Friday, January 9, 2015

The Islamic Terror Threat: Democrats and weak Republicans — Part of the problem NOT part of the solution

One commentator says that those making the world safe for complacency are not merely wrong or corrupt, or even craven and false leaders  —  he says they are traitors

On the local scene, even RINOs like NY State Senator Marty Golden have taken problematic stands against NYPD surveillance of Islamic extremists for political reasons

Next two years critical to the defense of the U.S.A. and New York City  —   Obama and de Blasio are part of the problem; and Republicans like Marty Golden don’t look like they are part of the solution   

In the wake of the Islamic terrorist outbreak in France, some GOP partisans are on the attack against president Obama, and Democrats generally, for their soft on terrorist and Islamic extremist positions ”  (See “DAVI: PARIS TERROR REVEALS OBAMA’S REFUSAL TO PROTECT U.S.” by Robert Davi, 1/9/15, Breitbart News/ Big Hollywood []).


According to Robert Davi’s perhaps overwrought and clearly unyielding commentary in the Breitbart News, “OK, let’s get ready to rumble and stop all the polite bullshit. We all know that this is happening. We all know that the Jews, Christians, and the West are under attack by two forces – radical Islam and the American left.... ***   ...We have a President and his allies of the left who have emboldened the terrorist movement and gravely undermined law enforcement. ***  President Barack Obama’s inability to face the American people and the world to define and denounce the radical element of Islam gives me pause. And the complacency of his whole political party is, by its silence, committing an act of treason. ***  By not demanding that its leader do what’s best for the American way of life, all will be held accountable. America’s best interests, and therefore the world’s, are not being protected. ***   When there is imminent danger to a way of life, and there is a movement by individuals that wish to overthrow that way of life, then those individuals who purposely refuse to define that threat due to misguided political correctness or differing worldview, we must concur, an act of complacency is being perpetrated....”  Robert Davi then went on to specifically call out President Barack Obama and New York City Mayor “Bill de Blasio” for their compliant repose and failure to remain vigilant in the face of obvious threats.

On other hand, Davi and Breitbart News devoted significant attention to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi for his recent comments before Al-Azhar and the Awqaf Ministry on New Year’s Day, 2015.  Davi described al-Sisi as a “leader with balls,” and worthy of the attention of the whole world and even the Nobel Prize.


Today, Ross Barkan reports that Republican Congressman Peter King argued that the two dangerous hostage situations in France show why surveillance of Muslim communities in New York is necessary. In his report in the NY Observer, Barkan writes that “Congressman Peter King, a Long Island lawmaker and former chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the fatal attacks on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine, coupled with today’s hostage siege were yet more evidence for why local Muslims need to be aggressively watched by police....” (See “Congressman Says French Hostage Siege Shows Why Muslim Surveillance Is Necessary” by Ross Barkan, 1/9/15, NY Observer [][@newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook]). Specifically addressing issues relevant to the citizens of New York, King said, “[The NYPD has] been demoralized in recent years by the New York Times, the Associated Press and lawsuits basically saying the surveillance they were doing into [ ] Muslim communities is illegal, [and that] it’s unconstitutional.”  While critics of the NYPD’s Muslim surveillance program have argued that it amounted to unnecessary racial profiling, Mr. King, a longtime proponent of the program, said, “I certainly believe it was not [it was “important...”] and it’s been one of the reasons why we’ve been able to hold off any major attacks in New York....”


Barkan’s report indicated that Congressman King said he believed the NYPD would be able to respond to potential terrorist threats here, even though the police unions were warring with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s and his administration. “The NYPD, they are the best. There’s nobody in the country or the world who I think is better at monitoring and responding,” Mr. King said. “Now, they’ve had a rough time over the last few years, because of whether it’s the media or whether it’s Mayor Bill de Blasio and his campaign or they’re talking about how this is profiling and how terrible [it]is....” King concluded that “The fact is this has worked.”


In another NY Observer feature, Will Bredderman focused on similar positions taken by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as follows: “Speaking on Fox News, Mr. Giuliani criticized his successor for ending a two decade-old policy of planting police informants in Muslim houses of worship, and urged him to again assign cops to keep tabs on the religious institutions. The former mayor argued such action was justified because the conspirators behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack met in mosques, and subsequent investigations led to arrest and the conviction of militant Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hoped to launch attacks in the transit system. ***   ‘The mayor of New York, one of the first things he did was he pulled all of the police out of the mosques. Well, you know who put the police in the mosques?  I did. You know who increased the number of police in the mosques? Kelly and Bloomberg,’ Mr. Giuliani told host Greta Van Susteren. ‘And why did I do it? Because the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was organized in a mosque. The blind sheikh, who went to jail for a hundred years, was planning to blow up our subways in a mosque....’ (See “Giuliani to de Blasio: Put Cops Back in Mosques After Charlie Hebdo Massacre” by Will Bredderman, 1/9/16 [sic], NY Observer []).

In the same article, former mayor Giuliani was also quoted criticizing President Obama for not directly referencing the religious background and affiliations of the Paris shooters, saying “It’s wrong for the president not to use the word ‘Islamic extremist terrorism.’ It sends a bad signal,” he said. “This is like Roosevelt not using the word ‘Nazi’ during the Second World War, or Reagan not using the word ‘Communism’ during the Cold War.”


Just over two years ago, Marty Golden did his biggest turnaround yet on policing matters. In the face of a tough election challenge by Democrat Andrew Gounardes, Golden tacked strongly to the left and reversed his long-held publicly expressed support of the NYPD’s program of closely monitoring Muslim places of meeting and prayer in order to keep their finger on the pulse of radical Islamist terrorists in our midst. He did this while on stage with Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour at an event hosted by one of her crypto-Islamist front groups ( See “Sen. Golden Comes Out Against Counterterrorism Surveillance of Mosques at Arab-American Candidate’s Forum” posted by By Shadi Bushra & Elaine Mao, 10/11/12, Covering Political News – Brooklyn Campaign Districts 17 & 22/ []).

At that 10/13/12 forum sponsored by Sarsour’s Arab-American Association of New York,.Golden said, “The police should not be spying on churches, mosques, or synagogues,”  He also said Police Commissioner Kelly should apologize to Muslim New Yorkers if there were any proof that Kelly had authorized the investigations or surveillance, although Golden was quick to point out that he didn’t know of any instances where that sort of thing had occurred (See “Critics claim incumbent flip-flopping on cops watching mosques” by Will Bredderman, 10/24/12, Brooklyn Paper []).

Golden has had a history of taking stands on both sides of controversial political issues. Gun control, protection of children from sexual predators and the police surveillance of Islamic meeting places immediately come to mind. Even Will Bredderman made this observation on the mosque surveillance issue: “State Sen. Marty Golden is all for spying on mosques — except when he’s not. ***  The lawmaker declared his opposition to the surveillance of mosques in front of a mostly Middle Eastern audience at a candidate forum last week — a year almost to the day after applauding Police Commissioner Ray Kelly’s counter-terrorism efforts, including planting informants inside [Islamic] houses of worship.”

People who care deeply about many of these issues, have long known that Marty Golden is anything but a dependable ally. Will that now extend to Republican efforts to beef-up police surveillance operations aimed at mosques and other Islamic meeting places ?  Or does Golden persist in thinking that possible  threats emanating from mosques are the same as those coming from churches and synagogues ?  It should be noted that even his 2011 letter of support to Commissioner Kelly mentioned the necessary surveillance of churches, synagogues, mosques and businesses, as if all posed similar terrorist threats.


Anonymous said...

Pete King is the chief cheerleader of the USA -- the Unlimited Surveillance of America.

Of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, there were ZERO American citizens.

Why does King and his fellow Big brother types continue to advocate unrestricted spying on American citizens?

Anonymous said...

What your not getting is if this becomes a war about USA v Muslims, the Muslims win.

The Muslims have us outnumbered 10 to 1 and will fight to the death, and its not because they got a $20,000 sign on bonus.

Anonymous said...

Same was said about the Nazis and imperial japan. They were beat by draftees and a couple of nukes.

Anonymous said...

Peter King beat the Japanese?

Anonymous said...

Terror attacks in France and its Martys fault. Makes a lot of sense.

Anonymous said...

NOW Your using you're head

Anonymous said...

To COmment 9:20 PM

It doesn't work that way; it isn't Dancing With The Stars.

Anonymous said...

Nobody has noticed that Donovan is up for re-election this year. He gives up DA by running. Whats Nicole giving up?

Galewyn Massey said...


People who liked Grimm as a Congressman should want McMahon back. They both had similar "moderate" voting records.

On the other hand, Grimm wanted nothing to do with that Arab-Islamic forum that Golden and Malliotakis attended in 2012 --- giving mainstream cred to radical-activists like Linda Sarsour --- just like Bill de Blasio has done since his campaign in 2013.

What kind of voting records do you think Donovan, Malliotakis and Cusick would have if they were in Congress?

Some of my people are telling me that real conservative-minded Republicans should be pushing for Joe Tirone.... BUT --- Does he have any shot at all?

Anonymous said...

A long storied history exists between this congressional seat, the conservative party, and, Ben Franklin.

Once upon a time a man named Amadeo became Meade, and with that came greed . . .

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Malliotakis again?
Oh no. Please no.

Anonymous said...

Whoever Mike Long picks, and that includes McMahon, wins.

Nothing else matters.

Anonymous said...

Because of the slaughter of Parisian Jews in a koshermart and other threats, the Grande Synagogue de la Victoire was closed for Shabbat services for the first time since the Nazi’s gave up their occupation of Paris. Paris police also shut down the main high street of the largely Jewish Marais. Compare that to last summer when State Senator Golden and Assemblywoman Malliotakis were both at a pro-Islamic rally at the Bay Ridge Islamic Center. There were many people including Senator Golden that spoke out against pro-Israeli demonstrators and called for an investigation of suspects for their “hate crimes” of demonstrating directed at two Brooklyn mosques. The suspects were believed to be pro-Israeli Jewish activists. Is all that what Golden and Malliotakis mean by an open dialogue, and fair and equal treatment of “Arabs and Jews.”

Anonymous said...

the person who posted the comment directly above this needs to see a doctor.

Anonymous said...

Whoever posted the above comment is an anti-Semite.

Anonymous said...

In response to Gale: Joe T and Nicole has no shot of getting the nomination which makes Craig Eaton (pushing Nicole), Joseph Hayon and Russell Gallo (both pushing Joe T) the biggest losers in Brooklyn.

The only smart one from the bunch are either those support Dan or the LRP and her Dr who are choosing to stay out of this appointed nomination.

To summarize:
Craig Eaton -- Loser
Joseph Hayon -- Loser
Russell Gallo -- Loser
Lucretia Potter -- Winner
Dr. Ferraro -- Winner

Galewyn Massey said...



One of the earliest retreats to into twisted and gutless characterizations of the Charlie Hebdo terrorists came from CNN's Christiane Amanpour, who is also one of ABC's global affairs anchors. In one of her reports on the murderous Islamic attack in Paris last week, Amanpour called the terrorist killers that attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices — "activists."

On Friday’s edition of the Fox News show, “The Five,” Greg Gutfeld called-out this scrubbing of the narrative and annihilation of the English language by Christiane Amanpour and also went after others in the Mainstream Media for their "fear of (right-wing) backlash." ( See report of Gutfeld’s comments with video clips of Gutfeld and Amanpour in: “CNN's Christiane Amanpour Calls Charlie Hebdo Terrorists 'Activists'” by Tom Blumer, 1/10/15, MRC NewsBusters []).

Here are some of Greg Gutfeld’s remarks from “The Five” quoted in the NewsBuster report:

“GUTFELD: ... [O]ne aids terror by blocking speech through the fabrication of offense. We must fight evil, but what happens when the fight is labeled as "bigoted" by the media, our campuses, our leaders? Terror wins. *** And so CNN's Christiane Amanpour calls terrorists ‘activists.’ I'm really not kidding. [Clip showing CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR (in a broadcast on the day of the massacre, perhaps even shortly after it took place, given that CNN considered it ‘Breaking News’): ‘On this day, these activists found their targets, and their targets were journalists. This was a clear attack on the freedom of expression, on the press, and on satire.’] *** GUTFELD: What?”

Gutfeld then went after Nicholas Kristoff and David Rothkopf, who appeared as part of the coverage on MSNBC to decry “Islamophobia” and other right-wing reactions: “GUTFELD: I get it. The enemy is pre-ordained. It's us. Which means Howard Dean is right. This is a cult, a cult of apologists. But Dean is also right when he says this is not a religious issue...” — “... [W]hich means, if I don't see Islam when I fight terror, then you cannot see Islamophobia when I fight it. *** What should we see instead? Again, a death cult, one that needs no understanding, just eradication. It would be nice for moderate Muslims to help, but if they don't, we can handle it, it's nothing personal, Muslims. Just step aside. *** Finally, where did this cult learn to punish language? From the Quran? From Al Qaeda? How about Harvard, and our modern cult of hate speech activists, who see language as violence, creating speech codes with penalties? Seeing ‘activists’ silence critics so easily must make them drool with envy....”

So what does NewsBusters think of Mr. Gutfeld’s remarks last Friday on “The Five” ? Here it is: “Gutfeld's point about Islamic denial and "Islamophobia" is especially excellent. *** As to Amanpour, her history of terror-sympathetic bias runs wide and deep. Just a few of many examples can be found in compilations at the Media Research Center and NewsBusters....”

Anonymous said...

Well Gale you've plummeted to an all time low when you dare to criticize one of the most courageous and smart female journalists of our century. Chritiane Amanpour is surpassed only by Judy Woodruff when it comes to integrity, knowledge and excellent reporting. For shame.

Anonymous said...

If Christiane Amanpour is so smart than why did she marry a guy who is gay?
Did her and Ariana Huffington go on a double date

Galewyn Massey said...


To: "Anonymous... 9:24 AM"

Your comment was a joke, right ?

Anonymous said...

long live C-SPAN

Anonymous said...

In 1914-1915 was D.W. Griffith looking into the past or into the future?

Anonymous said...

Some would say you people are just sexist, racist, homophobic, others would just say your Republicans.

Anonymous said...

oh thats rich

Anonymous said...

Uh oh! Somebody above said "you people..."

Some would say that such a "somebody" is just sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., etc., etc.; others would thoughtfully end the discussion, because there could be no upside in trying to reason with such an unrefined and graceless an individual.

Anonymous said...

Some Democrats and liberals can be quite uncouth. Because of their self-righteousness, they often overlook all sorts of inhumanity in themselves. In addition, for them caring is more important than doing and trying is more important than succeeding.