The New York Times Slams Blogosphere As "Muslim Bashers" In Ellison Puff-Piece
Nice. Classy. And completely typical of the Times. (This is a TimesSelect article that you'd normally have to pay for, but they're running this for free through the 12th, so go and read it.)
HT: AllahPundit & Hot Air
Mr. Ellison’s victory was widely noted in the larger Muslim world. The day after the election, it was the third headline mentioned on Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, right after a report that 18 Palestinian civilians had been killed by Israeli artillery in the Gaza Strip and a report on the overall Democratic sweep in the elections.
The news garnered a rich variety of comments from Arab readers on the Web site of Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai. “God willing in the next election, half of Congress will be from the rational Muslims,” wrote one reader, while another said, “May God make this the beginning of victory for Muslims on the very ground of the despots.”
A third wrote, “We pray to God that you will be successful and will move forward in improving the image of Islam and the Muslims.”
Arab news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran, something which also upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere. Some suggested it meant he would pledge allegiance to Islamic law rather than to upholding the Constitution.
For the Times' information, bloggers aren't "Muslim bashers." We recognize that there are moderate Muslims who disagree with the Islamofascist mindset (but they aren't as numerous or outspoken as CAIR would have people believe). We don't attack Muslims like Keith Ellison. We go after the ones trying to kill us, but in the report the Times doesn't differentiate that point. To them all bloggers are worthless and bigoted. Well, our bigotry only extends to the dead tree industry and the lies and fabrications they like to peddle; like this story.
Marcie and I live in Arizona, which is hardly a hotbed of Islamic people or activities. It does have a few, and we know a few. They're nice people, and most importantly they don't like the Islamofascists. To our knowledge Mr. Ellison never mentioned that he supported the efforts of al Qaeda to kill us, therefore I don't see the picture the Times is trying to paint here.
Further, if he swears his oath to the United States and the constitution on a Koran, who cares? If Mitt Romney is elected president, is anyone going to care which Bible he swears his oath on? The King James version, if memory serves me correctly, is the one used by the LDS church. Does it matter? I really don't think so. He didn't address his religion during the election unless someone asked him, and he made no inflammatory remarks that would make people think that his loyalty lay anywhere but with America. Personally, I think the injection of the question of what holy book he'll be swearing on is an attempt to make up a controversy by the tin-foil-wearing, barking moonbat nutters at the Times.
Publius II
Nice. Classy. And completely typical of the Times. (This is a TimesSelect article that you'd normally have to pay for, but they're running this for free through the 12th, so go and read it.)
HT: AllahPundit & Hot Air
Mr. Ellison’s victory was widely noted in the larger Muslim world. The day after the election, it was the third headline mentioned on Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, right after a report that 18 Palestinian civilians had been killed by Israeli artillery in the Gaza Strip and a report on the overall Democratic sweep in the elections.
The news garnered a rich variety of comments from Arab readers on the Web site of Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai. “God willing in the next election, half of Congress will be from the rational Muslims,” wrote one reader, while another said, “May God make this the beginning of victory for Muslims on the very ground of the despots.”
A third wrote, “We pray to God that you will be successful and will move forward in improving the image of Islam and the Muslims.”
Arab news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran, something which also upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere. Some suggested it meant he would pledge allegiance to Islamic law rather than to upholding the Constitution.
For the Times' information, bloggers aren't "Muslim bashers." We recognize that there are moderate Muslims who disagree with the Islamofascist mindset (but they aren't as numerous or outspoken as CAIR would have people believe). We don't attack Muslims like Keith Ellison. We go after the ones trying to kill us, but in the report the Times doesn't differentiate that point. To them all bloggers are worthless and bigoted. Well, our bigotry only extends to the dead tree industry and the lies and fabrications they like to peddle; like this story.
Marcie and I live in Arizona, which is hardly a hotbed of Islamic people or activities. It does have a few, and we know a few. They're nice people, and most importantly they don't like the Islamofascists. To our knowledge Mr. Ellison never mentioned that he supported the efforts of al Qaeda to kill us, therefore I don't see the picture the Times is trying to paint here.
Further, if he swears his oath to the United States and the constitution on a Koran, who cares? If Mitt Romney is elected president, is anyone going to care which Bible he swears his oath on? The King James version, if memory serves me correctly, is the one used by the LDS church. Does it matter? I really don't think so. He didn't address his religion during the election unless someone asked him, and he made no inflammatory remarks that would make people think that his loyalty lay anywhere but with America. Personally, I think the injection of the question of what holy book he'll be swearing on is an attempt to make up a controversy by the tin-foil-wearing, barking moonbat nutters at the Times.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home