Sean Hannity took on the media last week in a tour de force that should forever and always dismantle any argument that the mainstream or “legacy” media is objective. With such a large viewing audience, the hour-long special should cause some serious discomfort in “journolist” circles. There are a few other circles to which I’d like to introduce some discomfort. That’s why I hope Hannity will expand on a theme he ripped into with some gusto earlier this week, when Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison visited the Hannity show for the first time ever.
Things got a little heated.
Hannity is firing on all cylinders when, with the persistence of a hungry pit bull, he attempts again and again to bring Ellison back to the reality, reported by the 9/11 Commission, that radical Islam is at war with us. Ellison did not want to agree with that wording, squirmed, tried to insert the phrase “Al Qaeda” instead of radical Islam, finally was badgered into agreeing, then recanted and substituted the phrase “Al Qaeda” again.
What is Ellison’s problem? Hannity didn’t even ask him to say Islam was at war with us (which, by the way, it is). He offered the politically-correct “radical” Islam phrase. But Ellison can’t go there, because it conflicts with his narrative that “we’re at war with all violent extremists,” whether they be “Muslim, Christian or Jewish.”
You know, like the Christian terrorists who blew up the U.S. embassy in Lebanon in the name of Jesus. Or the Jewish terrorists who brought down the plane over Lockerbie in the name of God. Or the Buddhist terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and threw a wheelchair-bound elderly man overboard in the name of Buddha. Or the Hindu terrorists who killed a bunch of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in the name of Shiva. You know, violent extremists like that.
Ellison’s unwillingness to call a spade a spade is stomach-turning, and Hannity’s persistence in revealing that reluctance is admirable, as was his insistence that Ellison provide a concrete example of his claim that Fox News, using what Ellison referred to as a “common right wing tactic,” is trying to inflame religious conflict. Hannity pressed again and again for an example. After dissembling that he didn’t come on the show to debate things he’s said (what did he think Hannity was going to ask him about – cupcake recipes?) offering the smugly arrogant insight that maybe, presumably with his appearance, Fox was finally turning over a new leaf… stating that Hannity already “knew” what he did wrong (“you know what you guys broadcast”)… after all that, Ellison finally offered the utterly pathetic “proof” that Fox inflames conflict: When Hannity talks about terror, he always attaches the word “Muslim.”
Let’s assume that’s true. Why would Hannity do that? Hmmm… could it be the U.S. embassy in Lebanon? Lockerbie? The Achille Lauro? Munich Olympics? How about 9/11? How about the thousands upon thousands of terror attacks both before and after that pivotal date?
How about the fact that every last one of them was done in the name of Allah?
That is why, Rep. Ellison, that Mr. Hannity wants you to acknowledge the danger of (radical) Islam. To even imply that other faith traditions are equally worthy of our concern is an insult to intelligence. If you went camping and didn’t take precautions to protect against an attack by a hungry bear, because you wanted to be equally sure you took precautions to protect against an attack by a hungry bluebird, or a hungry earthworm – you’d probably end up getting eaten by a bear. ‘Nuff said.
The King hearings on the radicalization of Islam are “bear attack” precautions. We all know bears have attacked, do attack and will attack again. To spend time discussing possible bluebird threats is not only silly but dangerous.
Speaking of the King hearings, Hannity took Ellison to task for his gross mischaracterization of a Muslim paramedic who died in 9/11. Ellison claimed, during tearful testimony, that this man had been maligned as “one of them” – as a terrorist. Ellison used this alleged unfair treatment as the basis for his argument that the hearings presented the same kind of ignorant bias. Except, as Hannity pointed out, the 9/11 paramedic was lauded for this service to America and mentioned by name in the Patriot Act. Again going on the offensive, Hannity repeatedly asked Ellison to explain why he misled the American people during his (literal) sob story. The best Ellison could come up with, under pressure, was that the man’s family had told him that “some people” had said hurtful things.
What? Stop those hearings immediately! We can’t have any hurt. Stop the madness!
Hannity also took Ellison to the woodshed for his bogus comparison of Rosa Parks to the folks building the Ground Zero mosque. This is truly a case of leftist analogy #FAIL. I’m sorry – did I miss where Rosa Parks’ friends bombed some buses and killed a few thousand Americans in order to further “black power”? Because if that happened, I wouldn’t be a big fan of her sitting next to me on the bus, either.
As for those who opposed the mosque, Ellison used the classic leftist ploy of “when I called those people bigots, I didn’t mean all of them – just the ones who are bigots.” Uh-huh. Ellison says some people opposed the mosque on good faith, whereas others are just bigots. Hey, Rep. Ellison, I can play that game too! Try this: People who act as apologists for bloodthirsty terrorists make me sick! Of course I don’t mean all people who act as apologists for bloodthirsty terrorists – just the ones who do it on TV.
As strong as Hannity’s challenge to Ellison was, next time he has the congressman on we’d really like to see him raise the subject of the dangerous radicalization of Islamic stealth jihad organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In particular he needs to be asked about the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret document “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” which lays out radical Islam’s plan for conquering our country from within.