A 1,389 Year-Old ‘Phobia’? by Raymond Ibrahim

A direct correlation exists between Western ignorance of history and Western ignorance of Islam’s “troublesome” doctrines. It is this connection that allows Islam’s apologists to get away with so many distortions and outright lies meant to shield Islam.

Take Reza Aslan, CNN’s resident “cannibal”: he recently claimed that “Islamophobia” — defined by CAIR and others as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” — was created by a few “clowns” in 2014.

To be sure, Western fear of Islam is something of a recent phenomenon in modern times. Because the world was a much bigger place a few decades ago, and Islam was oceans away, the average American hardly knew anything about Muhammad’s creed. However, as the world has become smaller — as Muslims have grown in numbers in Western societies, as modern technology has made it possible for the weaker to terrorize the stronger, and then broadcast it for the world to see (via Internet) — so has the Western world been hearing, seeing, and experiencing more and more of Islam.

But Aslan’s lament is not that people were once ignorant but now are wise to Islam. Rather, he accuses a number of writers and activists — the aforementioned “clowns” — of manufacturing a menacing image of Islam, which, in turn, has prompted Western people to develop an “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” — or, in a word, “Islamophobia.”

Such a claim relies on an obscene amount of historical ignorance. The fact is, Western peoples, including some of their luminaries, have portrayed Islam as a hostile and violent force from the very start — often in terms that would make today’s “Islamophobe” blush. And that wasn’t because Europeans were “recasting the other” to “validate their imperial aspirations” (to use the tired terminology of Edward Said that has long dominated academia’s treatment of Western-Muslim interactions). Rather, it was because, from the very start, Islam treated the “infidel” the same way ISIS treats the infidel: atrociously.

According to Muslim history, in 628, Muhammad summoned the Roman (or “Byzantine”) emperor, Heraclius — the symbolic head of “the West,” then known as “Christendom” — to submit to Islam; when the emperor refused, a virulent jihad was unleashed against the Western world. Less than 100 years later, Islam had conquered more than two-thirds of Christendom, and was raiding deep into France. While these far-reaching conquests are often allotted a sentence, if that, in today’s textbooks, the chroniclers of the time, including Muslim ones, make clear that these were cataclysmic events that had a traumatic effect on, and played no small part in forming, the unconquered portion of Christendom, which became Europe proper. As Ibn Khaldun famously put it after describing incessant Muslim raids for booty and slaves all along Europe’s Mediterranean coasts during the ninth and tenth centuries, “the Christians could no longer float a plank on the sea.” They took to the inlands, and the Dark Ages began.

But it wasn’t just what they personally experienced at the hands of Muslims that developed this ancient “phobia” to Islam. As far back as the eighth century, Islam’s scriptures and histories — the Koran, hadith, sira and maghazi literature — became available to those Christian communities living adjacent to, or even under the authority of, the caliphates. Based solely on these primary sources of Islam, Christians concluded that Muhammad was a (possibly demon possessed) false prophet who had very obviously concocted a creed to justify the worst depravities of man — for dominion, plunder, cruelty and carnality. This view prevailed for well over a millennium all over Europe (and till this day among “Islamophobes”); and it was augmented by the fact that Muslims were still, well over a millennium, invading Christian territories, plundering them, and abducting their women and children. The United States’ first brush with Islam — the early nineteenth century Barbary Wars — came by way of Muslim raids on American ships for booty and slaves in the name of Allah.

Here is a minuscule sampling of what Europeans thought of Islam throughout the centuries:

Theophanes, the Byzantine chronicler (d.818):

He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy — or being slain by the enemy — entered into paradise [see Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual — orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the women were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.

Thomas Aquinas, one of Christendom’s most influential philosophers (d. 1274):

He [Muhammad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us …. and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine…. Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms — which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants [i.e., his “proof” that God was with him is that he was able to conquer and plunder others]….  Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Marco Polo, world famous traveler (d. 1324):

According to their [Muslims’] doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the [Mongol] powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens.

When the Mongol Khan later discovered the depraved criminality of Achmath (or Ahmed), one of his Muslim governors, Polo writes that that the Khan’s

attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined.

Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and philosopher, best known for Democracy in America (d. 1859):

I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Winston Churchill, a leader of the Allied war effort against Hitler during WWII (d. 1965):

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism [Islam] lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.  A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Lest it seem that these and other historic charges against Islam are simply products of Christian/Western xenophobia that cannot tolerate the “other,” it should be noted that many of Islam’s Western critics regularly praised other non-Muslim civilizations, as well as what is called today “moderate Muslims.”   Thus Marco Polo hailed the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons.” And despite his criticisms of the “sect of the Saracens,” that is, Islam, he referred to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice,” and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody.”

Winston Churchill summed up the matter as follows: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Apologists such as Reza Aslan can say whatever they want; they can claim that Islam is forever and perpetually “misunderstood,” and can bank on Western ignorance of its own history to get away with it. But fear and dislike of Islam has been the mainstream position among Christian/Western people for nearly 1,400 years — ever since Muhammad started raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving non-Muslims (“infidels”) in the name of his god; and it is because his followers, Muslims, continue raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving “infidels” that fear and dislike of Islam — what is called “Islamophobia” — exists to this day.


Egypt: Muslim man sexually harasses, cuts throat of Christian woman on busy street

Hugh Fitzgerald: Prester John in the Forbidden City?

men don't beling in girls bathrooms

Will you share this with just one person?

We are VERY close to reaching the 1.5 million signature goal on the Target boycott. Your help is critical as we approach the one-year anniversary since we launched the boycott.

At the time I send you this email, 1,484,630 people have pledged to boycott Target until it reverses its dangerous policy of allowing men into women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. You can see the very latest count here. Once we reach 1.5 million, I will personally deliver the signatures to Target’s headquarters in Minneapolis, MN.

Just how dangerous is Target’s policy to its customers? Just last month, a man was allowed inside a Tennessee Target store dressing room without any restriction at all.

According to the police report, “the suspect had been in and out of the dressing room for over an hour before he was caught taking photographs of the victim. I [the officer] observed around 5 or 6 other women enter the dressing room during this time, with each time the suspect entering the dressing room and exiting a short time after the females leave.”

Help us reach the 1.5 million signature mark.

Please, please….forward this email to just ONE FRIEND who you think should know that Target allows men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. Forwarding it to just one friend will help us reach our goal of 1.5 million pledges.

When you forward it, please consider changing the subject line to a personal note from you. Here are a few samples:

  • Have you heard about what happened at Target?
  • I’m boycotting Target…and you should too!
  • Target is not a safe place for women and children.

Secondly, reach more friends by sharing this on your Facebook page.

Thirdly, if you haven’t signed the boycott pledge, please sign it today!

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

RELATED ARTICLE: The Target boycott cost more than anyone expected — and the CEO was blindsided

poland pis party

Poland’s Semi-Authoritarian Slide Is a Wake Up Call for Europe by Katarzyna Szczypska

polandIn the fall of 2015, the Polish political arena was shaken by the overwhelming victory of the socially conservative and nationalist Law and Justice Party (PiS). The party has subsequently embarked on dismantling democracy through media control, limits on civil liberties, and paralyzing judicial independence. Poland, once an unquestionable success story in the former Eastern Bloc, is altering its democratic trajectory and threatening its hard-won achievements. If the situation in Poland continues to be ignored, this dangerous dynamic might soon spread to other European capitals, securing PiS-like parties in mainstream politics.

Started at the Bottom … Now Back at the Bottom

Initially a poor Soviet satellite, Poland became one of Europe’s most dynamic economies. Unlike its formerly communist neighbors, Poland underwent the so-called “shock therapy,” a rapid transition from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one. In late 1989, many voiced concerns that the “patient” could “die” as a result of taking such a radical path. But the patient not only survived, it prospered, making Poland the poster child for both adopting democratic norms and embracing capitalism. Formerly an example to follow, Poland is now undergoing another surgery.For almost two decades, Polish political elections looked like a rollercoaster – the government leadership switched party hands after every four-year term. The system finally stabilized with the victory of the classically liberal Civic Platform Party (PO), securing a re-election for a second term of office. Ultimately, however, the party abandoned its initial drive for reforms and embraced an unambitious agenda aimed only at prolonging time in office, which was dubbed “the politics of warm water in the taps.” For years, many predicted that the main PO opponent, PiS, would never rule again. Yet the ongoing sense of PO’s exhaustion and stagnation, with its ministers spending most of their time on crisis management, enabled PiS’s comeback.

Modern Authoritarianism

Since it came to power in 2015, the new Polish government has taken greater control over the state-owned media. Although there was no clear separation between media and the government before PiS’s victory, after they came to power, any previous autonomy the Polish media enjoyed quickly eroded. Besides appointing loyalist media management boards and meddling with free speech protections, the government has increased the scale of censorship in state-owned radio and TV channels.

First, the PiS is using the media to promote its socially conservative, highly religious, and nationalist agenda. Masses from churches are widely broadcast and TV channels refrain from showing movies that could “harm Poland’s reputation,” even if the stories are historically true. This was clear in the authorities’ outrageous attack on the Oscar-winning film Ida for apparently not emphasizing the role of non-Jewish Poles in rescuing Jews from the Nazis. The PiS argued that the movie content might corrupt the minds of those who encounter it. In truth, it is better understood as a suppression of the Poles’ right to think for themselves.

Moreover, the PiS also manipulates the impartiality of the judiciary, leading to the paralysis of the country’s highest court, the Constitutional Court. The Polish Constitutional Court crisis, during which six so-called “repair bills” were passed without providing any tangible relief for the situation, led to wide protests throughout Poland, as well as a condemnation by the European Union and other international institutions.What is currently going on in Poland is something which the country had not seen since the legendary resistance movement Solidarity in the 1980s. The crises over the Constitutional Tribunal led to the establishment of the Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KOD). This grassroots movement organized a great number of protests all over Poland. Right now, protesters regularly occupy every major city in the country. Moreover, the fight against the PiS’s actions escalated inside the parliament itself. In December 2016, a group of opposition representatives occupied the rostrum in the plenary chamber for a month, which PiS leaders later described, quite dramatically, as an “attempted coup.”

What widely escapes the public notice is the fact that the recent Polish case is harmful both for the country itself and for the rest of Europe. This deeply rooted Polish populism is likely to provide momentum for similar tendencies in other European countries. Therefore, as journalist Remi Adekoya indicates, if the Polish case is ignored, this dangerous dynamic might soon wake up in other European capitals, securing PiS-like parties in mainstream positions. The situation in Poland should be closely monitored. As Adekoya argues, ignoring reality has never made it go away, but rather led to a growing number of people that became more willing to tolerate semi-authoritarian tendencies.

Katarzyna Szczypska

Katarzyna Szczypska is originally from Poland. She now works in a think tank in Washington D.C., dealing with the transformation processes in Eastern Europe.


A Republican win in Georgia will create huge momentum!

Folks, one the most despicable things about democrats is that they always promote themselves as doing the polar opposite of their true agenda. It is disgusting and evil. Ossoff running for congress in Georgia is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Ossoff’s website says,

“We can be a strong, prosperous, secure nation and stay true to the core American values that unite us.”

Insidiously, the reality is the modern Democrat party leadership is repulsed by traditional core American values. And yet, they are trying to pull their standard bait and switch tactic on Georgia voters. We simply cannot allow them to get away with it AGAIN!

The dirty little secret is democrats are actively engaged in demonizing and undermining core American values such as self-reliance, hard work, making right moral choices, education and not thinking you have a right to your neighbor’s hard earned stuff. Americans are the most generous and giving people on the planet. But they object to the government confiscating their stuff and redistributing it among the lazy. And for that, Democrats call Americans mean-spirited and selfish.

Spending over $8 million dollars, the Democrats are busing in operatives from Michigan, New York and North Carolina to help Ossoff in Georgia.

This is a huge deal folks. Ossoff is the face of the Left’s anti-Trump treasonous undermine America movement.

Quoting Mighty Mouse, “Here we come to save the day!” 

My Conservative Campaign Committee team is in route to Georgia from the west coast. Mary and I are in Florida loading up the truck to meet them in Georgia.

Our Miss Lulu will call on you to commit to doing phone-from-home calls. Supporters need simply provide their name and email address and we will have a team member send them a phone list, script, instructions and walk them through the process.

Joe will probably send a fund-raising email asking you to kick in a few bucks.

We need you to help us maximize GOP voter turnout. Because that is what the Democrats have been doing for the past several weeks; quietly investing millions into turning out Democrat “Resistance” voters to try and steal away this GOP seat.
Please help-out wherever you can. This is all hands on deck folks. I am telling you folks, this battle goes beyond right vs left politics as usual. We are in an epic battle of good vs evil.

I feel like singing, “If we can stop them there, we can stop them everywhere, it’s up to you, please come through Ameri-c-c-c-a-a-a!!!”

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much!

supreme court gavel

A Response to Media Biases Against Restoring Checks and Balances

NOTE: Several liberal Florida newspaper columnists responded without research or thought to Rep. Julio Gonzalez’s proposal to create judicial accountability and restore governmental balance of powers. They were predictably snide and shallow. Some were just factually wrong. Here is Gonzalez’s response to one specific column— which they could have had if any had even called him for an interview.

By Representative Julio Gonzalez

This morning, I awoke to the displeasure of reading Tom Lyons’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune piece on my proposal for a legislative override of a judicial opinion, otherwise known as a Notwithstanding Clause.

I was displeased, not at learning that Lyons disagreed with my proposal, as a robust discussion representing all sides of such an important matter is of central importance to the continued existence of a vibrant republic, but because of the shear negligence, disingenuousness, and ignorance displayed in Mr. Lyons article.

For starters, Lyons purposely fails to inform his readers that it was not I who first identified this problem, but Thomas Jefferson. 

Looking to Jefferson

In 1820, Jefferson wrote a letter to Jarvis Williams regarding a series of essays Williams wrote where he mentioned the judiciary’s role in overturning laws it found to be unconstitutional.  Perfectly on point, Jefferson said, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Moreover, Jefferson pointed out that the situation was made even more dangerous, “as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

As with so many other issues, Jefferson’s thoughts on this matter were prescient.

Lyons also neglected sharing that Canada has such a provision in its Constitution that has been working seamlessly since 1982.

This information and so much more was available to Lyons, but he failed to disclose it to his readers. Fortunately, the facts he did not present are available in an article I wrote and published at and in my book, The Federalist Pages.

The fact is that Americans have been concerned over the courts’ plenary authority when speaking on constitutional issues for decades. They recognize that in a system characterized by checks and balances, there is no check on the Supreme Court. Contrary to Lyons’s ill-informed opinion, any serious constitutional law observer will tell you of the courts’ increasing activism over the past 100+ years. And it is an issue that was discussed at length in law school.

Recognizing the threat that giving plenary authority on any matter to a branch of government represents to a republic, Canada enacted a solution. And other variations exist in England, Israel, and Australia, among others, none of which are mentioned by Lyons.

It’s time we have the same discussion about our own system

Whether Florida, and indeed our nation, ought to implement a judicial override is a very serious matter, and if it is in anyway forehead-slap-worthy as Lyons states, it’s in the astonishment that it fell upon the physician/lawyer son of a Cuban immigrant who haphazardly landed in his state’s legislature to suggest it nearly 200 years after the problem was first identified.

Let a thoughtful debate begin 

The Notwithstanding Clause is not a radical proposal, as Lyons calls it, nor is it the result of partisan strife as his article feeblemindedly suggests.

No. The Notwithstanding Clause is a serious proposal designed to address a quintessential threat to our American system of government and a loophole in the system of checks and balances the Framers built. And once again, I cannot take credit for identifying the threat, as George Washington spoke about it in his farewell address. He called such an intrusion into another branch’s function usurpation and said, “though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

I hope Floridians, and Americans in general, shut out the sophomoric rants from irresponsible and under informed pseudopundents like Lyons and learn more about this very important topic. Doing so will place them on a path of discovering more about our great foundational documents and of the people who proposed them. Once they do, I bet more than 60% of the people will agree with Jefferson, Washington, and countless others on the necessity and wisdom of an American Notwithstanding Clause.


Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon, lawyer and State Representative for South Sarasota County, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages, available at or at Amazon.  He is available for speaking engagements and can be reached at

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.


A Demand for People’s Paid Protest Leave (PPPL)

With all the Days of Resistance and Days Without Some Victim Group we’ve had lately, and will continue to have for the next four years—or until He Who Shall Not Be Named Because That Only Legitimizes and Worse, Humanizes Him—is impeached—it’s clear we need to set aside another Day, this one to demand paid leave for protesting. We shall call it the People’s Paid Protest Leave, or PPPL™ for short.

Because this is about People. People who care. People who are fighting fascism. People who want only to take back the democracy that last November 8th was ripped from us as if we were raped—which, in a sense, we were.

That makes us victims. And that, in turn, makes us entitled. Thus we are entitled to paid leave for protesting, so we can make our voices heard without fear of being fired from our jobs. Without having to use any of our sick days that we’ve already used up for our hangovers. Without having to waste any of our precious vacation days that we shouldn’t have to use for anything other than loafing on the couch binge-watching whatever we can find on Netflix. And don’t even get me started on maternity leave. It’s not fair I have to get pregnant and actually give birth just to get maternity leave. I’m denied my right to choose! But I digress.

Resisting and protesting is a right. When people are faced with losing their jobs because they choose to exercise their rights, their boss is denying them their rights. Their boss is being a fascist. No one has the right to make you work on a Day of Resistance or a Day of Demand or a Day of Awareness or a Day Without One Victim Group or Another. But you still need to be paid as if you did work. Magic markers, poster board, yarn for pink pussy caps, etc.—it all adds up! No one should have to choose between these necessities (which shouldn’t be taxed, either), and having to report to work for a fascist who’d just as soon fire you anyway for daring to exercise your rights.

You are valuable. You are special. You are a Victim. Ergo, you are entitled to be paid for your courage and suffering under the oppressive, bloodthirsty regime of He Who Is Not and Never Shall Be Our President.

And if you’re unemployed? You should be paid, anyway. It’s only fair. No one, but no one should ever have to miss a protest because they aren’t being paid to show up!


Commissarka Pinkie is a regular contributor to The People’s Cube, and is dedicated to raising awareness of how much she cares. When she isn’t busy making an issue out of everything, she enjoys spending other people’s money, jumping on bandwagons, and wandering through the woods with her shovel, hoping for a chance encounter with Hillary and digging a hole in which to curl up and cry—for both of them!

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Commissarka Pinkie  originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.


10 Stunning But Quickly Forgotten Obama Comments

The media and Democrats are aghast at some of the comments made by President Trump and his surrogates. And some are indeed questionable; we know how Trump can be with Twitter and some of his circle are not accustomed to dealing with the media regularly. It shows.

That said, Obama made a lot of jaw-dropping statements while president — both truly frightening and truly embarrassing. And the response was, shall we say, somewhat more subdued.

So here are some frightening comments that got little response outside of some conservative circles, and some embarrassing ones that were similarly shrugged off by the media. Such comments would have dogged Bush or Trump endlessly, showing the heavy partisan nature to the current situation.

Obama’s truly frightening comments

  • Obama at the UN: ‘‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’’ Wow. But there was no blowback, no demonstrations, no riots, no constitutional crisis.
  • “…I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Punished!? Those are some seriously whacked morals.
  • “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Well, of course, Obama didn’t build it. He didn’t build anything. He did tear down quite a bit.
  • “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Plain old socialism. But a big media yawn in response.The Obamas have a net worth of about $24 million right now. According to American University, the Obamas could stand to make as much as $242 million once leaving the White House. No word from the former President if he has reached the point of “enough” money yet.
  • “Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower….” Or not!? Its really not hard to see that Obama actually did not and does not want us to be a superpower. He wants us brought down to the mundaneness with the rest of the world — socialism among countries, where all are equally bad off. He made a solid stab at doing just that over eight years.
  • “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…” Those white folks! Imagine Bush or Trump saying “typical black person.” Yes, there is a double double standard at work here. And an enormous amount of racism to say that about the grandmother who raised him. Head-shaking.

Obama’s truly embarrassing comments

  • “No, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.” OMGarsh! Can anyone imagine what would have happened if Trump had said that? Or Bush? The heavens would have collapsed.
  • “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” Again, imagine Trump or Bush saying 57 states?
  • “When I meet with world leaders, what’s striking — whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia…” He was in Hawaii. Oops. Did I mention if Bush or Trump?
  • “Let’s not play games. I was suggesting – you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” His what?

Context for these statements

Look, people in public life say a lot of things. I didn’t think anything of Obama’s miscues in the second listing above. Those are natural enough for anyone who is constantly in the media spotlight.

But that’s not the issue. What all this continues to demonstrate is the media’s galactic double standard in covering Republican and Democrat presidents, meaning they are less and less trustworthy. It also means that they really should not be consumed.

So if you choose to read or watch the media histrionics over every Trump action or statement, then at least be aware that they didn’t care so much about Obama’s dangerous and embarrassing actions and statements.

And neither did the American left. It is all partisanship and not much more.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

trump fist up

President Trump Is Real

So much has been happening lately. I am probably not alone in trying to keep up with all that has been going on. Let me try to connect just a few dots.

Obamacare: Some people have been gloating, thinking that President Trump failed to get a new plan in place. This was a test run because Obamacare will fall all by itself. I believe that President Trump now knows very well who his real friends are, and House Speaker Paul Ryan is NOT one of them. Ryan’s smugness and chicanery will have consequences that Ryan will not like.

President Trump, the businessman got rich by being a smart, competent, wise negotiator who dealt successfully with hundreds of people turning deals into win/win situations where each side benefited and made money.

Working with the House of Representatives is a different ball game that President Trump will ultimately grasp and win. He has been on a learning curve and now understands that the Congress is not about win/win, but about lose/win. How else does such an organization sustain a 10% approval rating? Some suspect that Paul Ryan engineered this defeat of the Obamacare overhaul in order to put President Trump in his place, a power play. Ryan assuredly will ultimately face consequences not to his liking. Ryan is a part of the so called ‘establishment’ aligned against the President. The “Freedom Caucus” of about twenty hard core conservative Republicans (100 percenters) are a part of what hurts the Republican movement.

My friend, Congressman Duncan Hunter once explained what 100 percenters are:

Many hard-core conservatives are 100 percenters. A 100 percenter is a pouting, foot stomping tantrum throwing immature and irresponsible character who wants the whole shebang (100%) and if they don’t get it will go totally negative. They can’t deal with winning 90% on an issue. Win/win is not in their lexicon. That is what the ‘Freedom Caucus’ is, mean spirited knee jerkers unwilling to work the deal no matter what.

Of course, there are hard-core 100 percenters on the left as well. Nancy (Loopy) Pelosi is one who cannot countenance compromise with Republicans. Chuckie Schumer is another. With Democrats, the deal is “we do the talking and you just follow along like good little lap dogs.” That’s why Schumer led the Democrats in the Senate’s 100% opposition to now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to former Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid’s ‘nuclear’ option which was employed in securing Gorsuch’s confirmation. The months long dance by the Democrats demanding that Gorsuch be dropped and then their useless filibuster charade simply stunk.

I believe that President Trump has brought in an honest, decent Supreme Court Justice who will make his determinations based on the Constitution, not on ‘feelings’. Newly minted California Senator Kamala Harris was critical, that Gorsuch would follow the Constitution and not make decisions on wishy-washy whim, something that Harris preferred.

There is a chasm between the Republicans and Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Islamists in the Congress – indeed all over the country. This is bad, and wherever a vacuum, a void exists something will come in to fill it. A third party? A party focused on win/win for the benefit of the American people would really be great.

California is a sad, sorry example of what California politics has devolved to. Elections are basically rigged for one side to win. I’ve seen this in countries that had one-party rule where people were given a couple of names on a ballot determined up by the government in power, and the candidates campaigned in a popularity contest, not based on issues and concerns affecting the people. Somewhat sane and reasonable, I believe that Loretta Sanchez would have been a far better Senator than Kamala Harris. California is a Communist realm dependent on illegals who are allowed, even encouraged to vote.

Where totalitarian rule prevails, revolution soon follows.

Will governor Moonbeam agree to establishing statewide sanctuary for criminals? Will a great wall be built along the Arizona/Nevada/Oregon borders to keep us out of the greater United States? Things in California will be going down, guaranteed. Will we become the Venezuela of the North, or will the legitimate citizens of California come to their senses?

President Trump has great, competent people appointed and confirmed to jobs in high places. Not all of them are what or who he truly needs.

Two are a mixed bag. Both are former generals. Secretary of Defense Matti’s, and National Security Council Director McMaster earned their well-deserved stripes as military strategists, as leaders of warriors. [Nevertheless, neither holds a candle to General George Patton who was not just a war strategist, he studied his foes and came to know and understand them and their motivation better than they did themselves and then soundly defeated them.]

When General Mattis ran the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base prior to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, a friend and colleague and I were asked to speak to senior Non-Commissioned Officers and regular combat officers about what they could expect to encounter regarding Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mattis heard about what we taught and we were subsequently dis-invited from further programs. That was a cowardly PC determination which left our soldiers lacking in preparation for facing the enemy. Some may have suffered because of Mattis’ decision to deny them information they needed for survival. Mattis was a puppet echoing President Bush who declared that Islam was peaceful, and anyone saying anything counter to their ignorance was not welcome. This is what I mean when I said (above) that Mattis was not in the same class as General Patton, and Mattis remains so today, limited to his accomplished warrior specialty, but otherwise ignorant about the foes that we face.

National Security Director, Former General McMaster is also an accomplished military strategist. As a grand strategist of the Patton class of warriors, he is lacking. He has also echoed Bush and Obama in claiming that Islam is a peaceful ideology. That’s a dangerous self-limiting “tilt”

The ouster of Steve Bannon from his position on the National Security Council was not good for President Trump or the American people. We desperately need someone with the knowledge, understanding, competence, and wisdom of Bannon on that Council to balance the limitations of McMaster. McMaster may not like this, but he is NOT the President.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is one of President Trump’s best moves. SecState Tillerson is being criticized because he is reportedly isolating himself from most of the members of the State Department. I laud his doing the right thing in this regard. He really cannot have confidence with his established State Department subordinates who are mostly liberals intolerant of President Trump and his team. Let’s be reminded of the day that Trump won the election when the floors of the State Department ran with the copious shedding of tears and the halls echoed with the shrieks and whines of dismay and horror?

Those liberals have an agenda at sharp variance with President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson. Those liberals really need to use their feet, the door, and move on down the street. With over 500 Ambassadors on staff and about 175 diplomatic missions needing an ambassador, there is a 60%+ surplus of Ambassadors. Secretary of State Tillerson needs to cut the surplus loose. The same holds true for thousands of the senior and mid-level echelons, most of whom can take their retirement and be moved out.

Traditionally, the State Department (and CIA) have recruited heavily at liberal ivy-league educational institutions which has caused this great imbalance between elitists and the needs of the real American people (such as President Trump and Tillerson).

It would be very good for the hiring/recruiting practices to start working to establish a balance. This can be achieved with a quota system. For example, if the State Department and CIA hire 1000 people in a given year, the recruits should come from the fifty states evenly, i.e. 20 new hires from university or college graduating classes of each of the fifty states (not someone from a given state graduating from some joint like Harvard). This would be fair, equitable, and serve the American public well with representation from each state.

The Foreign Service and their union have long been highly critical of Presidential appointments to Ambassadorial and equivalent high and mighty positions. They preach that only seasoned Foreign Service Officers are truly qualified to serve as Ambassadors. Balderdash!

I have served abroad for over a quarter of a century in nine embassies, and have been called on to perform duties at many more embassies. I’ve had dealings with dozens of Ambassadors during my career.

Some were good and some were bad. It had no bearing on whether they were political appointees or career types. Some of the biggest failures as ambassadors were career FSO’s chosen for assignments for the wrong reasons, or who were simply incompetent. One led to a war which I discussed in my book, EXPERIENCING ISLAM. I served under a seriously egregious political appointee who ought to have spent some time in the slammer, but because of his political status got a free pass.

President Trump has a great team working for him and with a little augmentation here or there, things will only improve.

righteous violence

Heathens Take Note

trump constitutionSome conservatives, isolationists and “Peaceniks” miss the point. Putin and Assad were testing U.S. tolerance …  how far would President Trump let them go to establish control in the Syrian civil war? The U.S. President gave a clear, decisive, immediate answer … not that far. This was very refreshing, and needed after 8 years of weakness in the face of similar tests.

The President had to take a specific, limited, targeted, and immediate response or allow mayhem in Syria, and the world, to spread.

Chemical weapons open the Pandora’s Box of military and terror nightmares. They are indiscriminate, and unacceptable.  Their use must be stopped before they are accepted as viable weapons, and they spread.  As we know from the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo Tokyo subway attack, sarin is easy to make, but only truly devastating when properly weaponized. The attack on Khan Sheikhoun was effective, and devastating.  If the preliminary assessments are true, the sarin gas was weaponized.

Military grade chemical weapons preparation, weapons loading, flight tracking, and confirmation procedures for release are very specific events…and very traceable. The argument it was a terrorist attack and conspiracy to blame Assad as justification for a Trump war is nonsense – the logic won’t hold. There is no reason to attack a Syrian base with Russian troops on it without very specific validation.

Where is the evidence of a conspiracy to contrive a reason to start a war? If this chemical attack was ISIS or other terrorist, wouldn’t that help justify more action against the terrorist groups?  And for the conspiracy theorists who question President Trump’s motives, the U.S. already has hundreds of troops operating in Syria to destroy ISIS and to stop the madness – a stated Trump top campaign priority.  The U.S. conducts airstrikes routinely, and will be there for a long time.  The war is already raging, in case you missed it, Senator Paul and Michael Savage.

The U.S. red-line on chemical weapons was drawn long ago – as the global leader the U.S. failed to act when it was crossed.  Our Nation, and our past President, lost the credibility to lead the civilized world.  Debate is great, but a timely, proportionate response was far more important than telegraphing US intentions, as has happened over and over again in the previous 8 years.

Allowing anyone to use chemical weapons with impunity sends the wrong message.  The next use might be in a crowded sports stadium in Europe or the US, with much greater effect. Action had to be taken.  Passive tolerance of unacceptable terror invites mayhem, as the world witnesses almost daily now.

President Trump made a statement – The U.S. will act decisively in its interests, not just talk about them.  A bold, gutsy, immediate response sent a message to Russia, Syria, North Korea, China and terror networks everywhere. Americans don’t want war, but cross a line that threatens our interests, beware. That statement is essential to US security and global stability.

Thank God the U.S. now has leadership willing to take a stand.  President Trump, thank you for defending America, and humanity, with guts.  Heathens take note; the US will no longer passively watch the world disintegrate into chaos.

RELATED ARTICLE: Get Ready for the Trump Doctrine – Middle East Forum

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of


Fifty Shades of Green By Alexander Maistrovoy

“Being unable to cause might to obey justice, men have made it just to obey might.” — Blaise Pascal

“Progressive man” refuses to recognize the crimes of Islam, not because he is naïve, fine-tempered or tolerant. He does it because, unconsciously or subconsciously, he has already accepted Islam as a religion of salvation. As he accepted Stalinism, Hitlerism, Maoism and the “Khmer Rouge” before it…

Joseph de Maistre, a French aristocrat of the early 19th century, argued that man cannot live without religion, and not religion as such, but the tyrannical and merciless one. He was damned and hated, they called him an antipode of progress and freedom, even a forerunner of fascism; however, progressives proved him right again and again.

In their nihilistic ecstasy, Homo progressicus threw God off the pedestal, trampled upon the humanistic ideal of Petrarch, Alberti and Leonardo Bruni, who relied on Reason and strove for virtue, and … found themselves in complete and gaping emptiness. They realized that they could not live without the God-man — the idol, the leader, the ruler, who would rely on the unshakable, ruthless idea of salvation — not in the other world, but in this real world here and now. And with all the passion so inherent to their shallow, unstable, infantile nature, they rushed out in search of their “prince on a white horse.”

The idols of the progressives were tyrants armed with the most progressive ideology: Robespierre, and after him Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and finally — Islam.

In the 20th century, the Western intelligentsia was infected with red and brown bacilli.

Walter Duranty ardently denied the Holodomor. Bernard Shaw and Romain Rolland justified OGPU terror and the kangaroo court in Moscow; Aragon, Barbusse (the author of the apologetic biography of Stalin: Stalin. A New World Seen Through the Man) and Jean-Richard Bloch glorified “the Father of nations.”
“I would do nothing against Stalin at the moment; I accepted the Moscow trials and I am prepared to accept those in Barcelona,” said Andre Malraux during the massacre of anarchists from POUM by Communists in Barcelona in 1937.

Let’s guess: who is writing about whom? “Lonely overbearing man… damned disagreeable,” “friendly and commonplace,” possessing “an intelligence far beyond dogmatism”… “sucked thoughtfully at the pipe he had most politely asked my permission to smoke… I have never met a man more fair, candid, and honest.” Got it? It was Stalin, as portrayed by H. G. Wells.

How many sufferings – Solzhenitsyn recalled — were caused by progressive Western journalists, who after having visited the GULAG, praised Potemkin villages with allegedly heated barracks where political prisoners used to read Soviet newspapers sitting at clean neat tables? Indeed, Arthur Ransome (The Guardian), an American journalist and a fan of Mao, Agnes Smedley, New York reporter Lincoln Steffens (after the meeting with Lenin he wrote,“I have seen the future and it works”), Australian-British journalist Leonore Winter (the author of the book  called Red Virtue: Human Relations in the New Russia) and many others sympathized with the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union. Juan Benet, a famous Spanish writer, suggested “strengthening the guards (in GULAG), so that people like Solzhenitsyn would not escape.” The Los Angeles Times published Alexander and Andrew Cockburn, who were Stalin’s admirers.

Hitler? Knut Hamsun, Norwegian novelist who won the Nobel Prize, described Hitler in an obituary as a “fighter for humanity and for the rights of all nations.” The “amorousness” of Martin Heidegger for the “leader of the Third Reich” is well known. In the 1930s, the Führer was quite a respectable person in the eyes of the mass media. Anne O’Hare McCormick – a foreign news correspondent for the New York Times (she got Pulitzer Prize) — described Hitler after the interview with him: he is “a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller… His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid… His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit… Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.”

The French elites were fascinated by Hitler. Ferdinand Celine said that France would not go to “Jewish war,” and claimed that there was an international Jewish conspiracy to start the world war. French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet rendered honors to Ribbentrop, and novelist, essayist and playwright Jean Giraudoux said that he was “fully in agreement with Hitler when he states that a policy only reaches its highest form when it is racial.”

The Red Guards of Chairman Mao caused deadly convulsions in China and ecstatic rage in Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, Jan Myrdal, Charles Bettelheim, Alain Badiou and Louis Pierre Althusser. In Paris, Barbusse and Aragon created “the pocket monster” — Enver Hoxha; at Sorbonne University, Sartre worked out “the Khmer Rouge Revolution” of Pol Pot, Hu Nima, and Ieng Sary. Noam Chomsky characterized the proofs of Pol Pot’s genocide as “third rate” and complained of a “vast and unprecedented propaganda campaign against the Khmer Rouge.” Gareth Porter, winner of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, said in May 1977: “The notion that the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea adopted a policy of physically eliminating whole classes of people was …a myth.”

In the 70’s, the whole world already knew the truth about the Red Guards. However, German youth from the Socialist Union of German Students went out  on demonstrations with portraits of the “Great Helmsman” and the song “The East is Red.” In the USA, they went into the streets holding red flags and portraits of Trotsky and Che Guevara, and dream of “Fucking the System” like their idol Abbie Hoffman. The hatred of “petty bourgeois philistines,” as Trotsky named ordinary people, together with the dream of guillotines, bayonets, and “red terror,” keep inspiring Western intellectuals like Tariq Ali, the author of the revolutionary manual Trotsky for Beginners.

“The middle class turned out to be captured by ‘bourgeois-bohemian Bolshevism,’” Pascal Bruckner wrote.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot passed away, but new heroes appeared in their places. Leading employees of CNN – reporter Peter Arnett, producer Robert Wiener and director of news department Eason T. Jordan – had excellent relations with close associates of Saddam Hussein, pretending they didn’t know anything about his atrocities. Hollywood stars set up a race of making pilgrimages to Castro and Chavez. Neo-Marxist professors and progressive intellectuals, such as Dario Fo, Jean Baudrillard and Martin Amis, welcomed the triumph of al-Qaeda on September 11.

The romanticization of  the “forged boot” and “iron hand,” the worship of “lonely overbearing” men with “the sensitive hand of the artist” — this explains the amazing easiness with which recent anarchists, pacifists, Marxists, atheists, after having changed a couple  of ideologies, burden themselves with the most primitive, barbaric and despotic religion of our time: Islam.

What they crave for is not religion as such. They don’t want Buddhism, Bahaism, Zoroastrianism, or even the mild Islam of the Sufi or Ahmadiyya version. They want a religion that would crush them, rape their bodies and souls, and destroy their ego — one that would terrify them and make them tremble with fear, infirmity and impotence.

Only bloodthirsty medieval Islam is able to do this today. It alone possesses unlimited cruelty and willingness to burn everything on its way. And they  gather like moths flying to the flame: communists Roger Garaudy, “Carlos the Jackal,” Trond Ali Linstad, Malcolm X, Alys Faiz; human rights defenders Jemima Goldsmith, Keith Ellison, and Uri Davis, the fighter against Zionism for the rights of the Palestinians. Fathers favor Castro, such as Oliver Stone; their sons accept Islam, such as Sean Stone. According to a public opinion poll conducted in August 2014 (Madeline Grant, Newsweek), “16% of French citizens support ISIS.” There are 7% to 8% of Muslims living in France. Who makes up the rest 8% to 9%?

Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn, John Brennan, Hollywood stars, Ylva Johansson, Sweden’s Integration Minister, who like  her boss Stefan Löfven claimed that “there was no connection between crime and immigration”; Michael Fabricant, a former vice-chair of the Tory party, who said that “some conservative Anglicans are the same as ISIS”; German politicians that established a media watchdog to “instruct the press to censor ethnicity and religion in crime reports” (a modification of Soviet censure); the Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips, who believes that it is inevitable to recognize Sharia courts in Great Britain; atheist-apologist for Islam (O my God!) CJ Werleman; Canadian Liberals, who support  the anti-Islamophobia motion; Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown, who justifies slavery and raping of female slaves; Wendy Ayres-Bennett, a UK professor who is urging Brits to learn Urdu and Punjabi to make Muslim migrants feel welcome; Ohio State University, that offered a course on “how Muslims helped build America”; the Swedish state-owned company Lernia encouraging the replacement of standard Swedish with the “migrant-inclusive accent”; American feminists with the slogans “Allahu akbar” and “I love Islam,” who endorse the BDS movement; Swedish feminists wearing burkas in Iran; “proud  feminists” such as Elina Gustafsson and Gudrun Schyman defending Muslim criminals who raped Swedish girls – all of them and thousands of others have already converted to Islam, if not de jure, then de facto.

They appeal to Islam to escape from their fears, complexes, helplessness, and uselessness. They choose the despotism of body and spirit to deprive themselves of their freedom – the freedom that has always been an unbearable burden for their weak souls full of chimeras. They crave slavery.

They are attracted by Islam today, but it’s not about Islam. It’s about them. If Islam is defeated tomorrow and a new Genghis Khan appears with the “religion of the steppe,” or the kingdom of the Aztecs rises with priests tearing hearts from the chest of living people, they will passionately rush into their embrace. They are yearning for tyranny, and will destroy everything on their way for the sake of it. Because of them, “we shall leave this world here just as stupid and evil as we found it upon arrival.” (Voltaire)

Alexander Maistrovoy is the author of Agony of Hercules, or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger).


Islamic State hackers release ‘kill list’ with 8,786 targets in U.S., UK

Video: Harvard students say Trump is more dangerous than the Islamic State


White House Aide Dr. Sebastian Gorka smeared with fake news report

The Forward has stooped to a new low smearing the good name of Dr. Sebastian Gorka and his late father Paul who was both an anti-Fascist and anti-Communist courageous member of resistance who was imprisoned, tortured and released from prison during the 1956 Hungarian Revolt.

We wrote about his family background following the publication of his best selling book, “Defeating Jhad: the winnable war” in April 2026. We were fortunate to have been among the first to interview Dr. Gorka on the former Lisa Benson Show.

You read our interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka that Mike Bates and this writer did on 1330 AM WEBY published on March 1, 2017. You may have seen the picture of my colleague Mike Bates with Dr. Gorka during a visit to the White House Press Room.

Our interview with Gorka revealed his support for Israel, America’s trusted ally in the Middle East. That was corroborated by similar reports from David P. Goldman, Michael Rubin, David Reaboi.

Mort Klein of the Zionist of America has been a relentless fighter for Emet – the truth in this savage piece of real “fake news” perpetrated by the hate driven editors and writers at the “progressive” national Jewish weeky, The Forward.

Read this ZoA dossier on what can only be considered as an artless act of character defamation using selective editing of videos in a patent act of character assasination.

Kol hakavod for Mort Klein of the Zionists of America for standing by and through investigation defending Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people, as well as a proud American immigrant.

ZOA: The Forward Smears WH Aide Gorka with Spliced…

The Forward newspaper has again wrongly smeared counter terrorism and radical terrorism expert, Deputy Assistant to President Trump, and Strategic Initiatives…



‘Explanatory Memorandum’ Detractors Ignore Evidence about Muslim Brotherhood in America

A Muslim Woman’s Fight Against Radical Islam

truth matters

What Is Truth?

Time magazine’s cover for the April 3 issue posed the provocative question, “Is Truth Dead?” It followed up with the corollary article, “Can Trump Handle the Truth,” which itemized all the untruths emerging from Trump’s allegations and tweets, and floating around in his administration.

By contrast, Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the  New York Times, after the “shocking defeat” of Hillary Clinton (who the Times predicted shortly before the election to have a 90-plus percent chance of winning) apologized sotto voce for alleged bias in its coverage of the 2016 presidential election. He assured  readers of the “Newspaper of Record” that:

We aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.

Having rededicated itself to honesty, the newspaper is currently sending out advertisements for subscriptions to college students and others, emphasizing that the Times is the place where they can get real truth – i.e., “all the news that’s fit to print.”

But it’s going to be difficult. The TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes on March 26 interviewed professional purveyors of “fake news” who boasted of the immense profits they have made from advertisements, as their often outrageous news “scoops” proliferate exponentially in Facebook and other social media. 60 Minutes noted that the most avid consumers, contrary to expectations, are not the “less educated,” but the college-educated public, who happen to be overwhelmingly political liberals.

But the renewed attention to truth is welcome, and at least may result in some new insights or “rededications.”

Click here to read the rest of Professor Kainz’ column . . .


Howard Kainz is emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University. His most recent publications include Natural Law: an Introduction and Reexamination (2004), Five Metaphysical Paradoxes (The 2006 Marquette Aquinas Lecture), The Philosophy of Human Nature (2008), and The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct (2010).


TwitRage: Black Lives Matter demands police not drink Pepsi — Coca-Cola reponds

A Pepsi Cola ad featuring Kendall Jenner, a fashion model known for appearing in the E! reality television show Keeping Up with the Kardashians, was withdrawn after Black Lives Matter (BLM),, Organizing for Action and various supporters of the neo-Democrat party took to Twitter to denounce this anti-social justice, racist, bigoted, misogynistic advertisement.

Here is the now banned, by BLM and the Democratic National Committee, Pepsi ad:

Judy Kurtz and Mark Hensch from The Hill report:

Pepsi is reportedly pulling the plug on a sharply criticized new ad featuring Kendall Jenner ending a street protest by handing a can of soda to a police officer.

[ … ]

Jenner then approaches a police officer standing guard at the protest and hands him a Pepsi. The crowd erupts in cheers as the officer smiles and takes a sip of the soft drink.

[ … ]
Top Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson said before Pepsi’s reversal Wednesday that the spot demeans social justice activists.

“The video in so many ways is offensive to all the people who’ve stood in the street for the past two years against police brutality and fighting injustice that the state has caused,” he told TMZ.

Here are a few examples of the TwitRage:

deray mckessonBLM activist  tweeted, “., this ad is trash.”

 tweeted, “The Kendall Jenner Pepsi fiasco is a perfect example of what happens when there’s no black people in the room when decisions are being made.”

, “i couldn’t make it through the whole thing. poc [people of color] being used as props, a rich celebrity solving social justice issues with soda…Cringe.”

, “particularly a celeb from a family famous for cultural appropriation. It’s like the cherry on this shit pie”

Pepsi Cola released an apology following the TwitRage:

man with ak47After reviewing our ad we realized that we did not properly portray the prototypical social justice activist (SJA).

Our staff is working on a new add that has the SJAs dressed in black hoodies, wearing masks and hurling Molotov cocktails made from Pepsi bottles at the police.

We will have Kendall at the end of our new commercial shoot a police officer using a zip-gun made from a Pepsi Cola can. The officer will slowly die drowning in his own blood while the social justice protesters cheer, to show our commitment to the latest millennial revolution! Fifty shades of red.

Pepsist! Pepsist! Pepsist!

Coca-Cola in a press release noted:

It appears that Pepsi has fallen on its own soda container. They tried to identify with those who are burning cars, attacking the police and destroying Starbucks coffee shops. The result TwitRage!

Darren-Lago-Coca-Cola-GunCoca-Cola will be doing a series of ads that will draw in ‘fly-over’ Americans. We are interested in those who voted for law and order, equal justice under the law and respect for one another. We will be offering a special Coca-Cola Colt Peacemaker (pictured).

Our new commercials will be branded Make Coke Great Again-Cola or MCGA-Cola.  We will be featuring in our new series of commercials using law enforcement officers, Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Rangers and Green Berets protecting innocents from those who would do them harm, like those in the Pepsi ad.

Appearing on our MCGA-Cola cans will be photographs of the 37 Hollywood stars who support President Donald J. Trump.

MCGA-Cola will begin shipping next month to local stores. #MAGA with #MCGA-Cola!

Let the cola wars begin!


Ferguson, Missouri Elects White Mayor – NBC News

Pepsi pulls widely mocked Kendall Jenner ad | TheHill

Stanford Accepts Muslim Teenager Who Wrote ‘BlackLivesMatter’ 100 Times On Application

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared in Soldier of Fortune magazine.


America Has Lost Her ‘Voice’

Born during the life and death struggle against Nazism, the Voice of America recently turned 75. During her long years of service, she provided a beacon of hope to captive nations in Europe, and helped keep that hope alive during decades of Soviet occupation.

More recently, the Voice has provided hope to freedom-seeking peoples in the Far East, Central Asia, Iran and Africa. Companion services managed by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors have provided surrogate broadcasting into Russia and other countries that lack a free press.

But lately, the venerable Voice has been behaving with an immaturity, lack of vision, and unprofessionalism that have dismayed many of her dedicated, long-serving employees, who regularly critique the agency on the BBG Watch blog, as well as her supporters on Capitol Hill.

statue of liberty in flamesFrom “fake news” to the glorification of terrorists, the Voice has lost her way.

VOA’s charter, writ into law under President Gerald Ford, could not be more clear. VOA is supposed to “represent America… [and] present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.” Instead, the Voice has become an amateurish, partisan outset, which many recently-hired journalists and managers see as a taxpayer funded CNN.

The Voice of America – the same “Voice” that is supposed to hold high our nation as of the torchlight of freedom around the world – now compares America’s President to Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

Open the VOA’s main website on virtually any day and you will find stories and headlines that wouldn’t pass muster in any freshman journalism class.

The lead story on Monday, March 27, carried the headline, “Trump to Roll Back Obama Era Environmental Rules.”

“White House officials say President Donald Trump will sign executive orders Tuesday that would effectively dismantle Obama era environmental regulations, rekindling the highly-charged partisan debate about how human activity affects the earth’s climate, and deepening concern decades of work on global climate treaties may be unraveling,” it began.

If that were followed by a detailed explanation of what the President planned to do, and what practical implications his executive orders would have, one might be able to excuse the shoddy left-wing slant of that opening graph.

Instead, the next sentence is a quote from a global warming alarmist saying the president’s policies “would be disastrous,” and many more paragraphs of overheated rhetoric, not journalism.

On the same day, VOA noted that the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would be testifying before the Senate intelligence committee. That certainly qualifies as news. But the VOA headline, “Senate Panel to Question Trump’s Son-in-law on Russia meetings,” suggests that Kushner was compelled to testify, an impression buttressed by the core of the article.

It turns out that Kushner volunteered to testify, a fact missing from the VOA story. Even CNN correctly acknowledged Kushner’s offer to the Senate committee in their lead paragraph.

This type of misrepresentation occurs every day in stories from the VOA Central newsroom, despite hype by VOA Director Amanda Bennett to have reformed and improved its operations.

Even worse are stories that glorify terrorists.

A March 25 story exalted the memory of a Pakistani man who was sentenced to death and executed for murdering a liberal politician who defended religious freedom.

The murderer, Mumtaz Qadri, “is now being hailed as a hero in Pakistan,” whereas the man he murdered was criticized for his “soft stand” on Asia Babi, a Christian woman who allegedly “blasphemed” Islam. “For his followers, Qadri [has become] no less than a saint,” the story gushed.

The day after Somali pirates hijacked a commercial vessel earlier this month, VOA’s Somali service ran an uncritical interview with one of the pirates, titled, “Desperate fishermen?”

VOA Director Bennett proudly posted the reporter’s words to Facebook as if they were her own. “One of the men who seized an oil tanker off the Somali coast this week tells VOA he’s not a pirate,” she wrote. VOA later corrected the headline and toned down the laudatory tone of the piece after criticized on BBG Watch.

In December, VOA ran a long profile of a Turkish-born ISIS fighter who joined the jihad and died in Syria. Clearly intended to be a piece of showcase journalism, it was nothing less than the glorification of a terrorist.

On any given day, you can go to VOA websites and find example after example of shoddy journalism, fake news, misleading headlines, and slanted reporting.

VOA editors appear not to understand or not to care about the VOA charter, which also requires them to “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.” This mission has been dropped entirely.

U.S. taxpayers spend over $770 million/year on U.S. government broadcasting. This includes Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Marti, and other media outlets.

For most of her 75 years, the Voice of America has been a powerful tool in the war of ideas, showing by example the attractiveness of American openness, pluralism, compassion, and tolerance.

It’s time for President Trump to appoint new management, so she can be great again.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Daily Caller.


Groundhog Day – Jihad Version

I think I’ve seen this movie before. The plot goes something like this: a man drives a car into a crowd of people, gets out of his vehicle, shouts an Arabic phrase, begins to stab bystanders, and is shot by police.

You probably know the rest of the story. Ordinary people immediately understand that it’s another jihad attack. But the police and the media are baffled. They spend hours and sometimes days looking into the possibility that it might be an act of terrorism. By the time they finally decide that it is terrorism, most people have moved on to the next news cycle.

Then there’s the question of identity. Who did it? At first the assailant is simply identified as a “man.”  Then, after a suitable interval, he’s identified as a “London resident” or a “resident of Marseille,” or whatever the case may be. Next we learn that he’s an “Asian man” (if the incident occurs in England) or a “North African man” (if in France).  Finally, we are told that it is a Muslim man, but by this point many have lost interest.

Next comes the matter of motive. Of course, the average citizen already knows the motive: the jihadist did it for the sake of Allah and the seventy-two virgins. But for some reason the Kabuki ritual must be played out to the end. Very often there is no end – that is, no motive is ever found. The authorities decide that the perpetrator acted irrationally. He was mentally ill or emotionally disturbed, or other kids bullied him in school.

Khalid Masood

Khalid Masood. Photo: Daily Mail.

As Governor Kasich said after a Muslim student at Ohio State University perpetrated a car and knife attack on fellow students, “we may never totally find out why this person. . . snapped.” One sometimes gets the impression that the authorities never want to know. That would explain why the motivation behind the crime is usually left hanging.

At any rate, the mystery-motive motif is a recurrent plot feature. After Khalid Masood’s car and knife rampage, which left several dead and forty wounded in London recently, a senior police official said, “We must accept that there is a possibility we will never understand why he did this.”

One thing you can be sure of in the official version: whatever the motive, it has nothing to do with Islam. The authorities are uncertain about everything else, but they are always quite certain of that. The denial comes in several variations: “this has nothing to do with Islam,” “this is a perversion of a great religion,” ”No religion condones terror,” and even, “this is a betrayal of Islam.”

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Kilpatrick’s column . . .