Typical New York Jew

By Lawrence Auster, View from the Right

Last evening, before the arrest of Pakistani immigrant Faisal Shahzad in the Times Square bombing attempt, and without the slightest shred of evidence supporting the statement, Mayor Bloomberg told Katie Couric on national television that he thought the bombing suspect could be a conservative who was angry over Obamacare (see video).

Today, after the arrest of Shahzad in the bombing attempt, and without the slightest shred of evidence supporting the idea of such a threat, Bloomberg warned non-Muslim New Yorkers against engaging in any backlash against Muslims. According to the AP:


Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the arrest should not be as used as an excuse for anti-Muslim actions. “We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers,” he said…. 

I repeat: Before the Pakistani Muslim Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the bombing attempt, Bloomberg invented, out of thin air, a conservative bomber bogeyman. After the Pakistani Muslim Faisal Shahzad was arrested for the bombing attempt, Bloomberg invented, out of thin air, the threat of a conservative backlash against Muslims.

A Muslim terrorist tries to murder hundreds of New Yorkers, and the only thing on Bloomberg’s mind is fantasies of evil white conservatives.

For a knee-jerk liberal like Bloomberg, evil coming from a non-Western or non-white group cannot be admitted; the evil must be projected onto conservative whites.

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch does a good job of explaining what is offensive about Bloomberg’s comment, and what drove him to it:


Bloomberg ought to be ashamed of himself. He should be making statements about protecting Americans of all creeds, and calling the Muslim community in America to account for its tolerance of jihadists. There has never been a backlash against innocent Muslims in the U.S. It is a fiction that we only hear about when a Muslim plots mass murder of Americans. And then we hear about it endlessly, as if Muslims were the victims rather than the perpetrators.  

– end of initial entry -Paul K. writes:


Bloomberg’s comment reminds me of a spoof British newspaper headline quoted by Mark Steyn:”Muslim Community Fears Backlash From Tomorrow’s Subway Bombing.”

Robert Spencer says, “Bloomberg ought to be ashamed of himself.” Isn’t that a silly thing to say, tantamount to saying that it’s up to moderate Muslims to police the radicals in their midst? It’s the voters who put people like Bloomberg in office that should be ashamed of themselves. Bloomberg, like most politicians, is incapable of shame.


James N. writes:


Bloomberg’s absurdities spring from the same roots as George W. Bush’s “Religion of Peace”They both fear that the American people will act normally in response to the endless assaults by jihadis. They fear the right more than they fear jihad.

This must change.


Kathlene M. writes:


Could Bloomberg be more insane than the insanely liberal Mark Morford who wrote this bit recently at the SF Chronicle? 

The Bible is more violent than the Quran. Wait, what? Really? It’s true … sort of … [T]urns out the Bible, America’s favorite misinterpreted hunk of swiped fairy tale mythology, is packed like “Saw IV” with wraths and attacks, smitings and genocides, hacked-off limbs and fiery explosions in the sky. Whereas, despite its bad rap and its rather nasty “convert-the-world” directive, the Quran’s scriptures are largely peaceful documents that’ve been hijacked and distorted by fundamentalist jackals for political purposes, to justify all sorts of bias, intolerance and violence against those they hate and fear. Sound familiar? 

Soooo, liberals tell us to just ignore the Quran’s overall “nasty convert-the-world directive,” (um, note to liberals, I think that would be called “jihad”), and proclaim it a largely peaceful document. Uh-huh. But instead, liberals ask us to focus in on the Old Testament’s history of wars, sin and violence, and ignore the stories’ overall meanings, the importance of Jesus Christ and The New Testament to that history. Liberals then declare that The Bible is a more violent document than The Quran, and that the Bible incites Christians to “bias, intolerance and violence” on a par with jihadists who cry out “Allahu Akbar!” before they blow themselves up. It seems to me that liberals are the ones hijacking and distorting the Bible and Christianity for their political purposes. Why do they extend such a forgiving and tolerant stance to Muslims and The Quran, but absolutely despise Christians and The Bible?Again, I’m reminded of the hilarious scene from “An American Carol” in which “Rosie O’Connell” appears on Bill O’Reilly’s show and says that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam” and proceeds to show a clip of radical Christian terrorists.

May 5, 2010 | 12 Comments »

Leave a Reply

12 Comments / 12 Comments

  1. To quote Michael Savage, Mayor Bloomberg proves that billionares can not only be crooked (not saying that Bloomberg is crooked)but that they can also be morons.

  2. Fatah: We Demand Meah She’arim

    A delegation of formerly active Fatah terrorists even paid a consolation visit to Hirsch’s family on Monday in the Meah She’arim neighborhood of Jerusalem – and threw in a demand for the neighborhood to be included in a future Palestinian Authority capital. Abdel Kader, reponsible for Jerusalem affairs on behalf of Fatah, participated in the visit and said afterwards, “We don’t plan to give up our claim to Meah She’arim, nor to the Neturei Karta Jews there.”

    Meah She’arim lies on the UN recognized, Jewish side of the border that divided Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967. The visitors said it was their first official visit to the neighborhood.

    This is the only part of Jerusalem I am willing to cede providing they take all the Jews living there!!

  3. Raising AZ

    The new hard-line Arizona immigration law that has sparked talk of boycotts and caused leading Republicans to fret about the party’s frayed relationship with Hispanic voters may indeed pose a long-term threat to the GOP’s prospects.

    But in the here and now — and in many of the most competitive races that will determine control of Congress — the law appears to be a poison-tipped arrow in the Republican quiver.

    New polling indicates broad public support for the measure and illustrates the peril embattled Democrats could face this November over the issue.

    In the South and Midwest, where some of the most competitive congressional races will be fought, popular sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial new law.

    According to a New York Times/CBS poll released Monday, 69 percent of respondents from the South said that the law is either “about right” or does not go “far enough” and 66 percent from the Midwest said the same. Opinion is more divided in the Northeast and West, but nationwide, 60 percent of respondents said the Arizona measure is about right or doesn’t go far enough.

    Among white voters, the majority of the electorate in most of the battleground states and congressional districts, public opinion is unambiguous: 67 percent of those surveyed nationwide by the Times/CBS said they thought the Arizona law was about right or didn’t go far enough.

    And while Republicans tend to favor the law and Democrats line up in opposition, polls show independents siding with the GOP. A Gallup survey taken immediately after the bill was signed found that 50 percent of independents who had heard of the law supported it, while 39 percent opposed it. The Times/CBS survey also found half of independents — 51 percent — supporting the law and 10 percent more saying it doesn’t go far enough.

    Those are daunting numbers for Democrats in the South and Midwest trying to get elected to the Senate or to defend moderate-to-conservative House seats. For them, the resurrection of immigration as a political hot button is fraught with danger.

    It represents yet another issue on which they’ll be forced to decide between their liberal base and national leadership, who are outraged over what they view as a draconian law, and equally angry constituents who want to crack down on illegal immigrants.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36790.html#ixzz0n5EWNJI5

  4. Baruch Hatov Vehameitiv

    Yes it is a good thing even a great thing, his passing. Yes I agree: Baruch Hatov Vehameitiv, amain amain!

    Forman, David “RABBI”

    I’ll say it for you: That piece of crud should rot in Hell.

  5. Birdalone.

    You miss the point. If there was a past history that Muslems were attacked after 9/11 or any other Muslim attrocity, then Bloomberg is right to intervene. But there is no such thing. So he is setting up a straw attacker to oppose.

    If anything he is putting ideas in the minds of some who like the idea of hitting back.

  6. Bloomberg is a typical liberal bigot who responds to Muslim violence by lecturing Christians and Jews.

    He did it after the Ford Hood massacre, and now has done it again.

    He is morally unfit to hold public office.

  7. Not that context ever matters to most people, but Mayor Bloomberg was totally correct to say what he said in order to maintain public safety.

    Remarks By Mayor Bloomberg On Latest Developments In Times Square Incident: “…“And I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers. All of us live in this City and among any group there’s always a few bad apples, but the people who live in this city are proud of the fact that this is the city that gives everybody from every place in the world an opportunity, no matter what religion they practice, no matter where they or their parents came from. It’s the City where you can practice your religion and say what you want to say and be in charge of your own destiny, and we’re going to keep it that way. People from every corner of the world come and live here in the same buildings and the same neighborhoods, and that’s what makes this the greatest city on Earth. …”

    complete transcript of Mayor Bloomberg’s remarks at:

    This post is HIGHLY offensive.

  8. This transcends New York Jews and reflects upon all liberals.

    The Leftist approach to Islamic depravity is “See No Evil/Hear No Evil/Speak No Evil”.

    Whether it is Muslims murdering three thousand Americans or decapitating Jews with scimitars or slaughtering Christian Africans by the cemetery load, liberals remain vocally complicit by shouting down anyone who condemns Islamic malevolence.

    And why not?

    Liberals supported Stalin.

    And Mao.

    And Castro.

    And Che.

    And Pol Pot.

    And they now support Chavez.

    And Abbas.

    And they urge that the mean old world stop misquoting and persecuting poor, misunderstood Ahmadinejad.

    So supporting evil is what liberals do best.

    It is reflexive, because evil facilitates the progressive philosophy.

    Limbaugh has spelled it out: “The greater the crisis, the more liberals like it. They can’t implement their unpopular agenda unless there exists chaos.”

    Self-interest dictates that the Left embrace villainy.

    Expecting liberals to oppose evil is like expecting pimps to oppose adultery.