Why Does Big American Media Side with Our Enemies?

Andrea from Spleenville has a great post, excerpted below, where she wonders aloud why our own American media seems to love anyone and anything that isn't capitalist and/or American. First they worshipped at the altar of communism until the Soviet Union collapsed (although the last two and incoming U.S. Congresses are doing their dead level best to socialize us into bankruptcy), and now they drool over murdering Islamofascists. Just like with the Communists of old, the press over here believes and swallows whole any piece of propaganda from the new Islamist enemy, regardless of its veracity. It's like they really don't care whether they hurt our troops, our nation, or (ironically) the very freedoms which allow them to spout their (mostly) reckless and poorly researched drivel. Long prison terms for leakers of classified information would go a long way for that, but that would require some backbone, something in short supply in our government these days.

I know America has the First Amendment, but it does have limits (New York Times, I am looking in your direction first)...maybe these lazy press cretins have forgotten that responsibility accompanies freedom and that their pampered existences depend on the continued existence of a strong and vibrant America. Someone should remind them of both these things, harshly and soon.

"I can get the attraction to Communism and its adherents — it was ostensibly all about the brotherhood of man, and raising the worker from oppression, and freedom from the shackles of conformity and poverty, and so on and so forth. In other words, it talked a great game about giving people more freedom, more progress into a better life in the here and now. Sure, it turned out to be a pack of lies, but they were such pretty lies.

But I don't get for one minute what is the impetus behind the slavish adoration the liberal intelligentsia in the West has decided to give the Muslim terrorist groups. It is beyond me. I can just barely get the attraction to old-style desert-life Arabs, with their flowing robes and pretty writing and the vision of a long train of camels with their riders fading into the distant past… all the Lawrence of Arabia bullshit. But the crass, crude, barbaric reality of the members of these modern terrorist groups smashes those pretty and wispy dreams to pieces. We're talking urban men, men who wouldn't know what to do with a camel if it spit on them, men who shave their crotches before going off to fly planes into buildings, men who are so anally retentive that they freak out if their coworker has a ceramic pig figurine on her (her! the infidel whore! she should be home serving her man!) desk, men who — in a final destruction of the vision of a Saracen in his gleaming cuirass wielding a scimitar that shines like the moon and can slice a hair up the middle — murder their captives by sawing at their necks with butcher knives. These are not your glamorous, exotic Arabs of yore. These are the drooling, six-fingered, rusty-pitchfork-carrying rednecks of every progressive liberal's nightmares, only with brown skin, dark eyes, and Middle Eastern accents.

And I say "men" advisedly. Despite the Muslim women the press has been careful to seek out and "give equal voice to" is anyone really fooled about the actual worth a woman's word is given in current Muslim culture? This is a religion where it takes what — two women, is it, for their word to mean as much as one man's? Yet liberal women spend most of their breath screeching about how awful the Republican rightwinger Christians are.

Speaking of religion — these people even embody every liberal progressive activist's idea of anathema: they are religious fanatics who insist that not only is the Sky Ghost they worship real, but that everyone in the world must worship this Sky Ghost in the same exact fashion that they do, or be killed! This is a bit harsher than having to endure your Pentecostal aunt's disapproval of your lesbian lifestyle, but again, guess what is considered much more heinous in the eyes of Western libtards: people who refuse to back gay marriage are worse than people who kill gays buy pushing stone walls on top of them. (Not even the irony of the "stone wall" being used as a method of execution for homosexuals pierces their carapace. Well over here, honey, I noticed for you.)

So I have been trying to figure out why the news media seems to have decided to back the enemy horse. Mere hatred of the current American president really doesn't seem to completely fill the bill. Bush's term will be up soon, and he can't run again. They won't have him to kick around much longer, but the Muslims have promised us that jihad is forever. Maybe that's it — maybe the progressive, liberal, leftleaning contingent is so tired of all their flimsy ideals being shot to pieces by reality and their equally flimsy relationships with each other falling to bits that they've finally found something they can count on not to leave them."