RedState93%
This Vote on Israeli Aid Reveals Just How Over the Cliff Democrats Are Going 76%
By Nick Arama96%
7/16/2026, 8:30:00 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 341 hits. Analysis detected 2,300 faulty-reasoning hits from 714 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.2% and a BS Rank of 76% (4,337 of 17,437 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.10% of the article peer group.
How far over the cliff are the Democrats willing to go to appeal to their far-left/anti-Israel base?
Pretty far, it appears.
Republican Rep.
Thomas Massie (KY-04) put forth an amendment to a State Department appropriations bill to reject aid to Israel in the next fiscal year.
The Democrats' vote on the amendment then revealed a big split.
House lawmakers voted 104-313 to reject an amendment that would have cut $3.3 billion in foreign aid to Israel for the next fiscal year in a vote that even split House Democratic leadership, which declined to whip members either way.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joined 97 other Democrats in opposing its elimination, while the chamber's second-ranking Democrat, Rep.
Katherine Clark, D-Mass., joined 102 other Democrats in supporting the measure.
Ten Democrats chickened out and just voted present.
But perhaps the vote that shows you most how confused Democrats are at this point came from Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (CA-11), who calls herself "Speaker Emerita."
While that is a title, it is a bit pretentious when she's still in office and no longer the Speaker of the House.
Look at how she tries to explain why she's voting for the amendment, against the aid to Israel.
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on Massie Amendment #8 to H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2027:
“Today, the Massie Amendment presents an unfortunate choice to the House.
As one who is committed to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and supportive of a two-state solution, I respect Leader Jeffries’ decisive proposals to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
For the good of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, it clear that U.S. policy must change to attain that goal.
“The United States must be a force for security and stability.
The American people are rightly demanding an end to a perpetual cycle of war, and the Netanyahu government cannot maintain its current course.
Therefore, while this amendment is ill-conceived, I vote yes for the message that it sends."
So, let's see.
The statement is barely comprehensible and doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's also dumb because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also said he wants to cut the aid, while keeping up the cooperation.
Pelosi says she respects House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' (NY-08) "decisive proposals," but she's throwing his position under the bus?
She doesn't like the amendment; it's "ill-conceived," but she's voting yes for it "for the message it sends."
Alrighty, now.
There's a lot of gobbledegook in there about war and Netanyahu.
But let's be honest about what this really is.
This is one more sign that the Democrats are fully captured by their far-left; it isn't about Israel per se.
Democrats have been voting for aid for Israel for years.
They've thrown billions at Ukraine.
It isn't because they're concerned about our money.
It's because they're concerned about their own power, and because their leftist base has gone anti-Israel and gone in with Islamists; even the alleged "centrists" like Pelosi (who were still left) are going there as well.
She knows it's not going to pass, so she can virtue signal to the far left without really having to stop any aid anyway.
That's the "message it sends" here.
However, it's basically party suicide in the face of the socialists.
The centrists are yelling "big tent" when grilled by the media over how they can do this, welcoming the socialists in.
But the socialists don't see it as a "big tent" - they see it as a hostile takeover, and they will toss the "centrists" under the bus without a thought.
Because it isn't about making the system better; it's about getting rid of the system entirely.
Meanwhile, actual centrists and Americans who have issues with the far-left tilt going on here are looking at this and saying this is not your Grandpa's Democrat Party.
So while they may further wed themselves to the extremists, they are going to lose more of the center.
It's not only morally bad, but politically bad for their own party's interests.
It's the opposite of what they should be doing.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.