Category Archives: Islam

Comedy Central just can't stop attacking Christianity.

On June 16, comedian Louis C.K. appeared on the network's popular "fake news" program, "The Daily Show," where he launched into an attack on the pope over the sexual abuse scandal plaguing the church.

"I was going to say that the pope f***ed boys and I didn't have time," C.K. blurted out as host Jon Stewart started wrapping up the interview. "I do think he does. Can I defend that before we go away?"

Stewart attempted to minimize the unprovoked attack saying, "I don't think that that's true, although, they bleeped it. I don't think that that's true."

But C.K. persisted. "Well here's the thing, he lets other people do it," he said of the pope. "And I guess my feeling is this: there's only two kinds of people. There's people who are horrified and reviled by child touching with penises, and then there's people who can't stop having sex with children. There's no in-between. There's nobody like, ‘I don't do it, but I get it.'"

The comic suggested the Pope Benedict XVI was complicit, if not an active participant, in sexual abuse of boys in the church. He didn't mention that Benedict has spent much of the year meeting with victims, apologizing for church leaders' sins, and pledging to fix the problems that made such abuse possible. Or that Benedict himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was instrumental in improving how the church addressed abuse allegations.

"We, too, insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again," Benedict said in a June 11 homily.

C.K. was on "The Daily Show" to promote his new show on the FX network, which is known for "edgy" storylines and frequent use of vulgar language in shows such as "Rescue Me" and "Sons of Anarchy."

The "jokes" were the latest in a long line of attacks on Christians aired by Comedy Central. The assault continued even after the network refused to allow its popular "South Park" show to criticize, or even mention, the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The most recent attack before C.K.'s came on June 11, when in a stand-up special comedian Paul F. Tompkins called Catholicism "crazy junk" and "ridiculous."

Like this article? Sign up for "Culture Links," CMI's weekly e-mail newsletter, by clicking here.

 

—– —–

View Original Post

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a rising star in the Republican Party, a true representative of the tea party spirit. She’s plainspoken, brilliant, and incisive. She’s running for re-election to the House in Minnesota. And today, I had the chance to pre-record an interview with Congresswoman Bachmann for my radio show, “The Ben Shapiro Show,” broadcast Sundays 1-4 PM EST on 810 AM in Orlando, FL. You can also listen live at big810am.com.

In the interview, Congresswoman Bachmann characterizes President Obama’s response to the BP spill as “infantile,” says he’s the worst president in American history, says he’s siding with the Islamic world against Israel. How’s that for guts! Take a listen:

Transcript highlights after the jump:

At 2:28:
BACHMANN: It’s an infantile response for the president to point blame at BP when the president has given over full authority to BP to deal with and manage the cleanup.  If the president wanted to, he could intervene and he clearly hasn’t.

SHAPIRO: Isn’t that a running theme with this presidency?  They’re all about blame, and not about doing anything?

BACHMANN: He’s not about taking responsibility, and that’s why I say it’s an infantile response to not take responsibility when your’e the president of the United States, and that is all we have seen, unfortunately, coming out of this president is an unwillingness to take responsibility.

At 4:27:
SHAPIRO: I want to ask you, speaking of his violent language, and he’s been brutal on BP, talking about putting his boot on the throat of BP, talking about how he wants to go down there and kick someone’s ass — frankly, Michele, I think you could take President Obama, off the record.

BACHMANN: Hey, I took karate when I was 17 years old, I am dangerous.

SHAPIRO: I do believe that.  That was not said facetiously.

At 5:05:
SHAPIRO: President Obama said in 2008 about his political enemies, who are never terrorists, by the way, but they’re members of the tea party — he said to his supporters, “I want you to argue with them and get in their faces … If they tell you, ‘Well he’s going to raise our taxes,’ you say, ‘No he’s not, he’s going to lower them.’

BACHMANN: In other words, go lie to people.

SHAPIRO: Is it fair to call him a liar at this point?

BACHMANN: It’s not a truthful statement.  That’s the elixir of the tea party movement.  People are telling the truth.

At 6:55:
SHAPIRO: Is President Obama better or worse than Jimmy Carter?

BACHMANN: Worse.  Easily worse.

SHAPIRO: I agree.  So far, you’d have to say he’s the worst president in United States history …

BACHMANN: No question.  No question.

SHAPIRO: … with the possible exception of James Buchanan.

BACHMANN: And the thing is, here we are, people can’t wait until November.  They’re practically lining up for polls now, they can’t wait to go out and vote.  The only thing is people wish Barack Obama was up for re-election right now, because they’d honestly love to have a chance to throw him out of office.  Everywhere I go, people ask me, “Michele, can we impeach the president?” They want a referendum on him.  I also had someone today say, “There’s no way he’ll run for a second term.  No way.  No one would vote for him.”  I don’t know if the White House understands how the floor has dropped out under support for this president.

At 8:15:
SHAPIRO: Has President Obama sided with the Islamic world against Israel at this point?

BACHMANN: It appears that way.  This was horrific.

 A journalist hired by The New York Times to report on a controversial mosque at 9/11’s Ground Zero and the failed Christmas Day bomb plot previously held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Associated Press and ABC News also enlisted former CAIR workers to cover stories involving the Muslim community, raising concerns over whether it’s ethical for objective media outlets to hire ex-advocacy group employees to report on the issues they previously championed.

Sharaf Mowjood, who helped pen the Islam-focused articles for The New York Times and the Times’ world-affairs paper the International Herald Tribune in December of 2009, worked as a government relations coordinator for CAIR up until at least March of 2008.

Mowjood’s gushing, 1,200-word article on the controversial mosque planned for construction near the former site of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks was titled "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero." All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the project or lauded its advocate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

"Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding," read the enthusiastically pro-Rauf article, which was double bylined with reporter Ralph Blumenthal.

The proposed ground zero mosque has elicited anger from family members of 9/11 victims who said the project would be disrespectful to the thousands of people murdered in the name of Islam during the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. However, Mowjood’s article made no mention of legitimate criticism against the planned mosque. Instead, it portrayed opponents of the prayer center as sources of potential anti-Muslim violence.

"[T]here is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks," wrote Mowjood and Blumenthal. "Joan Brown Campbell…who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

The article’s approving tone was consistent with the views of CAIR, an adamant supporter of the ground zero prayer center. "[B]uilding this mosque is the solution, not the problem, because Islam calls for … a culture of moderation," CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad told the Arab American News on May 22.

But the reporter’s background might conflict with the Times ethical standards. The Times’ code of ethics says that reporters "should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing." The Times has not yet responded to requests for comment on whether Mowjood’s prior lobbying past constituted a conflict of interest.

CAIR, which calls itself a "grassroots civil rights and advocacy group," has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations. Lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have accused CAIR’s founders of supporting Palestinian terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip. CAIR has also sparked criticism for refusing to fully condemn Islamic extremism.

In an article Mowjood wrote for ABC News on the FBI shooting death of a Detroit imam, he even quoted other CAIR members, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). IPT reported that CAIR "has been ginning up allegations about the shooting for months."

The Times and ABC News are not the only media outlets that have hired a former CAIR employee to write on controversial Muslim issues. The Associated Press also employed former CAIR Canada spokeswomen Hadeel Al-Shalchi to cover subjects like Israel-Palestine relations, the Goldstone report that condemned Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic radicalism.

Al-Shalchi was assigned by AP to cover a dispute over the Qatari-based website Islamonline in March of 2010, reported the IPT. Islamonline is a website tied to the radical Islamic political group the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The [Muslim Brotherhood] website described Islamonline as ‘the most prominent voice of the global Muslim Brotherhood,’ wrote the IPT. However, Al-Shalchi’s story "cast the Brotherhood as moderate and Brotherhood spiritual leader and Islamonline founder Youssef al-Qaradawi as a ‘relative moderate.’"

Still working as an Egyptian correspondent for the AP, many of Al-Shalchi’s articles do not include the word "terrorist" to describe terrorist organizations, and instead use the words "extremist" or "militant." In the past, CAIR has campaigned against linking the term "terrorist" with Islam.

In a June 1, 2009 article on U.S.-Middle East relations, Al-Shalchi referred to Palestinian land as being "occupied" by the Israelis – and she included the Gaza strip, which Israel withdrew from in the summer of 2005.

"If Obama wants to rally Muslim support to rein in Iran, analysts say, he will have to prove his good intentions elsewhere," she wrote. "In particular, he needs to move to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands the Palestinians want for a state."

In the same article, Al-Shalchi refers to the George W. Bush presidency as "one of the darkest periods in U.S.-Muslim relations."

Al-Shalchi also fails to hide her condemnation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in an article from Nov. 7, 2008 titled "After years of Bush, Arabs see hope in Obama."

"Over past years, the bloodshed in Iraq, fears of war with Iran, abuse at Abu Ghraib and prisoners at Guantanamo convinced many that the United States was an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bully. A feeling of despair and hopelessness became widespread and few believed U.S. policies would ever change," she wrote.

 A journalist hired by The New York Times to report on a controversial mosque at 9/11’s Ground Zero and the failed Christmas Day bomb plot previously held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Associated Press and ABC News also enlisted former CAIR workers to cover stories involving the Muslim community, raising concerns over whether it’s ethical for objective media outlets to hire ex-advocacy group employees to report on the issues they previously championed.

Sharaf Mowjood, who helped pen the Islam-focused articles for The New York Times and the Times’ world-affairs paper the International Herald Tribune in December of 2009, worked as a government relations coordinator for CAIR up until at least March of 2008.

Mowjood’s gushing, 1,200-word article on the controversial mosque planned for construction near the former site of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks was titled "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero." All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the project or lauded its advocate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

"Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding," read the enthusiastically pro-Rauf article, which was double bylined with reporter Ralph Blumenthal.

The proposed ground zero mosque has elicited anger from family members of 9/11 victims who said the project would be disrespectful to the thousands of people murdered in the name of Islam during the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. However, Mowjood’s article made no mention of legitimate criticism against the planned mosque. Instead, it portrayed opponents of the prayer center as sources of potential anti-Muslim violence.

"[T]here is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks," wrote Mowjood and Blumenthal. "Joan Brown Campbell…who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

The article’s approving tone was consistent with the views of CAIR, an adamant supporter of the ground zero prayer center. "[B]uilding this mosque is the solution, not the problem, because Islam calls for … a culture of moderation," CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad told the Arab American News on May 22.

But the reporter’s background might conflict with the Times ethical standards. The Times’ code of ethics says that reporters "should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing." The Times has not yet responded to requests for comment on whether Mowjood’s prior lobbying past constituted a conflict of interest.

CAIR, which calls itself a "grassroots civil rights and advocacy group," has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations. Lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have accused CAIR’s founders of supporting Palestinian terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip. CAIR has also sparked criticism for refusing to fully condemn Islamic extremism.

In an article Mowjood wrote for ABC News on the FBI shooting death of a Detroit imam, he even quoted other CAIR members, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). IPT reported that CAIR "has been ginning up allegations about the shooting for months."

The Times and ABC News are not the only media outlets that have hired a former CAIR employee to write on controversial Muslim issues. The Associated Press also employed former CAIR Canada spokeswomen Hadeel Al-Shalchi to cover subjects like Israel-Palestine relations, the Goldstone report that condemned Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic radicalism.

Al-Shalchi was assigned by AP to cover a dispute over the Qatari-based website Islamonline in March of 2010, reported the IPT. Islamonline is a website tied to the radical Islamic political group the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The [Muslim Brotherhood] website described Islamonline as ‘the most prominent voice of the global Muslim Brotherhood,’ wrote the IPT. However, Al-Shalchi’s story "cast the Brotherhood as moderate and Brotherhood spiritual leader and Islamonline founder Youssef al-Qaradawi as a ‘relative moderate.’"

Still working as an Egyptian correspondent for the AP, many of Al-Shalchi’s articles do not include the word "terrorist" to describe terrorist organizations, and instead use the words "extremist" or "militant." In the past, CAIR has campaigned against linking the term "terrorist" with Islam.

In a June 1, 2009 article on U.S.-Middle East relations, Al-Shalchi referred to Palestinian land as being "occupied" by the Israelis – and she included the Gaza strip, which Israel withdrew from in the summer of 2005.

"If Obama wants to rally Muslim support to rein in Iran, analysts say, he will have to prove his good intentions elsewhere," she wrote. "In particular, he needs to move to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands the Palestinians want for a state."

In the same article, Al-Shalchi refers to the George W. Bush presidency as "one of the darkest periods in U.S.-Muslim relations."

Al-Shalchi also fails to hide her condemnation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in an article from Nov. 7, 2008 titled "After years of Bush, Arabs see hope in Obama."

"Over past years, the bloodshed in Iraq, fears of war with Iran, abuse at Abu Ghraib and prisoners at Guantanamo convinced many that the United States was an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bully. A feeling of despair and hopelessness became widespread and few believed U.S. policies would ever change," she wrote.

 A journalist hired by The New York Times to report on a controversial mosque at 9/11’s Ground Zero and the failed Christmas Day bomb plot previously held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Associated Press and ABC News also enlisted former CAIR workers to cover stories involving the Muslim community, raising concerns over whether it’s ethical for objective media outlets to hire ex-advocacy group employees to report on the issues they previously championed.

Sharaf Mowjood, who helped pen the Islam-focused articles for The New York Times and the Times’ world-affairs paper the International Herald Tribune in December of 2009, worked as a government relations coordinator for CAIR up until at least March of 2008.

Mowjood’s gushing, 1,200-word article on the controversial mosque planned for construction near the former site of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks was titled "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero." All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the project or lauded its advocate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

"Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding," read the enthusiastically pro-Rauf article, which was double bylined with reporter Ralph Blumenthal.

The proposed ground zero mosque has elicited anger from family members of 9/11 victims who said the project would be disrespectful to the thousands of people murdered in the name of Islam during the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. However, Mowjood’s article made no mention of legitimate criticism against the planned mosque. Instead, it portrayed opponents of the prayer center as sources of potential anti-Muslim violence.

"[T]here is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks," wrote Mowjood and Blumenthal. "Joan Brown Campbell…who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

The article’s approving tone was consistent with the views of CAIR, an adamant supporter of the ground zero prayer center. "[B]uilding this mosque is the solution, not the problem, because Islam calls for … a culture of moderation," CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad told the Arab American News on May 22.

But the reporter’s background might conflict with the Times ethical standards. The Times’ code of ethics says that reporters "should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing." The Times has not yet responded to requests for comment on whether Mowjood’s prior lobbying past constituted a conflict of interest.

CAIR, which calls itself a "grassroots civil rights and advocacy group," has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations. Lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have accused CAIR’s founders of supporting Palestinian terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip. CAIR has also sparked criticism for refusing to fully condemn Islamic extremism.

In an article Mowjood wrote for ABC News on the FBI shooting death of a Detroit imam, he even quoted other CAIR members, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). IPT reported that CAIR "has been ginning up allegations about the shooting for months."

The Times and ABC News are not the only media outlets that have hired a former CAIR employee to write on controversial Muslim issues. The Associated Press also employed former CAIR Canada spokeswomen Hadeel Al-Shalchi to cover subjects like Israel-Palestine relations, the Goldstone report that condemned Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic radicalism.

Al-Shalchi was assigned by AP to cover a dispute over the Qatari-based website Islamonline in March of 2010, reported the IPT. Islamonline is a website tied to the radical Islamic political group the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The [Muslim Brotherhood] website described Islamonline as ‘the most prominent voice of the global Muslim Brotherhood,’ wrote the IPT. However, Al-Shalchi’s story "cast the Brotherhood as moderate and Brotherhood spiritual leader and Islamonline founder Youssef al-Qaradawi as a ‘relative moderate.’"

Still working as an Egyptian correspondent for the AP, many of Al-Shalchi’s articles do not include the word "terrorist" to describe terrorist organizations, and instead use the words "extremist" or "militant." In the past, CAIR has campaigned against linking the term "terrorist" with Islam.

In a June 1, 2009 article on U.S.-Middle East relations, Al-Shalchi referred to Palestinian land as being "occupied" by the Israelis – and she included the Gaza strip, which Israel withdrew from in the summer of 2005.

"If Obama wants to rally Muslim support to rein in Iran, analysts say, he will have to prove his good intentions elsewhere," she wrote. "In particular, he needs to move to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands the Palestinians want for a state."

In the same article, Al-Shalchi refers to the George W. Bush presidency as "one of the darkest periods in U.S.-Muslim relations."

Al-Shalchi also fails to hide her condemnation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in an article from Nov. 7, 2008 titled "After years of Bush, Arabs see hope in Obama."

"Over past years, the bloodshed in Iraq, fears of war with Iran, abuse at Abu Ghraib and prisoners at Guantanamo convinced many that the United States was an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bully. A feeling of despair and hopelessness became widespread and few believed U.S. policies would ever change," she wrote.

 A journalist hired by The New York Times to report on a controversial mosque at 9/11’s Ground Zero and the failed Christmas Day bomb plot previously held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Associated Press and ABC News also enlisted former CAIR workers to cover stories involving the Muslim community, raising concerns over whether it’s ethical for objective media outlets to hire ex-advocacy group employees to report on the issues they previously championed.

Sharaf Mowjood, who helped pen the Islam-focused articles for The New York Times and the Times’ world-affairs paper the International Herald Tribune in December of 2009, worked as a government relations coordinator for CAIR up until at least March of 2008.

Mowjood’s gushing, 1,200-word article on the controversial mosque planned for construction near the former site of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks was titled "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero." All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the project or lauded its advocate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

"Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding," read the enthusiastically pro-Rauf article, which was double bylined with reporter Ralph Blumenthal.

The proposed ground zero mosque has elicited anger from family members of 9/11 victims who said the project would be disrespectful to the thousands of people murdered in the name of Islam during the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. However, Mowjood’s article made no mention of legitimate criticism against the planned mosque. Instead, it portrayed opponents of the prayer center as sources of potential anti-Muslim violence.

"[T]here is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks," wrote Mowjood and Blumenthal. "Joan Brown Campbell…who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

The article’s approving tone was consistent with the views of CAIR, an adamant supporter of the ground zero prayer center. "[B]uilding this mosque is the solution, not the problem, because Islam calls for … a culture of moderation," CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad told the Arab American News on May 22.

But the reporter’s background might conflict with the Times ethical standards. The Times’ code of ethics says that reporters "should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing." The Times has not yet responded to requests for comment on whether Mowjood’s prior lobbying past constituted a conflict of interest.

CAIR, which calls itself a "grassroots civil rights and advocacy group," has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations. Lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have accused CAIR’s founders of supporting Palestinian terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip. CAIR has also sparked criticism for refusing to fully condemn Islamic extremism.

In an article Mowjood wrote for ABC News on the FBI shooting death of a Detroit imam, he even quoted other CAIR members, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). IPT reported that CAIR "has been ginning up allegations about the shooting for months."

The Times and ABC News are not the only media outlets that have hired a former CAIR employee to write on controversial Muslim issues. The Associated Press also employed former CAIR Canada spokeswomen Hadeel Al-Shalchi to cover subjects like Israel-Palestine relations, the Goldstone report that condemned Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic radicalism.

Al-Shalchi was assigned by AP to cover a dispute over the Qatari-based website Islamonline in March of 2010, reported the IPT. Islamonline is a website tied to the radical Islamic political group the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The [Muslim Brotherhood] website described Islamonline as ‘the most prominent voice of the global Muslim Brotherhood,’ wrote the IPT. However, Al-Shalchi’s story "cast the Brotherhood as moderate and Brotherhood spiritual leader and Islamonline founder Youssef al-Qaradawi as a ‘relative moderate.’"

Still working as an Egyptian correspondent for the AP, many of Al-Shalchi’s articles do not include the word "terrorist" to describe terrorist organizations, and instead use the words "extremist" or "militant." In the past, CAIR has campaigned against linking the term "terrorist" with Islam.

In a June 1, 2009 article on U.S.-Middle East relations, Al-Shalchi referred to Palestinian land as being "occupied" by the Israelis – and she included the Gaza strip, which Israel withdrew from in the summer of 2005.

"If Obama wants to rally Muslim support to rein in Iran, analysts say, he will have to prove his good intentions elsewhere," she wrote. "In particular, he needs to move to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands the Palestinians want for a state."

In the same article, Al-Shalchi refers to the George W. Bush presidency as "one of the darkest periods in U.S.-Muslim relations."

Al-Shalchi also fails to hide her condemnation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in an article from Nov. 7, 2008 titled "After years of Bush, Arabs see hope in Obama."

"Over past years, the bloodshed in Iraq, fears of war with Iran, abuse at Abu Ghraib and prisoners at Guantanamo convinced many that the United States was an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bully. A feeling of despair and hopelessness became widespread and few believed U.S. policies would ever change," she wrote.

 A journalist hired by The New York Times to report on a controversial mosque at 9/11’s Ground Zero and the failed Christmas Day bomb plot previously held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Associated Press and ABC News also enlisted former CAIR workers to cover stories involving the Muslim community, raising concerns over whether it’s ethical for objective media outlets to hire ex-advocacy group employees to report on the issues they previously championed.

Sharaf Mowjood, who helped pen the Islam-focused articles for The New York Times and the Times’ world-affairs paper the International Herald Tribune in December of 2009, worked as a government relations coordinator for CAIR up until at least March of 2008.

Mowjood’s gushing, 1,200-word article on the controversial mosque planned for construction near the former site of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks was titled "Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero." All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the project or lauded its advocate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

"Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding," read the enthusiastically pro-Rauf article, which was double bylined with reporter Ralph Blumenthal.

The proposed ground zero mosque has elicited anger from family members of 9/11 victims who said the project would be disrespectful to the thousands of people murdered in the name of Islam during the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. However, Mowjood’s article made no mention of legitimate criticism against the planned mosque. Instead, it portrayed opponents of the prayer center as sources of potential anti-Muslim violence.

"[T]here is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks," wrote Mowjood and Blumenthal. "Joan Brown Campbell…who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

The article’s approving tone was consistent with the views of CAIR, an adamant supporter of the ground zero prayer center. "[B]uilding this mosque is the solution, not the problem, because Islam calls for … a culture of moderation," CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad told the Arab American News on May 22.

But the reporter’s background might conflict with the Times ethical standards. The Times’ code of ethics says that reporters "should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing." The Times has not yet responded to requests for comment on whether Mowjood’s prior lobbying past constituted a conflict of interest.

CAIR, which calls itself a "grassroots civil rights and advocacy group," has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations. Lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation officials have accused CAIR’s founders of supporting Palestinian terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip. CAIR has also sparked criticism for refusing to fully condemn Islamic extremism.

In an article Mowjood wrote for ABC News on the FBI shooting death of a Detroit imam, he even quoted other CAIR members, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). IPT reported that CAIR "has been ginning up allegations about the shooting for months."

The Times and ABC News are not the only media outlets that have hired a former CAIR employee to write on controversial Muslim issues. The Associated Press also employed former CAIR Canada spokeswomen Hadeel Al-Shalchi to cover subjects like Israel-Palestine relations, the Goldstone report that condemned Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic radicalism.

Al-Shalchi was assigned by AP to cover a dispute over the Qatari-based website Islamonline in March of 2010, reported the IPT. Islamonline is a website tied to the radical Islamic political group the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The [Muslim Brotherhood] website described Islamonline as ‘the most prominent voice of the global Muslim Brotherhood,’ wrote the IPT. However, Al-Shalchi’s story "cast the Brotherhood as moderate and Brotherhood spiritual leader and Islamonline founder Youssef al-Qaradawi as a ‘relative moderate.’"

Still working as an Egyptian correspondent for the AP, many of Al-Shalchi’s articles do not include the word "terrorist" to describe terrorist organizations, and instead use the words "extremist" or "militant." In the past, CAIR has campaigned against linking the term "terrorist" with Islam.

In a June 1, 2009 article on U.S.-Middle East relations, Al-Shalchi referred to Palestinian land as being "occupied" by the Israelis – and she included the Gaza strip, which Israel withdrew from in the summer of 2005.

"If Obama wants to rally Muslim support to rein in Iran, analysts say, he will have to prove his good intentions elsewhere," she wrote. "In particular, he needs to move to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands the Palestinians want for a state."

In the same article, Al-Shalchi refers to the George W. Bush presidency as "one of the darkest periods in U.S.-Muslim relations."

Al-Shalchi also fails to hide her condemnation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in an article from Nov. 7, 2008 titled "After years of Bush, Arabs see hope in Obama."

"Over past years, the bloodshed in Iraq, fears of war with Iran, abuse at Abu Ghraib and prisoners at Guantanamo convinced many that the United States was an anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bully. A feeling of despair and hopelessness became widespread and few believed U.S. policies would ever change," she wrote.

On May 24^th, at Track 16 Gallery in fashionable Bergamont Station in Santa Monica, CA, dozens of marginal works of art were nearly destroyed by the exploding heads of some of SoCal’s finest and most dogmatic liberals, as a roomful of them were injected with some cognitive dissonance when author Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the author of Infidel, a deeply personal account of her disillusionment with and rejection of her Muslim upbringing, as well as her latest book Nomad, which chronicles her continuing journey. She also collaborated with late film director Theo Van Gogh on the short documentary film Submission, the release of which resulted in the brutal assassination of Van Gogh by a homegrown Dutch Islamic jihadist and ultimately drove her from the Netherlands because of her inability to find adequate security there. She continues to be an outspoken critic of the subjugation and mistreatment of women under fundamentalist Islam, and the AHA Foundation which she founded aims to combat “several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.” These would seem to be fairly non-controversial goals, especially in a pro-feminist Western society, but they received a rather chilly response that night from the tolerant progressives of Santa Monica.

During the interview portion of the evening, I was struck by how quiet the room was. Statements made by Ms. Ali that in most cities in middle America would have received applause were met with a respectful but stony silence. When the floor was opened for questions from the seemingly stunned audience, one after another of Santa Monica’s finest political thinkers rose unsteadily from their chairs to ask a question that might allow them to hold onto their deeply-held and carefully nuanced progressive beliefs in the face of someone who must have seemed to them to be an untouchable figure, a woman born in Somalia who left Islam and became an atheist, as well as an unrelenting critic of the injustice and violence that is routinely taught in the Muslim world.

In response to a lady who asked passionately if it was not true that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had created more terrorists than they had thwarted, Ms. Ali calmly replied that the jihadists of course used these wars as propaganda for recruitment, just as they would use any situation for recruitment, since they are in the business of destroying free societies and bringing them under submission to shari’a law, and that no matter what the West did, the jihadists would recruit and terrorize.

One very confused and shaken white-haired gentleman could barely form a question, stammering that he had “great respect” for her but disagreed with almost everything she said. As he rambled on, many of his colleagues began to call at him “What’s your question?” and “No speeches, ask a question!” He finally concluded with a semi-coherent plea along the lines of, “Well, how do we deal with these extremists?”

Ali replied that once you have decided to “deal” with the jihadists, you have legitimized their demands of submission, and that you cannot “deal” with fanatics who wish to destroy your nice free society with bike paths and reusable shopping bags and replace it with a totalitarian theocracy. She went on to object to the vague use of the term “extremists,” asking “Extremists of what?” If we were talking about white supremacists, or radical Marxists or Communists or any other “-ists” that used terrorism and violence to bring about their goals, we would not hesitate to identify the ideas behind their philosophy that drove them to such ends. Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

She deftly fielded a question about the “perversion” of Islam by fanatics by proclaiming that she was more concerned about the perversion of the word “liberalism,” because of the willingness of many Western liberals to accept and excuse some of the most heinous criminal acts committed by practitioners of the Muslim faith, like arranged marriages, spousal abuse, subjugation of women by force, denial of education to females, and female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism and a so-called “respect” for other civilizations. American liberals, she said, appear to be more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than most conservatives are. This led her into a repudiation of multiculturalism, and how, despite some honorable intentions in its origins, it had mutated into a belief system that actually denies access to the freedom and justice guaranteed by the American Constitution by allowing injustice to continue within protected minority communities by not encouraging them to assimilate and become full Americans.

In response to a question about how long America should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said it was her hope that the Americans would stay for 50 or 100 years, if that is how long it took to modernize those societies, even while acknowledging that there did not seem to be the political will for such an effort to be sustained.

The best question of the evening came from a young man who simply asked what would be the best way to bring about an “Enlightenment” in the Muslim world. She replied that the best way would be to ask them questions about their religion and cause “cognitive dissonance” among those who blindly follow the violent exhortations of their imams. I actually laughed out loud when she used those words, as the cognitive dissonance occurring at that moment in the Track 16 gallery was practically audible. I could swear I heard the word “What?!?” thudding over and over again in the formerly comfortable brains of those around me.

The only applause of the night (!) signaled the end of the evening, and as I lined up to have my book signed by Ms. Ali, I was struck by how short the line was. Out of the 150 to 200 people I guessed were in attendance, only about 25 or so lined up to greet this remarkable individual. As I made my way down the line, I passed pockets of fervent discussion, and caught fragments here and there. I overheard one rather agitated gentleman say, “I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.

Ms. Ali, flanked by 3 or 4 pleasant-looking but serious suits, a private Secret Service force necessary to protect her from the religion of peace, signed my book as I stammered out an inadequate “Thank you so much for your courage.” She smiled and said, “Thank you very much.”

Not a very scintillating exchange I know, but as I left the gallery that evening, I realized that the real crux of the matter, and the truly paralyzing aspect for the liberals around me, was simply that — her courage. To the Hollywood community, a community that did not even have the courage to list Theo Van Gogh during the 2005 Oscar ceremony as one of the people in film who had died that year, a woman willing to continue espousing her deep convictions after being threatened with death by the same people who had murdered her colleague was utterly confounding. And for someone like me, a person who writes from behind a mask, not even for fear of death but of the economic retribution I might face from the supposedly tolerant community in which I live and work, the evening I spent in a room with Ayaan Hirsi Ali was all the more humbling.

On May 24^th, at Track 16 Gallery in fashionable Bergamont Station in Santa Monica, CA, dozens of marginal works of art were nearly destroyed by the exploding heads of some of SoCal’s finest and most dogmatic liberals, as a roomful of them were injected with some cognitive dissonance when author Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the author of Infidel, a deeply personal account of her disillusionment with and rejection of her Muslim upbringing, as well as her latest book Nomad, which chronicles her continuing journey. She also collaborated with late film director Theo Van Gogh on the short documentary film Submission, the release of which resulted in the brutal assassination of Van Gogh by a homegrown Dutch Islamic jihadist and ultimately drove her from the Netherlands because of her inability to find adequate security there. She continues to be an outspoken critic of the subjugation and mistreatment of women under fundamentalist Islam, and the AHA Foundation which she founded aims to combat “several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.” These would seem to be fairly non-controversial goals, especially in a pro-feminist Western society, but they received a rather chilly response that night from the tolerant progressives of Santa Monica.

During the interview portion of the evening, I was struck by how quiet the room was. Statements made by Ms. Ali that in most cities in middle America would have received applause were met with a respectful but stony silence. When the floor was opened for questions from the seemingly stunned audience, one after another of Santa Monica’s finest political thinkers rose unsteadily from their chairs to ask a question that might allow them to hold onto their deeply-held and carefully nuanced progressive beliefs in the face of someone who must have seemed to them to be an untouchable figure, a woman born in Somalia who left Islam and became an atheist, as well as an unrelenting critic of the injustice and violence that is routinely taught in the Muslim world.

In response to a lady who asked passionately if it was not true that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had created more terrorists than they had thwarted, Ms. Ali calmly replied that the jihadists of course used these wars as propaganda for recruitment, just as they would use any situation for recruitment, since they are in the business of destroying free societies and bringing them under submission to shari’a law, and that no matter what the West did, the jihadists would recruit and terrorize.

One very confused and shaken white-haired gentleman could barely form a question, stammering that he had “great respect” for her but disagreed with almost everything she said. As he rambled on, many of his colleagues began to call at him “What’s your question?” and “No speeches, ask a question!” He finally concluded with a semi-coherent plea along the lines of, “Well, how do we deal with these extremists?”

Ali replied that once you have decided to “deal” with the jihadists, you have legitimized their demands of submission, and that you cannot “deal” with fanatics who wish to destroy your nice free society with bike paths and reusable shopping bags and replace it with a totalitarian theocracy. She went on to object to the vague use of the term “extremists,” asking “Extremists of what?” If we were talking about white supremacists, or radical Marxists or Communists or any other “-ists” that used terrorism and violence to bring about their goals, we would not hesitate to identify the ideas behind their philosophy that drove them to such ends. Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

She deftly fielded a question about the “perversion” of Islam by fanatics by proclaiming that she was more concerned about the perversion of the word “liberalism,” because of the willingness of many Western liberals to accept and excuse some of the most heinous criminal acts committed by practitioners of the Muslim faith, like arranged marriages, spousal abuse, subjugation of women by force, denial of education to females, and female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism and a so-called “respect” for other civilizations. American liberals, she said, appear to be more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than most conservatives are. This led her into a repudiation of multiculturalism, and how, despite some honorable intentions in its origins, it had mutated into a belief system that actually denies access to the freedom and justice guaranteed by the American Constitution by allowing injustice to continue within protected minority communities by not encouraging them to assimilate and become full Americans.

In response to a question about how long America should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said it was her hope that the Americans would stay for 50 or 100 years, if that is how long it took to modernize those societies, even while acknowledging that there did not seem to be the political will for such an effort to be sustained.

The best question of the evening came from a young man who simply asked what would be the best way to bring about an “Enlightenment” in the Muslim world. She replied that the best way would be to ask them questions about their religion and cause “cognitive dissonance” among those who blindly follow the violent exhortations of their imams. I actually laughed out loud when she used those words, as the cognitive dissonance occurring at that moment in the Track 16 gallery was practically audible. I could swear I heard the word “What?!?” thudding over and over again in the formerly comfortable brains of those around me.

The only applause of the night (!) signaled the end of the evening, and as I lined up to have my book signed by Ms. Ali, I was struck by how short the line was. Out of the 150 to 200 people I guessed were in attendance, only about 25 or so lined up to greet this remarkable individual. As I made my way down the line, I passed pockets of fervent discussion, and caught fragments here and there. I overheard one rather agitated gentleman say, “I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.

Ms. Ali, flanked by 3 or 4 pleasant-looking but serious suits, a private Secret Service force necessary to protect her from the religion of peace, signed my book as I stammered out an inadequate “Thank you so much for your courage.” She smiled and said, “Thank you very much.”

Not a very scintillating exchange I know, but as I left the gallery that evening, I realized that the real crux of the matter, and the truly paralyzing aspect for the liberals around me, was simply that — her courage. To the Hollywood community, a community that did not even have the courage to list Theo Van Gogh during the 2005 Oscar ceremony as one of the people in film who had died that year, a woman willing to continue espousing her deep convictions after being threatened with death by the same people who had murdered her colleague was utterly confounding. And for someone like me, a person who writes from behind a mask, not even for fear of death but of the economic retribution I might face from the supposedly tolerant community in which I live and work, the evening I spent in a room with Ayaan Hirsi Ali was all the more humbling.

On June 6^th, the date of D-Day, scores of patriots from across the nation poured into Zuccotti Park at the corner of Liberty and Trinity, across the street from Ground Zero to protest the 9/11 mosque being built just 600 feet from our country’s most painful wound.

Many have spoken to the horrible insensitivity of this mosque, arguing that it is an affront to American sensibilities, a planting of the victory flag as evidenced by its 9/11/11 opening date and the name of the project itself, the “Cordoba Initiative,” and a reflection of the growing stealth Sharia in the United States given the mosque’s Imam’s pro-Islamic law stance.  Indeed Muslims have been building mosques for centuries as symbols of conquest and dominance, and this one in particular will mark the first to stand on US soil.

The 9/11 mosque however has far greater implications with regard to the fundamental principles of our nation.  As reflected by the guffaws of many in the crowd when one of the speakers at the rally argued in favor of the mosque on Constitutional grounds regardless of the abhorrence of its location, many find it hard to reconcile that Islam is allowed to use our freedoms to subvert or mock our freedoms.  The religious tolerance of our culture alone deems us largely unable to prevent against mosques in which Islamic supremacism is preached, creating fertile protected grounds for jihadists both peaceful and violent.

If in fact we are unable to safeguard against such institutions, or even criticize the ideology of Islam at all, then we are going to be neutered in a war against those who use Islam to justify murdering innocents and implementing universal Sharia law both overtly and stealthily.

To adequately combat jihad and Sharia generally runs up against the Constitutional separation between church and state, which in addition to the commitment to our cultural values is why we have been largely ineffective to this point in countering terrorists and their sympathizers here in America.

I would like to present an alternative view of Islam, that it fundamentally differs from other religions, thus making the relationship between mosque and state a fundamentally different one from that between church and state.

The key to understanding Islam is that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a theopolitical ideology.  It is a legal system wrapped in a religion.  The imposition of Sharia law as the supreme law of all lands and all peoples is required by the Koran.

For the word “Islam” itself means submission to Allah.  Muslims must compel the non-believer infidels to either convert, live as oppressed, second-class citizens, forced to pay a special jizya tax to the ruling Muslims and unable to freely practice their own faith, or face the sword.

The Sharia state as we know is anathema not just to the United States but to all Western Civilization.  It sanctions the beating of women, oppression of gays, honor killings and a host of other restrictions on our natural rights.

Lest one think that Sharia need only be imposed by force, the Koran contains a tenet known as taqiyya, which says that Muslims are allowed to use any useful means, including lying and deception to advance the supremacy of Islamic law.  This leads Muslims dedicated to imposing Sharia to ironically become Alinsky-ites (ironically given Saul’s Jewish faith), which explains well the similarities between organizations like CAIR and ACORN, and the broader ties between Islam and Leftism as “fellow travelers” on the road to totalitarianism.

Moreover, even beyond the political implications of Sharia, and in no small part due to the ignorance if not sympathy of our political leaders, academia and media, we have not had an open discussion as to the tenets of the religion itself.  Eric Holder cannot attribute terrorism to Islam, our top schools are cesspools of jihadism and our media believes that terrorists attack us because they are late on their mortgages.

One crucial part to understanding Islam is the notion of abrogation.  This refers to the fact that as Muhammad revealed his truth over a long period of time, his later words abrogated his earlier ones.  This effectively means that the peaceful verses of the Koran that came chronologically earlier in the book are supplanted by the violent calls to impose Islam later in the book.  This violence manifests itself not just in acts against non-Muslims but Muslims as well – for apostates, along with those who shame their families for example in dating non-Muslims are liable to be killed in accordance with Islam.

More generally, as Turkish Prime Minister Tayepp Erdogan said with regard to moderate Islam:

“These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

But since we in the West fail to understand this either out of ignorance or fear, we are left believing that it is just a percentage of violent misinterpreters of the religion that threaten us, when in reality it is not just violent jihadists but stealth jihadists, their sympathizers and those who refuse to condemn these people who are all complicit in the war against our civilization.

If we are to win this war, we must study the ideology that is used by those fighting against us, and devise policy consistent with our understanding of it.

Because Islam is not just a theology, but a theology that requires a universally imposed political system, this has manifold implications with regard to our Constitution and our way of life.  Until and unless we are able to grapple with this truth, Muslims peaceful and violent will continue to be able to exploit our freedoms by hiding behind the separation of church and state, regardless of the stark differences between what is taught in the church and what is taught in the mosque.

   Tomorrow, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) along with Young Americas Foundation and other conservative political organizations will be joining together to contact their Senators against Obama’s current Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagen.          Citing factors such as her actions against the military’s right to be on campuses, her Princeton thesis lamenting the decline of socialism [...]

CNN anchor Don Lemon repeatedly defended rabidly anti-Israel columnist Helen Thomas as he interviewed Ari Fleischer late in the 7 pm Eastern hour of Sunday's Newsroom. After playing Thomas's remarks, Lemon lauded her in his first question to Fleischer: "Helen Thomas has broken down many barriers for women....She has a lifelong achievement...in journalism. Should that count for anything?" [audio clips available here]

The former press secretary strongly condemned Thomas's comments and proposed that "if somebody said that all blacks need to leave America and go home to Africa, they would have already lost their jobs," while stating that two of them "always ideologically disagreed, but I liked her." Lemon followed through on this point: "Yeah, that was my next point. It's- I know that people disagree ideologically- but you can still be friends or still be co-workers. Have you reached out to her at all? Have you tried to talk to her about why she said this?"

Later in the segment, Lemon played a clip from 2001 where the Hearst columnist berated Fleischer for not giving an answer to her liking and accusing the Bush administration of being one-sided towards Israel.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER  (from 2001 White House press conference): ...President [Bush] to meet with [Yasser] Arafat?

FLEISCHER: John, as soon as we have anything to announce, if we do, we will let you know.

THOMAS: That's not an answer. This has been a very one-sided dialogue, and not talking to- any president not talking to any Palestinian leader face to face, and we want to know why?

FLEISCHER: Helen, the President has met with many-

THOMAS: There's two sides to this conflict, you know.

FLEISCHER: The President has met with many Arab leaders who have come here and met with him in the Oval Office.

THOMAS: They're not Palestinians-

FLEISCHER: Secretary Powell, as you know, will be meeting with the Palestinian Authority tonight, tomorrow and the next several days.

The anchor replied, "You have to appreciate her tenacity, as a journalist, to do something like that. But did you sense any bias when you worked together with her?"

Lemon then read from Thomas's "apology" statement: "I want to say that she did apologize, and here's what she says. She says, 'I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.' Apparently, you're not satisfied with that, and apparently, her agent and the co-author of her book are not satisfied, as well, with that." Speaking of apparently, Thomas realized that the statement wasn't satisfactory either, as Hearst Publishing announced her immediate retirement on Monday.

The CNN anchor concluded the interview by asking Fleischer if he was concerned about any backlash for being so forceful about Thomas's remarks: "Are you concerned about any- I don't know- alienation from people who may not agree with you on this issue?"

Almost two months earlier, during an April 11 interview with former Republican congressman J.C. Watts, Lemon insisted that hate speech was much more prevalent on the conservative side of politics: "We have seen it on the Republican and the conservative side much, much more than on the Democratic side. The name calling in groups, with signs, calling people, you know, epithets, comparing them to Hitler. We've seen it much more from the conservatives, from the tea party movement."

Wow.

MSM, NYC officials, sharia peddlers: Can you hear the rising chorus of voices of Americans who haven’t forgotten yet?

Photo via El Marco

In the post-American world, a convoy of war ships trussed up as a “flotilla” is affectionately called “humanitarian aid.” And now the world is demanding a full-on “investigation” of Israel’s defensive action.

I asked former UN Ambassador John Bolton for his take on it. He said, “How Obama reacts in the UN Security Council and more generally will say a lot about his views on Israel.”

You gotta love how post-American Obama was so quick to call policeman James Crowley “stupid,” motivated by racism in the Gates affair, but when Jewish soldiers were getting beaten to a pulp on the killing flotilla, the Obama administration morally equivocated and “condemned those acts which resulted in the loss of life.”

What the hell does that even mean? And Obama and other world leaders are ignoring the fact that, as was reported by the Israel Project, “all nine protesters killed Monday (May 31) aboard a Gaza-bound Turkish ship carrying weapons-wielding activists are believed to be Turkish nationals and were backed by the IHH, an Islamist Turkish group connected to global jihadi networks.”

Has the post-American President Obama bothered to watch the murderous beatings?

It would be pointless to advise the UN, which voted Wednesday on a resolution regarding the killing flotilla, to watch the videos; they are blind with Jew-hatred. There’s endless video showing jihadists savagely beating Israelis, but they need a full-on Nazi-style indictment of Israel. I am sure there are Richard Goldstone kapos lined up, just salivating for the chance to bury the Jews.

Where was the full-on investigation of North Korea’s torpedoing of a South Korean ship, killing 46 innocent sailors in a declaration of war? Where was the full-on investigation of the Iranian mullahcracy, beating, raping and slaughtering its own people in their march for democracy? Where was the full-on investigation of the UN peacekeepers raping and selling children into human trafficking? Where was the UN investigation when China was found to be harvesting organs from the Falun Gong? Where was the UN investigation of sharia law, stonings, hangings, amputations? Where was the UN investigation of the mindless slaughter of Christians by Muslim hordes wielding machetes in Nigeria? Of Mumbai? London? New York? Madrid? Bali?

Only good gets investigated and condemned at the UN. Evil is exalted, celebrated.

This is a sign of the rise of the power of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and its proxy, the Alliance of Civilizations.

Israel should be proud to be investigated by those silver-tongued barbarians.

Maybe the investigators will take the time to discover that Gaza, the world’s largest and most successful fund raiser, is receiving more aid per person, per square mile, than anywhere else in the world. Gaza suffers no lack of “humanitarian aid,” but this story isn’t really about humanitarian aid at all. It is about creating a narrative, as Nazi Germany did, in which to frame the next Holocaust of the Jewish people.

The killing flotilla has become the rallying cry for the global jihadists who are hell-bent on fulfilling the express command to kill the Jews, as prescribed over and over in Islamic teaching. Remember: Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, said that the end times would only come when Muslims started mass-murdering Jews: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

The only suffering in Gaza is not being caused by Israel. It is coming at the hands of the barbarians, Hamas. The first paragraph of the Hamas Charter, by the way, calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Mere details, I know.

So if the Flotilla incident and the outrage that has followed it is not about humanitarian aid, much less about “occupied” land, then what is it about? This is about jihad. This is about Islamic supremacism and annihilating the Jews. 56 ginormous Muslim countries, one tiny Jewish state, and they are in a constant bloodthirsty frenzy over it.

The level of anti-Semitism in my email box and in the comments at my website AtlasShrugs.com since the killing flotilla story broke is full blown out of control. Evil has been unleashed. Pure evil. As Turkey’s Islamic supremacist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said about Israel’s act of self-defense against the killing flotilla: “Today is the beginning of a new age. Things will never be the same again.”

This is not about borders or land or aid. This is about good vs. evil. Stand against this latest libel against the Jews. You saw the video. You saw the vicious jihadis attack. This is the war against the West. Even if you are not Jewish or give a fig about Israel, in any war between the civilized man and the savage, always side with the civilized man.

As a young show tunes twink, the closest I got to jazz was Ella Fitzgerald’s great Cole Porter Songbook, recorded in 1956 for the fledgling Verve label.  I played the LPs so much I wore them...

View Original Post

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler on Tueday addressed Tavis Smiley's claim that Christian terrorists commit far more violence than Muslim ones. Smiley also issued a statement that defended his comments, though it misrepresented what those comments actually were.

"I don't think he made his case, or even came close," Getler said. He rightfully noted that the 2000 Columbine massacre, Smiley's only example of supposed Christian terrorism, "had nothing to do with Christianity." In fact, as Brent Bozell noted in his column today, the shooters even "mocked students who cried out for God to save them."

Though Getler should be applauded for noting Smiley's total failure to offer a convincing argument, he seems to suggest that a convincing case could be made, but simply wasn't in this instance. "One would think," Getler states, "that Smiley would have been better prepared to make what was certain to be a controversial case."

But the point of objection is not that the case is controversial, it's that there is no case to be made in the first place. There are no grounds whatsoever to claim that more Christians than Muslims commit terrorist acts (motivated primarily by their respective religions) in the United States. Whether by the sheer number of attacks, body count, scale of destruction, or impact on policy and our way of life, Muslim terrorists have wrecked havoc on the United States on a scale far beyond the occasional Scott Roeder.

Getler chastised Smiley's "equating the occasionally deranged individual in this country with religiously fanatic suicide bombers and those like Maj. Nidal M. Hasan at Fort Hood in Texas." Smiley did conflate murderers who are Christians with people who murder in the name of Christianity--a logical fallacy in itself.

But the larger issue is Smiley's primary argument (though he apparently considers it a given) that Christian terrorism is more widespread than Muslim terrorism.

That is an argument that should be dismissed outright, but Getler subtly avoids it. Instead, he notes that "there are no doubt people who kill in the name of different religions" and shifts the issue to whether Smiley's examples served to support his argument. But the argument itself is invalid.

For his part, Smiley replied to his critics in a statement that completely misrepresented both his exchange with Ali and the argument that riled up his critics. Smiley stated:

Ms. Hirsi Ali and I were talking about violence perpetrated in the name of religion or by people who claim to be religious. We agreed that there is extremism in Christianity just as there is in Islam and other faiths. We agreed that people have always found ways to use religion to justify heinous acts. Where we disagreed was that followers of any one religion are predisposed to violence. Unfortunately, history has shown us that believers of all stripes have been misguided.

Actually, the disagreement arose not out of a claim that any one religion is "predisposed" to violence, as Smiley disingenuously states. Ali told Smiley "I think you and I disagree" on Smiley's contention that "There are so many more examples" of acts of terrorism perpetrated by Christians than Muslims.

Either Smiley does not understand his viewers' objections, or he realizes how outrageous his statement was, and is trying to shift attention to a completely different argument (that there are violent followers of all religions).

Without a mention from Smiley or Getler, however, was the former's claim that Tea Party activists are comparably dangerous to jihadists. Their collective silence is quite troubling.

Though Smiley made the comment towards the end of the segment in question, he clearly meant to suggest that Tea Partiers--who, he claimed, "are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people 'nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people"--can justly be compared to Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber.

I'll let Bozell take point in dismantling that assertion:

Put aside the thoroughly unproven accusations, now that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver has backed off the story of conservative spitters, and there is no audio, or corroboration of the accusation of N-words being thrown. Had those events actually happened, would they in any way have been comparable to murder?

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

It isn't just the pro-Palestinian press that is attempting to distort the reality behind the recent flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. 

Former Democratic Congresswoman, and 2008 Green Party candidate for President of the United States, Cynthia McKinney, has voiced her own version of reality through an anti-Israeli rant in Arab News.  McKinney is of course, a reliable source on the topic, having been involved in her own little attempts at defying and breaking an Israeli blockade of Gaza (translation - aiding and abetting a terrorist regime).

In her column for Arab News, McKinney expresses outrage over ‘Israel's needless, senseless act against unarmed humanitarian activists.'  Having been involved in previous attempts to defy the authority of the Israeli Navy, McKinney knows full well that the Free Gaza Movement, organizers of this flotilla, consists of anything but unarmed humanitarian activists.  In case memory has failed her, here is a handy reminder:

• A report from the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center highlights the link between flotilla organizers and radical human rights violators.
• The Jerusalem Post points out that ‘soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes.' The article then goes on to say that the already armed protestors upgraded their arsenal by ‘stealing two handguns from soldiers', opening fire, and ultimately escalating the violence that they themselves had already started.

More after the break...

• The Jawa Report features an image of an alleged peace activist on board the Turkish ship prior to the skirmish. The activist is holding a rather large knife that some people with eyes and an adequate fear of sharp objects would consider a weapon. They also have video footage of the violence perpetrated by the demonstrators, along with a clip showing the weapons used.
• Michelle Malkin's site has a video clip from the Palestinian Media Watch which shows flotilla participants chanting about the return of ‘The Army of Mohammed' and invoking the killing of Jews through martyrdom.

Yet to McKinney and much of the mainstream media, they were nothing more than humanitarian activists.  This distorted view gets worse in the article, and highlights McKinney's personal and long-running anti-Semitic views.

She states her point of view (emphasis mine throughout):

"But I'm even more outraged that once again, Israel's actions have been aided and abetted by a US political class that has become corrupted beyond belief due to its reliance on Zionist finance and penetration by Zionist zealots for whom no US weapons system is too much for the Israeli war machine, and the silence of the world's onlookers whose hearts have grown cold with indifference."

Where have we seen McKinney blame Zionists for the ills of the world before?  Her concession speech back in 2006, at which members of her Black Panther Party security entourage spewed racist, anti-Semitic comments, including a claim that her election loss was directly due to ‘the Zionists'.

Referring to her personal encounter with the Israeli Navy, McKinney makes a laughable attempt to change the history of her own law-breaking activity:

"During my imprisonment in Israel for attempting to take crayons to the children of Gaza, I called Israel a failed state."

Unless crayons are now considered medical supplies, she was most definitely not detained for taking crayons to the children of Gaza.  According to Fox News in July of 2009:

"In a press release from the Green Party, McKinney said the form states that the Spirit of Humanity, a Greek-flagged relief boat carrying 21 activists, medical supplies, cement, olive trees and children's toys en route to Gaza, was violating the Israeli blockade and trespassing the country's territorial waters."

If the only thing being delivered here is humanitarian aid, then why misstate your intentions?  Why cherry pick the supplies being mentioned?  Why leave out medical supplies (to aid Hamas), and cement (to possibly build bunkers)?

In a previous Gaza-bound mission, via the Atlanta Journal Constitution in December of 2008:

"The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called ‘SS Dignity' would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns."

Again, they were delivering medical aid for terrorists - no mention of any boxes being labeled with the word ‘Crayola'.

Later on in her article, McKinney shifts from having delivered crayons for the children to a much different commodity:

"...the Israelis could very well conclude that they can do anything - imprison me for trying to take love to the children of Gaza and kill humanitarian activists trying to do the same..."

Those children who were expecting a delivery of love but received crayons instead, were probably just a bit disappointed.

McKinney's article is a roller coaster ride of random statements and hyperbole, putting it directly in line with the main stream media reports of this and past incidents with Israel.  That said, a little advice for the MSM:

Being fair and balanced means presenting both sides of the story, not simply taking the account of a lunatic fringe protest group who is trying to promote a cause - a cause that directly harms an ally of the United States.   

- Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net. Please join me on Facebook.

PBS station managers made a big push last year to drive any trace of “sectarian” Christianity out of the taxpayer-funded broadcasting system, banning any church services or religious lectures that appeared on a handful of stations. They ultimately compromised and banned any new church programming. But on at least one program, PBS sounds like it’s declaring war on Christianity, including smears on Christianity that are not based on reality.

If that sounds shocking, imagine what the average Christian PBS viewer might have thought as he watched Tavis Smiley’s weeknight talk show on May 25. The guest was ex-Muslim and atheist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, there to promote her latest book, “Nomad.” Smiley claims to be a Christian, but he attacked Ms. Ali for “idealizing Christianity” and recklessly turning people away from Islam.

Right out of the box, Smiley was out to make a point. “You say unapologetically and rather frankly that your mission here is to inform the West about the danger of Islam,” he began. “What danger do we need to be made aware of?”

What? Did Tavis Smiley somehow sleep through 9/11? Is PBS keeping him locked in a closet where he remains unaware of the ongoing terrorist attacks on Americans – successful and unsuccessful – made by Islamic radicals? When Ali brought up the deaths of 13 at Fort Hood and the failed Times Square bomber, Smiley unloaded a literally unbelievable statement: “But Christians do that every single day in this country.”

Ali replied: “Do they blow people up?” Smiley: “Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is -- I could do this all day long.”

Tavis Smiley is not only wrong, he’s perversely wrong. The boys who shot up Columbine High School were not Christians, they were just violent psychopaths who, among other evils, mocked students who cried out for God to save them. There aren’t Christians walking into post offices or schools every single day in America and blowing people up. Anyone in charge of journalistic integrity at PBS should see this as a blazing inaccuracy, in addition to a religious smear. Men this dishonest should be kept from microphones, not hired to speak into them.

But Smiley kept going, insisting Christians were far worse than Muslim terrorists: “There are so many more examples of Christians -- and I happen to be a Christian. That's back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read. There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.”

Who would have thought that anyone would outdo Rosie O’Donnell, who insisted radical Christianity was “just as threatening” as radical Islam?

Ali calmly explained that Christians are far more tolerant. They take abuse on television programs without threatening to blow up Comedy Central offices or promise Daniel Pearl-style decapitations for executives. She acknowledged “not all Muslims are terrorists, we must emphasize that, but almost all terrorist activities that take place today in our time are done and justified in the name of Islam.”

This caused another burst of illogic from Smiley, who compared the Fort Hood attack to the Tea Party activists protesting ObamaCare on Capitol Hill. “There are folk in the Tea Party, for example, every day who are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people ‘nigger’ as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people.”

Put aside the thoroughly unproven accusations, now that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver has backed off the story of conservative spitters, and there is no audio, or corroboration of the accusation of N-words being thrown. Had those events actually happened, would they in any way have been comparable to murder? 

PBS has an ombudsman now to receive public complaints. Michael Getler should hear from across the country, from Christians and non-Christians alike, that Tavis Smiley must provide a retraction and an apology for his scurrilous and bigoted remarks against Christians and the billions that practice that faith. PBS stations across the country accept millions in funding from good-hearted Christian taxpayers who don’t deserve to see allegedly “public” broadcasting attacking their integrity.

Seventy-seven percent of Americans call themselves Christian.

People in public broadcasting boast in their pledge drives and their direct-mail fundraising letters and in their congressional testimony that they are an oasis of civility and intelligent discourse. But they host, and help fund, the unintelligent, inaccurate garbage coming out of the mouth of Tavis Smiley. This trash belongs in the dumpster. 

Calling your political opponents Nazis can get old after a while.

That's why one needs to mix it up, perhaps by suggesting that they're akin to the radical Islamic clerics that inspire terrorism.

Just ask MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

During the "Political Sideshow" segment of his June 1 program, the "Hardball" host compared Sarah Palin's Facebook page posting about author Joe McGinniss renting the house next door to a "fatwa" aimed at "rev[ving] up anger at the author" from amongst her "mob" of followers [MP3 audio available here]:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: A thrillah in Wasilla.  Sarah Palin's got a new neighbor out in Wasilla, Alaska, journalist Joe McGinniss, who's writing a book on the  ex-governor set to come out next year.

MATTHEWS: In the past week, Palin's taken to Facebook and conservative radio to rev up anger at the author after he rented a house that's next to her property. Here's McGinniss who wrote that great book, "The Selling of the President," on the "Today" show saying he has no intention of spying on the Palins.

JOE McGINNISS: I am not observing them at all. I'm here to talk to people who have known them for 40 years in Wasilla. 

MCGINNISS:  I think this is probably a lesson for the American people of the power Palin has to incite hatred, and her willingness and readiness to do it. She has pushed a button and unleashed the hounds of Hell and now they're out there slabbering and barking and growling.

MATTHEWS: Wow. Well, Palin, who knows how to stir up a mob, has issued a fatwa against McGinniss for daring to rent that vacant house next door.

Here's the full text of her May 25 Facebook "fatwa" that Matthews and McGinniss are all riled up about:

Spring has sprung in Alaska, and with this beautiful season comes the news today that the Palins have a new neighbor! Welcome, Joe McGinniss!

Yes, that Joe McGinniss. Here he is – about 15 feet away on the neighbor’s rented deck overlooking my children’s play area and my kitchen window. Maybe we’ll welcome him with a homemade blueberry pie tomorrow so he’ll know how friendly Alaskans are.

We found out the good news today. Upon my family’s return this morning from endorsement rallies and speeches in the Lower 48 states, I finally got the chance to tackle my garden and lawn this evening! So, putting on the shorts and tank top to catch that too-brief northern summer sun and placing a giddy Trig in his toddler backpack for a lawn-mowing adventure, I looked up in surprise to see a “new neighbor” overlooking my property just a stone’s throw away. Needless to say, our outdoor adventure ended quickly after Todd went to introduce himself to the stranger who was peering in...

Joe announced to Todd that he’s moved in right next door to us. He’s rented the place for the next five months or so. He moved up all the way from Massachusetts to live right next to us – while he writes a book about me. Knowing of his many other scathing pieces of “journalism” (including the bizarre anti-Palin administration oil development pieces that resulted in my Department of Natural Resources announcing that his work is the most twisted energy-related yellow journalism they’d ever encountered), we’re sure to have a doozey to look forward to with this treasure he’s penning. Wonder what kind of material he’ll gather while overlooking Piper’s bedroom, my little garden, and the family’s swimming hole?

Welcome, Joe! It’ll be a great summer – come borrow a cup of sugar if ever you need some sweetener. And you know what they say about “fences make for good neighbors”? Well, we’ll get started on that tall fence tomorrow, and I’ll try to keep Trig’s squeals down to a quiet giggle so we don’t disturb your peaceful summer. Enjoy!

- Sarah Palin

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has a bad habit of inappropriate flippancy, and it's on display in his review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new memoir "Nomad," introduced with the headline "The Gadfly," that efficiently captures Kristof's condescending tone.

Hirsi Ali is a feminist intellectual born Muslim in Somalia, raised in Saudi Arabia, escaped an arranged marriage, fled to the Netherlands and began speaking out against Islam's treatment of women. She now lives in the United States and is a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, which is perhaps why her story does not delight liberals like it should on the surface.

As historian Andrew Roberts wrote in an attack at The Daily Beast, Kristof sounded condescending. Hirsi Ali's brave fight for women's rights against fundamentalist religious bigotry certainly sounds like something to be admired without reservation by any sincere liberal. Yet liberals often seem too afraid of sounding like anti-Islamic conservatives to applaud Hirsi Ali without criticism. Kristof makes it sound as if Hirsi Ali shared the blame for the threats on her life because "she has managed to outrage more people...," as if her goal is to provoke anger, not to expand freedom for women under Islam.

If there were a "Ms. Globalization" title, it might well go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali woman who wrote the best--selling memoir "Infidel." She has managed to outrage more people -- in some cases to the point that they want to assassinate her -- in more languages in more countries on more continents than almost any writer in the world today.

Now Hirsi Ali is working on antagonizing even more people in yet another memoir. "Nomad" argues that Islam creates dysfunctional families -- like her own -- and adds that these distorted families constitute "a real threat to the very fabric of Western life." Western countries, she says, should be less tolerant of immigrants who try to preserve their lifestyles in their new homelands. It might seem presumptuous to write another memoir so soon, but Hirsi Ali is a remarkable figure who has plenty of memories to record.

If two memoirs weren't "presumptuous" for Barack Obama, why would it be for Hirsi Ali, who has suffered far more in her life without becoming a liberal icon like Obama has?

Kristof eventually admitted to enjoying the book and admiring Hirsi Ali, but not before clearing his throat several times with anguished liberal caveats about her "ferocity" in her denouncing Islam (as if she doesn't have a right to feel that way).

That's partly because she is by nature a provocateur, the type of person who rolls out verbal hand grenades by reflex. After her father's death, Hirsi Ali connects by telephone with her aging and long-estranged mother living in a dirt-floor hut in Somalia. Hirsi Ali asks forgiveness, but the conversation goes downhill when her mother pleads with her to return to Islam. Near tears, her mother asks: "Why are you so feeble in faith? . . . You are my child and I can't bear the thought of you in hell."

....

Since Hirsi Ali denounces Islam with a ferocity that I find strident, potentially feeding religious bigotry, I expected to dislike this book. It did leave me uncomfortable and exasperated in places. But I also enjoyed it. Hirsi Ali comes across as so sympathetic when she shares her grief at her family's troubles that she is difficult to dislike. Her memoir suggests that she never quite outgrew her rebellious teenager phase, but also that she would be a terrific conversationalist at a dinner party.

Historian Andrew Roberts, writing at The Daily Beast, found Kristof terribly condescending, and was critical of Kristof describing Ali as a "provocateur."

The word "provocative" is often a term of approbation; here it is clearly intended pejoratively. The only people who could possibly be "provoked" by Nomad are Islamic fundamentalists who abuse women and beat children; much of the book is a passionate denunciation of the way violence is routinely used against children in the Muslim world.

Russell Shorto's Sunday NYT Magazine profile of Job Cohen, the leftist mayor of Amsterdam, also mentioned Hirsi Ali, and used the same tone suggesting she had gone too far:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- from her position at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative U.S. policy center at which she became a fellow after she fled the Netherlands -- criticizes Cohen's approach using the same dire language about Islam that put her at the center of the Dutch political and social debate.

The Times has a history of criticism. Reviewer and author Ian Buruma's March 4, 2007 review of her first memoir "Infidel" was mostly supportive of Hirsi Ali, but ended with criticism of her "absolutist view."

Hirsi Ali is quite right that this force must be resisted. Enlightened reform of religious practices that clash with liberal democratic freedoms is necessary. But much though I respect her courage, I'm not convinced that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's absolutist view of a perfectly enlightened West at war with the demonic world of Islam offers the best perspective from which to get this done.

And the Times's own book reviewer, William Grimes, included this stunning criticism of Hirsi Ali in his review of a related book by Buruma, "Murder in Amsterdam The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance."

Enlightenment absolutists like Ms. Hirsi Ali and Mr. van Gogh turned apoplectic at any efforts to appease or accommodate Muslims on, say, gay rights or women's rights, and they were not alone in their fears.

A Times book critic criticizing someone for being too tolerant of gays and women, and for not taking the radical Muslim view into consideration? Can you imagine a liberal chiding other liberals for failing to "appease or accommodate Christians" on "gay rights or women's rights"?

This is what floats their boat.

***

Scroll down for updates…at least three more Jew-bashing martyrdom ships on the way…U.N. condemns Israeli actions, calls for release of ships…

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

Right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

And right on cue, here come the worldwide protests, via John Hinderaker at Power Line.

Speaking of useful idiots, William Jacobson has a round-up of the left-o-sphere’s usual Israel-hating suspects.

Doug Ross has more on the “humanitarian” cover for this martyrdom operation.

***

Update: There’s another jihadi ship on the way. Israel says it’s ready:

Israel’s Navy is ready to stop another aid ship headed to Gaza, a commander said on Tuesday, playing down the prospect of his men shying from confrontation after their bloody seizure of a Turkish vessel a day earlier.

Israel’s Army Radio reported that the MV Rachel Corrie, a converted merchant ship, would reach Gazan waters by Wednesday.

A Marine lieutenant who was not named told Army Radio that he expected an easy takeover of the ship.

Yes, it’s named after that Rachel Corrie.

This report says there are a total of at least three more vessels on the way.

The U.N. Security Council wants Israel to release the ships and passengers it has in custody:

The United Nations Security Council on Thursday condemned acts which resulted in the loss of civilian lives on ships carrying pro-Palestinian campaigners and aid to Gaza, and called for an impartial investigation into Israel’s deadly raid.

In a statement, the Security Council also called for the immediate release of 400 international activists and the six ships being held by Israel.

…Netanyahu voiced regret at the deaths but vowed to maintain the three-year-old embargo to stop Iranian-backed Hamas from bringing arms to Gaza.

That pledge could soon be tested. Israel’s Army Radio said the aid ship MV Rachel Corrie, named after an American activist killed by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip in 2003, would approach the port of Gaza imminently. A marines commander told the station his men were “ready” to intercept the ship.

***

And nope, as Allahpundit at Hot Air notes, no U.N. condemnation of North Korea yet.

***

Charles Krauthammer on Monday night’s Special Report on FNC:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The fundamental deception here is the use of the word “humanitarian.” As we saw, humanitarians don’t wield iron clubs and would have killed the Israelis had the Israelis not drawn their pistols in self-defense. But there’s a larger issue here. What exactly is the humanitarian crisis that the flotilla was actually addressing? There is none. There’s no one starving in Gaza. The Gazans have been supplied with food and social services, education, by the U.N., by UNRWA, for 60 years in part with American tax money. Second, when there are humanitarian needs, the Israelis allow every day food and medicine overland into Gaza.

The reason that it did not want to allow this flotilla is because, as the spokesman for the flotilla said herself, this was not about humanitarian relief, it was about breaking the blockade. And the reason the Israelis have a blockade is because they only want to allow humanitarian supplies and not weaponry. Look, the proof of that is the fact that if you look at a map of Gaza, you’ll see that Israelis only control three sides of this rectangle. There’s a fourth side on the Egyptian side. So it is an Egyptian-Israeli blockade. The Egyptians have the same problem with Gaza. People accuse Israelis of having a blockade because they’re racist, they’re anti-Muslim, anti-Arab. The Egyptians are Muslim and Arab, and they’ve gone to war three times on behalf of the Palestinians.

So why do they have exactly the same blockade? Because Gaza is run by Hamas, a terror entity that wants to import weaponry and resume the war against Israel. The man who made the announcement that we saw earlier, explaining the commando raid, is the defense minister of Israel. He’s not right winger. He’s Ehud Barak, who’s the leader of Labor, the party of Yitzhak Rabin, Golda Meir, the party of the left, the man who 10 years ago this summer offered the Palestinians a peace agreement that would provide a Palestinian state, division of Jerusalem and an end of the conflict. The Palestinians said no, and Gaza two years ago declared war on Israel. That’s why you’ve got a blockade, and the flotilla was not about humanitarian needs. It was about smashing the blockade.

More at Newsbusters.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From the IDF YouTube channel, a video counter-narrative of the weekend “Freedom Flotilla” furor you won’t see in the Israel-bashing press:

Video taken by IDF naval boat shows the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla, violently attacking IDF soldiers who were trying to board the ship after having sent repeated requests for the boat to change course.

Large groups of passengers surrounded soldiers and beat them with metal poles and chairs, and threw one soldier over the side of the ship. Some passengers grabbed pistols from the IDF soldiers and opened fire. As a result of the attacks, seven IDF soldiers were injured, and nine of the passengers were killed.

The ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla had publicly insisted on their non-violent intentions, however their violent attack on the IDF soldiers was clearly premeditated. They had knives, metal rods, firebombs and other items ready to use.

Many of the IDF soldiers were armed with…paintball guns.

Jonathan Schanzer reports on the terror financiers behind the peace thug flotilla:

The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That’s because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA’s radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.

Melanie Phillips has more on the Islamic terror ambush and the jihadis’ media sympathizers:

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (via Just Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

Indeed, here’s the Jew-killing warm-up chant alluding to Khaibar and the return of the “army of Mohammed:”

It’s a chant sung by jihadists here in the U.S., too. Know your history, know your enemy:

Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.

With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
Ah, Ah.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.

***

And right on cue, here comes the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel.

From Bill Roggio at Long War Journal breaking tonight:

Al Qaeda has announced that its top leader in Afghanistan and chief financial official was killed in a US airstrike in Pakistan ten days ago.

Mustafa Abu Yazid, who is also known as Sheikh Saeed al Masri, was killed in the May 21 Predator strike in the village of Mohammed Khel in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan. Datta Khel is a known al Qaeda hub in North Waziristan.

As Sahab, al Qaeda’s propaganda arm, released a statement announcing Yazid’s death on Al Ansar, a jihadist forum.

Rumors of Yazid’s death was first reported by ABC News, which quoted US officials who said a eulogy for Yazid was to be released by As Sahab.

Yazid is one of al Qaeda most important leaders, and he will be difficult to replace. He served as al Qaeda’s leader in Afghanistan and what the terror group refers to as the Khorasan, a region that encompasses large areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. The Khorasan is considered by jihadists to be the place where they will inflict the first defeat against their enemies in the Muslim version of Armageddon. The final battle is to take place in the Levant – Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

The 9-11 Commission identified Yazid as al Qaeda’s “chief financial manager.” In this role, Yazid was responsible for disbursing al Qaeda funds from what is known as the Bayt al Mal, al Qaeda’s treasury. This responsibility made Yazid one of the most trusted and important al Qaeda leaders. Because of this responsibility, Yazid is considered by some analysts to be al Qaeda’s third in command.

Tavis Smiley has apparently been asleep for the last ten years. That, at least, is the only logical explanation for his claim that Christains engage in terrorism far more often than Muslims. He also thinks the Tea Party is a comparably dangerous force to radical Islam.

"There are so many more examples of Christians who do that," Smiley claimed, referring to terrorism, "than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country where you live and work." He was discussing terrorism with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born writer and former member of the Dutch Parliament.

Ali claims it is her mission to "inform the West about the danger of Islam," but Smiley was more concerned with the danger posed by Tea Party protesters, who "are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people 'nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people." None of those claims are true, but then again the segment was replete with falsehoods (Full video and transcript below the fold - h/t Greg Hengler).


For her part, Ali pushed back against Smiley's absurd claims. Though she acknowledged that some have used Christianity to justify violence, she insisted that mainstream Christians are "accepting of other religions and tolerant."

As for Smiley's claims regarding the Tea Party, I am unaware of any protester being arrested for threatening an elected official. Perhaps he is referring to the Hutaree Militia, but they had exactly zero connections to the Tea Party movement (in fact, one militiaman is a registered Democrat). The n-word/spitting claims have been thoroughly discredited elsewhere.

Of course Smiley is hardly a paragon of journalistic objectivity. Most notably, he dubbed President Bush a "serial killer," but he has a long history of toeing the liberal line on virtually every issue.

Transcript of the segment, with Smiley's most outrageous remarks in bold:

SMILEY: When you were last here - I'm here every day - (laughter) when you were last here we were starting to have a conversation about your view of Christianity. We'll come back to that a little bit later in the conversation because I want to pick up on that conversation. I've been waiting for months to continue that dialogue.

Before we do that, though, in this book, the new one, you say unapologetically and rather frankly that your mission here is to inform the West about the danger of Islam. What danger do we need to be made aware of?

ALI: And when I say "Islam" I'm talking about Islam as a theology and as a political theory. Islam has different aspects. It has a spiritual aspect but it also has a political and a social aspect.

The spiritual aspect of praying and fasting, I have no problems with that. The political and social aspects have to do with concepts such as jihad - waging a holy war to either persuade people to become Muslim or to kill them.

The social aspect has to do with the treatment of women, and given the fact that we are now living in a world that is fast globalizing - people are coming from all different parts of the world, living here; people are leaving here and going elsewhere - I think it's very, very important to note that not only are people moving but ideas are also moving.

So people with ideas who feel that they should introduce Sharia law, a theocracy based on Islam such as Iran, such as what the Taliban have attempted in Afghanistan, that these people with these ideas, resources, convictions, can sometimes be successful.

What I tried to do with the book as an individual who grew up with Islam and I was once myself - considered myself a member of the Muslim brotherhood, I want to say that these ideas are really not only dangerous but a lot of people are subscribing to theSMILEYm.

SMILEY: I guess no one would argue that jihad is a dangerous and deadly political philosophy to have and to engage. I guess the question is whether or not jihad is the only way that that political involvement is expressed. Isn't it just an example of how policy, of how people engage politically and not the whole of the activity, politically?

ALI: Well, it's very important to note that not all Muslims subscribe to jihad.

SMILEY: Precisely, yeah.

ALI: That's really important. I don't ever want to make the impression that all Muslims are potential terrorists or potential jihadists. But there is a movement that wants to have Islamic Sharia or Islamic war introduced, through persuasion sometimes, without using violence, and sometimes by using violence. The society that they're aspiring to is a society that is modeled around a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The point I want to make in this book is the majority of Muslims don't even read the Qur'an. They've just been told what is in there is good, it's God's word, it's perfect. The majority of Muslims don't know what Muhammad exactly said.

So these people who are coming to them are building - the agents of radical Islam, the agents of jihad, the agents of Sharia are just building on the fact that most Muslims have only been told the Qur'an is great, Muhammad is infallible, and then radicalizing them. It's very important for us to realize that.

If we do realize that, we are then able to compete with the radical agents of Islam, with the agents of jihad, for the hearts and minds of individuals who identify themselves as Muslim.

SMILEY: We compete by doing what? By, as you suggest in the book, converting them as Christians?

ALI: Well, I'm not a Christian. I would like to introduce to them critical thinking and the enlightenment and secular thought. But I've also met, through my last years here, a number of Christians, and I've realized that their concept of God differs very much from that of Islam. I've had people who've read "Infidel" and who write to me saying, "I just cannot be, I just can't fathom being an atheist. I can't. There is a force out there, it's a good force. I don't want to be with Allah or Muhammad, but I just need a different kind of -" and most of them convert to Christianity.

SMILEY: Are you at all concerned or are you ever concerned, put another way, that the mission, to use your word, that you are on is turning people against Islam, turning people against Muslims, because you're so - I don't want to say radical, but so aggressive in your approach?

ALI: Well, the mission is not to turn people against Muslims. My mission is to include Muslims into finding out that there are alternative sources of morality other than what the jihadists are offering them.

A lot of money made from oil in Saudi Arabia, in other parts in the Middle East that have that money, are using a very violent narrative, a very human-unfriendly narrative, and they're taking it to people who are sometimes poor, sometimes middle class, and people are subscribing to those ideas.

Right now there's no competition. There isn't a competing propaganda. We talk about it only in terms of national security. We talk about military means, we talk about what the FBI can do, but we don't talk about what you and I can do. Why can't we just reach out to Muslim-Americans living here and say, "Hey, do you really believe in practicing what is in chapter 4, verse 34 of the Qur'an - "Beat the disobedient wife?" I'll tell you most Muslims don't want to beat their wives and don't want to compel them to do that.

But with that justification, with that narrative, with that propaganda, more and more men are finding a reason to justify to themselves something that is truly abominably wrong.

SMILEY: As I got into reading your story, and it's obviously a very powerful narrative, I was left ultimately with this question, Ayaan, which is on the one hand you have moved away, for your own reasons, as you've expressed here now, you've moved away from practicing Islam. You don't practice the Muslim faith on the one hand, so you moved from that.

On the other hand, you, to my mind, at least, and I could read any number of passages to point this out, to my mind, again, you almost idealize Christianity on the other hand. But here you are in the middle an atheist, and I'm trying to juxtapose all that.

You don't want to practice the Muslim faith, you idealize Christianity, and yet you remain an atheist. That's the part of your journey I don't quite get. Maybe you can enlighten me.

ALI: It's a bundle of contradictions.

SMILEY: Yeah, it is. (Laughs)

ALI: Like all human individuals, I am a bundle of contradictions. I was very much, after I had written "Infidel," very much on the side of people who say all religions are the same and all religions are inherently evil. But again, what I learned from the enlightenment is when the fact change, change your mind, and the evidence I'm seeing - and this is what I admire about some Christians, not all of them. I'm not blind to extremist Christianity.

But what I admire about Christians today is - and I would like it for the Muslims too - is that many of them have come to grapple with their faith, have come to acknowledge that there are things in the bible and things that the institution, that different churches have done that are hostile to humanity, that are hostile to gay people, hostile to women, have justified slavery, for instance.

They have come not only to grapple with it and to understand it and to acknowledge that it's all in there, but they've also learned to distance themselves from that. That's what I admire about moderate Christians. I say in the book right now we cannot speak of moderate Muslims because they still cling to the absolute idea that everything in the Qur'an is the true word of God and cannot be changed by human beings, and that the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, left a moral guidance behind and all we can do is follow it, not question it.

SMILEY: Where is the evidence for you that, for those Muslims who live in the West, that we need to challenge them, we need to convert them, we need to change them? If what we're afraid of is jihad, all of that, at least until this present time, all of that attack, that terrorist activity, has come inside of this country from persons connected to that faith.

I guess I'm trying to understand where the evidence is that suggests that all of us who happen to be Christians or enlightened in some other way need to take on Muslims here in the West.

ALI: Okay, I think first and foremost what we have to acknowledge is we're not going to get a monster with horns, blue in the face, looking like a dragon called jihad coming in and terrorizing us. The people who are engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everybody else here.

Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who in November shot 13 of his colleagues and injured 32, he's going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week, the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times Square who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn't know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

ALI: Do they blow people up (unintelligible)?

SMILEY: Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is - I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians - and I happen to be a Christian. That's back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read. There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.

ALI: Well, I think you and I disagree, not so much on is there extremism in Christianity - I fully acknowledge that. There are people who want to take the bible and use passages from the bible as justification for violent behavior. I'm not denying that in the least. But mainstream Christians in the 21st century are more like you.

I'm an atheist, I'm not a Christian, but they are more like you - accepting of other religions and tolerant. The latest example, "South Park," where Jesus Christ was made fun of, watching pornography, people, Christians, maybe have been annoyed by it but the producers of "South Park" were not threatened by Christians.

They were not threatened by Buddhists. They showed Buddha snorting cocaine. Muhammad, whose picture wasn't shown, there was a line saying "censored" and he was imagined to be in a Teddy bear, some of the followers of Muhammad got very angry. A few of them posted threats about the producers, and this is very mild.

There are today - I don't want to say, and it's been established, not all Muslims are terrorists, we must emphasize that, but almost all terrorist activities that take place today in our time are done and justified in the name of Islam.

Now to acknowledge that, the point I'm trying to make is is it possible, is it imaginable, that we can compete with the radical jihadists for the hearts and minds of young men like Faisal Shahzad or like Nidal Malik Hasan, and I believe we can, before they get to that stage.

SMILEY: I hear that point and I accept it. The only point I'm making is there are folk in the Tea Party, for example, every day who are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people "nigger" as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people. That's within the political - that's within the body politic of this country. So I accept your point and my time is up so we won't debate that.

Let me ask as an exit question, and this is no secret; I just was reading about this in "The New York Times" the other day, an interview you gave to the magazine, so it's no secret here, but you travel with security because there is a constant cloud, at least, of a threat against your life because of your outspokenness. Is it worth it, living under these conditions? Is it worth it?

ALI: I ask myself that question every day, and I think it's worth fighting those who intimidate me. Those who threaten, those who try to kill people who disagree with them, I think it's worth it. I think it's worth continuing to fight.

SMILEY: I accept that. It's the new book from perennial now "New York Times" best-selling author Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The book is called "Nomad: From Islam to America, a Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations." Ayaan, always glad to have you on this program.

ALI: Thank you so much, Tavis. Thanks for having me.

SMILEY: Thank you for your time.

NPR’s All Things Considered aired a long report on Thursday night on nasty Internet commenters – but reporter Laura Sydell’s examples centered on anti-Obama and anti-Muslim commenters (including one who wanted Obama shot), and no one from the left (like the Huffington Post people regretting Cheney wasn't shot in Afghanistan). She began with a sympathetic sick family that favored ObamaCare:

LAURA SYDELL: If you want to know what it's like to get attacked online, just ask Miki Hsu Leavey. She wrote a thankful letter to the editor of the local paper when the health care bill passed. She has lupus. Her 24-year-old son can't get health care because of a preexisting heart condition and her husband was diagnosed with liver cancer.

Ms. MIKI HSU LEAVEY: So my thank you note was really about the relief I had mentally.

SYDELL: When Leavey looked at the site the morning it was posted, she got comments like this one.

Ms. LEAVEY: Oh, my poor baby is sick. Only the great Obama can save him. Makes me sick just reading it.

SYDELL: Leavey was shocked by the vitriol.

Ms. LEAVEY: And I'm going, oh, my gosh, I can't believe what they're saying. Oh, my goodness, this is so personal. I mean, I guess, I wrote a personal story so maybe that's what I asked for.

Sydell did not note the rapturous prose of Leavey's letter to the paper, which ended:  

I am not sure how we can be helped by your historic legislation yet, but because you have passed health care for us, I believe we have a fighting chance to get help. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

You did it.  You heard us.  You have courage. And Barack Obama is the most hopeful, thoughtful, generous president we have had in my lifetime.

That's not to say Leavey deserved abusive comments, but NPR underplayed her own ideological ardor. Sydell then talked to experts who suggested that websites actually gain traffic from vitriolic commenters. Then came the shoot-Obama example from CNN.com:

SYDELL: And there's been some high-profile negativity on big sites like CNN.com. Lila King, a senior producer there, says during the last presidential election, a commenter kept putting up the same image.

Ms. LILA KING (Senior Producer, CNN.com): It's a little cartoon of a white stick figure and a black stick figure, and the white stick figure with a machine gun in its hand shooting the other stick figure and its heart exploding and red splatters all over the page.

SYDELL: It isn't just the big sites. It's the little blogs and specialty sites like Religion Dispatches. The site has long-form articles that look at the places where religion and politics meet. Many of the writers are scholars and academics. Editor Lisa Webster says an article written by an expert on Islam got some terrible comments.

Ms. LISA WEBSTER (Senior Editor, Religion Dispatches): Someone from our funder noticed and said, by the way, we're not interested in funding, you know, providing a platform for hate speech.

SYDELL: Webster began to worry that the open comments were detracting from the thoughtful tone of Religion Dispatches.

Ms. WEBSTER: It's also like old magazine days. You don't -- if you're doing a restaurant review, you don't put the restaurant review next to an ad for a garbage dump or something like that. You have to think about these things.

SYDELL: Religion Dispatches has a radical solution. They're getting rid of comments. Readers have to send a letter to the editor - it can be an email - but only a few of the best letters get published.

Sydell didn't cite the actual article or comments that are so awful. She also left out that Religion Dispatches is a liberal blog, whose advisory council includes "scholars" from liberal groups like the Center for American Progress, People for the American Way, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and one Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign, whose been quite a hateful commenter on his own. Sydell worried the "thoughtful tone" (synonymous with liberal expression?) would be compromised by rebuttals.

Sydell found that a better way was evolving, where editors get into the conversation with commenters. The San Diego Union-Tribune got involved when commenters protested a story about a murder by two men spray-painting a wall were called "graffiti artists," which, he said "made it seem that they were, you know, van Gogh with a spray can."

Then he said "I weighed it in, said that's a good point, I'll fix the headline. Someone asked another question about why it was written, and the readers started kind of answering and discussing among themselves, accepting my explanation. It was a valuable reader exchange. I'm glad it happened."

The piece ends where it began, with Miki Hsu Leavey hoping for a more civilized space for Republicans and Democrats to discuss things. But NPR and Sydell didn't create any space for Republicans or conservatives in this piece.

NPR’s All Things Considered aired a long report on Thursday night on nasty Internet commenters – but reporter Laura Sydell’s examples centered on anti-Obama and anti-Muslim commenters (including one who wanted Obama shot), and no one from the left (like the Huffington Post people regretting Cheney wasn't shot in Afghanistan). She began with a sympathetic sick family that favored ObamaCare:

LAURA SYDELL: If you want to know what it's like to get attacked online, just ask Miki Hsu Leavey. She wrote a thankful letter to the editor of the local paper when the health care bill passed. She has lupus. Her 24-year-old son can't get health care because of a preexisting heart condition and her husband was diagnosed with liver cancer.

Ms. MIKI HSU LEAVEY: So my thank you note was really about the relief I had mentally.

SYDELL: When Leavey looked at the site the morning it was posted, she got comments like this one.

Ms. LEAVEY: Oh, my poor baby is sick. Only the great Obama can save him. Makes me sick just reading it.

SYDELL: Leavey was shocked by the vitriol.

Ms. LEAVEY: And I'm going, oh, my gosh, I can't believe what they're saying. Oh, my goodness, this is so personal. I mean, I guess, I wrote a personal story so maybe that's what I asked for.

Sydell did not note the rapturous prose of Leavey's letter to the paper, which ended:  

I am not sure how we can be helped by your historic legislation yet, but because you have passed health care for us, I believe we have a fighting chance to get help. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

You did it.  You heard us.  You have courage. And Barack Obama is the most hopeful, thoughtful, generous president we have had in my lifetime.

That's not to say Leavey deserved abusive comments, but NPR underplayed her own ideological ardor. Sydell then talked to experts who suggested that websites actually gain traffic from vitriolic commenters. Then came the shoot-Obama example from CNN.com:

SYDELL: And there's been some high-profile negativity on big sites like CNN.com. Lila King, a senior producer there, says during the last presidential election, a commenter kept putting up the same image.

Ms. LILA KING (Senior Producer, CNN.com): It's a little cartoon of a white stick figure and a black stick figure, and the white stick figure with a machine gun in its hand shooting the other stick figure and its heart exploding and red splatters all over the page.

SYDELL: It isn't just the big sites. It's the little blogs and specialty sites like Religion Dispatches. The site has long-form articles that look at the places where religion and politics meet. Many of the writers are scholars and academics. Editor Lisa Webster says an article written by an expert on Islam got some terrible comments.

Ms. LISA WEBSTER (Senior Editor, Religion Dispatches): Someone from our funder noticed and said, by the way, we're not interested in funding, you know, providing a platform for hate speech.

SYDELL: Webster began to worry that the open comments were detracting from the thoughtful tone of Religion Dispatches.

Ms. WEBSTER: It's also like old magazine days. You don't -- if you're doing a restaurant review, you don't put the restaurant review next to an ad for a garbage dump or something like that. You have to think about these things.

SYDELL: Religion Dispatches has a radical solution. They're getting rid of comments. Readers have to send a letter to the editor - it can be an email - but only a few of the best letters get published.

Sydell didn't cite the actual article or comments that are so awful. She also left out that Religion Dispatches is a liberal blog, whose advisory council includes "scholars" from liberal groups like the Center for American Progress, People for the American Way, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and one Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign, whose been quite a hateful commenter on his own. Sydell worried the "thoughtful tone" (synonymous with liberal expression?) would be compromised by rebuttals.

Sydell found that a better way was evolving, where editors get into the conversation with commenters. The San Diego Union-Tribune got involved when commenters protested a story about a murder by two men spray-painting a wall were called "graffiti artists," which, he said "made it seem that they were, you know, van Gogh with a spray can."

Then he said "I weighed it in, said that's a good point, I'll fix the headline. Someone asked another question about why it was written, and the readers started kind of answering and discussing among themselves, accepting my explanation. It was a valuable reader exchange. I'm glad it happened."

The piece ends where it began, with Miki Hsu Leavey hoping for a more civilized space for Republicans and Democrats to discuss things. But NPR and Sydell didn't create any space for Republicans or conservatives in this piece.

NPR’s All Things Considered aired a long report on Thursday night on nasty Internet commenters – but reporter Laura Sydell’s examples centered on anti-Obama and anti-Muslim commenters (including one who wanted Obama shot), and no one from the left (like the Huffington Post people regretting Cheney wasn't shot in Afghanistan). She began with a sympathetic sick family that favored ObamaCare:

LAURA SYDELL: If you want to know what it's like to get attacked online, just ask Miki Hsu Leavey. She wrote a thankful letter to the editor of the local paper when the health care bill passed. She has lupus. Her 24-year-old son can't get health care because of a preexisting heart condition and her husband was diagnosed with liver cancer.

Ms. MIKI HSU LEAVEY: So my thank you note was really about the relief I had mentally.

SYDELL: When Leavey looked at the site the morning it was posted, she got comments like this one.

Ms. LEAVEY: Oh, my poor baby is sick. Only the great Obama can save him. Makes me sick just reading it.

SYDELL: Leavey was shocked by the vitriol.

Ms. LEAVEY: And I'm going, oh, my gosh, I can't believe what they're saying. Oh, my goodness, this is so personal. I mean, I guess, I wrote a personal story so maybe that's what I asked for.

Sydell did not note the rapturous prose of Leavey's letter to the paper, which ended:  

I am not sure how we can be helped by your historic legislation yet, but because you have passed health care for us, I believe we have a fighting chance to get help. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

You did it.  You heard us.  You have courage. And Barack Obama is the most hopeful, thoughtful, generous president we have had in my lifetime.

That's not to say Leavey deserved abusive comments, but NPR underplayed her own ideological ardor. Sydell then talked to experts who suggested that websites actually gain traffic from vitriolic commenters. Then came the shoot-Obama example from CNN.com:

SYDELL: And there's been some high-profile negativity on big sites like CNN.com. Lila King, a senior producer there, says during the last presidential election, a commenter kept putting up the same image.

Ms. LILA KING (Senior Producer, CNN.com): It's a little cartoon of a white stick figure and a black stick figure, and the white stick figure with a machine gun in its hand shooting the other stick figure and its heart exploding and red splatters all over the page.

SYDELL: It isn't just the big sites. It's the little blogs and specialty sites like Religion Dispatches. The site has long-form articles that look at the places where religion and politics meet. Many of the writers are scholars and academics. Editor Lisa Webster says an article written by an expert on Islam got some terrible comments.

Ms. LISA WEBSTER (Senior Editor, Religion Dispatches): Someone from our funder noticed and said, by the way, we're not interested in funding, you know, providing a platform for hate speech.

SYDELL: Webster began to worry that the open comments were detracting from the thoughtful tone of Religion Dispatches.

Ms. WEBSTER: It's also like old magazine days. You don't -- if you're doing a restaurant review, you don't put the restaurant review next to an ad for a garbage dump or something like that. You have to think about these things.

SYDELL: Religion Dispatches has a radical solution. They're getting rid of comments. Readers have to send a letter to the editor - it can be an email - but only a few of the best letters get published.

Sydell didn't cite the actual article or comments that are so awful. She also left out that Religion Dispatches is a liberal blog, whose advisory council includes "scholars" from liberal groups like the Center for American Progress, People for the American Way, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and one Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign, whose been quite a hateful commenter on his own. Sydell worried the "thoughtful tone" (synonymous with liberal expression?) would be compromised by rebuttals.

Sydell found that a better way was evolving, where editors get into the conversation with commenters. The San Diego Union-Tribune got involved when commenters protested a story about a murder by two men spray-painting a wall were called "graffiti artists," which, he said "made it seem that they were, you know, van Gogh with a spray can."

Then he said "I weighed it in, said that's a good point, I'll fix the headline. Someone asked another question about why it was written, and the readers started kind of answering and discussing among themselves, accepting my explanation. It was a valuable reader exchange. I'm glad it happened."

The piece ends where it began, with Miki Hsu Leavey hoping for a more civilized space for Republicans and Democrats to discuss things. But NPR and Sydell didn't create any space for Republicans or conservatives in this piece.

Last night, a community board in Manhattan approved a mosque/sharia-compliant “party space” at Ground Zero, two blocks from where the 9/11 hijackers mass-murdered thousands and brought down the World Trade Center.

Enraged 9/11 families protested the move and spoke truth to power:

After four hours of public debate, members of Community Board 1 finally voted 29-1 in support of the project. Nine members abstained, arguing that they wanted to table the issue and vote at a later date.

The board has no official say over whether the estimated $100 million mosque and community center gets built. But the panel’s support, or lack of it, is considered important in influencing public opinion.

Holding up photos of loved ones killed in the Twin Towers and carrying signs such as, “Honor 3,000, 9/11 — No mosque!” opponents of the proposed Cordoba House on Park Place called the plan an insult to the terror-attack victims.

“That is a burial ground,” said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Al Santora, referring to the fact that victims’ remains were scattered for blocks.

Santora’s 23-year-old son, Christopher, was the youngest firefighter to die that day.

“I do have a problem with having a mosque on top of the site where [terrorists] can gloat about what they did,” said Santora, with his wife, Maureen, by his side.

About 150 people attended the emotional Greenwich Street meeting, were some shouted down others as they took their turns.

More background from Allahpundit.

The indefatigable Debra Burlingame exposed the man behind the mosque complex, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who deceptively calls his development a “fun house.” Read here and watch this:

Debra met with the Soho Properties partners, Sharif and Sammy El-Gamal, owners of the corporation that bought the property with $4.85 million in cash. They refused to disclose their investors “on the advice of our attorneys.” According to Debra: “They showed us a professional rendering of the plans. It’s not a 13-story building. It’s a 15-story building and the mosque, accommodating 2,000 congregants, will be on the TOP FLOOR, with a commanding view of the entire Ground Zero site. On the ground floor, clearly printed, were these words: “Elevator to mosque.”

How far they have come:

***

As Debra said last night: “I am actually, in a way, glad that this has happened, this controversy, because finally, maybe, Americans, New Yorkers will start asking questions. Top of the list: What is Shariah?”

Read Andrew McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad. It’s about sabotaging America from within.

Lan astaslem: Arabic for “I will not submit/surrender”

Former top federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has been one of America’s bravest and most stalwart warriors against Islamic jihad. He’s battled them in court. He’s exposed them here at home and around the globe.

His new book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, is out today, and I urge you all to get a copy — and then share it with all your friends and family. If you care about the survival of our country, McCarthy’s work is must-read. He thoroughly demonstrates how our external Muslim enemies join with out internal Alinskyite enemies to destroy all we hold dear.

You can follow him on Twitter here.

His latest piece at NRO asks trenchantly as always: How long can a people remain a People when its leaders side with its foes? McCarthy writes:

A number of years ago, at some risk to myself and my family, I prosecuted savage jihadists who had made themselves enemies of the United States. I was lauded for doing so by the Clinton administration. Though I disagreed with that administration philosophically, and particularly with its conception of international terrorism as a crime problem, I praised the much-needed overhaul by which it put teeth in our counterterrorism laws. Our disagreement was over the best way to protect the country, not over the imperative that the country be protected. Our debate was the traditional Right-Left debate.

Moreover, as a New York lawyer who made no secret of having conservative views, I was a decided minority, even among my fellow prosecutors. But that only mattered in the occasional, friendly joust over a beer. Day to day, our politics had nothing to do with how we went about our jobs. At the office, I had friends across the ideological spectrum. Most of them were from the political left, but we liked and respected one another. The bond we shared, the sense that we were doing something good for the nation we all loved, was stronger than any ideological divisions.

Why does that matter now? Because, for the first time in our history, we have a president who would be much more comfortable sitting in a room with Bill Ayers than sitting in a room with me. We have a governing class that is too often comfortable with anti-American radicals, with rogue and dysfunctional governments that blame America for their problems, and with Muslim Brotherhood ideologues who abhor individual liberty, capitalism, freedom of conscience, and, in general, Western enlightenment. To this president and his government, I am the problem.

Bullseye.

Last week, I published a column that details the disgraceful silence of the Obama Administration over the election of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission.

This week, I’m happy to update this story with a positive development — Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) introduced House Resolution 1371, “Condemning the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.”  The original Cosponsors of this measure represent a diverse, bipartisan group including Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Rep. Burton (R-IN), Rep. Campbell (R-CA), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Inglis (R-SC), and Rep. Polis (D-CO).

On April 28, Iran was handed a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women despite efforts by Iranian “gender-equality activists” and supporters to block this appointment.  The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made no attempts to thwart Iran’s bid for a seat on this committee and on the day of the election, she did not even bother to show up for the meeting.  Despite public outcry, the Obama Administration still fails to publicly condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Several members of Congress, however, have taken the lead in voicing the concerns of the American people.

House Resolution 1371 points out that “Iran’s Islamic civil and penal codes discriminate against women” and notes that “according to the Department of State’s 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Iranian women are only ‘nominally’ granted ‘equal protection under the law… in conformity with Islam.’”  The resolution also highlights some of the human rights violations against women including:

• “under Iranian law, spousal rape is legal”
• “Iranian penal code dictates a punishment of lashings or a fine if a woman appears in public without an appropriate hijab”
• “Iranian law permits men to have as many as four wives”
• “adultery is punishable by death by stoning, and a man who kills his wife…may easily escape punishment,”

The proposed resolution not only “condemns” this UN appointment, but also “calls on the Administration to denounce the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the Commission” and “urges the President to direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to advocate for the removal of the Government of Iran from the Commission.”

The Representatives who cosponsored Resolution 1371 have taken leadership in Congress by standing in opposition to Iran serving on the UN’s “global policy-making body” for women’s rights. Although the Obama Administration currently still refuses to condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission, Congress members are taking initiative and expressing the concerns of the American people.  Voters who are interested in seeing this resolution passed should contact Congress and voice their support for House Resolution 1371.

Last week, I published a column that details the disgraceful silence of the Obama Administration over the election of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission.

This week, I’m happy to update this story with a positive development — Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) introduced House Resolution 1371, “Condemning the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.”  The original Cosponsors of this measure represent a diverse, bipartisan group including Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Rep. Burton (R-IN), Rep. Campbell (R-CA), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Inglis (R-SC), and Rep. Polis (D-CO).

On April 28, Iran was handed a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women despite efforts by Iranian “gender-equality activists” and supporters to block this appointment.  The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made no attempts to thwart Iran’s bid for a seat on this committee and on the day of the election, she did not even bother to show up for the meeting.  Despite public outcry, the Obama Administration still fails to publicly condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Several members of Congress, however, have taken the lead in voicing the concerns of the American people.

House Resolution 1371 points out that “Iran’s Islamic civil and penal codes discriminate against women” and notes that “according to the Department of State’s 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Iranian women are only ‘nominally’ granted ‘equal protection under the law… in conformity with Islam.’”  The resolution also highlights some of the human rights violations against women including:

• “under Iranian law, spousal rape is legal”
• “Iranian penal code dictates a punishment of lashings or a fine if a woman appears in public without an appropriate hijab”
• “Iranian law permits men to have as many as four wives”
• “adultery is punishable by death by stoning, and a man who kills his wife…may easily escape punishment,”

The proposed resolution not only “condemns” this UN appointment, but also “calls on the Administration to denounce the selection of the Government of Iran to serve on the Commission” and “urges the President to direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to advocate for the removal of the Government of Iran from the Commission.”

The Representatives who cosponsored Resolution 1371 have taken leadership in Congress by standing in opposition to Iran serving on the UN’s “global policy-making body” for women’s rights. Although the Obama Administration currently still refuses to condemn the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission, Congress members are taking initiative and expressing the concerns of the American people.  Voters who are interested in seeing this resolution passed should contact Congress and voice their support for House Resolution 1371.

President Barack Obama's statement just before he signed the Freedom of the Press Act on Monday painfully avoided reality to the point of giving offense. If it became widely known, it would likely become very problematic.

Here is what the President said that was particularly offensive (bolds are mine):

And obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists around the world.

Two key administration-protecting original news disseminators picked up on the need to keep the bolded words out of their news coverage of the event. The Associated Press, which usually (i.e., almost always) quotes the president in related stories, provided no quotes in its terse five-paragraph report, the first four of which follow (for fair use and discussion purposes, of course):

Obama signs Freedom of Press Act

President Barack Obama has signed a law intended to provide more protections for a free press around the world.

The law, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act, expands efforts to identify countries where press freedom is being violated. The law is named after Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by militants in Pakistan in 2002.

The law expands an annual report on human rights practices to include information about media treatment, and identify countries where the media is being repressed.

Obama said the law would be a signal to governments around the world that their actions, including treatment of the media, are being watched.

The New York Times's five-paragraph story quoted other portions of Obama's statement:

U.S. to Promote Press Freedom

President Obama signed legislation on Monday intended to promote a free press around the world, a bipartisan measure inspired by the murder in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

... The new law “puts us clearly on the side of journalistic freedom,” Mr. Obama said, praising Mr. Pearl’s family for being “outspoken and so courageous” in pursuing the cause. With the law, the president added, “his legacy lives on.”

The less influential wire service AFP must not have gotten the memo, as carried it the statement quoted above. Its 10-paragraph story also provided historical context AP and the Times avoided, as well as a clearly superior headline:

Obama signs law honoring slain reporter Daniel Pearl

..."The loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us how valuable a free press is," Obama said.

... Pearl, 38, was the South Asia bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal when he was abducted in Karachi on January 23, 2002 while researching a story about Islamist militants.

A graphic video showing his decapitation was delivered to the US consulate in the city nearly a month later.

Mariane Pearl was pregnant with their son when her husband was murdered.

In 2007, she filed a lawsuit Wednesday against 23 individuals and organizations over the abduction and murder of Pearl, naming Al-Qaeda, the group's alleged mastermind kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- who claimed responsibility for beheading Pearl and is now in US custody -- and Pakistan's Habib Bank among the defendants.

In his column today, Mark Steyn finishes the job AFP only began. As usual with Steyn, read the whole thing. Here are selected paragraphs:

... its clumsiness and insipidness is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: "The loss of Daniel Pearl." He wasn't "lost." He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his "loss" merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don't get the message, the rest of the world does. This week's pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the "loss" of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was "one of those moments that captured the world's imagination." Really? Evidently it never captured Obama's imagination because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl's fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: "one of those moments" – you know, like Princess Di's wedding, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, whatever – "that captured the world's imagination."

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite – that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don't even need an "imagination." Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassahs and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Virginia. In the old days, you needed an "imagination" to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism the sight of Pearl's severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of "the world"? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl's death too uncomfortable, and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama.

I daresay that if a Republican or conservative president had suggested that the "loss" of Dr. Martin Luther King had "captured the world's imagination," the AP and the Times would not have so deliberately avoided such a statement, and would instead have eagerly sought out others to criticize it.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The government of Pakistan has blocked social networking site Facebook due to a page encouraging users to "Draw Mohammed." The page, and the larger movement, have outraged Muslims, who believe it is blasphemous to physically depict Islam's prophet.

"Death to Facebook!" shouted protesters in Karachi, demonstrating against a group called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," designed to further the cause of "free expression." The movement was a backlash against recent threats of violence against, among others, the creators of the popular animated show South Park, which showed Mohammed in a bear mascot suit.

The "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page has been taken down -- though Facebook categorically denies any attempt at censorship or involvement in its removal -- and Facebook has been "indefinitely" blocked by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. All in all, it's been a rough couple days for the social network.

"We are very disappointed with the Pakistani Courts' decision to block Facebook without warning, and suspect our users there feel the same way," Facebook said in a statement. But it added that the company is "analyzing the situation and the legal considerations, and will take appropriate action, which may include making this content inaccessible to users in Pakistan."

Though Facebook's policy is to only remove content if it makes serious and credible threats against individuals, the statement noted that it could "restrict certain content from being shown in specific countries" in order to comply with laws in those counties.

A Facebook spokesperson told me in an email that the company "has not taken any action" on the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page, which is no longer accessible. A Google cache of the page -- courtesy of Ed Driscoll -- shows that it was still active at 10:40 PM GMT last night.

There has been much speculation on whether Facebook censored the page. But at this point there is no evidence that that is the case. A person with first-hand knowledge of Facebook's investigation told me that nothing had been discovered that would indicate foul play, and that all signs currently point towards the page's administrators removing it voluntarily, though possibly due to threats of violence.

Mimi Sulpovar, who created the page last month, told Fox News that "she and others in the group have received death threats, but she has no plans to stop anytime soon." I was not able to find contact information for Sulpovar.

Such threats are in fact what started the "Draw Mohammed" movement, which sought to designate May 20 an annual day to protest violence censorship by Islam's radical elements.

The backlash to the movement is hardly unexpected, but few could have predicted Facebook being banned by an entire nation for a single page. Pakistan has also blocked YouTube for what it deems offensive content.

Facebook is also facing challenges to its privacy policy. Four US Senators have demanded that the Federal Trade Commission look into the legality of those policies.

I am one of the featured speakers at the Inaugural statewide Tea Party Convention in Tennessee’s beautiful Smoky Mountains this weekend. But look at this: the unindicted co-conspirator, terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to get the good, decent Americans of the Tennessee Tea Party to crush free speech by dropping me from the Tea Party convention this weekend.

Why is CAIR starting this campaign now? This is all about the mosque that Muslims are planning to build near Ground Zero. I spoke the truth about this supremacist initiative on the Sean Hannity radio show last week, in a debate with Islamic apologist Michael Ghouse. Who won the debate? Well, you be the judge:

The next day I was scheduled to be on the Mike Huckabee Show on Fox News along with a representative from the mosque, but at the last minute they decided not to send anyone. They sent Huckabee a written statement, which he read to me on the air. And now CAIR sends around this press release full of lies and distortions, trying to intimidate the Tennessee Tea Partiers into canceling me. The CAIR press release starts this way:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on the organizers of the inaugural Tennessee Tea Party Convention to be held this weekend in Gatlinburg to drop an anti-Islam speaker who claims that ‘Hitler and the Nazis were inspired by Islam’ and that Islam ‘mandates’ lies and deception.

Sounds terrible, right? Except for one thing: it’s true.

Hitler and the Nazis were inspired by Islam. Hitler is on record saying that he was sorry that the Muslims didn’t conquer Europe, because warlike Islam would have been a better religion for the German people than peaceful Christianity. And Adolf Eichmann’s assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, testified this during the Nuremberg trials about Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. The Mufti:

… repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities – including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler – the extermination of European Jewry. … The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan… He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.

During World War I, Hajj Amin al-Husseini was an officer of the Ottoman Empire, which used primitive gas chambers to exterminate Armenians. The Nazis used these gas chambers as templates for their own, more sophisticated versions – maybe the Mufti gave them the idea while he was urging Eichmann to “accelerate the extermination measures.”

And does Islam mandate lies and deception? Islamic scholar Robert Spencer says that the Koran “warns believers not to take unbelievers as ‘friends or helpers’ (َأَوْلِيَا — a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), ‘unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them’ (3:28). This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure.” Spencer quotes the revered Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir saying that “believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers” may “show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’”

We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them. Sounds like lies and deception to me.

In a certain sense, it’s a tribute. Of course the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR wants to shut me up. Truth begets hatred. It’s a sign of their fear, and their tacit acknowledgment that I am telling the truth about the 9/11 Mosque initiative. Thanks, CAIR! But this is all because CAIR and its parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood (which says it’s engaged in a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house”), know what the 9/11 Mosque will mean, and they are determined to destroy anyone who stands in its way. The 9/11 Mosque will be the icon, the rallying point for every devout Muslim and jihadist across the world. They must have their symbol of conquest.

Who stands with me? Who is coming to Tennessee to stand for our unalienable rights endowed by G-d? Contact the Tennessee Tea Party Convention organizers and let them know what you think of this campaign by Hamas-linked CAIR.

Freedom of speech is the line in the sand. Once we lose that, the war is over. This is the battle, the information battle space. Guns, bombs, bloodshed are the result of what happens in the war of ideas. This is where we must make a stand – or bow down and accept our chains.

View Original Post

Lars Vilks, 2007

13th Century Persian depiction of Mohammed, artist unknown, via Mohammed Image Archive

I noted the other day that Internet jihadists were leaving death threat comments on the Facebook page of the “Draw Mohammed Day” organizer. Now, the Internet jihadi sympathizers are crowing this morning on Twitter about Facebook taking the DMD page down. As I write, the page appears to be back up. Who knows for how long. [Update 10:21pm: See Allahpundit for the latest shenanigans.]

If you’ve been reading this blog regularly for years, you know that dhimmitude at social networking and Web2.0 sites is nothing new. Nor is dhimmitude in the MSM or in higher education or in Washington. It’s the Achilles’ heel of Western civilization.

In honor of Draw Mohammed Day today, I’m reprinting below the post I published on January 1, 2006 during the original Mohammed Cartoon conflagration and the post I wrote at the end of 2006 on the deceit behind the manufactured Mo outrage. We’ve been here before. It’s about much more than free speech. The Muslim cartoon jihadists know it. As Zombie writes in a trenchant essay today: “Which side in this conflict gets to determine what counts as “disrespectful” (a contemporary euphemism for “blasphemous”)? In the jihadists’ view, any depiction of Mohammed — even a positive or honorific depiction — is deemed blasphemous. It’s our religion, they say, so we get to say what’s offensive. Yet if we grant them this inch, they’ll take another inch (it’s also disrespectful to write Mohammed’s name without a worshipful “PBUH” after it), and another inch (it’s disrespectful to criticize Islam in any way), and before long it’s the whole mile, and we once again will be living in an intellectual Middle Ages in which religious tyrants dictate our every thought and action.”

And as Oriana Fallaci warned before her death: “The hate for the West swells like a fire fed by the wind. The clash between us and them is not a military one. It is a cultural one, a religious one, and the worst is still to come.”

Remember:

***

Flashback…

SUPPORT DENMARK: WHY THE FORBIDDEN CARTOONS MATTER
MichelleMalkin.com
January 30, 2006

Last October, I blogged about a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and its cartoonists being threatened by Muslim extremists for publishing cartoons about the prophet Muhammad deemed offensive by Islamist p.c. bulllies. See here and here.

For the past four months, The Brussels Journal has relentlessly covered the ensuing uproar from the Muslim world and the battle over the newspaper’s freedom to publish provocative speech.

Things came to a head over the past week. In Gaza City, Palestinian gunmen took over an EU office to protest the cartoons:

Masked gunmen today took over an office used by the European Union to protest the publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam. About five gunmen stormed the building, closing the office down, while 10 other armed men stood watch outside. One of the militants said they were protesting the drawings, one of which depicted Islam’s Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb.

Danish flags are being burned. Danish workers have reportedly been beaten. The country now faces an international boycott from Muslim nations.

While the intrepid newspaper has not apologized for printing the cartoons, it has issued a statement acknowledging that the cartoons “offended many Muslims, which we would like to apologize for.” Paul Belien at The Brussels Journal singles out the courage of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has refused to capitulate to the bullies:

He is one of the very few European politicians with guts. If anyone deserves a prize for his valiant defence of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it is certainly Mr Rasmussen. He did not give in to pressure from Muslim fanatics, nor from the appeasers at the UN, the European Commission and the Council of Europe. In the past weeks Denmark has shown that all is not yet lost in Europe. If something is rotten now it is not in Denmark.

Here, for posterity and in solidarity with the paper’s free speech rights, are the 12 forbidden cartoons:

In response to the notion that the West (or Islam) has ever followed the prohibition against depicting Mohammed, Zombie has created the “Mohammed Image Archive,” which contains dozens of Mohammed images from throughout history. A must-read.

Zombie e-mails:

I think it’s important that the West stands up on this issue: if we cave into Muslim demands for self-censorship, our freedom of speech will be taken away forever.

Exactly right. And for those who think this isn’t affecting us, open your eyes:

Local Radio Skit Sparks Muslim Controversy (KFI radio host Bill Handel is fighting back.)
Criticizing Islam on the airwaves
CAIR’s war on conservative talk radio
Brian Maloney: Islamists 1, Talk Radio, 0
LGF: CAIR goes ballistic over B.C., Dr. Laura

***

There is now a Buy Danish campaign in response to Saudi Muslims boycotting Denmark’s products.

Butter cookies, here we come!

***

What did Bill Clinton have to say about the cartoon controversy? You won’t be surprised.

More at LGF.

***

Feedback:

Reader David S…

By threatening to kill those who insult them, the terrorists are
demonstrating the vicious reality behind the caricature of Mohammad
wearing a bomb-shaped turban better than any cartoonist ever could.

Reader Mike W…

Buy Legos. Lots and lots of Legos. Especially the Mindstorm programmable robotics kits. Danish company and non-fattening.

Reader Fritz R…

The utter hypocrisy is that Muslim countries regularly lampoon Christians and Jews in their comics while demanding the west refrain from any criticism of Islam.

***

Feb. 8, 2006 update:

All posts to date:

Video: Breaking the taboo
The Muhammed Cartoons blogburst under attack
The Murder of Father Santoro
We are in this together
American newspapers, will you please stand up?
Origins of a fake Muhammed cartoon
Iran is burning
The Danish cartoonists respond
Cartoon jihad: the map
Mara-l equivalence
So, will our Supreme Court be next?
Pakistani doctors: No more European medicine
Chechnya joins the Cartoon Jihad
“With our blood we will redeem the prophet”
He shouted “Allah Akbar”
Stupid Islamist stunts
Video: Cartoon Jihad debate on Fox News
The lies of the Danish imams
Fanning the flames
Standing up in Australia
What does the American left have to say?
Another day, another embassy torched
It is not a “row”
Video: And then they came for the embassies
First, they came: the movie
Don’t forget: Buy Danish
In their own words
The Muhammad Cartoons blogburst
The State Dept takes sides in the cartoon wars
Followers of the Religion of Peace
bin Laden as Christ
The “International Day of Anger”
The cowardly American media (video added)
Support Denmark…and Piglet!
In search of a brave American newspaper (updated)
First, they came for the cartoonists
Fight the bullies of Islam
Support Denmark: Why the forbidden cartoons matter
The cartoons Islamists don’t want you to see
The forbidden cartoons

***

Flashback…

2006: The year of perpetual outrage
MichelleMalkin.com
December 20, 2006

It began with the Danish cartoons. It ended with the flying imams. 2006 was a banner year for the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Twelve turbulent months of fist-waving, embassy-burning, fatwa-issuing mayhem, intimidation, and murder resounded with the ululations of the aggrieved. All this in the name of defending Islam from “insult.” Let’s review.

In late January, masked Palestinian gunmen took over a European Union office in Gaza City to protest the publication of a dozen cartoons about Islam, Mohammed, and self-censorship in the Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten. They stormed the building, burned Danish flags, and spearheaded an international boycott of Denmark products across the Muslim world.

The rage was manufactured pretext. The cartoons had been published four months earlier with little fanfare. It wasn’t until a delegation of instigating Danish imams toured Egypt with the cartoons—plus a few inflammatory fake ones including an old image of a French hog-calling contest participant deceptively portrayed as “anti-Muslim”—that the fire started burning. Think the mainstream media will remember that? Not likely. They fell for the ruse and were slow to acknowledge it after American bloggers and Danish television exposed the scheme.

What was really behind Cartoon Rage? Muslim bullies were attempting to pressure Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. The chairmanship of the council was passing to Denmark at the time.

Alas, Western journalists, analysts, and apologists were too clouded by their cowardice and conciliation to see through the smoke. More than 800 were injured in the ensuing riots and 130 people paid with their lives. The innocents included Italian Catholic priest Andrea Santoro, who was shot to death in Turkey on Feb. 5 by a teenage boy enraged by the illustrations. The Muslim gunman shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he murdered Father Santoro while the priest knelt praying in his church. Several brave moderate Muslim editors who stood up to the madness were jailed, fined, and convicted of crimes related to insulting Islam. The Danish cartoonists remain in hiding.

The world soon tired of Cartoon Rage, but the “peaceful” Muslim ragers were just warming up. They found excuses large and small to riot and threaten Western infidels.

In India, they protested the magazine publication of a picture of playing card showing an image of Mecca and also burned Valentine’s Day cards. An insult to Islam, they screamed. In Spain, they protested a Madrid store for selling a postcard with a mosque on it with the words “We slept here.” An insult to Islam, they protested.

In Pakistan, they burned down a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, a Pizza Hut, and toppled Ronald McDonald. In Jakarta, they smashed the offices of Playboy magazine. You know why.

In June, the trial against lioness journalist Oriana Fallaci for insulting Islam commenced in Bergamo, Italy. She had been charged by professional Muslim rager Adel Smith of the Muslim Union of Italy of “vilipendio”—vilifying Islam—in her post-9/11 books slamming jihad. A judge had refused to throw out the case. She faced a pile of death threats and accusations of “Islamophobia” for speaking truth to Islamo-power.

Fallaci’s death from cancer during the fifth anniversary week of the September 11 terrorist attacks preempted the trial in Italy, but her passing did nothing to preempt the eternal rage of the perpetually outraged. The day she died, the grievance-mongers were shaking their fists and calling for the head of Pope Benedict XVI for his speech that made reference to a 14th century conversation touching on holy war and jihad.

For engaging in open, honest intellectual and spiritual debate, he was condemned, lit afire in effigy, and targeted anew. The ragers bombed Christian churches in Gaza City and Nablus.

They murdered Italian Sister Leonella Sgorbati, an elderly Catholic nun shot in the back by a Somalian jihadist stoked by Pope Rage. “Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim,” a Somalia cleric had declared. The Vatican made nice with Muslim leaders.

New outrages are always in bloom. In late September, it was a Berlin production of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” that featured the decapitated head of Mohammed. A week later, it was a banyan tree attacked by Indonesian Muslims who wanted to disprove its mystical powers. A few days after that, it was former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, who had the audacity to make the very obvious observation that full Muslim veils impede communications between women and Westerners. Offensive! Disturbing! An insult to Islam!

Not to be outdone, a delegation of extortionist imams boarded a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis in November and tried to manufacture an international human-rights incident.

They clamored for a boycott and threatened to sue.

The good news: The fire did not catch here this time. The bad news: As Oriana Fallaci warned before her death: “The hate for the West swells like a fire fed by the wind. The clash between us and them is not a military one. It is a cultural one, a religious one, and the worst is still to come.”

***

Lan astaslem: Arabic for “I will not submit/surrender”

In his column in the Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg covered a free-speech front that our politically correct news media do not want to touch: when "free expression" supporting a new Holocaust of the Jews in Israel is granted respect on campus. Goldberg was shocked by how one campus circled the wagons when David Horowitz spoke at an event on May 10 sponsored by Young Americans for Freedom:

Horowitz recently spoke at UC-San Diego. You can find an excerpt from his appearance on YouTube. In it, a young Muslim student from UCSD, Jumanah Imad Albahri, asks Horowitz to back up his attacks on the Muslim Students Assn. Horowitz turned the tables on her. In less than two minutes, she revealed herself as a supporter of the terrorist group Hamas. Horowitz then noted that Hezbollah, another terrorist organization, wants all Jews to return to Israel so they can be more conveniently liquidated in one place. Horowitz asks Albahri whether she's for or against that proposition. She is "for it."

I asked UCSD, via e-mail, whether the woman in question was censured in any way for endorsing bigotry and genocide, or if the video was somehow misleading. In response, I received boilerplate about how, in the tradition of Aristotle, UCSD treasures "discourse and debate" and how "the very foundations of every great university are set upon the rock-solid principles of freedom of thought and freedom of speech."

I wrote back, in part: "Thank you for your response. I must say I find it fairly non-responsive. Out of curiosity, if a UCSD student publicly called for the extermination of gays and blacks, would this be your only response as well?"

I then received an even less responsive primer on how student groups are funded on campus.

Now, I could write at length about UCSD's hypocrisy. After all, the school recently launched a "Battle Hate" campaign in response to some idiotic stunt called the "Compton Cookout" at which a fraternity held a racially offensive event off campus during Black History Month. Administrators went into overdrive, the Black Student Union issued 32 demands, the vice chancellor righteously explained to students that although the event may have been beyond the school's "legal jurisdiction," it was not beyond UCSD's "moral jurisdiction."

"We have the moral high ground!" she shouted before trying to start a chant of "Not in our community!"

Well, Albahri's statements were not only within the UCSD community, they were well inside the school's legal and moral jurisdiction. And yet in response, we don't get the familiar kabuki of official outrage. Instead we get: This endorsement of genocide is brought to you by Aristotle.

Many people have asked if I am supporting “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” tomorrow, May 20th.  I am and two of the most moving arguments of why you should too come from the Huffington Post and Reason...

View Original Post

The Left often pays lips service to, while actually doing nothing about, the  military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Yet, in regards to radical Islam, that is exactly what the left wants us to do. Don’t ask.  And, dear Allah, never tell! Instead, they prefer to demagogue American citizens, while [...]

Post updated with author’s note.

Author’s Note: This article includes three images that clearly denigrate Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. So there is absolutely no question about the provenance of these images, I would like to direct all readers to Wikipedia’s authoritative write-up on the matter. These images were included in a dossier that aggrieved imams living in Denmark took with them to the Middle East specifically to stoke outrage at a dozen cartoons published in September 2005 in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The images include an amateurish doodle identifying Mohammed as a pedophile, a dog humping a prostrate praying Muslim (with the caption, “This is why Muslim pray five times a day”), and a photocopy of a French comedian in a pig-squealing contest (with the phony caption, “Here is the real image of Mohammed”). It is nothing less than amazing that holy men decrying the desecration of their religion would create such foul images, but there you have it. It is as if the pope created “Piss Christ” and then passed it off as the work of critics of Catholicism. The images below may indeed give offense, not just to Muslims but also to people of all faiths and even atheists. If they do, remember who created and distributed

******

The deadline for submitting work to Reason’s Everybody Draw Mohammed contest has passed; winners will be announced at Reason.com on Thursday, May 20.

All that remains is anticipation, both of the artwork that will be displayed and the possible threats of violence that will likely follow. Or should that be “the likely threats of possible violence”?

Before the calendar page turns to Thursday, it’s worth meditating on the whys and wherefores of the contest, which was inspired by a jihadist death threat against the creators of South Park and was originally suggested by Seattle artist Molly Norris. Soon after asking everyone to draw the Prophet in solidarity with the arguably millions of people repressed by threats of theologically justified violence, Norris herself went into ideological hiding, suggesting instead that everyone draw another target of South Park satire: former Vice President Al Gore.

While Gore, who likes to credit himself with understanding the architectonics of cyberspace (if not creating them) and who way back when convened Congressional hearings to discuss the dread menace of satanic heavy metal lyrics (via con diablo, Ronnie James Dio!), is certainly worthy of the sort of ongoing abuse that only a fully distributed Internets can deliver, the obvious reason that Norris changed her target is real and potential violence.

Who can blame her? People have been killed for representing Mohammed in ways that displeased Islamic terrorists. People have been punched and kicked and forced into hiding. No wonder, then, that Norris, like Galileo in front of a Catholic tribunal, apologized to ”everyone of the Muslim faith who has or will be offended” by her drawing (visible at the right). This conditionally unconditional language is the language of the forced penitent, of the prisoner in a totalitarian world, of the sad sack on the Catherine Wheel who will say anything, will confess anything to get off the rack. We all understand exactly why such language is being used: The threat of violence.

Attacking iconoclasts (meant here in its literal meaning) has been a constant throughout human history. It’s one of the great dividing lines, like laughter and face-to-face copulation, that separates man from beast. Indeed, I’m betting it was a fundamental element of even pre-human history. Can we doubt seriously that some gang of Neanderthals didn’t crush the skulls of others who decorated cave walls in “offensive” ways? In the 20th and 21st centuries alone, all sorts of human expression have led to brutality and murder. The ground of Europe and Asia and all the continents with the (possible) exception of Antarctica is fertilized with the blood and bones of martyrs who have done nothing more than make tangible their thoughts in words, music, and pictures. Yet even in a country like ours that threatens consenting adults for making dirty movies with effective life sentences, or in European countries where speech codes imprison malefactors for “hate speech,” there is a massive gulf between “mere” censorship and death threats, between the answering of “bad” speech not with more speech but with the blade, the bullet, or the bomb.

There comes a point in any society’s existence where it must ultimately, to paraphrase Martin Luther (who himself was more than happy to see opponents put to death), dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other. We don’t need to be perfectly consistent philosophically or historically or theologically to assert what is special and unique not just about the United States, with its bizarre and wonderful articulation of the First Amendment, but the greater classical liberal project comprising not just the “West” (whatever that is) but human beings in whatever town, country, or planet they inhabit. And at the heart of the liberal project is ultimately a recognition that individuals, for no other reason than that they exist, have rights to continue to exist. Embedded in all that is the right to expression. No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.

This is not about U.S. foreign policy, or trade policy, or aid to Israel or Egypt, or the creation of a Palestinian homeland. This is about the right to have the conversations that might inform all that and more. We live in a time of paradox: Never before have so many been so empowered to speak their own minds, to produce and consume whatever form of expression when they want, where they want. The impact on those seeking to regulate and control thought is as predictable as it is depressing and, ultimately, ineffective: Whether they are governments or corporations or religious or ideological groups, they want to stamp out the ability of people to say and think for themselves.

Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States (though even that deserves all the protection that the most serioso political commentary commands). It’s a defense of what is at the core of a society that is painfully incompetent at delivering on its promise of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights. It’s a rebuttal to the notion that we should go limp in the clinches precisely because bullies and bastards can punch or blow us up. It’s a rebuttal to the mentality evinced in the recent interview between liberal intellectual Paul Berman and Joel Whitney in the May 2010 issue of Guernica, where the sound you hear in the background is the sound of the interviewer pissing his pants:

Guernica: In the short term, don’t we want to avoid triggering something like that [the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist terrorist] with incendiary language? Isn’t it mere prudence?

Paul Berman: [Scriptwriter and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali] didn’t trigger it. They triggered it. What she did and what she continues to do is to go to those people and people who might sympathize with them, and rebuke them. The whole meaning of her career is to say, “There’s a serious problem. I’m gonna deal with it by speaking to it directly. And I’m not gonna mince my words, I’m gonna make an argument.” I think this is great. Some of the arguments that she makes are not my arguments, some of them I would disagree with; my impression is that if I were Dutch I’d be in the Labor Party. I wouldn’t have moved to the other party. And so it’s not that I’m following everything that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. But I follow the main thing. I follow that totally. The main thing is [that] she is saying to people, “I, Hirsi Ali, am thinking for myself and I want you to think for yourself.” And the way to think for yourself is not to revere authority, the way is not necessarily to guard your tongue. The way is to speak your mind.

Guernica: So to put scriptures on a naked woman’s body in her film was not incendiary or reckless, in your reading, it was merely direct.

Paul Berman: That film is not even one millimeter a violent film. And the purpose of the film is to make the viewer recognize that violence against women is being committed by fanatics in the name of Islam. This should be opposed. And she’s done a brilliant job of opposing that. As a politician, she brought to the Dutch Parliament the issue of honor killings. She proposed to Parliament that the police make records of honor killings, which is the first thing the police department had to do to recognize and solve the problem. She brought about a significant reform. And I’m guessing that quite a few women are alive today as a result of this reform.

Guernica: So she’s not only not responsible for Van Gogh’s death, but she’s saved uncounted lives.

Like Berman, I don’t agree with everything Hirsi Ali says (read this remarkable interview she gave Reason, in which our interlocutor teases out more than a little contradiction within her own views). For starters, I reject emphatically what might be called a fundamentalist atheism, which always and everywhere fingers religion and religiosity as the motive force in all that is bad with human beings and human history. To me, that sort of comprehensive reaction is no different than Islamists or Christians or whomever sees the Jews or the Masons or whatever as the villain in every passion play. But Berman is right, not just about the film Submission, which is as incendiary as an After School Special about recycling programs, but the larger idea that we should apologize for triggering violence in serial killers. Why not blame J.D. Salinger for the shooting of John Lennon by a deranged reader of The Catcher in The Rye?

Our Draw Mohammed contest is, hopefully, an exercise in truth-telling. It’s not about revelation, of course, of divinely inspired Truth with a capital “T.” It’s an existential thing, a participatory thing, a living thing. And it’s not something that I expect those inclined to violence in the face of free expression to understand.

Nor do I expect them to realize they are part of the problem they hope to bludgeon into submission. Consider this tremendous irony. For all the discussion about whether it is forbidden to figure Mohammed in visual form (an art form that has a long and glorious Islamic history), three of the most gratuitously insulting images of the Prophet ever disseminated were not created by devil-horned Jews or American women wearing pantsuits or even Danish or U.S. cartoonists. No, they are the work by imams residing in Denmark who went on an outrage tour of the Middle East after Jyllands-Posten published its dozen cartoons in the fall of 2005. Some sources suggest that it is precisely these three fake images, on display in this very blog post as a public service and testament to free speech, that ignited the furor that lit the fuse that ultimately begat Draw Mohammed Day.

Which is worth keeping in mind come May 20 and every day after. Because the cause of free expression, just like the misguided, pathetic, and ultimately-doomed-to-fail attempts to shut it down, is a long, hard slog that begins again every day the sun rises.

While viewers might have expected to see the latest on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or Tuesday's electoral primaries, CNN's Campbell Brown devoted the first two segments on her program on Monday to highlighting the apparent religious bigotry inside the U.S. Army - specifically, the upcoming lawsuit of a Muslim who alleges he was harassed and ridiculed due to his religion.

Brown played the interview of the soldier, Specialist Zachari Klawonn, during the first full segment, which began 2 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour. Klawonn was joined by his lawyer, Randal Mathis, as well as the commanding officer of his battalion, Colonel Jimmy Jenkins. As she introduced the segment, the anchor emphasized how the specialist is "a model soldier," "exactly what the Army says it is looking for," and how he "has an exemplary service record, and has earned the praise of both his commanders and his Army buddies."

During the interview, Brown asked Klawonn about the alleged anti-Muslim harassment he has received, and questioned his commanding officer about the actions he took to solve the issue. After the specialist gave some general examples of the offending behavior, Colonel Jenkins detailed his responsibility as brigade commander: "...My sole goal is to make sure he and the other 2,200 soldiers in the brigade- their safety is paramount. I'm charged with the combat readiness of the brigade, and if my soldiers don't feel safe, then I have failed. So, I have worked personally with Specialist Klawonn on a quite a few occasions to see what I could do to make him feel safer."

The specialist also mentioned during the interview that he was "working with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation" in filing his lawsuit. The CNN anchor brought on the founder and president of the MRFF, Michael Weinstein, along with Thomas Kenniff, a former Army JAG, during the second segment.

Brown mentioned Weinstein's role with the MRFF, but omitted his connections to past lawsuits against the military. Earlier in 2010, the president demanded the military remove the "Bible codes" on rifle scopes used in Afghanistan and asked the Army to change the emblem of the Evans Army Community Hospital in Colorado, which has the motto "For God and humanity" written in Latin, as well as a cross.

More egregiously, The Philadelphia Jewish Voice newspaper interviewed Weinstein in February 2008, and the MRFF president used anti-Christian language several times in his answers. He referred to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" as the "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" and denounced the Officers' Christian Fellowship and the Christian Military Fellowship as "variances of this Christian Taliban and the Christian al-Qaeda." He even compared the "Christian Taliban" supposedly inside the military to the members of the Nazi Party who supported Hitler, or the Communist Party members who aided Stalin. Brown didn't bring up any of this during her interview of Weinstein.

Kenniff, the anchor's other guest, on the other hand, expressed his concerns over the specialist's lawsuit:

KENNIFF: One thing that concerns me, though, is what I see as- you know, somewhat of a lack of specificity in the allegations made by Specialist Klawonn. You know, for instance, he cites numerous cases of harassment. What I would like to know is- you know, does he have the names of the soldiers who are harassing him? Was it reported? Did he name names? Was there an investigation? Because the type of conduct that he at least alleges in some of the complaints- I mean, the destruction of his Koran, the threatening note left on his door or on his truck- I mean, that would certainly give rise, if not to full-blown criminal conduct within the military, then to non-judicial punishment....

The transcript of Brown's interview of Weinstein and Keniff, which began 12 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour of Monday's Campbell Brown program, starting with the anchor's first question to the MRFF president:

BROWN: So, Michael, it's not exactly in the Army's interest here to have soldiers being harassed. So, I mean, what possible motivation, I guess, do they have to not act to protect their soldiers?

WEINSTEIN: Well, I think part of the problem is, is that there is such a tremendous inherent- you know, bias against Muslim-Americans in the military. We see it every day with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. For instance, at some military installations, when you walk into the military clothing store, the only books that they're selling, religious books, are the camouflage Bible and then another book called 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam,' which is an absolute slam on the entire faith.

BROWN: So- so-

WEINSTEIN: When you hear- wait. Let me just say one other thing.

BROWN: Yeah.

WEINSTEIN: When you hear soldiers running in formation- you know, they're often- they will have marching chants or running chants. They'll use the word 'hajji,' which is a- as negative to a Muslim-American as the N-word is to an African-American or the K-word to a Jewish-American or an S-word to an Hispanic-American, and it's done with reckless and complete- total abandon. And- you know, fish in an aquarium never see the water.

BROWN: So, let me ask you both this question, and here's the challenge- is during a time when we are fighting two wars in Muslim countries, and when we face a threat of Islamic terrorism, how much can the Army really do to control what soldiers think of Muslims or Islam? Tom, you answer first.

KENNIFF: Yeah- you know, I think that's a great question, Campbell. It's also one of the concerns I had with- you know, Mikey's client's lawsuit, because a lot of the allegations seem to rail against a hostile culture within the military. And, look, I don't doubt for one second- in fact, I can speak firsthand to the fact that that does exist in certain instances with respect to Muslim-Americans within the military. I would hope that it's the exception and not the rule, and I know Mikey may have a different take on that. But- you know, it's very difficult in the context of a discrimination lawsuit, which is what I think this probably is.

WEINSTEIN: No.

KENNIFF: Okay. Well, you can tell us what it will be, because I- frankly, I haven't seen the complaint. I don't even know that it's filed yet.

WEINSTEIN: Right.

KENNIFF: But- you know, exactly what is the remedy that your client seeking? I mean, if it's a situation where- you know, there's hostility within the enlisted ranks or the officer ranks among fellow soldiers, that's one thing. If it's a situation where it's a top-down- you know, pattern of discrimination meant to oppress- you know, Muslim-American soldiers, then I think that's quite another.

BROWN: All right, Mikey?

WEINSTEIN: Well, and, Tom, let me be specific. What we're looking at doing is filing a federal mandamus action. We believe that all of the internal regulations and instructions and laws within the Pentagon are already fine. They're just being ignored with impunity and there's no penalty for that. What we want to do-

BROWN: But, again, go back to the question of how you get the military to address this, given the world that these soldiers are living in.

WEINSTEIN: Let me make it very clear. You never get anybody to change their minds, Campbell, because they suddenly see the light. They have to feel the heat. We need leaders that will impose the laws that currently exist. This is old-school prejudice, old-school discrimination, old-school bigotry, and it cannot be allowed-

BROWN: Gentlemen, we are going to have to leave it there. Tom Kenniff and Mikey Weinstein, I do appreciate both of you joining us tonight- really interesting conversation. Thanks so much.

“Draw Muhammad Day” is in two days.

Check out the spate of profanity-laced death threats against the organizer on Facebook from Internet jihadists.

A bloodthirsty sample:

Related: The latest on the threats to Lars Vilks’ life…Swedish Mohammed cartoonist in hiding after arson attack.

Remember: It’s in the Koran. In their own words. Not ours.

HonestReporting: Currently appearing on Comedy Central’s website is a game called “I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack!”. The premise of this game has nothing to do with Israel and, as such, is...

View Original Post

From Uppsala, Sweden comes the news that cartoonist Lars Vilks was attacked and head-butted by an angry Muslim at a university lecture. A group of Muslims surrounding him shouted “God is great!” in Arabic as the cartoonist laid on the floor, his glasses broken. Ever since Vilks impolitely drew the prophet Muhammad's head on a dog, he’s been a wanted man. Even the American terrorist wannabe nicknamed “Jihad Jane” plotted to kill him. 

This explains why Comedy Central’s “South Park” has been censoring images that might offend Muslims. The executives at Comedy Central (and their parent company Viacom) regularly pledge allegiance to freedom of expression, but don't really believe it – not when they ponder someone cracking their skulls at a Beverly Hills restaurant.

It's not just “South Park.” Jo Piazza of Foxnews.com reports that after the failed Times Square bombing, Comedy Central's “The Daily Show” told their “senior Islamic correspondent” Aasif Mandvi not to comment further on it. One writer for a scripted drama told Piazza that in one of his show's final episodes there had been a minor plot involving a Muslim extremist. Last week, “it was removed and the script was rewritten.”

It’s clear that Mohammed is off limits – and it’s just as crystal clear that Jesus Christ remains the juiciest of targets.

Even at the sensitive time when they’re shutting down every possible mockery of Islamic extremism, Comedy Central has announced their plans for a new cartoon titled simply “JC,” a half-hour show about Jesus trying to live a normal life in New York City to escape his “powerful but apathetic father.” God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ is the “ultimate fish out of water.” 

As “original programming,” this hardly applies. A slacker Jesus came to Earth to escape an annoying God the Father as He tried to quit smoking on “Family Guy” two years ago. 

On the offensiveness scale, that’s nothing. In the 2005 Comedy Central special “Merry F—ing Christmas,” Denis Leary called the Christmas story "bull[bleep]" and said the Virgin Mary must be a myth since someone surely “banged the hell” out of her. In the 2006 “South Park” episode that spiked Mohammed themes, the show ended with Jesus wildly defecating on President Bush: “Look at me, I'm Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you, Mr. Bush? Mmm, yummy, yummy crap!" And there was Stephen Colbert’s 2008 Christmas special, where Toby Keith sang about (and a cartoon Santa laughed at) Christians blowing up an ACLU lawyer’s house.

Comedy Central programming head Kent Alterman trotted out the normal line for anyone objecting to this profane new series on the god most Americans define as sacred. “In general, comedy in its purest form always makes some people uncomfortable.”

Earth to Alterman: just stop with the First Amendment poseur routine there at Cowardly Central. If you're proud of “making some people uncomfortable” (Christians) while censoring your jokesters in fear of others (Muslims), you're just an anti-Christian bigot.

This “JC” show is merely in development, alongside other potential gems like “Live Sex Show” (no mystery in that title), “Rich Dicks” (ditto), and two pot-themed shows, “Highdeas” and “This Show Will Get You High.” How is that for comedic genius?

Comedy Central is currently airing another religion-mocking cartoon right after “South Park.” It's called “Ugly Americans,” and it imagines a New York City crawling with demons, monsters, and zombies. Some are even social workers at the “Department of Integration.” Mark, the lead character, is a social worker who's dating a co-worker and daughter of the devil named Callie Maggotbone. One of his supervisors is a bullying demon called “Twayne the Bone-Raper.”

Mark works with a washed-up wizard named Leonard, whose brother is a superstar magician named...."Christ Angel.” So it should not come as a surprise that “Christ” is a nasty guy who pulls “tricks” on women like inserting himself into their uterus, forcing labor, and being “born again.” He also makes Leonard punch himself repeatedly in the face.

There is a silly tendency to raise anti-social pranksters to First Amendment hero status for their willingness to be atheist jerks. The TV critics shower you with praise about how you’re “profanely whip-smart” and have a “wry, postmodern vibe” – even when there’s hardly anything smart or wry in the tasteless gore and sex jokes that are the norm on this network. Having Mark meet the devil in Hell and decline an order for “unbaptized baby-arm soup” is not witty. It’s just sick.

But the amazing thing is a sleazy programming chief like Kent Alterman will still claim “The beauty of working at a place like Comedy Central is you can empower people to actualize their vision in a really unfiltered way, and that's when things have the best shot at being funny.”

Unfiltered? What a shameless liar.

Why is it that President Obama can travel to Cairo to promote the wearing of the hijab, but when presented with an opportunity to make a relevant statement on women’s rights issues in the Middle East, he and his Administration are silent?  It has been more than two weeks since Iran was handed a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women and still, not one word of condemnation from President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or UN Ambassador Rice.  Granted, we have become conditioned to expect world-sanctioned hypocrisy over at the United Nations, but this new appointment comes at a time which is especially dangerous to the women who actually live in Iran.

The women’s rights movement in the Islamic Republic has been building momentum for decades and in recent years has served as inspiration for human rights activists around the world.

Last summer in particular, women took to the streets of Iran in record numbers to peacefully protest what is widely considered to be a fraudulent Presidential election.  Activists in Iran have capitalized on this momentum and they continue to protest peacefully — now in an attempt to reform their government’s violent and oppressive laws against women.

This revitalized civil rights movement comes at a time when Iran is attempting to position itself as the leader of the Islamic world.  Emboldened women who seek to shift the Republic away from its stringent adherence to Islamic Shariah law pose a huge threat to the existing power structure of the ruling government and an even greater threat to Iran’s credibility in the entire region.  It is not the vague prospect of possible UN sanctions which is worrisome to the Iranian government, it is the empowerment of its own citizens — especially the ones in headscarves.

The result is a governmental crackdown on activists along with stricter, harsher laws and propaganda aimed against all women. It is no coincidence that we are witnessing more odd/troubling news coming from Iran — a cleric blames women for earthquakes and then days later a fatwa is issued against women with suntans.  News like this makes for catchy sound bites and headlines, but mainstream sources often overlook the harsher reality — women in the Islamic Republic lack even the most basic rights to personal freedom.  They have no right to choose their own husbands, have no right to divorce, cannot travel without the permission of their husbands, and are even barred from singing and dancing in public.  Activists in Iran face unimaginable odds, yet they are still rising up in peaceful protest — by doing so, they face the possibility of arrest, detention, torture, rape, and even death.

Before  Iran was quietly handed a place on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Iranian-based activists and supporters actually attempted to block Iran’s bid for this seat.  They even sent a letter imploring UN members to do everything possible to prevent this travesty from occurring.

How did our own representative at the UN respond?  On the day Iran was elected by acclamation to the women’s rights commission, Ambassador Rice did not bother even bother to attend the meeting. Aside from insulting women’s rights activists all over the world, this flagrant act of disregard highlights the arrogance of the Obama Administration and causes the US to appear weak on a global scale.  The continued silence of this Administration has prompted some women leaders to sign a petition urging Secretary Clinton to denounce the appointment of Iran to the UN women’s rights commission.

I have contacted the White House Press Office, the US Mission to the UN, the White House Council on Women and Girls, and the State Department, but have not received a single on-the-record comment. After Iran won the seat on the UN women’s rights commission, the state-controlled media was apparently happy to report that the efforts by “hostile groups” were “ignored” by members of the UN.  Within its borders, Iran will undoubtedly utilize this election as a propaganda tool in order to give validation to the regime’s horrific treatment of women.  As for the rest of the world, over the next four years while Iran holds this seat, members of the UN will pretend that Islamic Shariah law is somehow compatible with women’s rights.

While the Obama Administration is supposedly busy changing the UN “from within,” the US  is missing important opportunities to take leadership on the most basic of issues.  The silence of this Administration, however, does not mandate the silence of the America people — it is now time for Congress to take action by passing a resolution condemning the appointment of Iran to UN Commission on the Status of Women.

It’s probable that President Obama still has grand dreams of using his public speaking skills to change the policies of the existing Iranian government, but so far this “dialogue” concept has only succeeded in making this Administration look naive.  The Iranian regime is a threat to the world and to its own people — if the President is genuinely concerned about this threat, then at some point he will need to set aside his ego and reevaluate the policies of his Administration.

Meanwhile, in places like Iran, activists are waiting for the US President to utilize his skills in a more productive way — by speaking out for the women who would prefer to remove their state-mandated hijab, but face a punishment of 74 lashes for doing so.

There’s so much pussyfooting and high-stepping around the term “radical Islam” here that Attorney General Eric Holder has more than earned a spot on the next “Dancing with the Stars.” Just watch the whole spectacle. Crikey:

While jihadists plot, our Justice Department panders.

We’re back to Code Red Elmo on the Homeland Insecurity Scale:

I’m filing my column for tomorrow on the latest Boston-area immigration raids related to the Times Square bombing attempt. Much more to come. Various wire reports say two or three men of Pakistani descent are now in custody; at least two are being held on immigration violations.

Suffice to say, the open-borders lobby’s “STOP THE RAIDS” and “STOP THE DEPORTATIONS” rhetoric will be on momentary pause so the Obama administration can selectively enforce our immigration rules for a brief, politically expedient moment before returning to the regularly scheduled, anti-Arizona demagoguery programming…

After decades of fighting the Soviets, the Americans, and the current Karzai Afghan government, Mullah Omar has turned over a new leaf; at least according to this article.  All along he’s just been a misunderstood guy who probably couldn’t pay his mortgage, right?

For those of you not familiar with Mullah Omar, he’s the founder of the Taliban, its spiritual leader, and Osama bin Laden’s BFF. When Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, Omar was the country’s titular head who oversaw the beatings of anyone who didn’t adhere to one of the “strictest interpretation[s] of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,” the shooting of women in the head in front of packed soccer stadiums of cheering fans, and the destruction of 1700 year old Buddhist statues.

Suddenly this crafty recluse has abandoned his long, careful use of couriers, and now allows his statements to be put out directly by his former nemesis, the Afghan government.  Maybe Karazi has even installed a red phone on his desk for Omar just like Glenn Beck!  Isn’t that awesome? We don’t even need a “Can’t we all get along” moment. It’s already here!

And what’s even better is that Omar’s latest missive, the one where he’s preaching peace with the same government who put out the statement for him, comes right before President Karzai’s much ballyhooed peace jirga. Wow! What are the odds? The timing on this one couldn’t be better, could it?

Even cooler is that many of the Taliban players Karzai has tapped to attend the jirga will be getting paid! That’s even better than passing out doctor coats at a healthcare presser. After all, you can’t trade lab coats for guns, bullets, and roadside bomb making materials.

Everything is falling into place. To think, that someone would upset the applecart by suggesting that Mullah Omar actually wasn’t enthusiastically participating in this historic, unprecedented event.  It sounds to me as if this is going to be like Woodstock, only with hummus!

Of course, for this narrative to work we’ll have to ignore a few things like those pesky internet reports of Mullah Omar actually being in Pakistani custody, his ditching his courier system for a snazzy new Karzai appointed spokesman, and the fact that the Taliban’s governing body, the Quetta Shura has been in utter disarray since right about the time he “allegedly” disappeared.

Now, some might let the fact that no one in the Quetta Shura has heard from Omar bother them. That same person might have a problem with the fact that a real power struggle has developed between two of Omar’s top made men: Mullha Mansour and Mullah Zakir. In fact, the host of other issues plaguing the Quetta Shura (that would normally be settled by Omar if he were actually around) could bring us down, but we’re not going to let that happen!  Why spoil such a great narrative? After all, everyone loves peace right?

I know I do, especially when it comes tied up with such a nice little ribbon. Time to pass the hummus!

I’ve blogged many times here over the years about the insidious influence of the Muslim Students Association on college campuses across the country (see here and here).

No one has done more than vigilant anti-jihad combatant David Horowitz to engage the MSA directly, expose its ideological roots and funding, and educate the public about how the group acts as a dangerous Fifth Column in America.

Horowitz’s exchange with one MSA member at the University of California at San Diego is chilling. There’s no misconstruing the student’s message and meaning.

Watch it and spread the word if you haven’t already.

Where are the civility police at the White House and New York Times editorial board to decry the incendiary views and violence-inciting rhetoric coming from MSA zealots on campus?

Cue the sound of crickets chirping…

***

Flashback: MSA mob disrupts Daniel Pipes’ lecture, 2007 UC Irvine…

In August 2007, I blogged about this little cartoon depicting Mohammed as a dog:

The religion of perpetual outrage swung into action against the Swedish artist who drew the image, Lars Vilks.

Vilks hit the nail on the head at the time:

Vilks said he made the drawings after being invited to contribute to an art exhibition in central Sweden on the theme of dogs.

“To begin with, the message was to make a critical contribution on the dog theme, but it took another direction,” Vilks told AP in a phone interview. “Why can you not criticize Islam when you can criticize other religions?”

Three years later, the cartoon jihadists are still raging against Vilks for speaking truth to sharia power:

A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday while giving a university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during a lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn’t immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog’s body, but Tuesday’s incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.

Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself “Jihad Jane,” and who now faces life in prison. She had pleaded not guilty.

Allahpundit has the video.

Remember: The Religion of Perpetual Outrage hates all infidels. The targeting of Mohammed cartoonists is a lingering pretext to demonstrate that centuries-old, Koran-inspired hatred. If it isn’t cartoons, it’s always something else. From fresco rage to book rage to film rage to beauty pageant rage to Koran-dropping rage to cartoon rage to Pope rage, to ceramic Mohammed bobbleheads, it never ends.

They never forget and they never forgive. Which is why we must never submit.

Lan astaslem: Arabic for “I will not submit/surrender”

***

Vilks stands firm:

While Vilks escaped the incident with broken glasses and a degree of shock, he said it raised concerns about the freedom of expression at Sweden’s oldest and most prestigious institute of higher learning.

“What you get is a mob deciding what can be discussed at the university,” Vilks told The Associated Press, adding he was ready to repeat the lecture if re-invited.

“I’m ready to go up again,” he said. “This must be carried through. You cannot allow it to be stopped.”

Woah!… Raging Muslim students in Sweden attacked artist Lars Vilks during a free speech lecture in Sweden. 15 Muslims screaming “Allahu Akbar” rushed the podium, headbutted Vilks, broke his glasses and tackled him to the floor. The whole assault was caught on tape:

Vilks has been receiving death threats since he drew an image of the prophet Mohammad with a dog’s body.

The AP and Atlas Shrugs have more on the attack:

A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday while giving a university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during a lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn’t immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog’s body, but Tuesday’s incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.

Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself “Jihad Jane,” and who now faces life in prison. She had pleaded not guilty.

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident at Uppsala University.

Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said, describing the scene as “complete chaos.”

“A man ran up and threw himself over me. I was head-butted and my glasses were broken,” Vilks said before hanging up for questioning by police.

The Muslims want Lars Vilks dead because he drew this:

He drew the Prophet Mohammad with a dog’s body. Now, he must die.

Big Brother says elderly visitors to federally funded meals at a Georgia senior citizen’s center aren’t allowed to pray to that Christian God of theirs. Obama’s Big Brother government contends that since it has paid for their meals the government has the right to slam its iron boot heel down on the necks of those seasoned citizens that dare to engage in such an apostasy toward the state.

Seem absurd? Well it is but that is what happens when the feds roll into town and begin to hand out money. They feel the right to dictate what everyone is allowed or not allowed to do and in the case of Port Wentworth’s Ed Young Senior Citizens Center near Savannah that is to tell these old folks that they are not allowed to pray before a meal.

There are federal “guidelines” to observe, after all and the federal government’s rules say none of that ridiculous Christian stuff will go on if the feds supply even a penny of funding. Old folks that want to pray are banned from doing so and if they don’t like it, why they can go hungry because the new Uncle Sam is a crusader against religion.

Well, at least one religion, anyway.

You see, while Obama’s federal government is ever ready to get tough with Georgia’s elderly and to put a stop to all that praying nonsense, it is also the same government that at federal expense is installing ritual footbaths in airports and universities to mollify Muslims. Not only that but the same federal government sees no reason to stop bombers from easily boarding planes so that they can make an escape to a foreign nation after a failed attempt to kill untold hundreds of Americans. But damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead to prevent those dangerous old folks in the middle of Georgia from daring to pray to that subversive Christian God!

The nerve of those elderly Americans daring to observe their Christian cultural heritage, a heritage that helped build this country. It’s an outrage, don’t you think? So, it’s freedom from religion as far as Obama’s government is concerned. I mean these old folks are probably as dangerous to the state as can be! Thank Gaia that Obama is quashing their subversive activities.

Praise be it to the state, thanks be to The One, and pass the potatoes. The Obammessiah shall provide all our wants. But, remind me… has he walked on water yet?

Dan Gainor, Vice-President of Business and Culture at the MRC, appeared on the May 7 broadcast of Fox News's "America Live" to discuss the double standard at Comedy Central when it comes to mocking religious figures.

Two weeks ago, Comedy Central banned "South Park" creators from mocking the prophet Mohammed because network executives didn't want to offend Muslim followers. This week, the network announced a new show, "JC," which according to the Hollywood Reporter, features Jesus Christ as a son "wanting to escape the shadow of his ‘powerful but apathetic father' and live a regular life in New York City."

Gainor told host Megyn Kelly that this newest program shows "how out of touch Comedy Central and Hollywood are" and that "Hollywood is running scared of radical Islam."

"They saw what happened when you run cartoons that are deemed to be mocking the prophet. You have global riots and death. You know, we keep dancing around this problem in America. You know, you look at repeated incidents of terrorism in this country come from radical islam," he continued. "So what Hollywood doing is self-censoring. They are cutting out Islam plot lines out of shows. They're you know,  hiding any controversy at all about Islam so it's safe to mock 80 percent of the population because no matter what the media has been telling us for literally years, Christians really aren't dangerous and they're not going to go out and hurt people."

Kelly noted the lack of violent reaction from Christians.

"Comedy Central feels it can get away with this because they know no death threats are going to be forthcoming from Christians," she said. "They might, they might write angry letters, they might change the channel, but no one will be threatening the creators of this show with murder if they go forward and make fun of Jesus Christ."

After showing viewers of the May 7 "Fox & Friends"  a montage of network news coverage portraying Times Square bombing suspect as a down-on-his-luck family man, Fox News anchor Steve Doocy interviewed Media Research Center President Brent Bozell for his reaction about the media's portrayal of Faisal Shahzad (MP3 audio available here; click play in embed at right for video):

 

STEVE DOOCY, Fox News anchor: Brent, when we put those little clips together, it sure makes it sound like they're trying to find, you know, rationalize why that guy did it, and obviously, it's because he lost his house, and he was down on his luck, they say.

BRENT BOZELL: It can't be terrorism, and it's not just television. Here's an AP story: "Faisal had a pretty enviable life. He earned an MBA, he had a well-educated wife, he had two kids and owned a house in a middle-class suburb of Connecticut. In the past couple of years, though, his life seemed to unravel."

Here's the headline from Newsweek: "Did the economy make him do it?" Here's the headline from AOL: "New York bomb suspect cooperates, but motive a mystery." This is unbelievable! It's not a mystery, folks.

The guy went to Pakistan, what, 13 times? He trained with al Qaeda. If you talk about a person who was rich and did this, and scratch your head, I got another name for you.  Osama bin Laden, he's rich too, he did the same thing. What does it matter how rich your parents were, this man is a terrorist...

Later, Doocy asked Bozell what the MRC had found when it compared treatment of Shahzad to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The NewsBusters publisher noted that while the networks accurately portrayed McVeigh as a terrorist but then sought to tar the conservative movement by association. By contrast, Bozell argued, the networks are hesitant to explore Shahzad's affiliation with radical Islamic terrorism.

The go-fly list for terrorists
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

If America’s homeland security policies were subject to truth-in-advertising laws, the “no-fly” list would be known around the world by its right and proper name: the “go-fly” list. As in: Go right ahead, jihadists, and fly our planes. All aboard, evil-doers.

While grandmas and grade-schoolers and war heroes patiently pass through a gauntlet of wands, checkpoints and screening obstacles, the nation’s safety watchdogs are asleep at the wheel. They’ve mentally checked out at the check-in counter. And they’re in over their heads at federal counterterrorism centers, where “watch list” means putting the names of dangerous operatives into massive databases — then idly watching potential bombers waltz through our airports and onto our tarmacs.

The federal no-fly scheme was bypassed or breached easily by both the Christmas Day bomb plotter and the Times Square bomb plotter. In the former case, Nigerian terror operative Umar Abdulmutallab had been on the counterterrorism radar screen for his radical jihadi threats (which had been reported by his father to U.S. embassy officials in London). But the young, single, rootless Muslim extremist with suspicious travel patterns — ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! — did not meet the standards for watch-listing and didn’t even make it onto the second-tier “selectee list” of potential threats who can fly only after additional screening.

By contrast, beleaguered 8-year-old Mikey Hicks of Clifton, N.J., still can’t get off the selectee list after years of ridiculous harassment while traveling on family vacations.

In the Times Square case, Team Obama immediately pointed fingers at the airline industry — and Emirates airlines, in particular — for failing to check no-fly list updates. The hindsight cops at the White House are now touting ex post facto rules mandating that the airlines check no-fly alerts every two hours instead of every 24 hours.

But law enforcement officials themselves neglected to contact all airlines directly and red-flag the addition of would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad’s name to the government no-fly list. Moreover, despite paying cash for his trip to the Middle East and being listed on the Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list since 1999, Shahzad received no extra screening from the Transportation Security Administration (confirming once again the bureaucracy’s own inside joke that TSA stands for “Thousands Standing Around”).

The tourism industry certainly shares blame for putting travel profits ahead of national security over the years. But in this case, it was only thanks to airline industry compliance with a post-9/11 procedure requiring plane officials to send passenger manifests to the Department of Homeland Security that the feds caught up with Shahzad (whom they had lost track of in Connecticut) before he jetted off to Dubai.

President Obama has had plenty of time to address the enforcement lapses, database loopholes and technological delays of his predecessor. After the Christmas Day bombing debacle, he pledged to be proactive: “We will not rest.” But to this day, TSA still doesn’t check all domestic and international airline passenger manifests against the no-fly/go-fly list.

The data are only as good as the people entrusted to collect, process and use the information to protect national security. And without the ability to share and access the information across numerous agencies, the data are useless. Nearly nine years after Sept. 11, there is still no functional interoperability among an alphabet soup of national security and criminal databases — including NAILS, TECS, CLASS, VISAS VIPER, TUSCAN, TIPPIX, IBIS, CIS, APIS, SAVE, IDENT, DACS, AFIS, ENFORCE and the NCIC. The Senate raised questions about understaffed efforts to modernize some of these databases back in March. What are we waiting for? The next jihadi bombing attempt?

The warped priorities of the Obama White House imperil us all. A command-and-control government that squanders its time and our money taking over businesses it has no business running — health insurance, auto manufacturing, banking, student loans — is a government neglecting its most fundamental mandate: providing for the common defense.

Guess who said this: "In general, comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable." Nope, it wasn't Lenny Bruce or George Carlin. It was Comedy Central's head of original programming Kent Alterman, who was defending the network's new animated show, "JC," which centers on (read: mocks) Jesus Christ.

This, of course, is the same Comedy Central that two weeks ago forbade the show "South Park" from even speaking the name of the Muslim prophet Mohammed for fear of offending that faith's followers. So at Comedy Central, apparently, making people uncomfortable by poking fun at their beliefs is fine. Unless those people are Muslims.

This is nothing revelatory -- the double standard has existed at least since the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published depictions of Mohammed, sparking worldwide protests. But Comedy Central's unveiling of "JC" a mere 15 days after a heavily censored "South Park" episode went on air serves to drive home just how absurd and offensive to the values of a free society this double standard is.

According to the Hollywood Reporter,

"JC" [is] a half-hour show about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City.

In the show, God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ, "the ultimate fish out of water," tries to adjust to life in the big city…

When asked if the show might draw some fire, especially coming on the heels of the network's decision to censor the Muslim faith's religious figure on "South Park," Alterman said its too early in the show's development to be concerned about such matters.

"We don't even know what the show is yet," he said.

The debate over Arizona’s immigration law is a topic du jour in the United States, but immigration and other demographic phenomena may have already sealed a terrible fate for Europe.

Mark Steyn discusses everything from Lady Gaga to the astonishing rate of immigrant dependency on the European welfare money.

A central point of Steyn’s analysis is the issue of “cultural exhaustion” — the most recent example being the spineless South Park debacle.

The really shocking revelation is the explanation of how United States taxpayers contribute to Germany’s socialized medicine.

Near the top of Tuesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan fretted over American Muslims being harassed in the wake of the failed Times Square bombing: "how do you deal with these types of crimes without resulting in racism, effectively, towards people of Pakistani or Middle Eastern descent?...is there not a natural backlash to this?"

Ratigan asked that of Sofian Zakkout, the director of the American Muslim Association of North America, who replied: "We should calm down, it's – thank God nobody got hurt. We all know – and also I spoke today, this morning, with CAIR and other Islamic organizations....we denounce what was going to happen." Zakkout's organization has had links to questionable Islamic organizations on its website and has voiced support for the terrorist organization Hamas.

Ratigan seemed to be following the lead of his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, who appeared on Tuesday's Stephanie Miller radio show and lamented the ethnicity of the would-be bomber: "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country."   

Here is a transcript of Ratigan's exchange with Zakkout:

4:06PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: Sofian Zakkout is the director of the American Muslim Association of North America. Sofian, welcome to the conversation. How do you – how do you deal with these types of crimes without resulting in racism, effectively, towards people of Pakistani or Middle Eastern descent?

SOFIAN ZAKKOUT: You know, how I – how I deal with that?

RATIGAN: How do you suggest it be dealt with? In other words, is there not a natural backlash to this? That variable?

ZAKKOUT: Yes, yes, yes. We should calm down, it's – thank God nobody got hurt. We all know – and also I spoke today, this morning, with CAIR and other Islamic organizations of Florida. We all understand, we denounce what was going to happen. Thank God there is nobody got hurt. Thank God the authority was open-eyed and took the car away from the people – from the surrounding population.

And we have to wait to see exactly the motives of – of this kind of act, terrorist act that was going to happen on our soil. We have to know who's behind it. What's the reasons. Then, you know, we all should also listen to all Muslim leaders around the nation.

Because it's very important to send a message from the Muslim leaders, around the nation. From California, New York, Miami, Washington, Chicago, that we – to show that we all – we've been denouncing all acts of terrorism and to condemn it strongly to send a message to the Muslims and to the non-Muslims all around the world that we are working closely with our authorities in prevention. And to try to stop any future – may Allah forbid – any future terrorist acts or terrorist activities.

As a matter of fact, we just came from Haiti, we put our life in danger for non-Muslims. We went to Haiti. We went to Katrina, we've been working to save lives. And we are against any, any terrorist attacks from any places in our soil or any Americans here or abroad. As clear as it sounds. 

Islam? Islam? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

We awake to news that after extraordinary police work, investigators have made an arrest in the attempted car bombing of Times Square in New York.  Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani native-turned-naturalized-U.S.-citizen, was taken into custody late last night. He was naturalized last year, and shortly thereafter, made a trip to Peshawar, Pakistan–a hotbed of Islamic terrorist activity and recruitment.

I have read countless reports about the arrest, in newspapers and websites big and small.  So far, I have not seen a single mention of his faith.  Not a single reference to his being Muslim.  We’re left to deduce that by his Pakistani ethnicity and name.

Political correctness has stripped us of our ability to be brutally honest about the nature of the threat we face.  It’s not from a bunch of maniacal Catholics or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists.  The lethal threat is coming from radical Muslims.  Even after September 11, even after repeated terror attacks and attempts here and abroad, we still cannot be truthful and outspoken about it?  Pathetic.

This suicidal inability to call the enemy what it is comes straight from the top:  the President will not go anywhere near the words “Islam” and “terror” together.  His administration has contorted itself into all kinds of politically correct gymnastics to avoid making the connection, going so far as to term acts of terror as “manmade disasters” and the fight against it as “overseas contingency operations.”

He refused to speak the truth about the motivation of Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 fellow Americans in the name of Islam, and would not make the connection with the Christmas Day bomber, Abdulmutallab.  He refused to “jump to conclusions” about what propelled them to try to kill Americans (although he had no problem “jumping to conclusions” about Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police and the Arizona immigration law.)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a ridiculous statement before the arrest, suggesting it could be “someone…that doesn’t like the health care bill.”

Bloomberg’s comment was idiotic, but he’s not the Commander-in-Chief.  Obama was notified of the arrest five minutes after midnight.  We’ve gotten a statement from his Attorney General, but as of 8:30am ET, still no statement from the Commander-in-Chief.

Unless and until we can call the enemy and what drives him to kill us what they are—Muslims propelled by their religious belief—we cannot and will not win this war.

Scroll for updates…

The Pakistani-born naturalized American who bought the would-be Nissan Pathfinder SUV bomb that fizzled in Times Square was arrested at JFK airport as he attempted to flee for Dubai.

Here’s the DOJ statement:

Earlier this evening, Faisal Shahzad was arrested in connection with the attempted car bombing in New York on Saturday. Mr. Shahzad, an American citizen, was taken into custody at JFK Airport in New York as he attempted to board a flight to Dubai.

Since this plot was first uncovered on Saturday night, the FBI, prosecutors and intelligence lawyers in the National Security Division of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys Offices in Manhattan and Connecticut, along with the NYPD have worked night and day to find out who was responsible for what would have been a deadly attack had it been successful. Over the course of the day today, we have gathered significant additional evidence that led to tonight’s arrest, which was made by agents from Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection.

This investigation is ongoing, as are our attempts to gather useful intelligence, and we continue to pursue a number of leads. But it’s clear that the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans.

FBI agents are working with their state and local counterparts in New York, Connecticut and other jurisdictions to gather evidence and intelligence related to this case. We are also coordinating with other members of the President’s national security team to ensure we use every resource available to the United States to bring anyone responsible to justice.

We continue to gather leads in this investigation, and it’s important that the American people remain vigilant. The vehicle in Times Square was first noticed on Saturday by a citizen who reported it to authorities, and, as always, any American who notices suspicious activity should report it to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

This investigation is ongoing, it is multi-faceted, and it is aggressive. As we move forward, we will focus on not just holding those responsible for it accountable, but also on obtaining any intelligence about terrorist organizations overseas.

Because of the fast-moving nature of this investigation, I am not able to make any further information public at this time. But the American people should know that we are deploying every resource available, and we will not rest until we have brought everyone responsible to justice.

Mark Steyn rips the Lone Wolf knee-jerkers.

Confirmed: Michael Bloomberg is a moron.

ABC News on the clues that led to Shahzad:

Officials declined to provide the specifics that led them to believe there were overseas links to a larger plot.

Authorities said another clue in the investigation is a video posted online early Sunday morning by persons in Connecticut, who may have been involved in the bomb attempt and are being sought by law enforcement. The video, posted on a site registered one day before the attack, has the Taliban in Pakistan claiming responsibility for the attempted bombing.

Surveillance was key.

The number from a disposable cellphone led FBI agents to the suspect arrested Monday night for allegedly driving a car bomb into Times Square on Saturday evening, according to a senior official.

“They were able to basically get one phone number and by running it through a number of databases, figure out who they thought the guy was,” the official said.

A huge law-enforcement force tracked the suspect through the afternoon and evening. He was arrested at 11:30 p.m. at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. The vehicle identification number had been removed from the bomb-laden 1993 Nissan Pathfinder left in Times Square.

But investigators were able to lift it from a second location on the vehicle, and used that to track down a Connecticut man who said he had sold the Pathfinder for cash about three weeks ago. The man had offered the vehicle on Craigslist, and FBI agents were able to recover the number from a disposable cellphone that had been used by the buyer.

The suspect didn’t still have the phone. But using a lot of technology and access to database, agents located the suspect.

CAIR and the ACLU were unavailable for comment…

***

NYPost has a photo of Shahzad.

WSJ reports three were removed from Dubai-bound flight that Shahzad attempted to board.

Newsweek on another link:

A prominent expert on Jihadist media says there is an apparent link between the new video message in which Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, once thought to have been killed, proclaims he is still alive, and a message posted overnight Saturday in which the Pakistani Taliban appears to claim credit for the failed Times Square car bomb attack.

Rita Katz, founder of the Site Intelligence Group, a private organization that monitors and translates extremist Web postings, late on Monday outlined a timeline her organization put together that suggests that the Hakimullah video and the U.S. attack claim were both posted, at least on some sites, by the same person or persons.

Report: Pakistan arrests man in Karachi in connection with Times Square bomb attempt.

Report: Shahzad attended an overseas jihadi training camp.

Report: Up to eight arrested overseas.

This is the reported air traffic control audio of the Dubai-bound flight being turned back to the gate after taxiing…

***

Update: Here’s a link to the criminal complaint filed this afternoon.

Fleshing out the DOJ’s big white lie from its press release this morning: “…as he attempted to board a flight to Dubai.” More on the no-fly debacle:

The no-fly list failed to keep the Times Square suspect off the plane. Faisal Shahzad had boarded a jetliner bound for the United Arab Emirates Monday night before federal authorities pulled him back.

The night’s events, gradually coming to light, underscored the flaws in the nation’s aviation security system, which despite its technologies, lists and information sharing, often comes down to someone making a right call.

As federal agents closed in, Faisal Shahzad was aboard Emirates Flight 202. He reserved a ticket on the way to John F. Kennedy International Airport, paid cash on arrival and walked through security without being stopped. By the time Customs and Border Protection officials spotted Shahzad’s name on the passenger list and recognized him as the bombing suspect they were looking for, he was in his seat and the plane was preparing to leave the gate.

But it didn’t. At the last minute, the pilot was notified, the jetliner’s door was opened and Shahzad was taken into custody.

After authorities pulled Shahzad off the plane, he admitted he was behind the crude Times Square car bomb, officials said. He also claimed to have been trained at a terror camp in Pakistan’s lawless tribal region of Waziristan, according to court documents. That raised increased concern that the bombing was an international terror plot.

…The Obama administration played down the fact that Shahzad, a U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, had made it aboard the plane. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wouldn’t talk about it, other than to say Customs officials prevented the plane from taking off. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the security system has fallback procedures in place for times like this, and they worked.

And Attorney General Eric Holder said he “was never in any fear that we were in danger of losing him.”

I finally got out and about – a beautiful Saturday night in New York City — and I had to bolt home. Times Square was evacuated, emptied of tourists, as police officers and firefighters closed the area because of a car bomb – bomb materials found in an SUV.

The SUV was filled with propane tanks, fireworks, filled gas cans, clocks with batteries, and two clocks with batteries, electric wire and more. A police official said: “It looks as if the perp was trying to light it up, and was interrupted by the cops, panicked and took off. It looked like someone tried to detonate it and we got to it in time. This is a big deal. It has the makings of a real car bomb.” A police officer who was on the scene said: “I did a lap around the vehicle. The inside was smoking. I smelled gunpowder and knew it might blow. I thought it might blow any second.”

Despite all that, the feds said at first that it wasn’t a terrorist attack. Then what was it?

That line was so absurd in this case that they had to change their tune, and fast. Now New York Governor Paterson and even DHS Secretary Janet “Nudnik” Napolitano are saying it was a terrorist attack attempt. Said Napolitano: “We’re taking this very seriously. We’re treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack.” But everyone was saying that they had no idea who was behind it. Police are now searching for a “white man” – a search the mainstream media is playing up big, hoping that the terrorist will turn out to be a non-Muslim. As if there are no white Muslims! Tell that to the North Carolina jihadis arrested last year.

But for Barack Obama and his gang there are no jihadis at all. Granny at the Tea Party is the real terrorist threat as far as they’re concerned.

The mainstream media also at first dismissed the gravity of the failed Times Square bomb as “amateurish.” Many headlines led with this angle. This, yet again, reflected the nonsensical and lethal “logic” of our news gatherers. It was ridiculous on its face. Saturday night in Times Square is teeming with humanity. Thousands of people could have been hurt, many killed, and now officials are admitting that: New York police commissioner Ray Kelly said, “If this had detonated, it would have caused casualties, a significant fireball, and would have ripped the vehicle in half.”

Bloomberg said there was no evidence that the bomber was affiliated with any terrorist organizations. How does he know that? Let’s assume for a moment that this car bomb was Islamic jihad. Whether the bomber was loosely tied to an organization or was a lone jihadi, what’s the difference if the motivation was the same? How many soldiers of Allah (a moniker on Fort Hood’s jihadist Major Nidal Hasan business card) are playing with bombs in their basements right now, and have nothing to do with al-Qaeda or the Taliban?

Even worse, their motivation is indirectly sanctioned by the Obama administration, by its silence and refusal to address (or even speak of) Islamic jihad. Has Obama apologized for the theater district yet, or has he written another big fat check to Pakistan or the Palestinian Authority or some other jihad-supporting entity?

Also, if this was a jihad attack, watch for another round of mainstream media excusing and denying the role of the Koran’s teachings of violence. Every time there is an Islamic attack on America, Islam advances. America recedes. Whenever Americans are murdered, shot in the back, attacked in any way by jihadists, and CAIR gets a platform on FOX, Ibrahim Hooper or MPAC gets a shout out on O’Reilly, and we bend a little bit more to Islam, while Muslims admonish Americans about a potential backlash.

Whether the car bomb in Times Square was a jihad attack or not, this evasion is setting the stage for rivers of blood. The more you appease, the more horrific the end result will be. If Hitler had been stopped at Czechoslovakia, think of all the incomprehensible bloodshed and loss of life that would have been avoided. The more you give in to evil, the greater the consequences will ultimately be. Evil has no depth, no bottom.

Yet we can be sure that if a jihad connection is found, the mainstream media will mention it only long enough to explain it away. It’s inexcusable.

Although I am a modern feminist, like most people, I stopped paying serious attention to the feminist movement right around the time the movement lost its voice to political correctness.  Unfortunately, there are no promising indicators that the current feminist establishment will be regaining that voice anytime soon.  The silence of the movement on critical issues gives the impression that all is well for the women of the world, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Last week, Evangelical Rev. Franklin Graham was disinvited from the National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon because of his remarks about Islam which included, “When you look at what the religion [Islam] does to women and women alone, it is just horrid.”  Due to the level of media coverage surrounding this event, it was the perfect opportunity for some feminist group to seize the moment and speak out against the atrocities committed against women every day in the name of Islam, but the establishment chose to remain silent.

Feminists certainly could have come out in support of Franklin Graham’s truthful remarks and brought attention to some simple facts, like how women who live under Shariah Law are virtual prisoners and are not allowed to leave their home unless accompanied by an appropriate male guardian.  Or perhaps, start a discussion on the fact that over 90% of married women in supposedly “moderate Islamic” countries like Pakistan report being “kicked, slapped, beaten, or sexually abused” for crimes like failing to cook or clean to their husbands’ approval or for giving birth to a girl instead of a boy.  Maybe it would have been a good time to mention that now even here in the United States, fathers, brothers, and sons sometimes feel they have the right to viciously attack and murder their own female relatives in order to preserve their so-called “honor.”  At the very least, it would have been an appropriate moment for some feminist group to denounce the heinous practice of female genital mutilation or the stoning to death of women who are raped.  What about the Islamic tradition of forcing children to “marry” adult men who then take complete control over their little bodies — control enough to rape little girls to death as we saw in Yemen just weeks ago.

Even though feminists generally remain silent about this issue, the treatment of women in Islam can be, as Franklin Graham stated, “horrid.”  Critics claim that Graham is an “ignorant bigot” who is “attacking Islam” but how many of those critics have actually visited the Middle East and/or studied the Quran and Hadith?  How many of them have even heard of Hadith?  (Hadith are narratives about Muhammad’s life and the vast majority of Muslims consider them essential for understanding the Quran).  Over the past 40 years, Franklin Graham has travelled and worked in places like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan — he has witnessed the Islamic way of life where true Islamic law is actually practiced.

Those who have studied Islamic teachings are well-aware that violence against women is not only condoned, but often encouraged as a practice to make women submissive (Quran Sura 4 Verse 34 is just one example).  The concept of “marrying” children comes directly from the Prophet Muhammad whom Muslims believe is an example of the “perfect man” — he “married” his child bride, Aisha, when she was 6, but didn’t take her virginity until she reached the mature age of 9.  In Western civilization, men who rape children go to prison and become outcasts of society — under Islamic law, the term “marriage” can be used to sanction these acts and men can claim to be following in the footsteps of the “perfect man.”  Graham may have been blunt when he described life under Islamic law as “wicked” and “violent” but how else can one categorize atrocities like the ones listed above?

Although the feminist establishment is often silent about the plight of women in Islam, thankfully, there are still some brave individuals like Franklin Graham who will speak out for those whose voices have been stolen, beaten, raped, and stoned in the name of this misogynistic political and religious ideology.  Graham may have been silenced by Islamic apologists at the Pentagon but he did not lose his public forum because he is “attacking Islam” — he lost his forum simply because he is telling the truth about Islam.  Feminist groups may often choose to ignore the issue but it is time for all of us who live under the protection of Western governments to learn about the realities of the world’s fastest spreading religious/political ideology.  More of us need to speak out for the women who cannot and we all need to ensure that apologists do not succeed in silencing anyone.  As a gay woman in particular, I do not share many similar views with Evangelical Rev. Franklin Graham, yet I still admire him for speaking the truth about an oppression that in varying degrees affects hundreds of millions of women throughout the world.  Maybe one day, the feminist establishment will be brave enough to follow in his footsteps.  Now that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been given a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, feminist groups have yet another perfect opportunity to speak out — will they?

On Friday's Rick's List, CNN's Rick Sanchez revisited a story he did on Tuesday where he forwarded Islamic group CAIR's publicity stunt about a Virginia license plate that apparently contained racist messages. The Washington Post, as well, updated their story on Friday, pointing to the driver's apparent Facebook page, which contained white supremacist messages, but CNN was unable to confirm their report.

Both news agencies initially jumped on CAIR's admitted speculation about the pickup truck's license plate numbers, which they claimed represented a slogan from a deceased white supremacist leader, and numbers which translated as "Heil Hitler." Brigid Schulte of the Post broke the controversy in her April 22 story, which only presented the Islamic advocacy group's side of the story (possibly because of privacy rules in Virginia). Sanchez did the same in his Tuesday segment.

Schulte followed through with an article on Thursday, after the owner of the truck, Douglas Story, contacted The Washington Post to claim that the numbers actually represented his favorite NASCAR drivers, Tony Stewart and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., who race under those respective numbers. Story was forced to get a new license plate after the Virginia DMV recalled his plate.

The following afternoon, the CNN anchor devoted a five-minute segment to the controversy (CNN.com has the full transcript here), which began 43 minutes into the 3 pm Eastern hour. He brought on correspondent Brooke Baldwin, who had actually talked to Mr. Story, and also gave additional details which the Post's Schulte reported online earlier in the day about the truck driver's apparent Facebook page.

SANCHEZ: You know, it's kind of like a ping-pong match- this story.

BALDWIN: Back and forth.

SANCHEZ: When I told it the other day- well, part of it is, too- you know- look, I don't know enough about- you know, NASCAR, to have recognized those two numbers and questioned it at the time that we did the story....We reported what CAIR had alleged....about the story. Now, he's coming back and saying- no, CAIR is wrong. But now, you're here to tell us The Washington Post has been diligently reporting on this. We've tried to do some independent reporting. We've spoken to him. What is his name?

BALDWIN: Douglas Story- and you're right, Rick. I mean, it's kind of ping-pong. There's all kinds of bits and pieces. Let me try to sit here and put them all together for you.

SANCHEZ: Okay.

BALDWIN: But right, so you sat here a couple of days ago. You told this guy's story. You showed the back of his car....So, Mr. Story, out of Chantilly, Virginia, has since come forward....He said, hang on a second. This has nothing to do with the Nazis, and everything, as you pointed out- has everything to do with NASCAR....

The Washington Post is now running with the story, saying they have done some digging, and they have said- hey, we found his Facebook page. There are white supremacy messages. We followed up, did our due diligence- you know, talked to him. He said, absolutely not- I have nothing to do with social media- never had a Facebook page. So, he is denying what The Washington Post is reporting....

SANCHEZ: Ok, fine. So we've got- so essentially, we've got a stalemate there.

BALDWIN: Total stalemate.

SANCHEZ: We stop- fine. Now, let's go to the other part, the Facebook page, which apparently, there are references to white supremacist groups.

BALDWIN: 'I'm 100 percent Aryan race- 100 percent white.' But, again, he is saying, 'I don't know what you're talking about, Washington Post. I do not and have never had a Facebook page.'

SANCHEZ: The Washington Post, though, is, in fact, declaratively stating that, in fact, that is his Facebook page, correct?

BALDWIN: Correct.

SANCHEZ: They're a pretty reputable organization, right?

BALDWIN: They are.

SANCHEZ: But he's coming back. Now, we had him on the phone, and I understand he called Janelle, one of our staffers-

BALDWIN: Right.

SANCHEZ: One of our bookers, and abruptly canceled the interview that he was going to do with you and I.

BALDWIN: I was bummed out. He totally canceled. In fact, I talked to Janelle earlier. He hung up on her, and we had repeatedly followed up and called him back. And finally, we got a hold of him today to ask him about what The Washington Post was reporting- and so we did at least talk to him today- and that, again, is when he said, 'I don't know what they're talking about.'

In her online article on Friday, Schulte ran several quotes from Mr. Story where he described himself as an admirer of former Klan member David Duke and as a "white nationalist" (CAIR itself highlighted the Post story in an e-mail on Friday). When the Washington Post writer asked him about the apparent Facebook page, "he continued to maintain that his license plate message had nothing to with racism. He stuck by his NASCAR story. 'Southern white men. Southern white sport. What else needs to be said?' he said." This doesn't square completely, to say the least, with CNN's interview of the truck driver, where he denied ever having a Facebook page in the first place.

Given the conflicting accounts all around between CNN, The Washington Post, CAIR, and Mr. Story, there are only a few things that are clear. Story once had a license plate that had the numbers "14" and "88" on it, which was recalled by the Commonwealth of Virginia. His pickup truck has a Confederate flag on it, and up until recently, had the message, "Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11," on the tailgate. And CAIR conducted a publicity stunt where they used stereotypes about pickup truck owners to go after Story and his anti-Islamic message, which both CNN and the Washington Post latched on to initially without obtaining Story's side of the controversy.

I read kids’ books because the fun the author had writing shines through and drips from the pages. I think that’s the secret behind the Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter and Percy Jackson and the...

View Original Post

While the story of the South Park death threats may not specifically constitute bias in the media per say, it does highlight an embarrassing pattern that has sent Big Media the way of the dinosaur, and a disturbing pattern that has people kowtowing to aggressive threats from radical Islamists. 

We'll start with the MSM.  Zachary Chesser, or Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee as he is known on the Revolutionmuslim.com Web site that hosted his death threat, recently garnered serious attention from major networks such as CNN and Fox.  But the fact remains that these networks only came upon Chesser after an egregious threat was made, and after several blogs had already covered it.  And they certainly hadn't done their homework as the blogs had, documenting the history of his disturbing radical statements.

The Jawa Report has been able to highlight several instances of odd behavior from Chesser, including a statement regarding the recent plane crash that killed the President of Poland and his wife, along with 96 others.  The statement, as highlighted here, includes a celebration of the tragedy: 

"This is good news, because Poland is a country which has soldiers in Afghanistan. Rather than the mujahideen killing these kuffar, Allah has done it for them in a manner which is easier."

They also linked to Chesser's praising of the Moscow subway attack, and a series of postings designed to offer counter-counterterrorism advice - some of which were posted back in March. 

Then of course there is the kowtowing.  Comedy Central has become infamous for bowing to the pressure, sacrificing free speech to appease those who make death threats while cloaking themselves in the first amendment.

The question now is will Chesser's former school, George Mason University, make a stand against this form of hate speech?  Here's why they should...

Chesser, according to a Whois search, apparently registered a Web site known as Youtubejihad.org.  This information appears below:

As you can see, Chesser used his internet account from when he was a student at George Mason University to start a site to promote jihad, presumably as he has similarly done on the Revolution Muslim site, his Mujahidblog site, and his Twitter comments.  One such comment - since removed but thankfully captured by The Jawa Report - made a similar threat even before the Revolution Muslim buzz:

May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity.

Further describing the efforts of the Youtubejihad site is the Bill Warner Private Detective blog, which claims:   

The Youtube Jihad Blog consists of Chesser and five other contributors. The contributors - who post videos containing fatwas, lectures, nasheeds (Islamic songs) and other materials - also operate YouTube channels that include the same videos. One video posted by Chesser on February 22, 2010, titled "America Tuta Fika," shows several militants pointing their guns at the screen as Chesser sings "America, America, America here we come, we come to please our lord, and jihad is all we know." 

Threats being published on a site registered with a George Mason e-mail address do not constitute criminal behavior according to the University police department.  Public Information Officer, George Ginovsky, said, "This matter has been reviewed by the GMU Police Department.  Our review has determined that it does not warrant a criminal investigation by us at this time."

While death threats may not rise to the level of criminal behavior in the eyes of the GMU Police, the issue of whether or not Chesser violated the school's Terms of Service by registering jihadi Web sites under their e-mail account is still being reviewed. 

Mason Press Secretary Dan Walsch summarized, "This specific matter remains under review."  Though it appears the school would rather just see the whole issue go away.  Walsch explained, "In terms of rendering his email address inactive, because this controversy corresponds with it being a year since he was an active student, we would normally be discontinuing his account any way."

On the other hand, they could take the lead on this and make a statement that says ‘we do not approve of students promoting jihad through our resources.'

The GMU policy for computer use includes the following:

RULE 5: Do not use Mason's computing resources to violate other policies or laws.  Including using Mason's computing resources to violate harassment laws or policies.

To assist the University in their review, we provide an excerpt from the National Conference of State Legislatures, which provides the Code of Virginia (emphasis mine throughout):

§ 18.2-60 - ...Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, any person who violates this subsection with the intent to commit an act of terrorism as defined in § 18.2-46.4 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

At the very least, there is the following law:

§ 18.2-152.7:1.  Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Once presented with the information that Chesser was using University e-mail to register web sites promoting jihad, his account should have been suspended.  Since it hasn't, it will be interesting to see how George Mason responds to this incident. 

Will they ignore the threat?  Will they cower in fear as Comedy Central did?

Only time will tell...

Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net.  Please join me on Facebook.

Photo Credit:  Times Online

  CBS won’t comment, but the NY Times reports that on Tuesday night’s episode of the ”The Good Wife” the story revolved around an artist killed by a bomb after he drew a...

View Original Post

On April 22 and 27, CNN and The Washington Post both helped forward Islamic advocacy group CAIR's publicity stunt which demeaned an anonymous Virginia motorist as a racist. The Post finally found the driver on Thursday – and apparently, both news outlets jumped the gun, as the owner claimed that the numbers on his license plate were a tribute to his favorite NASCAR drivers, not secret code for “Heil Hitler.”

Anchor Rick Sanchez devoted a brief on his Rick's List program on Tuesday to presenting CAIR's side of the story on the controversy. After showing a picture of the pickup truck and the plate in question, as well as the anti-Islamic message on the truck's tailgate, Sanchez explained that "CAIR...also noticed the vanity license plate. It reads '14CV88.' CAIR says that is a coded hate message. We're told the number eight is for the eighth letter in the alphabet, 'H.' Two eights equals 'H.H.' for 'Heil Hitler.' Fourteen represents imprisoned white supremacist David Lane's motto about securing the future for white children." The anchor didn’t mention the owner’s side of the story.

Did anyone at CNN or the Washington Post consider the possibility that the story was underbaked until they communicated with the driver? Did they consider someone might find the driver and his truck and be spurred to angry talk and/or violence based on the media’s incomplete accounts? The Washington Post, at least, printed an update on Thursday to their initial article from the 22nd (the ball, obviously, is also in Sanchez's court now, as well, especially since he went after NewsBusters for not calling him before we took the "cheap shot" at him). The Post's Brigid Schulte returned to the scene of her incomplete story and provided the driver’s perspective in her Thursday article, "Virginia driver denies license plate had coded racist message."

Douglas Story, a Chantilly dump truck driver for the Virginia Department of Transportation, says he wanted to grab people's attention when he paid $224.90 to have a mural of the burning World Trade Center detailed onto the tailgate of his Ford F-150 along with a sticker that reads: "Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11."

But he got more than he bargained for when a photo of his pickup went viral on the Web last week. Motorists and Muslim groups complained that his Virginia vanity license plate -- 14CV88 -- was really code for neo-Nazi, white supremacist sentiments. The state Department of Motor Vehicles voted last week to recall Story's plates and force him to buy new ones.

"There is absolutely no way I'd have anything to do with Hitler or Nazis," Story said Wednesday. He contacted The Washington Post after an article about his plate appeared last week; the state, citing privacy rules, had declined to release the identity of the plate's owner. "My sister-in-law and my niece are Jewish. I went to my niece's bat mitzvah when she turned 13 three years ago. Does that sound like something an anti-Semite would do?"

Story says the numbers 14 and 88 on his plate were not references to a white power slogan or "Heil Hitler," as the Council on American-Islamic Relations theorized, but an homage to his favorite NASCAR drivers: Tony Stewart, who drives car No. 14, and Dale Earnhardt Jr., who drives No. 88.

Story applied for the vanity plate in March 2009, shortly after Earnhardt changed his car number from 8 to 88 and Stewart changed his from 20 to 14.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said his group looked into the meaning of the numbers 14 and 88 after receiving complaints about Story's license plates....Hooper said he doesn't buy Story's version "given the overt anti-Muslim bigotry displayed on the truck and the Confederate flags and their historic connotation of racism....

Story received a certified letter last week from the DMV ordering him to get new plates. And his boss told him that he could no longer park on VDOT property with the anti-Islam mural. So Story spent an afternoon getting new randomized plates and peeling the mural off by hand.
                
"I feel naked," he said.

Story's account does seems to square away. Both Stewart and Earnhardt Jr. did indeed change their numbers in the middle of 2008. Also, Schulte's Washington Post article from April 22nd, which quoted Hooper, gave the impression that the CAIR spokesman profiled the Virginia man (Schulte also only provided the advocacy group's side of the story in this initial article).

Hooper at first thought the picture [of Story's truck] was a Photoshopped hoax. But when he called the DMV and discovered the plate was registered in 2005 to a Ford F-150 pickup truck, Hooper started to worry.

"If the license plate had been on a VW Beetle with nothing else on it, or a Volvo station wagon, no one would probably have noticed," said Hooper. "But when the Confederate flag is thrown in...it shows the convergence of anti-government and anti-Islamic sentiments that unfortunately seem to be growing."

Neither the Washington Post nor CNN made the effort when they ran their initial stories to provide Story's side of the controversy. They could have been thwarted by the privacy rules, but they unquestioningly ran with CAIR's take on the license plate.

On Tuesday's Rick List, CNN's Rick Sanchez unquestioningly forwarded Islamic advocacy group CAIR's admitted speculation about a Virginia license plate containing a supposed coded message of white supremacy/neo-Naziism, which they found on a pickup truck that also had an anti-Islamic message on it. The group thus tied by implication opposition to the Mohammedan faith to racism [audio clip available here].

Sanchez devoted a brief to the controversy over the Virginia license plate 18 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour. Earlier in the hour, the CNN anchor gave a teaser on the issue, summarizing CAIR's take as their publicist might: "Take a look at this: what's wrong with that license plate? Opponents say it has a message of nothing but bigotry and hate. I will take you through it. There's more there than meets the eye." He showed a picture of the pickup truck in question, which had a large Confederate flag on the back window of the cab and the message "Everything I ever needed to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11" on the tailgate.

During the brief itself, Sanchez gave further details on the controversy:

SANCHEZ: Now, take a look at this photo. You can see the World Trade Center burning, and there is the statement: 'Everything I ever needed to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11.' You may have also noticed the huge Confederate flag.

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also noticed the vanity license plate. It reads '14CV88.' CAIR says that is a coded hate message. We're told the number eight is for the eighth letter in the alphabet, 'H.' Two eights equals 'H.H.' for 'Heil Hitler.' Fourteen represents imprisoned white supremacist David Lane's motto about securing the future for white children. 'CV' is for the Confederate veteran plate, which gives you an additional Confederate flag on the truck. And the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has been alerted to this, and the tag has now been recalled.

The 14-88 combination does appear in white supremacist and neo-Nazi literature as a number symbol. But a quote from Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR in an April 22 Washington Post article made it clear that the Islamic organization was trying to tie anti-Islamic sentiment to the white supremacist movement. He even seemed to stereotype the owners of pickup trucks:

The giveaway that something was amiss, Hooper said, was the truck itself. An enormous photo of the burning World Trade Center towers covers the entire tailgate, with the words: "Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11."

Hooper at first thought the picture was a Photoshopped hoax. But when he called the DMV and discovered the plate was registered in 2005 to a Ford F-150 pickup truck, Hooper started to worry.

"If the license plate had been on a VW Beetle with nothing else on it, or a Volvo station wagon, no one would probably have noticed," said Hooper. "But when the Confederate flag is thrown in...it shows the convergence of anti-government and anti-Islamic sentiments that unfortunately seem to be growing."

CAIR also issued a press release on the matter on April 22 which began, "The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said today that the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles...has recalled a license plate in that state that included what appeared to be coded terms for neo-Nazi and white supremacist slogans." So the organization made it clear that it was speculation on their part, given the "what appeared to be" phrase. Later in the release, a statement from Hooper reenforced this sentiment: "I therefore respectfully request that this license plate be investigated to determine whether it violates state policy against socially and racially disparaging content. If it is determined that the license plate contains coded racist terms, I would ask that it be recalled immediately by the DMV."

By forwarding CAIR's spin of the controversy without question, Sanchez helped forward their agenda in trying to silence opponents of Islam through political correctness.

With the release of the Department of Defense's report on the November Fort Hood massacre, two tends are becoming increasingly clear: the administration does not want to talk about Islam's violent elements, and the mainstream media is more than willing to play along.

The administration's position clear to anyone examining official documentation. The Fort Hood report, the FBI's counterterrorism lexicon, and the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy do not even use the words enemy, jihad, Muslim, or Islam. The original 9/11 Commission Report, in contrast, used those words a combined 632 times.

The media's attitude towards radical Islam's role in this particular attack is evident in its reluctance to attribute Maj. Nidal Hasan's motives to jihad. The members of the media who share this attitude obfuscate the threats facing the nation.

Shortly after the shooting at Fort Hood, the Culture and Media Institute released a report that highlighted three telling facts:

Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort  Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.

ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.

Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Chris Matthews was even said that Hasan's attempts to contact al-Qaeda were not necessarily cause for action. "That's not a crime to contact al-Qaeda, is it?" Matthews asked.

"The Christian religion has its full helping of nuts too," Bob Scheiffer made sure to note. That comment was indicative of the larger trend in the media's coverage of the incident. That "don't jump to conclusions" attitude stands in stark contrast to much of the media's condemnations of Christianity.

Take General William "Jerry" Boykin, for instance.

Boykin was reprimanded for voicing personal religious views regarding the war on terror at his church. The Washington Post reported that the General was issued "a 'complete exoneration' that ultimately found Boykin responsible for a few 'relatively minor offenses' related to technical and bureaucratic issues."

The liberal media disagreed. CBS carried a segment (found via Nexis) on Boykin entitled "Holy Warrior." NPR's Nina Totenberg hoped "he's not long for this world," quickly clarifying that she meant "in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job."

The Washington Post and New York Times -- among many other newspapers -- lamented that Boykin's comments would be construed as endorsing a holy war against Islam.

Meanwhile, swaths of the mainstream media danced around Islam's holy war (the direct translation of "jihad") against all of Western civilization. While the American left was opining about the inference of holy war, an actual holy war had already been declared!

The horrible plight that Muslims in the military were sure to suffer at the hands of their bigoted, light-skinned comrades in arms never materialized. Meanwhile, 14 Americans had just been killed by a man screaming "Allahu Akbar" as he pumped round after round into his unarmed victims.

If the liberal media -- and their ideological counterparts in the federal government -- continue their Orwellian campaign against the use of religiously-charged words in national security documents, we may forget that a real war is going on, and start worrying about a hypothetical one.

Molly Norris has declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” in defense of Matt Stone and Trey Parker.  All freedom-loving Americans should get behind this.  While initially I thought it was an ironic joke that South Park was censoring everything related to Mohammed in their last episode, obviously we have seen over the last few days that against the creators’ will, Comedy Central cowered in the face of a thinly veiled Muslim threat.

In fact, submission, the definition of Islam, is the apt word to describe Comedy Central’s cowardice.

The bottom line is that the First Amendment guarantees free speech including criticism of all peoples.  We are an equal opportunity offense country.  To censor ourselves to avoid upsetting a certain group (in a cartoon no less) is un-American.

It is especially egregious because it represents dhimmitude.  We are sacrificing our law and our heritage to Sharia. The law of our land is the Constitution and beyond that the natural law granted to us by our divine creator.

Giving in to Islam at the cultural level is the first step towards going the way of Europe.  Just as with leftism, the loss of our values begins not with the politicians but with the public.  We must stop this madness now and stand in solidarity against those who wish to destroy our way of life and replace it with theirs.  You can try to bully Matt Stone and Trey Parker but you cannot bully a million red-blooded, liberty-loving Matt Stones and Trey Parkers.

Let me end by evoking the words of a great many South Park characters: “If you don’t like America, then you can git out.”

While doing research for my upcoming book, tentatively titled Programming America (Harper Collins, due 2011), the inside story of the politically-motivated evolution of television from The Dick Van...

View Original Post

A recent episode of Comedy Central's animated comedy show "South Park" caused an Islamic group to send a veiled death threat to show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, accusing them of insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Comedy Central reacted by censoring a later episode that also had scenes involving the cartoon version of the Islamic prophet.

Two New York Times stories on this free speech issue by Arts reporter Dave Itzkoff were buried on the inside pages of the paper's Arts section, under whitewashed headlines alleging that the "South Park" creators were being "warned" by Muslims, not having their lives threatened.

The issue first came up in Thursday's "Arts, Briefly" column under the lame headline "Muslim Group Warns 'South Park.'" (A more accurate headline would have been "Muslim Group Sends Veiled Death Threat to 'South Park.'")

Itzkoff summarized the controversy:

An Islamic group based in New York said that a recent episode of "South Park," the satirical animated series, insulted the Prophet Muhammad, and compared the show's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, to Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was killed in 2004 by an Islamic militant, CNN reported.

When Comedy Central then bowed to pressure and censored the show's next episode with audio bleeps, Itzkoff ran a longer story Friday, though it too was relegated to page three of the Arts section under an incomplete headline: "'South Park' Episode Altered After Muslim Group's Warning."

The accompanying text box put the blame on the show's creators, not the group that issued the death threat: "At Comedy Central, reining in a show that pushes buttons."

Itzkoff explained:

"South Park," the Comedy Central series, is an animated show that tries its best to push buttons and the boundaries of free speech by mocking every high-profile target in sight, from Hollywood celebrities to religious figures. But its creators may have gotten more than they bargained for with two recent episodes that satirized the Prophet Muhammad -- one that elicited an ominous message from an Islamic group based in New York, and one that was censored by the cable network that shows it.

On April 14 Comedy Central broadcast the 200th episode of "South Park," a cartoon that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have produced for that channel since 1997. In honor of the occasion, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone populated the episode with nearly all the famous people their show has lampooned in its history, including celebrities like Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand, as well as major religious figures, like Moses, Jesus and Buddha.

(Actually, South Park's latest episode featured Jesus Christ as a porn freak, according to NB's Lachlan Markay: "...in last night's episode Parker and Stone showed Buddha snorting cocaine, and vulgarly bickering with Jesus Christ, who, it is suggested, is a compulsive consumer of pornography. So while Comedy Central gave into demands the word Muhammed not even be mentioned, other prophets were portrayed in tremendously offensive ways.")

Itzkoff continued:

Cognizant that Islam forbids the depiction of its holiest prophet, Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker showed their "South Park" characters agonizing over how to bring Muhammad to their fictional Colorado town. At first the character said to be Muhammad is confined to a U-Haul trailer, and is heard speaking but is not shown. Later in the episode the character is let out of the trailer, dressed in a bear costume.

The next day the "South Park" episode was criticized by the group Revolution Muslim in a post at its Web site, revolutionmuslim.com. The post, written by a member named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, said the episode "outright insulted" the prophet, adding: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Mr. van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and a critic of religions including Islam, was killed by an Islamic militant in Amsterdam in 2004 after he made a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.

....

...in 2006, when "South Park" wanted to weigh in on a controversy that erupted after Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published cartoons satirizing Muhammad, it was not given the same latitude: a character said to be Muhammad was concealed behind a large black box labeled "CENSORED." The measure was taken by the "South Park" producers partly at the insistence of Comedy Central, and partly as a commentary on the network's policy of not allowing them to show the character, which the episode equated with giving in to the demands of extremists.

Yet while the Times respected the Muslim ban on images of Muhammad, it has no fear of dishonoring other religions.

In February 2006, after a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking Muhammad, death threats were issued to the cartoonists and radical Muslims instigated rioting.

The Times not only failed to stick up for free speech by running the cartoons itself, it actually attacked news organizations that bravely did so, while pretending it was an issue of religious respect:

That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words."

But that excuse was revealed as bogus the very next day, when the paper ran a photo of painter Chris Ofili's controversial painting of a dung-clotted Virgin Mary.

On last night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart noted the blatant censorship his employer Comedy Central exercised against its popular show "South Park" by banning it from showing, and even uttering the word "Mohammed" in this week's episode after a threat came forward from an Islamic group.

"The censorship was a decision Comedy Central made I think as a way to protect their employees from what they believe was any possible harmful repercussions to them," Stewart stated, adding, comically, that "after forcing many of these same employees to work on [Comedy Central shows] "Mind of Mencia" and "Crod Mandoon" … damage done. But again they sign the checks."

Stewart is one of the few left-leaning media figures to note a glaring double standard: in popular culture, religions of all kind are regularly mocked but Islam mostly gets a free pass. "Comedy Central decided to censor the episode. It's their right," Stewart stated. "We all serve at their pleasure." But his extensive recap of all of the religions the show has made fun of over the years was clearly a critique of Comedy Central's decision.

***UPDATE: Trey parker and Matt Stone issued this statement earlier:

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it. 

Allahpundit is less than impressed: "So not only did Comedy Central censor the Mohammed stuff, but when they were called out for being cowards, they censored that too. Perfect."

Transcript:

STEWART: Man, what a show tonight. Our guest tonight the lovely and talented Zoe Saldana will be joining us. We're very excited about that.

By now those of you with access to media have probably heard that our friends and colleagues Matt and Trey got in a little but trouble during the airing of their weekly animated series "South Park." And by trouble I mean veiled death threats. It was a provocative episode, where they addressed the Islamic prohibition on depicting the prophet Mohammed.

Their solution of course, as is the solution to many of life's problems, bear suit. It's actually the same way I got out of jury duty.

By the way, it turns out it wasn't really Mohammed in the bear suit, it was Santa Claus. I say that not to enrage the elf community. I guess when you are dealing with irrational anger the facts of what the show was arrant really the issue. Comedy central decided to censor the episode. It's their right. We all serve at their pleasure. I have more than once been called out of my home on a sunday to dance for the head of programming for pleasure at his winter chalet. "Can I put my clothes on now? I'm not finished."

The censorship was a decision Comedy Central made I think as a way to protect their employees from what they believe was any possible harmful repercussions to them, although after forcing many of these same employees to work on Mind of Mencia and Crog Mondoon … damage done. But again they sign the checks.

But I think for me the most striking thing as I ponder the difficult circumstance, our great and hilarious and intelligent and sweet comedy brethren Matt and Trey now find themselves in purely for expressing themselves is this. The threats that they received come from Revolution Muslim, a group located in New York City. Yeah.

This group, residing in the shadows, or should I say former shadows of World Trade Center are allowed to praised Osama Bin Laden, celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 and try to intimidate the creators of south park all while enjoying our lovely theater district, our many diverse restaurants including really the best Jewish delis you'll find and our new high line park. It's a park made out of an elevated train line. It's a super-thin park in the sky. Let's play frisbee. Little help.

And these numb nuts get to enjoy it all because of how much we in this country value and protect even their freedom of expression.

As I witness the reaction of this episode, it makes me realize that I myself actually owe a lot of religious people an apology, not for making jokes at their expense but for not appreciating and thanking you for how well you've handled it. Because I mean we've been assholes… to the Jews:

["Daily Show" clips making fun of Jews and Judaism.]

That's all we could throw together in 2 hours. We've also made mention, I believe, of Christians.

["Daily Show" clips making fun of Christians and Christianity.]

And to the other religions, which I guess you would call them offbeat, or miscellaneous.

["Daily Show" clips making fun of … just about everyone.]

Jon: Boom! That's everybody. Boom! I just want to point this out, typically, the angriest letters we get tend to come from the Amish. Surprising. But their letters, the calligraphy...

For more now on the South Park controversy, we're joined by our senior Islamic correspondent Aasif Mandvi. Aasif, what do you make of South Park controversy?

MANDVI: What am I, Jon, every Muslim in the world? I represent all Muslims, come on!

STEWART: Well, in this building actually. I mean, for you would a depiction of Muhammed in some form upset you?

MANDVI: Jon, look. I'm a pretty liberal Muslim meaning during Ramadan every every now and then I'll sneak a diet coke before sundown. It would make me uncomfortable and I could understand people being upset about it.

STEWART: Even though it's a cartoon.

MANDVI: Yes. But here is what is more upsetting someone in the faith I believe in threatening another person for doing it.

STEWART: Why is that? What y- do you think that?

MANDVI: Well, a, it's so 12th century, and b, I don't like having to walk around wearing this suit.

STEWART: Wow. You had to have a special suit made?

MANDVI: No, it's a tommy Hilfigher but I had to buy it.

STEWART: Thank you very much. Aasif Mandvi, everybody.

In conclusion, I think there's only one thing left to say to Revolution Muslim and I hesitate to use this phrase because it's a phrase I've used before in reference to other people, Fox News, Bernie Goldberg, Cramer, the crew at Chick-Fil-A at 8th Avenue that can't seem to get a salad right.

And I don't want to lump these people in with Revolution Muslim and extremists like that because even in our angriest and most contentious moments, people at Fox and those things are basically human beings I disagree with. They are at worst opponents, rivals, disputants, aspersioners, nemesi. But we're not enemies. Revolution Muslim, your type of hatred and intolerance, that's the enemy.

And so…

[The F--K You Song, revisited.]

I don’t have much to say, and won’t until Episode Four. This episode certainly speaks for itself, but there’s one thing I should note. If you found the first episode a little...

View Original Post

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.

Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."

In a press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the Army's decision "further evidence that the leadership of our nation's military has been impaired by the politically correct culture being advanced by this Administration. Under this Administration's watch we are seeing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity."

Graham's comments could certainly be considered inflammatory, but it should be noted that the Obama Administration hasn't always backed away from controversial religious leaders.

An April 17 front page Washington Post article by Krissah Williams on Rev. Al Sharpton detailed how he has been an "ally" to Barack Obama since the 2008 election:

Sharpton has been among the president's chief defenders against criticism from television host Tavis Smiley that "black folks are catching hell" and that the president should do more to specifically help blacks.

"We need to try to solve our problems and not expect the president to advocate for us," Sharpton said on his radio show. "It is interesting to me that some people don't understand that to try to make the president do certain things will only benefit the right wing, who wants to get the president and us."

Williams also noted several times in the article the link between Obama cabinet officials and Sharpton, with officials speaking at his National Action Network conference and regularly appearing on his radio program.

But Sharpton is not without his own controversies, to say the very least. Earlier this spring he told Fox News "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."

Last fall Sharpton played a role in blocking Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid of the NFL's St. Louis Rams, going so far as to send a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The letter read in part, "Rush Limbaugh has been divisive and anti-NFL on several occasions, with comments about NFL players, including Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, and his recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons was disturbing."   

Furthermore, Sharpton, the race huckster, owes his current status to his involvement in a string of contemptible incidents in New York. In the 1987 Tawana Brawley case, he slandered an innocent man in the course of defending an infamous "race crime" hoax. He was sued and lost a judgment for $345,000, without ever retracting or apologizing for his accusation. His race demagoguery resulted in violence and deaths on more than one occasion.

Safe to say, Franklin Graham's remarks about Islam, however objectionable, didn't incite murder.

The elite gatekeepers of American pop culture huff and puff about freedom of speech. But when political correctness actually threatens that right, Hollywood's stalwart defenders of free expression are nowhere to be found.

Last night, Comedy Central gave into threats of violence against the creators of the animated sitcom "South Park"  and not only censored the image of the Muslim prophet Muhammed -- as it had last week and in one previous episode -- but even censored every verbal mention of the the prophet's name (see the video below the fold).

The decision came days after a radical New York-based Muslim fundamentalist group warned that Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the show's creators, would be killed for supposedly mocking Muhammed.


"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," wrote Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee on the website of the group Revolution Muslim. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Theo Van Gogh was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 for making a movie critical of Islam's views on women.

Comedy Central did not respond to requests for comment. The New York Times reported, however, that "a spokesman for Comedy Central confirmed that the network had added more bleeps to the episode than were in the cut delivered by South Park Studios, and that it was not giving permission for the episode to run on the studio’s Web site."

The irony of the whole situation is that the threats of violence against Parker and Stone -- and Comedy Central's reaction to those threats -- drives home the point of the two episodes that sparked outrage from hard-line fundamentalists: Islam is the only world religion -- indeed, perhaps the only large-scale organization on Earth -- that has succeeded in insulating itself from criticism.

Indeed, in last night's episode Parker and Stone showed Buddha snorting cocaine, and vulgarly bickering with Jesus Christ, who, it is suggested, is a compulsive consumer of pornography. So while Comedy Central gave into demands the word Muhammed not even be mentioned, other prophets were portrayed in tremendously offensive ways.

(As seen in the picture at the top right, Muhammed also appeared in a 2001 episode of "South Park" -- before the publication of the Danish cartoons that sent the world into a terrified tailspin towards political correctness. That episode is still available online, fire-shooting superhero Muhammed and all.)

For all Hollywood's claims that it is edgy and pushes the boundaries of the socially acceptable, a bastion of mainstream pop culture could not even bring itself to say the name of a religious figure.

South Park is legendary for its take-no-prisoners attitude to ridiculing, well, everyone. It is the scourge of political correctness, taking on public figures from the Pope, to Al Gore, to Tiger Woods. Yet somehow, in the midst of all of the occasionally offensive, yet undeniably funny things that South Park has done and said, Muhammed is off limits.

Give Comedy Central an anal probe. Not because of Jon Stewart’s ongoing tiff with Bernard Goldberg and Fox News, which is just polite, interesting fun. Rather, it has to do with the disturbing news...

View Original Post

The story broke this morning while I was on Fox & Friends. Remember the case of the 3 Navy SEALS hauled up for courts martial after an infamous jihadi in Iraq (the same one who masterminded the ambush of Blackwater contractors whose bodies were burned and hung on a bridge in Fallujah) accused them of punching him in the stomach during a raid earlier this fall? One has been acquitted:

A U.S. military jury cleared a Navy SEAL Thursday of failing to prevent the beating of an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding a 2004 attack that killed four American security contractors.

The contractors’ burned bodies were dragged through the streets and two were hanged from a bridge over the Euphrates river in the former insurgent hotbed of Fallujah, in what became a turning point in the Iraq war.

The trial of three SEALs, the Navy’s elite special forces unit, in the abuse case has outraged many Americans who see it as coddling terrorists.

A six-man jury found Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, 29, of Blue Island, Illinois, not guilty of charges of dereliction of duty and attempting to influence the testimony of another service member. The jury spent two hours deliberating the verdict.

Cassy Fiano has more.

Two more to go. Human Events, which amassed 130,000 signatures on a petition in support of the SEALS, follows up.

Believe it or not, CNN - the same CNN which has recently dismissed the Fort Hood terrorist as lonely, has featured a member of ‘Jihad U' as a teacher of the ‘nuts and bolts of Islam', and which has run three separate stories interviewing the father of radical jihadist, Anwar al-Awlaki - has actually taken interest in a jihadist threat of physical violence upon the creators of South Park.

It seems that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have raised the ire of a radical, pro-jihad Web site known as RevolutionMuslim.com, for the egregious crime of portraying the Prophet Mohammed disguised in a bear suit.  A posting on the Web site does what most jihadists do - makes a direct threat and calls it a warning. 

The outstanding citizens of RevolutionMuslim.com, an organization based in New York City, had this to say:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Van Gogh was murdered partly because of another man's ‘religious conviction', and partly because of a controversial film he directed about the abuse of Muslim women.

The posting puts an exclamation point on the threat, by showing a photograph of Van Gogh's corpse with a knife driven into his chest, including the caption, "Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?"

There are other factors however that make this posting more than just a simple ‘warning' as the author states...

CNN's investigative report states:

Over still photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others, the Web site runs audio of a sermon by the radical U.S.-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is now in hiding in Yemen. The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have "defamed" the Prophet Mohammed - citing one religious authority as saying "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that." U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.

So now we have violent imagery to incite violence, and a statement that Muslims should kill those who defame Allah.  The only thing left is to include directions to where one deranged lunatic can locate the South Park creators.  RevolutionMuslim.com doesn't disappoint, advising readers that:

"You can contact them [the makers of South Park], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses ..." before listing Comedy Central's New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane's production company."

If the fear of violence from jihadists is taken half as seriously as it should be, then these comments will surely have been investigated thoroughly by the FBI.  Have government officials finally learned to take threats seriously, or will they simply look away as they have in the past?

- Please Join Rusty on Facebook.