For a Salon "media critic," the New York Times' contemptuous piece against a freedom fighter is not enough.
Justin Elliott of Salon is hopping mad about the New York Times' slyly contemptuous piece against Pamela Geller: he doesn't think it contained enough venom, and is eager to supply it himself. And after the time-hallowed fashion of Leftist "media critics," the "truth" he offers is just more lies. "New York Times runs softball profile of Pamela Geller," by Justin Elliott for Salon, October 11:
The New York Times on Sunday published a big profile of Pamela Geller, the blogger and anti-Islam activist whose work we have documented, particularly her role creating the "ground zero mosque" controversy out of thin air.
Elliott here is doing what many in the mainstream media have tried to do: blame the entire controversy over the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero on Pamela Geller, then work to marginalize and discredit Pamela Geller, and viola! No more opposition to the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. This tactic manifests their arrogance and disdain for the American people, 70% of whom oppose the mosque; Elliott and his ilk want you to believe that this opposition doesn't arise from genuine indignation at the calculated insult and declaration of Islamic supremacism that the mosque represents, but that it has been ginned up by manipulative "right wingers."
That in turn stems from their narcissistic inability to conceive of the possibility that an intelligent person could in good faith come to a conclusion different from theirs -- so they must ascribe any opposition to their point of view to a dishonest desire for gain or the effects of demagoguery. In this they resemble their Islamic supremacist allies, who likewise can't imagine the possibility that someone might oppose the jihad and Islamic supremacism out of the conviction that Sharia is harmful to human beings and societies, and not out of profiteering or a desire for power. In that, of course, the Islamic supremacists are simply following the lead of the Qur'an and Hadith, both of which consistently characterize unbelievers as knowing that Muhammad is Allah's prophet but rejecting him out of greed or a desire for power.
The Times story exhibits some of the worst tendencies of objectivity journalism. The reporters, Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer, do a middling job laying out some of the outrageous, and racist, things that Geller has written (though they miss a lot too -- more on this below)....
The charge of "racism" is extremely tired, but the Left is so intellectually bankrupt that Leftist writers can't think of anything else to say. Anyone who bothers to consider the issues here will realize after about five seconds that resistance to Sharia's denial of the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized oppression of women and non-Muslims, is not remotely racist (Islamic supremacists come in all races) and has nothing to do with race at all. But Justin Elliott hasn't thought about these issues for five seconds -- he is just following along with the other lemmings.
All of that is true -- Geller is neither a journalist nor a scholar nor a Washington insider. But none of that is as relevant as the fact that goes unmentioned by the Times: she is a conspiracy theorist, one with a long record of making demonstrably false statements. The best example, which is conspicuously missing from the Times piece, is the time Geller wrote a lengthy post laying out her theory that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X.
Note that for this Elliott links to Gawker, not to Atlas Shrugs. If this eminent media critic had bothered to do some fact-checking, he might have found this statement from Pamela Geller on the actual post in question: "The 'Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child' charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama's many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer's documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did -- but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing."
So let's recap: when famed media critic Justin Elliott says that "Geller wrote a lengthy post laying out her theory that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X," there are just two minor problems with the accuracy of his statement: Geller didn't write the post, and doesn't believe that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X. But give Elliott credit where credit is due! He did get one thing right: it is indeed a lengthy post.
(Geller also believes Obama's birth documents are forged. She regularly speculates that he is Muslim.)
Regarding the birth documents, this is a two-year-old controversy -- Elliott would have you believe that Pamela Geller is regularly posting about this, when actually she hasn't said a word about it in over a year. When she did, she offered detailed forensic analysis that was never answered except by a chorus of ridicule.
And as for whether or not Obama is a Muslim, her analysis proceeds from his actions, not from empty speculation about his inner dispositions. If you wonder how anyone could have gotten the crazy idea that Obama is a Muslim, which I am not sure Pamela believes or considers an important question in any case, consider this list of Obama's actions, which she published last June:
March 2009, Obama declares the "war on terror" is over despite a dramatic increase in jihad war ops.
March 2009, he floats the idea that he will talk to violent, genocidal Hamas.
March 2009, he demands, recruits and insists that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration.
April 2009, Obama tells Europe to admit Islamic Turkey into EU, much to the consternation of the Europeans.
April 2009, Obama demands non-Muslims respect Islam (despite our differences) in a speech in Turkey.
April 2009, Obama in a speech from Turkey: "We are not a Christian nation."
April 2009, Dalia Mogahed, the first hijab-clad senior adviser to Obama on Muslim affairs says in an interview with terrorist- and jihad-supporting Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi's website, "Many have claimed that terrorists have 'hijacked Islam'. I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What the terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances."
In April 2009, Obama lays groundwork for a partnership with Hamas.
May 2009, Obama promises to offer his "personal commitment" to Muslims.
May 2009, Obama calls America "one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet."
June 2009, Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood, violent global jihadist group whose sole objective is a universal caliphate, to his speech to the ummah (Muslim community) in Cairo.
June 2009, Obama makes a stunning speech to the Muslim world from Al Azhar University in Cairo. It defies explanation.
July 2009, Obama reaches out to the violent jihadists of Hezb'allah.
July 2009, Obama creates a new office at the State department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting directly to Hillary Clinton.
Obama promises to close GITMO.
Obama is rebuked when plans are revealed for CIA prosecutions for 911 interrogations: Seven Ex-chiefs of CIA Oppose Case Review: ALL Sign letter to Stop CIA Persecutions.
In July, Obama sanctions the brutal crackdown of those marching for freedom in Iran and sides with the mullahcracy. He stands silent about the Iranian regime's mass executions, mass rape and murder.
July 2009, Obama plans to slash US nuclear arsenal.
October 2009, Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund.
November 2009, Fort Hood Jihad Cover up: Obama Urges Congress To Put Off Fort Hood Probe, Warns Against Turning Tragedy Into "Political Theater."
November 2009, Obama offers the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces, in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
November 2009, Obama Reaches out to bloody Jihadis in the Philippines.
On Thanksgiving eve, Obama issues a special Hajj message to the world's Muslims.
February 2010, Obama names a Hafiz to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. "And as a hafiz of the Koran, [Hussain] is a respected member of the American Muslim community," Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the term for someone who has mastered and memorized the Muslim holy book.
February 2010, covering up for jihadists in the White House.
Obama's counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, Involved in Obama Passport Breach.
June 2010, Obama equivocates on the jihad warship convoy (affectionately named a "flotilla" by the media): Obama "Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life."
With a record like that, how could anyone get the idea that Barack Obama is warmly positive toward Islam, and may even continue to consider himself a Muslim, as he was registered in school as a child in Indonesia? Why, only a bigot, of course, in Justin Elliott's fanatically ideological idea of "journalism":
It's obvious to anyone who reads Geller's blog that she is, by the dictionary definition, a bigot. She has, for example, fantasized about Israel responding to Iranian attack by nuking the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. She has bought bus ads in several cities encouraging people to leave Islam. She believes the Dome of the Rock, an important Islamic holy site, "has got to go." She called for a boycott of Campbell's over the company's introduction of a Halal line of foods.
This paragraph contains a blizzard of distortions. But even Elliott notes that the imagined Israel strike should come after Iran has nuked Israel -- so does Elliott think that Israel should just lie down and die and not respond to the Islamic jihad that is explicitly bent on destroying it utterly? Given the increasingly open antisemitism of the Left, he may indeed think this. And as for the bus ads, they did not encourage people to leave Islam. They offered aid to people who were threatened, under Islam's death penalty for apostasy, for wanting to leave Islam. Do such people not have any rights? Regarding the Dome of the Rock, she was writing about how it is a triumphal mosque, meant to mark Islam's victory over Judaism in its occupation of the site of the Jewish Temple. She has said that Muslims should, if they're really interested in peace and reconciliation, voluntarily vacate the area. And she didn't call for a boycott of Campbell's because of its halal line in itself, but because its halal line is certified by a Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group.
Justin Elliott doesn't tell you any of that, because it wouldn't fit into his smear campaign.
He then concludes by quoting the Times' irresponsible and inaccurate claim that Pamela accused Rauf without evidence of having terror ties. Elliott, of course, ignored her response: "The New York Times said: 'And Ms. Geller said, without evidence, that the center's financing might be tied to terrorists.' We know that Rauf is a leading member of the Perdana Organization, the single largest financier of the Turkish terrorist group's jihad flotilla against Israel. Rauf and Daisy Khan have received funding from the Xenel Corporation. The connection between Xenel and al Qaeda, according to the Orlando Sentinel, was persuasive enough that the city of Orlando decided to cancel the contract it had previously awarded to Xenel. The involvement Bin Laden-tied Xenel led to the cancellation of a different 100-million-dollar project in Florida. If such ties would cancel a convention center, why not a 100-million-dollar Islamic supremacist mega mosque at the site of largest attack on American soil by these same players? And yet the Times says I have no evidence."
How contemptible are mainstream media reporters? I keep thinking they've hit bottom, but they keep surprising me.