What does it take to get labeled a "domestic terrorist" in certain precincts on the left? Slaughtering your fellow soldiers at Fort Hood doesn't make the grade, nor does maiming and killing innocent people at the Boston Marathon. And illegally occupying land in New York and Washington to protest Wall Street greedheads doesn't even come close.
No, if you are Harry Reid and you are the Senate Majority Leader, the real "domestic terrorists" are Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters. To be sure, Bundy is on the wrong side of the law and should be punished by the feds. But labeling him a "terrorist" is an outrageous slander, apparently intended to fire up the left-wing base and win some votes in November. Especially now, with Bundy bringing race into the mix, the media are sure to have a field day.
The distinguished Senator Reid has also taken to the well of the Senate to assail two charitable brothers as "un-American," and to falsely claim that Mitt Romney went a decade without paying taxes. You may have noticed the media's outrage at Reid's serial slanders. Maybe not.
Meanwhile, New York City's ultra-liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio has disbanded a unit that specialized in keeping tabs on some mosques and other places where radical Islamists tend to congregate. The new mayor claims his cops will now be able to "go after the real bad guys."
Well, former NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne knows a lot more about "bad guys" than the mayor. Browne recently recounted the case of Raees Alam Qazi, a Pakistani who biked around Manhattan in 2012, scouting for places to detonate bombs. Does Qazi count as a "real bad guy," Mr. Mayor? Paul Browne also documented numerous other plots that were intended to kill and injure hundreds of New Yorkers, plots that were foiled by undercover surveillance.
Terrorists, by definition, want to terrorize, and the best way to sow fear is to attack the capital of American commerce and culture. There is good reason to worry that Bill de Blasio's priorities have just made it a little easier for jihadists to accomplish their nefarious goals.
But to some people, Islamic terror is pretty much a figment of our imagination. This week on The Factor, Osama Siblani, the respected publisher of the Arab American News in Michigan, made this stunning claim: "I don't know if there is a militant jihadist in Detroit, and I don't even know if there are militant jihadists in New York." Siblani might want to brush up on some of the terror attacks that were stopped by the now-disbanded surveillance unit.
One enduring theme in post-9/11 America is the stubborn refusal by many on the left to use the words "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same paragraph. One suspects Mayor de Blasio would not be quite so blasé if Christian evangelicals were threatening to bomb abortion clinics, but Muslims are another story. It recalls the horrible case of Mohammed Shafia, a Canadian Muslim who drowned his three teen daughters because they had become too "Westernized." When reporting on these "honor killings," some major U.S. media outlets totally avoided mentioning the man's religion. But just suppose a Catholic killed his daughter for disobeying the Bible or for getting an abortion? Wouldn't the killer's Christianity be worth mentioning? The politically correct U.S. media is cowed by Muslim violence and avoids the issue whenever possible.
Is it too much to ask for a smidgen of honesty and candor? Major Nidal Hasan is an Islamic terrorist and his massacre at Fort Hood was a act of pure terror. The Tsarnaev brothers were Muslim terrorists and their Boston bombing was also an act of terror. Cliven Bundy may be a lawbreaker and a scofflaw, but he is not a "domestic terrorist." No matter how many times Harry Reid claims otherwise.
|
|
