VIDEOS: The Rise and Fall of the ‘New World Order’ — From George H.W. Bush to Donald J. Trump

/in , , , , , , , /by

On October 19th, 2017  former President George W. Bush in New York at a forum put on by the George W. Bush Institute stated, “Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.” Former President Bush in his speech referred to “the norms and rules of the global order.”

It is prophetic that former President George H.W. Bush is not only the father of George W. and Jeb Bush but he is also the father of the “New World Order” in America.

Lawrence Freedman in his 1991 Foreign Affairs article, “Order and Disorder in the New World” interprets the phrase New World Order in two ways:

“The first [interpretation] is that the slogan reflects a presumption that international institutions and, in particular, the United Nations, will be taking a more active and important role in global management… [T]he second interpretation…[is] that the phrase ‘New World Order’ is merely descriptive, requiring no more than acceptance that the current situation is unique and clearly different in critical respects” from the past.”

Today the New World Order is best defined as “globalism.”

It is prophetic that then President George H.W. Bush unveiled the New World Order to America in a speech before a joint session of Congress on September 11th, 1991. This speech was ten years before the attack on the World Trade Center in New York city in 2001. Listen to former President George H.W. Bush’s remarks carefully:

Candidate Trump defeated 16 opponents to obtain the nomination as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. One of his opponents was Jeb Bush. It is prophetic that Donald J. Trump was not only defeated Jeb Bush in the Republican primary race but he’s also the unraveler of Jeb’s father’s New World Order, which has changed its name to “globalism.”

Now listen to then candidate Donald J. Trump’s remarks aimed directly at the New World Order known as “globalism”:

The media has portrayed former President George W. Bush’s speech as anti-Trump. Rather, it appears that G.W. Bush is on the side of President Trump. Bush said, “We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism [identity politics]… To renew our country, we only need to remember our values [belief in God not government].” Bush went on to say this about two of the Trump administration’s major initiatives, “First, America must harden its own defenses [increase military spending]. Our country must show resolve and resilience in the face of external attacks on our democracy [vetting of immigrants and border security]. And that begins with confronting a new era of cyber threats [President Trump’s May, 2017 Executive Order on cyber security].”

Globalism and the New World Order is dying. Elections in Austria, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and even in France, as well as BREXIT, have shown the rise of national sovereignty over what Robert Royal has labeled “authoritarian liberalism.” Royal in his column “Something Stirring in the West” notes:

We’re seeing a remarkable if disorganized reaction in the developed world to the ways that what might be called “authoritarian liberalism” has come to dominate us. Trumpism, of course, is the most obvious example. But even in Europe, the place that seems to have gone the furthest down the liberal path, something remarkable is underway.

The decline and fall of the New World order’s globalism is happening. It appears the globalists cannot stop it because they cannot stop the human spirit, as former President George W. Bush said, “We should not be blind to the economic and social dislocations caused by globalization. People are hurting. They are angry. And, they are frustrated. We must hear them and help them.”

This is why Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States, he heard the American people and is now helping the American people.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Ran an Independent Campaign From the Start

The Truth vs CNN

/in , , , /by

In a  July 2nd, 2017 FIREWALL, host Bill Whittle recounted a CNN scandal, describing the masterful way the videos were released and showed what incredible — almost unbelievable — harm is caused by media bias.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Rosaries Scare the Media

EDITORS NOTE: Media Bias/Fact Check writes, “The Cable News Network (CNN) is an American basic cable and satellite television channel that is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time Warner. It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel; however, by April 2016, a CNN executive officially described the channel as “no longer a TV news network” and instead as “a 24-hour global multi-platform network.” CNN has a left bias in reporting and sometimes uses sensational headlines.  CNN typically sources its news sources. Do not confuse CNN’s talk shows with actual reporting of news. Further, they have failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. (5/16/2016) Updated (6/4/2017)

Why Americans Hate the Media

/in , , , , /by

I’ll make this quick and easy. The mainstream media is not trusted by a large part of the country because they have an entrenched liberal worldview bias they refuse to acknowledge or make any attempts to ameliorate.

The mainstream media is hated by an also large part of the country because of the sharply different ways it covers Republicans and Democrats and now how it covers President Trump and everyone else…and a heavy dose of disconnected arrogance. This has resulted in abysmal trust ratings among Americans.

A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found fully 37 percent said they trust the media “not at all.” Another 31 percent said they have “not very much” trust in the news media. But more telling is the worldview breakdown on “How much do you trust the media?”:

Worldview                    A great deal   A good amount   Not very much   Not at all

Very liberal – Liberal               15%               40%                 27%                   17%

Moderate                                   5%                25%                 40%                   28%

Conservative –                           5%                9%                   28%                   57%
Very conservative

So the more liberal a person, the more they trust the media and the more conservative the less they trust the media. Among moderates, more distrust than trust.

This trust goes to the brink of absurdity in this strange poll question by Fox News Poll, which was largely negative about Trump — so hardly biased. When asked who was a bigger threat to the country, white supremacists or the media, 47 percent of respondents said white supremacists, while 40% said the media and 9 percent said they were the same. So half of Americans say the media is an equal or bigger threat to America than white supremacists. That is absurdly close, and even 24 percent of non-whites said the media.

Yet, when you break it down by Republican and Democrat, 12% of Democrats said the media while 69 percent of Republicans said the media. Independents were split evenly, within the margin of error — about half with an opinion said it was the media. See the chart below for more

(Apologies for the stupid small chart.)

And yet, with these straightforward, shocking numbers staring them right in the face, the media still does not see it’s liberal media bias as a problem — or even a real thing!

This plays out obviously in news coverage — obvious unless you are liberal, as the data shows. So liberal media consumers — and journalists — are the only two groups that see no obvious issue. It’s like the final scales should be falling, and yet the media remains utterly blind.

Here’s how it looks in coverage during Obama

In the eight years of President Obama’s presidency, we saw:

  • North Korea miniaturized its nuclear weapons and reached the point of delivering them on ICBMs, meaning they can reach at least half of the United States with nuclear weapons. Media yawned.
  • The creation of the worst treaty since Munich with the signing of the Iran nuclear accords and providing the avowed enemy of the United States with billions of dollars in cash — flown to them on an airplane! Media covered glowingly.
  • The precipitous and disastrous pullout from Iraq and red-line waffling in Syria that opened the door to the world scourge that is ISIS and the cleansing of Christians and Yazidis from the region. Media pointed out George W. Bush started the Iraq War and ISIS is really bad. Was Obama president then?
  • The weakening of the United States military through funding cuts and the emboldenment of Russian aggression in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, leaving the free West in an overall weaker position. Media reported that Russia is bad!
  • The worst economy since the end of World War II, a “recovery” that was so weak that virtually no one could feel it as wages were stagnant, jobs below population growth and a sharp rise in income disparity. Media reminded us how terrible things were when Obama took office and that Republicans blocked all these good ideas.
  • The ruination of the healthcare system in the country to the point that even Democrats know that Obamacare has failed and needs dramatic changes. Media reported how hard it was for people to get good healthcare. The system’s broken! Was Obama president then?
  • Scandals such as the IRS targeting conservative groups, a la Richard Nixon; Obama’s knowing about Hillary’s private and unprotected email server; Obama seizing AP reporters’ phone records; Benghazi; gun-running Operation Fast and Furious; and so many more were big yawners to the media. Nothing to see here.

For eight years, the coverage was soft and largely positive. Many press conferences were downright fawning.

Here’s how it looks in coverage during Trump

But almost overnight, the media found its fangs again. Compare the Obama coverage to just the first few months of the Trump presidency.

  • Protest! Protest! Protest! Protest! Protest! But the unending protests and favorable coverage seem to have one point: Undermine the President. The obvious agenda and funding behind the protests go unreported in the mainstream media. But any similar protests of an Obama presidency would have been greeted with racism, racism, racism. In fact, that is what the media turned the Tea Party image into: Racists.
  • Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Hysterical coverage of the longed for collusion between Trump and Russia has come up empty. Months of coverage and wild, irresponsible speculation meant to undermine the President has resulted in…the equivalent of finding Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster. Lots of nothing.
  • Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! And of course the media hyper-focuses on a few hundred white supremacist Nazis and does everything possible to tie Trump to them, then all Trump supporters to them, then all Republicans. The media makes the overt attempt to delegitimize the President, his supporters and the Republican Party. At the same time, they call the violent, masked mix of Marxists and anarchists that make up Antifa the good guys. Why? Because they oppose Trump and his supporters. The fact that Antifa was being violent against conservatives long before Charlottesville, and before Trump goes largely unreported. The media only noticed them at Charlottesville and called them merely “counter-protesters.”

The media has played the biggest role in polarizing Americans and breaking our ability to communicate with each other — more than the two parties and even the protesters. And for that, a very large chunk of Americans hate them or simply dismiss them as untrustworthy.

Few options to the deep media damage

Major Garrett, now with CNN, recently said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that his colleagues need to cover the president straightforward and honest. Just report what he says and does, and avoid all of the opinionating and pontificating that has erupted since January.

Good for him. That’s true…as far as it goes. But the media needs to step back much further and choose to cover the same types of stories with the same news judgment as it did with, say, Barak Obama. Otherwise, the above comparisons show that even following Major Garrett’s recommendation, coverage would still be terribly slanted.

The traditional media may well have passed the point of no return on this front with their deeply entrenched biases, incapable of seeing both the error of their way and the damage it has done to their industry. (See poll results above.)

The hatred and distrust of the mainstream media will just continue to feed the division between a left-leaning media establishment and a right-leaning media establishment and Americans choosing which meal they will dine on.

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

Gun Control Lobby Seeks to Thwart SHARE Act with Hysteria, Fear Mongering

/in , , , , /by

Earlier this month we reported on the introduction of H.R. 3668, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. Within weeks of its introduction, the bill had a hearing before the House Natural Resource Subcommittee on Federal Lands and passed out of the full Committee on Natural Resources. The panic is now starting to set in amongst the gun control lobby, which is desperately searching for ways to smear a bill that has been around for years in various forms without attracting much attention from the usual anti-gun extremists.

The true reason for their discontent is not so much the bill’s content – concerned as it is with hunting, land access, and law-abiding gun owners – but with how the bill’s success threatens to expose as lies the narratives they’re pushing about the current administration and America’s attitude toward guns. Trump has been a disaster for the gun industry, they crow. The NRA is a paper tiger, they insist. America is over guns, they exclaim.

None of it, of course, is true. 

Nor is most of what the media has said about the bill’s content accurate or enlightening.

As is typical when pro-gun legislation is on the move, newspaper writers who in many cases have never owned or shot a firearm conjure up indignant talking points about subject matter of which they have no understanding.

That’s why, for example, you had Dana Milbank of the Washington Point making claims about suppressors that the fact-checker of the very paper that employs him had already contradicted. And it’s why Gail Collins of the New York Times is shocked that long gun ammunition with non-lead projectile components (which she refers to as “armor piercing bullets”) is already on the market.

Even people who should know better are displaying their ignorance … or maybe just their opportunism to latch onto lucrative anti-gun consulting agreements.

A former ATF agent turned gun control lobbyist insisted at the bill’s recent hearing that several provisions of the SHARE Act would endanger law enforcement officers. Some of the same policy initiatives that he cited, however, were endorsed by ATF’s current second ranking official as opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens “without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.”

A writer who claims to have been a park ranger also criticized a portion of the bill that seeks to standardize rules for carrying firearms on certain federal waterfront recreational areas with those already in place at national parks and national forests, among other federal lands. “Why does a hunter need to carry a firearm on Hoover Dam or Lake Mead, which gets 7 million visitors a year?” he asks. “Are there really good hunting opportunities on a lake filled with thousands of recreational boaters?”

The provisions in question, however, are aimed at carrying for self-defense, not hunting, which is already allowed on many of the areas that would be affected by this portion of the bill. That’s why the title he cites (and apparently didn’t bother to read) is captioned, “RECREATIONAL LANDS SELF-DEFENSE ACT.”

The same writer goes on to claim: “And then there are the provisions eliminating all restrictions on the purchase of silencers, eliminating restrictions on armor-piercing bullets, and eliminating restrictions on carrying firearms across state lines.”

The bill doesn’t do any of these things. Under the SHARE Act, the purchase of suppressors would remain subject to the same federal regulations as firearms themselves. Regulations on “armor-piercing bullets” would remain on the books but focus more clearly on the handgun ammunition that most threatens law-enforcement officers. And the bill does nothing to change rules about “carrying” firearms across state lines. It merely makes a current law protecting the transport of secured, unloaded firearms enforceable against anti-gun states and localities that have openly defied it.

But the primary concern of pro-gun Americans should not be the usual elites who are predictably criticizing legislation they don’t understand, but members of Congress who need to understand that law-abiding gun owners support it.

Please contact your U.S. Representative NOW and ask him or her to vote YES on H.R. 3668, the SHARE Act. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative’s office, or you can send an email using our Take Action tool.

Your representative needs to hear from you TODAY to ensure the momentum building behind this historic legislation continues to grow.

Ask Your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 3668, the SHARE Act.

Please contact your U.S. Representative NOW and ask him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 3668, the SHARE Act. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative’s office.

TAKE ACTION TODAY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

Wall Street Journal gets it wrong Trump still out of Paris Climate Agreement

/in , , , , /by

The Wall Street Journal caused quite a kerfuffle over the weekend when it reported that “the Trump administration is considering staying in the Paris agreement.”

They got it wrong.

The WSJ based its reporting on statements by attendees at a climate conference in Montreal and by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who said the President is “open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.”

However, nothing had changed in the President’s position.

President Trump spotted the inherent flaws in the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement for himself and vowed to pull the U.S. out while he was still a candidate.

White House Economic Adviser Gary Cohn corrected the record saying, “We are withdrawing, and we made that as clear as it can be. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly.”  We posted details at CFACT.org.

While the UN and American climate establishment would like nothing better than for Trump to reverse course on Paris, this appears to have been wishful thinking on their part.  The conditions under which President Trump might reconsider his approach to international climate politics that Secretary Tillerson reiterated presents no small hurdle.

The President is absolutely correct that Paris is a bad deal for America.  It would limit U.S. emissions now, while allowing countries such as China and India to dramatically increase theirs.  At the same time the U.S. would be expected to pay out huge sums of money to UN programs while again China, India and the rest get a pass.  President Obama sent the UN $1 billion for its Green Climate Fund on his way out the door.

The Paris Agreement is and always was a bad deal for America.  If the President sticks to his guns there’s no way back in.

Progressive Doublethink: ‘Barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect!’

/in , , , , , /by

Barbarism is defined as: absence of culture and civilization; extreme cruelty or brutality.

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

After listening to Mr. Condell’s commentary, while reflecting on what happened on 9/11/2001, I realized that those who embrace open borders policies, sanctuary cities, labeling people as Islamophobes, shout the word “racism” based upon the notion that Islam is a race rather than a global political ideology, are in the business of reeducating Americans to embrace barbarism as “worthy of equal respect.” If you fail to do so the courts can, and in some places do, make you a criminal.

Groups that are merging barbarism with civil society to further their political goals include but are not limited to: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Organizing for Action, some followers of Mohammed, some followers of Bernie Sanders and some members of both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

This is happening in our public schools, colleges, universities, in the media, in the halls of Congress and in our courts. Our “civilized” society is being reeducated to believe what George Orwell called “doublethink.” In his book “1984” Orwell defined doublethink as:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

The progressive ideal is the embracing of relative truth. Relative truth is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths. Revelatory truth is the knowledge that there are absolute truths. Truths that transcend culture, civilization and mankind itself. Progressive reject absolute truths such as: barbarism is evil.

Relative truth allows those in power to stay in power. Because its always about power.

Antifa protester.

Orwell wrote:

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ― George Orwell, 1984 [Emphasis added]

Just as the object of torture is torture and power is power, the object of barbarism is barbarism. Barbarism is not a means; it is an end.

Those who embrace barbarism are themselves barbaric. Those who, by omission or commission, accept barbarism are encouraging more cruelty and brutality.

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, 1984

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Robin Rayne Nelson / ZUMA Press / Global Look Press

Where Did Antifa Come From?

/in , , , , /by

Click for AUDIO version.

Unless you have been living under a rock lately, you are probably now familiar with the term, “Antifa,” but are not too sure what it represents. In a nutshell, it is an abbreviated form of “Anti Faschists,” and is at the heart of the violent protests plaguing America. Antifa was there at Charlottesville, VA, in Phoenix, AZ for the Trump rally, at the desecration of several Civil War monuments, and more recently at the heart of the violent Berkeley, CA protests. These were ugly hostile environments the police had difficulty controlling.

Make no mistake, Antifa promotes anarchy, and proudly proclaims itself as such in their literature and web pages. They are also communists with a deep aversion to capitalism. They claim their group descends from a like-titled European group of the early 20th century. However, I could find no evidence today’s Antifa knows what Fascism truly means. They claim to want to destroy what they call the “American Plantation.” From their perspective, they see slavery in every minority group and abhor their white Christian “masters.” Yet, many of their members are middle class whites. They want liberation and freedom ON THEIR TERMS, not as defined by the Constitution. As such, they advocate the overthrow of the United States government and are committed to combating any sign of support for the government or any other opinion conflicting with their own. And, No, they are most definitely not advocates of free speech as prescribed by the First Amendment.

In reality, Antifa’s roots are planted in the Occupy Wall Street Movement of 2011, a group of people seeking social and economic reform. Interestingly, the Occupy movement quickly faded from view following the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012. However, after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, a period of social unrest grew, all aimed at resisting the new president at every turn. The tactics, unfortunately, were less peaceful and more militaristic. Consequently, Antifa began to flourish.

Antifa’s numbers are relatively small, but they are getting organized and beginning to recruit impressionable millennials either in school or fresh out of college. Many professors preach Socialist dogma to their students thereby influencing their motivation and perspective. As a result, they foster Antifa recruits.

Currently, the tactics of Antifa appear to be based on a “Minute Man” approach whereby whenever a major demonstration is led by Republicans, such as a pro-Trump rally, they rush to the scene and engage in vocal and violent confrontation. The theory is that if they do this enough times, they hope to suppress any outward signs of support for the president. It’s called “intimidation.” They also hope to spin the media to promote their values.

Antifa is now in the process of creating a network of chapters throughout the United States, the latest being in Philadelphia. Such meeting places are used to recruit and train new members in various organizational and communications tactics. The concern though is the teaching of terrorism, complete with military training.

The mouthpiece for Antifa is the web page “It’s Going Down,” which spreads information and encourages support for the group. The main web page for the group is titled, “Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement,” which articulates their purpose and activities. They also claim to rely on donations and have established an Internet Fund drive. The irony here is that Antifa are devout anti-capitalists, yet when asked “Why do we ask for money?”, they claimed, “Sadly we have not freed ourselves from capitalism. We too need to eat and pay the bills.”

Antifa makes no pretense they are unwilling to use violence to serve their needs and have demonstrated their willingness to do so. Photos on their web site and elsewhere proudly display a variety of weapons and recruits learning how to use them. However, these are predominantly young people who want to graduate from playing “Call of Duty” on a computer to actually facing violent confrontation. I suspect many are naive about what they are doing and do not realize the consequences of their actions. This becomes a dangerous scenario that could lead to the deaths of either themselves or their opposition. Should they develop a well equipped arsenal, someone is bound to eventually pull a trigger and all Hell will break loose.

As real as the prospect of violence is, Democrats have been slow in condemning Antifa; only recently has Nancy Pelosi spoken against them, but we have yet to hear from Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and former President Barack Obama. Their silence only serves to encourage the Antifa movement, not to suppress it. Even the Main Stream Media appears reluctant to take them to task.

Make no mistake, Antifa is worse than all of the left-wing nut jobs combined, including the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter. They are misguided, armed, and view themselves as international terrorists. This is not about “American Plantations”; it’s about the overthrow of the United States government. If you hear someone sympathize with Antifa, be sure to straighten them out.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Huffington Post. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

PODCAST: Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News on PayPal and the Left’s war on the freedom of speech

/in , , , , /by
I appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News on August 22, 2017 to discuss PayPal banning Jihad Watch under Leftist pressure, and the Left’s war against the freedom of speech.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on the Tucker Carlson Show: The SPLC and the Left’s war on free speech

Uganda: Muslim clerics convicted of terrorism in connection with murders of rival Islamic group leaders

VIDEO: Students call for an ‘End to Prayer Shaming’

/in , , , /by

East Catholic High School produced a short video calling for an end to “prayer shaming.” The description of the video featuring students from East Catholic High School states:

Enough is enough. It’s time to take a stand. Today, students at East Catholic High School rise up and declare that we’re more concerned with God than we are with being politically correct.
We encourage you to do the same. Please watch our video…then SHARE it with your friends and encourage THEM to SHARE it as well. TAG a friend, a community leader, or even the media. Let’s get this powerful message out there.

No more prayer shaming. Let’s bring God and prayer back into our lives.

EDITORS NOTE: For more information lease visit us: http://www.echs.com/

MSNBC falsely claims ‘right-wing extremists’ responsible for ‘three times more deaths’ than Muslim terrorists

/in , , , , , , /by

This is an oft-debunked claim that nevertheless is frequently repeated, because it fits the establishmet media’s narrative.

“MSNBC’s Ruhle Cites Incorrect Terror Statistic [VIDEO],” by Amber Athey, Daily Caller, August 14, 2017:

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle incorrectly claimed Monday that right-wing extremists are responsible for “three times more deaths” than Islamic extremists.

“Between 2001 and now, we have seen three times more deaths caused by right-wing extremists than Islamic terrorists,” Ruhle stated during her show.

Assuming Ruhle was referencing a widely-cited report by the Government Accountability Office, Ruhle’s statement was not only misleading, but just plain wrong.

The GAO report found that between September 12, 2001 and December 31, 2016 there were 23 fatal attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists that caused 119 deaths. In the same time period, right-wing extremists carried out 62 fatal attacks that caused 106 deaths.

Islamic terrorists were thus responsible for more deaths than right-wing extremists, not the other way around. Right-wing extremists did carry out about three times more attacks, which could be what Ruhle meant to say on her show.

If one looks closer at the timeframe of the GAO study, one will note it starts tracking terror on September 12, 2001–one day after the deadliest terror attack in United States history. If the September 11, 2001 attacks are included, the number of deaths caused by Islamic terrorists jumps up by nearly 3,000.

Therefore, if the study were started one day earlier on 9/11, the ratio of deaths caused by Islamic terrorists versus right-wing extremists becomes 3,115 to 119, an incomparable difference….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

In Their Own Words: The Radical Political Goals Of ‘Anti-Fascists’

Mob Rule Prevails in Toppling of Confederate Statue

Germany: Muslim gets two years in prison for trying to defraud the Islamic State

How Politicians use Journalists to ‘Target’ their Enemies

/in , , , , , /by

There has been much written about fake news, the fakestream media and what some have called the “Enemedia.” There have been hundreds if not thousands of articles exposing false news stories designed to target political figures by other political figures using the media as the preferred “weapon of choice.”

Fake news kills. It kills careers. It kills peoples lives. It can ultimately kill our Constitutional Republic.

Sometimes journalists unwittingly become part of a conspiracy to take down public figures. Such was the case of Jilda Unruh, former investigative reporter for WPLG ABC Channel 10 News in Miami. The “target” was Herbert Cousins the former Inspector General for Miami-Dade Public Schools.

Francisco Alvarado in an August 2007 Miami New Times article wrote:

For more than two decades, Herbert Cousins headed field offices and trained undercover FBI agents. In 1990 he led a group that arrested Miami cult leader Yahweh ben Yahweh and 15 disciples of his sect on racketeering and capital murder charges. “I risked my life on a number of occasions to get the job done,” Cousins explains.

So in 2003, he was an easy choice for a group of lawmen tasked to recommend a candidate to become the Miami-Dade school board’s first inspector general. In May of that year the board unanimously awarded Cousins, who is also a former teacher and principal, a $140,000 annual salary and the power to weed out waste and fraud.

Unfortunately Cousins no longer holds the title, thanks in part to Rudy Crew.

[ … ]

In a civil lawsuit filed March 6, Cousins alleges Crew conspired with several others to plant unflattering stories in the press that eventually forced him out. He is among four former high-ranking school district employees who have sued the Miami-Dade superintendent in the past two years.

Crew wanted Cousins out, Cousins claims, because “I refused to allow him to interfere or control my office’s investigations.” [Emphasis added]

So how did Jilda Unruh, an Emmy Award winning investigative journalist, get involved in the Herbert Cousins case?

In the March 21, 2006 Sworn Statement of Michael Hoover Lawson is the following conversation concerning Ms. Unruh and Mr. Cousins:

Q. What did she [Unruh] have to say?

A. She said that Joe Garcia from the school board had called her while she was on vacation with her nieces and nephews. She was shocked over that. He wanted her back immediately to run a story on Herbert Cousins, and from what I can remember, the story involved Herbert Cousins, supposedly a business he was running while working for the school board. She felt Joe Garcia felt something needed to be done to the point of Herbert Cousins and that everyone needed to be aware of it.

Q. So Garcia was asking her to come back from vacation to run this story attacking Herbert Cousins?

A.That’s correct.

Q. And that’s what she told you?

A. That is what she told me. He [Garcia] wanted her to come back in town and get this thing done. [Emphasis added]

The following is the Sworn Statement of Ana Rivas Logan, former Miami-Dade School Board member, concerning Ms. Unruh and Mr. Cousins:

Q. Now, shortly before the issue of renewing his [Cousins] contract came up for a vote by the Board, in early August of 2005, were you approached by Jilda Unduh, of Channel 10?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And did she [Unruh] tell you certain things regarding Mr. Cousins’ effectiveness, and make accusations of corruption, related to Mr. Cousins?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. Could you describe those for us?

A. We were at a meeting, Board Members have to meet in the Sunshine. We were having a meeting to discuss — I don’t remember the exact matter of the meeting. But she [Unruh] walked into the meeting, which the media — the media — it’s open to the public. She walked into the meeting and came right for me, with a binder in her hand. The binder had tabs. And she asked me, you know, was I aware that Mr. Cousins was basically — in effect she was stating the number of cases he had closed, which was a very normal number. And then she also asked me if I knew that he had, had a company, and was using School Board employees to run this company, the School Board time. So the implication there was he was not doing his job, as refers to working for the Board, he was using resources to carry on his private business that he had at the time. And so she kept pointing to the binders, as a source of information, or corroborating paperwork. And I asked her, “Can I please see that?” And she immediately turned around and went on to ask another Board member information. But, you know, it was suspicious, she wouldn’t give me the binder, if it was fact.

Q. And she did this right before the vote on the extension of the [Cousins] contract: correct?

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. Now, would it be fair to summarize her discussion against Mr. Cousins as being he was highly ineffective and he was engaged in corruption, by using School Board employees for a personal business?

A. Yes.

Q. And were those discussions — did you — presented to you in that fashion — did you change your vote, regarding the extension of his contract?

A. I absolutely changed my decision regarding Mr. Cousin’s contract. I found her accusations and what I thought was, you know, was research: was investigative reporting.

Q. And have you come to be — have you become aware subsequently that certain of the accusations that she made were completely false?

A. I have since become aware of that. And I became aware that while I was a Board Member, that the accusations were totally inaccurate.

Q. Now, we’re talking about the accusations made by Jilda Unruh?

A. Yes, the accusations make by Jilda Unruh. [Emphasis added]

Politically motivated character assassination is nothing to be shrugged off as not real. It happens at every level. Whether politicians on the Miami-Dade School Board, to members of Congress against the President of the United States. Fake news kills careers, destroys lives and can lead to even worse.

Fake news is real, it is dangerous and it discredits the media and undermines our political system. 

VIDEO: Why we no longer need the mainstream media

/in , , , , /by

A few weeks ago, I spoke at FreedomFest in Las Vegas — about the crisis that’s unfolding in today’s journalism. Take a look:

I don’t have to tell you: the mainstream media has betrayed the trust of the American people, by putting profits before facts, and pushing a fake news agenda.

But now, thanks to the work you’re helping accomplish with Project Veritas, we’re seeing a real shift in power away from the mainstream media — and towards citizens like you and me.

P.S. Everything Project Veritas does is made possible by the help and support of patriots like you.

Will you help continue to fund our team’s hard-hitting investigations, and help us continue to shine a much-needed light on those in power?

Pitch in just $26 or more right away to Project Veritas now.

McMaster blocked Islamic Scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali from meeting President Trump

/in , , , , /by

McMaster appears to be doing all he can to make sure that the truth about Islam and jihad is not discussed at the NSC or the White House. He must go. He must go soon.

“Censored! McMaster Barred Scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Giving Talk on Radical Islam at NSC,”

by Mike Cernovich, Medium, August 4, 2017 (thanks to the Geller Report):

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born former Dutch deputy threatened with death for her outspoken criticism of Islam. Photo: EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was schedule to present a paper on radical Islamic terror at the National Security Counsel before being blocked by H.R. McMaster and his recently appointed Senior Director of Counter-Terrorism, Mustafa Javed Ali.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was in town to present her work to the Senate, was also prohibited from visiting the President during her White House visit, where she was allowed to meet with select members of the NSC in an informal setting.

Asked why she was censored, a source reported, “Mustafa Javed Ali said she was Islamophobic, and that the only way she could present her paper would be to have someone from CAIR come in to refute her work.”

This “both sides” justification for banning Ali was, according to my source, “complete bulls*t.”

“People come in to present their views every day. There’s no requirement that every presentation be a debate.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ayan Hirsi Ali warns the West on Da’wa and Islam

UN study finds Islamic State jihadis “lack basic understanding of Islam”

Germany could have deported Hamburg supermarket jihad murderer in 2015

VIDEO: The Truth vs CNN with Bill Whittle

/in , , , , /by

In his latest FIREWALL, host Bill Whittle recounts the recent CNN scandal, describes the masterful way the videos were released and shows what incredible — almost unbelievable — harm is caused by media bias.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation strategizing to silence free speech

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The OIC is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which represents 57 Muslim countries world wide and they know that to advance Islam (and Shariah law) worldwide they have to silence any criticism of Islam in the media.  To that end they held a conference two weeks ago in (no surprise) London to strategize on how to silence anyone standing in their way.

When I read this story by Leo Hohmann at WND, the french novel ‘Submission’ came immediately to mind.  It is a dark, disgusting book, but probably worth reading because its title tells us exactly how Islam/Shariah could triumph—instead of a cataclysmic battle of titans (a possible physical battle), we simply get worn down and give up.

Beating people up over speech would be an important element in bringing us to submission.

From Hohmann:

A group of international Islamist organizations led by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, recently held a two-day conference on countering “Islamophobia” in which it recommends imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the media worldwide.

Monks in Burma fighting against Islamic blasphemy laws.

Under Islamic law, it is considered a serious offense to criticize Allah, Muhammad or Islam. In countries like Pakistan, a Muslim can take a non-Muslim to court and claim he was “offended” by something that was said, resulting in a trial and jail time, even death, for the non-Muslim.

Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan and other Muslim-dominated countries with significant Christian minorities have been the targets of brutal persecution, with the blasphemy laws often serving as the catalyst for their incarceration. Christians have been jailed, stoned, beheaded, and even had acid thrown in their faces for violating the blasphemy laws.

But the OIC, which consists of 57 Muslim-majority countries and boasts the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, is not satisfied with its own people living under threat of arrest for offending Islam by something that is said, written or posted on the Internet.

The July 15-16 symposium, held at London’s Central Mosque Trust and Islamic Cultural Center, was attended by lawyers, media leaders, politicians, academics from European universities and diplomats from various embassies. It was titled: “Mechanisms to challenge Islamophobia legally and through the media.”

Continue reading here.

Is the SPLC carrying the water for the OIC, here. You betcha!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Even Kushner Knows Negotiation Can’t Solve the Palestinian Conflict

“Palestinian” Muslim Who Slaughtered Israeli Family to Receive $3,120 Per Month Reward From Palestinian Authority