Author's Note: This article was co-authored by Buckley Carlson
Here’s a seemingly simple question: What is scarier? A loosely organized group of American citizens, expressing their peaceful – if passionate – discontent with their representative government by congregating en masse in a public place? OR, a well-funded, smartly organized, subversive, fearless and deeply militant, ruthlessly committed group of freedom-hating, America-despising, radical Jihadists, plotting further destruction and the violent death of innocent men, women and children?
If you say the latter – and how could you not? – then you must NOT be a member of the so called “mainstream media.”
Ponder that for a moment. And before you dismiss it as a gratuitously incendiary conversation-starter, ask yourself these Five Salient Questions:
1. When was the last time you saw a network or cable news interviewer (Fox, the lone exception) display any skepticism when a self-described “peaceful” Muslim declined to condemn terrorist activity?
2. Why is the term “Radical Islam” disappearing from news accounts (earning only 336 Google News hits at press time) when there is zero evidence that Islamic Jihad or Islamic-sponsored terrorism is on the wane? To the contrary. [Incidentally, the terms “racist” and “tea party,” when mated, garner some 7,050 Google News hits…over just the past ten days.]
3. Who is a more frequent recipient of overt media-scorn in contemporary America? Sarah Palin…or Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the “alleged” 911 mastermind?
4. When was the last time that you heard someone on TV describe Christianity as a “peaceful” religion?
5. What is the death toll in America – and around the World – from the vast and “smelly” [see Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “Constituent Guide to a Blissfully Brief DC Visit”] hordes of Tea Party Activists? And from Radical Islam?!?!
Reality these days appears to have been so perverted by a “mainstream media” determined to influence, shape and mold the “news” so that it conforms to its own narcissistic pursuits and ideology, that “facts” aren’t just secondary. Now they’re downright inconvenient.
How else does one account for the dogged, and mostly nasty, pursuit of the Tea Party by members of the so-called, “mainstream media”?
If not for a sneering disregard of the facts – and the desperate perpetuation of an ideological agenda – then how to explain this assault on concerned Americans who associate themselves with Tea Parties?
And, how else does one defend the squeamishness with which the majority of the news media reacts to the word, “kill,” rather than to the purveyors of radical Islam -- a belief system that actually relies on the manufacture of fear, and killing to ensure its longevity?
When investigating the Tea Party, not many media critics are successful in disguising their coastal elitism, nor their disdain for God... NASCAR... guns... barbecue... pick-up trucks... small business... large and intact families. And, anti-tax sentiments.
But how to account for the media’s hostility towards the exercise of free speech and assembly? Here, in the Tea Party context, the dismissal of basic Constitutional rights is swift, if casual, almost flippant.
And yet, the same reporters and prognosticators often seem eager to extend an ever charitable, uber-elastic, “benefit of the doubt” to self-proclaimed, “peaceful” Muslims, regardless of the supportive/contradictory evidence on display.
And when it comes to actual, bona fide adherents and enthusiasts of radical Islam? Well, many of these same reporters are scurrying to offer privacy protections and guarantees under the U.S. Constitution, the “living” symbol of the very freedoms these barbarous cretins so revile.
It may have been a few years since we’ve wandered the inner halls of America’s news rooms... but were the Irony Detectors removed along with the antiquated Associated Press teletype machines? And where are the editors and the ombudsmen? Because it would be hard to identify a more suitable occasion upon which someone with authority – and good judgment – might intervene on behalf of the public weal.
Sadly, we won’t be holding our collective breath; we don’t just mourn the death of objective American news collection (The Daily Caller and Fox News have little company under the umbrella of “exception.”) from afar. On the contrary, we’ve witnessed the corruption, the dishonesty, the hostility, and the laziness right up close... most recently when CBS and NBC refused to air our ad alerting Americans that a mosque is soon to be planted on the hallowed acreage of Ground Zero, and that the National Republican Trust PAC is running a “Kill the Ground Zero Mosque Campaign” to ensure those efforts – and the intended offense to America – come to naught.
No sooner did we produce the ad – and have our proposed “buy” rejected – than the debate started. In earnest. Not among the American people, as we’d hoped. And not on the merits of the arguments revolving around the planned mosque construction and its placement.
Allan Chernoff, a diminutive “TV journalist,” remarkable – even at CNN – for his partisan advocacy, arranged to interview me for an edited piece shot on location at Ground Zero... and at the future site of Cordoba House, host of the 13-story mosque.
The final, three-minute package that aired earlier this week was the product of a 75-minute telephone call, the primary aim of which seemed to be Chernoff’s hunt for irregularities with my PAC’s revenue and expenditures (there aren’t any irregularities, and neither are their exorbitant staff or administrative costs a point for which Chernoff uses innuendo to berate us), as well as a fishing expedition for the detailed specifics of my personal and professional life and a one-hour, on-camera interview that consisted of the same exact five questions, asked repeatedly, in slightly amended ways.
Increasingly clipped. Slightly hostile. CNN has now officially revealed more personal information about me than they have about the current president of the United States and asked more about the National Republican Trust PAC’s funding sources than they did Obama’s $750 million record shattering campaign budget some of which came from dubious sources including illegal foreign donors.
Chernoff didn’t bother interviewing either Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf, or his wife, Daisy Khan, the two halves of the public – and outwardly, “peaceful” – face of the Ground Zero Mosque effort.
Not surprisingly, the final piece was unbalanced and heavily edited to reflect pro-mosque arguments; Chernoff gleefully ignored the compelling points and instead chose to use his words to describe what I believe about Muslims instead of using my words from the interview he conducted. But this was not really about the mosque. This was clearly about the major work the PAC has done, that is, having the chutzpah to raise questions about the corrupt Obama administration. This message came across loud and clear, “if you expose Obama’s corruption, we will come for you.” It is doubtful that Chernoff himself is getting marching orders from Obama, but his drive by sleazing certainly endears him to Jonathan Klein, and the other partisans in the Executive Suite at CNN. But it does nothing for the “public discourse” CNN claims to care so much about…and it “informed” no one in the public about the issue at hand but it did inform us about how dirty the liberal establishment is willing to play in order to protect government corruption. It makes one wonder what Obama has on some of these “journalists” to engender such loyalty.
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.” So goes an Islamic poem. Its relevance is manifold in that it was quoted by Recep Tayyip Erdogon, Turkey’s Prime Minister. It stresses what so-called mainstream reporters do not understand – or refuse to acknowledge – about radical Islam.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, and author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),” well understands the relevance, and doesn’t hesitate to articulate it, declaring that the placement of mosques is an “expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims.”
Throughout “recent” history, Islamic mosques have been erected in geographically significant locations (battlegrounds and former churches and cathedrals, mostly) to express the superiority of Islam over Christianity. Al-Aqsa Mosque, located in Jerusalem, is the third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina, and is a prime example, having been planted on the “Noble Sanctuary,” or “Temple Mount.” But there are scores of examples... like the Ummayed Mosque, built over the Church of St. John, after the Arab conquest of Damascus... and in 1453, when Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks, the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque... and for 500 years reigned as an impressive monument to that victory.
The Historian Sita Ram Goel has estimated that over 2,000 mosques in India were built on the sites of Hindu temples for the same reason, to demonstrate Muslim superiority. The Ground Zero Mosque is no different. It follows the same well-worn path always traveled by this warrior religion; Radical Muslims view Ground Zero as a battle-field upon which they prevailed. Building a mosque there is a calculated statement that says, “we won... we will beat you again.” It cannot stand.
So, if even some of the “mainstream media” had had just a cursory reading of Muslim history, it would have informed this debate immeasurably. So, too, would a cursory reading of the very recent history of Rauf and Khan.
It’s no accident, one imagines, that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has often been quoted saying he wanted this mosque to help “bridge” the divide between cultures…that it was his and Kahn’s aspiration to be the “anti-terrorists.” Cute. And very media-savvy. But in reality, neither Kahn nor Rauf have denounced terrorism, and they have had several opportunities to do so. In fact, soon after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying, “the U.S. must acknowledge the harm they have to done to Muslims before the terror can stop.” Hmm. What’s that “bridge” going to be constructed with again, there Rauf? Rose thorns, and poison ivy?
Three weeks after the terrorist slaughter on 9/11, Rauf was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Ed Bradley. When asked if he was, “in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?”, Rauf responded, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” So, are we “an accessory,” probed, Bradley. “Yes,” declared Rauf.
“Unequivocal?” Yes. “Peaceful?” Not quite.
Scott Wheeler is a former investigative journalist, and the Founder and Executive Director of the National Republican Trust PAC. Buckley Carlson is a Washington-based writer and political strategist.