Category Archives: Progressive/Islamist Alliance

There’s a Lot of ‘There’ There

Posted on by
2

20121029_LIBYA_obama_hillary_Clinton

 

Here’s the thing:  America must not allow Benghazi or Boston or the next Jihadi obscenity to be about “getting” Hillary Clinton or Obama or any other American. Such self-defeating rot is a goal right out of the Islamists’ playbook.  Benghazi showcases, more than anything else, the inefficacy of our present national security effort.

 

by CAPT. GARY HARRINGTON, US NAVY (RET.)

President Obama, at a May 13, 2013 press conference, explained there’s no “there” there in defending his administration regarding the events surrounding four American deaths in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.  Without a “there” there, that would signal to Congress that their criticism is groundless. But the evidence shows…not so fast, President Obama. Not only was there a “there” there, I propose the “there” was born of an unholy Immaculate Conception.

“You’d better not go into the woods” has been the administration’s refrain in the Benghazi narrative. This theme, from a popular child’s song, is apt since, “If you do, you’re sure of a big surprise because that’s where Teddy Bears have their picnics.”  The Benghazi Jihadi terrorists, not stuffed animals, have long planned “beneath the trees where nobody sees.”  In fact, their plans have influenced our government immensely, having caused this administration to fall for the Jihadi strategy. This is best seen in our recent purge of Islamist words – amazingly – from our own government’s military training materials. This prevailing correctness about language fosters deception, and this lies at the core of the Benghazi story.   “They hide and seek as long as they please…”

Toxic ideological picnics began with medieval Wahhabi and Salafi ideas that aren’t well studied, known or discussed in polite society or in press conferences, which makes them easy to obfuscate.  So to avoid a “big surprise” on the ideological origins of Benghazi, high government officials conceived a not-so-Immaculate Conception:  the You Tube video cover story.  The sperm was Salafi jihad.  The egg was a transnational progressive idea gone bad on the eve of a national election: the “normalization” of Benghazi.  A politically inconvenient truth about a Jihadi attack was deliberately blurred to protect a setback to a State Department pet project.

A forest and tree cliché is helpful to better conceive the Immaculate Conception. Benghazi is but one tree in the mature, mutating Jihadi forest.  We noticed the Bomb-the-U.S.-Homeland tree at the Boston marathon finish line, as we did earlier the other U.S. Homeland trees of Ft. Hood and Times Square.  In the heart of the forest lie the remains of older trees, some U.S Homeland and some international: the 9/11 tree, the original World Trade Towers tree, the USS Cole, the Marine Barracks and so on. The ghosts of Danny Pearl, Theo Van Gogh, Boston’s little Martin Richard, Ambassador Stevens, Colonel Higgins, Navy Diver Stethem, and so many others, wander “there.”  Aisha’s missing nose is buried “there.”  “There” is a transnational Jihadi forest that makes it hard for some political leaders to see – or even want to see – the trees that comprise it.

Weeds flourish on untended ground and they distract from the clear picture of the forest. They include the variegated flora of parsed talking points (such as “sideshows”), jailed patsy blasphemers, denied State Department Forward Emergency Support Teams (FEST), fired and demoted officials (some innocent of any wrongdoing), FBI, ICE and State Foot Draggers, AP definitions reset, and other troublesome mutants. The lexicon of the forest does not take rocket science to fathom.  We must explore and study it precisely because “tired little teddy bears” in high office have refused to define Islamist strategies and their undergrowth of motivating medieval ideas for decades.  We need to do it for ourselves.

Once the forest clears, you begin to recognize the patterns of the trees in daily headlines, and “catch them unaware” on Oped pages.  Author Dr. Walid Phares has defined these patterns as six distinct Jihadi strategies: Economic, Ideological, Political, Intelligence, Subversive, and Diplomatic.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

The Axis Behind Benghazi

Posted on by
2

20121030_white-house-benghazi-LIBYAby CAPTAIN GARY HARRINGTON, U.S. NAVY (RET)

There is now a burgeoning cornucopia of common sense revelations concerning the administration’s Benghazi cover up. Despite a new lucidity flowing from the drip, dripping deck chairs of deception and correctness, reporters have yet to define the iceberg clearly: I’m convinced it is an unholy civil union of political Islamists and U.S. transnational progressives. One party delivers, the other obfuscates and mollifies foreign and domestic violence.

There is a common thread linking the ever-lengthening list of Islamist outrages. That thread runs from Wahhabi economic jihad yesterday to diplomatic jihad today. In between, strategies of ideological, political, intelligence, and subversive jihad flowered. The seed corn of petro dollars poured into our intellectual centers years ago. Today, the Islamists’ bitter fruits are too numerous to count. CAIR-Ikhwan friendly advisors work closely with our highest defense, military and intelligence officials, and former Bush career Flag officers purge all references to Islamists from the training of our splendid young warriors. In 2005, a Middle East scholar artfully identified, weaved and published these troubling threads in his book, “Future Jihad – Terrorist Strategies Against America” (See chapter 9, page 137 for a quick overview).

I suspect the “Mother of All Answers” must be to this question: “If transnational progressive security policies are good for America’s defense, why won’t their champions explain and defend them in the public square as they apply to the goals of Salafist Jihadists?” Recent U.S. policies seem to have had a worsening effect in precisely those countries where there has been an administration push.

The Administration’s obfuscation of the identity, threats and motivating ideology among Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Muslim Brotherhood appears to manifest itself in a hyper tolerance of serial failures at CIA, FBI, DOD, and Homeland Defense. What’s wrong with this picture? I suspect the earnest people in those offices labor with half their brains tied behind their backs.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Downfall coming through coalition of Islamists and Marxists?

Posted on by
2

images (25)By Anita Crane:

A noted specialist on Islamic law and ideology from the Center for Security Policy, who has been cited as an expert for the Pentagon, says a coalition of Islamists and Marxists is working to destroy the United States.

The comments come from Stephen Coughlin, a lecturer for leading Department of Defense institutions such as the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico and for the FBI. Coughlin is a retired major in the U.S. Army reserves and was assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty.

His assignments included the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel and the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so he has the credentials required for such assessments.

He recently addressed the Northern Virginia Chapter of ACT! for America, where he quoted terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who said, “Only a coalition of Islamists and Marxists can destroy the United States.” Thus, Coughlin said, “If we’re going to get a grip on this, we have to know their narrative and understand it. We know that when the other side has language that’s locked into doctrine, we need to hold them to it.”

He said, too, that the “lone wolf” jihadists can inflict damage.

He cited the case of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, killed during a confrontation with police.

Tsarnaev reportedly sent a text message to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, saying he was “ready to die for Islam.” ABC News Radio reported that his surviving brother and fellow suspect told investigators both “were ready to die.” According to The Christian Post, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicated that his older brother hated America and Christianity, especially for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Al-Qaida is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s many branches and it preaches that individual Muslims should act as lone jihadists, lone terrorists. Therefore, after the bombings in Boston, after the two Muslim Tsarnaev brothers were named as the primary suspects, Coughlin made an in-depth video on the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative on this subject.

In it, he says, “A couple years ago, in June 2010, I was asked to brief a couple members of Congress about what this concept of the ‘lone wolf’ was. It’s the first time I brought the fact that what the FBI and DHS call ‘lone wolf’ is actually a formal part of jihad.”

In the video, Coughlin also highlights the cold calculation of al-Qaida’s leaders telling their followers who to murder and where to murder them.

And there are some surprising details. For example, he said al-Qaida urges against killing Jews in their synagogues. Coughlin believes that’s because it’s bad publicity that damages the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive “interfaith” dialogues with Christians and Jews.

He quotes an article from the al-Qaida magazine “Inspire,” which says: “The confrontation with America is fundamental, while the confrontation with Europe is secondary, aimed at making Europe lead the alliance by putting pressure on her.”

His presentation follows:

 

The U.S. government has known of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of defeating the U.S. since 2004, when federal investigators raided a terrorist’s home in Virginia and found “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

Read more at WND

 

See also:

Anatomy of a Coverup

Posted on by
3

Dereliction-of-Duty-Five

We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?

Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

Read more

The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a  transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”

Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”

Related articles

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROVIDES COVER FOR JIHAD APOLOGISTS

Posted on by
3

images (27)by LEE STRANAHAN:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a lead role in the institutional left’s attempt to unilaterally intellectually disarm America on the issue of Islamic terrorism. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s worth looking at how the group has attempted to silence critics of Islamic extremism, often by poisoning the well to discredit any examination of the possible dangers posed by Islamists.

The SPLC was started over forty years ago as a legitimate civil rights organization to combat the violent racist actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, but has become part of the vast web of organizations–many funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute–that work together to smear conservative voices in order to advance a leftist agenda.

One way to think of the institutional left is as a body where different organs perform different functions but all function together to form a whole; your stomach signals your brain that it wants food, so your feet walk you to the fridge, your hand opens the door, and so on. With the institutional left, many different groups work in concert to promote the wider agenda of radicals, such as diminishing America’s security.

The role that the Southern Poverty Law Center plays is to be an “objective” source to brand conservative entities as “hate groups” for the purpose of stopping debate and discussion on important issues. The well-heeled SPLC–with financial reserves of over$200 million–does this through their Hate Watch blog and a quarterly magazine but, more ominously, by also reporting their findings directly to the FBI.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has explicitly targeted people like Atlas Shrugs blogger Pam Geller, author Robert Spencer, 60s radical-turned-conservative David Horowitz, and the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney. By lumping these authors and speakers in with violent groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or Ku Klux Klan and then reporting them to law enforcement as “hate groups,” the SLPC is trying to create a chilling effect on investigation into what we’ve learned time and again are legitimate dangers.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s impact is magnified because other institutional left groups pick up on the SPLC’s reports and regurgitate them; these circular references are then used to give the reports legitimacy.

Read more at Breitbart

Bill Maher Exposes the Leftist Islamophobia Ruse for Even Leftists to See

Posted on by
Reply

images (25)

 

By William Sullivan:

On Friday’s Real Time program on HBO, Bill Maher hosted an interview with Brian Levin, the director of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism.  It became clear within thirty seconds that Levin was not attending the religious parity party he had expected.

One can understand why Levin might harbor such expectations.  Maher has a pretty apparent disdain for religious adherents of all stripes.  But in that first thirty seconds, Maher spoke, with a pointedly singular focus, of the hypocrisy we witness in such fanatical terrorists as the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon last week.  “If you read what the older brother wrote on his, uh, on the internet,” Maher began, “it says his worldview: Islam.  Personal priorities: career and money.  And we see a lot of this; I mean, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs the night before they got on the plane.”

Two references to notorious acts of Islamic terrorism were enough for Levin.  He interjected by saying that “it’s not like people who are Muslims who do wacky things have a monopoly on it.  We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian, who say they’re out for God and end up doing not-so-nice things.”

Before he could even finish this rather boilerplate attempt to draw religious equivalency between the “not-so-nice things” religious people do and acts of murder and terror sanctified by Islamic groups, Maher had written him off, replying, “You know what, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.  That’s liberal b——- right there.”

Levin, seemingly blindsided, appealed to the fact that Maher’s pointing out hypocrisy in all religion is how he makes his living, but Maher refused to relent.

There’s only one faith that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet.  There’s only one faith that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you renounce the faith.  An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing.  Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam.  So I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.

This is the moment where Levin’s agenda was exposed, and anti-jihadists like Pamela Geller were thoroughly vindicated, even if not explicitly.  “Well,” Levin dawdled, “I guess I have a girl for you, Pam Geller, you could maybe meet,” in an attempt to be funny.  Maher, confusedly turning to the audience, replied, “Uh, I don’t know what that means.”

“Well, she’s an Islamophobe,” Levin said.  There it is.  To those in the in the audience who were paying attention, it became pretty apparent that when presented with these uncomfortable facts by someone who cannot readily be denounced as a hateful Islamophobe, the Islamic apologist can do nothing more than reach into his Islamophobia rolodex for an example to get his point across.  And in this case, that example is a figure who is possibly obscure to Maher, and entirely abstract to the conversation.

If Maher could have readily recalled exactly who Pamela Geller is and reference her work, he would likely have explained to Levin that juxtaposing Islamists who would bless the murder of apostates with Pamela Geller, who has never advocated that her readers commit murder, is a silly, slanderous thing to do.  But though Maher didn’t specifically discuss Geller here, he did vindicate her in terms of the anti-jihad message she works to disseminate.  And here’s why.

Much of what leaves Bill Maher’s mouth after this point encapsulates Geller’s message in such a way that it will be understood by an audience that might otherwise write it off if a figure like Geller had said it.  To the progressive audience members who know who Geller is, or maybe have watched the many propaganda charades disguised as documentaries against her, Geller has the letter I branded on her — so her words would likely be immediately dismissed as hate.

So Maher gets to say what Geller does and would say, without having Levin immediately dismiss the truth as Islamophobia, which follows:

I am not an Islamophobe, that’s wrong.  I am a truth lover. [Approving applause]  All religions are not alike.  As many people have pointed out, The Book of Mormon, did you see the show? [Levin says no, as he's unable to get tickets.] Okay.  Can you imagine if they did The Book of Islam? [Pause.] Could they do that?  There is only one religion that threatens violence and carries it out for things like that.  Could they do The Book of Islam on Broadway?

Levin replied with an unconvincing “Possibly so,” looking to quickly change the subject.  But before he could, Maher sardonically demanded, “Tell me what color the sky is in your world.”

Read more at American Thinker

William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.

My Thoughts On Boston

Posted on by
Reply
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

By David Horowitz:

Watching the news about the Boston bombing and the Muslim fanatics who perpetrated the deed, I cannot help reflect on all the nasty attacks that liberals and progressives and Muslim activists have conducted against conservatives who have attempted to warn Americans that their enemies are religious fanatics driven by an apocalyptic hatred of us because we are Jews, Christians, atheists, democrats – in a word, infidels.

It has been said by Nancy Pelosi, George Soros and other Democrats that George Bush created the terrorists by attempting to enforce a UN Security council resolution and take down one of the monsters of the 20th Century in Iraq.  It has been said by the late Susan Sontag and other progressive intellectuals that the heinous attacks of 9/11 were the result of American policies. The Center for American Progress and university administrators have relentlessly defamed as Islamphobes and bigots those of us who have had the temerity to talk about the Islamic roots of Islamic terror. If only we ignored the Islamic beliefs behind the terrorism and made nice to all Muslims indiscriminately, the terrorists wouldn’t hate us.

Boston has exposed this as the Big Lie and fatuous delusion that it has always been. The Boston killers were treated better in America than all but an elite among Americans born here who love their country. They were given scholarships, they were admitted to the most exclusive prep schools, they lived in a Cambridge environment where critics of Islamic terror were regarded as Islamophobes and they as a minority deserving special consideration and concern. And yet they hated us. They hated America and ordinary Americans like the victims of their mayhem, and enlisted in the army of our mortal enemies. They hated us because they were fanatical believers in the idea that Mohammed had desired them to kill infidels and purify the earth for Allah. This is the face of our enemy and the sooner the delusional liberals among us wake up to this fact, the safer all of us will be.

See also:

 

Moral relativism and jihad

Posted on by
Reply
Two events happened on Wednesday which should send a shiver down the spine of everyone concerned about the future of the American Jewish community. But to understand their importance it is important to consider the context in which they occurred.

On January 13, The New York Times reported on a series of virulently anti-Jewish comments Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi made in speeches given in 2010. Among other things, Morsi said, “We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews.” He said that Egyptian children “must feed on hatred; hatred must continue. The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him.”

In another speech, he called Jews “bloodsuckers,” and “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Two weeks after the Times ran the story, the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of a military aid package announced in December 2012 entailing the provision of 20 F-16s and 200 M1-A1 Abrams tanks.

The Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and other prominent American Jewish groups did not oppose the weapons transfer.

With the American Jewish leadership silent on the issue, Israel found its national security championed by Sen. Rand Paul. He attached an amendment to a budget bill that would bar the US from transferring the advanced weapons platforms to Egypt.

Paul explained, “Egypt is currently governed by a religious zealot… who said recently that Jews were bloodsuckers and descendants of apes and pigs. This doesn’t sound like the kind of stable personality we [sh]ould be sending our most sophisticated weapons to.”

Paul’s amendment was overwhelmingly defeated, due in large part to the silence of the American Jewish leadership.

The Times noted that Morsi’s castigation of Jews as “apes and pigs” was “a slur for Jews that is familiar across the Muslim world.”

Significantly the Times failed to note that the reason it is familiar is because it comes from both the Koran and the hadith. The scripturally based denigration of Jews as apes and pigs is legion among leading clerics of both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam.

It was not a coincidence that the Times failed to mention why Morsi’s castigation of Jews as apes and pigs was so familiar to Muslim audiences.

The Islamic sources of Muslim Brotherhood Jew hatred, and indeed, hatred of Jews by Islamic leaders from both the Sunni and Shi’ite worlds, is largely overlooked by the liberal ideological camp. And the overwhelming majority of the American Jewish leadership is associated with the liberal ideological camp.

If the Times acknowledged that the Jew hatred espoused by Morsi and his colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as by their Shi’ite colleagues in the Iranian regime and Hezbollah is based on the Koran, they would have to acknowledge that Islamic Jew hatred and other bigotry is not necessarily antithetical to mainstream Islamic teaching. And that is something that the Times, like its fellow liberal institutions, is not capable of acknowledging.

They are incapable of acknowledging this possibility because considering it would implicitly require a critical study of jihadist doctrine. And a critical study of jihadist doctrine would show that the doctrine of jihad, or Islamic holy war, subscribed to by the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, as well as by the Iranian regime and Hezbollah and their affiliates, is widely supported, violent, bigoted, evil and dangerous to the free world.

And that isn’t even the biggest problem with studying the doctrine of jihad. The biggest problem is that a critical study of the doctrine of jihad would force liberal institutions like theNew York Times and the institutional leadership of the American Jewish community alike to abandon the reigning dogma of the liberal ideological camp – moral relativism.

Moral relativism is based on a refusal to call evil evil and a concomitant willingness to denigrate truth if truth requires you to notice evil.

Since pointing out the reality of the danger the jihadist doctrines propagated by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood involves the implicit demand that people make distinctions between good and evil and side with good against evil, moral relativists – that is most liberals – cannot contend with jihad.

Canadian Left Calls for ‘Neutrality’ on Honor Killings & Female Genital Mutilation

Posted on by
1

clitorectomyBy :

Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.

A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”

Aside from official protestations, everyone can imagine the type of cultural relativist rhetoric that has been used to attack the Conservative government for releasing this guide. The blogosphere has been filled with “liberal-minded” Canadians continuing in the same vein as Ms. Sims, suggesting the term “barbaric” is somehow discriminatory or offensive to a particular group. However, reasoned thought on the matter should conclude on the exact opposite; that it is offensive to those forced to endure such ordeals to call them anything but barbaric. Unfortunately, sensitivity towards this group (as per usual) is ignored.

Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Justin Trudeau’s Islamist Revival (counterjihadreport.com)

The Media’s Character Assassination of Lars Hedegaard

Posted on by
1

pic_giant_030613_SM_hedegaard-450x328By :

It’s starting to look like the Book of Job. For years, he’s been demonized in his nation’s media for criticizing Islam. In 2011 and 2012, he was put on trial – not one, twice, but three times – for violating a Danish law that makes it a crime to insult or denigrate a religion. Last month, a guy came to his door dressed as a mailman and tried to kill him; his survival seems nothing short of a miracle.

You might think that in the wake of this assassination attempt, Lars Hedegaard would get some respect – or at least solidarity – from the Danish media. But you could only think that if you were unaware of the aftermath of the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, whose bodies weren’t even cold when Dutch journalists set about smearing them even more enthusiastically than they had before, essentially blaming them for their own deaths. Many of Lars’s fellow Danes, to be sure, did rally round him after his close call. But in large part, the Danish media’s reaction was depressingly predictable. As I noted just last week, a couple of morally challenged employees of the newspaper Ekstra Bladet actually tried to follow a moving van to Lars’s new home, apparently so they could print the address; fortunately, the police foiled their effort.

Alas, that wasn’t the end of it. On Sunday, Deadline, a program on the state-owned TV channel DR2, aired a half-hour taped interview with Lars by reporter Martin Krasnik. Krasnik’s introduction, tacked onto the beginning of the show later, was not promising. In a manifest attempt to paint Lars as an extremist, Krasnik mentioned Lars’s hosting of Geert Wilders at the Free Press Society and Anders Behring Breivik’s citation of Lars in his “manifesto.”

Read more at Front Page

See also:

In Defence of Lars Hedegaard (counterjihadreport.com)