Partial List of Deliberate Fake News to Destroy Trump!!!

The New York Times and other media widely suggested or implied that Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC ultimately showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama.

CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” at her father’s song being used at Trump’s inauguration. Sinatra responded, “That’s not true. I never said that. Why do you lie, CNN?…Actually I’m wishing him the best.”

Press "Read More" Immediately Below To Read The Rest 

"FAILING" NEW YORK TIMES HIRES RACIST

The New York Times announced Monday it hired left-wing writer Sarah Jeong, who has a long history of racist tweets, to be the lead technology writer for the newspaper’s editorial board.

Yes, Jeong's racism is excused because she hates whites - e.g.: "white people [are] only fit to live underground like groveling goblins”, "cancelwhitepeople" and "Dumbass fuc-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants".

Another:

Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.

Substitute any other color and see how that flies.

But this is the one racism that the New York Times will bend over backwards to excuse - and by accusing others of racist abuse:

She is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers... She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it.

Brilliant playing of the victim card.

I can see why the NYT is desperate to hire a technology writer who boasts that "I was equating Trump to Hitler before it was cool". This is someone it can easily slot into the desk next to Trump-deranged Israel bashing Paul Krugman and the self hating Jew Thomas Friedman.

But will the NYT now excuse angry whites who in turn respond to Jeong's racist abuse by "imitating the rhetoric" of their harasser, and being equally and deplorably racist in their abuse of her?

Hello?

Comey testifies that New York Times story is "fake News"

In today's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey said that a New York Times story in February about alleged contacts between Trump intimates and Russian officials was bogus. “In the main, it was not true,” he said.

“The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it,” said Comey during questioning from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho). “And we don’t call the press and say, ‘Hey, you got that thing wrong.’ ”

The story shook the White House. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told “Fox News Sunday,” “The New York Times put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically, you know, some treasonous type of accusations. We have now all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you and I have been approved to say this — that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there’s nothing to it.”

Not only that: CNN reported that the White House had asked top FBI personnel to rebut the New York Times piece, perhaps by speaking to reporters on background — even though the White House at the time was denouncing anonymous sources. The FBI declined to do so at the time.

Attacks from folks such as Priebus prompted New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet to issue this defense: “The Times had numerous sources confirming this story. Attacking it does not make it less true.”

Things have changed. Before, White House officials — a crew known to blast the media for often specious and baseless reasons — were blasting the story. Now a straight-shooting former FBI director is blasting the story. In addition, Comey confirmed Risch’s contentions that the former FBI director responded to the New York Times story by checking with his intelligence sources and informing lawmakers that it wasn’t accurate.

We’ve asked the New York Times for a fresh response. A New York Times spokesperson tells the Erik Wemple Blog, “As we have said previously, we believe in the accuracy of our reporting. Our reporters are currently looking into Mr. Comey’s statement about our story and we plan to report back as soon as we can.”

New York Times Grants Nobel Prize to Arab Murderer

For several years, the New York Times has written about the Israeli – Palestinian Arab conflict from a Palestinian point of view. The biases included portraying Israelis as aggressors and Palestinians as victims. It softened the image of Palestinian fighters by not calling on Hamas as a terrorist organization, even while it is so designated by many countries including the United States.

Press "read more" right below

New York Times invents backlash against NY Muslims

Listen. I have been in the news business all my life, even wrote an entire book about it here, so I know how it works.

Let’s pretend for a moment that I am managing editor of a New York newspaper and it’s a slow news day, which drives me crazy. I need news. I need a headline.

Anything will do, and quick.

I glance across the newsroom. I ask around. Anything happening? People shrug.

“Oh come on,” I yell. “Something. Anything. This is the town that never sleeps.”

I ask Abdul, who runs our Foreign Desk, if he’s got anything to give. “The usual,” he pouts. “Nothing for front page.”

On the Op-ed side, no worries. I’ve got Tom Friedman blaming Israel for this and that. So that’s covered.

At City Desk I remind Aziz that the Paris bombings happened only weeks ago. There must be some reaction.

Okay. 

How about this? 

He suggests that we run a story about local Muslims coping with an Islamophobic backlash.

“Anything to this?” I ask.

“No, but we can invent, make up a story.”

“Done” – and presto, ladies and gentlemen, Wed, Nov. 25 a story appears in The New York Times with the following headline:

“‘I’M FRIGHTENED’: NEW YORK MUSLIMS COPE WITH BACKLASH”

Are Jewish students frightened? You bet.
Gevalt! – except that the story immediately falls apart and never lives up to the headline.

Muslims, says the piece, are being cautioned not to stand too close to subway rail tracks. 

Why? 

Has anyone been thrown overboard? No. 

Have mosques been burned? No. 

Have Muslims been shot, stabbed, run over while walking 

along Fifth Avenue  --as are Jews in Israel at the hands of Jerusalem Muslims? No.

Have New York Muslims been verbally assaulted. Yes!

Millions? No. Thousands. No. 

How many? 

Two.

That is the entire story. 

Two New York City Muslims report being verbally harassed or “elbowed.”

The Times got this info from CAIR, the disgraced Council on American-Islamic Relations….but that is good enough for the Times.

Good enough to profile an entire population and paint the entire city of New York with the brush of bigotry.

Good enough to entertain the paper’s zombie Liberal readers.

Exactly what happened to these sensitive New York Muslims? Elbowed, yes, but also “spat upon.”

This is special to Muslims? 

Happens to everybody in this town that I know – that and much worse.

Horrors – 

but then we learn that following the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, there was only ONE hate crime alleged and reported against Muslims. 

ONE!

On hate crimes throughout the US, 

Muslims suffer the least,

 Jews the most – a whopping 83 percent. 

Good journalism would demand that this counterpoint be noted, but we’re talking The New York Times, which long ago forgot what it’s supposed to be doing…print the truth.

Still acting on orders to manufacture a crisis, reporter Kirk Semple keeps to his shaky premise by quoting one Muslim after another as being “frightened.”

These days, aren’t we all?

One New York letter-to-the-editor simply put it like this: “I am Jewish and I am frightened.”

Are Jewish students frightened? You bet. 

From campus to campus they are consistently bullied and harassed by judeophobic bullies.

Oh that! Never mind. Only Muslims bleed, according to the Times. Jews, never; Christians, neither.

New York-based bestselling novelist Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the international classic “Indecent Proposal” now followed by the clash of civilizations newsroom thriller “The Bathsheba Deadline.” Engelhard is the recipient of the Ben Hecht Award for Literary Excellence. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

How The New York Times whitewashes Palestinian terror

This week began as the last one ended — with more Palestinian stabbing attacks against Israeli Jews, and more dead. And yet, this information might surprise readers of The New York "Slimes."

On Sunday, a 20-year-old Israeli woman was stabbed to death, another Israeli was rammed by a car and attacked with a knife and a third was assaulted by a knife-wielding teen affiliated with the Islamic Jihad terror group.

All three assailants were killed in the course of their attacks.

But the headline to the Times’ story about Sunday’s attacks did away with cause and effect, muddled victim and aggressor: “1 Israeli, 3 Palestinians Killed in Attacks in West Bank.” The online headline was later changed, but the print headline Monday morning was equally obtuse: “West Bank Faces Spate of Assaults That Kill 4.” The “West Bank” faced nothing. It was Israelis who faced assaults.

This was par for the course — and in some ways, even mild — for how the Times has covered the so-called “stabbing intifada,” the recent spate of Arab-on-Jewish murder.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently called on his people to protect Jerusalem holy sites from the “filthy feet” of Israeli Jews, and terrorists have heeded the call, taking to the streets to thrust knives into any Israeli they encounter — other recent stabbing victims include an 80-year-old woman and a 13-year-old boy on a bike.

But even this incitement, and even this terror, is no match for the creativity of The New York "Slimes." When a Palestinian assailant was caught on film last month wielding a knife and rushing at Israelis, before quickly being neutralized by Israeli security personnel, Times reporters simply avoided telling readers about the video.

And instead of mentioning this incriminating piece of evidence, they repeatedly cited false Palestinian allegations that Israelis planted the knife next to the “innocent” attacker. Creatively, and unethically, they turned an empirical fact into an unknowable case of police vs. “witness.”

When Israel released a photo of the butterfly knife held by the attacker, the Times’ bureau chief in Jerusalem absurdly called it a “Boy Scout” knife. Again, it was a masterstroke of creativity. Butterfly knives are infamous for being flipped back and forth by ’80s movie villains, and are illegal in several US states and in countries around the world. To confuse a butterfly knife with a Boy Scout knife is to confuse nunchucks with a nun’s ruler.

Similarly, after Palestinians stoned a Jewish car, resulting in the death of the driver, a reporter insisted they weren’t attacking the Israeli but merely pelting “the road he was driving on.” The death, reporters insisted, was an “accident.” Attacking the asphalt? A Boy Scout knife? Such verbal ingenuity might be commendable in creative writing. In journalism, it’s an embarrassment.

And so was the newspaper’s recent suggestion that there might never have been a temple on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, despite unanimity among serious scholars to the contrary. The timing of this attack on Jewish history was no coincidence. Palestinians have explained that the wave of violence is fueled by rumors that Israel plans to change the status quo on the Mount, and by continued Jewish visits to the site.

Instead of explaining the historical connection between the Jewish people and their holiest site, the newspaper chose to rewrite history to better fit with a Palestinian narrative that Jews are foreign to the Temple Mount. (This article and the one about the Boy Scout knife were eventually corrected.)

The newspaper has long been criticized for its obsessive scrutiny of Israeli flaws, real and imagined, coupled with soft-glove treatment of Palestinians. Even its own public editor has urged reporters to strengthen coverage of Palestinians because, she incredibly had to remind colleagues, “They are more than just victims.” Clearly, the message hasn’t been heeded.

This journalism-gone-wild isn’t good for Israel, of course. But it’s also bad for the newspaper’s readers, who want an honest account of what’s happening across the world. It’s bad for students, who risk harassment and ostracism on campus if they come out in support for the Jewish state. And if our democracy, and by extension our foreign policy, depends on a well-informed electorate, it’s bad for us all.

Gilead Ini is a senior research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Killing Israelis – Music to the ears of NYT and CNN

Jack Engelhard

Jack Engelhard’s classic international bestselling novel Indecent Proposal, which later became a worldwide hit movie, has been republished to meet readers’ demands. His other major works include Compulsive: A Novel, his award-winning post-Holocaust Montreal memoir Escape from Mount Moriah, plus Slot Attendant: A Novel About A Novelist. His website: www.jackengelhard.com

It keeps getting better for The New York Times and for killers everywhere.

This morning’s paper offers a cheerful report about Palestinians who’ve put their “anger” to music – soundtracks to harmonize their knifing spree.

The Times, always in tune with the Palestinians and their “anger,” sings along with what it calls “political songs as a way to make the Palestinian people get up and resist.” Plainly, killing Jews is music to the ears of Palestinian “teenagers” and to the reporters and editors ofThe New York Times.

A group of these Palestinian “teenagers” – burly men of rock-throwing age – have compiled a list of their top 10 knifings accompanied by bloodcurdling lyrics, so let’s dance, says the Times…let’s rock, says the Times, let’s roll, says the Times, let’s glorify the knifing, the stabbing, the firebombing of any and all Israelis, says the Times.

Clap hands with Times’ reporters Jodi Rudoren and Rami Nazzal who call it “inspirational,” namely, say, such hits as “Stab, Stab,” not to mention the ever popular “Stab the Zionist and say god is great.” Not quite Gershwin.

Other melodies like that have the full support of the Times, which quotes this satisfied Palestinian customer:

“The thrumming score has helped PUMP HIM UP for near-daily demonstrations where he hurls rocks at Israeli soldiers.”

Beautiful, in the eyes of The New York Times.

Wonderful, in the eyes of The New York Times.

Good going, says the Times.

More, more Jewish blood, says the Times.

That is the way to bring up kids. Rocks,knives, guns, stab, hate, kill – terrific way to inspire the next generation.

This is “the paper of record,” my son, read by millions, so do not be astonished that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Do not be amazed that no Jew, or Christian, can feel safe anywhere and that no Arab can be trusted any place.

The news media have turned the world upside down, yes, sweet is bitter, bitter is sweet, day is night, night is day.

Lest we forget CNN, “The Most Trusted Name In News.” 

Okay, now TRUST this headline from last night:

“Palestinians Shot Boarding Kids’ Bus.”

Oh those poor Palestinians…oh but wait, because here’s the real story. These were Hamas terrorists preparing to shoot up Jewish kids on the bus.

Truth? Honesty? Integrity? Are you kidding?

Guess what? He’s right. Hamas warlord Ismail Haniyeh says that the Palestinian Arabs have won the media war as to the current Palestinian Arab temper tantrum. He says so sneeringly, menacingly and pridefully. He’s got the proof. He’s got the evidence. He’s got the news media in his pocket.

His pride. Our shame.

In the newsroom thriller “The Bathsheba Deadline” the question arises as to whether to use the courtesy title Mr. for Mahmoud Abbas, hence Mr. Abbas. Everybody else says yes. Editor Jay Garfield says no. Garfield says that the minute you give even the slightest honor to such evil men you dishonor the entire world and launch chaos.

“But,” someone says, “The Times used Mr. for Arafat and even for Adolph Hitler.”

“Precisely my point.”

New York-based author and bestselling novelist Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the international classic “Indecent Proposal” now followed by the newsroom thriller “The Bathsheba Deadline.” Engelhard is the recipient of the Ben Hecht Award for Excellence in Journalism. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

Former Jewish NYT Editor Caught in 'Palestinian Donkey Cart' Lie

Ezri Tubi, spokesperson for the Samaria community of Yitzhar, released a video on Wednesday debunking the claims of Robert Cohen, a former editor of the New York Times who happens to be Jewish.

Cohen claimed that Palestinian Arabs ride around in "donkey carts" on "dirt roads" to their orchards, while Jews ride in fancy cars on modern highways nearby - so 

Tubi drove through the Arab village of Huwara located near his home to test the ex-editor's claims.

What Tubi found were luxury cars made by Mercedes-Benz and other leading makers, driven by Arab residents on clean paved roads.

"Recently I find myself growing very interested in the processes occurring in the public opinion of Jews in the US," said Tubi. 

"When I saw these lies said by this Jew eaten up by hate I was so angry. 

How can one lie like that? 

Anyone who drives on the roads in Judea and Samaria can't help but notice the fancy luxury cars of the Arabs."

It is very ironic this moron Cohen talks about donkey carts but in reality Jews waiting for buses and trains are being killed through vehicular homicide by arab car owners. It would be very easy to get away from a crazed donkey cart operator. What we don't see are Jews attacking arabs with knives, cars, tractors and large rocks.

By filming the routine traffic in Huwara, Tubi sought to make his point about the actual conditions in the region.

The spokesperson has been releasing a series of videos defending Israel from those seeking to delegitimize it, including his version of John Lennon's "Imagine" rebutting Israel's critics, and a video against "J Street Jews."

Tubi is raising funds online in a head-start campaign to continue his efforts to fight Israel's opponents through his videos.

New york Times doesn't want Marco Rubio to be President because he had 3 Speeding Tickets

I'm not kidding! 
This anti-Semitic rag should be driven out of business! 
They hate all republicans but afraid of Marco Rubio, betting that he has a good chance on becoming President, but Rubio doesn't fit their Marxist agenda. 
So they decided to attack him, but couldn't find anything on him except that he had 3 speeding tickets in 17 years...

You are not going to find any speeding tickets on Hillary's file because Hillary hasn't driven a car in 30 years...

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio and his political team are hitting back at The New York Times for what they consider two unfair stories: an article about traffic tickets he and his wife received over 18 years, and a piece about how he and his wife have experienced problems managing their money.

The candidate is leaping on the Times' stories to generate sympathy and argue that the mainstream media, despised by many on the right, are biased against him. He has used the Times donnybrook to raise money, attacking what his spokesman called "elitist liberal media," and this gambit has added $100,000 to his war chest so far, Fox News reported.

New York Times Again Blasted for ‘Skewed’ Headline in Coverage of Palestinian Stabbing Attacks

Media watchdogs and Jewish groups on Sunday admonished the New York Times for publishing a headline about Palestinian stabbing attacks in Israel which “blur Palestinian culpability” in the incidents.

The “skewed” headline, “Israeli Police Officers Kill Two Palestinian Men,” appeared in Sunday’s edition of the prominent newspaper and detailed in the opening paragraph that the two “Palestinian men were fatally shot by the Israeli police after attacking officers with knives.”

“Why report the effect without the cause? Why continue to depict Palestinians as ‘just victims’?” watchdog group CAMERA asked in a blog post. “What is so hard about… [a] straightforward headline accurately depicting the nature and chronology of events?”

CAMERA also pointed out that, in the past, New York Times bias against Israel had been subject to criticism by the paper’s own public editor Margaret Sullivan.

Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, said the paper “should at least revise the misleading headline for the record.”

“We aren’t dealing with possible police misbehavior in Baltimore or Cleveland, but uniformed officers targeted by terrorists in the Holy Land,” Cooper said in an email to the Algemeiner. He asked whether the headline was the result of “sloppy editing, or the bias of a headline writer and editor (mis)leading the readers.”

In an email to the Algemeiner, one reader alleged that in Sunday’s issue of the Times, another article that appears in print confirms an anti-Israel bias on the part of the “paper of record.”

“Even more interesting is another title in the same edition of the New York Times on an unrelated article: ‘Man, 24, killed by Detective in struggle during arrest’,” said New York native Noam Ohana. “So, in the New York case we are given a bit of context (there was a struggle) but when a Palestinian tries to butcher police officers/soldiers with a knife it apparently does not require any contextualization in the title.”

The New York Times’ public editor could not immediately be reached for comment on the story.

The New York Times has often been criticized for anti-Israel bias in its reporting on the Jewish state and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. CAMERA even maintains a billboard outside the paper’s headquarters criticizing the media giant’s coverage. Meanwhile, the New York Times asserts that it is criticized by both sides in the conflict.

The Iran Irony: The US is Lying and Iran is Telling the Truth about the Iran Nuclear Agreement!

I can’t imagine what it’s like when the top editors at The New York Times get together to further glorify Obama at the expense of Israel, only to find themselves a laughingstock.


Or maybe I can:


Tom Friedman: “We made a mistake.”

“Mistake? We’re Liberals. We never make mistakes. Friedman, you’re fired.”


If only…


What happened? 

On Wednesday the wizards at the Times’ “editorial board” 
sought ways to put lipstick on a pig to sell it as kosher. 

The editorial, written under the spell of gobbledygook, declared that the Iran Nuke agreements were a win for the United States over the ayatollahs and that Israel ought to know better than to second-guess President Obama.

So shut up, the Times explained. We know what’s good. Iran has agreed to everything, even the gradual lifting of sanctions.


But oops, the next day it was a different story, literally. 

The Times had to retract, without saying so, of course. 

Iran’s supreme leader rushed to twitter to say that NOTHING from Obama’s fact sheet is true and indeed, the sanctions are to be liftedimmediately.


Quite a fix if you are The New York Times and got caught being stupid. 

So on Thursday, the Times admitted, “the truth depends on who’s talking.”


So we’re left with a terribly sad conclusion. If you seek the truth, listen to the ayatollahs.

The government of the United States  “lies, deceives” and has “devilish intentions.” Who says so? Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.


Him you can believe.


One thing he’s not is a Liberal. Liberals have a bad habit of fabricating to fit a specific point of view. The Times does it every day. Rolling Stonemagazine does it every other day, on going after Israel with falsehoods or reporting as fact a rape that never happened at the University of Virginia.

The Liberal agenda must be served no matter who gets hurt or whose reputation gets tarnished, like Harry Reid’s whopper about Mitt Romney.


But politicians are not expected to be truthful. 

That’s why we invented journalists.  “Journalists are assigned to be the flies on the walls of civilization in order to alert us to the intrigues being whispered in dark corners,” a quote from the newsroom drama The Bathsheba Deadline
.

There has never been a time in America when journalism has failed so miserably. Tom Friedman illustrates the point with his THREE Pulitzer prizes.


In general terms, never before has news been delivered so one-sided from print to broadcast.

Never before has journalism been so wedded to a specific ideology, so that we are fed a constant diet of mendacity and disinformation.

Go – ask the ayatollahs.

It’s a sad day when we have to turn to tyrannical regimes for news we can trust.


Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. The new thriller from the New York-based novelist, The Bathsheba Deadline, a heroic editor’s singlehanded war on terror and against media bias. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller Indecent Proposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders by Issi Leibler While U.S. President Barack Obama determinedly pursues his policy of appeasement, which may enable the world's most dangerous terrorist state to become a nuclear threshold power, some Israelis and American Jews have initiated a campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The campaign calling for the maintenance of bipartisanship toward Israel is in reality undermining the hitherto strong bipartisan congressional opposition to the catastrophic U.S. policy on Iran. Israeli opposition groups and the anti-Netanyahu media are now concentrating their efforts on discrediting and calling on the prime minister to cancel his address to the joint session of Congress scheduled for March 3. Disregarding the gravity of the negotiations with Iran -- the underlying reason for the invitation -- they accuse Netanyahu of destroying the U.S.-Israeli relationship by failing to obtain Obama's advance approval to address Congress (which would never have been forthcoming). The White House even falsely alleged that Netanyahu accepted the invitation before they were aware of it. Labor leader Isaac Herzog, in an irresponsible breach of propriety while attending a conference on security in Munich, slandered the prime minister, calling on "Bibi to act as a patriot … cancel his speech … which was born in sin … and not throw Israel's security under the bus of the elections." The timing of his comments were even more shameful as on that same day and in the same city U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif. Similar sentiments were echoed by other political leaders, whose primitive electioneering tactics display utter indifference and contempt for the repercussions on the greatest threat facing Israel. They warn that Israel would suffer serious ramifications if Netanyahu persisted in addressing Congress and demand that he postpone his address until after the elections -- when the "negotiations" will be over. They also accuse him of forcing Democrats to choose between supporting their president or undermining his policies, and thus destroying bipartisanship. That surely sends the wrong message to Congress about limiting Obama's actions. Worse still, it sends bad vibes to American Jews, reinforcing their inability to stand up and protest against Obama's hostile policies.  The White House, of course, uses this to discredit Netanyahu on the grounds that he is merely engaged in an electoral stunt. Truth be told, a failure by Netanyahu in this area could cost him the election. But Iran has genuinely been Netanyahu's greatest concern and without his intervention would already be a nuclear state. Israel remains the target for annihilation by the Holocaust-denying Iranians who brazenly repeat their determination to eradicate the "cancerous" Israel from the map. Yet Israel is marginalized by the P5+1 nations determining the outcome. Netanyahu regarded the invitation not only as a means to promote his case to Congress but also as a platform to convey his message to the entire world. But this is ignored by his Israeli political opponents who are more concerned with electoral populism than displaying a united front in the face of an existential threat. Yet Obama is on extremely shaky ground. Even the normally supportive Washington Post published an editorial warning him against presenting the world with a fait accompli over Iran's nuclear goals and granting them regional hegemony. It accused Obama of seeking "to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make." It is in fact Obama, not Netanyahu, who has made this a partisan issue, because of his fear that an effective presentation by Netanyahu at Congress could have a major impact on legislators and the public. It is this, rather than pre-election protocol, that explains the frenzied efforts and threats that the White House has engaged to discredit Netanyahu. Netanyahu's efforts are also being undermined by extreme left-wing groups like J Street, which call on congressmen to boycott his speech and launch petitions proclaiming that he does not represent the views of American Jews. This is buttressed by media court Jews like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman resurrecting the traditional anti-Semitic dual loyalties accusation, warning Jews that if they protest against Obama's policies on Iran, Americans will be convinced that Israel controls Washington, was responsible for the war in Iraq, and is now dragging the U.S. into another war. American Jews claim that they live in a unique democratic country and enjoy full equality. Yet, whereas most Americans have no hesitation in criticizing their president when they disagree with his policies, the traditionally feisty and outspoken American Jewish leaders seem fearful of criticizing their president even in the most respectful terms. This, even after Obama's repeated and crudely appalling behavior aimed at humiliating his ally, the Israeli prime minister, in direct contrast to his servility to representatives of rogue states including Iran. On this issue, most of the Jewish leadership establishment remained silent. This included the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose officials, according to the White House, privately distanced themselves from Netanyahu's visit. To his credit, Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, was one of the few mainstream leaders stressing that Netanyahu's intention was neither to personally attack the president nor become engaged in U.S. domestic politics. Rather, it was to promote Israel's concerns about developments that it considers an existential threat and great danger to the world. But shockingly, a number of Jewish leaders also publicly slammed Netanyahu. Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, went so far as to describe the issue as a "circus" and called on House Speaker John Boehner "to withdraw" the invitation and Netanyahu to rescind his acceptance. He was followed by Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Reform movement, who said Netanyahu's speech was "a bad idea" and urged him "to bite the bullet and postpone his address" or he would "turn Israel into a partisan issue." This was outrageous. Who gave Foxman and Jacobs a mandate to challenge the decision of Israel's prime minister to appeal against enabling the Iranian terrorist state to become a nuclear state -- an act of appeasement that would dwarf Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler in Munich? Foxman's subsequent effort to modify his outburst by condemning J Street's "inflammatory and repugnant campaign" against Netanyahu did not detract from the damage he caused. Jacobs and Foxman may have convinced themselves that by seeking to avoid a conflict with their president, they were acting on the side of the angels. It was left to the hawkish Zionist Organization of America to bitterly condemn their intervention and make chilling parallels between their behavior and that of Rabbi Stephen Wise, who in 1944 urged Jewish leaders to cease campaigning to pressure the White house to intervene on behalf of the Jews in Europe in order not to embarrass President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Today, Netanyahu is desperately appealing to the world to prevent an evil apocalyptic Islamic terrorist state, committed to Israel's destruction, from becoming a nuclear power. Yet Foxman and Jacobs seem more concerned to placate their president. In making such negative statements, it is they who are transforming this into a partisan issue and providing enormous satisfaction to Iranian mullahs who undoubtedly appreciate their efforts. Shame on them! Not surprisingly, the White House exploited these outbursts as a means of encouraging Democrats to boycott the address. The president even shed crocodile tears bemoaning that Israel would become a partisan issue.  Conveniently, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced that he would be out of the country and unable to attend. Yet very few Democrats have indicated that they would absent themselves. Indeed, while unhappy with the timing, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she would attend, and dismissed calls for a boycott. Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also made it clear that he intends to hear what Netanyahu has to say. There is, in fact, a growing awareness that Obama's proposed deal represents a sellout to the Iranians. What were hitherto considered wild accusations that Obama was abandoning the traditional allies of the U.S. in order to enter into an alliance with the Iranians has now become a genuine concern. Netanyahu's speech from a U.S. Congress platform will undoubtedly enjoy massive media exposure and may bring public pressure on the P5+1 countries to refrain from committing an act that would have horrific implications not only for Israel but the entire world. Those committed to overcoming the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism and preserving the well-being of the Jewish state should pray that Netanyahu will succeed in his efforts. Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

On Israel, NY Times is an ‘Addict’ in Need of ‘Intervention’ Says Media Watchdog,

A leading US media watchdog has compared the New York Times‘ constant publication of misleading and even false reports about Israel to the behavior of an “addict” in need of an “intervention.”

Gilead Ini, a Senior Analyst with CAMERA, which monitors media coverage of Israeli and Middle Eastern issues for balance and fairness, was commenting on how the Times was compelled to run a story-changing correction to a January 30 report which claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had not informed the White House before accepting House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address Congress on Iran – a major violation of protocol which flowed from the fact that “Netanyahu…and many pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress have urged a hard line.”

Later that same day, editors ran the following correction to the story by reporters Carl Hulse and Jeremy W. Peters: “An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.”

“The Times‘ misreporting on Israel is looking more and more like an addiction,” Ini told The Algemeiner.

 “An addiction to anti-Israel advocacy that has been preventing professional news journalism — and if there is anyone in the building that cares about the newspaper’s reputation for fairness, it is time for an intervention.”

In a commentary for Tablet magazine on the latest Times scandal involving Israel, Liel Leibovitz argued that the White House was also culpable for an outcome in which Israel’s Prime Minister was again portrayed as power-hungry and hubristic.

“If Bibi had followed standard protocol, and given the White House the diplomatically-appropriate heads-up, as the Times‘ correction clearly and unequivocally stated, that meant that the Times‘ White House sources had been woefully and entirely misinformed about a key matter of protocol—or, more likely, had invented the tale of Bibi’s outrageous behavior out of whole cloth in order to blunt his unwelcome criticisms of the Administration’s Iran policy,” Leibovitz wrote.