Levitt Letter Extra News

By Dennis Prager
www.jewishworldreview.com

American news media have suffered in recent years. Thanks to the Internet and talk radio, millions of Americans have ceased relying on The New York Times and CNN for their written and televised news.

But it is difficult to recall a greater blow to the credibility of American news media than their near-universal refusal to publish the Mohammed cartoons originally published in a Danish newspaper that have brought about worldwide Muslim protests.

This loss of credibility owes to two factors: dishonesty and cowardice.

Everyone and his mother knows why the networks and the print journals haven’t shown the cartoons — they fear Muslims blowing up their buildings and stabbing their editors to death. The only people who deny this are the news media. They all claim that they won’t show the cartoons because of sensitivity to Muslim feelings.

Which brings us to the other reason for the latest blow to the news media’s credibility: They are lying to us. If some politicians were telling lies as blatantly as the news media are now, the media would be having a field day exposing those politicians and calling for their removal from office. But, alas, what TV news station will criticize another TV news station? And what newspaper or magazine will criticize another newspaper or magazine?

So, without anyone in the media holding them accountable, the news media continue to believe they can fool nearly all the people all the time when they say they are not publishing the cartoons out of respect for Muslim sensibilities.

Why is this false?

First, major papers in virtually every European country have published the cartoons. It is inconceivable that European papers are less concerned with Muslim sensibilities than American media are. If anything, in Europe they are more pro-Muslim given their anti-Israel and anti-American views and given that they live in countries with far greater numbers of Muslims than live in America.

Second, the reason to publish the cartoons is not to offend Muslims; it is to explain the most significant current news event in the world. How can anyone understand the Islamic riots without having seen the cartoons that triggered them? If millions of Christians rioted after cartoons were published in the Muslim world, does anyone doubt that the Western press would publish them, or that it had the obligation to do so?

The argument that people can see the cartoons on the Internet is specious. Anyone could see the photos of the abuse of Arab prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison on the Internet, yet the news media presented these photos day after day for weeks.

Third, the American press has routinely published cartoons and pictures that insult Christians and Jews. The Los Angeles Times published a cartoon depicting the stones of the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple, the holiest site to Jews, as spelling out the word “HATE” and showing a religious Jew bowing down before it. And what newspaper did not publish a photo of “Piss Christ,” the Andres Serrano work of “art” depicting a crucifix in the artist’s urine?

American newspapers “insult” every group whenever they feel like it, but no one riots, burns and kills because of it.

Fourth, the ban on depicting Mohammed applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims. It is remarkable that American newspapers, so frightened of any breakdown between church and state, are suddenly guided by Muslim religious prohibitions.

Fifth, the argument that publishing the images would inflame Muslims’ passions is another cover up for cowardice. No American newspaper or TV news show exhibited the slightest concern with inflaming Muslim passions when they endlessly published and depicted Abu Ghraib abuse photos.

If the liberal news media in America — conservative Fox News and The Weekly Standard have shown the cartoons — admitted they feared being hurt if they showed the cartoons, one would have respect for their honesty, if not their courage. But the liberal news media’s lack of courage coupled with their dishonest justifications make for a devastating commentary on American news media.

One should not be surprised. A few years ago, New York Times foreign affairs reporter John Burns reported — to his great credit — that some of the most prestigious American news organizations had made a deal with Saddam Hussein not to report negatively about his regime in exchange for being allowed to have a Baghdad news bureau.

When it comes to taking on conservatives, Catholics, Evangelicals and the like, liberal news media are Supermen. When it comes to confronting real evil, however, the news media are Mickey Mouse.

By: Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.com

The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn’t that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don’t go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That’s a “dog bites man” story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot-lunch menu and the birth notices.

After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers’ relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.

The “offense to Islam” ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.

So it’s not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be “Offended Muslims Remain Calm.”

What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won’t show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure “The Boondocks” without complaint. Where’s the justice here?

Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim backside kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.

The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)

Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but you can’t take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb?

If you don’t want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don’t point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9-11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that’s offensive. How about “camel jockey”? What? Now what’d I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?

In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Koran’s alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I’ve got documentation to back that up!

Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on “The View” have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.

McClellan said: “We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support.”

We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than “hold Syria responsible” for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish Embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.

Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved? Liberals complain about “unilateral action,” but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it’s almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!

Written by Justin Darr
www.chronwatch.com

Islam is like the neighbor everyone has that people say “is alright once you get to know him.” The more you “get to know him,” however, the more it seems that your first impression was correct. A jerk is a jerk. No matter how many times you see the guy place his trash cans neatly at the end of the drive on time for the Tuesday pick up, the silent aggressive stares let you know that this guy has is something dysfunctional going on that sooner or later will erupt into big problems.

Usually, you just try to ignore these people as long as possible, just a simple “Hello,” or wave on the way to work. Then comes the day when your son’s football flies over the fence and, wham! The guy picks up the ball and locks it in his garage.

Now, you have the unpleasant task of going over and confronting this idiot about why he cannot exist by the rules of common civility that have served us so well for generations, risking the chance of the guy acting like the moron he is an chasing you across the yard with a garden rake.

It is not really that hard of a decision. Experience teaches that such blowhards usually have nothing to back up their words other than a glass chin and big mouth. So, you accept the risk because you understand the consequences of your inaction will lead to even grander displays of indecorousness by your neighbor and spending the rest of your life with your son wondering if the zipper is on the front or side of your pants.

This is the situation the western world faces with Islam. For a “religion of peace,” Islam sure seems to have a mean streak. The facts regarding Islamic society’s apparent inability to peacefully coexist with its non-Muslim neighbors, and endless litany of hatred and bloodlust spewed by its religious leaders toward anyone who happens to disagree with them, has left nothing to conclude except that Islam makes anything but a good neighbor.

Here is a quick test to see my point. Do a survey of all the areas of the world counting sizable Muslim populations abutting large non-Muslim populations that are NOT in a near perpetual state of violent conflict. Hope you have one hand ready.

In other areas, where Muslims are not actively killing those around them, they choose to promote their agendas by making thinly veiled threats of unless others stop “provoking” them, they will be unable to stop from erupting the simmering violence that lurks just under the surface of their communities. This is an attempt to take advantage of the western world’s obsession with political correctness where it is far easier to give into demands, no matter how ridiculous, than deal with the fools who are making them and be declared “insensitive.” However, no matter what the excuses or justifications, the actions of many Muslim leaders amount to low intensity terrorism.

Nothing demonstrates this point better than the current situations with the Muslim world’s vicious overreaction to a few political cartoons out of Europe depicting the prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban, and the breakdown of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear fuel enrichment program.

Curiously, despite the differences in these situations, the Muslims involved are using the same low intensity terrorist tactics to achieve their ends.

In Europe, cartoonists have fled into hiding in fear of their lives as Muslims have marauded through hotels in the Gaza Strip searching for Westerners to kidnap, and protestors dressed as suicide bombers, prayed for further terrorist attacks in western civilians, and carried signs saying, “Freedom Go to Hell,” “Europe You Will Pay, Your 3/11 Is on the Way,” and “Butcher Those Who Insult Islam,” in London, England.

In Iran, 1979 American Embassy terrorist leader now turned Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is threatening to cut off all foreign oil exports, “wipe Israel off the map,” launch insurgent attacks into Iraq and Afghanistan, and restart full uranium enrichment efforts and in the wake of the IAEA referring Iran to the Security Council.

In both cases, the responses enormously outweigh the initial “provocation.”

Iran is threatening to destroy the world economy and destabilize the entire Middle East just because we understand that a nation that has spent its entire history supporting and engaging in terrorism has no business possessing highly enriched uranium for any reason.

And, Muslims around the world are threatening us with widespread violence if we do not toss aside our most cherished freedoms and silence a few cartoonists who noticed that the vast majority of terrorists just happen to be emulating the words and deeds of Mohammad.

The disproportionate nature of these responses is less of a reaction to any actual offense that may have occurred than it is an attempt to intimidate those who might dare to affront or oppose Islam in the future. In both cases the message is clear: If you ever cross us again, you will be responsible for the violence that ensues.

There is no clearer definition of low intensity terrorism than these heavy-handed attempts to blackmail the free world.

The civilized world is now faced with a choice. Do we allow ourselves to be intimidated by Islam’s low intensity terrorism because we feel that it is a better alternative than the more overt terrorism so many Muslims love, sacrificing our freedom and security in the process? Or, do we decide to stand up for what we know is right?

I do not know about you, but I think it is time to go get our football.