In "The Trust" by Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones, a fawning historical account of the New York Times and the family behind it, the authors describe how the Newspaper of Record conspired to hide information about the Holocaust:
A July 2, 1944, dispatch citing "authoritative information" that 400,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported to their deaths and an additional 350,000 were to be killed in the next three weeks received only four column inches on Page 12, while that same day a story about Fourth of July holiday crowds ran on the front page.
To find out what the enemy is up to in the current war, you keep having to turn to obscure little boxes at the bottom of Page A-9 of the Newspaper of Record.
In a little-noticed story almost exactly one year after Muslims staged the most horrific terrorist attack the world has ever seen, a Muslim en route from Germany to Kosovo emerged from the airplane bathroom and tried to strangle a stewardess with his shoelaces. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
That story was squirreled away in a small box at the very bottom of Page A-9 of the Times. In the entire Lexis-Nexis archives, only three newspapers reported the incident. Not one mentioned that the attacker was a Muslim. It was a rather captivating story, too. Earlier in the flight, the Muslim responded to the stewardess' offer of refreshments by saying, "I'd like to drink your blood." (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
Also last week, another practitioner of the Religion of Peace, this one with ties to al-Qaida, tried to board a plane in Switzerland with a gun. This story did not merit front-page coverage at the New York Times.
On July 4 this year, an Egyptian living in California – who had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, had a "Read the Koran" sticker on his front door, and expressed virulent hatred for Jews – walked into an El Al terminal at the Los Angeles airport and started shooting Jews. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
The Times casually reported the possibility that his motive was a fare dispute. Four days after the shooting, the story vanished amid an embarrassed recognition of the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (generally found around Page A-12 of the Times), Americans have been cowed into perseverating that Islam is a "religion of peace." Candid conversations about Islam are beyond the pale in a country that deems Screw magazine part of our precious constitutional freedoms.
If the 9-11 terrorists had been Christians, the shoelace strangler a Christian, the gun-toting Swedish Muslim a Christian, the Los Angeles airport killer a Christian and scores of suicide bombers Christians, I assure you we would not be pussyfooting around whether maybe there was something wrong with Christianity.
In a fascinating book written by two Arab Muslims who converted to Christianity, Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner give an eye-opening account of Islam's prophet in "Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs."
Citing passages from the Hadith, the collected sayings of Muhammad, the Caners note that, by his own account, the founder of Islam was often possessed by Satan. The phrase "Satanic Verses" refers to words that Muhammad first claimed had come from God, but which he later concluded were spoken by Satan.
Muhammad married 11 women, kept two others as concubines and recommended wife-beating (but only as a last resort!). His third wife was 6 years old when he married her and 9 when he consummated the marriage.
To say that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile is not an attack. It's a fact. (And for the record, Timothy McVeigh is not the founder of Christianity. He wasn't even a Christian. He was an atheist who happened to be a gentile.)
Muslims argue against the Caners' book the way liberals argue against all incontrovertible facts. They deny the meaning of words, posit irrelevant counterpoints, and attack the Caners' motives.
Ibrahim Hooper, with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says that by "6 years old" the Hadith really means "16 years old" and "9" means "19" – numbers as similar in Arabic as they are in English. Hooper also makes the compelling argument that the Caner brothers – who say they wrote their book out of love for Muslims whom they want to see in Heaven – are full of "hate."
Other Islamic scholars concede the facts, but argue that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was an anomaly. Oh, OK, never mind. Still others explain that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was of great benefit to her education and served to reinforce political allegiances.
So was she really 16, or was it terrific that he had sex with a 9-year-old to improve her education? This is like listening to some Muslims' earlier argument-in-the-alternative that the Zionists attacked the World Trade Center, but America brought the attack on itself anyway.
Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion? Liberals bar the most benign expressions of religion by little America. Only a religion that is highly correlated with fascistic attacks on the U.S. demands their respect and protection.