The record is not ambiguous.

In 2012, before she reached Congress, Ilhan Omar wrote that Israel had “hypnotized the world” and asked God to “open the eyes of the people to its evil doings.” She later apologized. In February 2019, as a sitting member, she answered a question about pro-Israel lobbying with “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” then named AIPAC. Democratic leaders, including Nancy Pelosi, demanded she reject antisemitism. She apologized and immediately reaffirmed the charge. Weeks later she said advocates for Israel were pushing “allegiance to a foreign country” — the dual-loyalty smear, aimed this time at American Jews and their allies. In 2021 she grouped the United States and Israel with Hamas and the Taliban as perpetrators of “unthinkable atrocities.” A dozen Jewish House Democrats rebuked her. She said she had not meant a moral equivalence. The pattern is the point: the trope, the ritual apology, the restatement.

Rashida Tlaib made the slogan explicit. After Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre — about 1,200 people murdered, more than 200 taken hostage, civilians burned and raped — she amplified “from the river to the sea” and called it “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence.” The Anti-Defamation League and a long list of Jewish organizations hear that line as a call to erase the Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. So did fellow Democrats. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, called the post cruel. Senator Jacky Rosen said it rejects a two-state outcome and puts Jews in danger. In November 2023 the House censured Tlaib, 234–188. Twenty-two Democrats voted yes. One hundred eighty-four voted no. In April 2024, a resolution declaring the slogan antisemitic drew 43 Democratic no votes, including Omar, Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, and Cori Bush.

This is not a dispute about settlements or Netanyahu. It is a dispute about whether a Jewish country is allowed to exist.

The organizational left that feeds the party has been blunter. Chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America responded to October 7 by framing the massacre as resistance. The Salt Lake City chapter said it was “not terrorism or anti-semitism to fight against this injustice.” Pittsburgh’s chapter said violent opposition was inevitable and that the conflict ends only if the “apartheid regime is lifted from the river to the sea.” New York DSA promoted a rally in Times Square the day after the slaughter. In an August 2026 interview with The New Yorker, DSA national co-chair Megan Romer said she “probably would have” gone, called October 7 “largely inevitable,” described Gaza as an “open-air concentration camp,” and said any U.S. defense or economic support for Israel is a “solid red line.” She described the DSA’s end state as a free Palestine with its capital in Jerusalem — a one-state outcome. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman condemned the immediate post-massacre rallies. The machine that endorsed them did not change its line. Ocasio-Cortez later lost the DSA’s endorsement after sitting on an antisemitism panel and backing Iron Dome funding.

The base has followed the activists, not the old foreign-policy hands. Gallup reported in February 2025 that only 33 percent of Democrats viewed Israel favorably and 60 percent viewed it unfavorably — the first time a major-party group had crossed into majority hostility. Republican favorability sat at 83 percent. By early 2025, Gallup also found 59 percent of Democrats sympathizing more with the Palestinians and 21 percent more with the Israelis. A later Quinnipiac reading put the share of Democrats who believed Israel had committed genocide at 77 percent, with only 13 percent sympathizing more with Israelis. Pew has tracked a parallel drop in Democratic favorability toward the Israeli people themselves, not just the government. Treating “the Israeli people” as the object of dislike is not a policy argument. It is collective blame.

Jewish voters have noticed, and most of them have not left. A Jewish Electorate Institute survey found Democrats still leading 71–23 on the generic congressional ballot among Jewish voters, with 69 percent identifying as Democrats. The same voters said antisemitism is increasing inside the Democratic Party — 57 percent overall — and 35 percent of Jewish Democrats said the rise of anti-Israel candidates has made it harder to identify as Democrats. They are staying in a house that keeps telling them the smoke is just criticism of a foreign prime minister.

The street has been less theoretical. The ADL logged 9,354 antisemitic incidents in 2024, the highest total in 46 years of tracking, and 6,274 in 2025 — a one-third drop from the peak, still the third-highest year on record and about five times the level of a decade earlier. Nearly half of the 2025 incidents were tied to Israel or Zionism. Assaults with a deadly weapon rose. In May 2025, Elias Rodriguez shot and killed two Israeli embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington. Witnesses said he pulled out a keffiyeh and shouted “Free, free Palestine.” He had been associated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a far-left group, and a manifesto attributed to him called the murders morally justified as a way to “bring the war home.” A month later, Mohamed Soliman firebombed a Boulder march for Israeli hostages, killing one person. Antisemitic murder had returned to American soil for the first time since 2019.

None of that makes the Democratic Party a terrorist organization. It does describe a permission structure. “Globalize the intifada” was defended in the 2025 New York mayor’s race by Zohran Mamdani, the DSA-aligned Democrat who went on to win, as language a mayor should not police — a “desperate desire for equality,” he said, not a call to export the bus bombings and café massacres of the Second Intifada. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Dan Goldman, both Democrats, rebuked him. The ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt called the slogan an explicit call for violence. Mamdani later said he would discourage the phrase. He did not treat it as disqualifying, and the primary electorate did not either. He is now mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population in the country.

Defenders of this turn have a stock answer: anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, and the right has bigots too. The second point is true and irrelevant to the first. Marjorie Taylor Greene has trafficked in conspiracy sludge. Groyper accounts and white nationalists still hunt Jews from the other flank. A party does not get a pass because its rival is also dirty. The IHRA working definition, which Omar has voted against endorsing, does not ban criticism of Israeli policy. It flags the moves that keep showing up in Democratic primaries: denying Jews the right of self-determination granted to everyone else, holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel, and recycling the charge that Jewish political participation is bribery or foreign control.

What has changed since October 7 is not the existence of a left anti-Israel current. It is the current’s rank, its immunity, and its body count in rhetoric and, increasingly, in fact. The old Democratic leadership condemned Omar in 2019 and still could not stop her. It could not stop Tlaib’s censure from becoming a party split. It watched the sympathy numbers invert and called the inversion a debate about Gaza. Jewish Democrats are being asked to accept, as the price of coalition, politicians who will not say a Jewish state may exist between the river and the sea, and an activist left that called the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust inevitable.

That is not a messaging problem. It is the rise itself.

Poor Norman

www.poornorman.com

The post The Democratic Party’s Antisemitism Problem Is No Longer Fringe first appeared on Poor Norman News.

The Rise of No-Cash Bail and Progressive Prosecutors

Cash bail systems, once ubiquitous, required defendants to pay for release pending trial—effectively making wealth a determinant of that freedom. Reformers argued rightly that such systems disproportionately penalized the poor. States like Illinois passed the SAFE-T Act, abolishing cash bail in favor of risk-based release systems.

Cities like San Francisco followed suit under progressive DAs like Chesa Boudin, implementing risk-based assessments and diversion programs targeting low-level offenses. Meanwhile, reformist prosecutors across the nation embraced de-criminalization and reduced sentencing, aiming to reduce incarceration and systemic inequalities.

The Crime Backlash—Perception Meets Reality

Public backlash in many communities emerged when residents perceived that reforms had permitted rising disorder—even when data didn’t confirm a direct causal link.

For instance, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, accused by conservative voices of “decarceration,” has been blamed for rising fare evasion, downgrading of felonies, and unchecked crime in the subway system.

Similarly, in New York State, Governor Kathy Hochul faces growing political pressure to rollback cash bail reform amid criticism that it fosters unsafe streets—even though Mayor Adams points out that NYC shootings and subway felonies remain far below historic highs.

What the Data Actually Shows

Evidence does not support a link between no-cash bail or progressive prosecution and increased crime. Major studies conclude bail reform did not statistically raise crime rates.

• The Brennan Center for Justice analyzed 22 cities with bail reform against 11 without and found no significant uptick in violent or property crime.

• Further reports reiterated: “no statistically significant relationship between bail reform and crime rates”.

• Even media examinations debunk alarmist rhetoric around bail reform, showing crime rates continually declined or hovered steady in many big cities implementing these policies.

Still, in Some Cities Crime Spiked—or at Least Feelings Did

Despite calm in the data, some cities saw real or perceived unrest.

San Francisco, under DA Boudin, saw surges in certain crimes—car burglaries, property theft, and visible street disorder—that fueled public dissatisfaction. That dissatisfaction helped drive his recall in 2022.

Likewise, Portland experimented with police defunding, decriminalization, and reduced prosecutions. The result? A public feeling of lawlessness. Businesses shuttered, violence surged, and rogue vigilante groups emerged. The city then reversed course to restore funding and rehire officers.

Myth vs. Reality in Public Discourse

A dangerous myth persists: that reform = rising crime. This oversimplifies a complex issue and misattributes causation.

For Washington, D.C.—a longstanding cashless bail jurisdiction—President Trump has called it “lawless” and even threatened National Guard deployment. In reality, violent crime has dropped significantly, with homicide and juvenile arrests trending downward.

Even critics acknowledge these claims are more political narrative than fact, as multiple metrics show improving conditions.

Cities Without Reform Also Struggle

It’s also important to contextualize: crime is not just rising in left-leaning cities. America’s most violent rates today are often in rural communities across the South and West—not urban jurisdictions with progressive reforms. States like Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, and New Mexico report high per-capita homicides, often outpacing big cities in violent crime rates.

Why the Perception-Data Gap?

Several factors contribute to the feeling that reform is synonymous with increased crime:

• Media Focus: Dramatic footage of street crime or disorder spikes attention—even when rare.

• Policy Lag: Real-world benefits like lower incarceration take time; disruptions are felt earlier.

• Legitimate Police Vacuums: Rapid cuts to enforcement or diverging prosecutorial priorities may leave short-term gaps that community members feel.

• Emotional Impact: Even a few high-profile incidents can generate fear and outrage.

Crafting Safe, Smart Reform

1. Hold Prosecutors Accountable
   Rather than roll back reforms wholesale, policymakers should insist on transparency in charging decisions, diversion effectiveness, and recidivism outcomes.

2. Adjust, Don’t Repeal, Bail Reform
   Risk-based release systems should respond to local feedback—permitting cash bail for high-risk repeat offenders if justified, while preserving access for low-risk individuals.

3. Invest in Community Safety
   Boost mental health services, violence intervention programs, and street outreach to curb root causes.

4. Use Data-Driven Policing
   Target hot spots with precision—ensure law enforcement is outfitted and distributed where needed without broad aggressive tactics.

5. Communication Matters
   Explain policy logic clearly. Public trust is vital: show how reducing incarceration fosters equity, while ensuring public safety isn’t sacrificed.

Final Thought

The truth about crime, bail reform, and prosecution philosophy is more nuanced than political slogans suggest.

• Crime trends—evaluated empirically—do not show bail reform or progressive DAs inherently causing spikes in crime.

• But public perceptions are powerful. For policy to succeed, it must yield both safety and legitimacy.

• The real failure lies not in reform, but in reform implemented without safeguards, clear communication, or support services.

So yes: some cities are facing serious crime waves—and while progressive policies may factor into their storyline, the data-driven consensus is clear: reforms alone are not the root cause. Effective, accountable governance and thoughtful community investment remain vital in preventing the very problems these reforms seek to solve.

Here’s a clear, state-by-state comparison of violent crime and homicide rates (per 100,000 people). These are the latest complete, comparable FBI state figures (2022); I’ve also added quick notes at the end on how 2023–2024 trends moved nationally and what studies say about bail reform. (District of Columbia is shown separately because it’s not a state.)

How to read this

• Violent crime includes murder/non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

• Homicide is shown separately (per 100k).

• Source for the state table: FBI Uniform Crime Reports via the consolidated state table.

State-by-state (alphabetical) — FBI 2022

• Alabama — Violent: 409.1 | Homicide: 10.9.

• Alaska — Violent: 758.9 | Homicide: 9.5.

• Arizona — Violent: 431.5 | Homicide: 6.8.

• Arkansas — Violent: 645.3 | Homicide: 10.2.

• California — Violent: 499.5 | Homicide: 5.7.

• Colorado — Violent: 492.5 | Homicide: 6.4.

• Connecticut — Violent: 150.0 | Homicide: 3.8.

• Delaware — Violent: 383.5 | Homicide: 4.8.

• Florida — Violent: 258.9 | Homicide: 5.0.

• Georgia — Violent: 367.0 | Homicide: 8.2.

• Hawaii — Violent: 259.6 | Homicide: 2.1.

• Idaho — Violent: 241.4 | Homicide: 2.7.

• Illinois — Violent: 287.3 | Homicide: 7.8.

• Indiana — Violent: 306.2 | Homicide: 6.2.

• Iowa — Violent: 286.5 | Homicide: 1.7.

• Kansas — Violent: 414.6 | Homicide: 4.6.

• Kentucky — Violent: 214.1 | Homicide: 6.8.

• Louisiana — Violent: 628.6 | Homicide: 16.1.

• Maine — Violent: 103.3 | Homicide: 2.2.

• Maryland — Violent: 398.5 | Homicide: 8.5.

• Massachusetts — Violent: 322.0 | Homicide: 2.1.

• Michigan — Violent: 461.0 | Homicide: 6.9.

• Minnesota — Violent: 280.6 | Homicide: 3.2.

• Mississippi — Violent: 245.0 | Homicide: 7.8.

• Missouri — Violent: 488.0 | Homicide: 10.1.

• Montana — Violent: 417.9 | Homicide: 4.5.

• Nebraska — Violent: 282.8 | Homicide: 3.2.

• Nevada — Violent: 454.0 | Homicide: 6.8.

• New Hampshire — Violent: 125.6 | Homicide: 1.8.

• New Jersey — Violent: 202.9 | Homicide: 3.1.

• New Mexico — Violent: 780.5 | Homicide: 12.0.

• New York — Violent: 429.3 | Homicide: 4.0.

• North Carolina — Violent: 405.1 | Homicide: 8.1.

• North Dakota — Violent: 279.6 | Homicide: 3.5.

• Ohio — Violent: 293.6 | Homicide: 6.1.

• Oklahoma — Violent: 419.7 | Homicide: 6.7.

• Oregon — Violent: 342.4 | Homicide: 4.5.

• Pennsylvania — Violent: 279.9 | Homicide: 7.9.

• Rhode Island — Violent: 172.3 | Homicide: 1.5.

• South Carolina — Violent: 491.3 | Homicide: 11.2.

• South Dakota — Violent: 377.4 | Homicide: 4.3.

• Tennessee — Violent: 621.6 | Homicide: 8.6.

• Texas — Violent: 431.9 | Homicide: 6.7.

• Utah — Violent: 241.8 | Homicide: 2.0.

• Vermont — Violent: 221.9 | Homicide: 3.4.

• Virginia — Violent: 234.0 | Homicide: 7.3.

• Washington — Violent: 375.6 | Homicide: 5.0.

• West Virginia — Violent: 277.9 | Homicide: 4.6.

• Wisconsin — Violent: 297.0 | Homicide: 5.3.

• Wyoming — Violent: 201.9 | Homicide: 2.6.

District of Columbia (not a state) — Violent: 812.3 | Homicide: 29.3.

Quick takeaways

• Highest violent-crime states (2022): New Mexico, Alaska, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina.

• Lowest violent-crime states (2022): Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wyoming, Vermont.

• 2024 national trend: The FBI reports violent crime fell ~4.5% in 2024 vs. 2023, continuing the post-2022 declines.

• Homicide (recent context): An Axios review of the latest FBI data highlights elevated homicide rates in parts of the rural South and West (e.g., Alaska, New Mexico), even as some large coastal states sit closer to national averages on a per-capita basis.

Where “no-cash bail / major bail limits” exist & what studies show (context)

• Illinois (cash bail eliminated 2023): One-year lookbacks suggest statewide violent & property crime fell ~12% after implementation.

• New Jersey (2017 reform): Academic work finds reduced incarceration with no increase in gun violence after reform.

• New York (2019–2020 reform with later tweaks): A quasi-experimental study in NYC found lower recidivism on eligible cases; no increase among those still eligible for bail.

• National backdrop: The FBI’s 2023 and 2024 releases show declining national violent crime, underscoring that broader trends don’t map neatly onto any single policy change.

By Poor Norman

#CrimeInAmerica #USCrimeRates #NoCashBail #BailReform #ProgressiveProsecutors #DistrictAttorneys #LawAndOrder #PublicSafety #UrbanCrime #CrimeStatistics #JusticeReform #USPolitics #CityCrime #CrimeDebate #PoorNorman

The post Rampant Crime and Reform: How No-Cash Bail and Progressive District Attorneys Are Reshaping Safety first appeared on Poor Norman News.