New loony leftist flavour of the month

VIDEO: Ken Burns' anti-American lies

If you read "'The American Revolution' - Ken Burns' new, woke version" (WWW 18/11/25), you'll know that I didn't think much of Ken Burns' latest opus. The production values were fine, but the overall message was skewed hard to the liberal narrative.

Most of the reviews in the mainstream media were predictably positive. There wasn't a lot of fact-checking, nor was the phrase "revisionist history" much used. That's because the huge success of The Civil War has made Ken Busns something of a national treasure, virtually untouchable. Hey, the Obamas love him, the Bidens love him, and... wait for it... his series are on PBS, the font of all that's Great and Good in America.

Walt is relieved, then, to find that not everyone drank the Kool-aid. [The followers of Jim Jones actually drank Flavor-aid. Ed.] Negative reviews from a number of conservative outlets, including National Review and Amac, argue that the series is "bad history" and "ahistorical woke nonsense".

But wait, there's more. Only today did Ed. stumble upon this video by Matt Walsh, an American political commentator for the Daily Wire and host of  The Matt Walsh Show.

In this episode, Mr Walsh takes a close look at The American Revolution, which he calls "a piece of sophisticated anti-American propaganda." "There is a neverending effort to make Americans embarrassed of their history," he says, "and to give credit for its achievements to people who don't deserve it. American history has been rewritten for this purpose." Listen up!

Why do Muslim fanatics keep killing Christians? Isn't it obvious?

Maybe not. People like John Kerry and his Prez keep saying it's all a big misunderstanding, and we should try to "make nice" with the "moderate Muslims". See "Catholic commentator on Obama's dangerous attitude to Islam". Presumably that would included Mohammed Mursi, since deposed from his position as Egypt's head of state, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani -- this month's great white hope. [Is this right? Ed.]

About the same time President Rouhani was telling the United Nations how much his country wants to be reconciled to the West, Islamic extremists two countries to the east -- that would be Pakistan -- were exploding bombs at All Saints (Anglican) church in Peshawar. The death toll in that attack now stands at well over 100, with a like number injured and maimed. And just today BBC News reports another bomb attack in Peshawar, this time on a polio clinic. A polio clinic!

Why do the followers of "the religion of peace" -- that's what "Islam" means -- do this? See "Fanatical Muslim imams preach jihad against non-believers" And consider the explanation given by Most Rev. Joseph Coutts, the Archbishop of Karachi. It's simple, he says. They hate the West, and America -- "the great Satan" -- in particular. And to them, all Christians (American or otherwise) are identified with the west.

In an interview with Vatican Radio, Abp. Coutts linked the actions of NATO forces in Afghanistan to the persecution of Christians in Pakistan. "The problem is the increasing intolerance and the perception, in general, among the Muslims is that the Christians are identified with the West. There’s a lot of anger among Muslims, especially over the drone attacks."

The lesson should be clear, then, even to the dullards who inhabit Foggy Bottom. As long as the West (and America in particular) keeps meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and the Maghreb, we can expect attacks on Christians -- westerners and non-westerners alike -- to continue. Ron Paul is right.

UN human rights rapporteur links Boston Marathon bombings to US "global domination project"

Dr. Richard Falk, a citizen of the Excited States of America, is Professor Emeritus of international law at Princeton University. He is also the Disunited Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, reporting to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

And what does the good doctor think of the state of human rights in America's dear ally, Israel? Not much. He has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the horrors of Nazi Germany. Expressing this sentiment earned Dr. Falk the distinction of being one of the few American Jews permanently banned from setting foot in the Zionist entity.

This week Dr. Falk garnered a huge round of Bronx cheers from the usual suspects for having the temerity to suggest that the Boston Marathon bombings were the result of the United States "global domination project" and Washington's policy on Israel.

He made these controversial remarks in a commentary published in Foreign Policy Journal on April 21st. You will note that there is no link to his article. The Journal's website -- www.foreignpolicyjournal.com -- seems to be unavailable this evening. Of course we know there's no censorship in America, so it must be some kind of technical glitch. However, Ed. was able to locate a critical article in The Jewish Daily Forward, from which he pulled these quotes from Dr. Falk's commentary.

"The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world....

"In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink U.S. relations to others in the world," Dr. Falk wrote.

[Hold the presses! Ed. -- I've always wanted to say that...]

Ed. has just located an earlier version of Dr. Falk's commentary, posted on his own blog on April 19th.

Readers of WWW may want to compare his comments with Walt's post "'We don't know who did it or why...'", published on April 16th. Perhaps Dr. Falk is another of Walt's regular readers?

Candy Crowley clone discusses anti-Americanism

Earlier today, when I wrote about Candy Crowley -- winner of Walt's COW award -- I mentioned that Cathy Jones did a devastating impression of the biased and incompetent "moderator" of last night's presidential "debate". And I asked if anyone could give me a source for a video clip.

Walt's agents never shrink from a challenge. Agent 3 has sent us this excellent two-minute piece on anti-Americanism, from CBC TV's This Hour Has 22 Minutes.



Some of you may be asking, is that really supposed to be Candy Crowley? The name "Janet Tucker" is nothing like "Candy Crowley". OK, I'll give you that one. But I ask you, who else could it be?

Lamestream media discover Obama lied about Libya attack

In "It's not 'the film', stupid! It's just anti-Americanism, is all", Walt explained, for the benefit of those who have trouble understanding Middle Eastern politics, that last month's near-riots in the streets of cities throughout the Muslim world were not against "Innocence of the Muslims" so much as against America itself.

The Muslims hate America, I said. That has been the case for decades, I said, long before American soldiers burnt copies of the Qu'ran, long before they pissed on dead Afghan prisoners and long before this stupid little film appeared on YouTube. "Innocence of Muslims", I said, was just a catalyst for a deep and longlasting hatred of America's culture, America's religion and America's version of democracy.

But that wasn't the Democratic Party line. Oh no! Rex Murphy, writes in today's National Post of the spin put on the story by the Obama administration. Here's an excerpt:

More telling than their zeal in denouncing "Innocence of Muslims" was their suggestion that it was this video, and the “spontaneous” protest the video generated — not anti-Americanism, nor some other hatred — that was the precipitating agent. They hung a huge tragic event on a slender thread.

But a month later, very few are talking about the video anymore. A series of revelations about such matters as inadequate security at the compound, denied requests for greater security and a much more detailed account of actual events that night, raise serious questions that the Obama administration has yet fully to acknowledge, let alone answered.

But why? Rex hears us ask, and obligingly provides the answer.

An administration bragging that bin Laden is dead, and that his surviving al-Qaeda lieutenants are quivering in fear, doesn’t want a successful attack on one of its diplomatic compounds to be attributed to the very terrorist group it claims to have tamed — not two months before an election, certainly.

The furious spin of the first few days, and in particular the absolutely empty claims put forward so vigorously, and without qualification, by Ambassador Rice, might constitute more than an error. They may prove to be deliberate efforts to smother what really happened in a cloud of misinformation. There is an air of subterfuge on this story. And as is well known since the days of Richard Nixon: It’s not the crime — it’s the cover-up.

The most valued personal quality in a presidential candidate is the ability to inspire and hold trust on matters large and small. As the administration’s Benghazi storyline unravels, as parts of it prove to be demonstrably false, the Obama campaign may be set for a larger panic than that stirred by the President’s curiously apathetic performance in last week’s debate against Mitt Romney.

To give Rex credit, it only took him three weeks or so to figure this out. Obviously he hasn't been reading WWW! Sadly, many political pundits have not yet caught up with Rex, let alone Walt. Will American voters be fooled? We'll know in just over three weeks.

Mitt!!! Go big or go home!!!

Charles Krauthammer said it, in today's Washington Post. I don't like to quote at length too often from the writings of newspaper columnists, but some of them -- CK is one of my favourites -- have a way of putting things that I can't even come close to matching.

Mr Krauthammer's thesis today is that the Inevitable Mitt has squandered umpteen chances to speak out forcefully and clearly against the manifold errors of Obama and his administration, but for some reason keeps pulling his punches. Romney's play-it-safe strategy would be fine if he were leading, but he's behind -- way behind, now -- and he needs to come out of his corner swinging with both fists. "His unwillingness to go big, to go for the larger argument," the writer says, "is simply astonishing."

The example CK gives is that of the Prez's incredibly lame speech to the General Assembly of the Disunited Nations. Referring to this month's anti-American demonstrations all over the Muslim world -- which included the killing of a US ambassador, let's not forget -- Krauthammer says:

Obama seems not even to understand what happened. He responded with a groveling address to the UN General Assembly that contained no less than six denunciations of a crackpot video, while offering cringe-worthy platitudes about the need for governments to live up to the ideals of the UN.

The UN being an institution of surpassing cynicism and mendacity, [I love that line! Walt] the speech was so naive it would have made a fine middle-school commencement address. Instead, it was a plaintive plea by the world’s alleged superpower to be treated nicely by a roomful of the most corrupt, repressive, tin-pot regimes on earth.

Yet Romney totally fumbled away the opportunity. Here was a chance to make the straightforward case about where Obama’s feckless approach to the region’s tyrants has brought us, connecting the dots of the disparate attacks as a natural response of the more virulent Islamist elements to a once-hegemonic power in retreat. Instead, Romney did two things:

He issued a two-sentence critique of the initial statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on the day the mob attacked. The critique was not only correct but vindicated when the State Department disavowed the embassy statement. However, because the critique was not framed within a larger argument about the misdirection of U.S. Middle East policy, it could be — and was — characterized as a partisan attack on the nation’s leader at a moment of national crisis.

Mr. Krauthammer concludes with some serious and urgent advice that Romney must heed if he's not to become Mitt, the Inevitable Loser.

Make the case. Go large. About a foreign policy in ruins. About an archaic, 20th-century welfare state model that guarantees 21st-century insolvency. And about an alternate vision of an unapologetically assertive America abroad unafraid of fundamental structural change at home. It might just work. And it’s not too late.

Whether you agree or disagree, you're welcome to write to Mr. Krauthammer directly. Here's his e-mail: letters@charleskrauthammer.com. Don't tell him Walt sent you, because the Washington Post Writers Group would likely ask me to pay for reprinting over a third of his column!

It's not "the film", stupid! It's just anti-Americanism, is all

With her usual unerring aim, Margaret Wente hits the nail squarely on the head in "It's too easy to lay all the blame on a crude video", in today's Globe and Mail. She exposes the Democratic party line, as expressed on Sunday by Susan Rice (US ambassador to the Disunited Nations) that "what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world".

Ms Rice's characterization of the video is quite correct, but, as anyone who's seen even a snippet of it realizes, "Innocence of Muslims" is no big deal. It looks and sounds like a Grade 8 school play, and in no way deserves to be taken as seriously as would appear from the ferocity of the demonstrations against it.

But -- and this is Ms Wente's point -- the near-riots in the streets of cities throughout the Muslim world are not against the film so much as against America itself. She writes, "The line...that the protests were directed against the video, not the U.S. ...might come as a surprise to the folks who were burning American flags and chanting, 'Obama, Obama, we love Osama.'"

The Muslims hate America. That has been the case for decades, long before American soldiers burnt copies of the Qu'ran, long before they pissed on dead Afghan prisoners and long before this stupid little film appeared on YouTube. "Innocence of Muslims" is just this week's catalyst for a deep and longlasting hatred of America's culture, America's religion [Wozzat? Ed.] and America's version of democracy.

Ms Wente reminds us that Al O'Bama -- a Muslim sympathizer if not a Muslim himself -- was supposed to fix all that.

Back in 2009, President Barack Obama went to Cairo and promised to reset the U.S. relationship with the Arab world. Unlike his predecessor, he sympathized with Muslim aspirations. Muslims were anti-American because of bad American policies, and he would fix that. Things didn’t quite work out as planned. Back then, 70 per cent of Egyptians had an unfavourable opinion of the U.S. Today, 79 per cent do.

What conclusion are we to draw? Too many liberal intellectuals – and now, unbelievably, the U.S. administration – seem to think it’s partly our fault when Western insults to Islam lead to riots in the streets. But maybe there’s a bigger cause. Although it’s deeply unfashionable to say so, maybe what we have here is a clash of civilizations. Indeed.