This week we learned what really gets the liberal media in a … well … rage. It isn’t the act of perpetrating violence upon the innocent. No, it’s calling out that rage for everyone to see. In Liberal Land, words speak louder than actions.
The media on the left side of the aisle took more umbrage with a Newsweek article titled, Muslim Rage, than they did with the incidents that demonstrated that rage – the killing of four Americans in Libya, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the hoisting of Islamist flags on sovereign U.S. soil.
Outlets like Think Progress called the Newsweek cover, which featured an image of a group of obviously agitated Muslims, Islamophobic.
Newsweek for their part did not apologize for their portrayal of events in the Middle East saying:
“This weeks Newsweek cover accurately depicts the events of the past week as violent protests have erupted in the Middle East (including Morocco where the cover image was taken).”
Rather than focusing on the real issues here, the liberal media is doing everything in its power to avoid pointing the finger at radical Islamists. They point it at Mitt Romney for his statements, they point it at Newsweek, at the author, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, and they point it at an obscure film heretofore unknown to the general public.
None of these are justification for the scene currently spreading throughout the Middle East. And most assuredly, the rage is not a response to an anti-Mohammad film, despite what the White House would have you believe.
The rage has been consistent and perpetual, and it has long been evident prior to any version of any anti-Mohammad film. During the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. At the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. At the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. With the USS Cole bombing in 2000. At the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. And of course, September 11th.
This to name a few.
The rage is tangible, and it is very closely associated with radical Islam.
Giving terrorists built-in excuses such as an obscure film only serves to add fuel to their fire. Appeasement does not work.
What the left clearly needs are more people of reason, more people like Kirsten Powers who wrote:
“… our leaders shouldn’t let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the US Government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband. Wake up: we weren’t attacked because of a movie made by an American. We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.”
Say it along with her – Crazy. Religious. Fanatics.
Do not fear it. Fearing words only serves to embolden the enemy, and they know it.
While we continue to fight over those words, extremists continue to point their RPG’s at our foreign diplomats, storm our embassy walls, burn American flags, call for beheadings and public hangings, and on and on. All the while, the media criminally continues to whistle through the graveyard.
That said, I would like to propose a change in how the media labels things of this nature. I’d like to redefine the term Islamophobia. The phrase, much like the race card, has been overused by the left and has been played out. It has outlived its usefulness. It no longer sticks as a term of bigotry or intolerance toward radical Muslims.
To quote the classic line from The Princess Bride – I do not think it means what you think it means.
Instead, the meaning should revert to a more literal translation. Islam-phobia.
The phobia involves those in the media continually capitulating to the radicals and terrorists killing in the name of their religion. The phobia involves Democrats who continually bow down to the unreasonable demands of terror-linked domestic organizations such as CAIR, or the ICNA, and are willing to release known terrorists in a foolish attempt to establish peace.
The phobia equates to fear. That is why liberals refuse to stand up to radical Islam, and it is why the media refuses to accurately portray the level of rage being executed in the name of the tenets of radical Islam. They are afraid.
Journalism is a profession. Stop acting like amateurs. Stop being Islamophobes.
At some point, you will have to grow a spine when it comes to the threat of radical Muslim rage.
At some point, you will have to stop pussyfooting and tiptoeing your way around the subject matter.
In the end, at some point you will have to address reality, and not continue to long for some fantasy world that exists only in your minds.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters
Newsweek has hearkened back to their old school liberal days, replicating a cover story in 1987 which referred to then President George H. W. Bush’s “wimp factor”; except this time it was meant for Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
In 1987, we were asked by Newsweek to believe that a World War II Navy fighter pilot and former CIA head was too much of a “wimp” to be president. Today, the W-word seems very much at odds with the image that Obama had been attempting to paint of Romney as a Gordon Gekko-esque corporate raider. Additionally, the subtext of the article asks, “Is he just too insecure to be president?”
The Newsweek article, written by Michael Tomasky, makes the case:
He’s kind of lame, and he’s really … annoying. He keeps saying these … things, these incredibly off-key things. Then he apologizes immediately—with all the sincerity of a hostage. Or maybe he doesn’t: sometimes he whines about the subsequent attacks on him. But the one thing he never does? Man up, double down, take his lumps.
In 1987, this magazine created a famous hubbub by labeling George H.W. Bush a “wimp” on its cover. “The Wimp Factor.” Huge stir. And not entirely fair—the guy had been an aviator in the war, the big war, the good war, and he was even shot down out over the Pacific, cockpit drenched in smoke and fumes, at an age (20) when in most states he couldn’t even legally drink a beer. In hindsight, Poppy looks like Dirty Harry Callahan compared with Romney, who spent his war (Vietnam) in—ready?—Paris. Where he learned … French. Up to his eyeballs in deferments. Where Reagan saddled up a horse with the masculine name of El Alamein, Mitt saddles up something called Rafalca—except that he doesn’t even really do that, his wife does (dressage). And speaking of Ann—did you notice that she was the one driving the Jet Ski on their recent vacation, while Mitt rode on the back, hanging on, as Paul Begala put it to me last week, “like a helpless papoose”?
The ‘wimp’ attack is sure to make little headway as it did against President Bush back in ’87, since Newsweek isn’t even a fraction of the media powerhouse it once was.
And the Romney campaign isn’t sweating it either, with a spokesman telling the Mental Recession that it’s “not relevant, considering the source”.
The spokesman added, “No one but out of touch liberals care.”
The timing of the ‘wimp factor’ story for Newsweek couldn’t be any worse. The rest of the mainstream media has been referring to Romney as too tough on Iran during his weekend visit to Israel.
Reuters: Romney talks tough on Iran during visit to Israel
Miami Herald: In Israel, Romney talks tough against Iran
CNN: Romney talks tough on Iran
Los Angeles Times: Romney takes hard line on Iran in Israel speech
Not to mention as we reported here earlier, the Daily Caller has revealed that President Obama’s gusty call on Osama bin Laden proved to be anything but. The waffling on pulling the trigger could be considered … well … wimpy.
Perhaps Newsweek is also forgetting that this man is the one currently in office…
The similarities between our statement two days ago, and the one Sarah Palin tweeted today are eerie.
Regarding Newsweek’s cover featuring this title from an Andrew Sullivan piece, “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?”
How dumb do you have to be to have a cover story featuring a Trig truther like Andrew Sullivan as your authority on all things intelligent?
And today Palin tweeted:
“@SarahPalinUSA: @Newsweek: know what’s truly “dumb”? Giving a cover story to the TrigTruther conspiracy kook writer who thinks I didn’t give birth to my son”
Alright, so the similarities aren’t really all that eerie. And anybody could point out how much of a dolt Sullivan is.
But still, we’d like to think Sarah is reading… 🙂
Couldn’t the same question be posed to Newsweek? How dumb do you have to be to have a cover story featuring a Trig truther like Andrew Sullivan as your authority on all things intelligent? (h/t Aaron)