Jews arrived in America in 1654. They came well after African Slaves who arrived between 1526 and 1619. They came and met the indigenous citizens of this America, already there.
Books would tell us that they integrated into American Society through a combination of civic activism, economic mobility, and cultural adaptation.
If the intention was not to imply Jewish genius and diligence in seeking unbounded assimilation, then they sure made the steps sound like the ABC’s of coming to America.
The notion that Slaves and Indigenous people could have appealed to anything, for anything, tells us the rung on the civil/civic ladder Jews were allowed to land on.
And this brings us to their access to American politics and their history of buying their political leaders through financial and related donations.
There’s a plethora of literature glamorizing America’s political alliance with 1948 Israel. The Israel Lobby, birthed out of a 1953 conflict between their soldiers who had massacred 60 Palestinian villagers, is a reveal on what the Lobby was founded upon.
That the Lobby’s foundational purpose was to ensure uninterrupted political and strategic support for Israel, remains countered/condemned by the continued massacre and displacement of Palestinians, now in year 2026.
And this history of Jewish influence in American politics and their strategic financial lobbies have now reached the door step of Hakeem Jeffries.
Jeffries’ support for election, as the country’s first-ever Black Speaker of the House and third in line to the President, is facing new scrutiny.
His endorsement is now being filtered through a recent surge of Democratic Party disdain. It is aimed at his financial backing by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Brooklyn Jewish entities.
Much of this criticism centers on workarounds to receive political donations that the Government – not Party– has created.
That’s the donation part.
We’ll now point to our highly publicized critiques of Jeffries as any kind of Speaker and refer to our consistent comments on him being soft on detail.
We’re never going to take away from his academic accomplishments or early political portfolio. But that never suggests oratorical excellence or sagacity in whipping and holding votes across a disparate caucus, collaborating with varying shades of democracy.
For the record, we applaud his use of the Magic Minute – the right to engage in extended presentation, which he did for 8 hours 44 minutes and 25 seconds in July of 2025.
The aim was noble because it addressed the socioeconomic needs of all Americans that the Trump Budget was stripping away in the name of Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
It was noble, too, because the Republican votes that gave him runway to lobby, were never grounded in commitment, but in temporary petulance, to show their constituents that they, too, could stand up to Trump, if only for eight hours.
The blowback is that it was this very platform that showcased Jeffries’ challenges to public speaking. Herein lies the dilemma for his title as Speaker of the House, is the opinion of many.
Add to this his public flogging for receiving Jewish money, as if it is a political prohibition that he has blasphemed against, when it has been and remains the norm for most every other politician.
It’s a selective persecution by the nontraditional arm of the Democrats, that comes with nouveau disdain for Israel and its status of untouchable, as it racks up war crimes.
That the political establishment has been sustained by Jewish money is irrelevant to these crusaders whose application of their standards is self defeating.
Jewish money is political oxygen. For it to be disqualifying for Jeffries is the equivalent to selective persecution.
And the money will happily be received by the Republican Party which will legislate around this new stream of income….in other words, craft policy to match funding.
Then there’s the intra-caucus factionalism created since Nancy Pelosi made him Heir- Apparent, which began his mentoring by other senior Democrats, à la Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn.
We learned that Jeffries, no shrinking violet, cross-lobbied Adam Schiff who was silently infiltrating senior membership with his desire to be named Leader of the Democratic Caucus, after Pelosi’s retirement.
Per Politico, Jeffries outmaneuvered Adam Schiff, by meeting with James Clyburn to express his interest in Caucus Leadership. It boiled down to 82 year old Nancy Pelosi passing the baton to the younger generation.
At 30 years younger, Jeffries presented with a few bonuses, not the least of which is him giving the Democratic Party the historic privilege of being the first to name the first, ever, Black Speaker of the House.
But the push back against his elevation remains a heightened endeavor from the Progressive Socialist Wing of the Democratic Party.
For context, the Democratic Party, founded in 1824 has re-calibrated, over centuries, to accommodate variations of its ideology that evolve to suit the times. The Dem-Socialist arm insists that, for Jeffries to earn their support, it’s their ideology or nothing.
It’s a zero-sum demand that’s tantamount to hostage taking. It’s, also, glaring ignorance of developmental progression in building a foundation that enhances the entity’s viability.
Jeffries’ meeting with Trump’s envoy and son in law is hardly a sell out– per the Dem Socialists– if this is Trump’s negotiator and conduit to the ruling Administration. Decrying Jeffries’ receipt of multiple millions in donations from various Jewish organizations is a biased yardstick when Jewish money is the fuel of American Politics.
And that’s one of the acts of ‘betrayal’ alluded to by the incoming Democratic House Lawmakers.
The difficulty of inter-meshing between the incoming Freshmen and the resident lawmakers is the absence of looking at the impact of history on contemporary congressional politics.
That may explain the ideological immediacy of the freshman zeal and its friction against the conventions of institutional practice.
Ohio Rep.-elect Don Leonard, has become famous for broadcasting his receipt of a warning of “living hell” if he did not support Jeffries’ bid for Speaker.
The understatement is, Leonard famously unseated Congressman Carey who was deemed unfavorable for being a staunch recipient of AIPAC (Jewish) money.
And, as a candidate who ran on campaign finance reform, it is scandalous for him, Leonard, to represent a naive understanding of the Jewish Lobby ‘s impact on American Politics.
The reality is that American Government is steeped in Jewish money which buys American policy to favor Israel and Jewish desires. And this questions whether the Party’s operational mechanics are not part of Candidate orientation, before being fielded for higher office.
The militancy of denouncing AIPAC recipients as if they were political lepers is at odds with the culture of America’s politics that is steadfastly partial to Israel, Jews and Jewish policy.
The evolution of the Democratic Party’s ideology to accommodate the varying shades of Democracy seems to be lagging behind the pace of change. Signs of institutional strain manifest in candidates like Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who has declared martyrdom in not automatically supporting Jeffries for Leader.
His vote will be earned if Jeffries commits to addressing key issues, he says, including a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and ending US support for Israel and the war in Iran.
It’s an embarrassing kind of naivete that comes with the label ‘freshman’…except his election makes him a lawmaker who has no time to be fresh.
Jeffries, on the other hand, with his oratory handicaps, has to game out things like the Constitutional Amendment and the Citizens United Decision to gain the support of the Don Leonards in his caucus. It’s a game of catch up by both the historical ideologues and contemporary practitioners.
Freshmen arrive with brimming enthusiasm, ready to spend their currency of purity tests, claiming electoral mandate to do so.
The old guard, cured by the time machine of institutional practice, look past their enthusiasm as idealism and begin to whip votes to get the machine functioning.
It’s not disrespect. It’s freshman irrational exuberance. And based on the centuries the custom of tweaking past practice has survived, Jeffries may win the role of Speaker, hands down.
The dilemma, in our opinion, will be that effective messaging will be shortchanged by a combination of his strange hand flailing, with oddly recited one-liners from rappers, which will render his messages mute.
