed first, AIPAC endorsed in bold, Republicans endorsed by AIPAC in red):

NY22: Brandon Williams (R) v. John Mannion (D)
CA13: John Duarte (R) v. Adam Gray (D)
NY4: Anthony D’Esposito (R) v. Laura Gillen (D)
WA3: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) v. Joe Kent (R)
NC1: Don Davis (D) v. Laurie Buckhout (R)
OR5: Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R) v. Janelle Bynum (D)
NE2: Don Bacon (R) v. Tony Vargas (D)
AK: Mary Peltola (D) v. Nick Begich (R)
CA27: Mike Garcia (R) v. George Whitesides (D)
PA8: Matt Cartwright (D) v. Rob Bresnahan (R)
NY17: Mike Lawler (R) v. Mondaire Jones (D)

Senate

The Senate is currently divided with 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. According to Bloomberg, “of the 34 Senate elections currently scheduled for 2024, Democrats and allied Independents are the defending party in 23 contests, while the Republicans are defending just 11 seats. Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio are all up for re-election in states President Joe Biden lost in 2020. Trump won all 10 states where Republicans are defending Senate seats, all but two of them by double-digit percentage-point margins. Nebraska will have two races in 2024, including a special election triggered by the resignation of Ben Sasse (R).”

According to Real Clear Polling, there are seven toss up races in the Senate in 2024. They are:

Arizona: [open] Ruben Gallego (D) v. Kari Lake (R)
Florida: Rick Scott (R) v. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D)
Maryland: [open] Larry Hogan (R) v. Angela Alsobrooks (D)
Michigan: [open] Elissa Slotkin (D) v. Mike Rogers (R)
Montana: Jon Tester (D) v. Tim Sheehy (R)
Ohio: Sherrod Brown (D) v. Bernie Moreno (R)
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey (D) v. Dave McCormick (R)

In the Senate races, AIPAC again endorsed all incumbents but one – Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a definite red flag. There are three open races without an incumbent and AIPAC remained on the sidelines in each. In the open contests, Michigan is the tightest race according to recent polls, with Rogers pointing to Slotkin’s ties to shrill antisemite and anti-Zionist Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

In summary, the top ten races people should get behind to stem the anti-Israel and antisemitic tide are: Bacon (NE2); Chavez-DeRemer (OR5); D’Esposito (NY4); Duarte (CA13); Garcia (CA27); Lawler (NY17); Williams (NY22); and in the Senate, Moreno (OH), Rogers (MI) and Scott (FL).

Runner-up to the top ten is also a somewhat tight race in NJ7 where incumbent Tom Kean (R) is running against Sue Altman (D).

To be clear, I am not suggesting that these individuals have great records overall; I am saying that a balanced Congress is the best antidote for extremist policies, and donating or volunteering for these candidates may provide a path for a more moderate administration.

One can donate to the candidates via the AIPACPAC portal. The two non-AIPAC endorsed candidates should be contacted directly at Mike Rogers and Bernie Moreno. Volunteering should also be done directly at the person’s website. Early action is highly recommended, as it takes time to build the local momentum needed to win these races.

A Democratic-Majority Congress Would Not Investigate Antisemitism At Colleges (July 2024)

‘Tis The Season To Vote And Donate Jewish (April 2024)

Vote To Sanctify The Separation Of Powers (November 2022)

Vote Purple (October 2020)

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist (November 2018)

Let’s Make America VOTE Again (November 2016)

Jamaal Bowman Is Not Progressive, He’s Divisive

Posted on June 6, 2024 by First.One.Through

Mondaire Jones, a former congressman who served lower Westchester, came out against the incumbent Jamaal Bowman, saying the time had come to “rebuke the extremists that some would have take over the Democratic Party.”

Jones is a black, gay progressive, and made clear that Bowman represents a fringe element advanced by revolutionary groups that seek to tear the country apart, and not part of a liberal tradition.

Jones’s point rings true for Westchester County, where Biden beat Trump in 2020 by 67.6% to 31.3%. The county is liberal but not ‘burn it down’ woke radical like Bowman.

Would a progressive mock women who were raped to a chanting crowd, the way Bowman did on the streets of White Plains?

Would a progressive taunt a small minority-minority, a fraction of the size of the country’s Black and Hispanic population, the way Bowman does?

Would a progressive be hostile and ignore of a minority group which suffers more hate crimes than any other group in the United States, as Bowman does repeatedly?

The National Black Empowerment Action Fund is embarrassed by the divisive actions of Jamaal Bowman. The group just donated half a million dollars to his opponent, a 70-year old white man, Westchester County Executive George Latimer. The founder of the group said “we could have stayed out of it, but the need was too great, the sense of urgency was too high. We’re trying to champion an effort to help amplify the voices of black voters who are focused on safe communities, good-paying jobs, driving down the cost of living, having school choice for their kids, healthcare and just realizing better life outcomes, and it’s going to take responsible leadership that’s keenly focused on those priorities as opposed to far-flung ideologies and agendas.”

Bowman’s agenda and ideology has more than a tinge of Jew hatred.

White Plains Councilman Justin Brasch said about Bowman “I have felt antisemitism from him. I felt such a strong degree of antagonism towards the Jewish community and its leadership that, yes, it feels antisemitic and insensitive.”

Bowman has called Republicans “Nazis,” as has his staff in attempting to divert attention away from Bowman’s pulling a fire alarm. It is an insult not only to the targeted individuals but Jews who consider the casual usage of the term a form of Holocaust denial.

*Jamaal Bowman defended the antisemitic comments of Rep. Rashida Tlaib by calling Republicans racists, cold and stupid, November 7, 2023*

Bowman embraces his position as an extremist. In May 2023 he scolded President Biden saying “I’m concerned because the president has, every now and then, moved to the right, if you will, to acquiesce to a so-called independent voter.” His hyper-partisan voting record places well outside of the mainstream, which is why the far-left group Justice Democrats made Bowman the top recipient of their funding in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles.

People are signing petitions to groups like Planned Parenthood to pull their endorsement of the rape denier Bowman. They are turning out to canvas and donate to the Latimer campaign to toss Bowman from office.

Jamaal Bowman is not progressive; he is a censured, highly-divisive congressman who is an embarrassment to his constituents and the entire country.

Jamaal Bowman Is Unfit To Serve In Congress

Why Did Jamaal Bowman Fly To Virginia To Fundraise With Hamas’ Backers?

Demand Planned Parenthood Rescind Endorsement of Rape Denier Jamaal Bowman

Jamaal Bowman Is The Complete Package No One Wants

Are Bowman Friends In City Government Stealing Latimer Lawn Signs?

Posted on May 13, 2024 by First.One.Through

Westchester County Executive George Latimer has broad support among the residents of lower Westchester County who have known him to be a tireless advocate for decades. They have adorned their lawns with signs showing their support in his congressional race in New York’s 16th Congressional District which has a Democratic primary on June 25.

But the Latimer signs keep disappearing.

All over White Plains, people are taking down signs for George Latimer, whether they are one feet or ten feet from the curb.

Residents have been taking pictures using cameras as well as capturing stills from video surveillance of people climbing onto lawns and pulling out signs. Seemingly, some of the people removing signs have been from the White Plains Code of Enforcement.

According to a representative in the department, they remove signs when they are located in the city’s “right of way” which can be up to eight feet from the curb.

But the city is doing this very selectively, leaving non-political signs up while taking away George Latimer signs.

*Several signs left untouched while Latimer signs were removed from lawn next door which were the same distance from the curb*

Some Latimer supporters have had signs taken multiple times and are resorting to nailing their signs onto trees.

*Several realtor and construction signs left by city while Latimer signs next door removed*

The White Plains Code of Enforcement (914) 422-1208, said that they placed all of the removed Latimer signs in the Recycling Center at 85 Gedney Way, but they would not explain why they left so many other non-political signs in place.

Are Jamaal Bowman’s supporters robbing constituents of their free speech rights and stealing Latimer signs? Bowman has long proven himself to be an embarrassment and unfit to serve in Congress and his actions continue to draw the ire of the people in the district. Bowman’s supporters are further fueling anger against the unhinged incumbent.

ACTION ITEM

Early mail-in ballots can be requested at: https://ballotapplication.elections.ny.gov/home/earlymail