So, let me get this straight. The Obama-led Democrats lose a seat in New York ninth district for the first time in 90 years and where do the BBC place the story? Well, I tried their main news portal but nothing there. However if I go to the US and Canada portal, yes there is is, just above another story telling us that poverty in the US has hit a record high. Can’t wait for Mark Mardell and the rest of the Obama fan club to start spinning this one! It’s certainly hope and change but not as they want to see it! Meanwhile, back on the MAIN BBC news portal, the burning issue of what Jackie Kennedy thought of other dead people.
HOPE AND CHANGE IN THE 9TH
Bookmark the permalink.
After Turner Earthquake in Weiner District, Democrats’ Civil War Against Obama Begins
by Andrew Breitbart
The BBC is in denial of a few things here. First, they’re in denial that they censored all news of Weiner’s sex scandal until he was about to resign and they could no longer pretend it was a non-story. Second, they deny that there was any other reason for Turner’s victory besides Jewish dual loyalty to Israel.
The BBC also censors the fact that Weprin is an orthodox Jew, while Turner is a gentile. They also censored the fact that Weprin spent much of the time trying to unsuccessfully distance himself from the President. At one point he even demurred from stating whether or not he supported the President for re-election. One more fact the BBC censored is that Jews are also concerned about the economy as much as they are about Israel. Turner spent lots of money telling the orthodox crowd that the President can’t fix the economy. If it was all about Israel, there would have been no need to spend that campaign cash.
And of course the BBC censored the fact that Jews aren’t even the majority in the district, so Israel can’t have been the main reason for Turner’s victory, the way the BBC presents it. They may be the largest bloc, but make up only 27.4% of the total voters. From the above link:
First some numbers. There are 49,522 Jewish voters in the district, according to Voter Contact Services, which compiles lists of voters in districts across the country. That compares to 29,123 Asian voters, 40,566 Hispanic voters, 35,265 Italian voters, and 26,238 Eastern European voters.
Do Asians care about Israel? Are all those Polish and Ukranians (not the most Jew-friendly cultures) concerned about the President’s treatment of the Jewish State? How about the Italians? Why did the rest of them not vote for Weprin, BBC? Anti-Semitism, perhaps? <img src=”extra/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-undecided.gif” title=”Undecided” border=”0″ alt=”Undecided”/>
Notice how the BBC describes the voter demographics:
Registered Republican voters are outnumbered in the traditionally blue-collar, Catholic and Orthodox Jewish district by a margin of three to one.
If we assume that the majority of the Hispanics and Italians are Catholic, then Catholics outnumber Jews by a very large percentage. Are they voting for Israel and not the economy?
Only 65% of those who voted for Him in 2008 voted Democrat this time. Even we assum that all the Jews voted for Turner, and that they only did it out of that slimy dual loyalty issue, that still leaves a big margin of Obamessiah error. NY09 voted for Turner at least as much because of the economy as for the dual loyalty issue. The numbers and facts just don’t add up to the BBC’s spin. But as long as the BBC can play the dual loyalty canard, they don’t have to tell you there’s a problem with the President’s economic track record.
Right on cue, here’s Mark Mardell to shift blame away from the President and onto the dual loyalty of Jews.
I haven’t covered the campaign so I am merely raising the question and offering up the theories of others.
We all know why he hasn’t bothered. He’s the US President editor, and doesn’t cover anything unless it affects Him. A Weprin victory would have been a non-story. Jew Democrat wins in Jew Democrat district. Yawn. But since a gentile won on a record of business intelligence and some people are saying that it’s a referendum on Mardell’s beloved Obamessiah’s economic policies, then blame must be shifted.
As well all know, Mardell says that no one of good will can resist the President’s economic policies. So any vote against must be due to some nefarious, darker reason: in this case, the dual loyalty of Jews. So Mardell assembles a link-fest of people saying it was the Jews. Never mind that the candidate himself and local sources – plus, you know, the demographic facts – show that it’s only half the story.
No, Mardell believes the Jews have spurned Him only because of dual loyalty, and never mind what the Italians and Chinese and Ukranians and Poles thought, and don’t you believe that Jews might have any other concerns besides Israel. I don’t care what Drudge says. As long as the focus is on nasty old Israel and the treachery of Jews, the President can escape scrutiny for His failed policies. So everyone in the media is more than happy to play the dual loyalty story.
“I voted for Turner to send Obama a message on the economy and Israel,” said Elaine Kaye, 64, an Orthodox Jew.
Said Joe Altschuler, 67, a registered independent: “My vote was against Obama. I certainly don’t like his policy on Israel. The stimulus was a waste of money. This is a guy who talks great but doesn’t deliver.’’
For his part, Weprin and the Democratic machine painted Turner as a Tea Party Republican who would slash Medicare and Social Security. But he couldn’t overcome the anti-Obama sentiment.
“The public is rightfully very angry at government right now, and David being an elected official took more of the brunt of this anger,’’ said his brother, Councilman Mark Weprin. “The president took some of the heat [also].’’
Like I said, Israel is only half the story. And notice that the Dems portraying Turner as a Tea Party type didn’t hurt him at all. Even in Democrat New York.
In any case, if Mardell wants us to all of a sudden look to Drudge (when was the last time a Beeboid ever linked to Drudge, FFS?) for the true pulse of the public, can we assume that Mardell or his BBC colleagues will then start reporting things Drudge says are important? Like when Michelle Obama goes on a star-studded, Marie-Antoinette-style vacation in Spain while telling the rest of us to cut back? Anthony Weiner’s scandal? The BBC censored that and so many other things before, so will Mardell want to start looking to Drudge now?
Biased BS.
One more reason for the orthodox Jews to vote against Weprin which I forgot about:
Orthodox Jews, who tend to be conservative on social issues, expressed anger over Weprin’s vote in the Assembly to legalize gay marriage. In July, New York became one of six states to recognize same-sex nuptials.
The BBC won’t tell you this for two reasons: it distracts from the dual loyalty charge, and if they start frowning at religious Jews for being anti-gay, then they have to start frowning at Mohammedans for the same reason. Which they simply can’t do.
The dirty double dealing treacherous dirty Jew angle always plays well with the BBC, blood libels all round eh? If only those treacherous Jews had not betrayed Obama just like they betrayed Jesus then all would be well. At this point the BBC are playing to the islamofascisti whose love of Nazi literature is well known.
Of course Obamas golden policies and promises of a golden future turned sour had nothing to do with the democrat defeat did it? It is all so depressingly obvious isnt it? The BBC desperate to play the witch finder generals office just have to find the scapegoat and it just had to be the Jew didnt it?
Like Bowen has absolutely nothing to say on the Middle East. Mardell has absolutely nothing of any use to say to us regarding the USA.
His role as Obamas little helper is revealed by the day, and all he is is a BBC sponsored intern that is over there to Re-elect the President.
That we pay for him is our stupid fault in the end.
Time to bring our boys home-let little Mark earn a crust somewhere less cosy. He abuses US hospitality every time he spouts Democrat drivel at us..and the US are daft enough to give him “white” House Room.
Like Sackur and Webb-the US needs to know that these turkeys are sent to them for Thanksgiving…so how come they let them gobble up John Kerrys leavings and then call it “US opinion”!
One more question about dual loyalty the BBC won’t be asking: If the Jews spurned Him out of loyalty to Israel, how come this is the first time a Democrat lost in nearly a century? Why didn’t the treacherous Jews vote for a Republican back when everyone was worried about Carter or Clinton selling Israel down the river? This isn’t the first time the question of a President’s handling of Israel has come up.
Like I said, Israel is only half the story, and maybe not even that.
“However if I go to the US and Canada portal, yes there is is, just above another story telling us that poverty in the US has hit a record high”.
Or to put it another way it’s the lead story on the BBC’s US and Canada portal and has been for some time now. Nor, as Mr. Preiser’s analysis shows, has Mark Mardell ignored the story.
David Preiser, in fairness to Mr. Mardell, his piece doesn’t just put the blame on the pro-Israeli sentiments of Jewish voters. You make a decent case that he uses his sources to make it appear that their disaffection was focused solely on President Obama’s policy towards Israel rather than being for a mixture of reasons. However, he does also mention Democrat disaffection with the president and links to two sources, including a Republican-supporting newspaper, for his readers to investigate.
I said nothing about Mardell ignoring the poverty story. Please retract your charge.
Other than that, clearly Mardell’s piece is weighted towards blaming Jewish dual loyalty. He ignores the gay marriage issue, ignores the actual demographics of the district, and ignores the fact that a gentile got elected over a Jew.
Surely the BBC should have had somebody else keeping an eye on this story, rather than thinking it’s enough for the US President editor to swan in with a hasty, shallow link-fest.
Certainly, though if you re-read the first part of my comment you will, I hope, see that it was not directed at you.
Nor, as Mr. Preiser’s analysis shows, has Mark Mardell ignored the story.
This wasn’t directed at me?
No, it was directed at the author of the post, who was contending that the BBC was downplaying the election story. I cited your analysis to show that the BBC, including Mark Mardell, is not downplaying the story. That’s the meaning of that sentence. Only the second half of my comment, beginning ‘David Preiser, in fairness to Mark Mardell’, is addressed to you. Surely, you see that? I won’t ask you to retract your charge against me though!
Ah, okay, sorry, I see what you mean now. But you’re wrong about that. Mardell actually did ignore the poverty story, and I don’t see how I showed that he didn’t. The word doesn’t appear in his piece, and in fact he doesn’t even acknowledge the economy at all. At best, he says “Obama’s general policies”. I guess we’re supposed to infer the economy here, but Mardell is pretty much hoping we all ignore the issue.
If you’re talking about the part where I say that we all know what Mardell says about people of good will being unable to resist the President’s economic policies, that was referring to my post below this one about his biased statement, not this post about NY-09. Different story entirely, and he doesn’t mention the poverty story there, either.
That’s okay, thanks. I’m afraid I obviously failed to make my point clearly, for which apologies. The confusion over poverty came about because of my use of a quotation from the blog author which included the word. What followed was only meant to apply to the election coverage – the theme of the thread. We’ve unfortunately been at cross-purposes here. Such are the perils of internet discussions.
Many Republicans on the right have a proven loyalty to the idea and the state of Israel, the left are almost universal in their irrational hatred of Israel. Many non Catholic Christians also support the idea and the reality of Jewish homeland free from the curse of historical jew killing pogroms.
The point David was making is clear, Mardell is going ou of his way to hide some facts and misrepresent other facts to protect Obama and the democrats while trying to pin the blame on a single race for the defeat, played out in terms of a betrayal.
Or to put it another way, not worthy of a place of their main news portal unlike the dead talking about the dead. Yip, that makes sense.
Be fair, DV, I think it was actually on the main news page for a few minutes in the middle of the night last night, before getting pushed off by bigger, newer stories.
Imagine the surprise of the BBC listeners and viewers when Obama goes down to thumping defeat in 2012. They’ll wake blinking in the light and say, “That was unexpected, wasn’t it?”
The fact is that British listeners and viewers are been misled by the BBC. They are not being told the truth about the deep distrust and disquiet of the American people. They are being sold a bill of goods that is more in keeping with the BBC’s liberal mindset than the facts on the ground. When 2012 rolls round, there will be an opportunity to finally convince friends and relations of the disingenuous nature of the BBCs news output.
I guess people like David Presier (USA) will now have to be careful what he says so as not to be reported to the new Obama Thought Police at their fresh website where people are invited to inform on their friends.
For the benefit of “Scott” I include the link to http://www.attackwatch.com/.
No doubt they’ll start the burning of the books next week.
It won’t be so much as a surprise to everyone, but the BBC will have set the public up to understand how it happened. I imagine it will be along the lines of Isaiah 1:4.
Woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.
The way the BBC reports on Obama reminds me of the way the Japanese kept telling their people they were winning WW2 right up to the point Enola Gay dropped a bucket of instant sunshine on Hiroshima, then they had to point out things had changed and not necessarily in their favour (an understatement if ever there was one) and so it is with the BBC, they keep spouting on how great Obama is yet almost daily we see opinion polls dropping faster than a tarts knickers in a night club and democrats wanting to avoid Obama like the plague. Yet still fatty Mardell and co spout the same crap as if it’s still 2008 but sooner or later the BBC will have to report the truth.
Will it be their Hiroshima moment?
Some of the Japanese public apparently figured out that their government and state broadcaster were lying to them when they noticed that those “victories” started happening closer and closer to home. I wonder how much of the British public realize just how misinformed about the US they are because of their own state broadcaster.
Well I would suspect David, that if America doesn’t feature much on Facebook, the answer as to how many Brit’s have a command of where and what the US is, will be negligable.
And should, by accident, they tune into the BBC and experience the rantings of Mark Mardell, I can’t see Google in meltdown because curious Limey’s want to know more about paradise.
But “X” factor and “Celebrity” – well, now we’re talking, the Yanks have got even better totty.
Geography lesson required ! Do we need to get on a boat or a plane ? Or can we just use the Unerground ?
This, unfortunately, is very, very close to home.
This is so true. I know a number of people who profess to know America and Americans only by the lazy stereotypes that we are all confronted with regularly. I have a friend and an uncle who both think Americans are ‘big fat dumb red-neck racist ignorant trailer-trash know-nothings that never travel and have no idea about the rest of the world’. Of course, neither has ever been to the country, or any other for that matter. I doubt either has ever met an American, but they know all about them and their homeland, and in doing so they reveal their own ignorance. I feel that this is an all too common attitude in the UK – a superiority complex regarding anything American, but with little real knowledge of the place and it’s people.
“dropped a bucket of instant sunshine on Hiroshima,”
Love it!
Here’s another look at why the Republican won in NY-09. The gerrymanding and population changes over the years have made it a majority white (if you awkwardly count Jews and Asians as white) district. The Dems tried to portray Turner as a Tea Party type who wanted to cut everything and hurt the poor and elderly, etc. The whites voted for him, right, BBC?
In the image of the district demographics below, the red areas are white people, blue means African-American and green is Hispanics. It’s mostly red, which means mostly non-brown. It’s an easy target, and Mardell missed it. I know, even he admits he hasn’t been paying attention and probably just scanned his RSS feed and emailed a few colleagues for leads for a few minutes before posting. But his first instinct used to be to look for racists who don’t like the President.
What’s so amusing is that he bought into the Jew thing because that’s what the White House and his DC media buddies are worried about. He’s so wrapped up in that bubble that he totally missed an opportunity to wheel out the Tea Party = Racists narrative.