Assassination Attempt on Missouri Governor

If this seems like breaking news, it's because it wasn't reported by the liberal media when it was breaking news in September of last year. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) survived an attempted assassination at the hands of 22 year-old Casey Brezik, not because of any injuries Nixon survived but because of a case of mistaken identity. Brezik actually did kill someone but it wasn't his intended target; it was someone he thought was Nixon.

Via Jack Cashill at American Thinker:

Successful propaganda is composed of equal parts deception and suppression, and the apparatchiks in the mainstream media are much better at the latter.

They may have erred in pushing the Arizona assassination attempt beyond its ideological limits last week, but they succeeded brilliantly a few months earlier in suppressing news of a nearly lethal attempt by a genuine leftist.

In September 2010 Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was scheduled to speak at Penn Valley Community College in Kansas City.

At some point, wearing black clothes and a bullet-proof vest, 22 year-old Casey Brezik bolted out of a classroom, knife in hand, and slashed the throat of a dean. As he would later admit, he confused the dean with Nixon.

As Cashill pointed out, this attempt, unlike the one on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) was not used by the media as a chance to use political exploitation. But why? Nixon was a Democrat. The attempt on his life would have been a perfect chance to attack the Tea Party, right?

Well, not when you look at Brezik's profile. Cashill presents quite the liberal list of traits.

Brezik seems to have inhaled just about every noxious vapor in the left-wing miasma: environmental extremism, radical Islam, anti-capitalism, anti-Zionism and Christophobia, among others.

In his "About Me" box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins "Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism" and gets more belligerent from there.

On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, "How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?"

Even the left reaches a point where they think it's not expedient to pursue their absurd narratives.

UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Blair below, who rightly points out that the real victim of Brezik's attack - Al Dimmit, Jr. - was not killed. The verbiage in the American Thinker piece led me to believe he had been killed. HERE is another story from shortly after the incident that confirms Blair's post. That said, the lack of attention surrounding the attack is still noteworthy.

Read it all.

Rep. Lt. Col. Allen West Rips Flying Palestinian Flag

These are the kinds of things that often fly under the radar but once given sunlight, are so obviously and blatantly egregious that no one should find them acceptable. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has apparently been flying its flag outside its Washington, D.C. offices. Thanks, once again, go to new Rep. Lt. Col. Allen West for pointing out this affront. The first question should be why on earth is the PLO even allowed in this country but the second question is just as obvious. Why are they allowed to fly their flag?

Via Sun-Sentinel:

The office of U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, says the freshman congressman is publicly condemning the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, for raising its flag outside its offices in the nation's capital.

"The raising of this flag is an attempt to legitimize an organization with a known history of terrorist actions," West said, in a written news release.

"By allowing this flag to be flown, the United States is extending a diplomatic right that we refrain from offering to even our own allies, like Taiwan. This action is a diplomatic slap in the face of our greatest of allies, Israel."

Not only does this put the PLO on its heels but it puts many of the Jewish liberal Democrats in congress on defense as well.

h/t Weasel Zippers

New Ground Zero Imam Same as Old Ground Zero Imam

Feisal Abdul Rauf is out as the Ground Zero mosque Imam but his replacement has expressed sentiments that many Americans found so objectionable in Rauf. In fact, Abdallah Adhami seems to be far less savvy than his predecessor. Rauf's tone lent itself to elevator music, which was actually played during one of his radio interviews. Conversely Adhami's nuance doesn't seem to rise to the same floor that Rauf's does.

Last week, it was learned that Adhami believes that Muslims have more of a right to Moses than do Jews or Christians. Now, Aaron Klein at World Net Daily has posted more audio of Adhami. This time, he is heard saying that anyone who converts away from Islam (apostates) and preaches against their former religion should be jailed.

How can this be? Wasn't the Ground Zero mosque supposed to be about interfaith dialogue?

Via WND:

Those who leave Islam and preach against the Muslim religion must be jailed, declared the imam who has become the new face of the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero in New York City.

"If someone leaves the din, leaves the path privately, they cannot be touched. If someone preaches about apostasy, or preaches their views, they're jailed," stated Imam Abdallah Adhami in a November lecture obtained and reviewed by WND.

Adhami was discussing the Quranic view of apostasy, or Muslims who decide to leave the Islamic religion.

He then went on to express the view that people have the right to leave Islam but not the right to preach against it.

He said, "In Islam, in the Quran, theoretically, if you look over the Quran from cover to cover, you literally have the right to the choice to reject God's message. The only thing you do not have the right to do is to spread this conviction, lest you, quote unquote, pollute others."

This should pose quite the conundrum for Muslims who insist the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law can co-exist. Proponents of the mosque like to assert that they are simply exercising their first amendment rights. This cannot be if they are advocating the ban of others' first amendment rights.

Again, Shariah law is not about the First Amendment. It's about Article VI and specifically the part about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

It's still early but Adhami may be more controversial than Rauf. Here's the audio: