The PJ Tatler

Dallas Morning News Reporter Uses Clockboy's Story to Further Leftist Agenda, Smear Conservative Mayor

The story about Ahmed Mohamed, the teenager from Irving, Texas, who supposedly “invented” a clock (that closely resembled a bomb), has gone viral. As Breitbart explains:

On Sept. 14, teachers and police in Irving, Texas, detained and questioned Mohamed about a box and wiring he brought into his High School.

The boy’s device was a commercial 120-volt alarm clock, first dismantled and then placed in a case where the screen could not be seen by any users. The boy also left the clock’s innards exposed, so when the power-cord was plugged in, the clock could electrocute anyone who reached inside the case to turn the alarm on or off. The device’s intended purpose was so obscure, in fact, that puzzled police and teachers thought it was a hoax-bomb.

To any sensible person that thought sounds quite logical, but not so to the (local and national) mainstream media. They defended Ahmed from day one, portraying him as a hero who was unfairly treated by his teachers, the police and city officials such as Irving’s conservative mayor Beth Van Duyne. These media sources pretend that the boy was only singled out because he happens to be a Muslim.

Recently, the young Ahmed met Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s Islamist prime minister who works hard to undermine his own country’s secular system. During that meeting Ahmed made clear what he hopes to accomplish with his grand tour that has taken him to the White House, the United Nations, and now Turkey’s PM. As Turkish daily Today’s Zaman explains:

Speaking to reporters ahead of the meeting with Davutoğlu, Mohamed said he was excited to meet the Turkish prime minister [and] said he wanted to raise awareness against racism and discrimination.

Hürriyet Daily News quotes the boy:

My dream is to raise consciousness against racism and discrimination.

In other words, the boy is determined portray his home town of Irving and his own state (Texas) as “racist” and Islamophobic. An agenda that’s pushed rather relentlessly by some of his backers in the media, most notoriously by Dallas Morning News‘ Avi Selk.

In Irving, Selk is known to be anti-conservative — and especially anti-Beth Van Duyne. Van Duyne is a conservative mayor who has cleaned up the mess that was Irving before she came to office. For instance, after she became mayor, Van Duyne stopped the property-tax increases, balanced the budget by cutting spending, passed a modern ethics code which Irving desperately needed, increased property values by double digits, and  helped Irving become the 5th safest city according to the FBI’s ranking. Not exactly small accomplishments — which of course means that liberals absolutely hate her.

Mayor Van Duyne has also made a name for herself nationally by speaking out against plans of Muslim fundamentalists in her city to create so-called Sharia councils. These councils, the fundamentalists said, would base their decisions (or “mediation”) on Islamic law: a law that’s often in conflict with American law. Mayor Van Duyne had the courage to stand against these plans, explaining that American laws should trump any other laws — religious and foreign. Or, as she and her allies put it: American law for American courts.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, her brave opposition to the clearly unAmerican Sharia councils meant that Van Duyne quickly became enemy number one in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists and their enablers in Texas… and in the rest of the nation. Day after day, the mayor who simply stood for American principles and values was portrayed as an Islamophobic racist who “hated” Muslims. These smears weren’t based on any actual facts — indeed, the mayor is very inclusive and open minded — but that didn’t stop her detractors from repeating them over and over again.

The attacks were relentless. It was a prime example of character assassination carried out by both fundamentalist Muslims and liberal journalists.  The name of the “reporter” most aggressively attacking her by implying all kinds of ulterior motives to her behavior?

Avi Selk. Of the Dallas Morning News.

An example is this article at the newspaper published at the end of March. Here’s the way in which Selk tries to dismiss Van Duyne as an anti-Islamic radical. In order to do so he happily dismisses a Sharia council as an innocent “Muslim mediation panel” and proceeds to pretend that some remarks coming from (anonymous or not) social media users are representative of Van Duyne’s personal views:

Van Duyne had spent the last month criticizing and questioning a Muslim mediation panel, conflating it with a court in an interview seen around the country. That night, she pushed the council to endorse a state bill whose author had targeted the panel.

The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero on fringe websites that fear an Islamic takeover of America. “Beth Van Duyne for President,” a fan wrote on her Facebook page this week. “This lady has balls and Thank God she did this. If you do not like it, move … to California.”

Now, Van Duyne herself didn’t say or write any of those things (she even said that the American Law for American Courts bill had “nothing to do with any religion”), but that was of little consequence to Mr. Selk. After all, he had a story to tell. Can’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of that, can you?

That’s probably why he tends to ignore remarks such as these from Van Duyne:

To me, this is and always has been about upholding State and Constitutional Laws, equal protection under the law and women’s rights.  I took an oath when I was elected and will keep it. Why some in the media find this disgraceful is a mystery.

We see the same thing happening with regards to “clockboy” Ahmed Mohamed. Selk is the reporter who first broke this story and continues to set the narrative for the rest of the nation’s media. See, for instance, his recent article about Van Duyne’s appearance on Glenn Beck’s show. Van Duyne was invited to speak about the clockboy issue. She explained what had happened and responded to attacks aimed at her personally. It was a good interview that won her a great deal of respect from conservatives. Sadly, Selk thought slightly different about it.

In an article about the Beck interview Selk — who apparently considers himself to be Ahmed’s Great Defender or Promoter — writes the following:

The mayor said police and school officials have been getting death threats since the news went worldwide, for which she blamed the media, President (and Ahmed supporter) Barack Obama, and ultimately the boy’s father for letting him bring his gadget to school.

“If you’re a Muslim dad in today’s society [you should say], you know, ‘Hey, son. What are you doing? Don’t,” Van Duyne said.

The only problem? Van Duyne said no such thing. Fully in character, she called the liberal reporter out on it on her own Facebook page:

Please see the latest Selk story below. Avi Selk attributes a quote to me giving advice to a Muslim dad. Problem is I DIDN’T say it.

Please watch the video link at 18:16 minutes into the interview. It is clear I did not make those statements. But even more troubling is the consistent pattern of misinformation and misrepresentation Avi continues to spread about a successful and thriving city and its residents.

Of course the damage had already been done. As Selk undoubtedly knows: once the genie is out of the bottle it’s impossible to put him back in.

Remarkably, the way Selk portrays Van Duyne stands in stark contrast to the words he uses to describe Ahmed. In his articles, he calls Ahmed “North Texas’ most famous teen” and describes his visits with national and international leaders as “a celebrity tour.” And that for a boy who, according to all accounts, didn’t actually invent anything, and who literally ignored teachers when they asked him to put his “homemade clock” in a locker, fearing his fellow students would freak out at the mere sight of it.

None of these facts matter to Selk, however. As long as he has a “Muslim hero” he can use to carry out his relentless war on Mayor Van Duyne, he’s more than happy to shove any inconvenient truths under the rug. After all, to liberals, the ends always justify the means.