Why is the media shilling for “designated terrorist group” CAIR?

715 residents of New Jersey died on September 11, 2001.  For most, it was a horrific death.  Perhaps Politico’s Matt Friedman has forgotten, or the Bergen Record’s Hannan Adely is too young, or the Star-Ledger’s Rob Jennings just doesn’t care.  We all know Julie O’Connor’s problem… staring in the mirror too long making sure her tin halo is just so politically correct that she forgets all but her own self-image.

For much of the past two weeks, elements of the media have appeared obsessed by the fact that a local party chairman in Sussex County had “re-tweeted” some “tweeter trains” that contained images or language some “might” consider “offensive”.  Of course, the term “offensive” is very subjective. 

The Star-Ledger does not find the burning of the American flag to be offensive – at least to the point that they have never, to our knowledge, called for the resignation of any public or party official who supported the burning of the American flag.  It seems burning the American flag does not rise to the level of “re-tweeting” a “tweet” – such is the mindset of the Star-Ledger.

Apparently dipping a Christian cross into a jar of urine, and calling it art, also does not register as “offensive” in the subjective reasoning of the media.  But a “re-tweet” containing a negative comment about a Muslim congresswoman – who even fellow Democrats acknowledge is anti-Semitic – that apparently merits two weeks of continuous commentary.  It is a funny old world we live in.

As part of the “re-tweets” story, the media has approvingly published statements made by the New Jersey chapter of CAIR, which is short for Council on American-Islamic Relations.  CAIR put out a statement that labeled these “re-tweets” as “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobic, racist, and xenophobic” and called for the resignation of the local party chairman.

It appears that the media deliberately suppressed something very important about CAIR.  Something most readers would want to know… 

CAIR has been designated a “terrorist organization” by one of America’s closest Islamic allies in the Middle East.  That’s right… a “terrorist organization”.  Don’t you deserve to know that?

It wouldn’t take much effort for a journalist to find out.  Even one of today’s journalists.  Wikipedia explains that CAIR is “a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide.”  Wikipedia goes on to note:

Critics of CAIR have accused it of pursuing an Islamist agenda[5][6][7] and have claimed that the group is connected to Hamas[8] and the Muslim Brotherhood,[9][7] claims which CAIR has rejected and described as an Islamophobic smear campaign.[10] Due to apparent ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the government of the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.[11]

A “terrorist organization”?  That is a very serious matter.

Hamas?  So much has been written about this group’s anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.  So much written about its violence and terrorism, attacks on civilians, on women and children, the murder of Islamic rivals, the use of civilians as human shields, and the conscription of children as soldiers… that you would think even people as thick as Matt Friedman and Rob Jennings would have it together enough to work up a line or two about it. 

Hamas, together with several charities it runs,[438] has been designated by several governments and some academics as a terrorist organization. Others regard Hamas as a complex organization with terrorism as only one component.[439][440] Israel outlawed Hamas in September 1989[441] The United States followed suit in 1995, as did Canada in November 2002.[442] The European Union outlawed Hamas's military wing in 2001 and included Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003,[443] …Egypt,[448] Saudi Arabia,[449] Japan,[450] New Zealand,[451] Australia and the United Kingdom[452] have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization.[453] The organization is banned in Jordan.[454] (Wikipedia)

Imagine being connected to an organization where “terrorism” was a “component”?  And imagine the media ignoring it? 

The Muslim Brotherhood?  Quite a few nations have designated that a   “terrorist organization” as well, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia… these are all Islamic nations and all strong American allies. 

We have offered CAIR the use of these pages to explain how it came to be designated a “terrorist organization” by one of America’s Islamic allies.   

What is most alarming about this story is the media’s apparent focus… on “re-tweets” while a designated “terrorist organization” feeds a willing media its statements, judging what is or isn’t “offensive”, calling on “offenders” to resign, and generally behaving as if it has the moral high ground.  Is the media lazy or culpable? 

If culpable. If the media really does believe in suppressing the truth about CAIR, then no sane person should ever cooperate in helping them do their job again. Walk away. Ignore their phone calls, texts, and emails. Don’t help them write if they won’t be honest about CAIR. Starve them of content. And let their advertisers know what they are up to. They’ll go away soon enough.

Missing victims: Why the Star-Ledger can't be trusted

On Friday, the Star-Ledger -- a newspaper owned by two billionaires -- ran an editorial that advocated taking firearms away from the poor and working class.  In support of their position, the usual politicians were quoted --  those who expect armed protection for themselves even as they deny it to their "subjects" -- as well as a hodgepodge of government statistics.  Oh, the statistics...

Most Americans would agree that the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, DC -- along with the hijacking and destruction of a passenger jet over Pennsylvania -- were crimes motivated by hate.  In the aftermath of the attack, no less than the President and the United States Attorney General agreed with this assessment. 

Now go to the U.S. Justice Department's Uniform Crime Report for 2001.  The report counts 12,020 victims of crimes that were the result of the "offender's bias."  7,768 of these were victims of "crimes against persons", with another 4,176 counted as victims of "crimes against property." 

Among the victims counted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Data Collection Program were 554 victims of "anti-Islamic" bias crimes. According to the official USDOJ/FBI figures for 2001, just 10 people died (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) in the United States as the result of crimes motivated by hate.  By our count, that is 3,037 victims short. 

The count of homicides in New York City for that year does not reflect the 2,823 victims of mass murder at the World Trade Center; or the 184 victims at the Pentagon; or even the 40 victims in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  They were all left out of the murder count.    

If you read the official homicide figures for 2001, you will find that the deadliest month in 2001 was July -- and that September actually experienced a drop in homicides from August before rising again in October.  This is not the fault of the FBI, who do their best, but who are, after all, servants of a political class more interested in the preservation of power than in honest and transparent government.

Statistics are always being changed or adjusted to benefit the government of the day.  Remember when they "adjusted" the unemployment figures so that people out of work, but who could no longer collect unemployment, would magically disappear from the count of the unemployed ?  It was as if they simply dried up and blew away.  Did no longer being officially "unemployed" fill their bellies?

The same government that came up with these statistics packages and sells Wall Street's line that the U.S. economy is doing fine.  And they assure us that have the data to back that up.  Hey, are you doing fine? 

Government lies.  According to U.S. Justice Department figures, the United States is experiencing a spike in espionage.  Actually, those figures simply reflect the fact that whistleblowers like Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake are being charged with serious crimes in an attempt to silence them and keep America's citizens in the dark.  Most of the cases break down before they ever get to court. 

Law enforcement officials have a plethora of stories about how some urban police departments fail to report "incidents" in an effort show progress against crime, while some rural and suburban departments over-report to secure more funding.  When shown the Star-Ledger editorial on Friday, one long-time police chief explained how one county reduced its drugs crimes by doing away with its narcotics task force.  "Just don't catch them" is one way to reduce reportable "incidents."

The editorial used a very narrow statistic -- the Uniform Crime Report's figures on "justifiable homicide"-- to argue that the 300 or so people whose lives are saved each year are hardly worth allowing them to own a firearm.  They didn't acknowledge that the definition the FBI uses for "justifiable homicide" is "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." 

That definition leaves out a great many "incidents" in which an attacker or intruder is driven away by the appearance of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm, or the non-fatal wounding by a firearm.  Then there's those words "felon" and "felony."  We all know stories about how prosecutors play games with that -- turning felonies into misdemeanors on a whim.   There was a prosecutor out west, this guy got elected governor, who used to change felony drug crimes into "agricultural trespass" misdemeanors just to impress his first deputy (who, it turned out, was also his mistress). 

But even using their own very narrow definition, what the statistics show is that the number of justifiable homicides have nearly doubled in recent years, so that even their own statistics reveal that more innocent lives are being saved by people protecting themselves instead of being lost by people waiting for the police to show up.  The fact is, over 40 percent of the violent felons stopped through the use of a firearm are stopped by average citizens. 

That's not a knock on the police.  The liberal courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect average citizens and when the families of murdered victims have tried to sue government for failing to prevent the death of a loved one, they have uniformly seen their cases tossed out of court. 

Politicians like Senator Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg are responsible for lengthening police response times and making service in law enforcement less attractive.  They are as pro-criminal as they are anti-police and against the right of self-defense.  That is different from being anti-gun.  They love guns... for their own protection, just not for ours. 

Until they fight to change the law and allow victims' survivors to sue government when it fails, what politicians like Weinberg and media outlets like the Star-Ledger are telling us to do is to shut up and die.  Excuse us if we don't take their advice.