- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Brace yourselves: The New York Times has unleashed its full editorial fury on those whom its previous editorials haven’t already reduced to babbling progressive idiot status. Yes, Maureen Dowd has slipped her leash; perhaps one of the few East Coast propagandist editorialists who could – with a straight face – explain to George W. Bush why backing a mosque on the site of Islam’s declaration of war against America and the attempted murder of 50,000 people would be “very white of you, old chap” (as the Brits used to say).
To quote the relevant portion of Ms. Dowd’s thinking: “Some critics have said the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers would be to allow a mosque to be built near Ground Zero.
“Actually, the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the moral timidity that would ban a mosque from that neighborhood.”
No, Ms. Dowd, the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the religious, cultural and legal conquest of America for Islam. A major milepost in that victory is a mosque at the site where Islam launched its war against us. (You have read the declaration of war, have you not?)
Any person who could fail to see the significance of a 9/11 mosque is completely devoid of any understanding of religious symbolism. Building this mosque would, in fact, convince faithful Muslims worldwide that Allah was giving America over into their hands. It would guarantee a flood of new terrorist attacks on Western interests across the world. That’s the kind of intellectual ignorance (masquerading as arrogance) that inbred East Coast liberalism, magnified by a deep disdain for intellectual diversity in its newsrooms, has bequeathed to subsequent generations.
I suspect that Ms. Dowd will still be writing this kind of nonsense on the day the “moderate” Muslims cart her neighbor’s little girls off for genital mutilation, and drop by her house to check on her burka and pick up their dhimmitude tax payment.
As I’ve mentioned before, the only reason the East Coast media establishment exists is to keep D.C.’s elected officials on the true believer’s progressive path. They do this by writing nice things about the politicians who do their bidding and nasty things about those who don’t. Like a biblical plague, they overlook the sins of the former and add to the transgressions of the latter. The unwritten gist of Ms. Dowd’s column is that after eight years of bashing Bush, if he caves in support of America’s enemies – the Times will condescend to write something nice about him. It’s leftist political absolution.