Peter Beinart is at it again. He, in his capacity as Senior Political Writer for the Daily Beast, has attempted to tar Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and, by association, his fellow Republicans with the stain of religious intolerance. If you weren’t aware, Rep. King is Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and has recently opened hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims. Mr. Beinart starts out by claiming Republicans have left their accustomed wheel house, concentrating on “unfettered capitalism, traditional morality and bucketloads for defense” to slide into anti-religious fervor.

It’s at that point when Beinart starts building straw men.

“King isn’t holding hearings on domestic terrorism; he’s holding hearings on domestic terrorism by one religious group. Is most American terrorism Muslim terrorism? Actually, no.”

Well, the majority of terror attacks in America in the last decade were done by Muslims. Of course, he has to go through the regular list of home grown terrorists, from McVeigh to Kaczynski and on to, strangely, Jared Lee Loughner, whom, if I understand correctly is more of an insanity case then a terrorist. Curiously missing from the list are folks like the Weather Underground or the Speedway Bomber, but that might cause some embarrassment to people Beinart holds in high esteem.  In the end, if he is willing to accept the premise that American Muslims are statistically more likely to commit terrorism than non-Muslims, it’s wrong to point out their religion. (more…)

Just in time for Christmas, Muslim terrorists deployed a new weapon: the Burqa.

But few in the American Make-Believe Media seem impressed. In fact, coverage of the Burqa Bomber by Reuters and CBS News was dwarfed by that of traditional media giants Tehran Times and Malaysia Sun.

Yes, this little story apparently has no legs, journalistically speaking - female and child suicide terrorists are so yesterday. Where it was buried (such as NY Times and Bloomberg’s Business section), reporting centered on the gender of the attacker and the interruption in food distribution at the UN food center — with only passing mention of what she was wearing. How fashionably gauche!

No, this is not a terrorist fashion commentary. What’s missing in the paucity of reporting or news commentary is the inevitable twist on terrorism. A burqa is purposefully an identity tent, obscuring the wearer’s body, face and hair, revealing only the eyes. Originally meant to shield women from lecherous Muslim men, it now serves officially as a weapon of war.

(more…)

Over the last few days, on the news channels and the net, it has been wall-to-wall coverage of the Juan Williams firing by the tools over at National Public Radio. NPR was serving the hydra-headed, Hamas-supporting Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which called on them to take action against Williams.

I am grateful for this high-profile incident. Much like with the Ground Zero mosque affair, Americans have suddenly become aware of something quite terrible — a sea change, a profound transformation of a basic assumption, and a stunning reversal of their very basic unalienable rights. Their sensibilities are shaken. How could such a major seismic shift be kept hidden, kept so secret, until suddenly Juan Williams, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, gets fired for telling the truth? Is it any wonder that recent polls show that the majority of Americans no longer trust the media? That is a good thing.

To Williams’ point, we have an entire government agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), dedicated to protecting us from terrorists who are largely Muslim. We have torturous security procedures at every stage of air travel. We bear unfathomable costs in taxpayer dollars, but worse, in the surrender of privacy and individual rights because of Islamic jihad: because of the 9/11 Muslim terrorists; and the British Muslims who planned to blow up seven planes and kill 4,000 Americans and/or British people in the name of Islam in 2006; and because of Richard Reid, the Muslim with the exploding shoes; and the Christmas day bomber, the Muslim with the exploding crotch.

And yet in watching the mainstream media coverage of Juan Williams affair, we witness the fact that the media still cannot face up to its own capitulation. It’s all over the airwaves, but no one will discuss what is actually happening — the loss of the freedom of speech to Islamic supremacism and domination. This is a deadly fight — Islam in the West and its suppression of free speech. (more…)

Well, the bad news is that we’re a bunch of racists.  The good news, though, is that our liberal overlords are understanding.  Due to their boundless capacity for empathy, they understand that we just can’t help the inherent bigotry that characterizes us.  But with a little firmness and a good talking to, they’ll set us back on the progressive path.

At least, that seems to be the strategy du jour for the left and their mainstream media meat puppets.  Apparently realizing that their cacophonous chorus of innuendos and outright epithets excoriating the wayward bourgeoisie for its myriad sins was not having the desired effect – astonishingly, the know-nothings who make up the bulk of American society actually found being called “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” “Islamaphobes” and all manner of other “-ists” and “-phobes” annoying.  With the polls tanking, it was time to try a new approach.

That new approach rolled out Sunday as columnists Nick Kristoff and Cynthia Tucker tried out the new, kinder/gentler scold mode. Kristoff’s New York Times piece, delightfully titled “America’s History of Fear,” generously allows that maybe – just maybe – a virulent hatred of Muslims is not the only reason one might oppose the Ground Zero mosque.  No, he doesn’t quite say that perhaps some people might find a terrorist apologist putting up a mosque on the site of where other Muslins, acting explicitly as Muslims, murdered nearly 3,000 folks to be, at best, unbelievably tacky and insensitive.  Instead, those expressing feelings are “worriers” acting out because of their irrational fears: (more…)

One of the Obama Administration’s many deeply unimpressive senior officials, John Brennan:

Brennan is widely regarded by current and former intelligence professionals as a standing joke, except that with men like him in charge of counter-terrorism, the joke is on us.

President Obama called the murder of a soldier in Little Rock by a self-proclaimed jihadist “a senseless tragedy.” The Christmas bomber, “an isolated extremist.” The Ft. Hood shooting, a “horrific outburst of violence.” Daniel Pearl’s beheading, an act which “captured the world’s imagination” (truly the most repugnant euphemism possible for such barbarism), he magically transformed from an act of Koran-mandated Jew-hatred to a “free press” issue. At every turn, the Obama administration feeds us maddening and relentless disinformation, parroted by a credulous and/or complicit press, that terrorism carried out in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam.

Andrew C. McCarthy begs to differ. A contributing editor at the National Review Online, McCarthy is a former New York prosecutor and author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. He knows a thing or two about Muslim fundamentalism, having put away the Blind Sheikh and fellow conspirators involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to destroy other New York landmarks. And his new book clarifies exactly how that Islamic threat has not only metastasized under the radar since ‘93, but has partnered itself with the Left toward a common end.

In The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left are Sabotaging America, McCarthy wastes no time driving home the point of his subtitle. He opens by revisiting Obama’s jaw-droppingly subservient bow before the Saudi king in England, correctly attributing the emblematic gesture to the pair’s “shared dream” of bringing about the collapse of American political, economic, and cultural values. “With their collectivist philosophy,” McCarthy writes, “transnational outlook, totalitarian demands, and revolutionary designs, Islamists are natural allies of the radical Left.” (more…)

Today’s incident on the Gaza jihad flotilla was an act of war – but not by Israel. The tsunami of Jew-hating propaganda from the jihad-loving media has already begun. The international media, predictably, is spinning the story as if it were all Israel’s fault, saying that the IDF killed innocent civilian humanitarian workers on a flotilla headed to Gaza to bring aid to the starving people there.

In reality, none of that is true. This was an act of war against Israel. The people in Gaza aren’t starving, and the “humanitarian aid workers” on the flotilla were actually Islamic jihadists who attacked the IDF first. It was a planned attack — by Hamas and the hardline Muslim groups. Hamas supporters planned an armed assault, which included the murder of captured Israeli heroes. They almost succeeded.

Will you get the real story from the media? Not a chance. Before the Israeli self-defense raid even occurred, the BBC said that Israel was facing a lose-lose situation. And that is how it is playing out now. The Associated Press is reading like Al-Jazeera:

The violent takeover dealt yet another blow to Israel’s international image, already tarnished by war crimes accusations in Gaza and its 3-year-old blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory.

(more…)

Tariq Ramadan returned to the United States, six years after his visa was revoked by the Bush administration, in order to either a) continue to his vitally important work as a leading voice of Muslim moderation, or b) continue his vitally important work as a stealth jihadist. You can probably figure out which of these two messages resonates with the MSM.

Starting with the New York Times’s April 13 editorial:

Claiming that it was part of the fight against terrorism, the George W. Bush administration revived the loathsome cold war practice of denying visas to foreign intellectuals, artists and others because of their views.

In January, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton lifted the ban on two prominent scholars: Adam Habib, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa, and Prof. Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University. She needs to go further and renounce ideological exclusion.

Moving on to the Los Angeles Times: (more…)

Barack Obama has found yet another way to express his special brand of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel – while the mainstream media looks the other way. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday dropped out of Obama’s 47-nation nuclear security summit, after discovering that Israel was going to be pressured there to sign on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would drastically weaken Israel’s defenses.

And you won’t find it in the American press, but the Israeli publication NRG/Maariv reported Wednesday that employees of Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor are now being denied entry into the United States. Do they have criminal records? Terrorist connections? Do they beat, murder and rape their people marching for freedom, as does Iran, a terrorist state Obama is effectively helping go nuclear?

No. These Jewish scientists and plant workers want to come to America to study nuclear engineering, chemistry and physics. But Obama won’t let them in, just because they work in a nuclear plant in the Jewish homeland. (more…)

With its unprecedented decision to sanitize the basic document defining U.S. national security strategy – cleanse from it terms that connect Islam to terror, jihad, extremism and the like – President Obama is once again propagating Orwellian babble.

And there’s little doubt but that the MSM are primed to parrot far and wide, as opposed to critically assess, the president’s now squeaky clean, official vocabulary of defense. Even after the carnage of 9/11, for example, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews could only bring himself vaguely to identify the attacks as “criminal acts of terror” – selecting out the unpalatable fact that all the terrorists were Islamic radicals.

The administration’s latest rhetorical sleight of hand is just the latest evidence of its zeal for obfuscating the true nature of the terrorist threat. Recall the bizarre memo, originating from Obama’s Office of Management and Budget that instructed Defense Department staffers to use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation” in place of “Long War” or “Global War on Terror.” (more…)

Of all the subversive acts ever in the history of the United States of America, and even during this post-American Administration, this one is the killer: Barack Obama plans to remove all discussion of Islam and jihad from the central document of our national security strategy. Under Bush, the National Security Strategy document declared:

The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.

Now it won’t say anything about “militant Islamic radicalism” at all.

According to the Associated Press, Obama is trying to “change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.” Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer says that this shift “reflects Obama’s core assumption that the jihad against the United States is our fault, and can be quelled by our overtures of good will to the Islamic world.” In other words, if we would just be nice to Muslim countries and talk to them about health care and education instead of fighting against jihad terrorism, they will stop hating us. Spencer adds: (more…)

Yesterday’s New York Times simultaneously vilified Americans and romanticized female Muslim jihad homicide bombers. The killer, Dzhanet Abdullayeva, was the subject of a sympathetic lede story on the front page, with this headline: “Lured into Russian Jihad, 17-Year-Old Avenges Slain Husband.” (Maybe their sympathy for this murderer embarrassed them, since online the same story was given a straighter headline: “Russia Says Suicide Bomber Was Militant’s Widow.”)

Lured? In the photo, the girl is wearing a hijab, brandishing a gun and looking straight into the camera. Her husband was a bloodthirsty murdering jihadi. Do they discuss the religious motivation that led this girl to commit mass murder? No. Do they educate Americans on the Islamic texts that demand, command, and prescribe jihad? No. They make it, “Jihad, a Love Story.”

The Times only discusses the religious motivation to dismiss it with psychoanalysis. It quotes Zaur Gaziyev, who is identified as editor-in-chief of Svobodnaya Respublika, an independent newspaper in the jihad-riddled region of Dagestan. “These religious ideas are very attractive,” says Gaziyev, “because they give a kind of alternative to the world that exists. And so this young girl, who grew up without a father, who didn’t know male power.” So the poor little girl turned to jihad all because she didn’t have a father! Islamic teaching? Forget it. A kind father figure was all she needed!

Meanwhile, the same issue of the Times ran a photo of Tea Party protesters right below a vintage photo of Weathermen terrorists. The flagship publication of the mainstream media, the New York Times, has equated patriotism with the terrorism of the Sixties — the revolution that destroyed this country. Andrea Shea King at Radio Patriot notes that the Tea Partiers are the victims of terrorism, not its perpetrators: (more…)

No clearer difference can be seen in how the Old Media and its left-wing compatriots treat mass killers, terrorists and nutjobs than the way Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Joe Stack have been portrayed by the Old Media and the left. Abdulmutallab, the jihadi Christmas Bomber, was treated as an aberration unconnected with any larger group — despite that he trained with al Qaeda — and Joe Stack, who flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, has been held up as the epitome of the “teabaggers” and the “anti-government right” despite that not a single tie to those folks has been yet discovered.

Immediately after Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself and a plane full of passengers into martyrdom on Christmas Day 2009, President Obama’s administration declared this guy an “isolated extremist” and said he had no connection to our Islamofascist enemies. Obama was helped along in this by many Old Media news sources.

On Dec. 26, for instance, CBS reported that Abdulmutallab was a loner: “As of now, he appears to be a lone actor with no conspirators. A report the following day said of the jihadist bomber, ‘We’re not aware of anybody else,’ one official told Orr. No further arrests are imminent.” (more…)

I’ve interviewed many celebrities, politicians and sports stars over the years. I’ve grilled George Soros, been threatened by Mike Tyson and had fun with Jason Alexander. I’ve never interviewed a President of the United States, but I’d welcome the opportunity and the responsibility. Who wouldn’t? During his first year in office, Barack Obama did 158 “exclusive” interviews. I don’t know how you do 158 “exclusives,” but basically that means he sat down, one-on-one with everybody from Katie Couric to Al Jazeera. Al Roker never got an exclusive, but there’s plenty of time this new year to make that happen.

Since many people have gotten on that “exclusive” list, I’d like to give it a shot. We can do it when he comes to Las Vegas, or I’d foot the bill to fly to his place in D.C. to make it happen. If the President wants the questions in advance, I’d tell him to read this column, I’ll put some of them here. I’ve never been one to put questions in writing before I do an interview, certainly not for the person I’m interviewing, and I’ve never really even done it for myself, so this is rather unique for me to put this much planning into an interview.

But if I had fifteen minutes with the President, I’d ask him some question that he’s probably never been asked by my friends in the activist old media who have actually gotten the opportunity to talk to him and pretty much wasted it. So, here goes, my questions for the President: (more…)

James O’Keefe still gets my vote for investigative journalist of the year.  Teaming with Hannah Giles to expose illegal and immoral tactics deep in the ACORN shakedown operation was brilliant.  Now, O’Keefe has one-upped himself with his exposure of an MSM drowning in its own leftist ideology.

American journalists once cheered for those among their own who were brave enough to risk jail in the quest of exposing corruption and malfeasance.  Yet when O’Keefe and his band of whippersnapper journalists went undercover, disguised as telephone repairmen in the hopes of exposing Senator Landrieu’s denying her own constituents phone access to her, the MSM fell all over themselves denouncing the young men.

Rush to judgment?  No.  It was a stampede.

From MSNBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Talking Points Memo and others came shrill, utterly false headlines about “attempted bugging” and the “new Watergate,” which are now being corrected or retracted with but a faint whisper.  MSM “journalists” in high-and-mighty places haven’t had this much egg on their faces since their coffee-klatch therapy sessions over the misunderstood, “non-jihadist” Ft. Hood terror attack.

Bravo Mr. O’Keefe, honey! (more…)

Abe Foxman has come out against a great and wonderful friend of the Jews, Rush Limbaugh.  That is bad enough, but it is symptomatic of a deeper problem: I have for years derided Jews in America and the Jewish lay leadership for tolerating and supporting clear and present enemies of the Jewish people among our senior ranks. It is a sickness of the soul. The liberal Jew worships at the church of human secularism. These lost souls are married to their liberal dogma.

One of the most odious of the bunch, Abe Foxman, uses the might and the soapbox of the Anti-Defamation League in an attempt to destroy friends and supporters of the Jewish people, in order to garner favor with our enemies.

On Friday Norman Podhoretz, whom I rarely cite, as his capitulation on Gaza and other existential matters of grave concern to the Jewish people have been most damaging, called Foxman out on the ADL chief’s denunciation of Rush Limbaugh as an anti-Semite.  The author of the book Why Are Jews Liberals? (from which Rush was quoting), Podhoretz called Foxman’s attack on Rush “vile” and noted that Foxman has: (more…)

In case you’ve ever wondered why you never got the straight story on Islam directly after Sept. 11, and still haven’t, and why the media seems in the tank for jihad, here’s a clue.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) issued this directive a couple of weeks after 9/11; for sheer propaganda, their “Diversity Guidelines” are hard to beat.  In fact, the enemy who attacked our country in an attempt to bring it down may just as well have been writing the narrative.

The “guidelines,” adopted at the Society’s national convention on October 6, 2001, urges journalists to “take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to use language that is informative and not inflammatory.”

How?  Among other things: (more…)

There are many things on the World Wide Web that are not suitable for public viewing but that should be required viewing for journalists and political figures to alert them to the horrors that exist in some parts of the world. This should not be to incite but rather to rinse away their naïveté in dealing with a hostile culture and our potential enemies.

It is apparent that the mainstream media has no interest in covering stories that shed an unfavorable side of Islam and, frankly, this smacks of cowardice.

The elite will instead claim that the “vast majority” of Muslims are peace-loving and are just as horrified at the acts of a small number of radical terrorists.  That may very well be true but even a fraction of a billion is a very large number and that number is growing and gaining influence around the world thanks to the stupidity and cowardice of what should be called the “lamestream” press and those in our government today.

The Internet bloggers are doing the nasty job of covering the world of Islamic jihadists and it is truly chilling. The video of Daniel Pearl’s beheading could not be shown on the public airwaves but was easily available on the web. Gruesome as it was it cannot compare with this video of children training for Jihad beheading a man all the while praising Allah. (more…)