INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE: HOW NY TIMES’ COVERAGE AND UN COMPLICITY BREED ANTI-SEMITISM

french-jews-protest-afpby :

Are The United Nations and the NY Times Guilty of  Incitement to Genocide? Should they be held in any way accountable for the incitement against Jews and Israel that is erupting globally?

I am asking this question seriously. Yes, I know, the media has a First Amendment right in our country, but at what point must exercising that right be weighed against the harm it is causing to a long-maligned and vulnerable population? Surely, it is time to ask this question.

Thanks to Professor Laurel Leff, the author of Buried By The Times, we now know that the New York Times most shamefully minimized, dismissed, and simply failed to cover the ongoing European Holocaust in the 1930’s and 1940’s. And no, their owners and major journalists neither acknowledged this nor apologized for it. In fact, they reviewed Leff’s book in their pages and while granting her some points,  accused her of missing “context.”

The twenty-first century coverage of Israel and Zionism in the paper of record far exceeds its twentieth century pattern of mere dismissal. In the last fourteen years—in the last year– in article after articlephotograph after photograph, and especially when Israel has been under attack, this paper has systematically put forth an Islamist and pro-Hamas agenda with malice aforethought. If not “malice,” then the level of willful journalistic ignorance and blindness is hard to believe. The Public Editor has been forced to respond to a “deluge” of letters pointing this out. The Times does not usually publish all these letters.

This steady diet of Pravda-like propaganda, may, in part, account for the ever-wilder pogroms against Jews in Europe and the pogrom-like demonstrations in North America—street and campus demonstrations which I long ago dubbed “Gaza on the Hudson” or “Gaza on the Pacific.”  “Death to the Jews” is once again resounding in the streets of Paris, just as it did when Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason.  The assimilated Viennese journalist, Theodore Herzl, was so shaken by this visceral hatred that it led to his vision and activism on behalf of a Jewish State.

The existence of that very state is now the reason given for the vilification of and the most menacing mob-surges against Jews who are being individually blamed for the false allegations against Israel. What my colleagues Richard Landes and Nidra Poller have described as the “lethal narrative” or the Blood Libels against the Jewish state have finally borne their poisoned fruit. I wrote about this in my 2003 book The New Anti-Semitism.

All across Europe, Muslim/leftist mobs are calling for Jewish blood, screaming that Jews should go back to the gas chambers. The educated classes are more “genteel.” They call for “proportionality,” by which they must mean that more Jews have to die before they will exercise the slightest compassion, if even then.

Large numbers of people actually believe that Israelis are a Nazi, apartheid, colonialist, racist Monster regime– when, heartbreakingly, quite the opposite is true. Even as Hamas rockets are falling on them, Israeli doctors are operating on wounded and innocent Palestinian civilians—who have often been wounded by Hamas rockets or by Hamas’s decision to use their own people as human shields.

But those who read the New York Times as if it is their Bible and those who drink at similarly poisoned media wells, have been fatally indoctrinated and will not listen to facts, and spurn reason, context, and the truth.

The New York Times and all media that have been slanting the truth against Israel stand accused. I believe that their legal exercising of their First Amendment rights nevertheless has been inciting the masses to a slow motion Second Holocaust, a new genocide.

Individual university professors who knowingly teach hate, falsehood, Blood Libels, have also played a role. But their work has been made immeasurably easier by the mainstream media—and by the authority granted to one particular international body.

As to the United Nations: Their main and perhaps sole accomplishment has, in my view, been the legalization of Jew hatred and the isolation of the Jewish state. Their endless resolutions condemning Israel might indeed empower mobs to attack individual Jews all across Europe with impunity and might embolden Israel’s terrorist enemies to pursue their target relentlessly.

Read more at Breitbart

Also see:

J’accuse: Western Academics Condemning Israel Aid Hamas Terrorists

The Newburgh Deception: HBO Documentary Whitewashes American Jihad Plot

 

By Andrew E. Harrod:

The Newburgh Sting will air Monday, July 21 on HBO.  This documentary concerns a 2009 FBI undercover operation against terrorist attacks upon New York area targets.  Viewers beware, though; this film ignores copious evidence of jihadist motivation in a tale of deprived individuals entrapped by zealous officials that discredits effective tactics against terror.

The documentary analyzes how four American Muslims undertook what they thought would be attacks against two Bronx synagogues and American military transport planes in a May 20, 2009 FBI sting.  The operation begins with FBI informant Shahed Hussain visiting Newburgh, New York’s Masjid Al-Ikhlas mosque undercover, where the apparently wealthy Hussain raised suspicions with persistent inquiries into jihad.  “Everybody here is straight,” however, so Al-Ikhlas imam Salahuddin Muhammad remained unconcerned.

Yet the film recounts how Hussain encountered in Al-Ikhlas’s parking lot, on June 13, 2008, James Cromitie, as described by court records, where his Muslim name, Abdul Rehman, also appears.  In the film, Cromitie falls prey not to talk of jihad, but rather to Hussain’s offer of $250,000, according to former FBI agent and ACLU policy analyst Mike German.  “They’re doing it for the money,” Cromitie likewise says on a surveillance tape in the film about the three plotters he recruits.  David Williams (“AKA DAOUD” in official documents), for example, liked “weed and women,” according to his aunt.  He merely became a “jailhouse Muslim” in order to avoid prison gangs and wanted money for his mother’s liver transplant operation.

These four plotters “certainly were not terrorists,” German judges, but ran afoul of FBI entrapment.  The “rules don’t apply anymore” at an FBI that after September 11, 2001, views the “entire Muslim community as suspect,” German criticizes.  “Some bad actors in every community” can appear, concurs Representative Keith Ellison, when authorities “channel a vast amount of law enforcement resources.”  Muslims are now merely the “new thing” after Communists in the 1950s and gang members in the 1990s.

Yet “Islam literally means peace,” Al-Ikhlas assistant imam Hamin Rashada says.  The “most beautiful thing that has ever come off the tongue” is the Koran, he adds, breaking into tears, to which terrorists are “only giving lip service.”  Zero American mosques have had terrorism links, Nihad Awad, from the unindicted terrorism financing co-conspirator Council on American-Islamic Relations, also assures.

Treating Muslims as “partners or as suspects” in law enforcement is the choice Salam al-Marayati from the equally radical Muslim Public Affairs Council outlines for authorities.  Marayati wanted “to push out surveillance as a law enforcement tactic…with effective partnership programs” at a June 2014 presentation of The Newburgh Sting.

Brief references to jihadist ideology appear in the documentary.  The Bronx synagogues are “good…excellent” targets for Cromitie because “I hate those…f—ing Jewish bastards.”  “This is jihad,” Hussain in turn stresses to Cromitie, and not just a matter of money.

Court records, however, give a far fuller account of why the four plotters’ entrapment defense failed both at trial and on appeal.  Cromitie wanted “to do something to America…to die like a shahid, a martyr” and “go to paradise,” he declared to Hussain after initiating contact with him on June 13, 2008.  “In all his prior encounters as an informant,” Hussain “had never heard anything like that before,” the prosecutor’s brief to the appeals court observed.

Read more at American Thinker

Also see:

Shilling for the Jihadis: NYT and WaPo stand with the Muslim Brotherhood

morsi-sign-reutersBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

Just this week, on the same day, the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously decided to take sides in the current war in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they chose the Islamists.

On Thursday, as rockets were landing on Israeli suburbs, two pieces were published by the so-called “papers of record,” that sided with the Muslim Brotherhood. Writing in the New York Times, Kareem Fahim focused ostensibly on the Egyptian response to the war between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas. The author focused on what he saw as the lack of Cairo’s response, especially to helping those in Gaza.

Fahim, who has been in trouble in the past for his less than objective writing on the “rebels” in Syria, pushes a narrative in which the guilty party is the new democratically elected President of Egypt. Retired General Abdel Fattah el Sisi is painted as obsessed with the security threat in the Sinai when in fact he should be reprising the 2012 role of his predecessor, Mohammad Morsi, as mediator between Israel and the terrorists of Hamas.

The fact that Morsi was the head of a theocratic Muslim Brotherhood government committed to destroying democracy in the Middle East, and that Hamas is formally a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that the US government lists officially as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, does not come into Fahim’s reasoning. The fact that Hamas’ own charter makes clear both that it is part of the Brotherhood and committed to destroying Israel seems to have escaped the author too.

At this point, just one quote from the introduction to the Hamas Charter indicates how any mediator would fail to make a honest negotiator out of Hamas, even President Sisi:

“Our battle with the Jews is long and dangerous, requiring all dedicated efforts. It is a phase which must be followed by succeeding phases, a battalion which must be supported by battalion after battalion of the divided Arab and Islamic world until the enemy is overcome, and the victory of Allah descends.”

Any mediator – unless they were, like Morsi, a member of the MB – would fail to bring a lasting peace since Article Two of the charter states quite clearly that Hamas is “a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood chapter in Palestine.”

Adam Taylor of the Washington Post takes us even deeper down the rabbit hole of MB propaganda with his piece entitled “The Man the Israeli Palestinian Crisis Needs Most: Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi.” For Taylor, it is not President Sisi who needs to step in, but Morsi himself, presumably released from prison and exonerated for trying to turn Egypt into a one-party theocratic state.

Mr Taylor, who started his journalistic career interning for the Huffington Post and Time magazine, also seems to have failed to have read the Brotherhood’s founding document. If he had, he and his NYT colleague may have had trouble imagining a scenario in which Hamas would negotiate in good faith with the Jewish state of Israel based upon the organization’s own avowed goals. For as Hamas’ Charter declares:
“In the shadow of Islam it is possible for the followers of the three religions-Islam, Christianity, and Judaism-to live in peace and harmony, and this peace and harmony is possible only under Islam.”
This vision of a world in which Jews and Christians live under the dominion of Islam should surprise no one who is familiar with the origins of the Brotherhood, since its founder, Hassan al Banna made it clear in his original manifesto that for perfection on Earth, all that is required “is a strong Eastern power to exert itself under the shadow of Allah’s banner, with the standard of the Qur’an fluttering at its head, and backed up by the strong soldiers of unyielding faith; then you will see the World living under the tranquillity of Islam.” Peace is indeed possible: as long as Islam reigns supreme over the Earth.
But you don’t have to go back to the origins of the Brotherhood to understand why there will never be a negotiated settlement with the terrorists of Gaza. One last quote from the Hamas Charter makes that clear. Article 8 gives us Hamas’s official motto:
Allah is our Goal.
The Messenger is our Leader.
The Quran is our Constitution.
Jihad is our methodology, and
Death for the sake of Allah is our most coveted desire.
Only one obvious question remains. If Taylor and Fahim have read Hamas’ creed of Holy War, why do they, and their papers, support it?
Sebastian Gorka Ph.D is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and the National Security and Foreign Affairs editor for the Breitbart News Network.

 

Terror Expert Accuses CNN of ‘Biasly’ Editing Her Contentious Segment About Muslim Extremism

By Billy Hallowell:

Author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel is accusing CNN of “completely editing” and misrepresenting her views during a prerecorded interview that aired on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources.”

Gabriel clashed with Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York, during the segment in question, battling over purported “fear-mongering” and Gabriel’s views on Islamic extremism.

Waging allegations of selective editing on her Facebook page Sunday, Gabriel said that some of her explanations during the discussion were axed in an effort to fit an agenda.

“It was discouraging that Reliable Sources, a CNN show about media bias, biasly edited this pre-taped interview between me and Linda Sarsour,” she wrote. “They edited the discussion down to fit their usual pro Islamist bias.”

BG

She continued: “They couldn’t publicly let me dominate the debate, therefore the best parts were left on the cutting room floor, including irrelevant and hostile comments by Linda Sarsour — when my logical arguments were going against her.”

Gabriel then shared some of the sentiments she claims were cut out of the discussion, noting that she had highlighted there are currently 44 conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims raging across the globe. Sarsour, she said, was so angry that at one point she reportedly called Gabriel a “bigot,” forcing host Brian Stelter “to stop her.”

While Gabriel claimed CNN filmed for 30 minutes, the appearance ended up being 11 minutes long, though it is not uncommon for media outlets to tape and then pare down segments to fit programmatic needs.

In the final clip that aired Sunday, Gabriel is seen echoing recent comments she’s made about Islam, questioning where moderate Muslims are in addressing rampant extremism around the globe. The initial comments came in response to a Muslim student’s question at a Heritage Foundation forum about Benghazi.

“The moderate Muslims, they can organize. Where are their collective voices?,” she asked. “Where are the voices of the moderate Muslims speaking when girls kidnapped by Boko Haram disappear and we still do not know where they are?”

Sarsour responded that there are many moderate Muslims that speak out, but suggested that they aren’t always given media coverage.

“There are people out there that stood up on Boko Haram, on terrorism, on 9/11. There are national Muslim organizations who continue to day in and day out put out statements,” Sarsour said. “Is the media covering it? I don’t have control over the media to cover these stories.”

But she wasn’t done there. The activist seemingly took Gabriel’s comments personally, adding: “And I don’t have to prove to anyone that I am an American, born and praised in Brooklyn, New York, and that my parents chose to come to the United States.”

Watch the heated clash below:

 

Read more at The Blaze

Washington Post Engages in Propaganda Exercise against Benghazi Conference

timthumb (7)Accuracy in Media, June 17, 2014, By James Simpson:

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote a column on Monday titled “Heritage’s ugly Benghazi panel,” portraying a forum held the same day at the Heritage Foundation, hosted by the newly formedBenghazi Accountability Coalition, as nothing more than an anti-Islamic hate-fest. This was a serious panel with numerous, widelyrecognized experts, a couple of whom were also members of Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. CCB’s April report, “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror,” madeinternational headlines.

That report took some serious skin. Diane Sawyer, Bob Woodward, and other stalwarts of the mainstream media, have taken Hillary Clinton to task over Benghazi. With Heritage and others now picking up the baton, something clearly needed to be done. They can’t have Hillary’s chances in 2016 threatened by that Benghazi “old news.” As Hillary herself said, “What difference, at this point, does it make!?”

Enter Dana Milbank, WaPo’s hit “journalist,” who sees Joseph McCarthy, and racist bigots behind every conservative door. He could not, and did not, dispute the facts raised during this afternoon-long forum. Instead he used a now-standard device of the left when confronted with uncomfortable truths. The discussion and topic was discredited by simply describing what was said in a presumptuous and mocking tone. It is a clever way to discredit facts in the reader’s mind without actually disputing the facts. So for example, he wrote:

“The session, as usual, quickly moved beyond the specifics of the assaults that left four Americans dead to accusations about the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the Obama administration, President Obama funding jihadists in their quest to destroy the United States, Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton attempting to impose Shariah blasphemy laws on Americans and Al Jazeera America being an organ of ‘enemy propaganda.’”

Most of the above, of course, is true. President Obama did fund the Libyan opposition, which was known to have al Qaeda ties, and those same jihadists turned around and attacked the Benghazi Special Mission Compound, killing Americans. He blatantly supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the misnamed Egyptian “Arab Spring” where one of America’s most reliable Muslim allies, Hosni Mubarak, was deposed.

Obama and Clinton are certainly doing nothing to stop the spread of Shariah in America, and the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama administration.Another report out Monday quoted Mohamed Elibiary, an advisor to the Homeland Security Department and Muslim Brotherhood supporter, writing in a tweet, “As I’ve said b4, inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ returns…” Finally, anyone even remotely familiar with Al Jazeera knows it is an Islamist propaganda organ. The fact that it occasionally does a better job of reporting news than the American mainstream media is simply a reflection of just how bad the American media have become.

But apparently Milbank’s job is not to delve into the facts. Instead, his job is to discredit Obama’s detractors. So he used another standard leftist device as well. He found a convenient straight man to play the victim, innocently asking questions and making statements designed to provoke a predictable response, which could then be attacked with the usual leftist rhetoric. In this case, he utilized a Muslim woman named Saba Ahmed. He wrote, “Saba Ahmed, an American University law student, stood in the back of the room and asked a question in a soft voice…” He quoted her as saying:

“We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam… We have 8 million-plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.”

So, of course, the fact that the forum was not packed with Muslims implies it had to be biased. Substitute “white privilege,” “racism,” “McCarthyism,” or any of the other familiar leftist shibboleths. If you can’t discredit the message, smear the messengers. Ahmed also performed another, perhaps more important service, she changed the subject away from the disaster that was Benghazi and forced the panel to make it all about her bogus concerns.

As described by Milbank, one of the participants, Brigitte Gabriel, immediately “pounced” on Ahmed. Gabriel, who grew up in Lebanon during the civil war and saw first hand what the Islamists did there, founded Act for America to educate Americans on the threat from radical Islam.

Except that Gabriel didn’t pounce. She didn’t even respond. A partial video of the forum, posted at Media Matters of all places, and reposted at Mediaite.com revealed that instead, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney gave a very measured, careful and respectful response. Then Gabriel “pounced.” But even then she didn’t pounce at all. Finally, Milbank selectively edited Ahmed’s question as well. He mischaracterized the entire exchange, which was very respectful. Here is the video.

Milbank described Gabriel’s response to Ahmed as though it was the height of absurdity. He selectively reported her response that “180 million to 300 million” Muslims are “dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization,” that the “peaceful majority were irrelevant in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001… Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60 million died.”

This is all true as well. The peaceful Muslims—and there are no doubt many—are just as passive and impotent as everyday Germans were while the Nazis were killing Jews during WW II, but Milbank made it sound as though she had committed a crime: “she drew a Hitler comparison,” he gasped. What is wrong with that? It is a good analogy. He didn’t mention all the other analogies she drew, including mass murder committed by Japanese and Soviet communists, where the people were similarly powerless.

But we must ask a larger question. What was Saba Ahmed, the innocent, soft-spoken American University “student,” doing there? It turns out Ahmed is more than just a “student.” She has a lobbying firm in Washington, DC. She once ran for Congress while living in Oregon, where she went missing for three days over a failed relationship, according to family members.

She came to the aid of a family friend, the Christmas tree bomber, who attempted to set off a vanload of explosives in a downtown Portland park where Christmas revelers were celebrating. The bomb was actually a dummy, part of an FBI sting investigation.

After losing the Democratic primary, she even switched sides, becoming a registered Republican. But she never switched loyalties. She spoke against the war in Iraq at an Occupy rally in Oregon, has worked on the staff of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) and has been a Democratic activist for a long time—not exactly the innocent “student” portrayed by Milbank. A 2011 article describing her odd Congressional campaign stated:

Ahmed, who says she’s been recently lobbying Congress to end U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, said that ‘Obviously I am not a traditional politician.’

Saba-AhmedObviously… Gabriel saw right through her act and confronted her. “Are you an American?” she asked, and told her that her “political correctness” belongs “in the garbage.”

Milbank characterized it all as a pile-on against this one meek, lone voice of reason. He went on to further ridicule the forum and its participants, observing among other things:

“[Talk show host and panel moderator, Chris] Plante cast doubt on whether Ambassador Chris Stevens really died of smoke inhalation, demanding to see an autopsy report.

(Many claim he was raped and tortured. An autopsy report would settle the issue, but of course the Obama administration won’t release it.)

“Gabriel floated the notion that Stevens had been working on a weapons-swap program between Libya and Syria just before he was killed.”

(That was apparently the real reason behind the entire fiasco.)

“Panelist Clare Lopez of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi said the perpetrators of the attack are ‘sipping frappes with journalists in juice bars.’”

This last comment was particularly outrageous. Milbank makes Lopez’s statement sound absurd, worthy of ridicule, but in fact CNN located the suspected ringleader of the terrorists involved in the Benghazi attack and interviewed him for two hours at a prominent hotel coffee bar in Benghazi. FBI Director James Comey was grilled in a Congressional hearing about it. Congressmen Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) demanded to know how CNN could locate the terrorists so easily while the FBI couldn’t. Just today it was reported that that same suspected ringleader of the attack on the compound in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khatallah, was captured in Libya and is being brought to the U.S. on a ship.

Lopez is a former career CIA case officer and expert on the Middle East. Yet here is Milbank trying to make her look like some kind of yahoo. But one doesn’t have to dig too deep to discover who the real yahoo is.

Milbank’s trump card was Ahmed. It was almost certainly a setup. Milbank found an activist he knew could play her part well. She feigned a humble, meek, ignorant college student who made a single observation and became the “victim,” whose harsh treatment Milbank could then excoriate, while discrediting a panel of distinguished experts that included Gabriel, Lopez, Andrew McCarthy—who prosecuted the case against the Blind Sheikh, the World Trade Center bombing mastermind—and many others.

Even Politico’s Dylan Byers and CNN’s Jake Tapper are calling foul:

Dylan Byers tweet

Tapper tweet

Meanwhile, the pink elephant in the room was the massive intelligence, military, foreign policy and leadership failure that Benghazi represents for the Obama administration, and by extension, the absolutely inexcusable incompetence—or worse—of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Like most of the Democrats’ media shills, Dana Milbank lies quite well, but they are lies nonetheless. We are well advised to recognize them as such. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. She, along with Obama and many other Democrats, should instead find themselves under the microscope in a serious criminal investigation. I won’t hold my breath, however.

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His articles have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media,Breitbart, PJ Media, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook

*************

 

New York Times Censors Ad Decrying Islamist Censorship

by Steven Emerson
IPT News
June 5, 2014

Note: This article originally was published by the Daily Caller.

The New York Times has become complicit in a stealth jihad against free speech in the United States undertaken by Islamists and their sympathizers who masquerade as “civil rights” groups.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) recently bought a full-page advocacy adin the print edition of the Times. It discussed extensively the need for the media and government to directly address the reality that many acts of terrorism are rooted in radical Islam — as articulated by the terrorists themselves — and that Islamist groups attempt to deflect attention from radical Islam’s role.

A similar yet more concise version of the ad was scheduled to run on the NYT website the following day. However, something happened from one day to the next that caused the Times to demand that the IPT change the language immediately, or it would pull the ad.

Asked about the new demand, the Times replied: “In addition to being inundated with customer complaints. [sic] I have been asked for the immediate change by the publisher.”

The NYT ordered us to insert the word “radical” before the term “Islamist groups,” so that it read, “Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty and free speech.”

An “Islamist” is not simply an individual who privately observes Islam as his faith. An Islamist is an individual who blurs the ideological lines between personal religion and the nation state — a boundary upheld as one of America’s founding principles and sustained in the First Amendment — to foster a governmental system that relies upon the supremacy of Islam.

“Islamic,” on the other hand, is an adjective that describes an idea or element derived from or inspired by Islam. Islamists promote an Islamic agenda, though some do it more subtly than others.

Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are Islamist, hiding behind their Muslim faith and a veneer of “civil rights” as they seek to mainstream an agenda that elevates Islam above other faiths. Their agenda subjugates democracy and supports overseas terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and various individuals such as Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Qaradawi, who inspires suicide attacks and other forms of violence.

The NYT’s directive to add the word “radical” is a seemingly minor, nuanced change. But here’s why it matters: IPT’s ads hold Islamist groups like CAIR accountable for refusing to acknowledge what many terrorists themselves acknowledge — that their acts of violence were motivated by Islamic text.

That the publisher saw fit to order changes at such a late stage — after the ads had already been approved, purchased by the IPT, and were running on nytimes.com — and that the demands for change escalated so quickly is unusual.

We have to wonder who exactly exerted what kind of pressure.

We can only conclude that the same Islamist forces that the IPT devoted its full-page ad to discussing were at work again — abetted by media sympathizers — in this case, the publisher of the newspaper of record.

CAIR would probably have preferred that the Times shut down the digital ad altogether — as part of its longer-term campaign to paint the IPT as anti-Islam and Islamophobic, while portraying itself as moderate. In a letter to the Times about IPT’s ad, CAIR said, “[IPT's] new ad takes up this defamatory theme by bizarrely attacking the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, for rightly stating that ‘Islam is not the problem; extremism and violent extremism is the problem’ when it comes to terrorist attacks.”

The IPT never said Islam is the problem in its ads. IPT suggested that radical Islam is a problem, and that CAIR — and other Islamists like them — are a problem, for their unwillingness to call out other members of their own faith who use Islam to justify their atrocities. IPT’s print ad specifically lauded those Muslim voices who criticize Islamists. Our digital ad used the word “Islamists” rather than Muslims on purpose.

The very attempt to discuss the role of radical Islam in motivating terrorists spawned a campaign to shut the debate down.

America is not at war with Muslims or Islam. The U.S. remains a welcoming and tolerant nation – one in which Muslims are freer and more secure to practice their faith than anywhere else in the world.

The censorship of free speech by Islamist groups and their media apologists continues to prevent America from addressing the core threat of radical Islam. Recognizing reality is not an attack on Islam or Muslims. Those who say otherwise are the ones of whom we — and, particularly, those in the media such as the NYT — should be wary.

Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Guardian Copy Editor Brags About Joining Islamist Censorship Campaign

Steven Emerson: The effort to censor our NYT ad by pro-Islamist forces makes our point for us

Hamas Again Tries to Silence the Truth – This Time in Kansas

 

UTT, by John Guandolo:

After initially publishing a one-sided article giving Hamas (dba CAIR) spokesman Ibrahim Hooper a great deal of latitude, Wichita Eagle reporter Tim Potter last night spoke with Understanding the Threat (UTT) and made an attempt to even the playing field. Hooper and Hamas (dba CAIR) are trying to shut down a 2-day “Understanding the Threat” (UTT) training program for law enforcement in Kansas next week because it factually lays out the evidence revealing CAIR was created to be a node for Hamas in the United States.

Hamas (dba CAIR) recently and unsuccessfully tried to shut down a 3-day UTT program in Culpeper, Virginia, several weeks ago but the local Sheriff there wouldn’t bend.

The current article still describes Hamas front group CAIR as a “major national Muslim organization,” and includes quotes from a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi organization the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – the very first national Islamic organization in America which the U.S. government identifies as a Muslim Brotherhood entity.

True to their Kansas backbone – and not deterred by a flea like Ibrahim Hooper or Hamas front CAIR – Kansas law enforcement officials are standing firm and plan to move forward with next week’s training.

What is noticeably missing in Mr. Potter’s article is any mention that evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation (“HLF”), Dallas, 2008) revealed CAIR was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas and is hostile to the United States. CAIR is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial and the Department of Justice lists them as members of the U.S. Palestine Committee in America, which is Hamas.

When CAIR asked the U.S. Court to remove it from the “Unindicted Co-Conspirator List” the federal judge, Jorge Solis, wrote in his unsealed ruling, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”) and with Hamas.” This matter was sent to the appellate court which ruled unanimously to keep CAIR on the unindicted co-conspirator list because of the overwhelming evidence against them.

In this case, the government provided a massive amount of documentary and testimonial evidence linking CAIR to the Hamas conspiracy for which HLF and its leaders where convicted and given lengthy jail sentences.

Also missing from the Wichita Eagle article is the fact that the FBI cut off all ties with CAIR because of the HLF evidence linking them to Hamas.

So why is the Wichita Eagle and Tim Potter offering them a platform to attack UTT and the upcoming training program?

The President of UTT is John Guandolo, a decorated Marine Corps Infantry and Reconnaissance officer and combat veteran, who, as an FBI Special Agent, created the first training program in the government detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement, Sharia (Islamic Law), and strategies to deal with the enemy front groups like CAIR. Mr. Guandolo was awarded the “Defender of the Homeland” Award by Senators Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman for his efforts in 2007. Mr. Guandolo has briefed dozens of U.S. Congressmen, four-star generals and admirals, former Directors of Intelligence agencies, former National Security Advisors, and many state legislators, police chiefs, and sheriffs across the country bringing this information to them which they all agree is critical for state and local officials to know in order to protect their communities.

No mention of any of this in Tim Potter’s article.

This incident highlights the failure of the media, at the local and national level, to speak truth into a significant jihadi threat to our nation. Hamas (dba CAIR) has been responsible along with other jihadi organizations like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) for silencing fact/evidence based training across our government with the willful assistance of cowardly leaders. All they need to say is “we are offended” and American leaders at the federal level take a knee.

In order to continue to turn the tide, I encourage readers to do a few things:

1. If you understand this threat and can articulate it, spend time with local reporters in your area to share the information with them. Educate them, don’t berate them. Give them a chance to learn.
2. Contact FBI Headquarters and ask them why a Hamas entity (CAIR) with whom they have broken all ties remains unindicted. 202-324-3000.
3. Contact the Attorney General’s Public Comment Line and ask why Hamas front CAIR remains unindicted. 202-353-1515.

It is time to purge terrorist organizations like CAIR and their leaders from our society. It can begin by holding people and organizations in our communities accountable so, at a minimum, they will stop supporting Jihadis.

*****

Also go to The Investigative Project’s Action Page to see what else you can do

nyt-ad_actions

The New York Times’ Propaganda War on Egypt

NYT fraudBy Raymond Ibrahim:

A recent New York Times article exemplifies why the Times simply cannot be trusted. Written by one David Kirkpatrick and titled “Vow of Freedom of Religion Goes Unkept in Egypt,” the article disingenuously interprets some general truths in an effort to validate its thesis.

Much of this is done by omitting relevant facts that provide needed context. For example, Kirkpatrick makes Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the military—widely recognized as the heroes of the June 2013 revolution that toppled former President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood—appear responsible for the poor state of religious freedom in Egypt, when in fact the military has no authority over the judicial system, which is independent.

Even so, there is much evidence that Egypt, while far from becoming a Western-style democracy, is on the right path—one certainly better than under the Muslim Brotherhood. But these are seldom mentioned in the NYT report. Most recently, for example, the military-backed government jailed a popular Islamic scholar for contempt against Christianity—something that never happened under Morsi, when clerics were regularly and openly condemning and mocking Christians.

Similarly, Sheikh Yassir Burhami, the face of Egypt’s Salafi movement, is facing prosecution for contempt against Christianity for stating that Easter is an “infidel” celebration and that Muslims should not congratulate Christians during Easter celebrations. Previously under Morsi, Burhami was free to say even worse—including issuing a fatwa banning taxi drivers from transporting Christian priests to their churches.

Some positive developments are twisted to look as attacks on religious freedom. Kirkpatrick complains that “The new government has tightened its grip on mosques, pushing imams to follow state-approved sermons,” as if that is some sort of infringement on their rights, when in fact, mosques are the primary grounds where Muslims are radicalized to violence, especially against religious minorities like Coptic Christians, amply demonstrated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of attacks on churches and Christians occur on Friday, the one day of the week when Muslims congregate in mosques and listen to sermons.

“State-approved sermons” are much more moderate and pluralistic in nature and the government’s way of keeping radicals and extremists from mosque podiums.

If Kirkpatrick truly cared about the religious freedom of Egypt’s minorities, he would laud this move by the government, instead of trying to portray it as an infringement of the rights of the radicals to “freely” preach hate.

Another positive development overlooked by the article is that Egypt’s native church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, was involved in drafting the new, post-Morsi constitution, and was allowed to voice its opinion over controversial Article Two, which deals with how influential Islamic Sharia will be in governing society. The Church accepted a more moderate version than the previous one articulated under Morsi, which the Church as well as millions of Egyptian Muslims, were against due to its draconian, Islamist nature.

Read more at CBN News

The New York Times: Making the world safe for terrorism

Jesse Jackson Recognizes Boko Haram is motivated by Shariah, Why Can’t Media Matters?

media-mattersBy Kyle Shideler:

Even as some in Hollywood are beginning to pay attention to the threat posed by shariah law, the Soros-funded Media Matters for America (MMA) is choosing to blame the “right wing”, rather than Boko Haram themselves, for the negative impression of Islam created by Boko Haram’s vile threats of enforced sexual slavery and child marriage for hundreds of kidnapped Christian girls.

Not included in MMA’s report are such “right-wing” notables as Jesse Jackson, who wrote,

“The kidnappers of the girls, Boko Haram, pose a growing threat. Violence in the isolated and impoverished northeast is spreading. Boko Haram indicts the government for corruption and violence. It promises to enforce Sharia law across the territories [Emphasis added]. To date this year, according to United Nations figures, Boko Haram has killed more than 1,500 people. It is well funded, well organized and deadly. It will take significant international assistance and coordination to root it out.”

Media Matters cited a number of high profile Muslim rejections of Boko Haram’s kidnapping effort, including by groups which, as already noted in this space, have signed off on Sharia manuals like Reliance of the Traveller, which include Islamic legal approval for sex slavery and capturing women and children as prizes in war. They derided a quality piece by the Daily Caller’s Neil Munro, when he noted that when offered an opportunity to formally declare takfiragainst Boko Haram (that is, declare them apostates because of their “un-Islamic” activities of kidnapping, slavery and murder) Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups like CAIR and others declined.

The reality is that, despite what MMA would like us to believe, such denunciations are pro forma only, as Munro’s aggressive journalism proved. They are not based on an Islamic legal disagreement, but merely a tactical one. Boko Haram’s actions are embarrassing to the Islamic Movement and so must be disapproved of, as one writer on a jihadist forum recognized:

“Know that not everything that is permitted in Islam is proper to do at all times and in any manner without considering its advantages and disadvantages (emphasis added). Know that imprisonment and enslavement resulting from war between Muslims and infidels are part of reciprocity, and that this was the norm among peoples in ancient times. Today, however, as the act of enslavement between the nations of the world has ceased to exist, and the exchange of prisoners has become the custom, we as Muslims should not initiate this toward our enemy, since it has grave repercussions. Preventing harm takes precedence over making gains, according to famous jurisprudential principle. We do not know what advantage for Islam and the Muslims will be gained if you do this…” (Translation from MEMRI:)

This is a rejection of a tactic based on how it creates a perception problem. It is not a denunciation on an Islamic legal basis. Ironically despite this, there was still fierce debate on the topic from among the online-jihadists, many of whom called for enslaving more Christian girls.

By  muzzling discussion on how Boko Haram operates in adherence to it’s stated threat doctrine, shariah, Media Matters is  reinforcing the same tired and incorrect analysis which led to the failure of the State Department under Hillary Clinton to label Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization despite evidence of Al Qaeda ties.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Counterterrorism Education and Analysis Project (CEAP) at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle works to inject serious research and analysis on the subject of Islamic terrorism and Shariah law into the beltway policy discussion, by challenging false assumptions and providing fully documented resources, primary research and influential talking points to policymakers, journalists, and foreign relations professionals. Kyle has previously served as a Director of Research and Communications, Senior Researcher, and Public Information Officer for several organizations in the field of Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications as well as briefed legislative aides, intelligence and law enforcement officials, and the general public on the threat posed by Islamist influence and penetration operations.

Media finally keen to condemn Boko Haram, five years late

compositeBreitbart, by :

This week, the horrific images of teen girls abducted into lives of slavery to terrorists monopolized the front pages of every major newspaper and received wall-to-wall coverage on television. The vicious crimes of Boko Haram deserve the attention–but they have deserved it for years, and only now is the media eager to pay it.

Newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Postthe Boston Globe, and the Wall Street Journal are treating the kidnapping of hundreds of Christian girls by the organization and its looming threat over the largest economy in Africa as A1 news today. CNN has even interrupted some of its marathon Malaysia Airlines coverage to give the terror group some time. The Nigerian government’s apparent inability to do anything to prevent such a mass abduction and the feverish ravings of Boko Haram’s leader against a concept as universally accepted as education certainly pass the test for front-page news.

But Boko Haram has shown signs of potential to evolve into a top-tier terror group for years. The group has been committing acts of terror–and affiliated with Al Qaeda–for more than a decade. They have been explicit in their goals from the beginning: to establish Sharia Law and eradicate Christianity from Nigeria and beyond. “Democracy and the current system of education must be changed otherwise this war that is yet to start would continue for long,” said then Boko Haram leader Ustaz Mohammed Yusuf in 2009; that philosophy has clearly not wavered.

The girls abducted this year are being forced to continually say praise to Allah in the video that proves they are alive, released this week through AFP, as proof the group has stripped them of their Christian faith.

Even taking into consideration the argument that the Boko Haram we know today under terrorist Abubakar Shekau has only been in existence since 2009, when Shekau is believed to have taken over the organization, it is undeniable that the organization has shown potential for mass violence from the start.

In 2012, it was estimated that Boko Haram had already killed 3,000 people, including victims as a United Nations facility in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, in 2011. As Breitbart News reported then, Shekau was already threatening President Barack Obama and campaigning mostly against Christians generally, rather than the targeting of young girls that has now come to define the organization.

Few news outlets paid attention to Boko Haram in 2012. Those that did reacted dismissively. In a column titled, astonishingly, “In Nigeria, Boko Haram Is Not the Problem,” New York Times columnist Jean Herskovits wrote that “the news media and American policy makers are chasing an elusive and ill-defined threat; there is no proof that a well-organized, ideologically coherent terrorist group called Boko Haram even exists today.” Herskovits describes the origins of the group as “peaceful” and argues that adding the group to the United States terror list would fulfill “a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes us into their enemy.”

As we learned as week, the Obama administration reacted to the threat with similar lack of alarm– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused requests to designate Boko Haram a terror group. The Obama administration’s efforts repeatedly led to the underestimating of the Boko Haram threat–and, in some ways, directly to the emboldening of the terror group.

In contrast, surprisingly, The Guardian reported then that Boko Haram was transparent with its intentions. “We will consider negotiation only when we have brought the government to their knees,” Abu Qaqa, a spokesman for the organization, said in 2012. That, at least, seems to be true, as the mass schoolgirl abduction is the first time Shekau has demanded anything determinate in exchange for an end to violence– namely, liberty for Boko Haram terrorists currently in custody.

And now, thousands of deaths, hundreds of abductions, and innumerable crimes against humanity later, the media has decided that Boko Haram is worth taking seriously. The victims of Boko Haram deserve as much. But those whose lives were destroyed in the years the news media ignored the threat deserved the potential to be saved, as well.

On the Ground in Egypt: Patrick Poole and Stephen Coughlin

Secure Freedom, Published on May 13, 2014

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Friday, 9 May, 2014

Patrick Poole, National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media; and Stephen Coughlin, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy

Topic: US Policy and Egyptian Counter-terrorism Efforts: Report on Recent Travels to Egypt

Noonan “Voxplains” Media’s Motives for Joining Obama’s Benghazi Cover-up

obama-clinton-benghazi-funeral-apBreitbart, By John Nolte:

Ezra Klein’s latest online news venture, Vox.com, advertises itself as the place to go if you want the news explained to you. What we are already discovering, though, is that Vox is just a nicer-looking version of Media Matters: a place where leftists pretending to be wonks use cherry-picked data to explain why leftists are objectively 100% correct about everything.

In other words, Vox is just another left-wing propaganda machine built to give our objective, unbiased, not-at-all-liberal media the skewed left-wing data and talking points they so desire.

But if Vox were to be true to its mission, when it came to explaining why our unbiased, objective, not-at-all-liberal media is and will continue to do everything in its power to ensure the American people never learn the truth about Benghazi, it would read something like this…

The more effective pushback [against the Benghazi Select Committee] will come from Big Media. Network leaders, producers and newspaper editors did not go after the story when the first serious questions began to bubble up. Afterward they dismissed the questions as old news. Now they are defensive and resentful. They are not going to help Republican investigators do the job they themselves should have done. (If they’d done it there might be no need for another investigation, because people might feel satisfied they know the essential facts.) Any proof of a Democratic coverup will have the appearance of indicting the media, too.

That’s Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal. She might not be explaining the news, but she is perfectly explaining the news media.

Let’s not forget that the media became complicit and part of the Benghazi cover-up within hours of the fatal attack. Just eight weeks out from what was looking like a close election, the media immediately circled the wagons to protect the president.

Just days before, at his nominating convention, Obama had assured America that he had all but defeated al Qaeda. Then… Four Americans died at the hands of an al Qaeda franchise in a consulate compound that was pretty much left undefended, despite repeated requests for additional security and the red-circled anniversary of September 11.

To protect Obama, the media turned its fire on Romney (for a full nine days) because he dared criticize a decision the administration made to apologize for free speech in another Middle Eastern country. The goal was to take voters’ eyes off of Obama’s incompetence and dishonesty.

The media only dug itself in deeper a few days later when it became obvious the White House had lied about a video being the reason for the Benghazi attack. Even “60 Minutes” joined the cover-up. It was all about the media coordinating to push Obama over the re-election finish line.

Now the media are in a deep dark hole and as desperate to protect themselves as they are Obama and Hillary. The fabricated two-year myth that pretends Benghazi and the ensuing White House cover-up are all part of a partisan nothingburger must survive. So much is at stake for the media: their need to lie to themselves, the hope of another Clinton presidency, and the legacy of Obama, whom they assured us was up for the job.

The media today are like a trapped animal and therefore a very dangerous one. The House Select Committee has a desperate, bitter, and venomous foe to deal with… and the Democrats.

Read Noonan’s full column. She also points out quite accurately what Republican lawmakers have so far done terribly wrong and what they must to do right if they are to thwart the media and get to the truth.

ADDED: My thanks to a commenter for this video of Trey Gowdy challenging the media to answer the unanswered questions about Benghazi. The media can’t answer these questions and don’t want them answered:

Why doesn’t the mainstream media want these questions answered?

****************

Megyn Kelly on Politics and the press:

Here’s an interesting maneuver by Washington Post to be on “the right side of history” noted by Daniel Greenfield: 

Washington Post Urges Congressional Investigation of Obama for Libyan War