Sunday, 01 March 2015
LYING ABOUT SUPPORT FOR NETANYAHU'S SPEECH
This is the second poll like this that I have seen: intentionally worded in a way guaranteed to get a negative response, and then given a headline with a conclusion that cannot be made from that wording.
I am referring to the headline, and first paragraphs of Mark Murray's article for NBC News.
Let's start with the headline alone:
Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Take Issue With Netanyahu Speech
What does that tell you? It tells you that almost half the country is against Netanyahu making this speech, doesn't it? No need to read on, we now know that there is a ton of opposition to Mr. Netanyahu going before congress.
Here are the first two paragraphs of this article:
half of American voters - 48 percent - say that congressional
Republicans should not have invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to address Congress on Tuesday without first notifying
President Barack Obama, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street
contrast, 30 percent of those polled believe the invitation was fine,
and another 22 percent don't know enough to say either way.
Wait a minute. That doesn't say they were against Prime Minister Netanyahu being invited to make the speech, or the speech itself. It only says that 48 were against the invitation being made without notifying Barack Obama about it. An entirely different issue.
So what was the purpose of that headline, except to confuse and mislead readers? Give me a hint.
And when you're through not being able to give me any other purpose - because there isn't one - you can try convincing me that Mark Murray - who happens to be the Senior Political Editor of NBC News - did not know that headline was fraudulent. Don't count on making that case either.
I have an idea for Mr. Murray: how about less BS polling analysis about Benjamin Netanyahu, and a little more news content about the millions and millions Hillary Clinton's foundation got from foreign nations while she was our Secretary of State. Or maybe a few paragraphs on the newly-discovered IRS emails from lois "liar" lerner that were supposedly no longer in existence?
Let me end with a question for Mark Murray: Why? Why are you giving us a fraudulent headline regarding Netanyahu's speech, but a virtual news blackout on real stories about Clinton and lerner?
Is lying about Netanyahu's speech more fun than telling the truth about Clinton and lerner? Or is it just the usual partisanship?
I don't expect an answer.
SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL: THE NATION SPEAKS
So tell me: As Benjamin Netanyahu
flies in from Israel to address a joint session of congress - and
as President Obama, his henchman John Kerry, and a number of Democrat
congresspeople tell him he is unwelcome here...
...how do the people feel?
Well, here is a chart from Gallup
measuring support for Israel and Palestinian Arabs over the past 27
years. Read it and see for yourself:
That clear enough?
So go ahead and boycott, Democrats.
Show us all that you are on board with Barack Obama's disdain for Israel and
its Prime Minister.
But know that the country is not with you. Not
And watch the erosion of Democrat
support among Jews - which has fallen steadily during the Obama era
- continue its downward momentum.
Nobody can say you aren't earning it..
THE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ'S SENATE CHANCES
As you probably know, Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (DWS)is a member of the House of Representatives, who
represents an eminently safe Democrat seat in Florida. For several
years, she has also Chaired the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
What you may not know, however, is that
DWS appears to be interested in replacing Marco Rubio as U. S.
Senator, in next year's election.
Does she have a chance? Sure she does.
have a realistic chance?
Well, read this excerpt from Edward-Isaac
at politico.com before you answer:
Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is far from enthusiastic,
according to sources close to the committee. Asked about Wasserman
Schultz specifically, DSCC spokesman Justin Barasky said only: "It
seems like there's no one in the United States Senate who wants to
be a senator less than Marco Rubio, and there are numerous potential
candidates who could beat him."
National Republican Senatorial Committee, meanwhile, seems exuberant
at the chance to run against someone who's run into so much baggage
on the national level.
rare in Washington for President Obama and Senate Republicans to
agree, but we are all in agreement that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has
been a terrible DNC chair and would make an even worse Senate
candidate," said NRSC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.
her time as chair, Wasserman Schultz has turned off colleagues, other
top Democrats and current and former staff for a management style
that strikes many as self-centered - even for a politician - and
often at the expense of the DNC or individual candidates or
campaigns. Many top Democrats, including some she counts as
supporters and friends, privately complain about her trying to use
the DNC as a vehicle for her own personal promotion, and letting her
own ambition get in the way of larger goals.
Does that look like Ms. Wasserman
Schultz is a desirable candidate to you? To members of either party?
It remains to be seen if DWS decides
to run anyway - i.e. her ego and her self-importance might overwhelm logic
and common sense. If so, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
But, as a politcal blogger, I have to
admit that, just this once, I would be fascinated to see DWS turn her
tender mercies against Democrat primary opponents instead of
Republicans. Let's see how they like her, er, style and substance.
THE NEW YORK TIMES VS. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
The New York Times, which has been a
severe critic of Israel for as long as I can remember, is certainly
holding true to form these days.
As you know Israel's Prime Minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, is coming to the United States and speaking
before a joint session of congress on Tuesday, to remind us of
something that President Obama apparently is incapable or unwilling
to process - that you don't allow nuclear capability to the world's
greatest exporter of terrorism, which has lied about its nuclear
program from day one and will therefore have no problem lying about
the way it will use any nuclear capability a “deal" would allow it.
Mr. Netanyahu, of course, has a very
special interest in this situation, since Iran has specifically told
the world it intends to wipe Israel off the map.
That may not be enough to prevent
Barack Obama and his hopelessly useless stooge John Kerry from
cutting a "deal" anyway, but I can assure you it got Mr.
In any event, as the Netanyahu visit,
and speech to congress (and to AIPAC) draws near, the New York Times
has published two articles which make its sentiments perfectly clear.
One was a Page 1 piece on
Jeremy Bird, President Obama's Field Director for his 2012 campaign,
who has gone to Israel to work at unseating Netanyahu in the coming
That's a fascinating undertaking, given
that the "reason" tossed out by Mr. Obama for opposing his speech
and not meeting with him personally is that he does not want to get
involved in another country's election process.
But read the Times article and you will
find out that it's ok for his own field director to roost in Israel
and work at getting rid of Netanyahu. Because, you see, Barack
Obama did not specifically send Jeremy Bird there, he went on his
own. It was just a coincidence, folks, nothing to see here, move along,
And, not content with that pile of
mung, The Times has also published an article which provides a White
House "rebuttal" to the Netanyahu speech - before he makes it -
and assures us that facilitating Iran's nuclear capability makes
things safer, not less safe.
Just like it did in North Korea,
Look, I get it. The Times is owned by
self-hating Jews who find Israel an embarrassment. But - here's a
news flash for them - some of us are foolish enough to believe
that, for people whose existence has ongoingly been threatened for
millennia - including right now, by the people Obama and Kerry are
dealing with - there should be at least one viable homeland with
defensible borders. And since that one Jewish homeland also is the
one and only outpost of western civilization in the entire region,
and has been a staunch ally of the USA since its creation, we should
worry at least somewhat about Iran's overt commitment to vaporizing
it - enough to stop them every way we can from going nuclear.
Anyway, that's my opinion: certainly
not the Times' opinion, but mine nonetheless. What's yours?
THE MEDIA ASSAULT ON SCOTT WALKER (CONT.)
they ran out of things to dredge up from his pre-high school
days...so they had to start making them up.
Daily Beast put out a story that Scott Walker, that neanderthal
mouth-breathing imbecile from Wisconsin (aka: a possible Republican
presidential candidate) had - can you believe this guy -
cut the ability of state colleges and universities to report rapes
which occur on campus.
THAT is a war on women. This woman-hating sicko should be
summarily impeached, removed from office, tarred, feathered and run
out of the state.......
turns out he didn't do any such thing.
reported in Nick
Gass's article at politico.com (which,
itself, is no stranger to Republican-bashing), actually Governor
Walker did not do any such thing:
major media outlet has apologized after getting a story about Scott
Walker wrong. Last week, it was the New York Times; now, it’s The
Daily Beast has retracted an article from one of its college
columnists that claimed that the Wisconsin governor’s budget would
cut sexual assault reporting from the state’s universities.
post, published Friday, cited a report from Jezebel that wrongly
interpreted a section of the state budget to mean that all assault
reporting requirements were to get cut altogether.
fact, the University of Wisconsin system requested the deletion of
the requirements to get rid of redundancy, as it already provides
similar information to the federal government, UW System spokesman
Alex Hummel told The Associated Press on Friday.
what do you figure they'll try next?
there's an old polarioid, somewhere, of Walker picking his nose in
gym class? Or at the local newsstand leering at a cover of Esquire
there is a correlation between how worrisome a potential Republican
candidate might be, and how hard some media will work to take that
potential candidate down, then Scott Walker must be keeping these
people up nights.
one other thing: how much coverage have you seen or heard about the
fact that, while Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton accumulated
millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in her personal
“foundation” from foreign governments - a true scandal that would
be the death knell for most presidential hopefuls regardless of
guess the prospect of a Clinton candidacy doesn't bother them a bit.
hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.
In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-How does President Obama deal with a completely Republican congress?
-How will Harry Reid like watching Mitch McConnell take the bills he sat on for years and send them to the senate floor?
-Why is Hillary Clinton suddenly harder to find than Waldo? Is it the Jeffrey Epstein/Hubby Bubba scandal?
-Will Brian Williams ever do another broadcast for NBC?
-Will Benjamin Netanyahu incur the wrath of Obama and make that speech before Congress?
Right down to:
-Is Michelle Obama contributing to childhood obesity because kids are tossing out her idea of lunch and heading for Mickey D's instead?
-Will there ever be a worse Super Bowl call than that pass play at the goal line?
-Did Melissa Harris-Perry really ask the Attorney General of the United States to quack like a duck?
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!
TO THE LEFT
Crooks and Liars
The Huffington Post
IN THE MIDDLE
Real Clear Politics
TO THE RIGHT
Front Page Magazine
Sweetness & Light