Category Archives: Islam

This one hits close to home. I grew up in Absecon, New Jersey and attended Holy Spirit High School. Our sports teams competed against Buena High School, which al Qaeda-linked radical Sharif Mobley graduated from before moving to Yemen — where he was reportedly captured this week during a counterterrorism sweep. Mobley shot two guards in a Yemeni hospital during an escape attempt, according to authorities. The AP quoted a friend of Mobley’s who said his radicalization started in high school:

Roman Castro of Landisville, N.J., says 26-year-old Sharif Mobley tried to convert him and other friends to Islam. They attended Buena (BYOO’-nah) Regional High School in New Jersey and graduated in 2002.

Castro, a Roman Catholic who served in Iraq, says he attended a Muslim convention in Philadelphia with Mobley. But he says Mobley became increasingly confrontational about his beliefs and referred to him in 2006 as a “Muslim killer.”

Castro says Mobley began leading pilgrimages to Mecca with other Muslims.

His family is denying everything:

U.S. citizen who was under FBI investigation in Delaware was arrested last week with suspected al-Qaeda members in Yemen, then killed a guard while trying to escape, a Yemeni government official said yesterday.

Sharif Mobley was born and raised in Buena Borough, N.J., a tiny western Atlantic County farming community, and later lived in Philadelphia and Newark, Del. Yemeni authorities said he could face murder charges.

“He has blood on his hands,” said Mohammed Albasha, a spokesman for the Yemeni embassy in Washington.

Albasha said Mobley was arrested last week during a sweep of al-Qaeda operatives with close ties to an Alabama-born extremist based in Somalia, Abu Mansour, known as “The American,” and the group al-Shabaab, or “The Youth.”

The FBI has been tracking young Somali-American men who have allegedly joined al-Shabaab in Somalia; at least 14 from the Minneapolis area have been indicted on terrorism charges.

Mobley’s ethnic background could not be confirmed yesterday, but FBI spokesman Rich Wolf said that Mobley was under investigation in the United States. Law enforcement sources said the investiation was terror-related and centered on Mobley’s activities while he lived in Newark, Del. A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, declined to comment.

The suspect’s father, Charles Mobley, told the Associated Press at the family’s home in Buena Borough: “I can tell you this: He’s no terrorist.”

And I can tell you these unsettling facts:

The Buena, N.J. native has also been accused of taking part in several acts of terrorism, Yemini officials say. He also purportedly has ties to the same branch of al-Qaeda who are suspected of attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner on its way to Detroit on Christmas.

…A former neighbor said Mobley moved to Yemen two years ago to study Islam.

Mobley, who was born in the U.S., also worked as a laborer at three Salem County nuclear power plants, power company officials say.

Working for several contractors, Mobley carried supplies and did maintenance work at the plants on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek from 2002 to 2008, PSE&G spokesperson Joe Delmar said.

Mobley also worked at other plants in the area, Delmar said.

Speaking to NBC Philadelphia Wednesday, Mobley’s mother denied claims her son was a terrorist. She called Sharif a “good Muslim” and said he’s “absolutely not a terrorist.”

However, she did confirm that when she last spoke to her son in late January he was in Yemen. The FBI also visited their home, but the mother would not say for what reason.

He’s not the only Jersey jihadist, of course. The Fort Dix six plotters were convicted in December 2008. Is it something in the water? Nope. As another domestic jihadist put it, it’s “in the Koran.”

***

Update: JWF notes that Mobley campaigned for Democrat Jon Corzine. If he had campaigned for Chris Christie, it would be front-page news and fodder for the Krugman/Olbermann/Tea Party-basing nutroots convergence.

My friends at The Jawa Report, the counterterrorism blog that has done heroic work unmasking jihadi operatives online and on YouTube, have an exclusive report on the whistleblower who turned in “Jihad Jane.”

Read the whole thing here — and be sure to send thanks and praise to the vigilant bloggers and watchdogs looking out for us and acting.

It’s quite striking to see the degree to which traditional Islam has come under ferocious attack from the anti-religious impulse in Hollywood and New York and other bohemian centers in America. It is clearly anti-Islamic religious bigotry. Take a look at just some examples over the last year alone.

January: The Source Weekly, a weekly arts publication in Bend, Oregon, featured on its cover an image of Mohammed holding a child with President Obama’s head crudely posted on its body. Muslim protests were greeted with this dismissive response: "What is printed is printed, and we will not apologize."

February 12: The NBC sitcom "30 Rock" poked fun at Muslims when the Alec Baldwin character attempted to ingratiate himself with his beautiful Muslim girlfriend by fraudulently going through the motions at her mosque.

February 16: The Fox drama series "House" concentrated a plot on an imam who had privately lost his faith in Islam, while publicly being suspected of having AIDS. In other words he was a religious hypocrite, a heavy drinker who was accused of being a pedophile and who declared he "hate[d] his job." Ultimately, the doctors would find he was free of AIDS and he would rediscover his faith, but not until after all the negative stereotypes had gleefully marched through the episode.

April 4: On the Washington Post blog site "On Faith," atheist Susan Jacoby insisted Muslim leaders should burn in hell for adhering to their Islamic views on abortion: "Religious authorities ought to burn in hell, if there were a hell, for hypocritical apologies composed of words rather than deeds. There could surely be no better place for leaders who believe in forcing a nine-year-old to bear the children of her rapist."

April 13: In the weekly gay Hotspots magazine, an ad appeared promoting a gay club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The ad was clearly, unequivocally designed to insult Muslims. The ad depicted a DJ dressed as Mohammed ascending to Heaven – with an erection under his robe. Beneath him were several followers making crude comments about his anatomy on the order of, "I’ve seen bigger."

October 18: The annual Halloween special on "The Simpsons" inflamed the Islamic community with a zombie plot. When most of Springfield turned into zombies after eating tainted red meat, Bart Simpson spit out tainted hamburger before he could be transformed, and was hailed as "Mohammed the Prophet."

October 23: The film Eulogy for a Vampire opened in New York. The New York Times described the movie’s mix of religious imagery, whippings, and animal blood surrounding a plot of an all-male Sufi Muslim order whose "whose members seem to spend no time in spiritual reflection but quite a lot of time groping one another."

October 25: On HBO’s "Curb Your Enthusiasm," actor and show creator Larry David used a bathroom in a Muslim home to upset his friends by not only urinating while standing, which Muslims find religiously impure, but also urinating all over the walls, including a picture of Mohammed. David compounded the offense by talking incessantly while using the bathroom, which is also offensive. David seemed to take glee in offending Islamic audiences.

November 12: While discussing Islam on the prime-time "Jay Leno Show," Leno ridiculed Muslims for their faith. He said "Apparently, they ran out of places to send suicide bombers, so they are looking to outer space."

December 7: In a profanity-laced bit on his HBO special "Weapons of Self Destruction," Robin Williams referred to Mohammed as a "Nazi."

On and on it goes, and by now, perhaps you’ve already surmised: None of the foregoing was true. Hollywood would never dare ridicule Islam this way. The same holds true for every other appendage of the cultural left.

In each case, scratch the Muslim reference and replace it (with a few modifications) with the Catholic Church, with its priests and monks, with Pope Benedict XVI, and with Jesus and Mary. All of these incidents were cited in the Catholic League’s "2009 Report on Anti-Catholicism," but they only scratch the surface. There are 68 grisly pages of examples.

Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in America. In our news and entertainment media today, anti-Catholicism remains "the last acceptable prejudice." It is not that the cultural left is out of touch. It is out to destroy.

It’s quite striking to see the degree to which traditional Islam has come under ferocious attack from the anti-religious impulse in Hollywood and New York and other bohemian centers in America. It is clearly anti-Islamic religious bigotry. Take a look at just some examples over the last year alone.

January: The Source Weekly, a weekly arts publication in Bend, Oregon, featured on its cover an image of Mohammed holding a child with President Obama’s head crudely posted on its body. Muslim protests were greeted with this dismissive response: "What is printed is printed, and we will not apologize."

February 12: The NBC sitcom "30 Rock" poked fun at Muslims when the Alec Baldwin character attempted to ingratiate himself with his beautiful Muslim girlfriend by fraudulently going through the motions at her mosque.

February 16: The Fox drama series "House" concentrated a plot on an imam who had privately lost his faith in Islam, while publicly being suspected of having AIDS. In other words he was a religious hypocrite, a heavy drinker who was accused of being a pedophile and who declared he "hate[d] his job." Ultimately, the doctors would find he was free of AIDS and he would rediscover his faith, but not until after all the negative stereotypes had gleefully marched through the episode.

April 4: On the Washington Post blog site "On Faith," atheist Susan Jacoby insisted Muslim leaders should burn in hell for adhering to their Islamic views on abortion: "Religious authorities ought to burn in hell, if there were a hell, for hypocritical apologies composed of words rather than deeds. There could surely be no better place for leaders who believe in forcing a nine-year-old to bear the children of her rapist."

April 13: In the weekly gay Hotspots magazine, an ad appeared promoting a gay club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The ad was clearly, unequivocally designed to insult Muslims. The ad depicted a DJ dressed as Mohammed ascending to Heaven – with an erection under his robe. Beneath him were several followers making crude comments about his anatomy on the order of, "I’ve seen bigger."

October 18: The annual Halloween special on "The Simpsons" inflamed the Islamic community with a zombie plot. When most of Springfield turned into zombies after eating tainted red meat, Bart Simpson spit out tainted hamburger before he could be transformed, and was hailed as "Mohammed the Prophet."

October 23: The film Eulogy for a Vampire opened in New York. The New York Times described the movie’s mix of religious imagery, whippings, and animal blood surrounding a plot of an all-male Sufi Muslim order whose "whose members seem to spend no time in spiritual reflection but quite a lot of time groping one another."

October 25: On HBO’s "Curb Your Enthusiasm," actor and show creator Larry David used a bathroom in a Muslim home to upset his friends by not only urinating while standing, which Muslims find religiously impure, but also urinating all over the walls, including a picture of Mohammed. David compounded the offense by talking incessantly while using the bathroom, which is also offensive. David seemed to take glee in offending Islamic audiences.

November 12: While discussing Islam on the prime-time "Jay Leno Show," Leno ridiculed Muslims for their faith. He said "Apparently, they ran out of places to send suicide bombers, so they are looking to outer space."

December 7: In a profanity-laced bit on his HBO special "Weapons of Self Destruction," Robin Williams referred to Mohammed as a "Nazi."

On and on it goes, and by now, perhaps you’ve already surmised: None of the foregoing was true. Hollywood would never dare ridicule Islam this way. The same holds true for every other appendage of the cultural left.

In each case, scratch the Muslim reference and replace it (with a few modifications) with the Catholic Church, with its priests and monks, with Pope Benedict XVI, and with Jesus and Mary. All of these incidents were cited in the Catholic League’s "2009 Report on Anti-Catholicism," but they only scratch the surface. There are 68 grisly pages of examples.

Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in America. In our news and entertainment media today, anti-Catholicism remains "the last acceptable prejudice." It is not that the cultural left is out of touch. It is out to destroy.

We all know what the words “debt,” “taxpayer,” and “interest” mean, but how many people know what the words “jizya”, “dhimmi” and “Grameen” mean? In order to understand the precipice of disaster that the banking system is resting upon today, one must understand all these words, and then some. No solution can be found by only understanding the first three. Only an illusion of understanding exists until the latter, and more, like “jihad” and “Sharia Law”, are considered.

The jizya amounts to a tax paid by Non-Muslims to Muslims in order that they may live in peace. A fair comparison is money paid by business owners to neighborhood thugs in order to gain protection. Think Mob. Engaging in this endeavor creates the status of dhimmi – a willingly subservient protected group of third class subjects. Let’s just call this what it is – extortion based slavery. Let us also understand that this is an endgame of this thing called “jihad”.

From the Koran:

(9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

(30:39)  And whatever you lay out as usury, so that it may increase in the property of men, it shall not increase with Allah; and whatever you give in charity, desiring Allah’s pleasure– it is these (persons) that shall get manifold.

(3:130) O you who believe! do not devour usury, making it double and redouble, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, that you may be successful

(2:275) Those who swallow down usury cannot arise except as one whom  Shaitan has prostrated by (his) touch does rise. That is because they say, trading is only like usury; and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury. To whomsoever then the admonition has come from his Lord, then he desists, he shall have what has already passed, and his affair is in the hands of Allah; and whoever returns (to it)– these arc the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it.

You get the idea.

Notice this is not an out-of-context rant demonstrating Islamophobia. This comes from the Koran itself. It is quotes like these that form the basis of Sharia Law.

Before we move forward, take a moment to watch this video outlining some important points about Sharia Law and its influence in the American banking system:

So now let’s take a look at the terms which were introduced above.  First is “Grameen“ – just what is it?

Well, it is a banking movement supposedly for the poorest among us. A proposed mix of capitalism and social responsibility, created by a man named Muhammad Yunus,  that accommodates the religion of Islam at the expense of everyone else.  It is banking based on making risky, Sharia-compliant loans to those least able to repay and financed by those with the most ability to do so.  (Notice the hint of Karl Marx there? – From those according to their ability to those according to their needs.)

Heralded by so many corners, like the United Nations, the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the progressive left in this country, Grameen banking is to be the solution to all the world’s ills. Sound familiar?  It should. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, think ACORN, think home loans, think about Clinton’s almighty forecasted surplus. Think about Obama stimulus claims, cash for clunkers and economic justice. Think Van Jones.

In order to spin the situation and muddy the waters of understanding, a new word was manufactured. Microfinance.  Here is the ‘nuts and bolts’ of microfinance, microcredit, microdebt, or whatever one wishes to call it: One set of rules for you, who is not bound by the Koran and the Sharia Law it creates, and another set of rules for those who are. So much for equality, huh?

Imagine this situation. You have a bank savings account with a balance of a hundred thousand dollars. You also hold a home mortgage of about the same amount. Your bank leverages your money fractionally and then makes Sharia compliant loans abroad for nine hundred thousand dollars, set beside your mortgage. You pay all interest on that mortgage, while your savings earns next to nothing, but as it pertains to the rest of that cool million – not so much.  So what is the big deal?

Well, here is the big deal. That bank finds itself over-leveraged as a result of it’s attempted social engineering and unable to meet the demand for withdrawals. Remember that hundred grand you have saved? Well, you have decided to pay for your grandson’s college instead of seeing him saddled with student loans. In order for your bank to cover your withdrawal, it requires a taxpayer funded bailout so it doesn’t fail.  Do you see it yet?

You pay interest on the front side of loans that you take on, and now you pay taxes on the backside to fund a bailout because your bank used your money to make social engineering investments that do not provide enough returns to sustain it’s own chosen activity. This so that do-gooders can “spread the wealth around”. Many avenues to accomplish this spreading have been developed. Think “green”. Environmentalism is the ultimate social engineering tool useful in every branch of government to the ends of controlling private business.

To be sure, this issue has permeated the entire banking industry and by extension every other industry. Combining environmentalism and banking is a wicked marriage. Endless control is created and Liberty itself is on the chopping block.

From your fifty dollar bank account to the Bill Gates fortune, this parasitical idea of Sharia complaint banking financed on the backs of interest and tax paying Americans is eating prosperity alive. Where do we begin to even understand so we can rid ourselves of this epidemic? Sometimes, you just have to plop down somewhere in the middle of it all and start there.

ShoreBank is great place to start. Truly amazing is it’s history and undeniably profound are the generational ramifications of it’s activities.  The more you read about it, the more open your eyes become, the more moments of insight you will experience. Of this, there is no doubt. The web of ties that are exposed when reading about ShoreBank is shocking.

Why are community-based banks, like ShoreBank and its affiliates,  financing projects in Kenya?

Why does the United States send seemingly endless amounts of taxpayer dollars to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and others in the form of “military and economic aid”?

Why does the United State’s government force the purchase of oil and natural gas from Muslim and socialist dominated-countries by legislatively or judicially disallowing access to resources found here in our own neck of the woods?

Why did Al Qaeda attack the World Trade center — twice?

Why did the United Nations refuse to relinquish control over Saddam’s Iraq and it’s oil revenues?

How is our own government managing to gain access to control over the smallest of life’s decisions like what vehicles we drive or where we set our home thermostats?

What is really wrong with the banking industry and what is it going to take to fix it?  What is the real cause of the so called “meltdown”?

Ponder these questions deeply and then seek out honest answers. Prepare yourselves for the facts you will be faced with and what those facts mean. Political correctness need not apply for this job because actual correctness, absent that qualifier, is required.

As Tim Geitner tries to offer every explanation besides the real one concerning AIG, maybe there exists at least one courageous elected official who will ask him directly to explain Grameen banking, microfinancing and how the progressives drove the American Economy into the ground by bowing the American’s economy to Islamic law via the guise of political correctness known in the form of “environmentalism” and “social justice.”

Are those Fightin’ words?  Yep,  that is one thing that happens when a nation is engaged in war and Patriots actually fight back with the most powerful weapon that ever existed.  Truth.

I meant to post this yesterday, but time got away from me: many, many, many congratulations to the Marines and their Afghan allies for the Marjah victory. I never doubted that they would win, but I certainly understood that each Marine and Afghan soldier faced the risk that he would make the ultimate [...]

I was invited to speak on 21st century missile threats and defenses at the recent 7th annual Jerusalem Conference, 2010, held at the Regency Hotel on Mt. Scopus, in the city of David, but I was pleased as well to hear a wide variety of experts (speeches are delivered in English and Hebrew with convenient wireless earphone translation headsets).

This gathering is rooted in historic Zionism, the meaning of the land of Israel, and the spiritual meaning of Jerusalem. Many Israeli statesman and American political leaders come to address current security crises, as well as existential questions ever-present for the Jewish state still facing war.

The Palestinian Front

On the Palestinian front, many now believe that the idea of a small PLO state within the 1967 borders, to include Gaza, major parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, has lost its appeal within Araby.

Radical Islamism, unrealistic expectations, and daily incitement against Israel in mosques, the media, and madrassas, have all added up to another era of Palestinian intransigence and irredentism.

Unfortunately, the drive for Palestinian independence has not been equated with responsible state building leading to the kind of sovereignty that would help the Palestinian people themselves.

Palestinians universally wish to cast Israel off their shoulders, but this does not mean they support a fair division of land, or a desire to live in peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state in the middle east.

Israeli journalist and commentator Ehud Ya’ari stated that the Palestinians have now fully collapsed into the unwilling arms of the Israelis, and that Israel must urgently solve the seemingly unsolvable.

Israel is today faced with a reverse annexation: It is the Palestinians who have decided to annex Israel, because Israel did not annex them first.

A notion: Palestinians have long been suicidal, both metaphorically, and in recent years, of course, practically. They simply never stepped up to accept the responsibility of accepting a 2 state solution. Not in 1947, when offered a state by the United Nations, and not since.

Israel’s real interest, of course is in a peaceful neighbor, responsible and productive, even a trading partner. But, can Israel force Palestinians into democratic sovereignty? In fact, is any permanent agreement now possible since Gaza has been lost to Hamas, radical Islamic fundamentalists whose charter calls for the genocide of the Jews?

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords and the signing in Washington, D.C. of commitments, Israelis have seen their nation shrink, and their hopes dashed, by the failure of Palestinian society to reciprocate their moves for peace. Israelis have marched and sang for peace, and unilaterally withdrawn from major portions of the West Bank, completely from Gaza, and from their security buffer in Southern Lebanon (and before that from the Sinai desert and other areas).

Israelis now do not even visit their holy Temple Mount, because Muslim rule denies Christian and Jewish access.

A better idea: pathways to parallel statehood on the same territory. Forget about drawing borders and solving for all time the land dispute. No complex borders and tricky transportation connection between a somehow artificially contiguous Gaza and the West Bank. Just citizens with different passports. Jews with Israeli, Palestinians with Jordanian. All living together in a shared economic region.

Would that this have been the path. Instead, since Israel told the world and the Arab community that it questions its own legal and moral rights to its land, it has suffered a dramatically declining strategic position.

The middle east is far worse off for Israeli territorial concessions, which only served to inflame radicals. Hezbollah and Hamas now run Lebanon and Gaza, respectively. Israelis are terribly disunited and a post-Zionism has captured much of its academic community. Israeli quantitative and qualitative military edges shrink over time due to Arab oil wealth and the relativization of power due to the spreading of technology.

Israeli peace moves were met with bloody intifada, and with Iran now funding and training the terror attacks against Israel.

The good news is that Israel’s security fence (opposed 14-1 by the International Court of Justice by the way — the U.S. was the sole supporter early in the decade), has dramatically reduced daily terror attacks and given breathing space to both Israeli economic growth, and any hope for Israeli – Palestinian dialogue.

The bad news is that Israel’s foes just send mortars, rockets and missiles over the fence.

The United Nations’ purposefully hostile Goldstone report on Israel’s 2008 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, in defense against thousands of rocket attacks on civilians over years, received strong condemnation at the Jerusalem Conference for its lack of objectivity and methodology, as did international media and academic blood libels, attempts at de-judaizing Jerusalem’s history, and repeated calls to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel, including by leftist churches (World Council of Churches, Sabeel, and Presbyterian Church USA),

The diplomatic climate for Israel has darkened at the United Nations, and perhaps the worst recent offenses are the British arrest warrants issued for Israeli politicians.

A recent keynote speaker at NYU Law School’s Hausner dinner was none other than Richard Goldstone. One pauses to ponder: Were there any pro-Israel donors in the crowd, and if so, do they have any idea of Goldstone’s nefarious role in serving the anti-Israel cause?

The NGO Monitor organization documents the formal 2001 Durban Conference strategy to use “lawfare” to demonize Israel through well-funded non-governmental organizations, which claim to be human rights organizations but are instead highly politicized and controversial, selectively using the mantle of international law to single out Israel for condemnations, investigations, and trials.

Repeated rebuttals to unsubstantiated and ideological attacks on Israel, including false claims of Israeli violations of humanitarian laws of war in Jenin and Gaza, in recent years, do not seem to slow the crowd which does not focus on Hamas or Hezbollah terrorism, but instead wails about Israeli disproportionate response in defending its tiny population. Israel sent warnings to civilians before hitting terror targets in Gaza. But the world condemns not the violation of the laws of war by Hamas, and Hezbollah, which hide amongst civilians, but Israel, which roots out terror only after years of suffering from it.

Fortunately, most Americans, who would not stand for 5 minutes any mortars, rockets, and missiles raining down on them from across our Canadian or Mexican borders, still believe in notions of self rule and self government, and not transnational law with the disgraced United Nations and biased NGOs as arbiters of sovereignty, security, or sensible defensive operations in response to terror wars.

Post 1948, within Judea and Samaria, there were no Jews before 1967, but still no peace. So “settlements” cannot possibly be the reason for terrorism, economic warfare against Israel, and incessant rhetorical / ideological war against the existence of a Jewish state, no matter it’s (tiny) size and borders.

Has the Palestinian Authority removed illegal weapons, outlawed terror organizations, or stopped incitement and hate education in mosques and schools and websites and in the media?

Even the “moderate” Palestinian Authority leaders Mr. Fayyad, and Mr. Abu Mazen, defame and vilify Israel. Israel is trying to join the OECD, a major economic organization, and a non-political one. Why do these Palestinian leaders continue the war and incitement against Israel? Fatah’s latest conference concluded with a call for more Armed Struggle, emphasizing that the Fatah constitution still refers to the end of Israel.

The Iranian Front

But the major focus of the Jerusalem Conference 2010 was the arrival of Atomic Iran.

There is a long history of positive Jewish-Iranian relations, and the people of Iran are not the enemy.

But the Iranian regime’s repeated threats against both world Jewry and Israel are matched by now well publicized military oppression if its own citizens. Positively, european leaders such as President Sarcozy of France are aggressively confronting the tyranny, terrorism, and nuclear threat presented by the Iranian Revolutionary Republic and its Revolutionary Guard Council.

Noteworthy, Ayatollah Sistani, who supports democracy from his own base of Iraq, is opposed to the IRGC. Many Iranian Mullahs as well would prefer to remain outside of political rule. Unlike Sunni Islam, many Shiite clerics do not prefer to be involved in statecraft and politics.

Ambassador Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, outlined how the entire middle east region is affected by Iranian pressure and proliferation. By crossing the nuclear threshold, Gold argues, Iran would provide an umbrella under which Islamist terrorism proceeds, less fearful or deterred by western response and defense.

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has perhaps more capability than al-Qaeda even to create mass casualty attacks on the United States and our allies. The marriage of terrorism and nuclear cover is today’s state of concern. For example, it confronts India, which faces Pakistani terror attacks under the protection of a Muslim bomb.

Iranian influence in the western hemisphere received special attention. In Central and South America, from the bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 to today’s flights from Tehran to Chavez’ Venezuela, financial and ideological enemies of the United States are collaborating.

Raids on Caracas’ hebraic jewish club, day school, and synagogue, Chavez’ rhetorical assault on the Jewish community after the Gaza war, and his intimidation campaign against Jews, has caused many to leave.

The Response to Iran

Will Sanctions work ? Iran has exploited the process, with the EU 3 having failed to deter or slow Iranian proliferation. President Obama’s commitment to multilateralism, using the UN, gives veto power to China, dependent on Iranian oil.

Will Deterrence work ? The Policy of the United States has been: Iran must not get nuclear weapons. But if they do, of what value are western threats and complaint going forward in the nuclear age ?

Iran’s regime is ambitious, seeking regional hegemony, restoration of the caliphate, return of the 12th Imam, and pre-eminence of Shia Islam over Sunni. No amount of rhetoric or hand wringing by western diplomacy seems to slow them down.

The Iranian revolutionary regime lied all along about their nuclear program, including the recently revealed Qom facility, and now boasts a new generation of centrifuges, with enrichment of uranium to 20 % purity, followed by taunts about the price the west would pay for any effective sanctions.

The Jerusalem Conference is non-partisan within Israel, (and vis a vis U.S. politics as well), but President Obama, while rarely mentioned by name, aroused deep skepticism and concern.

His appointments of Chas Freeman (rejected Arabist U.S. diplomat and Saudi client) and Hannah Rosenfeld, (the anti-Semitism Czar who blasted Israel’s Ambassador to the United States), and his advisors on Muslim affairs, and to the Organization of Islamic Conference, and even to counter-terrorism positions within the administration, are all troubling left-wing ideologues. They are apologists for radical Islamism and far out of the mainstream.

Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, his deep bow to the Saudi King, the engagement with Iran and weak response to the stolen June 12th election, the beating up of Israel over 2nd story apartments, and the administration’s friendly approach to the United Nations and its Durban II planning conference and (anti) Human Rights Council are just a few of the wild and weak Obama approaches to U.S. middle east policy.

When Obama told the 2008 AIPAC conference that he support a unified Jerusalem, and then recanted the very next day, bells should have gone off. The President who was mentored by radicals in academe, who opposed Israel’s security fence and who disdainfully stated “you don’t have to be pro Likud to be pro Israel” has clearly picked a fight with the people and government of the Jewish state.

The Islamic War on the West

When Israeli officers enter battle, they pronounce: After me. Israel itself faces battles that eventually come to all who share its values of democracy, pluralism, women’s rights, and Judeo-Christian civilization. The Jihad rejects western ideas not only in its midst, the middle east, but the caliphate is meant to spread globally, and to conquer.

Many western policy makers mis-understand Islam, and Islamic self identity, and assume Islamic beliefs, traditions, processes, and motivations are the same as ours.

Legendary scholar of Islam Bernard Lewis explained that some thousand years ago, Arab theory stated that the essence of magnanimity is to spare your enemy when you have him completely vulnerable, but don’t try to befriend him now. He wants to battle those who do not submit. Islam means submission, and all must convert to Allah, submit to Islamic rule, or die. Temporary truces and practical accommodations are possible, but the world of Islam, Dar al Islam, must be brought to the world of war, Dar al Harb, meant for conquer and conversion.

The Arabic Salaam is close to Hebrew Shalom. But the greetings of Salaam are meant for peace to be upon those who are not infidels, kaffirs, non-believers. When President Obama used the explicitly Muslim greeting, in Cairo, to a large Muslim audience of believers, many within the Islamic world took that to indicate his choice to join them in their religion. This is a betrayal of the west’s belief in itself, its own identity, values, and beliefs, and only encourages the Jihad to sense more western weakness and incomplete dedication to its own tradition and meaning.

Mr. Obama further humiliated himself and the United States with his wrong and bizarre interpretation of President Jefferson’s having a Koran. Jefferson studied the ways of his enemy, the barbary pirates. He was an opponent of Islamic war against the infidel, not a fan.

The Christian notion of church-state separation has no similar parallel in Islam. The mosque is a mere building for worship and study. The mosque is not a complete institution like the church is.

Islam and the state itself are not separated. The entire state is Islamic, only and solely.

Moses never made it to Israel. Christ died on the cross and his followers were scattered. They are profoundly inspiring, of course, to Jews and Christians around the world.

But Mohammed founded a state that became an empire in his own lifetime. A glorified prophet who inspires as if he were here today. The 7th century is very much alive and motivating for Islamic Jihad.

The Final Threat

There were no Palestinians before 1948 (except as the term did refer to the resident Jews). Arabs rejected Palestine as a British creation, as artificial and cut off from Araby. The creation of a Palestinian people and conscience has been a political pursuit. Judea became Palestina, under Roman rule, but it was not an Arab entity. Greater Syria, Iran, Egypt are all much more important historical homes for Muslims. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran.

But the goal of Islamism is to reject the Jewish Abraham and his covenant, and the promise of God to his people and their land. And to reverse Christ’s eternal theology of love and oneness, and promise of salvation. Prophet Muhammed’s truth is the final one. Therefore, to resist the infidel is to exist as a Muslim.

Jihad uses guerilla, asymmetric, and unconventional warfare, by both state and non state actors, and it is networked, lethal, alert, and mobile. IEDs, the use of civilians as human shields, and homicide/suicide terror all are means for Jihad.

Defending against modern terror requires new tactics of intelligence and renewed commitment. But modern western populations are distracted, tired of war, and unsure what constitutes winning. The war of ideas starts with understanding why we believe in our lives, our security, and our liberty.

Israel’s enemies have decided they cannot defeat her with tanks, planes, and masses of soldiers. So they have adopted the technology of missiles, which fly 24/7, are launched with the push of a button, are all weather, and can disrupt an economy, or the rallying of reservists. They are potentially anonymous.

And even when the source of launch is identified, through heat signature or satellite reading, for example, responding to first strike leaves the defender liable to complaint that he is using disproportionate response when the attacker hides amongst civilians, in schools and hospitals.

And, in an age of missiles, everything is faster. Israel’s margin for error is now measured in mere minutes and seconds.

The middle east is a region that favors power, strong horses and winners. But the western mind rejects the idea that others think, plan, and act based on ancient battle plans and a different tradition’s notion of humanity.

Israeli missile defense, against short, medium, and longer range missiles, with interceptors and lasers, layered and eventually meant to strike in the boost phase, over enemy territory, is the correct response to enemy proliferation.

But, in the final analysis, even hitting the enemy’s missiles over his own territory may not deter through fear of mutually assured destruction. Martyrdom and the purposeful coming of the final conflagration excite the true believers. Getting the warhead launched against Jerusalem is worth any risk of pre-emptive attack or second strike Israeli or American retaliation.

Without a liberation of Araby and the Muslim world from their political tyrants, and then the joining of the religious Muslim world with modernity, there is no settlement of claims, no final peace accord, no comprehensive agreement to be made. Diplomats think they can negotiate the solution to a clash of civilizations with the right code, compromise, or cajoling. But the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a rubics cube with a solution. Only fools who think they are wiser than history assert they know the secret.

The Jewish state of Israel is a small country with big dreams and accomplishments, but it faces a big threat. Both ancient and cutting edge, modern Israel is still spiritual but bloodied.

May the stones of Jerusalem remain a strong foundation for the deeper wisdom required by its leaders, citizens, allies, and supporters.

Today, with the help of Big Hollywood’s Leigh Scott, I begin my tribute series to Governor Sarah Palin. Scott Leigh, a horror film-maker reminiscent of my not-always-so-hard-times spent with Larry...

View Original Post

Read this post »

Read this post »

Today is the opening of the Conservative Political Action conference (CPAC) — the storied annual gathering of the Right. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

Read this post »

Now I hate to be “that guy” who fact-checks jokes and so… I’m not going to be. Let’s be honest though, Bill Maher doesn’t really write jokes these days. He’s instead decided to sermonize on the...

View Original Post

So, apparently a top Taliban commander has been captured in a joint secret operation by Pakistan and the U.S. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

Does Arianna Huffington consider Glenn Beck more radical and dangerous than an advocate of Islamic Sharia law? She's let off a lot of hot air lately criticizing Fox News president Roger Ailes for employing Beck, but it turns out that on the Huffington Post's payroll is an envoy to the United States from the Somali Unity government, led by the Islamic Courts Union.

The ICU is a strong proponent of Sharia law, and an organization dubbed by some the Taliban of Africa for its radical interpretation of Islam and its support for some violent elements of the Islamic community (like Osama Bin Laden).

Abukar Arman, the Somali Unity government's envoy to the United States, is open about his advocacy of Sharia as long as it is "adapted to address contemporary political, social, economic, and spiritual challenges in a just way." He lays out a number conditions that would have to be satisfied for sharia to be effectively implemented in Somalia. These include respect for life, assembly, conscience, thought, rule of law, political freedom, and international peace. Considering the violent history of the Somali Unity government and he ICU, that is not likely.

Being a "progressive" Islamist in Somalia is all well and good, but considering the prior actions of the government for which Arman works, his claim that he only favors sharia law if it respects Somalis' life, liberty, and property is like saying he favors world peace. Yeah, it would be great. Will it happen? Doubtful.

As Rusty "Asadullah Alshishani" notes at Jawa Report,

This would be the same government that killed a 22 year old apostate for leaving Islam and embracing Christianity. That banned the watching of movies in theaters…

The problem here is not necessarily that Arman is now working for what will clearly be an oppressive regime. Neither is the problem that Arman advocates reconciliation with that regime. Realpolitik may mean we have to learn to live with the bad in order to avoid the worse.

The problem is that the Huffington Post has given him a bullhorn to spread what are essentially lies. Lies about the nature of sharia. Lies about the nature of Sharif Ahmed's vision of political Islam. The actions of the former ICU government led by Ahmed speak for themselves.

Perhaps reconciliation is a worthy goal in Somalia. Stability also may be a worthy goal. And so, too, a government willing to oppose the al Shabaab. The suffering of the Somali people may be less under an oppressive sharia regime than under the present chaos.

But Arman is clearly a propagandist who wishes to whitewash what has happened in Somalia and disconnect all of the many atrocities done there from the ideology which inspired those very same atrocities -- political Islam.

So in addition to the litany of wild and crude accusations and epithets thrown around by scores of Huffington Post contributors already documented by NewsBusters, the blog also employs an advocate of Islamic sharia law. Huffington may want to pay more consideration to members of her own payroll before criticizing Ailes for individuals on his.

Imam Zaid Shakir came to speak at my school, Claremont McKenna, on December 9^th to respond to the “tragedy of Ft. Hood.” Rather than respond to the massacre of American servicemen, Shakir spent the evening indicting the United States – saying “we were born in genocide.” The reason for the Ft. Hood Massacre, according to Shakir? Not jihad or Islamic fundamentalism, but the “pervasiveness of violence in our society” and because of Americans’ “easy access to guns.”

Zaid Shakir – Final from The Claremont Conservative on Vimeo.

For those wondering who Mr. Shakir is, he’s the go-to expert on Islamic issues for the mainstream media. The New York Times describes him as a “leading intellectual light,” while rap scholar, Cornel West says “he is one of the towering principle [sic] voices not only in contemporary Islam, but in American society,” according to this biography.   Most recently, he was described by John Esposito as one of the “500 Most Influential Muslims.”

After comparing the massacres at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal Hassan to the Columbine killers and Maurice Clemmons, of Mike Huckabee pardon fame, Shakir said that the violence we have seen was not a “Muslim problem,” but a problem for everyone. You never quite know when someone will “snap.” [The following is extracted from a transcript from audio I took of the public lecture at my college.]

There is not a Muslim problem. Especially based on the number of Muslims who have done this particular act. It’s not a Korean problem because the kid in Virginia tech was a Korean American. It’s not a white American problem because the kids in Columbine or several other places were white Americans. That’s not the common denominator, race is not the common denominator, religion is not the common denominator, gender–maybe, I would say they should just chill out. What is the common denominator. The common denominator is easy access to guns. The common denominator is that there are more guns in America than there are human beings. There are more guns in America than human beings, and they are easily had. And if someone tries to limit their accessibility, they’re going to be challenged by the NRA, the National Rifle Association–one of the most powerful lobbies in this country. That’s the common denominator. So if we are serious as a society about stopping this violence, it doesn’t behoove us to demonize Muslims. We’re here to talk about Muslims, I’m not trying to dodge that, but if behooves us to make it far, far, far more difficult for people to get their hands on a gun. And if we’re not willing to do that, it’s easy to go blame the Muslims. That’s easy and that’s why so many people do–it’s a national sport. Vilify the Muslims, they’re weak, they can’t fight back.

Of course left unsaid is why we should ban guns on a military base. Shouldn’t Major Hassan, a U.S. Army officer, be carrying a gun on such a military base? And what of the quick thinking of the law enforcement personnel on the scene who were well armed?

But “the violence that permeates our society spills over to other shores,” Zaid said. To prove his point, Shakir totally misrepresented history, claiming for instance that “the last time any Muslim country encroached upon a Christian country” was “300 years ago, the second Ottoman siege of Vienna,” and utterly ignoring the Armenian genocide or the civil war in Lebanon, to name just two quick examples.

He claimed, among other things that the American invasion and occupation was to blame for the hostility between Shiites and Sunnis – ignoring that the Battle of Karbala between Sunnis and Shiites, occurred in Iraq some centuries ago. And while violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq was rare before 1991, that was only because Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated Baath party kept its hands tightly on the reigns of power.

In addition, Zaid referenced the infiltration by the FBI of a Muslim mosque in Irvine, CA – trying to “whip up people.” He advised Muslims to resist those “agent provocateurs” “infiltrating our community and our mosques, try to provoke us to harm our fellow citizens in any way,” but left out that the FBI uncovered a plot to bomb buildings and arrested one man, Ahmadullah Niaza, for concealing his connections to al-Qaeda on naturalization papers. Maybe the reason the FBI infiltrated the Irvine mosques was their jihadi connections?

But this narrative of being infiltrated fit in with his view that Muslims are the victims of an increasingly hateful American society. Incredibly and without evidence, he said, that if you “turn on the radio, there are people actually saying, ‘Go kill some Muslims. One of them killed some of us, go kill, you see a Muslim, just shoot him.’ On the radio!”

He continued,

You can say things about Muslims you can’t say about any other group. [mimicking someone with objections ]“Oh, that’s not true.” You can’t go on the radio, public air space, regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and say “We should go out and kill group A, group B, group C.” You can say it to Muslims, no one will say anything. No one will say anything. You could print it, no one will say anything. Muslims are the enemy after all. So Muslims who are just minding their business, trying to make a good life, raise their children, go to work every day and hear that? What should you do? Well (inaudible), you should patiently persevere in doing the good things you are doing.

It’s an interesting narrative, but this “nation born in genocide,” didn’t go after Muslims after Fort Hood, despite the articles fearing a “backlash.”  Maybe, just maybe, the land of the free is a good place for Muslims, after all, notwithstanding Shakir’s attempts to deflect the very real threat of Muslim violence against America.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Imam Shakir in his own words in the video above or read the transcript below.

Zaid Shakir Transcript-1 –

Marc Thiessen’s must-read book, Courting Disaster, skyrocketed to #9 on the NYTimes best-seller list this coming week. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

Watch this video and pass it on (*Update*: Traffic seems to have brought the vid down; the producer is working on getting it back up. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

Read this post »

Read this post »

Brilllllliant. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

So apparently a Michigan defense contractor has pissed off Muslim groups, by inscribing coded Biblical references on rifles it sells to the American military. The Washington-based Council on...

View Original Post

So while Republicans rejoiced over a huge victory in Massachusetts, a far bigger win took place at the Pentagon. The winner, sadly, was political correctness – that infectious mist of...

View Original Post

CNN’s Jack Cafferty blasted the Defense Department’s report on the Fort Hood massacre as a “joke” on Thursday’s Situation Room, singling out how there was “no mention in the report of the suspect’s [Major Nidal Hasan] views of Islam.” Cafferty also highlighted a recent Gallup poll that found that “43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims.”

The CNN commentator wasted no time in criticizing the 86-page report released by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood shootings: “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings.”

Cafferty later read a quote from 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, and continued his attack on the report: “Lehman...told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame....The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.”

read more

My ex-wife pulled off one of the most diabolical stunts ever perpetrated on one human being by another.  When she was a kid, she took it upon herself to teach her younger brother the names of all the...

View Original Post

Where’s the ACLU when you need them?  On Sunday, the New York Post reported that the Metropolitan Museum of Art “quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not...

View Original Post

"Radical cleric" is a term many news outlets, including the Associated Press, have used to describe Islamic clerics who encourage and/or train radical Muslims for jihad against civilians in the West. Case in point: Anwar al Awlaki, who reportedly inspired Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting spree.

But a commenter on Time magazine's Swampland blog seems to have convinced writer Karen Tumulty that the term is appropriate to apply to Pat Robertson, given his loopy pronouncement that a long-ago "pact with the devil" made by Haiti has cursed the Caribbean nation and resulted in yesterday's devastating earthquake:

Amy: Per your post below, Swampland commenter Trifecta55 has a proposal for how we should deal with this:

Don't you mean "radical cleric" Pat Robertson Michael?
.
I am semi serious. When crazy muslim preachers get that title, why don't those of you in the media use that on Pat Robertson. I am serious, and politefully request a response if you have time.

UPDATE: CBN offers an exceedingly lame clarification of the radical cleric's comments.

Granted, Pat Robertson's pronouncements should be denounced by political conservatives and protested by Christians who recognize the deficiencies of Robertson's theology from an orthodox, biblical perspective. They are definitely outside the mainstream of orthodox Christian thought and deserve to be disputed and condemned.

That being said, to hint that Robertson is equivalent to a terrorism-inciting radical imam is both a sop to left-wing anti-Christian hysteria and a disservice to journalism.

First of all, sorry for the delayed release of this, I got a few big ideas for some big changes, and technical issues that arose in the process prevented me from meeting the series debut date of the...

View Original Post

Read this post »

For those who were expecting the election of Barack Obama to yield a peace dividend in the war on terror, the resurgence of Al-Qaeda has come as a surprise. Obama’s obsequious diplomacy was supposed to be a tonic to the aggressions of the Bush years, but his appeasement seems to have only encouraged more war. Rather than calm the Islamic world, Obama’s passivity has invited attack.

As in the Cold War, the current battle of ideology takes place in proxy wars. Unlike in the Cold War, the war on terror is largely fought through symbolic actions. Islamists do not make tactical attacks. They do not bomb Boeing factories or destroy highways and rail lines. Instead they destroy iconic buildings, trains, and airplanes. They use the spectacle of destruction, carried out in a diabolical way by suicide agents, as their means of waging war. That is the definition of a terror campaign.

The proper response to terror is not appeasement but counterattack. Islamists wage their terror campaigns in order to cow American influence abroad, especially in the Gulf. The answer to such attacks, if we hope to avoid them in the future, is to increase American involvement in Muslim countries both through soft influence and force of arms. Such a strategy was one of the best but least articulated justifications for the Second Gulf War.

Obama doesn’t get this. When the State department closed its embassy in Sanaa, Yemen for two days earlier this week due to intelligence of an imminent terrorist threat, this action only increased the existential threat to Americans in Yemen and abroad. It came off as a symbolic withdrawal of American influence, especially so close to the attempted Northwest airline bombing. The temporary closing betokened a myopic vision of the war on terror as an isolated series of security issues rather than an ideological battle fought through connected symbolic action.

All of the West’s technology and intelligence can never prevent would-be terrorists from penetrating our defenses. The only way to prevent terrorism is to make it clear that terror attacks will result in symbolic outcomes that are most advantageous to us and least advantageous to them. We need a Containment Policy for the 21st Century.

One of the defining features of Islam is its obsession with sex. Every rule regarding women is based upon a driving need to control their sexuality. They are married off as children, sequestered, dressed in clothes that rob them of any hint of femininity, deprived of any opportunities to function outside the reproductive [...]

Read this post »

As has been noted here in the recent past, it isn't just government entities that are a little slow on the uptake when it comes to identifying radical Muslim preachers as accessories to terrorism - it's also the media.  Consider the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, a man who has consistently shown ties to terrorist attacks, yet who had gone predominantly under the media radar as nothing more than a simple cleric.

Also consider the curious case of one Yasir Qadhi, a man recently interviewed by CNN for a sympathetic look at the failed underwear bomber, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab.  A man who has apparently escaped background investigations by both CNN and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).  (H/t the Jawa Report)

How else to explain CNN's representation of Qadhi as a simple, orthodox teacher of Islam, who had no idea of the extremist views of AbdulMutallab?  And how else to explain the baffling decision by the NCTC to utilize Qadhi in its deradicalization efforts?

What, you might ask, is wrong with presenting this man as a moderate teacher of ‘the nuts and bolts of Islam?'

Well, for starters, he is - by his own admission - a proud member of the U.S. terror watch list, and an instructor at an institution so extreme in their teachings, that an anti-terror consultant once dubbed the school ‘Jihad U.'

Find out more about the man CNN presents as an innocent professor of Islam after the break...

The CNN interview links the underwear bomber, AbdulMutallab, to Yasir Qadhi via a 16 day conference held in 2008 to teach young Muslims "the nuts and bolts of Islam."  The conference, known as an Islamic Knowledge Fest, was simply harmless we are led to believe, teaching young Muslims of "orthodox Islam for the 21st Century," and nothing more than "mainstream Islamic stuff."  In fact, Qadhi is portrayed as the antithesis of the underwear bomber, expressing a bit of astonishment as to how the individual he knew could have ever developed into the extremist he has become.

This conference however was organized by the Al Maghrib Institute where Qadhi is the Dean of Academic Affairs, an establishment not exactly known for its mainstream teachings.  In fact it had earned the nickname ‘Jihad U' by anti-terrorism consultant, Patrick Poole, who in 2007 voiced his concern that their Islamic studies program was preaching "messages of religious extremism, racial bigotry and advocacy of jihad and militancy." 

The following list confirms those thoughts, and apparently is what passes as ‘mainstream Islamic stuff' these days:

• Holocaust denial always seems to be a favorite of terrorists, and Qadhi is no exception. In a 2001 lecture Yasir Qadhi highly recommends that listeners read a book known as the Hoax of the Holocaust, urging them to ‘look up yourself what Hitler really wanted to do.'
• Qadhi served as a guest speaker at a conference organized by the Islam Channel, who's Chief Executive Officer was convicted terrorist Mohamed Ali Harrath.
• Qadhi is an ardent defender of Dr. Ali al-Timimi, convicted of inciting terrorism via the Virginia Jihad Network. The good doctor urged his followers to take up arms against U.S. troops shortly after the 9/11 tragedy.

Perhaps we need a new color, as the red flags consistently being thrown up concerning terrorists, their preachers, and their teachers, aren't being readily recognized by the media or the government.

CNN also misses the boat with the following statement:

"Qadhi says there was no indication AbdulMutallab in 2008 was extreme in his views."

But the Times Online indicates that there was plenty of indication that AbdulMutallab had certainly developed close ties to the terrorist (not cleric) Anwar al-Awlaki as early as 2007, and that U.S. counter-terrorism authorities believe his radicalization started during a period between 2005 and 2008.

So much for the NCTC's deradicalization program - it appears Qadhi has developed more of a post-radicalization reputation.

But hey, he's just a simple professor of Islam.  Words themselves can do no harm, they are not actual acts of terrorism. 

Just ask the media about their handling of the simple ‘cleric' al-Awlaki.

Nothing to see here...

American taxpayers forked over nearly $70 million to Yemen in security aid last year. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

On Tuesday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann twice claimed that FNC contributor and former anchor Brit Hume’s public recommendation that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity to help solve his personal problems amounted to trying to "threaten" Woods into conversion. Previewing a segment focusing on Hume’s Monday appearance on The O’Reilly Factor to clarify his words from Fox News Sunday, Olbermann teased the show: "Brit Hume and the attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity. He does it again."

Olbermann also plugged the segment before a commercial break: "Brit Hume has tried to force Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian again. That in a moment."

The Countdown host introduced the segment, contending again that Hume had tried to "threaten" Woods into becoming a Christian: "Brit Hume of Fox News has not only not apologized for his bizarre on-air attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity, he`s actually gone further."

Notably, in December 2005, Olbermann distorted the words of former FNC host John Gibson from Gibson's radio interview on the Janet Parshal Show and compared the program to "an Al-Qaeda show on Al-Jazeera talking about infidels."

And a bit earlier in November 2005, he even attacked proponents of intelligent design theory, which he labeled as "nonsense," and compared its supporters to those who believed the world is flat and who supported burning scientists at the stake.

And in September 2008, he mocked then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin because she had talked about her pastor praying that she would win the governor's election in Alaska. Olbermann: "Just like voters in the presidential election. This begs the question, of course, why bother? If you want to get something done, ask the Lord. He or she probably doesn't have much else to worry about besides oil pipelines."

Olbermann compared Palin to the notorious character Elmer Gantry from Sinclair Lewis's 1927 novel of the same name, and to a famous evangelical Christian leader from the early 20th century named Amy Semple McPherson, who was believed to have faked her own kidnapping in the 1920s. Olbermann: "Listening to her, and this doesn't just apply to the tape we just saw, but throughout the last, the 10 days of Sarah Palin, she's Elmer Gantry. She's Amy Semple McHockey Mom."

Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Tuesday, January 5, Countdown show on MSNBC:

KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Brit Hume and the attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity. He does it again.

BRIT HUME, FROM THE O’REILLY FACTOR: You speak the name Jesus Christ, and, I don’t mean to make a pun here, but all hell breaks loose.

...

OLBERMANN: BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: Brit Hume has tried to force Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian again. That in a moment.

...

OLBERMANN: Brit Hume of Fox News has not only not apologized for his bizarre on-air attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity, he`s actually gone further. Before we detail Hume`s double or nothing bet on this subject, for context, here was his original statement: "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don`t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Now, let`s change just one word in there and try to guess what the reaction in there would be if his remarks had been these: "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don`t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption offered by the Islam faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn to the Islam faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

And yet, when Billow (Bill O’Reilly) asked Hume whether he had been proselytizing, he said, I don`t think so. The more he spoke, the more apparent that his original comments were merely a warm-up.

BRIT HUME, FROM THE O’REILLY FACTOR: -and my sense about Tiger is that he needs something that Christianity, especially, provides and gives and offers. And that is redemption and forgiveness. And I was, I was really meaning to say in those comments yesterday more about Christianity than I was about anything else. I mentioned the Buddhism only because his mother is a Buddhist and he has apparently said that he is a Buddhist. I`m not sure how seriously he practices that. But I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs.

OLBERMANN: Badly needs? Hume left it at that, right? Oh, no.

HUME: What I`m saying is if Tiger Woods were to make a true conversion, we would know it. It would show through in his being. And he would know it, above all. And he would feel the extraordinary blessing that that would be. And it would shine because he is so prominent. It would be a shining light. And I think it would be a magnificent thing to witness.

OLBERMANN: A magnificent thing from a prominent figure, you know, kind of like when Tom Cruise displayed the magnificence of Scientology when he trashed Brooke Shields for her treatment of postpartum depression. When asked by Mr. O`Reilly what drives the negative comments about Christianity-

HUME: It hasalways been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it, that, you know, you speak the name Jesus Christ, and, I don`t mean to make a pun here, but all hell breaks loose. And it has always been nuts. It triggers a very powerful reaction in people who do not share the faith and who do not believe in it.

OLBERMANN: Let`s turn to the president of the Interfaith Alliance, host of Air America`s State of Belief, Reverend Welton Gaddy. Reverend, good to talk to you again, sir.

REVEREND WELTON GADDY, AIR AMERICA HOST: Glad to talk with you. Sorry about your friend.

OLBERMANN: Oh, thank you kindly. Mr. Hume, I think, missed a point here that really is one of those wonderful days when a cliche comes to life. He`s not being attacked for his specific religion. If he had said, you know, Tiger Woods needs to convert to Judaism or to the Mormon faith, the reaction would have been similar if not identical. This is literally about somebody being in public holier than thou, isn`t it?

GADDY: Yeah, I think it`s part of that, Keith, and it`s also, I would defend the right of Mr. Hume to confess his faith however he wants to. But all of us know that with rights and freedom come responsibility. And he`s talking on a national news program. He`s giving his opinion, as he has the right to do. But anybody who is pro-American, who loves liberty in this nation, wants to support the unity of religions and not contribute to their divisiveness. And his statement, though he backed up on it a little bit last night, his statement was still a judgment about another religion, a judgment he really doesn`t have the authority to make.

OLBERMANN: And the irony on that judgment, is it not correct on theories of religion, he`s got his facts wrong. I mean, he said Buddhism does not really have a vehicle for forgiveness? If you`re going to go out on this limb, if you really feel you want to do that and take whatever the blowback is, I`m in agreement with you, good for you and good for your faith and what you believe in. But if you`re going to speak about somebody else`s religion, are you not obligated to know enough about their religion not to make a big mistake?

GADDY: Absolutely, Keith. And I wish everybody abided by that principle. The fact is that Judaism has a strong doctrine of forgiveness. Other religions practice forgiveness as well. What`s interesting in this instance is that I personally was offended by the way in which Mr. Hume talked about forgiveness and repentance within Christianity. He described a situation in which it was almost like, here`s a marketplace of religions from which Tiger Woods can draw, and the best one to go to, where forgiveness seems to be cheapest (OLBERMANN LAUGHS) and redemption cheapest, is Christianity. That is a striking sign that he doesn`t understand the pain that goes with forgiveness and that always accompanies redemption within Christianity.

OLBERMANN: Yeah. It`s like he`s car shopping at that point. But the other thing in here that this immediately get converted into, no pun intended, was the conversation between Hume and O`Reilly about the war on Christianity. O`Reilly asked what drives negative comments about Christianity. Hume made the reference to every time you speak the name Jesus Christ, hell breaks loose. It`s not a war. Why is there so much defensiveness about this right now?

GADDY: Because there is this persistent rumor among the religious right that somehow Christians are persecuted in the United States. They don`t understand religious persecution. If they`d look around the world, they would. The fact is, Keith, I`ve been a Christian minister for 50 years almost. I talk about Jesus. I talk about Jesus with people who are members of other faiths, but I do that with respect for them, ready to listen to them, as well as them listen to me. What Mr. Hume was doing was trying to impose a kind of pseudo established religion on someone else. And that is not in the spirit of religion generally or Christianity specifically.

OLBERMANN: The Reverend Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance and Air America, it’s always a pleasure and an education, sir. Thank you again for your time.

GADDY: Thank you, thank you.

Last week, I spotlighted the dangerous catch-and-release jihadi programs at Yemen and Gitmo. [...] Read the rest »

On Monday's Countdown show, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann slammed FNC's Brit Hume for advising Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity while appearing on yesterday's Fox News Sunday panel, where Hume has regularly appeared for years and contributed his opinions to the discussion in a way that differs from his manner of moderating discussions in a more neutral way when he used to host Special Report with Brit Hume. Although Olbermann later backed away from likening Hume to radical Muslims, during the show's opening teaser, Olbermann did make such a comparison: "An organization proselytizing, trying to force others to convert to its faith alone, you know, just like Islamic extremists."

At one point as the Countdown host plugged a segment in which he discussed Hume with author Dan Savage, the words "Hume's Holy War" were shown at the bottom of the screen as Olbermann spoke: "So Brit Hume tells Tiger Woods he can be forgiven, but only if he converts to Christianity. Fox has given up all pretense, hasn’t it?"

As Olbermann and Savage went on to make fun of Christianity, the MSNBC host at one point quipped: "'WWJDIHS,' which is: What would Jesus do if he strayed?" Savage brought up fringe religious figure Fred Phelps, who has become infamous for holding protests at the funerals of American soldiers, and lumped him in with Hume, Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer. Savage:

American Christianity has been hijacked by the lunatics, by the Pat Robertsons, and by the Phelps family, by the Gary Bauers, and by people like Brit Hume, and it’s an insult to Christianity, it’s an insult to Christians. I'm not a Christian. I was a seminarian once upon a time, but I'd like to hear from moderate Christians, not just radical sex advice columnist faggots, about this.

Below is a complete transcript of the segment with author Dan Savage from the Monday, January 4, Countdown show on MSNBC:

KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: And Fox News drops the pretense: Tiger Woods can be forgiven, but only if he renounces his religion.

BRIT HUME: My message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

OLBERMANN: An organization proselytizing, trying to force others to convert to its faith alone, you know, just like Islamic extremists.

...

WITH THE WORDS "HUME’S HOLY WAR" ON SCREEN:

OLBERMANN: So Brit Hume tells Tiger Woods he can be forgiven, but only if he converts to Christianity. Fox has given up all pretense, hasn’t it?

...

OLBERMANN: "Brit Hume of Fox tells his audience Tiger Woods can be forgiven, but only if he renounces his Buddhist faith to instead join Christianity. Well, I think Brit Hume can be forgiven if he renounces whatever it is he’s doing now to instead join journalism."

...

OLBERMANN: It was the rote answer from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes whenever anybody pointed to Fox News and called it, well, what it is. Why belabor the point? Yeah, but we got Brit Hume at 6:00, he’s not partisan, he's not selling anything, he's not proselytizing. Oops.

BRIT HUME: Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question and it's a tragic situation with him. I think he's lost his family. It's not clear to me whether he'll be able to have a relationship with his children. But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn your faith, to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

OLBERMANN: Wow! Hume's attempt to inject religion into a discussion of the Woods mess and then setting one religion as superior and more forgiving to another even got a mention from Don Imus on the Fox Out of Business Channel, quoting, "Well, we checked this morning, and unfortunately or perhaps fortunately if you're a Buddhist there is a path to recovery and redemption. Right? Well, yes there is. The idea of redemption – nirvana under Buddhism – is achieving the state of being freed from greed, hate, and delusion." Let's bring in activist Dan Savage, author of "The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family." Dan, good evening.

DAN SAVAGE, AUTHOR: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Wow. When the brakes of political correctness are applied on you by Don Imus, you're in trouble. But let me start with the premise. Being Christian is the best religion for adulterers because you can be forgiven, and we have lots of many fine examples of that, I suppose.

SAVAGE: We do – Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter. What's hilarious about it is there’s Brit Hume on Fox News suggesting that people should be Christians or adulterous straight men should be Christians not because Jesus is the way and the light, not because Jesus is the Son of God, not because it is the one true religion, but because it offers the best deal. [OLBERMANN LAUGHS] It gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't. That seems like an insult to Christianity, as my mother would point out if she were still alive.

OLBERMANN: Isn't this the classic thing that your mother probably also pointed out to you about never discussing religion in public? I mean, you can discuss religion in public. It's like this that you're not supposed to do it. This crosses that principle: Keep religious advocacy out of public life since, you know, the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don't know their own religions or somebody else's religion like Brit Hume.

SAVAGE: What's really telling, though, is just as, you know, I'm not comparing the American religious right to jihadists. They throw rhetorical bombs. The other guys throw real bombs. There’s a big difference.

OLBERMANN: Mm-hmm.

SAVAGE: But whenever we have a discussion in our country about jihadism and radical Muslims, you always hear, "Where are the moderate voices? Where are the moderate Muslims? Why don't they speak up?" Where are the moderate, liberal, progressive Christians when something like this happens? Why don't they speak up in defense of their own faith? American Christianity has been hijacked by the lunatics, by the Pat Robertsons, and by the Phelps family, by the Gary Bauers, and by people like Brit Hume, and it’s an insult to Christianity, it’s an insult to Christians. I'm not a Christian. I was a seminarian once upon a time, but I'd like to hear from moderate Christians, not just radical sex advice columnist faggots, about this. I'd like to hear them speak up.

OLBERMANN: "WWJDIHS," which is: What would Jesus do if he strayed? Beyond the mere advocacy of religion in public life, this notion that we can counter religious fundamentalists who – as you note, aptly – are different from religious fundamentalists here, they want to blow us up, but somehow we can defend ourselves with our own vigorous religion. Is this sort of Peter Pan quality here? If we all just think hard enough, our god can beat up their god?

SAVAGE: That has been going on and that needs to be checked. General Boykin who was one of the generals in charge of the invasion of Iraq gave a speech where he said our God is bigger than their god. And we've got to stop, we’ve got to de-escalate this rhetoric and the rhetorical war pitting one religion against another religion, particularly as inoffensive a religion as Buddhism.

OLBERMANN, LAUGHING: We haven't heard any threats from radical Buddhists lately in this country.

SAVAGE: There are no Buddhists with bombs in their underpants on airplanes, I don't think.

OLBERMANN: I'm going to avoid a bomb in the underwear joke about Tiger Woods for God's sakes, but is it not in the interests of people of faith to avoid this kind of public proselytizing? I mean, the smart ones get that it just makes them look bad no matter what the thought might be?

SAVAGE: The smart people of faith set an example through their lives. They don't go on Fox News and bloviate and lecture other people and hector people. You know, Brit Hume is on his second marriage. Tiger Woods is on his first. Brit Hume really isn't in a position to be lecturing Tiger Woods about marriage or about the one true path or about the deal that Christianity offers adulterous men.

OLBERMANN: Well, you know, I'm going to assume this is true. I haven't done any research on it, but I don't think Brit Hume used to be a Buddhist who then converted to some Christian faith and found this path already. But if he did, and he is actually speaking from experience, I guess we owe him an apology, but I tend to doubt it.

SAVAGE: I doubt it, too, very highly.

OLBERMANN: Dan Savage, author of "The Commitment," great thanks for your time tonight, Dan.

SAVAGE: Thank you for having me, Keith.

OLBERMANN: That's Countdown for this, the 2,440th day since the previous President declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

There are, within our midst, religious believers who are, it seems, so insecure in their faith that they must threaten–and try–to kill cartoonists. (Really?? Cartoonists?) Unfortunately, most of the Western Media have cowered to these threats. We now reprint the cartoon that sparked the threats and attacks:

The end of the year brings us all sorts of fun “best of” lists and annual “awards”. We have “The Best Films of 2009″, “The Worst Films of 2009″,...

View Original Post

My column today spotlights Yemen’s dangerous catch-and-release program for terrorists — and ours. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

Jihadists never rest. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

Pres. Obama should find time in his busy vacation schedule to drop a palm-trees-and-sandy-beaches thank you postcard to NBC.  On this morning's Today, successive network staffers defended the administration's [mis]handling of the Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab matter.

First, terrorism expert Roger Cressey [who usually plays it straight], claimed there wasn't enough information to "connect the dots" and move young Umar from the "watch list" to the "no-fly" list.  Really? The guy's father, a respected international banker, was so concerned about his son's extremist Islamist views that he took the unusual measure of personally contacting the US embassy with a warning.  Dots?  How about a huge, flashing, neon exclamation point!?

Next, John Harwood backhands GOP criticism of the Obama admin's national security policy as "partisan." 

ROGER CRESSEY: It's important to understand that there are multiple lists.  The lowest level list, with over a half-a-million names, you can get on that list by one person saying "I believe you Peter have terrorist ties or extremist views." That's what happened with Abdul Mutallab in this case.  His father went to the embassy.  To get to the more sensitive and significant list, there has to be more information, there has to be corrobating information.  So it looks like right now, the intelligence community didn't have those additional pieces of information. We talk often about how there's a need to connect the dots.  Right now it appears there weren't enough dots to connect.

And a bit later . . .

JENNA WOLFE: Could the fact that he allegedly got as far as he did mean that the administration's whole reputation on how they handle terrorism matters be hurt in some way?

JOHN HARWOOD: Well certainly you're going to hear Republicans--and we already have--complaining that the administration doesn't take terrorism seriously enough. And so that partisan debate will be reignited.

Let's summarize:

1.dot dearth.
2.Republicans bunch of partisan complainers.

Say, here's an idea: rather than putting the burden on our intelligence and law enforcement authorities to prove that the people on the watch list are a threat, how about putting the onus on the people on that list to prove that they're not?

Read this post »

How do you say “chutzpah” in Arabic? [...] Read the rest »

End of days fetishist and film maker Roland Emmerich did an extraordinary job destroying the world in his latest blockbuster, 2012. Without explicitly saying so, the film is Hollywood’s conclusion to...

View Original Post

Read this post »

On the CBS Evening News on Saturday, correspondent Kimberly Dozier reported on a recent rise in homegrown Islamic extremism in the United States and explored the motivation behind it: “... terrorism experts agree militant Islam is becoming an American problem....the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make potent recruiting tools. They’re portrayed by the militants as America’s war on Islam.”

Dozier went on to cite American bigotry as another cause: “Muslim community leaders here say young people are also being driven to extremes by post-9/11 anti-Muslim propaganda like this.” An obscure anti-Muslim video was played as she continued: “And rising incidents of genuine anti-Muslim discrimination. Civil rights complaints have jumped 10 percent in just the past year, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations.”

While using C.A.I.R. as a credible source, Dozier only briefly mentioned the organization’s radical ties: “There’s been tension between the FBI and the Council over alleged links to militant groups which it denies.” She then offered a dismissive statement from C.A.I.R.: “It says U.S. authorities should start using the Muslim community as a resource, not an adversary, to help it police its own.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

6:35PM

JEFF GLOR: Pakistani police today continued to question five young American Muslims suspected of making contact with a Taliban recruiter. Well, here at home, law enforcement officials and Muslim leaders alike are doing a lot of serious rethinking. Kimberly Dozier in Washington has more.

KIMBERLY DOZIER: From the shooting last month at Fort Hood, to this week’s arrests of five young American suspects in Pakistan, terrorism experts agree militant Islam is becoming an American problem.

ZEYNO BARAN [SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE]: We do have a homegrown terror problem that really needs to be addressed and explained.

DOZIER: Alleged Army shooter Nidal Hasan and the young men who traveled to Pakistan all worshipped at mosques in Virginia. But Zeyno Baran says they were more likely exposed to the extremes of militant Islam only a click away on the Web.

BARAN: And we have these ‘Google imam’ problems where you just Google a question and then you get a bunch of Web sites and you have no idea who these people are.

DOZIER: Muslim experts say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make potent recruiting tools. They’re portrayed by the militants as America’s war on Islam. Al Qaeda even has its own American spokesman, U.S.-born Adam Gadahn. He addressed American Muslims in a tape that came out just yesterday.

ADAM GADAHN [AL QAEDA SPOKESMAN]: The blood of countless innocent Muslims is on your hands.

DOZIER: But Muslim community leaders here say young people are also being driven to extremes by post-9/11 anti-Muslim propaganda like this.

[CLIP OF ANTI-MUSLIM AD]

TEXT ON-SCREEN: Muslims Are Taking Over The World; and faster than you ever imagined.

NARRATOR: There are over nine million [Muslims in the United States].

DOZIER: And rising incidents of genuine anti-Muslim discrimination. Civil rights complaints have jumped 10 percent in just the past year, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations. The group is launching a new Web site to give young Muslims an outlet for their anger through civic action, in court or at the ballot box, not on a foreign battlefield.

NIHAD AWAD [COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS]: And we can immunize our people against these cyber attacks, so to speak.

DOZIER: And it was the Council which urged the families of those five suspected would-be militants to report them missing to the FBI.

AWAD: I believe that was a success story because the Muslim community took the lead.

DOZIER: There’s been tension between the FBI and the Council over alleged links to militant groups which it denies. It says U.S. authorities should start using the Muslim community as a resource, not an adversary, to help it police its own – Jeff.

GLOR: Alright. Kimberly Dozier in Washington tonight – Kimberly, thank you.

Let’s first get THIS out of the way:  I do NOT believe the President is a Muslim.  OK?  I believe he is a Christian.  I’ve seen his Pastor in action.

That being said, I DO believe that a pattern has developed in the Obama White House to not only bend over backwards in praise of the Islamic faith, but to give what can only be described as short shrift (bordering on insult) to the Jewish faith.

The recent news about the second-class status given to the White House Hanukkah Party, in comparison with the Bush Administration’s handling of the event, brings to light a continual diminishing of the importance of the Jewish Holy Days.  Case in point:

Last Fall, the Jewish Holy time of Rosh Hashanah was acknowledged by the President with a 2:37 video greeting.  Unfortunately, President Obama used the occasion of the Rosh Hashanah greeting to lecture Jews around the world about the importance of tolerance.  (Lecturing JEWS about the importance of tolerance???  Because THEY keep blowing children up at pizza parlors?)

[T]his sacred time provides not just an opportunity for individual renewal and reconciliation, but for families, communities and even nations to heal old divisions, seek new understandings, and come together to build a better world for our children and grandchildren.

At the dawn of this New Year, let us rededicate ourselves to that work. Let us reject the impulse to harden ourselves to others’ suffering, and instead make a habit of empathy – of recognizing ourselves in each other and extending our compassion to those in need.

Let us resist prejudice, intolerance, and indifference in whatever forms they may take — let us stand up strongly to the scourge of anti-Semitism, which is still prevalent in far too many corners of our world.

That is our President using the occasion of the Jewish High Holy Days to instruct Jews around the world to “resist prejudice, intolerance and indifference”.  You know, because the intolerance and prejudice of Jews are the big problem facing us these days….

But to really use this as a “Teachable Moment” we should take a look at the President’s Ramadan message he made the month before his Rosh Hashanah lecture.  Ramadan, the holy time for Muslims was acknowledged by the President with a video twice as long as the Rosh Hashanah video.

Surprisingly (or not) the President did not mention anything about tolerance or prejudice to the world’s Muslims.  On the contrary he kowtows via YouTube with sycophantic lines like:

As I said in Cairo, this new beginning must be borne out in a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground. I believe an important part of this is listening, and in the last two months, American embassies around the world have reached out not just to governments, but directly to people in Muslim-majority countries.  From around the world, we have received an outpouring of feedback about how America can be a partner on behalf of peoples’ aspirations.

We have listened. We have heard you. And like you, we are focused on pursuing concrete actions that will make a difference over time – both in terms of the political and security issues that I have discussed, and in the areas that you have told us will make the most difference in peoples’ lives.

And:

Beyond America’s borders, we are also committed to keeping our responsibility to build a world that is more peaceful and secure.  That is why we are responsibly ending the war in Iraq. That is why we are isolating violent extremists while empowering the people in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we are unyielding in our support for a two-state solution that recognizes the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security.

The President also had a special Ramadan Dinner where he gave a speech (this one over eight minutes) where he did not come anywhere near the lecturing and semi-scolding tone of the “You better start being tolerant” speech for the Jewish People of the world.  Instead, he spent a good chunk of time making sure we all acknowledge the contributions Muslims have made to the world:

The contributions of Muslims to the US are too long to catalog because of Muslims being so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country. American Muslims are successful in business and entertainment; in the arts and athletics; in science and in medicine. Above all, they successful parents, good neighbors and active citizens. So on this occasion we celebrate the holy month of Ramadan, and we also celebrate how much Muslims have enriched America and its’ culture in ways both large and small.

Tonight we celebrate a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress. We honor the contributions of America’s Muslims and the positive example that so many of them set through their own lives. And we rededicate ourselves to the work of building a better and more hopeful world.

Do I think the President is Muslim?  Of course not.

Do I think he is anti-Semitic?  Of course not.

Do I think that he has an instinctive need to ingratiate himself to the Islamic world, despite the fact the extreme fringes of that world make up the most dangerous enemy our nation faces at this time in history?  And, do I fear that he takes for granted the single ally we have in the region this enemy inhabits, publicly humiliating and insulting them with lectures for tolerance on their Holy Days?  Do I think the President could truly serve our national interest by using his tremendous clout in the Islamic Community to lean on them and pry a little tolerance from THEM, (not to mention SERIOUS condemnation of the violence done in the name of their Faith)?

What do YOU think?

Read this post »

Read this post »

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo of the Washington Post’s On Faith blog took left-wing moral equivalency to new lows in a November 24 post where he compared Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hassan to General Patton and World War I hero Alvin York. What does this mass murderer have in common with two American heroes, in Stevens-Arroyo’s view? All three recited what he labeled “bad prayers.”

Matthew Archbold of the Creative Minority Report blog devoted an entire post on Monday to picking apart the Washington Post writer’s arguments. Before Stevens-Arroyo compared Hassan to Patton and York, he cited other examples of such “bad prayers.”

In citing the worst prayers in the world, I start with the thanksgiving of the Pharisee in the Gospel (Luke 18:10). He was thankful he was not like “other people.” His conversation with God was replete with political and religious prejudices against others whom he scorned. It was a bad prayer and you don’t have to take my word for it; listen to Jesus....

Number two on the parade list is the so-called “Prayer for Obama,” that cites Psalm 109:8 and applies it to the President: Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow....You can buy T-shirts...trinkets and coffee mugs with this “prayer.”

In biblical terms, this is not a prayer at all, but rather a curse. So here are so called “Christians” spending time and collecting bucks to curse the president of the United States, his wife and innocent children. Some prayer! Certainly, among the worst in the world!

As bad as Stevens-Arroyo portrays these “worst prayers in the world,” there is something much worse in his book:

But the granddaddy of bad prayers is, “Allahu Akbar!” uttered before shooting innocent people or setting off bombs to slaughter innocents to advance your own salvation. Such abuse by violence of God’s will was not invented at Fort Hood. After all, General Patton ordered the composition of a prayer for good weather so that thousands of Germans could be bombed. Army sharpshooters - like the famous Alvin York of the First World War - prayed to God for a good aim to kill people. And the tradition goes back to the Crusades and beyond. But the Muslim version is the most current and the one with the least amount of disguise as we approach Thanksgiving 2009. It is quite simply and without equivocation, “The Worst Prayer in the World!”

p.s. I owe the idea of the “world’s worst” to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. The content here, however, is all my own. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and don’t use bad prayers.

The Washington Post writer must have wanted to be doubly-sure to maintain his left-wing credentials in this column. Not only did he make the obligatory damning reference to the Crusades in his condemnation of Hassan’s prayer, he credits Olbermann for giving him the idea for the “worst prayer in the world.” That aside, Archbold rightly and brilliantly took Stevens-Arroyo to task for this “blatant and ridiculous display of moral equivalence:”

The prayer Arroyo is referring to which Patton disseminated was actually written by Catholic chaplain James H. O’Neill who wrote:

Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies and establish Thy justice among men and nations.

So according to Arroyo, General Patton asking for God’s help in defeating the scourge of Nazism was similar to Nidal Hasan taking out his fellow American soldiers with a prayer to Allah.

Maybe Mr. Arroyo isn’t aware but war is different than murder.

Nidal presumed to know God’s will and to kill in his name. Patton’s prayer is a prayer for assistance, leaving the response to God.

One is a request, the other a statement.

And impugning Alvin York is outrageous as well. York was a war hero who, at first, was a conscientious objector but finally (after much prayer) saw fit to fight in World War I after praying on a mountainside for two nights.

York was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 32 machine guns, killing 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others....

I’ll ask Mr. Arroyo, how many prisoners did Nidal Hasan take?

Back in 2005, twelve Danish cartoonists received death threats for their interpretation of the prophet Muhammad from some in the Muslim world. We thought that couldn’t happen here. America is...

View Original Post

When will we learn? [...] Read the rest »

"For the record, our third story is neither ridiculing nor disputing [Sarah Palin's] religious beliefs. It is purely an attempt to discern exactly what those beliefs constitute, so that the voters of 2012 know exactly what they`re getting."

Such was amazingly uttered by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Tuesday night.

Bear in mind that we are almost three years away from Election Day 2012, and most political analysts on both sides of the aisle don't believe former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is going to run for President then.

Regardless, the "Countdown" host actually spent over five minutes examining -- and, contrary to his assertion -- ridiculing her religious beliefs.

In fact, the disparagement began right from the get-go with how Olbermann described the object of his disaffection (video embedded below the fold with full transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Unemployed Alaska blogger Sarah Palin likes to talk about her faith without talking about her faith.

Stop the tape! "Unemployed Alaska blogger?" Sarah Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate, and this is how this former sportscaster turned political shill refers to her? And he gets to anchor a weekly television program for an NBC affiliate?

Shocking. Please continue:

For the record, our third story is neither ridiculing nor disputing her religious beliefs. It is purely an attempt to discern exactly what those beliefs constitute, so that the voters of 2012 know exactly what they`re getting.

There`s nothing to suggest that Palin`s religious beliefs are anything but utterly mainstream, American mainstream, anyway. But in the last two weeks, she has revealed pieces of the puzzle of her religious doctrines, that suggest she shares the belief of her church, the Assemblies of God, that in the end times, the Rapture, Jesus lifts true believers up with him as non-believers suffer through the Apocalypse.

She`s also implying now that her interpretation of Biblical prophesy drives core elements of her policy, as the conservative "Washington Times" claimed last September, as the nation got its first inklings that Palin shared the Evangelical belief in the end times.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are some things about the natural resources, about the state. There are some things that god wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower 48. I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: But the last days, according to Evangelical beliefs, cannot happen until Israel is fully restored, the temple on the Mount rebuilt and Jews return from around the world. Here`s what Palin`s church believes, quote, "when the modern nation of Israel was founded in 1948 and Jews began returning from all around the world, Bible scholars knew that god was at work and that we were very likely living in the last days. Ezekiel Chapter 37, Verse 71, thus sayeth the lord, God, behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen. Wither they be gone and will gather them on every side and bring them into their own land."

But does Palin, herself, believe in this prophesy of Jews returning to Israel, followed by Armageddon, the destruction of Israel, and the death of Jews and other non-believers, that this will happen soon? There was no evidence of that, until last week. Keep in mind, when asked about her own ambitions, Palin said she cannot make predictions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH PALIN FMR. GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: I am not one to predict what will happen in a few years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: But when asked about Israel, where Reuters reported immigration is down to fewer than 20,000 Jews a year, Palin last week suddenly decided she can make predictions without identifying the source of her prediction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. (END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: More and more people will flock to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead, just as Ezekiel prophesied. And explaining why Israel gets a special place in her foreign policy, telling Shimon Peres, falsely, that the only flag in her office was Israel`s. After Thomas Ice at the Pre-Tribulation Research Center at Jerry Falwell`s Liberty University told the "Atlantic," quote, "what Sarah Palin probably believes is that this is the first re-gathering, a condition for the second re- gathering, the re-gathering in belief when the Jewish nation is converted. Then there will be the battle of Armageddon.

Who else believes that? Billy Graham, leading prophet of the Rapture, whose website, after President Obama`s election, declared 2009 a year to focus on the end times.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. BILLY GRAHAM, EVANGELICAL PREACHER: We who live, who survive, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: In 1970, Billy Graham`s Worldwide Pictures released a documentary explaining Israel`s essential role in Rapture prophesy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The lord god says, my people, I will open your graves of exile and cause you to rise, again, and return to the land of Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: British pop star Cliff Richard even sings a song about it. (SINGING)

OLBERMANN: I prefer it when he opens with Congratulations. Sarah Palin met Billy Graham this Saturday, also spending time with son Franklin Graham, who has called Islam an evil religion. And if Sister Sarah had not yet made it clear that her views on Israel are shaped by Apocalyptic prophesy, Franklin gave reporters this tidbit about Palin`s meeting with Billy Graham; quoting the "Charlotte Observer," "she quizzed him on the president`s he`s known and wanted his take on what the Bible says about Israel, Iran and Iraq."

So if Mrs. Palin truly wants to discuss her faith, we invite her to clarify what her faith says about Israel, its role in the Rapture, and the ultimate fate of Israel and the Jews who choose to keep their faith.

In case you were wondering, this was done on November 24, 2009, so that voters in November 2012 understand her religious beliefs.

And this guy claims that what he does "is really journalism."

Any questions?

A new Rasmussen poll confirms the blindingly obvious about the deadly nature of blind diversity. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

One of the Gitmo defendants’ lawyers confirms the obvious: The civilian trials for 9/11-linked enemy combatants are nothing more than a grand excuse to use our legal system to bash America and spread the jihadi virus on the world stage. [...] Read the rest »

Read this post »

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, after Rudy Giuliani suggested the Obama administration was trying to “satisfy left-wing critics” by trying 9/11 terrorists in civilian court, incredulous co-host Harry Smith saw no such connection: “But Hang on. So it’s – so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?”

Smith began the interview with the former New York City Mayor by skeptically wondering: “You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it – do you think it’s a political decision?” Giuliani responded: “Well, it’s a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics....After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda.”

After Smith was taken aback by the charge that liberal politics was involved in the decision, Giuliani began to explain: “Of course. Because they could be tried in military courts. As everyone else was up until now. And it would add-” Smith cut him off: “So as the attorney general yesterday, ‘we need not cower in the face of this enemy’” Giuliani shot back: “Please let me finish what I was saying. I didn’t get a chance to complete my thought.”

Giuliani continued to emphasize the political motivation: “And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left-wing for President Obama to do and he’s been criticized for delaying in doing it.” Smith tried to discredit the former Mayor: “And you’ve been criticized, though, because some people feel it’s a flip-flop on your part, the ‘Blind Shaikh’ and other conspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing, were tried here in New York successfully. You called it a symbol of American justice.” Giuliani pointed out: “The reality is of course there was no military tribunal in 1993. It would have been absurd for me to argue for a military tribunal in 1993.”

At the top of the interview, Smith tried to portray a CBS poll showing a clear majority of people opposed to trying the 9/11 terrorists in civilian court as evidence that Americans were “deeply divided” over the issue. He reported: “40% said the trial should be in open federal court. 54% said they should take place in a closed military court.”

In his final question to Giuliani, Smith asked about the Ft. Hood shooting: “...a 2007 performance review of Major Nidal Hasan....[shows] He’s dealing with PTSD patients and he’s talking to them about Jihad, it sounds like. How is it that in this day and age we’re still not able to connect the dots?” Giuliani blamed the political correctness pushed by the left: “I think there’s a fear that you’re going to be accused of discriminating against people of the Islamic religion.... It comes with the administration saying you can’t use the term ‘war on terror’....they’re committing these crimes in the name of Jihad. That is precisely what Major Hasan was doing. The administration doesn’t seem to want to recognize that.”

Smith loyally defended the Obama administration: “Except – except the report was written in 2007 and that was – way precedes the Obama administration, so I’m not sure there can be a delineation that – that you’re trying to make.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: Now to the latest on the 9/11 suspects coming to New York City. The man who made the controversial decision to put them on trial in federal court told the Senate Judiciary Committee, Wednesday, why he’s doing it. CBS News chief judicial correspondent Bob Orr is in Washington with the story. Good morning, Bob.

BOB ORR: Good morning, Harry. Well, Attorney General Eric Holder is strongly defending his decision to try confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York, saying the criminal justice system will win a conviction.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Terror On Trial; A.G. Holder Defends Court Decision]

ERIC HOLDER: Failure is not an option. This – these are cases that have to be won.

ORR: But Senate Republicans ripped Holder’s decision, saying public testimony could compromise sensitive intelligence.

JEFF SESSIONS: I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it’s misguided.

ORR: Critics said Holder should have left Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his four henchmen in military court, where they had already asked to be martyred.

HOLDER: I’m not going to base a determination on where these cases ought to be brought on what a terrorist, what a murderer wants to do. He will not select the prosecution venue. I will select it. And I have.

ORR: But 9/11 families who watched the hearing, wearing and holding pictures of victims, also challenged the decision and quietly confronted Holder in the hearing room. Geraldine Davie lost a daughter in the World Trade Center.

GERALDINE DAVIE: My country already let me down once and my daughter was caught in the cross hairs. Now this is letting me down a second time? This is unconscionable. Absolutely unconscionable.

ORR: Now, Holder said if somehow the government manages to lose the case, KSM and the others would not be freed. In fact, they would continue to be held as enemy combatants. Harry.

SMITH: Bob Orr in Washington this morning, thanks. Americans are deeply divided on where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other defendants should be tried. In a recent CBS News poll, 40% said the trial should be in open federal court. 54% said they should take place in a closed military court. Former New York City Mayor and federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani has called this one of the worst decisions of the Obama administration. He joins us this morning. Good morning, Mr. Mayor.

RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Rudy’s Outrage; Former Mayor Bashes Decision On Terror Trial Venue]

SMITH: You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it – do you think it’s a political decision?

GIULIANI: Well, it’s a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics who all during the last two or three years have campaigned against these military tribunals. After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda. Because it makes no sense. There’s no reason for it, it’s unnecessary-

SMITH: But Hang on. So it’s – so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?

GIULIANI: Of course. Because they could be tried in military courts. As everyone else was up until now. And it would add-

SMITH: So as the attorney general yesterday-

GIULIANI: And it was – let me finish what I’m saying-

SMITH: -‘we need not cower in the face of this enemy’-

GIULIANI: Please let me finish what I was saying. I didn’t get a chance to complete my thought.

SMITH: Go ahead.

GIULIANI: The – the reality is that they could be tried in a military tribunal, there is no reason to try them in a – in a civilian court. Others are going to be tried in the military tribunal. And the reality is we’ve never done this before. And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left-wing for President Obama to do and he’s been criticized for delaying in doing it.

SMITH: And you’ve been criticized, though, because some people feel it’s a flip-flop on your part, the ‘Blind Shaikh’ and other conspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing, were tried here in New York successfully. You called it a symbol of American justice.

GIULIANI: Yeah, correct, the people who accused me of a flip-flop were on Sunday when I appeared on the talk shows, the Obama administration did. The reality is of course there was no military tribunal in 1993. It would have been absurd for me to argue for a military tribunal in 1993. And in 2006, there was no military tribunal because lawyers that worked for Attorney General Holder and others had gotten them declared unconstitutional. They’ve since been fixed. Now there’s a military tribunal. And if there wasn’t a military tribunal, I would be the first one to say ‘try them in federal court, try them in New York, we have no other choice and we will show that we can – we can provide justice.’ But military courts can provide justice just as well without the same unnecessary risk.

SMITH: Alright, let me ask you this question very quickly. And this is a little bit off the subject. But about connecting the dots. There was a report on NPR yesterday that says it’s obtained a 2007 performance review of Major Nidal Hasan, this doctor who is alleged to have fired at all of these soldiers down in Ft. Hood. And in this performance report, it said ‘while he was competent to deliver safe patient care, he demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment, lack of professionalism, counseled for inappropriately discussing religious topics with assigned patients.’ He’s dealing with PTSD patients and he’s talking to them about Jihad, it sounds like. How is it that in this day and age we’re still not able to connect the dots?

GIULIANI: Oh, I think – I think there’s a tremendous thrust – and particularly in these areas – not to do it. Because I think there’s a fear that you’re going to be accused of discriminating against people of the Islamic religion. There isn’t an ability to separate these two things. It comes with the administration saying you can’t use the term ‘war on terror.’ You can’t talk about Islamic extremism terrorism. You’ve got to call it something else. There’s even a – some kind of a word category they set up for it, which sounds a little Orwellian. But the reality is we can make the distinction. There are wonderful people of the Islamic religion, most of them. Then there are Islamic terrorists. And they are committing these crimes, not for some abstract reason, not for some unconnected reason, they’re committing these crimes in the name of Jihad. That is precisely what Major Hasan was doing. The administration doesn’t seem to want to recognize that. And until it does, it’s going to send a signal all through – all through the bureaucracy, including the Army, ‘you better be careful, you’ll be an accused of profiling. You’ll be accused of discriminating.’

SMITH: Except – except the report was written in 2007 and that was – way precedes the Obama administration, so I’m not sure there can be a delineation that – that you’re trying to make.

GIULIANI: Oh, but those criticisms – those criticisms were happening politically way back 2003, 2004.

SMITH: Okay.

GIULIANI: A whole sense of don’t profile, don’t pick on people. That’s been going on for some quite some time. The Obama administration has kind of institutionalized it now, but that’s been going on for – for a number of years.

SMITH: We got to go. Mr. Mayor, thanks for your time this morning.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

Three days ago, I argued that the Washington Post was ginning up a new campaign to discredit Republican governor-elect Bob McDonnell, having failed to sink his candidacy  by its continual harping about his culturally conservative graduate's thesis at Pat Robertson's Regent University.

Today the Post confirmed my suspicions as its editorial board officially weighed in, proclaiming Robertson -- who made some controversial statements following the Fort Hood shootings about Islam -- to be "Mr. McDonnell's albatross":

It's unfair to expect politicians to be held accountable for every asinine thing that a supporter happens to say. But in this case -- when the supporter is among Mr. McDonnell's most prominent associates, and the level of support is extremely high -- it's important to know that he is as disgusted by Mr. Robertson's casual bigotry as millions of his constituents are. 

This begs the question how the Post handled the Obama/Rev. Wright controversy. My research indicates the Post was thrilled at Obama's March 2008 non-denunciation denunciation of Wright so much that the next month it all but declared it would never hound Obama ever again for anything stupid Wright should say. Let's look first at the March 19, 2008 "Moment of Truth" editorial (emphases mine):

SEN. BARACK Obama's mission in Philadelphia yesterday was to put the controversy over inflammatory statements made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his spiritual mentor and pastor for 20 years, behind him. But Mr. Obama (D-Ill.) went deeper than that. He used his address as a teachable moment, one in which he addressed the pain, anger and frustration of generations of blacks and whites head-on -- and offered a vision of how those experiences could be surmounted, if not forgotten. It was a compelling answer both to the challenge presented by his pastor's comments and to the growing role of race in the presidential campaign. 

[...]

He went on to say that the comments weren't just controversial, "they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with American above all that we know is right with America." 

Yet Mr. Obama didn't condemn the Rev. Wright even as he rejected his rhetoric. Instead, he placed the 66-year-old pastor into historical context: "For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years." He added, "But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." 

[...]

Mr. Obama's speech was an extraordinary moment of truth-telling. He coupled it with an appeal that this year's campaign not be dominated by distorted and polarizing debates about whether he or his opponents agree with extreme statements by supporters -- or other attempts to divide the electorate along racial lines. Far better, he argued, that Americans of all races recognize they face common economic, social and security problems. We don't agree with the way Mr. Obama described some of those problems yesterday or with some of his solutions for them. But he was right to condemn the Rev. Wright's words, was eloquent in describing the persistent challenge of race and racism in American society -- and was right in proposing that this year's campaign rise above "a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism."

Rev. Wright was not condemned, but merely his words, and then-Sen. Obama gave everyone a "teachable moment" in race relations, the Post gushed. The paper was positively ecstatic, so much so that a month later, after Wright spouted off with more craziness, the editorial board slammed "The Audacity of Rev. Wright" in an April 29 editorial, where it practically declared any present and future Wright controversies to be unworthy of the Post pressing Obama for comment (emphasis mine):

Yesterday, the Rev. Wright was unrepentant. He refused to disavow his oft-repeated belief in the sinister myth that the AIDS epidemic is a genocidal government plot to exterminate African Americans. He stood by his blame-America-for-Sept. 11 stance, saying, "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back to you." 

None of this is helpful to Mr. Obama, who could face more calls not only to denounce such inflammatory comments but also to renounce his longtime pastor. We will not join in that chorus. In his address on race in Philadelphia last month after video of the Rev. Wright's fiery sermons burst onto the national scene, Mr. Obama condemned, "in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy." The candidate credibly explained how he could understand his minister's anger without sharing or approving of it. Having had a closer look at the Rev. Wright, voters will have to decide for themselves how much weight to give Mr. Obama's long association with the pastor. But it is the Rev. Wright, not Mr. Obama, who yesterday chose to further discredit himself.

Under this standard, Governor-elect McDonnell could craft an Obamaesque speech in which he kind of, sort of, but doesn't really condemn Pat Robertson, all while placing the 79-year-old televangelist in his "historical context" as a "teachable moment" for voters.

Of course, if McDonnell did exactly that, he'd be roundly excoriated by the Washington Post. And even if McDonnell should come out and actually, roundly and unequivocally, condemn Robertson, I'm not putting any money on the Post being consistent and dismissing future Robertson eruptions as matters that McDonnell must address.

Read this post »

Read this post »

In case you missed the media coverage of the Fort Hood shooting for the last several days, let's sum up the main theme:  Nidal Malik Hasan is not a terrorist.

CNN continued that theme early Thursday morning with an interview from a profiler who claims that Hasan is nothing more than a lonely, wifeless, psychopath in the midst of a midlife crisis. 

Criminologist Pat Brown states that:

"He was simply a lone guy who had issues, problems, psychopathic behaviors that escalated to the point where he wanted to get back at society, and he took it out on his workmates like most of them do."

What does Brown base that assessment on?  During a correspondence with her (outlined in full at the end of this post), CNN's profiler of choice had very little to say about the radical Muslim ideology in the Hasan case.  You'll be amazed at what follows:

The entire basis for Brown's reluctance to call a terrorist a terrorist is in her definition of the word, which hinges on the need for someone to be part of a group to meet the guidelines.  In reading Brown's recent blog post on the matter, she defines the word terrorism as follows:

"First of all, we must define "terrorist." Under the United States Law Code: the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; the term "terrorist group" means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.  By this definition, Hasan does not even begin to qualify as a terrorist."

The first problem we have here is that the section of Law Code being quoted is U.S. Code Title 22, Ch. 38, Para. 2656f(d), which defines terminology for the Department of State's Annual Country Reports on Terrorism.  This involves an annual report that the Secretary of State is to present to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.  It is to provide detailed assessments with respect to foreign countries.  As this is not a foreign country, it is hardly apropos in this case.

Now, if we go to U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Ch. 113B, Para. 2331(5), a section actually referring to the definition of ‘domestic terrorism' as it relates to a crime, it reads:

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended-

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Check, check, and check.  Not one mention of the word ‘group'.

Despite this, Pat Brown's correspondence reveals her rationale a little further.

When asked about the CNN interview, Brown explains, ‘they have an expert on the show and they are discussing what they can determine as far as the facts that are released. News is always about commentary on what is known'.

However, when confronted with some recently discovered ‘knowns', Brown had very little to say.  In fact, the only answer she seemed willing to give, was ‘no.'

In one of the questions, it was asked whether or not one has to physically be part of a group in order to be considered a terrorist.  The question was posed as follows:

"... isn't this pretty much ignoring what I have laid out below?  A terrorist doesn't need to be part of a larger group to commit terrorism.  The association with the radical imam Anwar Awlaki, the monetary transactions to Pakistan, the discussions with his peers about Islam, the postings which justify suicide bombings, the shouting of 'Allahu Akbar!' - these are all things that can't be ignored.  The disconnect appears to be that you're thinking a terrorist should be part of a group, but doesn't being part of a radical ideology make him, by extension, part of a group?"

Brown's response was simply, ‘no'.

Here are the questions that had been laid out which were referenced in the above dialogue:

"Can there be no individual terrorist acts?"

 "Could he not have been acting individually, but with a group mindset, as if he felt he was doing this on behalf of a group cause?"

 "Wouldn't being in touch with Anwar Awlaki possibly inspire him to commit this act on behalf of a group, maybe more susceptible to this mindset if he was a loner, wouldn't that still be a terrorist attack?"

 "I believe the plotters in the Fort Dix attack were not (directly) associated with a group, but were also in touch with the inflammatory Awlaki.  Would that have been a terrorist attack if it was pulled off?"

 "Also, would your assessment of Hasan be changed if he had killed 13 people via a suicide bombing rather than a gun?"

 "And, does the possibility that he had wired money to Pakistan change your profile?"

 "What of his business card containing the acronym SoA (Soldier of Allah)?"

The answer:  Simply, "no."

So, CNN has furthered their ‘he's not a terrorist' agenda by interviewing a criminal profiler who confuses law code definitions, and even using the wrong definition, fails to support her arguments by willfully ignoring several known elements in the story.  Seems a bit reckless.

Reckless, of course, is a term which has been used to describe Pat Brown in the past.  An article from the American Journalism Review in December, 2002, criticizes profiling as a whole while examining the D.C. sniper case - a case similar in its elements of domestic terrorism.  In the article, Gregg McCrary, a former profiler and instructor at the FBI Academy's profiling unit says of Brown:

"To put people on who say those things is reckless of the media.  I hope something like this is a learning experience, that they'll go back and look at the people they've put on, and say, 'Are these really the best people to put on?' Go back to the people who've really done this, worked cases, been qualified to profile, maybe been qualified in court as an expert in this area. Just declaring yourself to be a profiler doesn't really make you a profiler."

Indeed, Brown had no formal police training.  She defined herself as a profiler simply based on having read ‘hundreds of psychology and forensics books, attending training seminars and working "dozens and dozens" of homicide cases.'  She is a self-taught, freelance profiler - an armchair quarterback if you will.

The profiler CNN chose to further their agenda of providing excuses for an obvious terrorist, Pat Brown, said it best herself:

"...profiling, especially, when you're doing something on TV, people are guess working... they don't have all the little the details that are there. So you get a lot of people -- just making guesses."

Brown's assessment that Nidal Hasan is not a terrorist is just plain wrong - but that's just a guess.

The entire e-mail thread in reverse chronological order reads below:

------Original Message------

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 11:23 PM +0000

Subject: Re: Re: Hasan

Pam,

All you had to say was that you didn't want to discuss it any further and I would gladly have stopped asking you questions.  But you gave an answer, and all I wanted was clarification. 

Anyway, thank you for your help.

Rusty

----------

Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone

------Original Message------

From: Pat Brown

To: Rusty Weiss

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 5:32 PM -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Hasan

Rusty, you refuse to read what I said and are simply being argumentative and you are now harrassing me. The conversation is over.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 5:15 PM

Subject: FWD: Re: Hasan

Pam,

Am I to assume the answer to each of the questions I posed was 'no'?

Rusty

----------

Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone

------Original Message------

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 4:41 PM +0000

Subject: FWD: Re: Hasan

------Original Message------

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1:41 PM +0000

Subject: Re: Hasan

Which question was the 'no' to?

------Original Message------

From:  Pat Brown

To: "Rusty Weiss" Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1:38 PM +0000

Subject: Re: Hasan

No

-----Original Message-----

From: "Rusty Weiss"

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:06:10

To: 'Pat Brown'

Subject: RE: Hasan

Pat,

But isn't this pretty much ignoring what I have laid out below?  A terrorist doesn't need to be part of a larger group to commit terrorism.  The association with the radical imam Anwar Awlaki, the monetary transactions to Pakistan, the discussions with his peers about Islam, the postings which justify suicide bombings, the shouting of 'Allahu Akbar!' - these are all things that can't be ignored.  The disconnect appears to be that you're thinking a terrorist should be part of a group, but doesn't being part of a radical ideology make him, by extension, part of a group.

The difference with the Unabomber was his obvious issues with industry and technology, not a religious ideology.  Hasan's motivations were of a radical Muslim terrorist nature, a faction which just so happens to have attacked our country for many decades, and an ideology which has led us to the current War on Terror.

I see your point.  I do.  I just really don't understand why a terrorist can only be called as such if he is physically part of a group.

And for the record, I've read your work and your posts, I don't find you to be unfair or beholden to anyone in particular.  I just tend to think that there are many experts who would disagree with the loner assessment, and I think CNN jumped all over your statements to further their liberal agenda.

Thanks for the time.

Rusty Weiss, NewsBusters

 

From: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:09 PM

To: Rusty Weiss

Subject: Re: Hasan

The Unibomber was a serial killer even though he used bombs. It realy doesn't matter to me what ideation a psychopaths drums up in his head. We could call any murderer a terrorist. But, the point for the label is to be able to identify a planned threat by a group against our country and its people. It is to stop them from being able to carry out their plans. It is to break up their methodologies.

I am a conservative and I all for finding and doing something about terrorist cells. I happen to love being in India and it is concerning that they get attacked by terrorists on a regular basis. Most of it comes from radical Islamic groups, some fighting to get India out of Kashmir, others over Bangledesh and still others because of the LOC (Line of Control).

Occasionally, radical Hindu groups enact terrorist attacks against Muslims and mosques. I want all of them found and destroyed. I feel the same about the issue here in America. But I call it like I see it and I see nothing as of yet that Hasan worked with any group and wasn't just a disgruntled middle age psychopath.

As to CNN, yes, they lean toward a more liberal thinking. I work for all the networks and I am beholden to no one. I politcally fit FOX but I don't usually talk politics. This is as close as it gets.

I would be happy to call Hasan a terrorist if I thought he was one, but I won't call him one if I can't find the justification to do so.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: 'Pat Brown'

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:13 PM

Subject: RE: Hasan

Pat,

I see your point, but CNN, along with the majority of the media, seem to be finding ways to excuse Hasan's actions other than terrorism.  This seems to be deliberate.

As you stated in general, 'one of the issues that is often misunderstood about profilers on television is that we are not actually doing criminal profiling'.  Would you say that is true in this case, that you were not actually doing a criminal profile?  The bottom line question is, for this particular case, were you providing the loner explanation as an opinion, or an actual profile?  If an actual profile, then I have further questions below if you have the time.  If an opinion, then because CNN is presenting this as an actual profile, then it is at the very least a questionable tactic.

Additionally, my other questions remain:

In reading your blog posting, it seems that you're basing the individual loner assessment mainly on the fact that Hasan was not part of a terrorist group.  Can there be no individual terrorist acts?  Could he not have been acting individually, but with a group mindset, as if he felt he was doing this on behalf of a group cause?  Being in touch with Anwar Awlaki would possibly inspire him to commit this act on behalf of a group, maybe more susceptible to this mindset because he was a loner, wouldn't that still be a terrorist attack?

I believe the plotters in the Fort Dix attack were also not associated with a group, but were also in touch with the inflammatory Awlaki.  Would this have been a terrorist attack if it was pulled off?

Also, would your assessment of Hasan be changed if he had killed 13 people via a suicide bombing rather than a gun?  And, does the possibility that he had wired money to Pakistan change your profile?  What of his business card containing the acronym SoA (Soldier of Allah)?

Anyway, I appreciate your time and consideration.  You've been very helpful.

Rusty

 

From: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:54 PM

To: Rusty Weiss

Subject: Re: Hasan

No Rusty, I think you are misreading what I said. I was talking about unsolved cases in the news where it is asked, in general, what might have happened and what kind of person might have committed the crime. I talk about the possibilities based on what we all know at the point. If there is a lot of information, then one can do a fairly good analysis.

CNN is not being disingenous. They have an expert on the show and they are discussing what they can determine as far as the facts that are released.  News is always about commentary on what is known: it is silly to think that we can comment on what isn't known or that we should never comment until every known fact on earth has been discovered. This level of evidential information is for the courts and even then facts may be missing because evidence has been damaged, lost, never found, or witnesses are incorrect. We do with what we have.

All I was saying is that I am not giving a full crime analysis in the sense of what I would do with a police department. I am discussing what we know at that point in time and it is not at the level of testifying in court.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:22 PM

Subject: Hasan

Thanks for getting back to me Pat.

In that case, would you say CNN is really misconstruing your services for this particular report?  That they should have been presenting you as more of a commentator here as opposed to your comments being actual profiling work?

Because, based on what you're saying, it almost seems that CNN is using your job title to further portray this man as anything but a terrorist.  That this is your surface opinion, not a real profile.

Also, you stated that when you do 'real profiling,' you 'have access to all the evidence and time to spend analyzing it.'  Does this mean your assessment in the CNN piece is without the assistance of all the evidence, and with little time committed?

It would seem a little underhanded for CNN to present this as a profile, if you're telling me that it is nothing more than a quick opinion.  I think that is a disservice to your work quite frankly.

Please advise.  I am a writer for NewsBusters and would like to discuss this further.  Do you mind the questions?  Thanks!

Rusty

>>> Pat Brown 11/12/2009 2:19 PM >>>

Yes, Rusty, that would be me. One of the issue that is often misunderstood about profilers on television is that we are not actually doing criminal profiling. We are giving commentary and general concepts of behaviors. When I do real profiling, I have access to all the evidence and time to spend analyzing it.

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: Criminologist Pat Brown

Pat,

I thank you very much for the clarification.  I hadn't actually come across that in my research of the sniper case.  In fact, the coverage I had seen regarding your work with the sniper case lies in this article:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2723

They're referring to you in that one?

One question I have for you, if you have the time is, in reading your blog posting, it seems that you're basing the individual loner assessment mainly on the fact that Hasan was not part of a terrorist group.  Can there be no individual terrorist acts?  Could he not have been acting individually, but with a group mindset, as if he felt he was doing this on behalf of a group cause?  Being in touch with Anwar Awlaki would possibly inspire him to commit this act on behalf of a group, maybe more susceptible to this mindset because he was a loner, wouldn't that still be a terrorist attack?

I believe the plotters in the Fort Dix attack were also not associated with a group, but were also in touch with the inflammatory Awlaki.  Would this have been a terrorist attack if it was pulled off?

Also, would your assessment of Hasan be changed if he had killed 13 people via a suicide bombing rather than a gun?

Okay, so that was much more than one question.

Anyway, I appreciate your time and consideration.  You've been very helpful.

Rusty Weiss

>>> Pat Brown 11/12/2009 11:53 AM >>>

Yes, I am the female even though the article does refer to me as a "he." For a more complete view of what I actually think on the labeling of the Fort Hood sniper, read my article at http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

BTW, in the article on the sniper, they reported incorrectly that I said the snipers were white. The one who said that was the retired female FBI criminal profiler. I have been on the forefront for years trying to knock down the foolish concept that all serial killers are white (and Antony Sowell proves this yet again that there are many black serial killers out there).

Warm regards,

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

----- Original Message -----

From: Rusty Weiss

To: Pat Brown

Cc:

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:35 AM

Subject: Criminologist Pat Brown

Good Morning,

I had asked this question of CNN, but haven't heard back yet.  Are they referring to you in the Profile of the Fort Hood suspect?  Thanks for your help!

Rusty Weiss

Speaking to the defense attorney for Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked: “Do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?”

In his first question to Hasan’s attorney, retired Army Colonel John Galligan, Smith wondered: “First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?” Galligan replied: “He’s coherent.” He then lamented: “I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.”

Smith seized upon that statement: “How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?” Galligan admitted: “Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual.” He then added: “I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me....my first five minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.”

After Smith questioned Hasan’s competence, Galligan explained: “...he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.”

Smith first spoke with Galligan on Tuesday, and was similarly concerned with Hasan’s mental state: “Is he coherent?....Does he know what he is alleged to have done?” At that time Smith also asked Galligan: “You said yesterday you don’t think the Major can get a fair trial. Why not?” Galligan replied: “Well, I don’t know if I said that he can’t get a fair – I – I think that would be difficult to achieve at Ft. Hood given the – the national media attention that’s been focused on the Ft. Hood community.”

Smith went so far as to cite a terrorist who praised Hasan’s actions:

Right. The – the military feels like the Major acted alone, that’s why this is going to be a military trial. Yet at the same time, he – we know now that he has exchanged these many messages with this radical cleric named Anwar Al-Awlaki. Awlaki said over the last couple of days, he called Major Hasan a hero: "He’s a man of conscious who could not bear living a contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an Army that is fighting against his own people." Are you satisfied that Major Hasan acted by himself?

Smith later suggested a possible legal strategy to Galligan: “Is it possible the government failed to defuse a ticking time bomb and might that end up being part of your defense?”

Here is a full transcript of the Friday segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: One week after the Ft. Hood massacre, the suspect, Major Nidal Hasan, has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder as he lay in his hospital bed. Joining us from Ft. Hood, Texas is Colonel John Galligan, a retired Army officer who is Hasan’s civilian attorney. Good morning, Colonel.

GALLIGAN: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Facing the Death Penalty; Hasan’s Atty. Speaks Out On Murder Charges]  

SMITH: First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?

JOHN GALLIGAN: He’s coherent and I – you’re correct, I did meet with him. I was totally surprised to learn that there was going to be a major press release or a meeting with the disclosure by PAO officials. When I queried about that, I wasn’t too sure what time it was going to occur, what it was going to be about. But I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.

SMITH: Here’s the important question. How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?

GALLIGAN: Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual. However, given, as you’ve noted, the high profile nature of the case, given his location and status, still in an ICU unit, and described by me, based on the last time I saw him, in a medical condition that I would describe as guarded, I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me. And by that I mean ensuring that I knew that it was going to be done, coordinating it in advance. That would have permitted me to be down there. In all honesty, my first five
minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.

SMITH: Right, let me-

GALLIGAN: This that wasn’t, I don’t think, my responsibility, but that’s what happened.

SMITH: Right. Let me ask you this. Now that you’ve had the opportunity to speak with him a couple of times, do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?

GALLIGAN: Well, his competence, and that is not mental responsibility or culpability for any charged offenses, but his competence, his ability to relate with me, he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.

SMITH: Colonel Galligan, thank you very much for your time this morning.

GALLIGAN: You’re welcome, sir. Thank you.

SMITH: You bet.

Back in June, liberal columnists at the New York Times lined up to link conservative talkers Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh to James von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, and the murder by Scott Roeder of abortionist George Tiller.

Columnists Paul Krugman and Judith Warner both weighed in on June 12.

Krugman’s “The Big Hate” blamed Fox host Bill O’Reilly’s rhetoric (“Tiller the baby killer”) for the Tiller murder, as well as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, for contributing to the dangerously toxic atmosphere.

Warner’s online entry, “The Wages of Hate,” read: “You can't accuse Beck or Limbaugh of inciting violence. But they almost certainly do stoke the flames.”

Frank Rich also blamed O’Reilly for the Tiller murder in his Sunday column, "The Obama Hater's Silent Enablers," two days later.

Bob Herbert came in late, on June 20, referring to the killings as “right-wing, hate-driven attacks” and also blaming “over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association.”

So how did these professional hand-wringers treat another incident of violence, this one even more tragic: A mass killing of 13 people, many of them soldiers, at Fort Hood in Texas by a Muslim Army major shouting “God is great” in Arabic?

They’ve ignored it.

As of November 13, eight days after the Fort Hood murders, neither Rich, Krugman, or Warner have mentioned the massacre, much less Hasan’s radical Islamic beliefs. Only Bob Herbert devoted two sentences to Hasan on Saturday, using the killings as a leaping-off point to talk about post-traumatic stress suffered by veterans home from Iraq and Afghanistan (even though Hasan hasn’t even seen combat).

On Nov. 12, Bill O’Reilly led off “The O’Reilly Factor” by framing his “Talking Points” segment around a report from the Culture & Media Institute on the biased network coverage of the Ft. Hood Massacre.

“A new study, by the Culture and Media Institute, a conservative group, says the following: 85 percent of network evening news stories on Ft. Hood did not mention the word ‘terror,’ O’Reilly said. “In fact, in 48 reports, ABC, CBS and NBC referenced terrorism just seven times. Only 29 percent of the evening news reports even mentioned Major Hasan was a Muslim. Unbelievable. Of those mentions, 50 percent defended Islam. And before the president’s speech at Ft. Hood, 93 percent of the network evening news stories ignored any discussion about a terror connection. But after the president said that extremist views were involved, all three networks began to report a possible connection.”

“So you can see that apparently the American media’s still under the sway of the White House,” O’Reilly concluded, “and not accurately portraying things as they really are.”

CMI studied the evening news reporting of the three networks from Nov. 5, the day of the shooting, to Nov. 10, the day of the memorial service at which President Obama made what ABC’s Jake Tapper called “wa tacit acknowledgment of the Islamic extremist views investigators say were held by [Hasan].”

Interesting. [...] Read the rest »

On last night's "Rachel Maddow Show", the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh commended President Obama for taking the reins in Afghanistan. Hersh stated that Presidents must decide their own war strategies. But in the early stages of the war in Iraq, Hersh was a leading critic of similar actions by the Bush administration. Hersh's hypocrisy suggests he is more concerned with the political implications of military policy than strategic ones.

"Lincoln did not let McClellan write a report on how to win a war against the South," Hersh told Maddow, in reference to Gen. George McClellan, initially the top general for the Union during the Civil War. Hersh was offering a historical perspective on why Presidents should not rely on military commanders to form strategy--McClellan was a disastrous general, after all (video embedded below the fold).

The comparison seems reasonable--if a bit cynical--but it turns out that Hersh offered the same historical comparison in denouncing then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for going over the heads of military leaders in forming the strategy for the invasion of Iraq.

Rumsfeld’s personal contempt for many of the senior generals and admirals who were promoted to top jobs during the Clinton Administration is widely known. He was especially critical of the Army, with its insistence on maintaining costly mechanized divisions. In his off-the-cuff memoranda, or “snowflakes,” as they’re called in the Pentagon, he chafed about generals having “the slows”—a reference to Lincoln’s characterization of General George McClellan. “In those conditions—an atmosphere of derision and challenge—the senior officers do not offer their best advice,” a high-ranking general who served for more than a year under Rumsfeld said...

Gradually, Rumsfeld succeeded in replacing those officers in senior Joint Staff positions who challenged his view. “All the Joint Staff people now are handpicked, and churn out products to make the Secretary of Defense happy,” the planner said. “They don’t make military judgments—they just respond to his snowflakes.”

Hersh had stern criticisms for the Bush Administration when it disregarded the considered opinions of some of its most senior military advisers. He even quoted Rumsfeld complaining that top generals were the George McClellans to Bush's Lincoln. But this comparison did not elicit the sympathy for Bush's attempts to take the reins in Iraq that Hersh shows Obama's efforts to go over Gen. McChrystal's head.

"Obama is putting his foot down, and that's great. He's making a political gamble in a sense. It's a little too early to say, but he's grabbing it. He's grabbing it, and he hasn't been grabbing it until now," Hersh told Maddow.

Hersh's narrative is this: Obama is trying to wrest control of the war from military advisers who won't offer candid advice. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, simply purged the military of anyone who would not sign off on the administration's policies.

In both cases, as in the Lincoln-McClellan paradigm, the executive seized control over military operations from the top generals. In Obama's case, Hersh thinks it's "great." In Rumsfeld's, it signified a failure "to anticipate the consequences of protracted warfare."

Hersh supports Obama's attempt to circumvent high-level military commanders because he agrees with the president politically. As one of the most prominent critics of the Bush administration's military policy, however, Hersh did the best he could to portray the same policy he now supports as reckless disregard for the opinions of military experts. The double standard is glaring.

Richard Esposito, Mary-Rose Abraham and Rhonda Schwartz of ABC's "The Blotter" have a fresh post up on ABCNews.com about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's ties to jihadi groups. It's a fascinating read.

Esposito and his colleagues report that:

• Hasan printed personal business cards emblazoned with "SoA(SWT)" which stands for: "Soldier of Allah: Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala [Glory to God].
• "On Hasan's official Army personnel record, obtained by ABCNews.com., Hasan lists his e-mail address using the first name of Abduwall, instead of Nidal. Abduwalli, in Arabic, means "slave of" the great protector, or God"
• "U.S. officials and analysts told ABCNews.com today that Hasan used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world."

The bottom line?:

"He was making no secret of allegiances," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant. 

Nidal Hasan will face 13 charges of premeditated murder for plotting and executing the Fort Hood Massacre. [...] Read the rest »

From NPR: Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree [...]

Since Friday's massacre at Fort Hood, NewsBusters has been covering the efforts of several news outlets, including the New York Times, to warn of Muslim persecution in America.

This is quite a departure from the treatment offered other religious groups by the Times, particularly the paper's disgraceful coverage of Mormon persecution at the hands of rabid protestors in California.

Back on November 4, 2008, when gay marriage was outlawed for the second time by popular vote in the Golden State, angry protestors stormed the streets. Word quickly spread that Mormons had played a big role in getting the ban to pass prompting gay activists to attack Mormon citizens in fits of rage.

Unlike now, the Times wasn't worried about protecting a religious group from an angry backlash. Quite the contrary, when rumors of the Mormon influence on the proposition grew, the Times was more than willing to actively build the case against them.

On November 15 of that year, the paper used prominent space on its front page to print a hit piece titled "Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage." In the middle of a literal culture war on the streets of California, the Times thought it wise to convince gays and lesbians angered by the proposition's passage that Mormons were single-handedly responsible:

As proponents of same-sex marriage across the country planned protests on Saturday against the ban, interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat - and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.

Nowhere in the article did the Times worry that promoting a national blame game might provoke a witch hunt against innocent Mormons. Not even close, for in a painstaking account that lasted more than 1500 words, reporters Jesse McKinley and Kirk Johnson waited until the very end to mention that angry protests had been happening at all:

That said, the extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church's leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for "respect" and "civility" in the aftermath of the vote.

The Times felt no need to explain who was behind the protests or to offer any statement from a gay activist in agreement on stopping the violence. After a thousand words spent laying Prop 8 directly at the feet of the LDS church, an obligatory call for peace was tacked onto the end.

Thankfully, some newspapers were honest enough to cover the entire situation.

To the credit of the Washington Post, reporter Ashley Surdin did an excellent job of reporting what the Times would not about the violence in California:

Protests and vandalism of churches, boycotts of businesses and possibly related mailings of envelopes filled wit white powder have followed the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

In Sacramento, a high-profile theatre director resigned from his job of 25 years after a boycott threat over his $1000 donation in support of the measure. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner, a Mormon who donated $100, was reduced to tears and left town after hundreds of protestors confronted her at work, by phone and on the Internet.

No wonder Mormons were so surprised by the "extent of the protests" launched against them. Since the Post article was published on the same day as the Times piece, there was no excuse for the Times to play dumb about the violence.

Persecution of Mormons eventually spilled out of California and appeared in other states as gay activists stepped up their efforts. The Denver Post reported on November 12, 2008, that a local church found a copy of the Book of Mormon set on fire and laid on the front steps. Mormon individuals across the western states were also harassed:

Over the weekend across the Wasatch Front in Utah, windows at several LDS ward houses were shattered by rock throwing and BB-gun shooting protestors. The property crimes in Utah are being investigated.

Vandalism, harassment, sacrilegious actions, and private citizens being publicly branded in an epidemic that stretched over multiple states was the "extent of the protests" that the Times glossed over in its coverage.

The paper eventually got around to covering the story again, but still had no sympathy for Mormons hiding in their homes for fear of being pelted with rocks.

On December 10 reporter Jesse McKinley returned to Sacramento for an update on the protests. Instead of condemning the ongoing chaos, the Times actually lavished praise on gay activists for being more forceful:

Many grass-roots leaders say the emergence of new faces, and acceptance of tactics that are more confrontational, amount to an implicit rejection of the measured approach of established gay rights groups, a course that, some gay men and lesbians maintain, allowed passage of the ban, Proposition 8...

The new activists have impressed some gay rights veterans.

The article oozed with excitement about gay activists having "a sudden burst of energy" and "impatience with the status quo." This time, not one single word was spoken about violence. No critics were quoted or even mentioned, and McKinley felt no need to suggest that the activists should let the will of Californians be recognized.

Perhaps if Major Nidal Malik Hasan's worst crime almost exactly one year later had been voting for Proposition 8, the Times would have been more outraged about his religious convictions. Instead, Hasan shot 13 innocent people on an Army base in Texas.

When faced with evidence that Hasan's motives had sprung from fundamental Islam, the Times got right to work blaming it on everything else.

NewsBuster Matthew Balan reported on Monday that the paper refused to admit Hasan's religious beliefs had anything to do with the massacre. Instead, an explanation could be found in the fact that he'd allegedly been teased by his colleagues:

He had been the subject of taunts and felt singled out by his fellow soldiers for being Muslim, friends and relatives said. His uncle in Ramallah, West Bank, Rafik Hamad, said Major Hasan's fellow soldiers had once called him a "camel jockey."

The paper went on to insist that such taunting was common in the military. Now the challenge was not to prevent another Hasan from going crazy, but to assure that no more innocent Muslims would be affected by public anger:

In the aftermath of the shootings at Fort Hood on Thursday by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan of the Army, a psychiatrist, many Muslim soldiers and their commanders say they fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult.

Mormons in California and Utah would have loved for someone from the Times to care about their "difficult" plight one year ago. Window smashing and book burning were arguably more disturbing than the juvenile names allegedly hurled against Major Hasan, but Mormons took the high ground and never resorted to violence in revenge.

Even so, the Times kept on portraying them as bigots and defending the anger spewed against them.

While the Times continues to print sensational claims of American Muslims being ostracized, Mormons are still waiting for the paper to admit to documented proof of violent persecution carried out against another unpopular religion.

Mormons deserve the respect of someone in the media giving them credit. In the face of angry protestors, daily marches, a governor promising to fight their very votes, and a media that glamorized "confrontational" activists, Mormons somehow managed to refrain from random bouts of murder.

No thanks, however, to the New York Times.

On Wednesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Brian Todd actually considered that political correctness prevented earlier action against Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. Despite referencing “a senior investigative official who...said he has never heard any indication...that Hasan got any favorable treatment...before this shooting,” Todd also cited three others who were certain of the political correctness factor.

The CNN correspondent did not lead his report with any mention of the possible PC treatment the Muslim army major might have receive, a graphic on-screen hinted what was to come later in the report: “Hasan’s Contacts & Behavior Examined: ‘Political correctness’ a possible concern.”

After mentioning the investigation into Hasan’s e-mail conversations with a radical cleric in Yemen, Todd noted that “[q]uestions continue over Hasan’s behavior while in medical training and the response to that behavior, specifically presentations Hasan gave on Muslims in the military, when, according to one classmate, he was supposed to be talking about health issues. The classmate...tells CNN, despite the discomfort of others in the room, he doesn’t believe Hasan’s superiors counseled him about it, and the classmate says he believes it was because they didn’t want to alienate a Muslim soldier.”

The correspondent did try to downplay this allegation from Hasan’s classmate by stating that “while this was his strong belief, he [the classmate] didn’t provide evidence of that.” But Todd continued that “a retired military lawyer, familiar with such investigations, says political correctness does factor in these situations,” and played a sound bite from this former JAG officer.

Near the end of the report, Todd played a sound bite from former Bush advisor and CNN advisor Frances Townsend, who also was convinced that political correctness prevented any further action against Hassan. But he continued that “a senior investigative official who we spoke with said he has never heard any indication, seen any allegation that Hasan got any favorable treatment along the line any time before this shooting because of the fact that he’s Muslim.”

Despite highlighting this statement from the “senior investigative official,” and how Hassan’s classmate’s “didn’t provide evidence” of his political correctness allegation, it is definitely noteworthy that a correspondent for a mainstream media outlet was willing to consider the possibility of a PC climate towards Muslims in the army and played two clips from those who believe it exists.

The full transcript of Todd’s report, which aired 18 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of Wednesday’s Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: More questions about the suspect in that shooting, 39-year-old Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan.

CNN’s Brian Todd is joining us with the latest on the investigation, and it gets more complicated each day.

BRIAN TODD: It certainly does, Wolf. We’re getting more information now on what investigators say are communications from Nidal Hasan to a Yemeni cleric, and also more information about other leads being followed in this case.

TODD (voice-over): A source familiar with the investigation tells CNN, Nidal Hasan not only contacted a radical cleric in Yemen, but it’s believed he also got communications back from that cleric. Investigators say, during that time, that cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was the subject of a federal probe, but the source says all the communications seemed innocent in nature, and says officials are following other leads- leads on connections Hasan may have had with other people who would have been of concern to investigators.

Questions continue over Hasan’s behavior while in medical training and the response to that behavior, specifically presentations Hasan gave on Muslims in the military, when, according to one classmate, he was supposed to be talking about health issues. The classmate, who witnessed one of the presentations, tells CNN, despite the discomfort of others in the room, he doesn’t believe Hasan’s superiors counseled him about it, and the classmate says he believes it was because they didn’t want to alienate a Muslim soldier. While this was his strong belief, he didn’t provide evidence of that. A retired military lawyer, familiar with such investigations, says political correctness does factor in these situations.

CAPTAIN THOMAS KENNIFF, FORMER ARMY JAG OFFICE ATTORNEY: In a post-9/11 world, there are a lot of forces in the military that may be very hesitant to give the appearance that they’re singling out Muslim soldiers, even when that individual Muslim soldier may be making statements that are looked at as very incendiary and very questionable.

TODD: A Defense Department official wouldn’t comment on that, and there’s no specific information that Hasan’s superiors didn’t address his presentations with him or that they avoided doing so because he’s Muslim.

I asked former Bush Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend, a CNN contributor, if political correctness could have inhibited investigators looking into Hasan’s communications.

FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND: There is no question in my mind that investigators, when they looked at this material, understood very well that, if they decided to pursue this investigation, they’d have to justify why they were- they chose to pursue one of the few Muslim Americans inside the U.S. military, and perhaps alienate him.

TODD (on-camera): Now, a senior investigative official who we spoke with said he has never heard any indication, seen any allegation that Hasan got any favorable treatment along the line any time before this shooting because of the fact that he’s Muslim, Wolf.

Read this post »

Maria Vitale at Life News.com makes an important correction to the death toll figure. [...] Read the rest »

Interviewing Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith cited a cause of the shooting at Ft. Hood: “...the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post traumatic stress disorder...the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring.”

Smith went on to ask Shinseki: “Is the Army and is the Veterans Administration really equipped to deal with this flood of a problem?” The VA secretary responded: “Veterans Affairs employs 19,000 mental health professionals to address things like PTSD and TBI and depression. And some of the other mental health issues that come up from time to time with exposing people to the high stress, high dangers associated with combat.” The shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, never served in combat nor had post traumatic stress disorder.

Smith’s initial question to Shinseki actually attempted to focus on Hasan: “As a former secretary of the Army, how disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?” Shinseki began by correcting Smith: “Well, first of all, I served as chief of the Army, Harry.” He then shifted away from Hasan’s radicalism to mental health issues: “What I will tell you is that Secretary Gates and I two weeks ago co-hosted something called a national mental health summit to address PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues that we think –  it’s important for us to address at this time.”

Prior to Smith’s interview, correspondent Don Teague reported on evidence of Hasan’s Islamic extremism: “Officials say the government knew Hasan had communicated with radical Cleric Anwar Al Awlaki over the internet....And in 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center. Using slides, he argued U.S. Muslim soldiers be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims. And another slide warned  ‘we love death more than you love life.’” Those radical comments were left out of a CBS Evening News report on Tuesday.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Now the blame game. As President Obama pays tribute to the fallen at Ft. Hood, the governmental finger pointing begins over the missed warning signs.

JUAN ZARATE [CBS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: Was somebody looking at the complete picture of Dr. Hasan?

7:00AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: First, though, President Obama and thousands of others remember the shooting victims at Ft. Hood yesterday. Meanwhile, government officials are pointing fingers over who knew what and when about alleged shooter Nidal Hasan. CBS News correspondent Don Teague is in Ft. Hood with the latest on that. Good morning, Don.

DON TEAGUE: Good morning, Harry. The investigation is moving forward quickly, even as this post and the nation paused to remember the fallen. Five days after the deadly rampage on Ft. Hood that claimed the lives of 13 people, 15,000 soldiers, civilians, and family members gathered together to remember those lost.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Blame Game; As Obama Honors Fallen, Officials Snipe Over Hasan]

BARACK OBAMA: No words can fill the void that’s been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and care givers. You knew them as mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers.

TEAGUE: Who knew what, when, and finger pointing overshadows the investigation of alleged shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Officials say the government knew Hasan had communicated with radical Cleric Anwar Al Awlaki over the internet. But defense officials say no one at the Pentagon or the Army knew of the connection, even though there was a military representative participating in the joint terrorism task force review. And in 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center. Using slides, he argued U.S. Muslim soldiers be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims. And another slide warned  ‘we love death more than you love life.’

JUAN ZARATE [CBS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: A major question for the Department of Defense, and the Army in particular, is was somebody looking at the complete picture of Dr. Hasan?

TEAGUE: Well, the President has ordered a thorough review to determine if the agencies involved failed to connect the dots that could’ve prevented a tragedy. Harry.

SMITH: Don Teague at Ft. Hood this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us now from Washington is Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki. General, good morning.

ERIC SHINSEKI: Good morning, Harry.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Ft. Hood Tragedy; What Could Have Been Done Differently?]

SMITH: Thanks very much for taking the time to speak with us today. First, you were at Ft. Hood with the President yesterday, can you describe what it was like there?

SHINSEKI: Well, yes, it was, as you might expect, heart wrenching, terrible tragedy, unexplainable. But I think the President did what was required yesterday. And that was to bring the community together and begin the healing.

SMITH: As a former secretary of the Army, how disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?

SHINSEKI: Well, first of all, I served as chief of the Army, Harry-

SMITH: Sorry.

SHINSEKI: - but I’m sure that there is – the right – the right people will look at this. What I will tell you is that Secretary Gates and I two weeks ago co-hosted something called a national mental health summit to address PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues that we think –  it’s important for us to address at this time.

SMITH: We know from the beginning of the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post traumatic stress disorder. The other fact is, is that the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring.

SHINSEKI: Sure, yes.

SMITH: Is the Army and is the Veterans Administration really equipped to deal with this flood of a problem?

SHINSEKI: Well, we are working diligently to increasing our capabilities here. I will tell you that today the Veterans Affairs employs 19,000 mental health professionals to address things like PTSD and TBI and depression. And some of the other mental health issues that come up from time to time with exposing people to the high stress, high dangers associated with combat.

SMITH: And very quickly, you have an enormous bureaucracy you’re trying to wrestle to the ground and get in some sort of an order. How confident are you that you’ll be able to turn the Veterans Administration into an agency that really does fulfill its – its promise?

SHINSEKI: Well, we’re working at that very hard. We’ve been at it nine months now. First thing – first order of business was to implement a new post-9/11 G.I. bill, that’s underway. We have a large backlog of claims that has been there for years. And that’s the next priority. And we’ve begun taking that down, as well.

SMITH: Secretary Shinseki, we knew that you were the chief of staff of the Army. And we apologize for that. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

SHINSEKI: Well, Harry. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.     

SMITH: Alright, take care.

• 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.

Last week, Fort Hood, Texas was the site of the worst mass shooting in history on a U.S. military base. At 2:34 p.m. local time on Nov. 5, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan - one of the military's own - reportedly attacked fellow soldiers, yelling, "Allah Akbar." He then allegedly fired more than 100 rounds into Fort Hood's crowded processing center, killing 13 and wounding 29. This heinous act stunned the nation and captivated the news media.

Rather than call the attack "Islamic terrorism" or just plain "terror," the White House took a careful approach and news reporting did so as well. That all changed during the Fort Hood Memorial service Nov. 10. ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" anchor Charles Gibson said Obama was "unambiguous in judgment" about the attack, but that wasn't accurate. Obama never used the term "terror" and made no mention of Hasan's religion. But he did hint at it and that was enough for the media.

A blog by ABC's Jake Tapper said Obama's remarks "were a tacit acknowledgment of the Islamic extremist views investigators say were held by [Hasan]."

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts," Obama told the mourners, "no just and loving god looks upon them with favor."

That night, the evening news programs reflected the president's changed position. The three networks more than doubled their references to terrorism. CBS and NBC mentioned it once, while ABC referred to it twice.

Before the memorial, all three networks had downplayed any mention of terrorism, as well as Hasan's Muslim connections. The media themes reflected the White House position then as well.

Obama addressed the nation at 5 p.m. the day of the shooting, two-and-a-half hours after the attack. His brief remarks were sandwiched in between his speech at the Native American Tribal Nations Conference, Obama spoke about the Fort Hood massacre a total of 2 minutes, 39 seconds. During that time, he cautioned against "jumping to conclusions," about the shooting.

The "conclusions" Obama was hinting at were the facts that Hasan was a Muslim and that he had connections to radical Islamic extremists. The word he avoided saying was "terrorist." The media mirrored Obama's politically correct approach. 

It wasn't until Nov. 8, three days after the shooting, that the broadcast network evening news programs even mentioned the word "terror" in relation to this event. But even then the three programs only referred to it once each.  

"CBS Evening News" and "ABC World News" mentioned that Hasan had contacted Anwar al-Awlaki, "an outspoken advocate of violent jihad" through e-mail. NBC didn't even address the issue directly. It simply aired a short clip of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who warned Hasan was an "Islamic extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act." The network softened that position and followed the quote immediately with NBC's Janet Shamlian cautioning against "focusing on Hasan's Islamic roots."

Until then, the broadcast networks had also downplayed his Islamic connections. From Nov. 5 through Nov. 10, all three evening news programs only identified Hasan as a Muslim one-fourth of the time (14 times out of 48 reports). And out of those 14 times, seven included a defense of the Islamic religion and expressed concern about a "possible backlash against Muslims in the military."

ABC's Bill Weir claimed that "Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II." NBC echoed a similar sentiment when it aired a clip by General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff. "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength," Casey said. "And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

So within a day, Hasan went from being portrayed as the suspect in a horrific mass murder to a victim that, as ABC said, was "harassed by other soldiers who he said called him a camel jockey."

The broadcast networks haven't always been this sensitive. In two cases, where the media were quick to blame the right, this politically correct approach went out the window as they used words like "extremist," "hate groups," and "terror." Back in June, George Tiller, "the Kansas doctor notorious for his commitment to performing late-term abortions," was shot and killed. Two weeks later in a separate incident, James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a guard. The result in both cases was a media frenzy that included statements like this by ABC's Pierre Thomas.

"Radicals of the ultra-fringe, filled with rage about illegal immigration, fear of losing their guns, abortion and race making law enforcement increasingly nervous about a potential wave of domestic terror," Thomas said.

CBS also pointed out after the Tiller and Holocaust Museum killings that "the number of hate groups in America has exploded," citing the Internet as the "number one driver for hate groups, for extremist groups on both sides, and even for terrorist organizations."

Read this post »

As I was driving to Wisconsin on Thursday a disturbing report came on the news. A mass shooting had taken place at Fort Hood in Texas. The details were unclear, at first report there were several...

View Original Post

On Monday's The O'Reilly Factor, during the "Weekdays with Bernie" segment, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox News Analyst Bernard Goldberg discussed media coverage of the Fort Hood massacre and the political correctness of some who were hesitant about discussing the role Nidal Hasan's extreme Muslim beliefs played in his decision to attack fellow troops. Whilte ABC News was given credit for covering this angle early, a quote by Newsweek's Evan Thomas expressing fear that Hasan's religious beliefs "will get the right wing going" was also discussed.

O'Reilly began the segment by playing the offending clip of Newsweek's Thomas:

I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going. And it just, these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

Goldberg reacted:

He's the big thinker at Newsweek. And that sound cut that you just played, that's what passes for a big thought amongst the mainstream media these days. I mean, the real danger, Bill, see, the real danger, is those angry bigoted right wingers. You know, not the Muslim fanatics, not even a Muslim fanatic, by the way, who kills 13 of his fellow soldiers and would have killed a lot more if he could get away with it. 

The FNC analyst soon charged that Thomas was "willfully looking the other way" to conclude that Hasan was "just a nut" without implicating his extreme religious views:

And then Evan Thomas says, "But I think he's simply a nut." You know, as a journalist, you have to willfully, willfully look the other way at all the facts that we know about Major Hasan, about his extremism, about his anti-military -- you have to look the other way about all that stuff to come to a conclusion that he's simply a nut. Because that's what Evan Thomas and a lot of other reporters want it to be. That's why they say that.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Monday, November 9, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC: 

BILL O'REILLY: In the "Weekdays with Bernie" segment tonight, three lively topics beginning with what we mentioned in the "Talking Points Memo," the Muslim Factor on the Fort Hood massacre. Some of the media are worried about the political reaction.

EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going. And it just, these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

O'REILLY: "Get the right wing going." Joining us now from Miami Fox News analyst Bernie Goldberg, author of the big best seller, "A Slobbering Love Affair." You know, that's the prevailing wisdom, though. Evan Thomas, I know him, you know him. I mean, he's an honest reporter. It's like, "Oh, no, these right-wing guys, they're going to come down."

BERNIE GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Exactly. He's not just the editor at large at Newsweek. He's the big thinker at Newsweek. And that sound cut that you just played, that's what passes for a big thought amongst the mainstream media these days. I mean, the real danger, Bill, see, the real danger, is those angry bigoted right wingers. You know, not the Muslim fanatics, not even a Muslim fanatic, by the way, who kills 13 of his fellow soldiers and would have killed a lot more if he could get away with it.

And then Evan Thomas says, "But I think he's simply a nut." You know, as a journalist, you have to willfully, willfully look the other way at all the facts that we know about Major Hasan, about his extremism, about his anti-military -- you have to look the other way about all that stuff to come to a conclusion that he's simply a nut. Because that's what Evan Thomas and a lot of other reporters want it to be. That's why they say that.

O'REILLY: Well, as we talked with Brian Ross at the top of the show. I mean, that theory is unraveling quickly. Now, we know that they intercepted phone calls from Hasan over to Yemen to an al-Qaeda recruiter, and that came into the system. And, here's what you have, Bernie. You have two things going on. You have the system buying into political correctness, because it didn't obviously remove this Hasan, when they knew of what he was doing.

GOLDBERG: Exactly.

O'REILLY: They let him stay there. And then you have the media applauding that action.

GOLDBERG: Exactly.

O'REILLY: "Oh, no, no, no, no. You've got to give him a lot of rope," this, that, and the other thing. Now, you're Jewish. If Hasan or anybody else had said, "You know, I hate Jews." As this guy said, you know, he made comments, anti-American comments, all of that. He wouldn't have been sitting there as a major. He wouldn't have been sitting there.

GOLDBERG: I'm not sure.

O'REILLY: I don't think they would have let him if he made anti- Semitic comments.

GOLDBERG: I'm not sure. I think a better analogy would be if a white military officer, a major, were going around saying things about black people, bad things about black -- he'd never get away with that.

O'REILLY: No.

GOLDBERG: If a Christian, a white Christian were saying nasty things about Jews, he'd never get away with that with. But this political correctness thing, that's why, that's why I'm not sure you're right about if Muslims were saying things about Jews. By the way, last week, Bill, I said on this very program -- I said to you that political correctness was killing American journalism. Well, now we find out -- and it's a painful thing to learn -- that it actually had a hand in killing real Americans, at least 13 of them. And as I say, it would have been a lot more. That, with all the things that the authorities knew about Major Hasan, the idea that he remained in the military is beyond me.

O'REILLY: In a position of responsibility with access to weapons. That's what bothers me.

GOLDBERG: Right. And that's why Major Hasan will be made to account for what he did. I think every official, whether it's a CIA official or a military official, who was too politically correct to stand up and say the right thing and do the right thing, who didn't have the guts to do the right thing, and who was too cowardly to do the right thing, they should all be held accountable, too.

O'REILLY: Well, I think Congress will investigate. Last deal on this. We have to give ABC News, which is part of the mainstream media, credit. Because ABC, as we had in the lead story with Brian Ross, they have aggressively broken this story open about all of the ties with the radical Muslim extremists and Hasan. So it isn't everybody.

GOLDBERG: That's right.

O'REILLY: But it is the majority.

GOLDBERG: Well, let's look at Brian Ross, who I've known since his days in Miami, when we were both down here. Brian Ross on the one hand and Evan Thomas on the other. Brian Ross is getting the facts and reporting them. And Evan Thomas is saying, "Oh, you know, I think this is just a nut." You know. Never mind all the reporting that indicates that he's not simply a nut, that his religion played a part in this. Those are the extremes. Brian Ross on the one hand, Evan Thomas on the other.

O'REILLY: Brian Ross doesn't seem to be worried about the right wingers getting involved. He's worried about getting the story out so the American people can actually know what happened. Whereas Thomas, right wingers, we can't have them running wild, Bernie.

On Monday's The O'Reilly Factor, during the "Weekdays with Bernie" segment, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox News Analyst Bernard Goldberg discussed media coverage of the Fort Hood massacre and the political correctness of some who were hesitant about discussing the role Nidal Hasan's extreme Muslim beliefs played in his decision to attack fellow troops. Whilte ABC News was given credit for covering this angle early, a quote by Newsweek's Evan Thomas expressing fear that Hasan's religious beliefs "will get the right wing going" was also discussed.

O'Reilly began the segment by playing the offending clip of Newsweek's Thomas:

I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going. And it just, these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

Goldberg reacted:

He's the big thinker at Newsweek. And that sound cut that you just played, that's what passes for a big thought amongst the mainstream media these days. I mean, the real danger, Bill, see, the real danger, is those angry bigoted right wingers. You know, not the Muslim fanatics, not even a Muslim fanatic, by the way, who kills 13 of his fellow soldiers and would have killed a lot more if he could get away with it. 

The FNC analyst soon charged that Thomas was "willfully looking the other way" to conclude that Hasan was "just a nut" without implicating his extreme religious views:

And then Evan Thomas says, "But I think he's simply a nut." You know, as a journalist, you have to willfully, willfully look the other way at all the facts that we know about Major Hasan, about his extremism, about his anti-military -- you have to look the other way about all that stuff to come to a conclusion that he's simply a nut. Because that's what Evan Thomas and a lot of other reporters want it to be. That's why they say that.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Monday, November 9, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC: 

BILL O'REILLY: In the "Weekdays with Bernie" segment tonight, three lively topics beginning with what we mentioned in the "Talking Points Memo," the Muslim Factor on the Fort Hood massacre. Some of the media are worried about the political reaction.

EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it just inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case but, with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going. And it just, these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

O'REILLY: "Get the right wing going." Joining us now from Miami Fox News analyst Bernie Goldberg, author of the big best seller, "A Slobbering Love Affair." You know, that's the prevailing wisdom, though. Evan Thomas, I know him, you know him. I mean, he's an honest reporter. It's like, "Oh, no, these right-wing guys, they're going to come down."

BERNIE GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Exactly. He's not just the editor at large at Newsweek. He's the big thinker at Newsweek. And that sound cut that you just played, that's what passes for a big thought amongst the mainstream media these days. I mean, the real danger, Bill, see, the real danger, is those angry bigoted right wingers. You know, not the Muslim fanatics, not even a Muslim fanatic, by the way, who kills 13 of his fellow soldiers and would have killed a lot more if he could get away with it.

And then Evan Thomas says, "But I think he's simply a nut." You know, as a journalist, you have to willfully, willfully look the other way at all the facts that we know about Major Hasan, about his extremism, about his anti-military -- you have to look the other way about all that stuff to come to a conclusion that he's simply a nut. Because that's what Evan Thomas and a lot of other reporters want it to be. That's why they say that.

O'REILLY: Well, as we talked with Brian Ross at the top of the show. I mean, that theory is unraveling quickly. Now, we know that they intercepted phone calls from Hasan over to Yemen to an al-Qaeda recruiter, and that came into the system. And, here's what you have, Bernie. You have two things going on. You have the system buying into political correctness, because it didn't obviously remove this Hasan, when they knew of what he was doing.

GOLDBERG: Exactly.

O'REILLY: They let him stay there. And then you have the media applauding that action.

GOLDBERG: Exactly.

O'REILLY: "Oh, no, no, no, no. You've got to give him a lot of rope," this, that, and the other thing. Now, you're Jewish. If Hasan or anybody else had said, "You know, I hate Jews." As this guy said, you know, he made comments, anti-American comments, all of that. He wouldn't have been sitting there as a major. He wouldn't have been sitting there.

GOLDBERG: I'm not sure.

O'REILLY: I don't think they would have let him if he made anti- Semitic comments.

GOLDBERG: I'm not sure. I think a better analogy would be if a white military officer, a major, were going around saying things about black people, bad things about black -- he'd never get away with that.

O'REILLY: No.

GOLDBERG: If a Christian, a white Christian were saying nasty things about Jews, he'd never get away with that with. But this political correctness thing, that's why, that's why I'm not sure you're right about if Muslims were saying things about Jews. By the way, last week, Bill, I said on this very program -- I said to you that political correctness was killing American journalism. Well, now we find out -- and it's a painful thing to learn -- that it actually had a hand in killing real Americans, at least 13 of them. And as I say, it would have been a lot more. That, with all the things that the authorities knew about Major Hasan, the idea that he remained in the military is beyond me.

O'REILLY: In a position of responsibility with access to weapons. That's what bothers me.

GOLDBERG: Right. And that's why Major Hasan will be made to account for what he did. I think every official, whether it's a CIA official or a military official, who was too politically correct to stand up and say the right thing and do the right thing, who didn't have the guts to do the right thing, and who was too cowardly to do the right thing, they should all be held accountable, too.

O'REILLY: Well, I think Congress will investigate. Last deal on this. We have to give ABC News, which is part of the mainstream media, credit. Because ABC, as we had in the lead story with Brian Ross, they have aggressively broken this story open about all of the ties with the radical Muslim extremists and Hasan. So it isn't everybody.

GOLDBERG: That's right.

O'REILLY: But it is the majority.

GOLDBERG: Well, let's look at Brian Ross, who I've known since his days in Miami, when we were both down here. Brian Ross on the one hand and Evan Thomas on the other. Brian Ross is getting the facts and reporting them. And Evan Thomas is saying, "Oh, you know, I think this is just a nut." You know. Never mind all the reporting that indicates that he's not simply a nut, that his religion played a part in this. Those are the extremes. Brian Ross on the one hand, Evan Thomas on the other.

O'REILLY: Brian Ross doesn't seem to be worried about the right wingers getting involved. He's worried about getting the story out so the American people can actually know what happened. Whereas Thomas, right wingers, we can't have them running wild, Bernie.

Some of the mainstream media intelligentsia following the Fort Hood, Texas massacre have cautioned people to reserve judgment about the suspect Major Nidal Malik Hasan and have bypassed many key details in order to live up to what could be construed as a politically correct standard. CNN's Lou Dobbs isn't one of them.

Dobbs, on his Nov. 10 radio program, didn't reserve judgment and criticized President Barack Obama for telling people to do so in a speech following the tragic event. Dobbs played a clip from the speech Obama gave last week in which he warned, "We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

"Isn't that remarkable, telling the American people not to jump to any conclusions?" Dobbs said. "Not to speculate, not to be curious about what is happening to our men and women, who should be the center of all of our attention and concern and care. Let's compare that statement by our president to what he said at the end of a press conference about health care shortly after the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, his good friend."

In that press conference, Obama said, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

According to Dobbs, it was just a matter of compare and contrast - the treatment Hasan got from the President versus the treatment the arresting officer in the Cambridge Police situation received.

"So, there are the two Presidents Obama," Dobbs said. "You pick which one is most palatable to you and you try to explain to me if you will how the more recent statement squares with the previous statement."

But then Dobbs showed he was clearly aggravated by Obama's double standard, especially after the casualties of the Fort Hood tragedy.

"How dare he stand up there and sanctimoniously tell the American people not to rush to judgment, to jump to conclusions," an impassioned Dobbs said. "My God - there are 13 people dead, 29 of them wounded, 29 of our troops wounded at Fort Hood and so I'm going to jump to some conclusions here because all we have are eyewitnesses and surveillance tape and that's all I've got to go on."

And Dobbs wasn't afraid to call this an act of terrorism, as so many others have shied away from doing. The CNN host said he would indeed be jumping to conclusions and encouraged others to do so as well.

"Let me tell you - this man carried out an act of terrorism against the United States of America," Dobbs declared. "Was he a troubled and dispirited and deeply conflicted person with all sorts of behavioral issues? Yes. And was the United States Army derelict in its responsibility to care for those who they put in the charge of Major Hasan? Absolutely. I'm jumping to those conclusions, Mr. President. I'm curious and I'm going to speculate just like tens of millions of other Americans. It's a healthy thing, not a bad thing. We're not in a court of law here - that will be administered by the United States Army, thank God."

CNN misquoted a soldier at Fort Hood who was wounded in last week's shooting to  suggest that the soldier's recollection that Major Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before firing was in doubt. Many in the media have been doing their best to downplay evidence suggesting Hasan was acting in accordance with radical Muslim beliefs.

"I was sitting in about the second row back when the assailant stood up and yelled 'Allahu Akbar' in Arabic and he opened fire," Pvt. Joseph Foster recalled yesterday on CNN's "American Morning" (Video below the fold - h/t Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit).


Anchor John Roberts commended Foster on his quick reaction to the situation.

So you were acting like a soldier. You were acting heroically. We should point out that you're with the 20th Engineer Battalion and despite your best efforts and I guess the efforts of your comrades, as well, four members of the battalion were killed, 10 others were injured. And you were shot in the hip and you didn't realize it at the time?

To which Foster replied with all of the modesty one might expect from a 21-year-old Army private: "I had realized it at first, but with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things." It should go without saying that Foster was noting that with his adrenaline pumping, he did not immediately realize that he had been shot.

But CNN, in its written report on the interview, quoted him completely out of context in an effort to dismiss his claim that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar". "Foster, 21, said he wasn't clear about whether the gunman said those exact words, noting that 'with that much adrenaline, you tend to forget things,' " CNN reported.

Some might claim that if Foster's adrenaline rush could cause him to forget he had been shot, surely he could have heard Hasan wrong. But Foster heard the cry before he was wounded. It could not have been distorted by the adrenaline that follows a gunshot wound, as no shots had been fired when Hasan screamed the call to jihad.

CNN's blatant distortion of Foster's account seems to be an attempt to downplay any evidence that Hasan was acting out of a radical Islamist hatred of the United States military. The cable news network is terrified of the "backlash" that could ensue against Muslims in the military (even though it hasn't), but doesn't seem to have much concern for the facts surrounding the deaths of 13 of our men and women in uniform.

Read this post »

As is seemingly tradition, the media is once again playing that classic game known as ‘How Can We Blame Bush?'  It's the party favorite where liberals take the biggest headline of the day, and immediately link Bush to the cause in one fell swoop, eliminating all facets of rationale. 

Now, syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer has introduced his own version, something that is only surprising in the length of time it took for this kind of diatribe to crack the pages of the media:  ‘Fort Hood = Bush's fault'.

In his latest column, Dyer makes the tired argument that it is the War on Terror which breeds Muslim resentment, and by extension, is an obvious explanation for the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan.  It was President Bush who popularized the War on Terror phrase, delivering a speech shortly after the attacks of September 11th which would outline his future plans. 

As Dyer states (emphasis mine):

The one explanation that is excluded is that America's wars in Muslim lands overseas are radicalizing Muslims at home.

Dyer's revisionist history also explains that the War on Terror itself was not in response to escalating attacks by jihadists - rather, it was part panic, part ignorance, and a heaping portion of racism.

(More after the break)

Dyer explains:

So why did the U.S. invade those countries?  The real reasons are panic and ignorance, reinforced by militaristic reflexes and laced with liberal amounts of racism.

This incredible argument is nothing new - that U.S. foreign policy is somehow responsible for the murderous actions of deranged jihadists.  An argument rooted in the same vein as a Jeremiah Wright, the only phrase missing from Dyer's piece being ‘chickens coming home to roost'.  In essence, the 13 lives lost at Fort Hood were lost because of the actions of our government.

Saying that the War on Terror breeds Muslim resentment is in a word, absurd.  Muslim resentment has been prevalent for quite some time, long before any tangible war had been waged.  The U.S. was not engaged in a war prior to 9/11, when bloodshed was brought to our shores.  Muslim fanatics on the other hand, were clearly already at war with America.  It was certainly not Bush's war that contributed to the numerous terrorist attacks prior to 9/11.  Not the bombing of the USS Cole, perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalist group Al-Qaeda.  Nor the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. 

It is rather stunning to sit here over eight years removed from 9/11, watching the media transform the story of that day from Americans being the victims, to Muslims being the victims; even when a Muslim commits 13 acts of cold and calculated murder in the name of God.

What Dyer fails to recognize, and what the main stream media has struggled mightily with since the War on Terror began, is that events such as this are not independent of the Muslim religion.  They are, at least in part, because of extremists within the Muslim religion.  Jihad, after all, is a religious term for ‘holy war'.

It is quite a simplistic attitude to believe that violence perpetrated by hard line Muslims is merely a response to American foreign policy.  It is an excuse that Islamic fundamentalists want you to believe, and one which has flourished in the media.  But it is nothing more than an excuse - one which avoids the harsh realities behind sharia law.  Foreign policy, for example, does not enter the minds of those engaging in an epidemic of religious-based honor killings in the U.S. 

The media would have you believe that the massacre at Fort Hood occurred because of every reason under the sun, other than the obvious.  Hasan was a victim of taunts about his religion.  He was stressed about his pending deployment.  His car was keyed.  His bumper stickers were removed.  And now, according to Dyer, he is a product of U.S. aggression. 

The problem here is that the media is far too frightened to admit the truth, preferring political correctness to an acceptance of reality.  The reality being that there is a portion of the Muslim population which condones and supports violence, without reasonable justification. There is a jihad being waged upon our way of life.  Hasan made himself a part of this holy war long before he shouted the phrase "Allahu Akbar!" 

The media may not want to believe this, but it is true. 

These religious fanatics kill over depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a cartoon.  They kill when their daughter's become ‘too westernized'.  They lob hand grenades at fellow soldiers while they sleep because of resentment.  They behead their wives if they request a divorce.

Pointing this out however, will leave you marginalized in the media as bigoted and racist.  Accusations which have actually helped to create this current climate of political correctness; political correctness which has now directly cost innocent American's their lives.

The war may be won when Muslim fanatics such as Nidal Malik Hasan can no longer threaten the safety of our people.  More realistically though, it will be won when the media finally disavows the ideology of death to innocent Americans, and once again portrays the dead as the real victims. 

No, it is not the War on Terror which has bred Muslim resentment and violence.  It is radical Muslim terror which has brought us to this war.

Photo Credit:  U.S. Government via Getty

Read this post »

Read this post »

In a bleary-eyed opinion article in the Sunday Boston Globe (11/8/09), Harvard divinity professor Harvey Cox denounces religious "fundamentalism." In doing so, he places mass-murdering Muslims from the Middle East on the same playing field as conservative Christians from the United States. From Cox's article:

As the 20th century ended and a new one began, fundamentalism has taken on more formidable shapes, both politically and religiously. Though most of its adherents work through spiritual and educational channels, the small minority that turn to violence have caught the media’s attention. If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for it, gunning down abortion doctors in church, hijacking planes, and exploding bombs at weddings. For plenty of thoughtful people, fundamentalism has come to represent the most dangerous threat to open societies since the fall of communism.

Cox's passage reveals a number of egregious errors. Gunning down abortion doctors is not a practice of fundamentalist Christianity. A deliberate murder of an abortion doctor is a direct violation of Christian teaching. (Fifth commandment, anyone?)

Second, Cox 's caricature of Christians "[gunning] down abortion doctors in church" is an incredible smear. Although any murder of an abortion doctor is unacceptable, exactly one abortion doctor has been "gunned down in church" (Dr. George Tiller, 2009). And since Roe v. Wade passed over thirty-six years ago in 1973, a grand total of eight abortion doctors and workers have been murdered in the United States and Canada. (Tiller's murder was the first of an American abortion doctor in the 21st century.)

By comparison, while reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar," Nidal Malik Hasan brutally annihilated far more individuals in a matter of seconds at Fort Hood this week. Do the math, Harvey. Then there's September 11th, the 2004 Madrid bombings, the 2005 London bombings, almost-daily homicide bombings ... You get the picture. Cox's comparison is awfully warped.

Surprise! A Harvard professor doesn't recognize his own muddled thinking.

-=-=-=-=-=

There's a lot more to critique about Cox's piece, but he is correct in one notable passage. In opining about modern "spirituality," Cox writes:

The plethora of emerging new spiritualities has its own problems, of course. They are often intellectually incoherent or melt into a self-centered narcissism. They can become vacuous and faddish. (Madonna and other Hollywood celebrities are now “into Kabala,” the ancient Jewish mystical tradition.) They can become highly individualistic, lacking any vision of social justice. Esoteric and snobbish at times, they often fail to reach the poor and dispossessed people for whom Jesus, the Buddha, and the Jewish prophets had such concern.

Exactly. But isn't Cox criticizing the exact same thing that Christian fundamentalists rail against? Hmmm.

 

And that’s the drill: concern over crimes that have never happened, as opposed to the terror that has. So, denying the role militant Islam played in the Fort Hood atrocity is like staring at a...

View Original Post

Andrea Elliott’s front page article in the November 9 New York Times played up the thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military and how their “service...is more necessary and more complicated than ever before,” but gave the false impression that a Medal of Honor recipient named near the end of her piece was a Muslim himself, when he was actually Catholic.

Elliott spent much of her article, “Complications Grow for Muslims Serving in the U.S. Military” (which appeared above the fold on the front page of the print edition of the Times), detailing the concerns of “many Muslim soldiers and their commanders...[who] fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult” after Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5. She later noted that “[w]hatever his possible motives, the emerging portrait of Major Hasan’s life in the military casts light on some of the struggles and frustrations felt by other Muslims in the services.”

Near the end of the article, Elliott changed the subject ever so slightly that it might have gone unnoticed. The reporter quoted Captain Erich Rahman, an Iraq war veteran and Bronze Star winner: “Too many Americans overlook the heroic efforts of Arab-Americans in uniform, said Capt. Eric Rahman...He cited the example of Lieutenant Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy Seal who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling a team member to safety during firefight in 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq.  Lieutenant Monsoor died saving another American, yet he will never be remembered like Major Hasan, said Captain Rahman. Regardless, he said, Muslim- and Arab-Americans are crucial to the military’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Elliott’s specific attention to Muslims in the military and their “struggles and frustrations” for most of her article, followed by this passing reference to Monsoor (pictured above, who was actually a Petty Officer, 2nd class), certainly gives the impression, despite the use of the “Arab-American” label, that the Medal of Honor recipient was a Muslim. However, this impression couldn’t be further from the truth.

The Navy’s biography of Monsoor, who died in 2006 after he jumped on a grenade to save the lives of fellow Seals, notes that the lieutenant “attended Catholic Mass devotionally before operations.” Another article written in tribute to the valiant officer cited his aunt Patricia Monsoor, who recalled that he “went to confession frequently.”

Elliott, by covertly changing the subject to “Arab Americans,” committed a journalistic sleight-of-hand, and implied that it was somehow equivalent to “Muslim.” If a conservative had made such an assumption, it might have been attributed to backwards stereotyping.

[H/t: Andrew Cline at National Review Online, NB intern Mike Sargent]

[Update, 10:15 am Eastern, 10 November: The New York Times updated the article at the link above and included the following correction at the end: Earlier versions of this article misstated the religion and rank of Michael A. Monsoor and the act he performed that earned him the Medal of Honor. I’ve also made minor corrections to the blog post above, such as changing the phrase “Medal of Honor winner” to “Medal of Honor recepient” and clarifying he was a Petty Officer.]

At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer offered commentary on the cause of the mass shooting at Fort Hood: “That doctor [Major Nidal Hasan] should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals....sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.”

Schieffer went on to argue: “And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.” In similar fashion, Schieffer “shuffled off” the responsibility of an overly politically correct media that continually denounces profiling of criminal suspects or terrorists.

Earlier in the broadcast, Schieffer asked Congressman Ike Skelton: “Do you think this is a sign that the military is simply overextended?”

Speaking to Senator Lindsey Graham, Schieffer referred to Hasan’s Islamic extremism, but countered: “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”

Here is a full transcript of Schieffer’s commentary:

10:55AM

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, the President has asked the nation not to jump to conclusions about what happened at Fort Hood, which is usually good advice, but it’s also what government officials generally say when the government fouls up.

Good advice or not, I am jumping to an obvious conclusion. This should not have happened. That doctor should not have been at Fort Hood. I don’t care how hard-up the Army is for mental health professionals. A government psychiatrist with bad performance ratings who has been trying to get out of the Army and who had been saying what Dr. Hasan had been saying about the war on terrorism should not have been shipped off to Fort Hood to give grief counseling.

What do you suppose he was telling the soldiers? That after what they had done, they ought to feel bad?

Certainly no officer with his record would have been allowed to lead soldiers into combat. But sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.

And then there is the other part that often happens in government. Don’t deal with the problem, shuffle it off to somewhere else. When he had problems at Walter Reed hospital, the doctor was just packed off to Fort Hood.

Investigators confirm now that someone by his name had been posting messages on the Internet about how suicide bombers are as heroic as American soldiers who fall on grenades to save their comrades. But the investigators say it is not clear if Dr. Hasan actually wrote those messages. Based on what we found out so far, my question is, do you suppose anyone has even asked him?

View Original Post