Last July, it took U.S. President Barrack Obama literally moments to conclude publicly that the arrest of a prominent black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates - a personal friend of the president - not only showed that Boston police acted "stupidly" but that there was racism involved.

"...what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

It may be a fact. But it's not clear that at the time Obama smeared the cops that he was aware that one of the two police officers who were responding to a call from a neighbour worried about somebody breaking in was himself black.

Nor, as it turns out, was there a shred of evidence that the white officer on the scene was motivated by racism. Indeed, seen in the full light of day, the main problem was the initial haughty refusal of the professor to show proper identification when he was asked, quite properly, to do so.

Fast forward to the murderous rampage in Fort Hood by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan on Nov. 5, a 39-year-old psychiatrist who killed 13 unarmed people and wounded another 38 at that large Texas military base.

Despite obvious indications that Hasan's attack was a terrorist assault on U.S. soil - the largest one since 9/11 - Obama suddenly lost his bravado about making instant judgements, the one he was only too willing to level against a white Boston cop who had arrested his friend.

Suddenly, Obama declared, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we get all the facts."

That's not a bad rule of thumb, only he didn't follow it in the Boston case when he fingered the bad guy as a white Boston cop.

Yet in the Fort Hood slaughter, Obama deliberately chose to ignore certain "facts" which were readily available at the time of the shootings. Obama - and most of the mainstream media - still are refusing to mention the obvious connection that Hasan's radical Islamism played in the shootings.

Here's a guy who we learn shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great," the jihadist battle cry) while he was shooting people. A guy who recently used what was supposed to be a medical meeting at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center to deliver what Washington journalist Charles Krauthammer described as "an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war ... (including) an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers - consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat."

There are numerous similar incidents to demonstrate clearly just how radical and anti-American Hasan is, but the army, fearing a backlash if they took action against a Muslim, instead promoted him.

Obama is not alone in jumping through hoops to avoid the obvious. Most of the mainstream media - especially the New York Times and the major U.S.-based news magazines - have not only refused to report the obvious but have scolded the few who do.

Joe Klein, in Time, for example, wrote of the odious attempts by Jewish extremists ... to argue that the massacre ... was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.'

Imagine thinking that a guy who shouts "llahu Akbar"as he mows down innocent, unarmed people, a guy who has 'SOA' (soldier of allah) printed on his business cards, might just possibly have motives connected to his Islamic beliefs. Do you really have to be a 'Jewish extremist' to draw that conclusion.

But then, this misplaced and downright dangerous selective political correctness is nothing new. As Krauthammer pointed out, the New York Times published a front-page headline after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack about the arrest of Mohammed Salameh declaring, `Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.'

Do you think if a radical fundamentalist Christian from Jersey City blew up an abortion clinic the headline would be, 'Jersey City Man Is Charged in Abortion Clinic Bombing.' Not bloody likely.

Indeed, The New York Times and their ilk in the liberal media -no doubt joined by Obama - would be the first to condemn not only the specific act, but the entire anti-abortion movement. And there certainly would be no shying away from the Christian fundamentalist aspect of it.

Yet when a Muslim officer deliberately kills and wounds dozens of innocent U.S. citizens right on U.S. soil while shouting the jihadist battle cry - the same cry used by suicide bombers and others - we dare not mention the religious aspect.

Or, as Obama cautions, best not avoid "jumping to conclusions..." How pathetic.