Powered by Max Banner Ads
The NY Times Hates People Who Hate Radical Islam
Deborah Soloman of The NY Times conducted a disgraceful interview with author and critic of radical Islam Brigitte Gabriel a few days ago.
In her book “They Must Be Stopped,” Gabriel is critical of the way Islamic fundamentalists are trying to burrow there way into American society. Gabriel is a Christian who was born and raised in Lebanon and speaks from experience about the dangers of allowing Islam to spread unchecked.
Deborah Soloman like her radical left-wing colleagues at the NY Times believes that it’s Gabriel that’s the real problem not the insane Muslim killers.
Here’s a few gems from the interview:
As a Lebanese-Christian immigrant who spent her girlhood amid the bloody devastation of the Lebanese civil war, you have lately emerged as one of the most vehement critics of radical Islam in this country. Are you concerned that your new book, “They Must Be Stopped,” will feed animosity toward Muslims? I do not think I am feeding animosity. I am bringing an issue to light. I disapprove of any religion that calls for the killing of other people. If Christianity called for that, I would condemn it.
What about all the moderate Muslims who represent our hope for the future? Why don’t you write about them? The moderate Muslims at this point are truly irrelevant. I grew up in the Paris of the Middle East, and because we refused to read the writing on the wall, we lost our country to Hezbollah and the radicals who are now controlling it.
In your new book, you write about the Muslim presence in America and bemoan the rise of Islamic day schools and jihad summer camp. Is there really such a thing? Yes. Instead of taking lessons on swimming and gymnastics, the kids are listening to speakers give lectures titled “Preparation for Death” and “The Life in the Grave.”…
Here’s the best part:
Are your parents still in Lebanon? I became an orphan at the age of 23. Both my parents are buried in Israel, on Mount Zion, with Oskar Schindler.
Why did you bury them in Israel? I wanted to honor my parents. After all, it is the Holy Land. And I wanted to ensure that both my children will know where my loyalty lies — with Israel, because Israel for me represents democracy, respect and human rights, something that no other country in the Arabic world offers.
Are you an agent of the U.S. government? No.
Are you underwritten by the C.I.A.? No. Are you kidding? In 2000, I voted for Al Gore.
But I see that R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., serves on the board of American Congress for Truth, your educational foundation. We also have John Loftus, a staunch Democrat and former Justice Department prosecutor. We are not Red or Blue.
Where do you live? I do not share that information because of the death threats I receive.
Threats from anyone we know? Al Qaeda mentioned my name on their top Internet sites and recently sent a press release about my work.
If you are worried about death threats, why would you put a glamorous photograph of yourself on the cover of your new book? In Lebanon, we were raised to be glamorous, feminine and sensual. It’s the only good thing we inherited from the French.
It really shows you just how far off the reservation The NY Times has gone. This nutty left-winger thinks anyone who hates radical Islam and loves Israel must be a C.I.A. plant. She simply cannot conceive of anyone holding such normal (and completely accurate) viewpoints. I don’t think that last question about where she lives was an accident either. The sickos on the left would love it if an Islamic militant tracked down Ms. Gabriel and wore her head as a hat.
(hat tip NewsBusters)
Mainstream Media Running For Cover After Ignoring Edwards Scandal
Most Americans know the media is totally corrupt, and the refusal to cover the John Edwards scandal was the final straw. Now the mainstream media is running for cover while offering a wide range of excuses, but assuring readers that “liberal bias” had absolutely nothing to do with it — nothing at all.
I think Jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine said it best:
The Edwards mess is the most recent and visible, but hardly unique, example of the mainstream media’s hear no evil/see no evil approach to newsgathering. How many other stories has the MSM missed, denied or avoided? From Rathergate to Reverend Wright to the success of the surge, the pattern is the same: MSM stalls, shuffles its collective feet, and doggedly ignores information for as long as possible until they can no longer do so with a straight face. The fact that these stories without exception work to the detriment of Democrats is apparently a grand coincidence.
I don’t think the excuses are gonna hold any water with the vast majority of Americans this time. The Edwards story was a defining moment for the mainstream press and they failed miserably. Journalistic standards seem to only matter when the subject of a story happens to be a liberal Democrat.
Howard Kurtz sums up the absurdity of the MSM pretty well in his column this morning:
When critics, especially on the right, accused the media of protecting a Democrat because of liberal bias, journalists were unable to respond, because to do so would be to acknowledge the very thing they were declining to report.
Probably the most laughable excuse that continues to come up over and over again is the Elizabeth Edwards factor. The media was hesitant to cover the story out of sympathy and respect for Elizabeth Edwards given her battle with cancer.
Wow, I had no idea the media was so compassionate. When did this start? Seems a little convenient that the blood sucking vampires that make up the mainstream press had a sudden attack of conscience. The fact that John Edwards is a long time favorite of the far left is a complete coincidence — honesty, I swear.
Maybe I’m just being too cynical. When you really think about it, this sudden attack of conscience by the media may have started before the Edwards scandal. The media didn’t want to cover Rathergate out of respect for Dan Rather’s long and illustrious career. I can only assume the refusal to cover the success of the surge was out of respect for all the slain insurgents. Using the same rationale, I’m guessing that reluctance to cover Rev. Wright in the beginning was out of respect for the church.
It’s all starting to make sense now — or not.
Here’s the best excuse pieces of the day:
-Chris Jones
Posts
