The liberals’ conservative

One of the worst aspects of the mainstream media is their tendency to prop up false and weak conservatives, and then claim they’re giving voice to all sides of today’s public debate.

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post is a prime example. She best represents the liberal’s idea of a conservative. She is weak, at best. So naive and ignorant is Rubin about the stealth jihad and creeping Shariah that she dismisses as “ridiculous” the observation that 10 years after 9/11, we are losing – even though no government or law enforcement entity is doing a single thing about that stealth jihad as it continues to advance.

Similarly clueless and cowardly was her response to Newt Gingrich’s unexpectedly statesmanlike and courageous observations that the “Palestinians” were an “invented people,” a nationality made up out of whole cloth to further the Islamic jihad against Israel. In a piece on Gingrich’s detractors, Caroline Glick noted that “the attackers’ most outspoken representative has been Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. These insiders argue that although Gingrich spoke the truth, it was irresponsible and unstatesmanlike for him to have done so.”

Glick quotes Rubin asking: “Do conservatives really think it is a good idea for their nominee to reverse decades of U.S. policy and deny there is a Palestinian national identity?”

Yes, of course it’s a good idea. If that U.S. policy is based on jihadist propaganda, the only interests that will be served by perpetuating this fiction will be those of the jihadists. But since Rubin hardly realizes that there is a jihad anyway, she missed that. Her cluelessness builds on itself.

Glick points out that in the view of Jennifer Rubin and others like her, “Gingrich is an irresponsible flamethrower because he is turning his back on a 30-year bipartisan consensus. That consensus is based on ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are an artificial people whose identity sprang not from any shared historical experience, but from opposition to Jewish nationalism.”

Also clueless and dangerous was Rubin’s take on the “Arab Spring,” i.e. the Islamic supremacist winter, but in that Rubin was just following the liberal media herd. (And that’s part of the problem, too.) The Islamic imperialism of the revolution was evident from the beginning. I wrote of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth coup back in January and February of 2011. But Rubin wrote last June that while “there was and remains legitimate concern about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt … the argument that removing Mubarak meant handing the government over to the Muslim Brotherhood has not proved correct. At least not yet.” She cautioned the U.S. and other Western powers to avoid “fanning hysteria that Egypt is on the brink of falling into the Islamist camp.” She even added a warning: “The more time we devote to the latter, the greater chance it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.”

Is she kidding? It’s our fault? Spoken like a true jihadist. What’s next? Sept. 11 was our fault?

Yeah, sure, Jennifer. Egypt fell to the Muslim Brotherhood because people like me were warning that it was going to – it went down the Islamic supremacist path just for spite.

This is the kind of analysis that the Washington Post considers worthy of featuring – and calling conservative. The perspective of the anti-real, the anti-logical. Jennifer Rubin has gotten every major issue wrong.

And consider the smug arrogance Rubin displays in her piece about the Republican presidential contenders. Chronicling the rise and fall as party front-runner of Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, Rubin scolds voters for daring to think for themselves and not blindly following the lead of those whom Rubin obviously thinks are the voters’ intellectual and cultural superiors: “In fact, in each case the ‘elites’ had it right, the base followed, and the aspirants crashed. The bloggers and talk show hosts who decried the attacks on their favorite upstart of the month were left scrambling to get off the train wrecks.”

If Jennifer Rubin is among the “elites,” I’ll stay down here with the hoi polloi, thankyouverymuch.

Before she went to the Post, Rubin wrote for Pajamas Media. And while she was better then, she has become poisonous now. Perhaps such a “conservative” is widely quoted because she toes the leftwing line. Genuine conservatives deserve better, and should have a voice in the mainstream media to articulate and defend our positions.

Instead, we get weak sisters like Jennifer Rubin or Jew-haters like Pat Buchanan.