Typical ‘progressive’ reactions to terror attacks on U.S. soil provide unintentional comedy

Here we are again, dealing with yet more instances of radical Islamic terror, and “progressives” in politics and in the media are, again, figuring out how to handle it all. ( I use quotations on the word “progressive” because all too often it is a contradiction in terms.)

We’ve already seen how some of our usual “buddies” have dealt with it, like our pal Dan Slott slamming GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for having the unmitigated gall to refer to the bombing in New York City as just that — a “bombing” — before, allegedly, all the facts were in. He even retweeted a tweet from a transgender activist who said Trump was “actively rooting” for the bomb to be terror-connected. Nice.

But … where is Slott, et. al. regarding Hillary Clinton doing the same thing — not to mention the mainstream media, in the form of CNN this time, covering for her by selectively editing out where she referred to the attack as a “bombing”??

The polls not going her way and desperately seeking an opening, Hillary upped the ante today, spewing the typical “Trump’s rhetoric is giving terrorists an excuse” nonsense:

I don’t want to speculate but here’s what we know and I think it’s important for voters to hear this and weigh it in making their choice in November… We know that a lot of the rhetoric used by Donald Trump is being seized on by terrorists… Wea [sic]also know from the former head of our counter-terrorism center, Matt Olson, that the kinds of rhetoric and language that Mr. Trump has used is giving aid and comfort to our adversaries.

“Aid and comfort?” Why, that sounds like … treason! 

Naturally, in cases like these (CNN Clinton assistance aside), the media provides no shortage of qualifiers — like “potential”:

This is where we are in early 21st century America with the Left, folks: For offering solutions to Islamic terrorism, however unpalatable they may seem to some folks, Trump is helping groups like ISIS.

All the while the Fourth Estate is busily helping Trump’s opponent.

I am no fan of Donald Trump. I never thought his candidacy would last, that he would poll lousy and eventually drop out. I don’t believe he is really conservative, and given many of his statements and his temperament, he potentially could make Barack Obama’s abuse of executive authority seem like our first African-American president is the greatest constitutional adherent ever.

But the Left really has no one to blame but themselves for the rise of Trump. It is comical to watch the disbelief coming from the Left: “How can anyone support this guy?” they angrily exclaim.

Even though many on the right have reservations about the GOP candidate, they are weary of the last eight years’ collection of lies, obfuscations, political correctness, and outright criminal activity.

Not to mention, when the media ponders how they’re having little effect on Trump’s outrageousness, one only has to look at how they treated the two George Bushes, John McCain, and worse, Mitt Romney. When a guy like Romney is portrayed as evil incarnate, it’s going to be rather difficult to make people believe what you have to say in the future … even when it is warranted. Like with Trump.

To coin a cliché, “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf.'”

So, I, for one, am enjoying watching Trump take on the ridiculous PC which has overtaken us, and thumb his nose at the mainstream media. By the media and the Left routinely giving average Americans the middle finger — calling them “bigots,” “hateful,” and “xenophobes;” refusing to call “radical Islamic terror” just that; championing “sanctuary cities” while belittling those who want immigration laws followed and enforced — they’ve helped make Trump the very manifestation of the reaction to that middle finger.

Side note: I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Doug for allowing me to voice my thoughts here now that it had become impossible to keep The Colossus of Rhodey updated regularly. As Doug mentioned, you can catch my regular writings over at The College Fix.

CNN goes full-Dorothy on Islamic State: ‘There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.’

Wizard of OzYesterday on this blog I said that Americans would be wise to look at the Islamic State group’s execution video of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh. Fox News apparently took the same viewpoint and provided a link for viewers who were comfortable with the decision. CNN International executive Tony Maddox, however, took the “Wizard of Oz” approach: “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.”

Mediaite reported Feb. 4:

“There was absolutely no editorial justification for showing it at all. You could describe what happened, and in describing what happened it is deeply and profoundly disturbing. As we were discussing Michael, you and I unfortunately have had a lot of exposure to these images. And even by that threshold this is just out-and-out appalling. It makes one despair. Nothing can be gained by showing that. And a key criteria is ISIS want us to show it. If ISIS wants you to show something, you should start with the principle ‘How can we avoid doing that?'”

Wrong, Tony. Nothing can be more powerful than witnessing an event first hand. Since CNN viewers can not bend space and time to their will, the next best thing is to see actual video of newsworthy events with world-wide repercussions.

On Sept. 11, 2001 I was scouring different stations for anything I could find on the terrorists attacks. I stopped on a Mexican television station that showed images of men and women jumping to their demise from the World Trade Center Towers. Those images affected in me in ways that no amount of description alone could ever duplicate. To say that “nothing” was gained from that experience would be a lie.

If I sit down with a man and we’re given the exact same amount of information on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — but I am given access to audio and video of the event — my understanding of reality should be the one that is closest to reality.

The ability to see just how barbaric the individuals Western civilization is up against is an invaluable asset, and, ironically, it is given to us by the enemy. Yes, the videos serve as a propaganda too for terrorist groups, but it’s a double-edged sword. The U.S. doesn’t have to go out of its way to make it’s own propaganda because the enemy has already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is evil.

Mediaite asked after Fox’s decision to link to the videos: “when a terrorist group’s actions are as undeniably horrible as beheadings and burning people alive, do you really need to see it with your own eyes to know it’s despicable?”

In a world with a working moral compass, evidence that the videos exist and that they are real would probably be enough. Unfortunately, we live in a world where the President refuses to call the Islamic State group “Islamic,” the State Department doesn’t want to put “labels” on The Taliban, the Obama administration has called terrorism “man caused disasters,” the Fort Hood shooting was called “workplace violence,” and it was only months ago that said commander in chief was calling Moaz al-Kassasbeh’s future killers a “J.V. team.”

Yes, sadly, watching these videos is precisely what many Americans need to do. They could also watch the 9/11 attacks while they’re at it, since many of them said “Never forget!” … just before they forgot.

While CNN pats itself on the back for segments in which it is seriously put forth that a missing airplane may have fallen into a black hole, Fox is busy showing America the true face of a terrorist organization with global ambitions. Americans should obviously not be forced to look at a man’s last moments as he is burned alive, but the evidence of a terrorist group’s ghoulish atrocities should be readily available for any man who wants to see why eternal vigilance is needed to protect his freedom.

For those of you who prefer your news thoroughly sterilized before you watch it, just remember: “There’s no place like home.”

Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer takes CNN, Erin Burnett to task on Hamas ignorance

Ron Dermer CNN

In a sane world, a terrorist organization that hides rockets in schools, hospitals, civilian homes and religious buildings would be condemned for its actions. In a sane world, moral outrage would swiftly flow in the direction of individuals who use innocent bystanders as shields. Unfortunately, there are a lot of confused people out there, which is why cable news viewers must suffer through hours of footage blaming Israel when children die during the course of war.

On Thursday, Ms. Burnett tried to scold Ron Dermer, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., over 16 people who died in a U.N. shelter in Gaza. Mr. Dermer decided it was time to call CNN out on its ignorance, and the result was a smack down of epic proportions:

Erin Burnett: Obviously what happened here is horrific and we don’t yet even know the scale of how many children may have died. Initial reports indicate that at least 16 are dead. And the initial reports was that the attack had come from Israeli tanks. As you know, the Israeli military said it may have come from Hamas and a rocket that misfired. Do you know at this point? Do you have any more certainty?

Ron Dermer: I don’t know, but I do know who who is responsible for it, and that’s Hamas because they’re using schools as weapons depots. And I think it would be a disservice to your viewers for a reporter from Gaza not to mention that in the last week we had two different U.N-run schools where we actually had rockets found in the schools and handed over to Hamas. I also think it’s a disservice —

Erin Burnett: These are two different U.N. schools, you’re saying?

Ron Dermer: That’s correct. It’s publicly available information. It’s kind of an important fact for your reporter to mention. And in addition to that, he may have wanted to mention a statement that was made by — not by the Israeli Ambassador, not by the spokesman of the IDF — but by the U.N. Secretary General yesterday. He said this: “The Secretary General is alarmed to hear that rockets were placed in a U.N.-run school in Gaza and that subsequently these have gone missing. He expresses his outrage and regret at the placing of weapons in a U.N. administered school. By doing so…” (Now listen Erin to exactly what he says) “…by doing so, those responsible are turning schools into military targets and endangering the lives of innocent children, U.N. employees working in such facilities, and anyone using the U.N. schools as shelter.” This is yesterday. Do you not think it’s relevant to report on CNN that the Secretary General of the United Nations — yesterday — warned against the use of U.N. schools and shelters for rocket missile details of Hamas?”

Erin Burnett: And ambassador, it is relevant. And let me ask you this…

Ron Dermer: Well, I’ve been listening. I’ve been listening to two hours of reports on CNN. I have seen split screens — horrible pictures — horrible pictures that any decent human being would be horrified by. I have not heard a single person say what I just said to you now. And I think that does a disservice to your viewers to not give them the context they need to make these judgments. Hamas is placing missile batteries in schools, in hospitals, in mosques, and there must be outrage by the world at Hamas to end this.

Ms. Burnett then went on to harangue Mr. Dermer about the need for Israel to take “time” and “confirm” that there are no children in schools before they are fired upon (as if Israel doesn’t already do its best — in war — to avoid civilian casualties). CNN, NBC, MSNBC and other news organizations bend over backwards to avoid mentioning that Hamas hides behind women and children, and then when women and children die the issue is framed as evidence of Israel’s moral bankruptcy.

The whole media charade gets even weirder when they take Israel to task for bulldozing homes without ever mentioning that Hamas digs tunnels underneath seemingly innocuous homes. Cable news viewers see a home being razed, but they don’t see the intricate tunnel systems under the home that were built with U.S. aid money meant for improving infrastructure.

If you want a glimpse into the Twilight Zone, keep watching CNN’s coverage of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. If you want a dose of reality, listen to men like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

CNN’s Peter Bergen: My cherry-picked data says the right wing is more deadly than jihadists

al Qaeda Yemen

Wouldn’t it be great to be a national security analyst who could just cherry-pick data that fits your worldview and then pass it off as an accurate depiction of reality? CNN’s Peter Bergen is a lucky guy, because that’s exactly what he gets to do as a “national security analyst” and director at the New America Foundation.

In his latest piece he argues that Americans have more to fear from “right wing extremists” (e.g., Guys who wear cowboy hats at ranches in Nevada?) than Islamic terrorists. Ironically, his column appears the same day he and his colleagues had to report on an “extraordinary” gathering of al Qaeda in Yemen, the size of which hasn’t been seen in years — but more on that later.

Mr. Bergen writes:

[T]he death toll in the shootings in Kansas is similar to that of last year’s Boston Marathon bombings, where three people were killed and the suspects later killed a police officer as they tried to evade capture. (Many more, of course, were also wounded in the Boston attacks; 16 men, women and children lost limbs.)

In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Just like your friendly neighborhood liberal’s data on global warming — errrm, climate change — Mr. Bergen starts the timeline at a point that benefits the conclusion he wanted to come to the entire time, and then carefully begins adding data.

What a coincidence: his timeline starts on 9/12, which of course denies the 2,977 victims and God knows how many who suffer from Ground Zero-related health problems, PTSD, etc. Cost to the economy? Eh. Never mind. Failed Islamic terror plots and the cost required to keep that death toll at 21? Let’s ignore that one. (Within the piece he also omits any mention of the first World Trade Center bombing from 1993, but then makes sure to talk about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.)

And hey, the Boston Marathon bombing was basically like the Kansas shooting, as long as we sorta-kinda ignore the hundreds who were injured, those missing limbs and the psychological trauma to all of Boston.

Perhaps we shouldn’t count the first Fort Hood massacre, in which 13 people died and 32 others were wounded when Maj. Nidal “Allahu Akbar!” Hasan went on a rampage, because the Obama administration deemed it “workplace violence.”

Bergen continues:

Despite this history of deadly violence by individuals motivated by political ideologies other than al Qaeda, it is jihadist violence that continues to dominate the news and the attention of policy makers.

Some of this is quite understandable. After all, on 9/11 al Qaeda’s 19 terrorists killed almost 3,000 people in the space of a morning. Since then al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen tried to bring down with a bomb secreted on a passenger an American commercial jet flying over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 and al Qaeda’s branch in Pakistan tried to launch bombings on the New York subway system a few months earlier. Luckily those plots didn’t succeed, but certainly if they had the death toll would have been on a large scale.

Yet the disparity in media coverage between even failed jihadist terrorist attacks and this latest incident in Kansas is emblematic of a flawed division in the public’s mind between killing that is purportedly committed in the name of Allah and killing that is committed for other political ends, such as neo-Nazi beliefs about the need to kill Jews.

It’s cute how Mr. Bergen downplays the near-misses when it came to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas day attack over Detroit, and it’s sad that he forgot to add in shoe bomber Richard Reid’s failed attempt. Why? Because he wants to impress upon readers that those American right-wing neo-Nazis like Frazier Glenn Cross (who loves books put out by The Nation and is inspired by the history of the National Socialist Workers Party) are more dangerous to national security than a worldwide movement to create an Islamic caliphate.

As I said before, his CNN piece becomes even more hilarious when one considers that it comes on the very same day that al Qaeda hosted an “extraordinary” gathering in Yemen to essentially tell the U.S.: we’re coming for you.

In the middle of the clip, the man known as al Qaeda’s crown prince, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, appears brazenly out in the open, greeting followers in Yemen. Al-Wuhayshi, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda globally and the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has said he wants to attack the United States. But in the video, he looks unconcerned that he could be hit by an American drone.”This is quite an extraordinary video,” Paul Cruickshank, CNN terrorism analyst, said.

The video shows al-Wuhayshi addressing more than 100 fighters somewhere within Yemen, Cruickshank said, a restive nation on the southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula. The al Qaeda leader, he said, is “taking a big risk in doing this.” …

In a speech to the group, al-Wuhayshi makes it clear that he’s going after the United States, saying “We must eliminate the cross. … The bearer of the cross is America!”

U.S. officials believe the highly produced video is recent. With some fighters faces blurred, there is worry it signals a new round of plotting.

“The U.S. intelligence community should be surprised that such a large group of al Qaeda assembled together, including the leadership, and somehow they didn’t notice,” said Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst.

Maybe the intelligence community “didn’t notice” the terror gathering because they’re listening to guys like you, Mr. Bergen. Classic!

Yes, while Mr. Bergen and the New America Foundation are busy figuring out ways to cast right wing pro-lifers as a national security threat on par with al Qaeda terror masterminds, enemies like bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri (the guy who provided Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with his device) have been perfecting their deadly craft.

Again, CNN reported:

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP, is considered the most dangerous al Qaeda affiliate. The CIA and the Pentagon have repeatedly killed AQAP leaders with drone strikes. But the group is now emboldened.

“The main problem about this group is that it has a bomb maker who can put bombs on to planes that can’t be detected,” Bergen said.

That bomb maker, Ibrahim al-Asiri, is believed to be responsible for severalattack attempts against the United States, including the failed 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber attack in Detroit.

Poor Mr. Bergen — he’s so confused. On one hand his job forces him to admit that we face a determined enemy who now makes bombs that are undetectable, but on the other hand he really, really wants the world to pay attention to the Tea-hadists and the Christian Taliban or whatever insult for conservatives you can come up with.

Perhaps it never occurred to Mr. Bergen, but the reason why Islamic terrorism “continues to dominate the news and the attention of policy makers” is because the seriousness of threat it poses is quite clear to sane people around the world. Perhaps it dominates “the attention of policy makers” because they’re the ones getting intelligence briefings — and in those closed-door sessions it’s obvious that the random whack job with a pistol or a rifle is not the same threat to the nation’s security as a global movement to force Sharia Law down the civilized world’s throat.

I can’t wait until Mr. Bergen puts together another set of analysis that proves that the tea party is more of a national security threat than British jihadists returning from the battlefields in Syria.


Piers Morgan: Impulsive clown tells Americans to ‘get angry’ after shooting

Twenty-six dead. Twenty children. There were few other concrete details about the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School early Friday morning — one of the worst shootings in U.S. history — but that didn’t stop CNN’s Piers Morgan from running to Twitter. After Bob Costas’ anti-gun rant on “Sunday Night Football,” that same impulsiveness led Mr. Morgan to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn’t understand the Second Amendment, claiming that the Founding Fathers only envisioned a world where the musket would reign supreme for all eternity.

As a nation tried to gather information and make sense of it all, the British journalist encouraged Americans to “get angry” and implored President Obama to “stand up to the American gun lobby.” Oddly enough, there was no in-depth analysis of a similar tragedy on the other side of the globe, in which a man with a knife wounded 22 children at an elementary school in China.

Ideological allies of Piers Morgan act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that America will continue to be the freest nation on the face of the Earth. They fail to take into consideration what role the Second Amendment played in creating such an exceptional country in the first place. They reject the mountain of evidence out there that free, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to determine when, how and if they defend themselves are one of the best bulwarks against tyranny a nation can have. And instead of digging deep down into the cultural changes that have metastasized over the course of decades — cancerous mutations in the national psyche that could produce a man who opens fire on a classroom of children — Piers Morgan blames inanimate objects.


Olé! Piers Morgan plays bullfighter with Touré.

In the Morgan vs. Touré cable news smack down, Touré loses by TKO. The pop culture commentator punched himself repeatedly in the face while Morgan applied uppercuts to the gut.

Anyone who hasn’t seen the Piers Morgan vs. Touré match up should really do themselves a favor and watch it in its entirety. As I wrote before, the most newsworthy aspect of the Trayvon Martin case is that it highlights how lost we are as a nation. The reason is largely because of reckless media, that have failed the nation for decades. For years Americans sat in the dark like Plato’s man in the cave, but the social media explosion has opened their eyes—and they are angry. The battle for the heart and soul of the country is in full swing, even if there are still Americans who can’t see or hear the explosions around them. As much as it pains me to admit, Piers Morgan was on the right side of history last night.

Here’s the short of it: Touré is a “pop culture” expert, a designation I’ll refrain from tearing apart too much given the nature of this blog. Let’s just call him a very successful gadfly, one who acts as an “authority” on black culture. Piers, our British friend, has had his journalistic credentials questioned because he dared to have the brother of George Zimmerman on his show and (according to Touré), didn’t challenge him satisfactorily. After a heated back and forth, Touré concluded:

“What you understand as challenging, perhaps maybe that goes in England. That’s not what we do in terms of challenging in America. I saw a person who was saying things that didn’t ring true to me.”

Asked about jokes he made about George Zimmerman on Twitter, whereas “Zimmermaning” someone was used as a euphemism for killing them, Touré likened his jokes to “the blues.”

You might call it black humor. Not African-American humor, but black humor. Dark humor. These are things that are common in America, that laugh to keep from crying. Once again another black person who is unarmed and innocent and not doing anything wrong has been killed. And this is incredibly painful and goes back before before you were born, and before your father was born, and before my grandfather was born.

Touré then finished his case by comparing Trayvon Martin’s death to that of Emmett Till. Seriously.

Where does one start? Repeatedly, Morgan asserts that the job of the journalist is to ask the tough questions, allow the subject respond, and then to  let the audience decide. He states that he doesn’t have all the facts, and that medical records, police reports and the judicial process will ultimately provide the evidence needed to make a more-informed decision. Morgan makes the case that he has a duty to not let his personal feelings about the case consume his ability to conduct a professional interview. Backed into a corner, Touré’s only defense becomes:

  • You’re from England; you don’t understand America.
  • You’re not black; you don’t understand black America.
  • You’re not black; you don’t understand “the blues” and by extension my black humor.

If Morgan vs. Touré was a boxing match, Touré would have just been ruled the loser by TKO. However, it also would have been bizarre to watch, since the audience would have witnessed Touré punching himself in the face while Morgan applied uppercuts to the stomach.

I really wish Toure had been around in the 1830’s, simply because it would have been fun to read the historical records of him telling Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville that he doesn’t understand what it means to be an American.* I’m in no way implying that Piers Morgan can hold a candle to de Tocqueville, but the idea that an Englishman can’t accurately cover a case involving a black American is ludicrous. Touré’s entire case is based on appeals to authority and emotion, red herrings, Ad hominem attacks and hasty generalizations.  That’s the kind of resume that can only get you a gig at Rolling Stone or MSNBC. Oh, wait…

* The part of this blog post where Touré responds with a witty, yet specious slavery comeback.