Follow the Money!

This election has me more than concerned.  Now having said that, let me state, I did not write this article, but I do find much agreement with it.

This election has me very worried.  So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking ‘where did the money come from for Obama’.  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama’s life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. ‘Barry’ (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a ’round the world’ trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate’s family, then off to Africa to visit his father’s family. (Hasn’t he made public statements recently that he hasn’t had contact with his Muslim father or his father’s side of his family since he was a very young boy?) My question – Where did he get the money for this
trip?  Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It’s not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By ‘chance’  he met Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named ‘Entrepreneur of the Decade’ by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association’.  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition
is for Harvard Law School?  Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.  But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?  They represented ‘Rezar’ which is Rezko’s firm.  Rezko was one of Obama’s first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims Rezko was instrumental in providing Obama with ‘seed money’ for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times
reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama’s new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President.  Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama’s boss.  She is now Obama’s chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.  Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!  Do we see a pattern here?  Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was ’sacked’ after the press found out he was having regular contacts with ’Hamas’, which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.  This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama’s visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war
until after he is elected, and he will ‘Take care of things’.

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan?  They are in charge of all those ‘small’ Internet campaign contribution for Obama.  Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news.  On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on ‘This Week’ with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama on talking about his religion said, ‘My Muslim faith’.  When questioned, ‘he made a mistake’.  Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven’t all of our ‘intelligent’ members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – ‘Beware of the enemy from within’!!! 

Campaign Contributions From Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac for Senator Barack Obama – Truth!

TruthorFiction says it’s TRUE

Summary of the eRumor:

An eRumor called the “Barack Obama’s Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection” claiming that Senator Barack Obama ranked the number two spot in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Truth:

John Gibson of Fox News wrote an article by this title on September 16, 2008, quoting sources from the Center for Responsive Politics.  In it, Gibson stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had used “huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.” According to the article, “The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.”

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), according to their web site, is a “nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy.”

According to the report posted on the CRP web site Donations for the Illinois senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac report between 1989-2008 tabulated up to $126,349.  The same report show John McCain contributions from the same group tabulated to $21,550.

A New York Times article dated September 9,2008 stated both candidates had ties with the lending giants but Senator Obama “is second among members of Congress in donations from the firms’ employees and political action committees.”

Click here for the article

Click here for the Center for Responsive Politics on Campaign Contributions Reports

updated 10/04/08

Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency to Oversee Housing Industry

Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency in 2003 - Truth!

Summary of the eRumor:

An eRumor quoting a New York times article from 2003 that claims “the Bush administration had recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing industry” in a decade,  A new agency would be created under the Department of the Treasury to assume supervision of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  The concept was met with opposition by the Congressional Democrats because at the time the lending agencies were not facing any kind of financial crisis.

The Truth:

Stephen Labaton wrote this story for the New York Times and it was published September 11, 2003 and it is still archived at the newspaper. 

According to the article, the Bush administration introduced the plan and it was well recieved by Fannie Mae and its leading rivals.  It was criticized by the Democrats in Congress and National Association of Home Builders who feared “that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

Congressman Barney Frank stated that they two major lenders were not facing any financial crisis at the time. 

CLICK for full story from New York Times.

From a Retired Banker

 Jack Kelly

Thursday, 18 September 2008

Lending money to people who probably won’t pay it back isn’t good business. If you wrap crummy loans in a clever package, they’re crummy loans.

Your typical Wal Mart shopper understands this. But the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in Washington evidently didn’t. Ostensibly to aid the poor, the Clinton administration and Congress encouraged lenders to give mortgages to poor credit risks. The combination of easy money and the expansion of the number of borrowers by extending loans to poor credit risks sent housing prices through the roof, creating the bubble whose bursting has led to this crisis.

Congress in 1999 repealed the law (the Glass-Steagall Act) that established a bright line between commercial and investment banks. This meant bad investments by banks could jeopardize depositors.

Wall Street created ‘derivatives’ which multiplied profits in good times, but which also multiplied risk if there were defaults.

Most important was corruption and mismanagement at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), which together controlled 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market.

Once your bank has lent you money to buy a house, it can’t lend the money again until you pay it back. But if your bank sells your mortgage, it can make another loan right away. Without the secondary market, most of the funds for home mortgages would dry up.

Fannie and Freddie went broke because they had bought billions of dollars worth of sub prime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae.

Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe.

President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003 but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster.

When the bill was reintroduced in this Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, the new Democratic chairman of Banking Committee, refused even to hold a hearing on it. Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people.

‘Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’ Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told the New York Times when the

Bush bill was introduced. ‘The more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’ Democrats and some Republicans opposed reform because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998, and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.

The principal recipient of Fannie Mae’s largesse was Sen. Dodd. Number two was Barack Hussein Obama.

Sen. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide’s PAC and its employees. The number one senator on Countrywide’s list? Barack Hussein Obama

Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was forced to resign in December, 2004, because of ‘accounting irregularities.’

The Washington Post reported July 16 the Obama campaign has called Mr. Raines ‘seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.’

Sen. Obama appointed Mr. Raines’ predecessor, James Johnson, as head of his vice presidential search committee, until he was also implicated in ‘accounting irregularities,’ and it was revealed he’d received cut rate loans from Countrywide.

Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, chairman of Sen. Obama’s finance committee, cooked the books to conceal losses from subprime mortgages at her now defunct Superior bank. The holding company her family owned collected $200 million in dividends on phony profits.

The trouble with crony capitalism isn’t capitalism. It’s the cronies.

NOPE you are not going to find this information on the front page!!!!!!!!!!!

Financial Meltdown or Bailout?

The Obama Fanny Mae Video. See it before it is pulled!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

The facts stated below have been research and claimed to be true by truthorfiction.com

 

 

Bush Administration Proposed a New Agency to oversee Housing Industry in 2003-Truth!

Summary of the eRumor:  

 

An eRumor quoting a New York Times article from 2003 that claims “the Bush administration had recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing industry” in a decade,  A new agency would be created under the Department of the Treasury to assume supervision of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  The concept was met with opposition by the Congressional Democrats because at the time the lending agencies were not facing any kind of financial crisis.

The Truth:  

 

Stephen Labaton wrote this story for the New York Times and it was published September 11, 2003 and it is still archived at the newspaper.

 

According to the article, the Bush administration introduced the plan and it was well recieved by Fannie Mae and its leading rivals.  It was criticized by the Democrats in Congress and National Association of Home Builders who feared “that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.” 

Congressman Barney Frank stated that they two major lenders were not facing any financial crisis at the time.

CLICK for full story from New York Times … updated 09/25/08

Campaign Contributions From Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac for Senator Barack Obama-Truth!

Summary of the eRumor:  

An eRumor called the “Barack Obama’s Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection” claiming that Senator Barack Obama ranked the number two spot in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Truth:  

John Gibson of Fox News wrote an article by this title on September 16, 2008, quoting sources from the Center for Responsive Politics.  In it, Gibson stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had used “huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.” According to the article, “The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.” 

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), according to their web site, is a “nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy.”

According to the report posted on the CRP web site Donations for the Illinois senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac report between 1989-2008 tabulated up to $126,349.  The same report show John McCain contributions from the same group tabulated to $21,550.

A New York Times article dated September 9,2008 stated both candidates had ties with the lending giants but Senator Obama “is second among members of Congress in donations from the firms’ employees and political action committees.”

Click here for the article

Click here for the Center for Responsive Politics on Campaign Contributions Reports. This exposes members of both parties. updated … 10/04/08

 

From A Retired Banker: 

Thursday, 18 September 2008

Lending money to people who probably won’t pay it back isn’t good business. If you wrap crummy loans in a clever package, they’re crummy loans.

Your typical Wal Mart shopper understands this. But the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in Washington evidently didn’t.

Ostensibly to aid the poor, the Clinton administration and

Congress encouraged lenders to give mortgages to poor credit risks. The combination of easy money and the expansion of the number of borrowers by extending loans to poor credit risks sent housing prices through the roof, creating the bubble whose bursting has led to this crisis

Congress in 1999 repealed the law (the Glass-Steagall Act) that established a bright line between commercial and investment banks. This meant bad investments by banks could jeopardize depositors.

Wall Street created ‘derivatives’ which multiplied profits in good times, but which also multiplied risk if there were defaults.

Most important was corruption and mismanagement at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), which together controlled 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market.

Once your bank has lent you money to buy a house, it can’t lend the money again until you pay it back. But if your bank sells your mortgage, it can make another loan right away. Without the secondary market, most of the funds for home mortgages would dry up.

Fannie and Freddie went broke because they had bought billions of dollars worth of sub prime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae.

Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe.

President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003 but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster.

When the bill was reintroduced in this Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, the new Democratic chairman of Banking Committee, refused even to hold a hearing on it. Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people.

‘Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’ Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told the New York Times when the Bush bill was introduced. ‘The more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’ Democrats and some Republicans opposed reform because Fannie and Freddie were very good at greasing palms. Fannie spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998, and $19.3 million on political contributions since 1990.

The principal recipient of Fannie Mae’s largesse was Sen. Dodd. Number two was Barack Hussein Obama.

Sen. Dodd was also the second largest recipient in the Senate of contributions from Countrywide’s PAC and its employees. The number one senator on Countrywide’s list? Barack Hussein Obama

Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines was forced to resign in December, 2004, because of ‘accounting irregularities.’

The Washington Post reported July 16 the Obama campaign has called Mr. Raines ‘seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.’

Sen. Obama appointed Mr. Raines’ predecessor, James Johnson, as head of his vice presidential search committee, until he was also implicated in ‘accounting irregularities,’ and it was revealed he’d received cut rate loans from Countrywide.

Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, chairman of Sen. Obama’s finance committee, cooked the books to conceal losses from subprime mortgages at her now defunct Superior bank. The holding company her family owned collected $200 million in dividends on phony profits.

The trouble with crony capitalism isn’t capitalism. It’s the cronies.

 

Follow the Money!

This election has me very more than concerned.  Now having said that, let me state, I did not write this article, but I do find much agreement with it.

So many things to consider.  About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than.  I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another.  I must say this drives my husband crazy.  But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.  About six months ago, I started thinking ‘where did the money come from for Obama’.  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight.  We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama’s life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. ‘Barry’ (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a ’round the world’ trip.  Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate’s family, then off to Africa to visit his father’s family. (Hasn’t he made public statements recently that he hasn’t had contact with his Muslim father or his father’s side of his family since he was a very young boy?) My question – Where did he get the money for this trip?  Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.  When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.  It is at this time he  wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry.  Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?  It’s not cheap! to say the least.  Where did he get money for tuition?  Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year.  Why Chicago?  Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By ‘chance’  he met Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago.  Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year.  Rezko, was named ‘Entrepreneur of the Decade’ by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association’.  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.  Do you have any idea what tuition
is for Harvard Law School?  Where did he get the money for Law School?  More student loans?  After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.  But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?  They represented ‘Rezar’ which is Rezko’s firm.  Rezko was one of Obama’s first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims Rezko was instrumental in providing Obama with ‘seed money’ for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).  With ALL those Student Loans Where did he get the money for the property?  On the same day Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama’s new home was purchased.  Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President.  Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama’s boss.  She is now Obama’s chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first.  Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran!  Do we see a pattern here?  Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was ’sacked’ after the press found out he was having regular contacts with ’Hamas’, which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran.  This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama’s visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will ‘Take care of things’.

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan?  They are in charge of all those ‘small’ Internet campaign contribution for Obama.  Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news.  On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on ‘This Week’ with George Stephanapoulos.  Obama on talking about his religion said, ‘My Muslim faith’.  When questioned, ‘he made a mistake’.  Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line.  If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven’t all of our ‘intelligent’ members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – ‘Beware of the enemy from within’!!! 

NOPE you are not going to find this information on the front page!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

  

 

 

What Is An “Islamophobe?”

By Brigitte Gabriel
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/26/2008

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63E81FA2-BB8A-466C-9BC4-7CF20C272431

For the past five years, I’ve been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam. I have often been accused of “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.” The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an “Islamophobe,” but a “radical Islamophobe.” This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”? What is “Islamophobia” and who are the true “Islamophobes?”

“Hate speech” verses “free speech” is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called “progressive” individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. That’s called “free speech.” When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that’s labeled “hate speech” by many of these “progressives.”

But what is “hate speech” and what is “Islamophobia”? When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest “hatefulness?” Certainly.

However, it’s not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate. I wish they didn’t. But wishing doesn’t make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times). The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’” (Koran 8:12)

The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes. In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated. It is the Koran that is guilty of “hate speech.” I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.

Which brings us to “Islamophobia” and “radical Islamophobes.” According to the dictionary, the suffix “-phobe” comes from the Latin phobos, which means “fearing.” Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways. Madrid train stations. Bali night clubs. Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I am an “Islamophobe” in its healthiest manifestation. In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.

Things get a little more complicated when we get to “Islamophobia.” The dictionary defines a “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.” Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is “exaggerated,” “inexplicable” and/or “illogical” is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT “Islamophobia.”

If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix “-phobia” can include “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be “Islamophobia.” However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a “Islamophobe,” then I submit that my so-called “Islamophobia” is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.

The next question must be: what distinguishes a “radical” Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam. My “Islamophobia” motivates me totell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a “radical.” Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.

The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details. There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them.[1] Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of “fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do….”[2] The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were “offensive,” and they were being “respectful” of Muslim “sensitivity.” Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, “insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish.”[3]

The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper.[4] The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times’ fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.

And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad’s wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction.[5] The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They’ve become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Timeswhen a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.

Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? No. Do I fear radical Islam? I already admitted that I did. Maybe that makes me a “radical Islamophobe.” But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists? Absolutely not. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth. Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.

If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.