Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Congressional ‘Jew Tracker’ Comes to the New York Times

Congressional ‘Jew Tracker’ Comes to the New York Times

“We should be grateful the New York Times chose not to illustrate its Jew tracker by awarding a six-pointed yellow badge to every Jewish opponent of this catastrophic sellout.”

Just in case you were wondering, no, this is not from The Onion. I know it’s hard to tell these days, but this is an actual thing that happened.

According to Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon, the New York Times has provided a nifty new tool, a Congressional ‘Jew Tracker.’

The New York Times has come under fire from Jewish organizations for launching a website aimed at tracking how Jewish lawmakers are voting on the Iran nuclear agreement.

The online chart, which tracks whether lawmakers who opposes the accord are Jewish, is being criticized as anti-Semitic in nature and an attempt to publicly count where Jews fall on the issue, which some have sought to turn into a debate about dual loyalty to Israel.

The feature, titled “Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal,” includes a list of legislators currently opposing the deal.

On the outset, the NYT article seems harmless enough, “Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal,” it’s called. But then there are the charts…

New york times congressional jew tracker iran deal senate

New york tinmes congressional jew tracker iran deal congress

As Kredo explained:

Jewish leaders criticized the Times for feeding into anti-Semitic stereotypes.

“It’s a grotesque insult to the intelligence of the people who voted for and will vote against [the deal],” said Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which combats anti-Semitism.

Cooper said it evokes images of “Jewish pressure” and “Jewish money” influencing the Iran vote.

This type of reporting “does a disservice to the issue and that’s the exact opposite job of the New York Times,” Cooper said. “They have some explaining to do. Why’d they do it? Shame on the New York Times for the timing and implications of this piece.”

A nationwide poll released this week found that a plurality of American voters, or 37 percent “see accusations of Jewish lawmakers having dual-loyalties on the Iran deal as anti-Semitic,” according to the findings, which were published by the Israel Project.

“This includes pluralities across all partisan and ideological lines,” the poll found. “Even among supporters of the deal, 37 percent view these accusations as anti-Semitic.”

“As a point of comparison, 35 percent said they saw the Confederate Flag as a symbol of racism in a New York Times poll in July 2015, a position that the paper vocally endorsed,” said Nathan Klein, lead pollster at Olive Tree Strategies, which conducted the poll on the Israel Project’s behalf.

One senior official with a Jewish organization based in Washington, D.C., expressed shock when sent a link to the Times feature.

“I guess we should be grateful the New York Times chose not to illustrate its Jew tracker by awarding a six-pointed yellow badge to every Jewish opponent of this catastrophic sellout.”

A New York Times spokesperson declined to comment on the criticism leveled against the website.

Who thought a ‘Jew Tracker’ was a good idea? WHO?!

I can see the conversation now…

“Hey, you know what we should do? Break down the Iran Nuke Deal Votes by RELIGION! And by religion, I mean only those who are Jewish.”

“Brilliant!”

But seriously, Who does this help and how? What is the point? What are we trying to accomplish with this odd distinction? are all questions the New York Times neglected to ask before publishing this article, apparently.

Meanwhile, Hillary lackeys have accused the New York Times of being, “a megaphone for conservative propaganda.”

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Jaysus H. Crist…!!! Who would have believed this ten years ago?!?!?

The “arch of history” is NOT trending in a good direction. AT. ALL.

    MattMusson in reply to Ragspierre. | September 10, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    The good news – in 20 years the NYT will be two middle aged women posting on Facebook.

    The bad news – Tel-Aviv will be radioactive glass by then.

“This type of reporting “does a disservice to the issue and that’s the exact opposite job of the New York Times,” Cooper said.”

Since when has the NY Times done its “job.” Or, more to the point, what is the “job” of the NY Times, empirically speaking? In fact, doing “disservice to the issue” is exactly it’s job as it sees it. The entity that is the NY Times has nothing to do with reporting news. Journalism is simply the legitimate pretext for its illegitimate existence, and it has been this way for generations.

The Progressives have become very bold in the last 7 or 8 years. They’re not even pretending to be decent human beings any longer.

“The entity that is the NY Times has nothing to do with reporting news. Journalism is simply the legitimate pretext for its illegitimate existence, and it has been this way for generations.”

Man, Pesanteur, I wish I’d thought of that first.

That explains the bumper sticker I saw yesterday, but why wasn’t the car driving around the Times Building? Big font…..Jesus Loves You…..smaller font below But everyone else thinks you are an asshole.

What’s funny is that when I started reading the article, I imagined a “Jew tracker” would allow the reader to see what Jews in Congress were against Israeli and U.S. interests. Then I see that the hue and cry is from those afraid of having Jews viewed as “loyal to Israel” rather the U.S. I guess how you view the tracker is determined by how you view the Iran nuclear deal. Both sides can focus on the same congressional Jews (those against the deal) and view them in their own, entirely different, light.

The NYT posted this Jan 2014:

“The Justice Department will significantly expand its definition of racial profiling to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations, a government official said Wednesday.

The move addresses a decade of criticism from civil rights groups that say federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counterterrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations.”

“…It is not clear whether Mr. Holder also intends to make the rules apply to national security investigations, which would further respond to complaints from Muslim groups.

“Adding religion and national origin is huge,” said Linda Sarsour, advocacy director for the National Network for Arab American Communities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/politics/us-to-expand-rules-limiting-use-of-profiling-by-federal-agents.html?_r=0

Hmmm.

So, Schumer who announced against the deal voted to prevent a resolution of opposition to the deal. Do I have that right?

    TPHobbit in reply to TPHobbit. | September 10, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    Sorry, my mistake. Schumer voted to end the filibuster. To the point of the story though, even this won’t stop Jews from subscribing. How stupid is that?

    clafoutis in reply to TPHobbit. | September 10, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Schumer is a snake. An opportunist. A hypocrite. A politician’s politician.
    He’s also a disgrace to the Jewish faith (like Soros) and his constituents.

    “Schumer Praises Obama on Iran, Hits Republicans as Hostage-Takers”

    ” . . . Schumer was one of four Senate Democrats to support the motion of disapproval, but he greeted failure with something of a shrug and even praised Obama’s “strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.”

    “Regardless of how one feels about the agreement,” Schumer said, according to the New York Times, “fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.”

    “I also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through,” Schumer added. “I recognize for them, that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me.” . . . ”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/schumer-praises-obama-iran-hits-republicans-hostage-takers_1028434.html#

    Meet the new Harry Reid.

There is nothing Jewish about opposition to the deal. Overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it, and our numbers are only growing. What’s conspicuous is the number of politicians who support it.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it, but an even greater proportion of Jews oppose it, which is not at all surprising, since Jews have more skin in this game than most Americans do. For most Americans it’s mostly a matter of right and wrong. For us it’s personal.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2015 at 12:32 pm

      An even greater proportion then overwhealimg numbers of Jews DO NOT line up on either side of the debate, Milhouse. (See Below)

So can you not question the stance of Jewish Americans, legislators in particular, vis-a-vis Israel, without being branded some fount of anit-Jewish hatred?

I, for example, think that Israel not only has a right to exist, but also has every right to defend itself, pre-emptively or otherwise, against the Islamic governments, organizations and communities that are trying to wipe it off the face of the earth; that Christianity is in a broad sense Judaism + acceptance as our Lord and Savior the Jew named Jesus of Nazareth; that Israel does not do enough to defend itself, but instead bends over backwards, out of goodness, to avoid causing unnecessary harm to innocents.

So despite all of the above, if I observe that significant numbers of Jews living outside of Israel, most notably politicians, celebrities and media elites, will unblinkingly follow their progressive politics on everything, yet only exercise due diligence and critical thought on matters relating to Israel and it’s security…

Then I am thereby an unrepentant neo-Nazi. Do I have that right?

I don’t see the objection. It seems to be premised on the idea that Jews are no more likely than anyone else to oppose this deal, and that’s just not true. The Jewish community is more united over this issue than it’s been over anything else in years. Even Jews who’ve supported 0bama on everything else, even many in J-Street forcryinoutloud, who are generally anti-Israel, are against this. And that’s perfectly understandable, since for Jews Israel’s survival is not just a theoretical question of right and wrong, like Rwanda or the Sudan, or one of balancing strategic interests, it’s a matter of the lives or deaths of millions of our own people. So it makes sense that most Jewish members of congress also oppose it.

Given that, it also makes sense that an article listing the few Democrats who bucked the extreme pressure from the White House, should offer an explanation for why they feel so strongly about it. And in the case of the Jews among them, the fact that they are Jews is sufficient to explain it.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2015 at 12:26 am

    I too, don’t see a problem. If Jewish politicians here support Israel, that’s not necessarily a sign of divided loyalty, it’s just Jewish pols doing their jobs as representatives of their Jewish constituents who support Israel.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    “The Jewish community is more united over this issue than it’s been over anything else in years.”

    Are you MESHUGGINA?

    “An American Jewish Committee poll found U.S. Jews virtually split on the Iran nuclear deal and showed Hillary Rodham Clinton well ahead of the pack among preferred presidential candidates.

    The annual AJC poll published Friday showed 50.6 of respondents approved of the sanctions relief for nuclear restrictions deal reached in July between Iran and six major powers and 47.2 disagreed with it.”

    Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/320816/jews-back-iran-deal-by-narrow-margin-poll-says/#ixzz3lRkJex8m

    If the Jewish community was so united over the issue, why did Jews in congress support it 28 to 19?

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | September 11, 2015 at 12:27 pm

      Because they are Collectivists first and anything else WAY after that.

      That’s why, troll.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm

        Right. And as 50% of US Jews support the deal, 50% of American Jews are collectivist.

        And let’s not forget the collectivist Catholic Church, and all those collectivist Catholic Bishops who told the Congress to back the deal. But wait, the overwhelming (your word, Milhouse) number of American Rabbis rallied AGAINST the deal. Over 900 of them signed a petition urging Congress to oppose the Iran nuclear deal.

        So Congressional Jews and the Catholic Clergy are Collectivist, but Judaism is not. A good reason for Catholics (notably Conservative ones) to convert.

        And that’s Mr. Troll, to you, Kvetchy.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | September 11, 2015 at 1:21 pm

          Typical LIES by a lying liar.

          “Jews in congress support it 28 to 19?”

          WHICH you then twist to “And as 50% of US Jews support the deal, 50% of American Jews are collectivist.”

          What a lying SOS.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | September 11, 2015 at 1:53 pm

          It was satiric irony, putzalong.
          (You owe Barry two more ‘lie’ nickles)

          Jumping to wrong conclusions from innocuous statements is another sign of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It often causes them to go off on tangents and irrelevancies, and frequently accuse others of lying, usually when their own opinions are questioned.

      I am skeptical about that poll. It doesn’t accord with the other evidence, such as this and this.

In Jewish circles this “Jew Tracker” story is what’s known as bupkis, a tempest in a Tea(party) pot.

Those complaining about the NY Times compiling the stance of Jewish politicians on the Iranian (bad)Deal are engaging in Yiddisher PC.

That goes double for the Wiesenthal Center, who surely knows the Jewish media has been tracking and publishing the names and positions of those Jews for months. Also reporting the stance of major American Jewish organizations on the Iran deal, for, against, neutral, circumcised (joking). All the major players – from The Anti Defamation League, to The American Jewish Committee, and yes, the Wiesenthal center too – have had their views ungapatchked like gaudy wallpaper in articles and editorials for the world to see

So what’s the big deal if the NY Times is tracking it too?

Many of us want to know how the mishpocheh are voting. Who cares if their record is put in a chart, or reported sequentially in outline form?

[rhetorical]
I wonder what would happen if somebody published a similar report, on some issue, with a column titled
Black? (Yes/No)

    Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | September 12, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    It would make perfect sense if one of the major parties were to take a stance that was against black interests, and a significant number of that party’s dissenters were black. Their race would be a good explanation for why they were voting against their party.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend