Tag Archive for: media

An American Caliphate: The Alternate Media are Catching Up to Me

Back on June 15th of last year, I wrote an article so controversial and scary that some of my usual blog publishers passed on it. I knew they would and I knew why. I had come out and said that Washington D.C. was the seat of the Muslim caliphate, and I had provided details to demonstrate that.

Back during the Vietnam War years, there was a slogan among conservatives that went “America right or wrong.”

At one time, most Americans, conservatives in particular, didn’t like to criticize their government in war time because they thought that would be blasphemous to those brave young Americans who had died on the battlefield. Thus instead of laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of those politicians and foreign policy strategists who had cynically squandered these American lives for their own ideological purposes or self-aggrandizement, they chose to cover up the ignominy of the loss and pretend it was a good cause. That ill-conceived practice enabled more and more vain deaths, and is doing so to the present day.

It is a mindset that dies hard.

But if I had had a son back then who had been drafted and killed, I can’t imagine having pretended that he died for a holy cause, and I didn’t understand those parents who took that attitude. Why send more young men to die when you can stand up for what you believe in and hopefully halt the senseless killing?

I am not, of course, referring to justified war to truly protect the homeland. In fact, I cringed a few nights ago while watching a talk show on German cable channel Deutsche Welle where one freelance reporter who had been embedded with ISIS claimed that all the West needs to do to halt the hostility in the Muslim world is to stop the bombing. I immediately thought of Boko Haram, which has never been bombed or shot at, and which recently killed 2000 Christians. There’s no bombing to halt, stupid!

The article I found at American Thinker, which suggests there is at least some realization that the U.S. is pursuing a caliphate, states:

…Islam is on the march. Meanwhile, the West remains mired in cowardice and complicity. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Europe, which is on the fast track to join the Caliphate.

Not to be outdone by Europe’s madness, the United States is traveling down the same bloody path, importing large numbers of Muslims from Islamic countries thanks to the Islamophile sitting in the Oval Office and a nation full of dhimmis.

This bold statement, reflecting my commentary from last June, suggests that America has now turned a bit of a corner, and that selling baseless wars has become a significantly tougher job for the warmongers in Washington, D.C., and that is partly because none other than Barrack Hussein Obama has joined the ranks of those war mongers and it is therefore politically correct for conservatives to talk plainly about this. It also shows that it is now ok to suggest that Washington DC is the seat of the caliphate, as I did back in June. Now if Mitt Romney were president, I would not bet that the comments, if any, would be this bold. After all, media, whether alternative or mainstream, are beholden to political groups. To put it bluntly, there is no fourth estate. Perhaps there never was.

We still have a long way to go before the public wakes up and realizes, for example, that the Ukraine debacle was a sales job to promote isolation of Russia, if not war with Russia, to the world. But even there, progress is being made by the inch, particularly in Europe.

On the other hand, let us never let anyone tell us that the best policy to use against heartless terrorists is to turn the other cheek.

We will eventually have to engage ISIS.

So how are we doing so far?

Aside from largely ineffectual drone attacks in Syria and Iraq, we’re sending 400 troops to train “moderates” in Syria in hopes of taking out the only man standing between Syrian Christians and death!

Almost all of the reports on this major advance in the war against Christians and innocent minorities in Syria are written with a mesmerizing blandness suggesting that all is well and that the lives of innocent Syrians are an acceptable price to pay to rid the world of Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a considerably more radical Islamist government that will install brutal sharia law enshrining violence against women and introducing death penalties to non-Muslims, for example, who speak their mind about the “prophet.”

Not a single feminist group has protested, of course. Their sole raison d’être is to annoy as many people as possible.

I found on article that sums up how U.S. policies kill Christians abroad as though it were our designated policy to kill them. The one comment in the forum accompanying the article was a mindless complaint about Christians “imposing their values” on others, as if trying to prevent the deaths of innocent Christians were an imposition of values peculiar to Christians. How quaint of us to oppose murder.

Meanwhile, the protests against U.S. Christian-killing policies such as the military opposition to al-Assad are scant and scarcely reported. The most successful ones that get past the media firewall are organized by leftist groups that oppose war on principle and would not fight even if their families were attacked.

Then there have been church protests, but mostly by Orthodox churches (e.g. Antiochian Orthodox  in PA), as well as small, poorly organized worldwide protests during the crisis over Syria in 2013, involving a few hundred protesters each.

If the Satanic forces in Washington succeed in taking out Assad and plunging Syria into chaos, it is hard to imagine salvation for the U.S. What kind of God would forgive us? Not mine!

A Historical Perspective on Violence in Islam: Why Mohammed hated the Poet [media]

Sarwait Husain

Sarwait Husain. Photo: San Antonio Express News.

Sarwait Husain’s guest commentary entitled “Blame Islam?” begins the common narrative of Islamic apologists, “Islam is a religion of Peace” with the inevitable peaceful Quranic quotes.

She describes Muhammad’s first 13 years in Mecca suffering “demeaning abuse, mockery and torture”. Mecca in reality was at its pinnacle of multiculturalism, with followers of 360 pagan religions, as well as of Judaism and Christianity.

What changed in those ten years to make Meccans eventually exile Muhammad?

For ten years he reached out and the Meccans were initially tolerant.  What’s another religion when you already have more than 360!  However, Muhammad’s aggressive tendency to denounce, demean and belittle the Jews and Christians and pagans was met with greater resistance.

Imagine a street vendor who starts off quietly but becomes bolder and louder over time.  When the inevitable pushback began and poets began following Muhammad to mock his sermons and dispute   tales of Abrahamic lineage, Muhammad portrayed himself as the “victim” of abuse and intolerance.

Aggressive street-preaching is met with the same reaction today as it was in the 7th century,  that is negatively.   Any mockery or verbal abuse was exactly that, verbal attack only. Muhammad was grazed in one physical attack but it was certainly not “torture” as Ms. Hussain claims.

Why poets?  Poets were the “media” of the day.  Muhammad expressed his hatred toward the power of the pen and on multiple occasions asked his supporters “who will rid me of (the poet)”

In the last ten years of Muhammad’s life Islam had a much more ominous tone.  Retribution began in 624 AD as his followers swelled with “convert or die” followers. Violent revenge became a part of Islamic history.

In the Battle of Badr all but two prisoners were given the option to have their lives spared by the payment of a ransom.  The two who were not spared and beheaded by Muhammad’s followers were poets/critics of Muhammad.

A poetess and pagan mother of five children who mocked Muhammad, Asma bint Marwan, was murdered in her bed while her sleeping child rested on her chest.  Muhammad said, “Who will rid me of this Marwan’s daughter?” A convert to Islam from her tribe thrust a sword through her chest granting Muhammad his wish.

The Quran, the Hadiths and Muhammad’s biography capture many more of these vicious attacks.

Can we agree that if Muhammad encouraged acts of violence in his day it is understandable why Boko Haram and other terrorists groups make the claim today they are following the “will of Allah”?

Is asking one’s followers, “who will rid me” not justification for questioning the peacefulness of Islam and Muhammad?

Were the Muslim terrorists in France not “ridding” critics of Muhammad’s in the same way?

The contrasts between the peaceful narrative given by Ms. Husain and the violence depicted in Islamic texts are easily explained.  The Islamic concept of “abrogation” allows later Quranic revelations to overrule earlier revelations. The result, more violent passages revealed in the later years of Muhammad “abrogated” earlier peaceful verses in the Quran. Ms. Husain fails to include this fact when addressing an unknowing audience. The Islamic terrorists know this but many Muslims and nearly all non-Muslims don’t.

Like the poets in Muhammad’s day, the French cartoonists fell victim to the same fate.  The Islamic terrorists were simply following the “latest” teachings of Muhammad.  We must ask Ms. Husain who is to be held accountable for this if not Muhammad and the Islamic ideology?

Most Muslims reject the violent tenets of Islam but it does not erase Muhammad’s complicity in promoting Islam through violence. Wishing it so doesn’t make it so.

Peace-loving Muslims who know of this “dark-side” (and many don’t) are not going to be encouraged to speak out about this unless “kafirs”, non-believers do.  The social, economic and personal consequences often are too great thereby preventing Muslims from speaking out but non-Muslims can empower Muslims by speaking out.

Ms. Husain may have forgotten that the biggest abuser of Muslims are other Muslims, all in the name of Allah. An honest debate on the connection between Muhammad and violence toward non-Muslims and Muslims is the path to less violence. As General Sisi, President of Egypt said, a reformation needs to occur within Islam. Amen!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State threatens to kill 2 Japanese hostages unless Tokyo pays $200 million

UK: Muslim leaders demand apology for letter urging them to do more to root out “extremists” and stop “radicalization”

Chechnya: 800,000 Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons; protests also in Iran, Pakistan, Ingushetia, elsewhere

Germany: Soap brand withdrawn for being insulting to Muslims

EDITORS NOTE: In the January 18, 2015 edition the San Antonio Express News, Sarwat Husain, Executive Director of the Council of American Islamic Relations published her defense of why Islam should not be blamed for the violence  of a few. The platform Ms. Husain has been provided by the San Antonio Express News since 2007 to voice her opinion is far greater than any persons who reasonably disagrees with some of her opinions on Islam. For example since 2010, she’s been granted space for 15 guest commentaries on the editorial page and been a part of at least 10 articles where her opinion has been aired on various aspects of Islam. These two numbers combined have allowed her to share 10,000 words of opinions on Islam. In doing a search on the San Antonio Express News website, Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian and founder of ACT! for America has never had one of her editorials printed.

Ferguson, MO: MSM Once Again Furthers The Big Lie

Mary and I were driving home to Florida from working on the Joe Carr campaign in Tennessee when I heard the report on the radio. “Unarmed black youth shot by police.”

Why did the reporter think it relevant to mention the race of the youth shot by police in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri? Police shooting an unarmed youth is compelling without the racial component.

When blacks commit crimes, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid mentioning the criminals’ race. For example. When flash mobs were breaking out across America committing crimes of violence, looting and vandalism, the MSM refused to report that the perpetrators were black youths. The MSM’s excuse is reporting the race of criminals is unnecessarily provocative.

So why does the MSM not apply the same logic and caution in cases where the alleged attacker is white? Remember how quick and eager the MSM was to convict George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion?

To push its racist-white-man-shoots-unarmed-angelic-black-boy story line, the MSM referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”. They flooded TV with photographs of a much younger Trayvon Martin including one of him in his little league football uniform. The MSM did everything in its power to hide the truth that Martin was a 17 year old thug. A major broadcast network even doctored audio to portray Zimmerman as a racist.

Obviously, the MSM wanted racial turmoil, division and riots in the streets. The Left’s bible, “Rules for Radials” by Saul Alinsky says they win by creating chaos.

The mainstream media is fully committed to helping Obama implement his socialist/progressive agenda. Promoting the false narrative that America is a racist nation is extremely helpful to Obama’s purpose.

The MSM has been complicit in assisting the Democrats’ efforts to exploit Obama’s race to silence opposition to his unprecedented dictatorship.

The MSM jumps on every opportunity to further the big lie that blacks are victims of an eternally racist America. The big lie feeds white guilt, making them more receptive to the government redistributing wealth and pandering to minorities. The big lie also inspires blacks to hate successful whites, inspires violence against whites and creates an entitlement mindset in blacks.

Whites feeling guilty for being white and blacks feeling resentful and entitled equals more Americans submissive to government controls and likely to vote Democrat.

During the Trayvon Martin trial, Leftists were all over TV promoting the big lie that black males are routinely attacked and murdered by whites in America. Their claim is totally absurd. The facts prove quite the opposite. Statistics confirm that blacks kill blacks and black attacks against whites are 39 times more likely than vice versa.

Please note that this article is not about the shooting. I am merely pointing out the mainstream media’s agenda driven reporting of the incident.

Once again, the MSM has successfully ginned up racial hate, division and riots in the streets.

U.S. drops to 46th in Press Freedom

It’s worse than that, too. Reporters Without Borders didn’t take into account the mainstream media’s voluntary self-censorship and refusal to report on the truth about Islam and jihad, its demonization and smearing of foes of jihad terror, and its cowardly capitulation to Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery, adopting what are essentially Sharia blasphemy laws for fear of offending Muslims or provoking a riot.

allen drury book coverIf the freedom of speech is ever fully extinguished in the United States, as it could be far more easily than most people think, the responsibility will lie to a tremendous degree with those who should have been its foremost guardians: the mainstream media.

Allen Drury’s bleak and dystopian 1973 Cold War novel Come Nineveh, Come Tyre envisioned a weak, wishful thinking-driven, fondly Leftist U.S. President, Ted Jason, as given to fantasy-based policymaking as the present incumbent, presiding over the bloodless surrender of the United States to the Soviet Union. The media adores President Jason, cheerleads for him energetically, defames and denigrates his foes relentlessly, and does everything it can to make him look good, right up until the point when a few of them realize that the freedom of speech is gone, and they have outlived their usefulness.

In one scene, the nation’s top TV news anchors, columnists, and newspaper publishers, having turned against the President and his program far too late, are arrested wholesale and committed to St. Elizabeth’s insane asylum in southwest Washington, “on complaint,” scream the headlines, “of Domestic Tranquility Board and Justice Department Special Branch.” The group of once-powerful media giants is herded past the asylum’s gate:

As it passed out of sight and the heavy gate began to close, one last anguished cry, so desperate and filled with pain that it would have moved the observer, had observer there been, came from the lips of [famed columnist] Walter Dobius.

“We did it!” he cried. “We did it! We d–”

But who he meant by “we,” and what it was that he thought “we” had done, was never to be divulged, for at that point he was summarily, and no doubt roughly, choked off. The gates clanged shut and no further sound escaped the walls of St. Elizabeth’s.

When the freedom of speech is finally gone in the United States, will Christiane Amanpour, or Bob Smietana, or Niraj Warikoo, or Kari Huus, or Alex Kane, or Max Blumenthal, or Michael Kruse, or Anne Barnard, or Scott Shane, or Mark Hicks, or any other of the nakedly biased “journalists” who have in recent years sided with Islamic supremacist enemies of free speech and abetted their defamation of foes of jihad terror and defenders of free speech, be lamenting, “We did it!” as the gate clangs shut on them? Or will they be eagerly jockeying for power among the new authoritarian elites? More likely the latter.

“Report: US Drops to 46th in Press Freedom,” by Taheshah Moise for Breitbart, February 12 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

According to Reporters Without Borders, America dropped 13 spots on the World Press Freedom Index 2014, designed to rank 180 countries in terms of the freedoms journalists enjoy and the regulations placed on them by government authorities.

The Index, published Feb. 11, shows that America now ranks number 46, below countries like South Africa and France. The Index has been published annually since 2002, but the 2014 ranking for America marks one of the most significant declines ever reported.

According to Christophe Deloire, the Reporters Without Borders Secretary General, the World Freedom Index is based on seven criteria: the level of abuses, the extent of pluralism, media independence, the environment and self-censorship, the legislative framework, transparency and infrastructure.

Investigative journalist James Risen believes the Index rightly shows the drop in American journalists’ freedoms due to crackdowns on reporters and whistleblowers and the efforts of the Obama administration and the National Security Agency to limit the amount of information America has concerning the “War on Terror” and other subjects.

“I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States modern history,” James Risen said.

Risen, who has reported for the New York Times since 1998, said he has personally felt some of the backlash of the guarded Obama administration and has seen some of his colleagues suffer repercussions as well.

Rather than pursue journalists, the Obama administration has focused on their sources—the two most scrutinized whistleblowers being Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

“We have an administration that came in claiming that it was going to be the most transparent in history when in fact it is one of the most secretive in history, and certainly the most aggressive anti-press administration in modern American history,” Risen said….

EDITORS NOTE: The map featured in this column is courtesy of Reporters Without Borders.

RELATED COLUMN: Communism, Socialism, and Christianity: One of These Does Not Belong

Mind control 2013: Who is really controlling your mind?

Mind control is the subject of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four“, which has regained popularity. Nineteen Eighty-Four is a dystopian novel published in 1949. The Oceanian province of Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain) is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.

As George Orwell wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Citizens globally are concerned about their governments spying on them. Others are concerned about media pushing an agenda rather than holding government accountable. Recent scandals like the NSA gathering data on hundreds of millions of US citizens and our allies is front page news. In many cases the NSA, FBI and CIA are accessing personal information which is stored by phone companies, web hosts and social media sites such as: Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. Governments want this data and many of these same media giants will share it based on court orders or voluntarily.

So who controls the present?

Geo-Intelligence posted an infographic (below) to show who controls major print publications, media, Internet sites and entertainment outlets in the United States. These few “privileged Inner Party elite” can influence how you think about everything from the purchase of laundry detergent to your social and political behavior. What you read, hear and watch is controlled by about forty organizations. When they work in concert with government and freely share your information it can violate civil liberties according to the ACLU.

Take a quick look at this infographic, you will be surprised who is involved in “public mind control”.

For a larger view click on the image.

George Orwell wrote, “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”

There is online a free full version of the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four released in 1954, click here to watch it. Below is the trailer to the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four release in 1984 and available on DVD: