02/12/15

Of Double Standards and Triple Homicides: Media Malpractice and the North Carolina Murders

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

On the night of Sept. 11, 2011, three men were brutally murdered in Waltham, Massachusetts — their throats slashed and bodies covered in marijuana.

Despite the gruesome nature of the crime, which one investigator described as “the worst bloodbath” he had ever seen, the national media would have never reported on this story, let alone identified the Jewish religion of at least two of the slain, had Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a Muslim and close friend of the third victim, not carried out the Boston bombing.

In fact, in spite of Tsarnaev’s ties to the victims of these yet unsolved murders, to this day articles almost specifically de-emphasize the date of the crime, the fact that as the same investigator described it, the victims’ wounds were akin to those of “an Al-Qaeda training video,” and the religion of the slain.

Contrast this story with the horrific news that three Muslims were murdered execution style in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Suzanne Askar, right, rests her head on the shoulder of Safam Mahate, a student at North Carolina State University, as they stand next to Nida Allam, far left, during a vigil for three people who were killed at a condominium near UNC-Chapel Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, in Chapel Hill, N.C. Craig Stephen Hicks appeared in court on charges of first-degree murder in the Tuesday deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha. (AP Photo/The News & Observer, Al Drago)

Unlike in the Waltham triple homicide, this story was explicitly reported as I just laid it out – a man killed three Muslims – a man, mind you, who many reports neglected to note is a militantly anti-religious atheist progressive.

In spite of the fact that stories ran across practically every major publication, with articles from The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal referring to a triple murder of Muslims, social media exploded, with individuals appalled that the crime was somehow being ignored.

The #MuslimLivesMatter hashtag, adopted from the #blacklivesmatter hashtag created in the wake of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases went viral, signaling presumably that people believe atrocities are being carried out against Muslims en masse.

The juxtaposition of these two stories is instructive when it comes to today’s media.

While we might excuse the media in the case of the Waltham homicide for originally ignoring the date, nature of murder and religious identity of the victims, given their involvement with marijuana and law enforcement’s original public hypothesis that the murder was drug related, it is telling that these facts continue to be largely ignored in coverage of the murders.

Conversely, in the case of the Chapel Hill murders, religion was explicitly injected into the story from the start, leading many readers naturally to ascribe an anti-Muslim motive to the triple homicide. Meanwhile, local police believe the murders stemmed from an altercation over a parking space.

It is ironic that in the wake of President Barack Obama’s remarks about a “random” attack by a Muslim terrorist on a Kosher supermarket — note that the White House will not call it a jihadist attack on Jews — in the case of the victims in North Carolina, again from the start they were identified as Muslims. Randomness is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

French police officers storm a kosher grocery to end a hostage situation, Paris, Friday, Jan. 9, 2015. Explosions and gunshots were heard as police forces stormed a kosher grocery in Paris where a gunman was holding at least five people hostage. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

In any event, can you think of another case where the media identified the victim(s) by religion?

Can you think of another case where the media identified the victimizer(s) by religion?

In recent instances of Muslim crimes against non-Muslims, whether an axe attack on New York Police Department officers in New York, a beheading in Oklahoma, or the systemic rape and abuse in Rotherham, almost universally the media initially and often ultimately excludes details about the Muslim identity of the attackers.

Instead we are left with euphemisms for the perpetrators, such as that they are “North African” or “Asian.”

In the case of the Middle East, where Western media reports are notoriously anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish, we get stories about Israelis killing two Arabs in a mosque, only later to include the minor detail that these two Arab terrorists were killed in an act of self defense, and then only after they terrorists had murdered five Jews in a synagogue.

One case among all others perhaps best illustrates the media’s unwillingness to put truth above narrative. In one of the most egregious and egregiously neglected stories of all, as we reported last year, Anders Breivik — the Nordic terrorist responsible for killing 77 people and injuring 319 more in a July 2011 rampage in Sweden — by his own admission committed a false-flag attack meant to discredit the counterjihadists and Zionists with whom he claimed allegiance. To this day, almost no others outlets have reported on this.

While journalists should not be selecting and/or framing stories to fit their own worldview to begin with, it would be one thing if these narratives had some basis in fact. But frequently, the evidence directly contradicts the story that the media would like to paint.

In America, according to the most recently available FBI hate crime statistics, it is Jews, not Muslims, who are the most discriminated against of all religious minorities, disproportionately targeted in a staggering 60 percent of all religion-based hate crimes, a rate four times as high as that of Muslims.

In Europe, the Jewish population has continued to plummet precipitously, with Jews from France to Great Britain leaving as anti-Semitism and Islamic supremacism have increased, sentiments that are inherently interrelated.

In Israel, it suffices to say that were its enemies to lay down its arms tomorrow, there would be peace; if Israel were to lay down its arms tomorrow, it would be blown to pieces.

Keen watchers of the media will note that a similar pattern of narrative-setting in reporting occurs in the coverage, or lack thereof, of black-on-white or black-on-black versus white-on-black crimes, and/or cop-on-civilian versus civilian-on-cop killings.

To adopt an Orwell saying, when it comes to the media, some victim(s)/victimizer(s) are more equal than others.

Identity matters only insofar as it serves a political narrative.

These journalistic sins of omission and commission, used to craft a political message, are antithetical to the truth-seeking purpose of the profession.

With the special rights and protections granted to the press comes an obligation to soberly and objectively inform the citizenry.

Today in America, and throughout the West, this obligation is being disgracefully dishonored.

02/12/15

Crystal Clear

Arlene from Israel

In case you still had doubts about Obama’s positions regarding jihadi terrorism, I provide here just one more instance that makes it clear how eager he is to deny what is in front of all our faces.

Two days ago, in the course of an interview with Matthew Yglesias of Vox.com, the president referred to the Islamic jihadis who shot up the kosher store in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attack as “vicious zealots” who “randomly” shot “a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

The “vicious zealots” are not identified as Islamists. (They never are so identified by Obama, are they?) As he sees it, the choice of a kosher deli was just a coincidence. And the shooting victims were merely “a bunch of folks,” and not Jews, specifically.

Mind blowing, really.

You can see the video in which he says this, here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/09/obama_legitimate_for_americans_to_be_concerned_about_violent_zealots_who_randomly_shoot_people_in_paris_deli.html

~~~~~~~~~

Ah, but there is more that illustrates how Obama perceives matters – or purports to perceive them at any rate. It is “legitimate,” he says, to be concerned about these vicious zealots and to devote resources to dealing with them, just as a big city mayor acts to cut crime.

This too indicates an obfuscation of the genuine underlying problem that we are confronting: that problem being the ideology of radical Islam. Dealing with street criminals is not parallel at all. This analogy serves to underplay the seriousness of what is threatening the free world right now.

Lastly, I mention this, more for a laugh than anything else. Obama says it is good to allocate resources to dealing with these “zealots,” but it is important to also devote attention to “future threats” such as “global warming.”

Is this man for real? I am certain that all of my readers across the east coast of the US have spent inordinate amounts of time this winter worrying about the imminent threat of global warming. (Actually, satellite data indicates there has been no global warming for about 20 years.)

~~~~~~~~~~

A great deal of energy was expended following these remarks by Obama, in attempts to justify what he meant.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest, for example, explained that: “the individuals who were killed in the terrible tragic incident were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.”

This is pathetic sophistry. No, the victims of the massacre were not singled out by individual identity. But does anyone imagine that the terrorists’ selection of an establishment where kosher food is sold, on a Friday afternoon when Jews would be shopping for Shabbat preparations, was just random? Is there anyone even half-way honest who truly believes that the fact that it was Jews who were killed was purely a random happening?

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki also dealt with this. She was asked the question: “Does the administration believe that this was…an attack on the Jewish community in France?”

She replied: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here…”

The questioner persisted: “But if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he’s not looking for Buddhists, is he? Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher (store)? …I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say this was a targeted attack.”

Her response: “I don’t have more for you…it’s an issue for the French government to address.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191210#.VNtbBpv9nIU

~~~~~~~~~~

After the attack at Hyper-Cache, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said, “How can we accept that in France, we still hear about the death of Jews? How can we accept that people are killed because they are Jewish?”

What I ask is how we deal with this: that the French prime minister was able to accept an ugly reality, while the American president and those who speak for his administration dance around it?

I see this state of affairs as alarming.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, Prime Minster Netanyahu continues to make it clear that he intends to speak to Congress and the American people about a matter that is existential for Israel. He will speak in Congress, because the Congressional role may be important, and he will speak before March 24th. (He has clarified this in response to suggestions that the venue of the talk or its timing be changed.)

You can see a short video of his statement here (all emphasis following is added):

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23451

“At a time when there are those who are dealing with protocol and politics, a bad deal is being put together in Munich that will endanger Israel’s existence.”

“Israel’s survival is not a partisan issue. Not in Israel, nor in the United States…

“I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with [U.S. President Barack Obama], but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.”

~~~~~~~~~~

“Disagreements over Israel’s security have occurred between prime ministers in Israel from the Left and from the Right and American presidents from both parties.

“None of these disagreements led to a rupture in the relationship between Israel and the United States. In fact, over time, our relationship grew stronger.

[He refers here to some major US-Israel disagreements over time.]

“But we do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival. This is a regime, Iran, that is openly committed to Israel’s destruction. It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.
“This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields. Equally, I know that the president appreciates my responsibility, my foremost responsibility, to protect and defend the security of Israel.”

~~~~~~~~~~

Bibi is diligently seeking to separate out the political accusations from genuine security concerns. And yet, those opposed to what he has to say (read, those supporting the Obama administration) continue to try to delegitimize his efforts to speak out on Iran by accusing him of playing politics, making the matter partisan, etc.

Once again, I urge that if you are in the US, you contact your elected representatives in Congress. Tell them that Iran’s threat to Israel is not a partisan matter. Encourage them to listen to what Israel’s prime minister will be saying on March 3. And most especially, urge them to support the Kirk-Menendez bill.

For your Congresspersons:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

For your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the accusations made early on, regarding the Netanyahu talk in Congress, is that it was planned without (it was claimed) prior notification to the White House. This was said to be a serious lapse of protocol. Well…I thought I’d take a minute to look at how Obama observed protocol when he was here here in Israel.

As Aaron Lerner of IMRA describes the situation:

”Back on 21 March 2013 President Barack Obama declined to address the democratically elected Knesset and instead chose to speak to a crowd that was screened by the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to preclude Israelis who did not share Mr. Obama’s outlook on Arab-Israeli affairs. The White House termed this selected group ‘the People of Israel.’”

Ruby Rivlin, who was then Speaker of the Knesset, called the situation “worrying”:

”Three American presidents have spoken on the Knesset stage, as well as [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat and leaders from Europe. President Obama should speak to the people of Israel through its elected representatives.”

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Rivlin-slams-Obama-for-not-visiting-Knesset-307083

Obama only focuses on protocol when it suits him.

~~~~~~~~~~

Zahava Gal-On, head of the far left Meretz, had hoped to prevent the broadcasting of Bibi’s speech here in Israel, on the grounds that it constituted electioneering, two weeks before the March 17th election.

Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has said, however, that there is no reason to block Israeli media outlets from carrying the speech, which “has a very clear news value…;” is “substantially related to the prime minister’s work, so that one cannot say it enters the realm of electioneering;” and “will deal with important matters relating to Israel’s foreign policy and which hold interest for the public.”
~~~~~~~~~~

As to what is going on regarding the negotiations with Iran, let’s take a look at the latest:

John Hannah, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, writes (emphasis added):

”Iran appears to be working systematically to advance all three of the elements essential to its nuclear weapons program: 1) the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade (by developing more powerful centrifuges); 2) a nuclear explosive device…; and 3) a delivery vehicle (the ballistic missile program). The Iranians have been using the breathing space provided by the interim deal to improve parts of their weapons program that aren’t yet quite up to snuff. In terms of sheer technical capability, Iran will be in a better position to breakout to a bomb in the aftermath of the interim deal than before it took effect.

“The pretense that this process was about compelling a rabidly anti-American theocracy that has been at war with America for four decades to surrender permanently its nuclear weapons ambitions is now out the window. In its place, what remains is the quixotic pursuit of some form of grand bargain, a rapprochement that – while leaving the bulk of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place – will somehow work over time to tame the Islamic Republic.

“We see today an Iran on the march throughout the region, plotting terror attacks in the Western Hemisphere, and actively seeking to advance key elements of its nuclear program in the middle of a negotiation whose very purpose is to end that program.”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/how-congress-became-the-fall-guy-for-obamas-iran-deal/

This title presents its own commentary. Read it, my friends, and weep, or, far better stand up and scream bloody murder.

~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the following comment after emerging from a closed-door briefing on the status of negotiations with Iran (emphasis added):

“It’s evident that these negotiations are really not P5+1 negotiations anymore. It’s really more of a bilateral negotiation between the United States and Iran.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191195#.VNtxp5v9nIV

This has been obvious for some time to anyone who has been watching closely. But now it’s being said publicly. And this is scary as hell. Do you realize how much power this gives Obama? And how critical it is that Netanyahu address the Congress?

The way I see it, those P5 + 1 powers that are not actively participating in negotiations have abdicated their solemn responsibility to be involved. I know that France, at least – and perhaps others as well – has been discontent with the Obama position, which is seen as too lenient.

~~~~~~~~~~

And let’s see just how lenient the US is. As Omri Ceren provided a review of the situation two days ago:

“As always there are two things at stake: process and substance. Process is about the technicalities of the next few months: when are scheduled talks, what are deadlines for various agreements, etc. Substance is about what will ultimately be acceptable to the parties: the structure of the deal, centrifuge capacity, plutonium-production capability, etc.

“The American stance on process is that there’s a March deadline for a political agreement and a June deadline for a technical agreement. The stance on substance is that the West will trade phased sanctions relief for Iran meeting confidence building benchmarks.”

On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had given a speech laying out the conditions he would consider acceptable in negotiations. It took a bit of time for careful translation to proceed. This is the heart of what Ceren reports regarding the Ayatollah’s positions:

(1) Process – rejects political agreement – “I do not favor remarks that we should agree on some principles and later on details. I dislike it when they say that there should be a deal on general principles at one stage and then we can talk about details. Given our experience with the other side, they will use this as a tool for repeatedly making excuses regarding details. If they want a deal, they should cover both generalities and details in a single session, instead of leaving details for later and separating generalities which are vague and leave room for different interpretations. This is not logical.”

(2) Substance – rejects phased lifting of sanctions – “[T]hese are all meant for taking away the weapon of sanctions from the hands of the enemy. It is good if they can do this. However, the sanctions must literally be taken away from the hands of the enemy. The sanctions must be lifted. This kind of a deal [is favored]. Otherwise, if they achieve no success in this regard, the Iranian nation, statesmen, the honorable government and others have numerous ways and they must certainly take this path in order to nullify the weapon of sanctions.”

“So,” writes Ceren, “while it’s technically true Khamenei pressed for ‘progress,’ what that actually means is he rejected the US’s understanding of how talks should move forward. And while it’s technically true he embraced a ‘fair’ deal, what that actually means is he rejected the US’s understanding of how a deal should be structured.”

Khameni has been widely quoted as saying no deal is better than a bad deal, and that for him, a good deal means one that is good for his nation. In other words, he is not predisposed to compromises. He wants what he wants.

~~~~~~~~~~

Fast forward one day. When Jen Psaki, our good old State Department spokesperson, was asked about the March deadline, she responded:

“Yes it is a goal, it remains a goal, but the secretary has been very vocal about that. We’ve never called it a deadline. We’ve called it a goal of when we want to achieve the political framework.”

The problem with this is that the date has been consistently called a deadline by US spokespersons. For example, on January 28th, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said, “…the president has made clear the importance of the end-of-March deadline…”

What we see, then, is that while Iran may be inflexible, Obama’s desire to seal an agreement is so strong that he will be unendingly flexible.

~~~~~~~~~~

I’m going to end here with a good news story of no particular consequence except for the fact that it is charming, and, I think, says something heart-warming about how we operate.

Last week, a mobile intensive care unit of Magen David Adom was driving from Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem when something hit the vehicle’s windshield and fell to the ground. Paramedic Nati Haron got out to investigate and found a baby fruit bat that had been knocked unconscious by the impact. He fed her sugar water and she regained consciousness.

“I looked at her, and she looked back at me. I tried to release her twice in the Ma’aleh Adumim area, but I saw she couldn’t fly. I took her home and called the zoo.”

The Jerusalem Biblical Zoo took her in, and she is being cared for until she recovers, at which time she will be released back into the wild.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Health/Israeli-paramedic-saves-life-of-baby-fruit-bat-after-painful-windshield-collision-390668

Credit: Magen David Adom

02/12/15

Tonight – The Denise Simon Experience radio program: Discussion on MB infiltration of White House and US Gov’t

Tonight, 9-11pm EST
The Denise Simon Experience radio program: Discussion on MB infiltration of White House and US Gov’t

Denise Simon will host a panel of experts tonight (Thursday 2/12) to discuss the topic of the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the Obama Administration. The panel will address Obama and State Department advisors with direct ties to Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the effect they have had on American policy, foreign and domestic. The startling findings will show the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama in an entirely different light!

To listen/call-in:

The show can be heard on I HEART RADIO and TUNEIN radio or on www.wdfp.us. All shows are also archived at Cowboy Logic Radio at podbean.com for further distribution. www.wdfp.podbean.com

To call the show, dial 917-675-3200.

02/12/15

Our Weasel Of The Week! – 02/12/15

The Watcher’s Council

It’s time to present this week’s statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were all slime-worthy and disgusting, but in the end the overwhelming winner was… the envelope please…

https://polination.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/lyin-brian-beheaded.jpg

Superhero, Medal of Honor Winner, Captain Of The Starship Enterprise
And Now Former NBC Newscaster Lyin’ Brian Williams!!

The Right Planet: Brian Williams claimed the helicopter he was aboard was forced down after being hit by an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) during the Iraq invasion in 2003. But military personnel who were there at the time claim Williams was not in the Chinook helicopter that received shrapnel damage from the RPG. Brian Williams then admitted his “mistake” in a lengthy Facebook post, blaming the ‘fog of memory over 12 years.’ Now, there are a number of allegations going around claiming Williams has a history of embellishing his experiences, including saving puppies from a fire, seeing dead bodies float down a river during Hurricane Katrina, and Katyusha rockets whistling past his helicopter while he reported from Israel in 2006. Maureen Dowd recently wrote NBC execs were warned a year ago Brian Williams was “constantly inflating his biography.” Interestingly, some so-called “insiders” allege Williams has been lying for years, and NBC knew all about it. If true, why did NBC choose to do nothing about it?

Virginia Right!: My nomination this week is Lyin’ Brian Williams the NBC News Anchor who prefers to embellish the news and be the news rather than just read it.

I’m not sure what it is about the Middle East. All the Liberals seem to have delusions of grandeur and feel the need to put themselves in harm’s way, but only in their minds.

NBC already had credibility problems and replacing Williams will not be easy. There is no such thing as an honest left wing journalist. There are only those that have been caught lying and those who have yet to be caught lying.

———————

Let’s have some fun and look at a few of the other Lyin’ Brian snapshotz:

Now, all this does sort of make you stop and think. Okay, Brian Williams has told a heckuva lot of lies, but then he’s not really a journalist – he just plays one on TV. He’s really just an actor hired for his ability to sell the Leftist narrative anyway. So, why does he catch all kinds of hell and lose his job when those who tell lies that do real damage, like President Obama, the Clintons and a whole host of others, get a pass… usually by people like Brian Williams?

I think I understand why.

Think of the Left and its ideas as one big seedy carny, where the rubes and their wallets are lured by loud, impressive carnival barkers with a swift line of gab to patronize third rate acts and rigged games where it’s next to impossible to win any of the flashy prizes on display. Impossible, that is, unless you’re a paid shill working for the carny to ‘win’ something and draw a crowd of people who swallow the con and line up to try their luck.

Ever been to one of those?

Now, if people really thought about it, they’d realize that the cooch dancer in the tent they bought $5 tickets to see do her erotic snake dance wasn’t really a young, sexy blonde like the barker said, but probably someone’s bored middle aged overweight wife whose act was nothing worth anywhere near that much. And they’d realize that they might be able to buy some of those stupid prizes at the games outright for far less than playing them for 20 minutes or a half hour was going to cost them, and in the end, they’d actually have something for their money instead of a sheepish grin and an empty wallet.

What reeled them in of course, was belief, belief that they were actually going to get something special. Belief stoked by the barkers and the shills.

And that’s why Brian Williams got slammed.

You see, Brian Williams was one of the barkers, the guy selling the con. If one of those screws up and gets caught, well, you simply hire another one, and maybe recycle somebody like Brian Williams a few months down the road when everybody’s forgotten all about what happened. Meanwhile, he can sweep up or clean out the concession stands or something else backstage to make himself useful until his ‘comeback.’

But Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the other usual suspects and the crap they’re peddling are the con and that’s very different. They’re the tawdry merchandise barkers like Williams, the crowd at MSNBC and the New York Times are selling. It’s one thing to axe a salesman or a shill who got clumsy and got caught. It’s another thing entirely when the rubes find out the product is garbage, the acts aren’t nearly as appealing as they were told they were and that all important belief gets suspended. Then the marks stop showing up with money in hand, the whole carny is merely seen as the predatory animal it is and the show could go out of business.

So, let’s award Brian Wilson his well-earned Golden Weasel… If anything, what happened is that he forgot he was just the carnival barker rather than the talent itself. Trying to stretch things so that he was the show rather than just another shill was where he went wrong.

Well, there it is!

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it. or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.., ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?