Steve Emerson Speaks Out: It Was ‘Like I Was Guilty of Murder’

The Blaze, by Erica Ritz,  Jan. 21, 2015:

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said Monday that the city will be suing Fox News over commentator Steve Emerson’s discussion of “no-go zones” in the city. Emerson appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Wednesday to discuss why he spoke about “no-go zones,” and said some have reacted to his comments as though he was “guilty of murder.”

“Governments don’t recognize that term,” Emerson began. “It’s an informal reference in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won’t go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it’s been reported on since 2002 in of all places, the New York Times.”

Though Hidalgo said Emerson’s comments “insulted” the image of Paris, Beck and his co-hosts said Emerson’s description was how they understood the term. They never thought it was an “official edict.”

But Emerson was quick to note that he did make a false statement when he referred to Birmingham, England as “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

“I made a total error,” he said. “I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology.”

When Beck asked how Emerson’s statements on Fox News became an international controversy, Emerson said he believes a “hatred of Fox” and a hatred of his work in exposing radical Islam “combined to spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder.”

“The irony of course is that the mayor of Paris — Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world … of free speech, having seen the massacre of people trying to exercise free speech — is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech?” Emerson said.

Emerson apologized for his comments about Birmingham, but took offense to being called a “complete idiot” by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL, all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they’re just monsters,” Emerson said. “That statement is more idiotic than any statement I’ve ever made.”

More video from the interview at The Blaze

Steve Emerson, Reza Aslan, and the mainstream media: some errors are more erroneous than others

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Jan. 14, 2015:

EmersonAslan2-300x188Over the last few days, the mainstream media has been howling with glee over Steve Emerson’s gaffe on Fox News. Emerson said that in Britain, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” and “in parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.” Birmingham is not actually totally Muslim, and so Emerson apologized: “There was no excuse for making this mistake, and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham.”

The Leftist media and its Islamic supremacist allies are trying to use this to get all foes of jihad terror off the air: numerous mainstream media outlets used the incident to impugn the reliability not only of Emerson, but of all critics of terror and of Fox News as a whole. But as you might expect, their outrage and ridicule are selective. Emerson overstated his case, but he was talking about a problem that is real. “Muslim Patrols” that violently enforced Sharia in London were jailed late in 2013, and there are no-go areas for non-Muslims in Birmingham and elsewhere in Britain: commenters on a Daily Mail piece about Emerson’s gaffe stated: “Just shows Cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “Include parts of London in that too. Seen first hand.” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

While ridiculing and excoriating Emerson, the mainstream media is enormously deferential to Reza Aslan, a barely literate charlatan who regularly makes egregious errors of fact. But as far as the mainstream media is concerned, he is on the correct side, and so he gets an endless free pass, no matter how wild and stupid his statements become. Aslan thinks Ethiopia and Eritrea are in Central Africa. He called Turkey the second most populous Muslim country, which was only about 100 million people off. He has also referred to “the reincarnation, which Christianity talks about” — although he later claimed that one was a “typo.” Aslan has claimed that Muhammad outlawed slavery (he actually owned slaves). He has asserted that Marx and Freud “gave birth to the Enlightenment” (both were born after it ended). He has insisted that the idea of resurrection “simply doesn’t exist in Judaism,” despite numerous passages to the contrary in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Aslan has also claimed that the Biblical story of Noah was barely four verses long — which he then corrected to forty, but that was wrong again, as it is 89 verses long. Aslan claimed that the “founding philosophy of the Jesuits” was “the preferential option for the poor,” but the Jesuits were founded in 1534, and according to the California Catholic Conference, “the popular term ‘preferential option for the poor’ is relatively new. Its first use in a Church document is in 1968.” He invoked Pope Pius XI as an example of how “historically, Fascist ideology did infect corners of the Catholic world,” apparently ignorant of the fact that Pius XI issued the anti-fascist encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.

Similarly, Aslan has revealed that he can barely write English, indicating that his books are either ghostwritten or very heavily edited: he confuses “than” with “then”; apparently thinks the Latin word “et” is an abbreviation; and writes “clown’s” for “clowns.”

But to the mainstream media, Reza Aslan is a “renowned scholar,” while Steve Emerson, who has been on the front lines exposing the activities of jihad terrorists and Islamic supremacists for over twenty years, is a “self-proclaimed expert.” All you have to do is mouth the accepted establishment opinions, kids, and you, too, can be a renowned scholar!

Fear of an Anti-Muslim Backlash

rf-450x280Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 13, 2015: (h/t Vlad Tepes, who really, really wants you to read and share this) 

It used to be that the media would at least wait a day before sweeping the latest victims of Muslim terrorism into the trash to refocus on the looming “anti-Muslim backlash” that never actually comes.

The increase in Muslim terrorism however has made it risky for the media to wait that long. 24 hours after a brutal Muslim terrorist attack, there might be another brutal Muslim terrorist attack which will completely crowd out the stories of Muslims worrying about the backlash to the latest Muslim atrocity.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.

With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash” stories.

The Voice of America ran its “Muslims fear backlash” piece while the bodies were still warm. The Los Angeles Times rushed out its “Muslims fear backlash” story before the Kosher supermarket massacre. It quoted the Muslim spokesman for the National Observatory Against Islamophobia asserting that it is Muslims who suffer after such attacks. Muslims however weren’t the ones who suffered. The four dead Jews at a Kosher supermarket did the suffering at the hands of a Muslim gunman.

While Muslim murderers were still prowling France for victims, the media was making the story about the perpetrators, not the victims.

And Muslims around the world lined up to join the “Fear of a Backlash” party like it was an exclusive nightclub. Both Belgian and Swedish Muslims claimed to be afraid of a backlash after the Paris attacks. At least those Swedish Muslims who weren’t calling for Allah to “multiply such attacks.”

Even Detroit Muslims got in on the act. Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR in Michigan, claimed, “We are concerned about backlash against Muslims in the west.”

Walid had endorsed the historical Islamic mass murder of Jews on Twitter and stated in a sermon, “Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah? They are the Jews, they are the Jews.”

Even while Jews were set to be murdered by a fellow exponent of Walid’s anti-Semitic ideology, the media was pandering to his phony claims of victimization thousands of miles away.

The Muslim backlash narrative insisted that the real victims weren’t Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, Philippe Braham and Francois-Michel Saada dying in a Kosher supermarket in France, but Dawud Walid, the anti-Semitic spokesman for a hate group closely linked to terrorism over in Michigan.

Is it really a backlash that Muslims fear or a moral reckoning?

In the rush to make bigots like Walid the victims, instead of the actual men and women being murdered in the name of his violent ideology, the hard questions about the connection between the historical Islamic anti-Semitism bandied about by Dawud Walid and the modern massacres of Jews go unasked.

The murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had its roots in an Islamic political and legal tradition of punishing blasphemy that has continued uninterrupted for over a thousand years. The murder of four Jews in a Kosher supermarket was part of a great Islamic tradition that began with Mohammed. The defenders of the “Prophet” began by killing blasphemers and then continued his work by killing Jews.

Muslims are not the victims of the Hebdo massacre. They are not the victims of mass murder in a Kosher supermarket. They are not the victims of the Sydney Siege.

They are the perpetrators.

When the media rushes to print interviews with Muslims claiming to suddenly be terrified of an imaginary backlash, it is marginalizing and silencing the real victims of Muslim violence who have been the subjects of a Muslim assault for over a thousand years complete with literal lashings.

Not every Muslim supports what happened, but the history and theology of Islam support the ends of silencing blasphemers and killing Jews, if not necessarily the provocative individual means.

The root cause of Islamic violence is Islam. Everything else, from poverty to YouTube videos, is subsidiary at best.

The cries of “Islamophobia” and the claims of a backlash silence the victims of Muslim terror and encourage social blindness to the next Muslim attack against Jews, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and countless others.

The Muslim backlash story is a great media tradition that dates back to at least September 11. While the streets of downtown Manhattan were still streaked with the ashes of the dead, the media began running stories about Muslims who were changing their clothes and putting up American flags out of fear that the maddened patriotic rabble would shortly begin massacring Muslims.

The mass anti-Muslim riots after September 11 never materialized; just as they never materialized after the Sydney Siege in Australia or the latest Muslim massacres in France.

The worst thing the media came up with in Australia, after touting its phony #Illridewithyou hashtag warning that Muslims were being persecuted, was three men and one woman holding up a sign reading, “Death to ISIS; Get Out You Rag-Headed F___s.”

They were immediately interviewed by police on possible charges of Isisphobia.

If the police had been as assertive in going after every Muslim in Australia waving a “Behead all those who insult the Prophet” sign, Australia would have been a lot safer.

And if the Australian media had been as aggressive in going after Sheikh Monis, as it did after a few young men waving Australian flags on a shopping center roof, the murder of two Australians in a café might not have happened.

But instead of fighting Jihadists, the media and politicians are determined to fight the threat of a backlash to Muslim terrorism. The obsession with the backlash however implicitly admits the existence of Islamic terror and sidelines it to instead focus on the reaction to it as the greater threat.

On one side are bodies heaped across Europe and America. On the other is the occasional slice of pork on a mosque door, a little graffiti scrawled on a wall or a dirty look on public transportation.

One is genocide and the other is petty vandalism.

We don’t need any more earnest interviews in which Muslims claim that they are the real victims of Muslim terrorism because they now feel “unwelcome” when the bodies of non-Muslims still lie in the morgue.

Try comparing an “unwelcome” feeling to being dead.

It is that sense of self-pitying Muslim victimization that leads easily to Muslim violence. Violence is often sanctioned by victimhood. That Muslims believe themselves to be the victims is nothing new. The Nazis also believed that they were the victims. So did the Muslim killer in a Kosher supermarket who claimed that ISIS, with its mass rapes and genocidal campaign, was the victim of French intervention.

If European Muslims really want to end atrocities like the ones that took place in Paris, instead of making themselves into the victims, they should examine the complicity of their religion, their politics and their sense of victimization in perpetrating them.

Journalistic Courage and Appeasement after the Charlie Hebdo Killings

10922503_10155038716095247_6037162614191882538_nNational Review Online, by Fred Fleitz, Jan. 8, 2015:

Some media outlets in the United States and Europe today honored the Charlie Hebdo journalists killed or injured by radical-Islamist gunmen yesterday by publishing some of theCharlie Hebdo cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed that led to this vicious attack.

National Review Online, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, Bloomberg, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Getty, and some other U.S. media outlets ran one or more of the cartoons today.

In the U.K., the Guardian, the BBC, and the Times of London ran the cartoons. TheFinancial Times ran them on its website. Spain’s El Pais and Germany’s Berliner Zeitungalso ran them.

Noticeably absent from this list are the New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and the Associated Press. These U.S. media outlets chose to self-censor their coverage of theCharlie Hebdo killings by not running the controversial cartoons of Mohammed because of intimidation by radical Islamists.

The New York Times said its decision not to run the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is because “Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”

Give me a break. The New York Times never hesitates to run material offensive to Christians.  Moreover, as a former intelligence officer, I find it hypocritical that the Timeseagerly runs stories revealing classified material causing serious harm to U.S. national security in the name of freedom of the press but refuses to run Charlie Hebdo cartoons that go to the heart of this freedom.

When asked about his decision to run cartoons satirizing Islamists in light of death threats,Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier — who was killed in the attack yesterday — said, “I prefer to die standing than living on my knees.” National Review and some other media outlets stood with Charbonnier’s deep commitment to the freedom of the press today by running Charlie Hebdo cartoons. By choosing not to run them, the New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and the Associated Press are appeasing radical Islamists and telling the world that their decisions to run material that may offend certain groups is driven by political correctness and not principle.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.

Also see:

The death of patriotism

20140630_americanflagonthebeachFamily Security Matters, by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD, December 27, 2014:

The next two years will be the most dangerous in the history of the United States. It may lead to the end of American history.

The Republican establishment is powerless to oppose Obama in any significant way because they are being held hostage. Obama’s lies have become Republican lies, which they have embraced and made their own.

Although the challenges facing the country present clear dangers, America will not be brought down by unsustainable debt, social chaos, a moribund economy or weakness in the face of foreign threats, all of which have been planned and instigated by our own government, but by the irreparable damage to the Constitution and representative government perpetrated by the very people, who have sworn an oath to uphold them.

Most prospective government officials, whether Democrat or Republican, now pursue office, not to support the Constitution and serve the American people, but to obtain power, and to use that power to accrue professional and financial benefits for themselves and their major donors. All the traditional means for citizens to seek the redress of grievances have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political elite unaccountable to the American people.

From the perspective of the ruling class, elections are formalities, nothing more than occasions to redistribute power among select Democrat and Republican elites. For the financiers, it does not matter who wins as long as they can continue to influence policy through their lobbies and political contributions.

Ordinary Americans are little more than indentured voters to a power-hungry and greedy bipartisan dictatorship.

Case in point is the darling of the Republican establishment and pre-anointed 2016 Presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who, if elected, intends to govern like Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush only recently left his position with Tenet Healthcare Corp., a company that has actively supported and benefited from Obamacare. Last year Bush earned both cash and stock worth about $300,000 from Tenet and sold $1.1 million of Tenet stock in 2013.

For our ruling elite, patriotism is just a campaign slogan or a tool to extract ever more sacrifices from ordinary Americans in order to satisfy their ever-increasing thirst for power and money, all at the expense of the Middle Class.

On July 26, 2014, Anna Bernasek, reporting for the New York Times, wrote that according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation, the inflation-adjusted net worth of the median U.S. household in 2013 was only $56,335 – a decline of a whopping 36% from the median household net worth of $87,992 in 2003.

The deathblow to patriotism was struck in 2008 when, pressured by a biased, left-leaning media, a spineless Republican leadership joined the Democrats in refusing to vet Obama in violation of the Constitution or even common sense. Out of fear or complicity, a conspiracy of silence has descended upon the public discourse regarding all questions related to Obama’s background and fitness for office. Despite the enormous historical and Constitutional implications, the politicians and the media, not only have remained silent, but have actively suppressed legitimate inquiry

The self-interest of politicians and journalists has trumped patriotism. Rather than risk the truth, they have chosen to risk national survival because disclosing the truth about Obama would expose the rampant corruption of our political and media elite, reveal their acquiescence in Obama’s violations of Constitution, uncover their willful ignorance of his alleged felonies and confirm their participation in the greatest election fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history.

It was the acceptance by the political-media establishment of the Big Lie that led to the fundamental transformation of America according to the dictates of the radical left and militant Islam. We have a government that has, at least figuratively, enlisted in the ranks of our enemies and is bearing arms against us.

Over the next two years, Obama will peel back his own onion to reveal its extremist core, realizing the worst excesses of the 1960s, like Bill Ayers in a black face.

Barack Obama may have presided over the death of patriotism, but he had many willing accomplices, all eager to sell out their country for thirty pieces of silver.

How Western Media Enable Islamic Terrorism

la-epa-egypt-unrest2-jpg-20130819-450x300Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, December 19, 2014:

If the West is experiencing a rise in the sort of terror attacks that are endemic to the Islamic world—church attacks, sex-slavery and beheadings—it was only natural that the same mainstream media that habitually conceals such atrocities, especially against Christians and other minorities under Islam, would also conceal the reality of jihadi aspirations on Western soil.

As The Commentator reports:

[T]he level of the [media] grovelling after the tragic and deadly saga in Sydney Australia over the last 24 hours has been astounding.

At the time of writing, the lead story on the BBC website is of course about that very tragedy, in which an Islamist fanatic took a random group hostage in a cafe, ultimately killing two of them.

He did this in the name of Islam. But you wouldn’t get that impression if you started to read the BBC’s lead story, which astoundingly managed to avoid mentioning the words Islam, Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, or any derivations thereof for a full 16 paragraphs. The New York Times, which led by calling the terrorist, Man Haron Monis an “armed man”, waited until paragraph 11.

In the Guardian’s main story – whose lead paragraph simply referred to a “gunman” — you had to wait until paragraph 24.

If you’d have blinked, you’d have missed it.

….

In the wider media, reports about Muslim fears of a “backlash” have been all but ubiquitous.

If these are the lengths that Western mainstream media go to dissemble about the Islamic-inspired slaughter of Western peoples, it should now be clear why the ubiquitous Muslim persecution of those unfashionable Christian minorities is also practically unknown by those who follow Western mainstream media.

As with the Sydney attack, media headlines say it all. The 2011 New Year’s Eve Coptic church attack that left 28 dead appeared under vague headlines:“Clashes grow as Egyptians remain angry after attack,” was the New York Times’ headline; and “Christians clash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21” was the Washington Post’s—as if frustrated and harried Christians lashing out against their oppressors is the “big news,” not the unprovoked atrocity itself; as if their angry reaction “evens” everything up.

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times partially told the story of an Egyptian off-duty police officer who, after identifying Copts by their crosses on a train, opened fire on them, killing one, while screaming “Allahu Akbar”—but to exonerate the persecution, as caught by the report’s headline: “Eyewitness claims train attacker did not target Copts, state media say.”

A February 2012 NPR report titled “In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise,” while meant to familiarize readers with the situation of Egypt’s Christians, prompts more questions than answers them: “In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims and Christians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame the interreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak security forces. Others believe it’s because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and the minority Christian community [what are the sources of this “mistrust”?].”

The photo accompanying the story is of angry Christians holding a cross aloft—not Muslims destroying crosses, which is what prompted the former to this display of Christian solidarity.

Blurring the line between victim and oppressor—recall the fear of “anti-Muslim backlashes” whenever a Muslim terrorizes “infidels” in the West—also applies to the media’s reporting on Muslim persecution of Christians.

A February 2012 BBC report on a church attack in Nigeria that left three Christians dead, including a toddler, objectively states the bare bone facts in one sentence.  Then it jumps to apparently the really big news: that “the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…”

The report goes on and on, with an entire section about “very angry” Christians till one confuses victims with persecutors, forgetting what the Christians are “very angry” about in the first place: nonstop terror attacks on their churches and the slaughter of their women and children.

A New York Times report that appeared on December 25, 2011—the day after Boko Haram bombed several churches during Christmas Eve services, leaving some 40 dead—said that such church bombings threaten “to exploit the already frayed relations between Nigeria’s nearly evenly split populations of Christians and Muslims…”  Such an assertion suggests that both Christians and Muslims are equally motivated by religious hostility—even as one seeks in vain for Christian terror organizations that bomb mosques in Nigeria to screams of “Christ is Great!”

Indeed, Boko Haram has torched 185 churches—to say nothing of the countless Christians beheaded—in just the last few months alone.

Continuing to grasp for straws, the same NYT report suggests that the Nigerian government’s “heavy-handed” response to Boko Haram is responsible for its terror, and even manages to invoke another mainstream media favorite: the poverty-causes-terrorism myth.

Whether Muslim mayhem is taking place in the Islamic or Western worlds, the mainstream media shows remarkable consistency in employing an arsenal of semantic games, key phrases, convenient omissions, and moral relativism to portray such violence as a product of anything and everything—political and historical grievances, “Islamophobia,” individual insanity, poverty and ignorance, territorial disputes—not Islam.

As such, Western mainstream media keep Western majorities in the dark about the Islamic threat, here and abroad.  Thus the “MSM” protects and enables the Islamic agenda—irrespective of whether its distortions are a product of intent, political correctness, or sheer stupidity.

Ex-AP Reporter – Media Imbalance Toward Israel Becomes Rooted

A Reuters truck drives through a bombed refugee camp in Gaza. (Yannis Behrakis/Reuters)

A Reuters truck drives through a bombed refugee camp in Gaza. (Yannis Behrakis/Reuters)

by IPT News  •  Dec 1, 2014

Life as a foreign correspondent often is portrayed as dangerous, sexy work for a journalist.

But it also can be insular – you’re a stranger in a strange land, often dropping in with little knowledge about history, culture and context. That can inhibit the breadth of reporting presented to the world, a glaring flaw when it comes to reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former Associated Press Jerusalem correspondent Matti Friedman writes in an article for The Atlantic.

Journalists monitor each other’s work and tend to view human rights groups and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well meaning do-gooders immune from scrutiny. “Are they bloated, ineffective, or corrupt? Are they helping, or hurting? We don’t know,” Friedman writes, “because these groups are to be quoted, not covered.”

Over time, that arrangement helped entrench a narrative among foreign correspondents in Israel, writes Friedman, who reported out of the AP’s Jerusalem office from 2006-11. It is the second essay from the veteran journalist on how the media covers Israel. In August, Friedman provided first-hand examples of stories which were spiked if they made the Palestinians look intransigent, or made Israelis look good.

A “distaste for Israel has come to be something between an acceptable prejudice and a prerequisite for entry,” he writes in the Atlantic piece. “The Israel story” is “a simple narrative in which there is a bad guy who doesn’t want peace and a good guy who does.”

A New York Times editor unintentionally reinforced Friedman’s point last month when he took to Twitter to admit his willingness to ignore Palestinian incitement and bigotry until “they have [a] sovereign state to discriminate with.”

When events conflict with that narrative, Friedman writes, they are under-reported or not reported at all. So a 2013 rally at the West Bank’s Al-Quds University supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and invoking Nazi imagery was widely known among Western journalists but generated little coverage until Brandeis University suspended a partnership program with Al-Quds.

Or, more recently: “The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby—and the AP wouldn’t report it, not even in AP articles about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas. (This happened.) Hamas fighters would burst into the AP’s Gaza bureau and threaten the staff—and the AP wouldn’t report it. (This also happened.)”

Hamas understands this reality and manipulates journalists to further advance it. So some stories hint that Hamas no longer is wed to its founding, anti-Semitic charter and its calls for Israel’s destruction. Others falsely cast Hamas as open to peace and moderation.

Friedman’s essay is important because he writes from experience, not anger. It is packed with too much insight to fully capture here. To read the full essay, click here.

Also see:

LA Times: 3 Out Of 3 leaders of CAIR agree, FBI is harassing mosque-goers

Hassan Shibly

Hassan Shibly

CSP, by Kyle Shideler:

One of the more difficult aspects of covering Muslim Brotherhood in America activities is the stubborn refusal by members of the media to address even basic facts known, regarding the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Despite continuing to allow CAIR spokesmen to serve as representatives of the wider Muslim population, these representatives are never asked about CAIR’s acknowledged associations with HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the overwhelming evidence available from Holy Land Foundation trial documents. They decline to mention that CAIR is formally forbidden from working with the FBI because of it’s ties to HAMAS.

And, in cases like the recent story, “U.S. Muslim Leaders Say FBI Pressuring People to Become Informants“, they sometimes fail to even identify these spokesman as CAIR personnel. In this case, while the reporter, John M. Glionna identifies CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, and CAIR “Civil Rights” attorney Jennifer Wicks as sources, before citing “Orlando, Fla., attorney Hassan Shibly.” But Shibly is also CAIR, in fact, he is the Executive Director of CAIR’s Florida chapter, as is easily revealed by a simple google search of the name “Hassan Shibly.” It beggars belief that Glionna was not aware that Shibly, who he was presenting as a second corroborating source ,is in fact from the same organization as his other two sources. The LA Times must have reasonably concluded that quoting three CAIR employees about an issue being raised by CAIR and without any other corroboration from another organization would appear one-sided at best.

And they would be right.

Additionally problematic is the decision to treat CAIR as a legitimate civil rights organization which represents the wider Muslim community of the United States. Given previous evidence of the precipitous fall off in CAIR membership, its not entirely clear that CAIR can be said to accurately reflect the positions of the majority of American Muslims, nor that CAIR represents “U.S. Muslim Leaders” as the article insists. Nor is their “Civil rights” legal work without question as they currently face a lawsuit by Muslims clients who say they were defrauded by CAIR’s former civil rights “attorney” Morris Days, who was in fact not an attorney, and that CAIR then proceeded to cover up the fraud. (Full Disclosure: the plaintiffs are represented by David Yerushalmi, who also serves as CSP’s general counsel.)

Indeed in addition to targeting the FBI in an effort to prevent them from gathering information about possible terrorist recruitment, CAIR has also targeted fellow Muslims, who do seek law enforcement help in preventing their children from being indoctrinated and recruited for terror abroad.

All of these issues should have been relevant to the Los Angeles Times and their readership. But instead they have chosen to serve as stenographers for the Muslim Brotherhood yet again.

Who watches the watchers?

by Steven Emerson
The Jerusalem Post
August 16, 2014

The performance of the media in covering the Israel-Gaza conflict remains the one area of investigation that is sorely needed.

1045As is the historical pattern concerning Israel, last week began the growing tsunami of groups – representing the United Nations, The Hague, the European Union, human rights groups, and other non-governmental organizations – announcing their intention to “investigate and review” the military actions under taken by Israel and Hamas during the past five weeks to determine if “war crimes” were committed.

We know from past history the demonstrable manifestation of the vitriolic anti Israeli (and some might add anti-Semitic) bias by nearly all of these organizations clamoring to declare Israel guilty of war crimes, as they have repeatedly accused Israel in the past of everything from massive human rights violations to war crimes to genocide.

No other country in the world – even those like the Sudan, North Korea and Iran – who have committed genuine massive human rights violations – have ever been the object of such massive condemnations as Israel has selectively been. And as far as the official inclusion of Hamas actions into the investigative agenda of these groups, we know that their inclusion is only window dressing, designed to give the false veneer that their investigations are “even handed.”

Yesterday, the UN announced that nearly 2,000 civilians were killed in the Ukrainian battle with the pro Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine in the past 2 days alone. Two-thousand in two days? In five weeks, Gaza suffered 1,957 deaths, of which most were actual terrorists, not civilians, as the mainstream media and UN agencies had speciously alleged. But don’t expect any onslaught of investigations by the UN or human rights groups. And where was the international media coverage of the 2,000 deaths in eastern Ukraine? AWOL of course.

Indeed. the performance of the media in covering the Israel-Gaza conflict remains the one area of investigation that is sorely needed. And if truth be told, why should the media be afraid of an assessment of its performance? After all, it is a profession that claims the moral high ground, asserts that it is only pursuing “the truth,” claims that it is the only institution in a free society that can provide accountability to the actions of the government, hence the moniker “Fourth Estate” for the media, and portrays any criticism of its performance as somehow an attack on “free speech.”

But who watches over the watchers?

Well, no one actually does. Yet the media likes to proclaim they are self-policing and that any external oversight would be a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. So from time to time, ever so rarely, we actually witness the media admitting to mistakes and inaccuracies in its coverage. Generally speaking however, those admissions of wrongdoing are initiated not by the high priests in the mainstream media but by “lesser” media on the periphery of the priesthood, outside observers and critics who have caught the media with their hands in the cookie jars and by truly honest journalists, few as they are, snubbed and derided by the mainstream media. Just look at how established journalists Bernard Goldberg and Sharyl Attkisson were viciously denigrated and attacked by the mainstream media after they had the chutzpa – actually integrity – to criticize the performance of their own co-religionists.

What is at stake here is the very honesty and accuracy of the mainstream media’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. Specifically, how honest, fair and accurate was the mainstream media – such as The Washington Post, National Public Radio, The New York Times, and CNN – in covering Hamas actions in Gaza, Hamas human rights violations and atrocities, and Hamas threats to journalists. We know all too well how they covered Israeli actions in Gaza. Coverage of the deaths and damage in Gaza was covered wall to wall by both print and television, often without providing the critical context that the Israeli targets were Hamas terrorist missile launching sites, Hamas command and control headquarters, and Hamas military sites – all embedded in Gaza’s civilian population centers, from schools to hospitals to UN Centers.

In the coverage provided by those above named media outlets, there was not one photo of one Hamas terrorist, not one photo of a Hamas missile site embedded in a civilian area, such as a UN school, hospital, apartment building, kindergarten. There was not one story or photo of Hamas executions of Palestinian dissidents. And there was not one story about direct Palestinian threats to and harassment of journalists if Hamas suspected them of actually showing any of the above. Thus, it was with amazingly refreshing candor that we witnessed Foreign Press Association (FPA), an organization of 480 international journalists covering Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, actually issue a statement last week condemning the threats by and intimidation of journalists by Hamas.

Read more at IPT

World Ignores Christian Exodus from Islamic World

by Raymond Ibrahim:

“They were trying to kill us… because we were Christians.” — Teenage girl from Homs, Syria.

There have been house-to-house searches in Mali for Christians who might be in hiding, and people tortured into revealing Christian relatives. At least one pastor was beheaded.

It is to the media’s shame that those who slaughter, behead, crucify and displace people for no other reason than that they are Christian rarely get media coverage, while Israel, which kills only in the context of trying to defend itself from rocket attacks and terrorism, and not out of religious bigotry, is constantly demonized.

Paying jizya [special poll tax for non-Muslims] is not only about money. It is about subjugation.

While the world fixates on the conflict between Israel and Hamas—and while most mainstream media demonize Israel for trying to survive amid a sea of Arab-Islamic hostility—similar or worse tragedies continue to go virtually ignored.

One of the most ancient Christian communities in the world, that of Iraq—which already had been decimated over the last decade, by Islamic forces unleashed after the ousting of Saddam Hussein—has now been wiped out entirely by the new “caliphate,” the so-called Islamic State, formerly known by the acronym “ISIS.”

As Reuters reported:

Islamist insurgents have issued an ultimatum to northern Iraq’s dwindling Christian population to either convert to Islam, pay a religious levy or face death, according to a statement distributed in the militant-controlled city of Mosul….

It said Christians who wanted to remain in the “caliphate” that the Islamic State declared this month in parts of Iraq and Syria must agree to abide by terms of a “dhimma” contract—a historic practice under which non-Muslims were protected in Muslim lands in return for a special levy known as “jizya.”

“We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword,” the announcement said.

The amount of jizya-money demanded was $450 a month, an exorbitant sum for Iraq.

Hours after the demand for jizya was made, Islamists began painting the letter “n” on Christian homes in Mosul—in Arabic, Christians are known as “Nasara,” or “Nazarenes”—signaling them out for the slaughter to come.

Most Christians have since fled. A one-minute video in Arabic of their exodus appears here—women and children weeping as they flee their homes—a video that will not be shown by any Western mainstream media outlet, busy as they are depicting instead nonstop images of Palestinian women and children.

Christian refugees, who fled or were expelled from Mosul, crowd around a truck distributing food aid. (Image source: Facebook video screenshot)

The Syrian Orthodox bishop of Mosul said that what is happening to the Christians of Mosul is nothing less than “genocide… not to mention the slaughters and rapes not being reported… Forcing more than a thousand Christian families out of Mosul, and turning Christian churches into Muslim mosques, is equivalent to genocide.” Of course, the word genocide means to kill or make extinct a people.

Others were not as lucky to flee. According to Iraqi human rights activist Hena Edward, a great many older and disabled Iraqis, unable to pay the jizya or join the exodus, have opted to convert to Islam.

Meanwhile, the jihadis continue destroying churches and other ancient Christian holy sites in the name of their religion, and murdering any Christians they can find. Among other acts, they torched an 1800 year old church in Mosul, stormed a fourth century monastery—formerly one of Iraq’s best known Christian landmarks—and expelling its resident monks.

Most recently, in Syrian regions under the Islamic State’s control, eight Christians were reportedly crucified.

The Islamic State’s call for Christians to pay jizya is not simply about money. It is about subjugation. Most Western media reporting on this recent call for jizya have failed to explain the accompanying dhimma contract Christians must also abide by. According to the Islamic State, “We offer them [Christians] three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.”

The “dhimma contract” is a reference to the Conditions of Omar, an Islamic text attributed to the caliph of the same name that forces Christians to live according to third class citizen status.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Media’s Silence to Hamas’ Genocidal Venom

F131115EN04-450x307By Robert Spencer:

The Spanish government on Monday announced that it had “provisionally suspended” sales of weapons to Israel because of its supposed targeting of civilians in Gaza. This came a day after the Obama Administration declared that it was “appalled” by Israel’s “disgraceful” shelling of a UN school in Gaza. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called the shelling a “moral outrage” and a “criminal act.” The only problem with all this moral indignation is that it is wrongly placed on the victim rather than the perpetrator, and bears witness to the success of Hamas’s propaganda barrage.

These are just two of the most recent examples of the success of Hamas’s skillful manipulation of the mainstream media, and the eagerness of the media to be manipulated – an eagerness so great that amid the frenzy to demonize Israel in the court of world opinion, Hamas’s oft-reiterated genocidal bloodlust and brazen breaking of ceasefire agreements goes unreported and ignored.

The U.S. condemnation of the Israeli shelling of the UN school was a particular victory. Jeff Dunetz reported in Truth Revolt Monday that “evidence is emerging that the Israeli strike hit outside of the school and the bodies were moved into the courtyard to make it look like Israel hit the school.” This wouldn’t be remotely close to the first time that Palestinian jihadis have been caught faking Israeli “atrocities” – recently they even billed a still from a horror movie as a fresh Israeli killing of a Palestinian civilian.

Meanwhile, Hamas is cheerfully above-board about how it manipulates the mainstream media. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported in July that “in light of the recent round of fighting in Gaza, the Hamas interior ministry has issued guidelines to Gaza Strip social media users for reporting events and discussing them with outsiders.” These guidelines included this unabashedly Orwellian instruction: “Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. Don’t forget to always add ‘innocent civilian’ or ‘innocent citizen’ in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.”

But the international media has been almost unanimously indifferent to how it is being played. Nor does it show much interest in the numerous reports of Hamas launching attacks against Israel from civilian areas, so as to provoke retaliatory strikes that can be used for propaganda purposes. The Indian network NDTV reported Tuesday that they had witnessed Hamas constructing a rocket silo “under a tent right next to the hotel where our team was staying. Minutes later, we saw the rocket being fired, just before the 72-hour ceasefire came into effect.” NDTV noted that they were publishing their report “after our team left the Gaza strip – Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired.” The network, which is no friend of Israel, concluded: “But just as we reported the devastating consequences of Israel’s offensive on Gaza’s civilians, it is equally important to report on how Hamas places those very civilians at risk by firing rockets deep from the heart of civilian zones.”

Read more at Front Page

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

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