Posted tagged ‘Media’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Obama Justice Department Laughed Off Armed New Black Panther Threat

July 9, 2016

Obama Justice Department Laughed Off Armed New Black Panther Threat, PJ Media, J. Christian Adams July 8, 2016

(Please see also, Dallas massacre of police: FBI investigating anti-police group that attended Dallas mosque.
 — DM)

Micah-X.sized-770x415xt

In 2009 and 2010, lawyers working at the United States Justice Department warned top Obama political appointees and other Justice Department officials about the dangerous threats of New Black Panthers to kill police officers and other whites. I was one of those lawyers who delivered those warnings.

Our warnings came in the context of the Voting Rights Act case I and other lawyers brought against the New Black Panthers on behalf of the United States in 2009, a case the Obama administration ultimately abandoned.  Both top DOJ officials, including now Labor Secretary Tom Perez, as well as rank and file employees in the Civil Rights Division, were warned but did not take the New Black Panther threat seriously or otherwise considered the organization to be a laughable joke.

Allies in the media echoed the narrative that the defendants in the voter intimidation case were harmless clowns.

Among the information presented to top officials was a video produced by the New Black Panthers entitled “Training Day.” The video proposes killing police officers by ambush.  I wrote about the video:

Another New Black Panther posing in the above photo and kneeling with a shotgun is “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad. As I wrote in my book Injustice: One of them was Panther “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad, who is seen in a Panther video called “Training Day” in which he encourages blacks in DeKalb County, Georgia, to don ski masks, lie in wait behind shrubs, and kill police officers with AK-47s. Following that exhortation he mocks the hypothetical victims’ grieving widows.

Justice Department employees ridiculed the video and noted very few were in the video’s audience, apparently oblivious of the role and power of social media to reach people not sitting in an auditorium.

Attorneys working on the voter intimidation case made an effort to broadly educate employees of the Civil Rights Division about the murderous rhetoric of the New Black Panthers. We planned a screening of a National Geographic special on the New Black Panthers where members could be heard threatening to kill white babies.  We widely disseminated information about the screening in a Justice Department conference room.  On a floor with nearly one hundred employees, exactly two DOJ employees showed up to watch the screening, and one of them was the paralegal on the case.

As we shall see, Obama allies in the media could also be counted on to ridicule the seriousness of the New Black Panther organization.

The Obama Justice Department has also continued to give New Black Panthers who are in possession of illegal firearms a pass.  I wrote here about New Black Panther (and Democrat) Jerry Jackson:

Jackson has a long violent criminal history. He is also a Democratic Party elected official in Philadelphia, not that those two facts have anything in common, of course. He was elected in May 2010 to a seat on the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee in the 14th Ward. … It is illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)) for any felon to possess a firearm. As one federal prosecutor told me, “these cases are among the simplest to win. It’s like taking candy from a baby. Did a felon hold a gun, or not? Period. It matters not if the gun was loaded, or even works.”  So, is the Democrat New Black Panther Jerry Jackson indeed a felon?  . . . According to this criminal complaint, in 1978, Jackson “with another black man did stab and rob comp[lainant] on the highway 4024 W. Girard Ave. . . Charged: robbery, theft, possession of an instrument of a crime, probation offense with a weapon, criminal conspiracy, simple assault and aggravated assault.” On January 10, 1979, Jackson was sentenced for robbery and criminal conspiracy convictions, both first degree felonies under Pennsylvania law.

The Justice Department surely must be aware of the fact that Jackson and other New Black Panthers are felons in possession of firearms given the attention the matter has received. I have talked about this fact on Fox News repeatedly.  Yet nothing has happened to them.  Is it because, like Hillary, they are Democrats?

shabazz

As President Obama’s pastor put it, these chickens may have come home to roost.

Bob Price has this piece: Confirmed: Dallas Shooter was Member of Houston New Black Panther Party.  The story has a disturbing video of an armed New Black Panther march in Texas where the armed uniformed panthers chant  – “Off the pig,” and “Oink, oink, bang, bang.”  They also note “Revolution has come. Time to pick up the gun.”  The piece states:

One of the members holding an AR-15 style rifle appears to be Micah Xavier Johnson.  During the march, the armed members of the New Black Panther Party stood off against Harris County Sheriff’s Deputies who came to Waller County responding to a request for assistance from Sheriff Glenn Smith

You can see the full video here of the Houston New Black Panthers armed formation and chants to “off the pig” with the individual armed with an M-16 with his finger positioned above the trigger guard as someone trained in firearms would do.

Since the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers was dismissed in 2009, racial violence in the country has spiked – on the streets of Baltimore, Dallas and cities in between.  A phalanx of sycophantic media have done all they can to decouple the violence from the Black Lives Matter movement.  No amount of snark or spin can decouple the violent rhetoric chanted at Black Lives Matter rallies from the violence that has followed.  Americans watching on TV have ears.

The Black Lives Matter movement lost whatever moral authority it had on the streets of Dallas this week.

But that won’t stop the smart set from keeping the movement going.  It reminds me of all the bloggers and columnists who spent so much time back in 2009 and 2010 ridiculing me, Megyn Kelly and any discussion of the New Black Panthers as a comic minstrel act.

That’s precisely what race-guilt addled Dave Weigel called it in the Atlantic: Megyn Kelly’s Minstrel Show.  “No one cares what the NBPP thinks about anything,” Weigel quipped.  “This is minstrelsy, with a fringe moron set up like a bowling pin for Hannity to knock down. And that’s the role the NBPP plays on Fox, frequently.”

Too bad Dave Weigel didn’t care a bit more about what the New Black Panthers thought about killing cops.  Instead of giving rhetorical cover to the gangsters, we should have had a healthy discussion about the existence of violent black racism.

But Weigel was giving no quarter back in 2010.  We were fools to devote air time to the New Black Panthers.  Megyn Kelly was making monsters out of clowns.  Weigel:

Watch her broadcasts and you become convinced that the New Black Panthers are a powerful group that hate white people and operate under the protection of Eric Holder’s DOJ.  …  They’ve been driven to fear and distrust of their DOJ by round-the-clock videos of one racist idiot brandishing a nightstick for a couple hours in 2008.

Will they admit their mistake now that one “racist idiot brandishing a nightstick” has become a racist monster with a high powered rifle and body armor? Based on what I know about this crowd, I doubt it.  They are better at doubling down than expressing contrition.

It wasn’t just Weigel.  The esteemed Clarence Page wrote at the Chicago Tribune the New Black Panther “party’s membership could probably squeeze into a small SUV.”  Hopefull Clarence watches the video linked in this story.

That’s how they ridiculed the whole affair – make them crazy, make them small, make them harmless and make them clownish.

Bill Maher attacked anyone talking about the New Black Panthers:

Look, Republicans, I know this picture from Election Day 2008 scared you.  . . . And now it’s two years later, and that picture still scares you. . . . But, it’s time you understood something: every black person scares you unless they look like Urkel, talk like Colin Powell and wear Bill Cosby sweaters, you fill your adult diaper.

A lie, but that’s how these people roll when it comes to race.  Alex Pareene at Salon criticized the coverage of the New Black Panthers because they “were a couple of clowns.”  The racialist Adam Serwer at least increased their membership to a “bunch of clowns.”

All of this snark is because the existence of threatening violent black racism must never be discussed in sophisticated circles.

When voter intimidation lawsuits are brought against an organization that produces “Training Day” videos describing how to ambush and kill cops, it is important to write it off as a couple of cranks.  When a New Black Panther member threatens to kill white babies, that certainly must be a single nut.  Surely uniformed black racists with weapons at polling sites couldn’t violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Anyone who would say otherwise can’t be taken seriously.

The truth is that everyone is fallen and imperfect, both black and white and every race in between.  The law is designed to protect everyone equally.

Pay close attention to whether people like Maher and Page continue to use their talents to excuse evil.  If they feel comfortable holding their course after Dallas and attacking anyone who would dare discuss the problem, it will say a great deal about where we are headed as as nation.

(Banner photo via You Tube and Breitbart Texas)

Categories: Dallas killing of police, Democrats, Department of Justice, Media, Obama administration, Obama and racism
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump

July 6, 2016

The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 6, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

FBI Director Comey intimidated that anyone except a former high-ranking Democrat government official currently running for high office as a Democrat would have faced serious consequences. The exemption granted to Hillary Clinton does not sit well with many if not most Republican and Independent voters; even the generally supportive lamebrain media are finally attacking Her. Nevertheless, She will get the Democrat presidential nomination and “likable” but befuddled Joe Biden won’t. All of that is good for Trump. 

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

I’m Guilty as Hell and free as a bird. This is for the little people.

Here’s FBI Director Comey’s statement on his decision not to recommend Clinton’s indictment:

The GOP posted this advertisement on July 5th:

Shortly after Comey made his announcement, ABC hailed it as having “lifted a cloud” for Clinton and Obama. [All bold-face type is in the original at News Busters.]

In the moments following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for her private e-mail servers scandal, the cast assembled by ABC News hailed the “extraordinary decision” as “a momentous day” signaling that “a cloud is lifted” for Clinton to continue on with the presidential race and President Obama to give his own thoughts on the matter.

. . . .

Wrapping it all up, Stephanopoulos spun to Karl that “even though this report is kind of damning, the announcement of no indictment before that first joint campaign stop kind of clears the decks for [President Obama] as well.”

Karl gushed that “the timing is so extraordinary….to think you have that Air Force One on the tarmac ready to take them down to this first campaign appearance together, but this whole process has been a cloud hanging over the head of Hillary Clinton and her campaign so that cloud is lifted.”

“But as we pointed out — there’s so much bad here for Hillary Clinton. But ultimately when they get beyond this, they no longer have to have the possibility of an indictment,” he added.

According to a Rasmussen poll taken on the evening of July 5th,

37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

. . . .

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats agree with Comey’s decision not to seek an indictment of their party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans, 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party and 25% of Democrats disagree with the decision. [Emphasis added.]

Director Comey has agreed to appear before the House Oversight Committee on July 7th to respond to questions about his decision not to indict Ms. Clinton.

The initial lamebrain media reaction was trumped by its own later reactions. The media picked up on Comey’s shredding of Clinton’s practices, particularly calling her “extremely careless” with classified information and refuting her talking points such as that she didn’t send or receive e-mail marked classified on her unsecured system.

The mainstream press across the dial commented on how this hurt Clinton’s campaign, played into the set narrative that she’s not trustworthy and called into question her judgment on matters of national security.

According to WaPo, a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy sycophantic long time advocate for Hillary,

THE BIG IDEA: Want to know why two-thirds of Americans do not consider Hillary Clinton trustworthy? Re-watch pretty much any public comment she’s made about her email use over the past 16 months and then watch James Comey’s speech yesterday.

The FBI director shredded so many of the talking points that the former Secretary of State and her top aides have used over and over again throughout this scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”

Rosalind Helderman, who has been covering this saga closely, writes that Comey “systematically dismantled” Clinton’s defenses. She juxtaposes Clinton quotes since last March against Comey quotes from yesterday. (Read her full piece here.)

— While Clinton dodged a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will dog her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was tantamount to a political indictment.

Obama still maintains that Hilary is Great. Here’s what He said at a Clinton rally a couple of hours after the FBI decision not to recommend indictment had been announced.

I guess it all depends on what sex most “qualified” in history means. Please see also, Hillary is Best Qualified to Finish Imam Obama’s Work.

As noted by Michael Walsh at PJ Media,

A day after the Fourth of July, we’ve come to a new low in the history of the United States of America and of the criminal organization masquerading as a political party that has seized power . . . .

If on November 8th voters still remember the Clinton non-indictment and Director Comey’s remarks suggesting than anyone else would have been indicted — and it seems likely that Trump, et all will remind them — the impact should be significant.

Even if they don’t remember, at least Hillary will be the Democrat candidate and Joe Malaprop Biden won’t be. On July 5th, Allen West wrote,

Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision. [Emphasis added.]

My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.

If the voters do remember or are adequately reminded, some NeverTrumpers may change their minds and vote for Trump; they should. A July 5th article at Maggie’s Farm posited,

Hillary Clinton is corrupt and corrupting of everyone she touches. President Obama has engaged in outrageous executive conduct so often as to be numbing. Those in powerful positions throughout this administration behave like lawless thugs and keep getting away with it. The courts have been packed with judges who find excuses to not enforce the laws or who create ones out of ideology contrary to intent. The major media shamelessly look away or cover up for the lawless and abusers, and seek every opportunity – or blow out of proportion every trivial thing – to damn opponents of the regime. Much of the Republicans in office lack the guts or integrity to fight back, outside of mewing noises.

Where does that leave us now?

The Tea Party movement occurred at a point in time between elections, and succeeded in electing many who promised to be better. Some have been. Many have been useless or become tools. Now, it is election time, and the demonstration we require is at the ballot box.

Donald Trump is far from the perfect leader. But, then it takes someone with gumption and determination who will not be intimidated to take on the rot that permeates our government and self-appointed ruling class. And, Trump is the only revolution we have available. [Emphasis added.]

Anyone deserves the end of our once-renowned Republic who stays home or turns coat or otherwise fails to stand up for recovering an America with basic laws and justice, an America which is not beholden to those who would exploit the government for self-aggrandizement or profits, an America with justice for all which does not favor the wealthy or powerful sycophants of state power. [Emphasis added.]

Donald Trump is not George Washington. But he’s the only revolution we have, and very probably our last chance. I have faith in the American people who will bring us back from tottering over the brink of ruination to make it work when Trump is elected. [Emphasis added.]

Get out and work for local candidates and for Trump. Otherwise, be part of the ruination. It’s that simple and brutal a truth.

Trump now has a very substantial chance of winning the November 8th election and the Hildabeast’s chances have diminished. For the “NeverTrumpers” and others who would otherwise vote for the Republican nominee either to stay home or to vote for the Hildebeast would be unconscionable. The nation might well not survive eight years of the Hildebeast, and the Republican Party almost certainly would not.

Don’t be “a day late and a dollar short.” Please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDEkm4QBXb4

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Department of Justice, Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Law enforcement, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama and Hillary, Politics, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

When a Culture Unmans Itself

July 5, 2016

When a Culture Unmans Itself, PJ Media, David Solway, July 4, 2016

Obama and boy

Men need to “be better.”

—Michelle Obama in conversation with Oprah.

Western civilization is clearly coming part at the seams. There are so many destructive elements at work, they are almost impossible to list. But one of the most destructive of these elements, incited by a punitive feminist ideology, is the relentless campaign to delegitimize the very idea of manhood. And the most effective way to do that is to impugn male sexuality.

We are told constantly that we live in a virtual rape culture, a culture in which rape is widespread and condoned, victims are blamed, and rapists receive little or no punishment. There are rape cultures in the world. If one wants to see one in action, all one need do is look at the Muslim world or at Muslim enclaves and populations that have burrowed into Western nations, where atrocities and scandals continue to multiply. In the Western world, by contrast, rape and other forms of sexual misconduct—even mere allegations of sexual misconduct—are universally condemned and harshly punished.

No matter. Islamic culture gets a free pass while Western culture is said to be ravaged by gynophobia under the reign of male supremacism. In the new sexual paradigm that has clamped succubus-like upon the culture, the heterosexual male mainstream is under attack for the crime of harboring a normal sexual drive, which must be ruthlessly expunged in an offensive characterized by media propaganda, legislative bias and institutional practices. Respectable-seeming websites promote the total reform of masculinity using terms such as “mascupathy” to define masculine traits such as aggression and competitiveness as forms of disease needing to be cured. Western men are being progressively demasculanized, a deficiency which results, as Andrew Klavan argues, in “tremulous feminists who hysterically fear rape culture on college campuses where it is not, and Western leaders who don’t dare to see the rape culture inherent in invading Islam, where it is.”

The signs of anti-male bias are everywhere we look. The university, for example, has become a veritable minefield for male students, who may at any time be hauled before an administrative tribunal and their careers put in jeopardy for sexual misconduct, however trivial or ambiguous. A recent memo from my wife’s university mandates a statement against “sexual violence” in all course syllabi—mind you, nothing against harassing and lying about one’s professor for a better grade, shutting down conservative, Zionist, pro-Life or anti-feminist speakers, perpetrating racist hoaxes, denouncing the teaching of good English and male authors as forms of “microagression,” or any of the other violations of civil conduct that we have witnessed on university campuses recently. The only sexist harassment that takes place regularly in academia is feminist harassment of male students and staff—but that is considered not intimidation but enlightened practice.

Is it any wonder, then, that even our military is being insidiously weakened? Responding to a vehement attack on supposed martial dishonor by a former Supreme Court justice, it has turned from its primary task of defending the country to counseling its soldiers against what it regards as sexual delinquency by issuing wallet cards listing “inappropriate behaviors.” These include“sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, offensive sexual remarks or unacceptable language or jokes, unwelcome requests of a sexual nature or verbal abuse of a sexual nature, voyeurism, indecent acts and publishing intimate images of a person without their consent.” The fact is, most men in the civilized West are not sexual predators or unreconstructed brutes but most men do tend to joke and flirt and make off-color remarks and otherwise show an interest in women, whether sexual or romantic, in virtue of being men. More to the point, if men are no longer permitted to be men, how then can they be soldiers?

When manliness is eliminated from a culture fixated on the supposedly corrupt and vicious nature of masculinity, while armies of apologetic White Knights and self-abnegating feminist allies (aka “manginas”) come to replace a diminishing platoon of alpha males—“We live in a world run by betas and their lady friends,” quips J.R. Dunn in a prescient article for American Thinker—the writing is on the wall. As Michael Ignatieff reminded us in The Lesser Evil, a culture, a nation or a civilization cannot expect to survive if it is defended by herbivores. It needs a Praetorian cohort of carnivores, determined men proud of their masculinity and unafraid to confront the enemies outside the gates as well as the fifth columnists, defeatists and appeasers within—i.e., politicians on both sides of the aisle, spineless university administrators, media abettors, tergiversating liberals, tenured academics who indoctrinate from the left rather than educate from the tradition of reputable scholarship, and the feminist Furies acting out their faux version of Lysistrata—if a culture is not only to survive but to flourish.

The feminist hordes in their anti-male animus, along with their Beta and Delta collaborators, have overrun a once-great and hardy civilization. As Klavan puts it, “The future goes where men go and does what men make it do. If men go down the drain, the future will follow.” The expression of male sexual desire in Western culture is hedged by rules of appropriate conduct and a code of chivalry, occasionally honored in the breach, yet relatively intact. But when male sexuality in its natural manifestations is regarded as an evil that must be controlled, reviled, prosecuted and ultimately bred out of men, societal collapse is inevitable. The irony is palpable. For a culture that targets men can neither defend nor reproduce itself and its days are numbered.

Categories: Academia, Education, Feminists, Government, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Males, Media, Rape culture, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Media blasts Hillary Clinton on being dishonest and untrustworthy | SUPERcuts! #336

July 4, 2016

Media blasts Hillary Clinton on being dishonest and untrustworthy | SUPERcuts! #336, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, July 3, 2016

Categories: Hillary Clinton, Honesty, Media
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Washington Post’s Chronic CAIRless Syndrome

June 30, 2016

The Washington Post’s Chronic CAIRless Syndrome, Camera.org, June 29, 2016

(Sad but hardly exceptional. The “legitimate” media rarely present facts to dispute the Obama administration’s propaganda machine. — DM)

Why do Washington Post reporters and editorial systematically keep relevant background about the Council on American Islamic Relations from readers?

CAMERA has questioned Post coverage of CAIR—an unindicted co-conspirator in the United States’ biggest terrorism funding trial to date—for years. No answer has been forthcoming, not even after CAMERA provided the newspaper’s last three ombudsmen with public record information casting doubt on CAIR’s self-portrait as a civil rights advocate for Muslim Americans.

The late Deborah Howell, Post ombudsman from 2005 to 2008, told CAMERA’s Washington office she had brought its complaint to the newsroom’s attention but, in essence, staffers rebuffed discussion of it. And The Post has continued citing CAIR as a credible source, virtually never telling readers that, among other things:

*In that 2009 federal case, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development retrial, five men were sentenced to prison for raising more than $12 million for Hamas. Hamas is the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, a U.S.-government designated terrorist organization. Receiving a 65-year term was Ghassan Elashi, co-founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter;

*In an out-of-court settlement of a suit it brought, the council reduced libel claims to omit contesting assertions it was founded by Hamas members, founded by Islamic terrorists and funded by Hamas supporters;

*Including Elashi, at least five former CAIR lay leaders or staffers have been arrested, convicted and/or deported on weapons or terrorism charges; and

*A council “media guide” to proper reporting of Islamic issues was “pure propaganda,” according to Investor’s Business Daily.

All this and more can be found in CAMERA’s 2009 Special Report, “The Council on American Islamic Relations: Civil Rights, or Extremism?” copies of which have been provided to Post staffers on numerous occasions.

Giving CAIR a pass. And another. And another

CAMERA has not urged The Post, or other news outlets, to ignore CAIR. Rather, it repeatedly has recommended that the newspaper and other media provide the minimum context necessary. Readers reasonably ought to be able to determine for themselves whether the council is, as it implies, a Muslim American version of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) or the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), or, as its history indicates, a Muslim Brotherhood derivative.

But no. When it comes to CAIR, The Post has its back. Among recent examples:

*“How the Trump campaign decided to target Muslims; Influenced by 9/11, candidate and aides focused on ‘radical Islam,’” June 22, 2016. CAIR’s Corey Saylor, director of its “department to monitor and combat Islamophobia” is quoted. No information about CAIR is included;

“After Orlando, anxiety fills Muslim congregations; Worshipers in nightclub shooter’s town, already enduring epithets, worry about what might come next,” June 19. This Post report cites “Omar Saleh, a lawyer with the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Florida chapter, which has offered free legal assistance to the Muslim community in which [Omar] Mateen [who committed the Orlando nightclub massacre] lived.” Again, no background on CAIR;

*“Trump’s broadside after massacre shakes Islamic group,” June 15. The feature leads with, and follows uncritically, CAIR’s claims of rising anti-Muslim sentiments and actions across the United States. Yet again, nothing in the article would flag the organization’s credibility for readers;

*“‘It could get a lot worse for Muslims in America’,” a May 4 Op-Ed by Post columnist Dana Milbank. Writing “[Presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Donald] Trump can’t be blamed for everything his followers do. But his ascent has coincided with a rise in the number of anti-Muslim incidents to the highest level the Council on American-Islamic Relations has ever found.” Readers are not told that CAIR has a history of exaggerated claims about anti-Muslim activity. Nor are they reminded that, the council’s old and new warnings of “Islamophobia” notwithstanding, according to FBI hate crime statistics Jews still are members of the religious group most likely to be targeted. In 2014, for example, of more than 1,100 reported hate crimes based on religion, nearly 57 percent aimed at Jews, 16 percent at Muslims.

Coincidentally, while The Post repeatedly presented CAIR as a credible source, including reporting its post-Orlando offer of legal assistance, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the council should be tried for fraud. The case involves hundreds of people who had relied on CAIR for legal aid. See “CAIR to Stand Trial for Massive Fraud; The Council on American Islamic Relations is now charged with fraud and cover-up perpetrated against hundreds of Muslims,” The Clarion Project, June 22. The project is a non-profit organization that describes itself as “fighting extremism, promoting dialogue.”

If a tree falls on you in the forest

The Post does not appear to have covered the appeals verdict. A Nexis search indicates no U.S. newspapers did.

The Clarion Project, like CAMERA, like historian and publisher of Middle East Quarterly Daniel Pipes, The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steven Emerson and many others have been listed, or better, putatively black-listed, in a CAIR report. The council tars them as key players in an imagined national network fostering Islamophobia. The report, referred to obliquely by The Post in its June 15 article, is risible, slanderous and potentially libelous.

Asked about it by KPFA-FM radio, Berkeley, Cal., CAMERA replied, in part:

“CAIR’s self-described study of ‘Islamophobic networks’ alleges ‘CAMERA is pervasively inaccurate and disguises its anti-Muslim agenda by omitting important information.” ‘Pervasively inaccurate’ sweepingly implies a pattern of error. Yet the study appears to supply not one example. The allegation itself is not only pervasively inaccurate, it is slanderously and perhaps libelously so.

“As to our supposed camouflaged ‘anti-Muslim agenda,’ again, where are the examples? The one specific mention is of our ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] Special Report—but nothing in the report itself is quoted. Perhaps because it can’t be; CAIR attempts a weak smokescreen, confessing ‘unlike other Islamophobic organizations, CAMERA does not communicate obvious bigotry in their literature.’ (See CAMERA’s Special Report, “The Islamic Society of North America: Active, Influential and Rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood,” 2012)

“In fact, CAMERA does not communicate bigotry at all. But it’s our contention, which we believe the public record amply supports, that CAIR’s objective is not so much to fight anti-Muslim prejudice but to use the cry of ‘Islamophobia’ to censor discussion and analysis of Islamic extremism.”

FBI Director James Comey said that last year the bureau had more than 900 active cases, some in each of the 50 states, into suspected Islamic State sympathizers or other potential terrorists. George Washington University’s Program on Extremism noted the arrests in the United States in 2015 of 56 individuals on suspicion of plotting on behalf of or otherwise supporting the Islamic State. (See “Washington Times Notes Record Terror Levels,” CAMERA, Dec. 7, 2015.) Islamophobia, or newsworthy information?

Islamic extremism short of terrorist radicalization also would seem to be newsworthy, by definition. But not apparently to CAIR, which purports to find “Islamophobia” everywhere. As the Clarion Project notes, “CAIR wages an unrelenting campaign to discredit its critics as anti-Muslim bigots and moderate Muslims as puppets of an “Islamophobia network” (“Special Report: The Council on American Islamic Relations; Fact Sheet”. The paper covers some of the same material as CAMERA’s Special Report on CAIR, but extends the period under review through 2013.)

In relying uncritically on CAIR as a source, The Washington Post and other news media undercut themselves and short-change readers, listeners and viewers. The question is why? The answer would be newsworthy.

Categories: CAIR, Clarion Project, Fraud, Islamist organizations, Islamists and the media, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Media, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America, Propaganda, Victimology, Washington Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Democrat Media Complex

June 27, 2016

The Democrat Media Complex, Politically Short, June 26, 2016

media

The press toes the party line and advances the Democrat agenda to the point in which there is no objectivity and no resistance from any opposition. There simply is no neutrality.

*********************

The late Andrew Breitbart in his book Righteous Indignation perfectly captured the essence of the press in America when he labeled the press as being a Democrat-Media-Complex. Writing in Righteous Indignation, Breitbart noted that, “the left doesn’t win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the 21st century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media and narrative is everything.”

The people who are allegedly neutral reporters and journalists are on the frontline of the political battle and they use their objectivity as their greatest weapon against impressionable minds to reinforce a herd mentality that toes the Democrat party line within the culture. As Breitbart continued, “the mainstream media portrays themselves as objective observers of reality when they’re no such thing —they’re partisan critical theory hacks who think they can destroy everything America stands for by standing on the sidelines and sniping at patriotic Americans with all their favorite slurs. They have nothing but contempt for the American people.” What Breitbart was alluding to was the reality of the press in America as the press acts as a piano on which the government plays the public in whichever direction it desires. The objective of the press today is not merely to inform, but to instruct the millions of impressionable American minds on what to believe, who to believe, and how to believe.

The content is so rigidly controlled today that in a way the fourth estate has now become nothing more than an institution of the government restricted to publishing and advancing White House directives and Democrat policy agendas. The role that the press plays is to make clear to the American people what the Obama adminstration is doing, why the adminstration is doing it, and why it is forced to act in a certain way. Of course, as we have become accustom to hearing, the Obama adminstration is always forced to “act in a certain way” because of the “obstructionist” Republicans. The effect of this is to demonize the Republican party to the point of capitulation. This formula for “reporting” by the press encompasses every single issue advocated by the Obama adminstration and the Democrat party.

The press toes the party line and advances the Democrat agenda to the point in which there is no objectivity and no resistance from any opposition. There simply is no neutrality. For example, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on an Orlando night club by a jihadist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist organization known as ISIS, the big three networks comprised of ABC, NBC, and CBS, immediately took to the airwaves before the bodies were even cold to push the political line of the Democrats for more gun control. In a study conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC) for the week immediately following the terrorist attack, it was shown that the network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ration of 8 to 1.

MRC analysts reviewed all 47 gun policy stories (41 full segments, 6 anchor read briefs), plus 10 other stories that mentioned gun policy on the Big Three networks’ evening (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning show programs (ABC’sGood Morning America, CBS This Morning, NBC’s Today), beginning with the evening (June 12) after the shooting through Friday evening, June 17. The study found that the time spent arguing in favor of more gun control overwhelmed time devoted to opposing gun rights by 65 minutes and 12 seconds, to just eight minutes and 12 seconds. Here are just a few of the examples listed by MRC:

  • CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose was enamored by the Boston Globe’s front page assault on the Second Amendment: “Pressure’s growing on Congress to act against gun violence after America’s deadliest mass shooting. Page one of this morning’s Boston Globe demands ‘Make it Stop.’”
  • NBC began their push for more gun control when correspondent Harry Smith closed the June 12 NBC Nightly News by yearning for action: “We have been here too many times before and with no sign that anything will change, we fear this will not be the last.”
  • When anti-gun rights guests like Senator Murphy, Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson were interviewed they were celebrated. On the June 14 CBS This Morning show, co-host Gayle King advocated to Jeh Johnson: “What will it take to move the needle when it comes to gun control? People thought it would be Sandy Hook.”
  • When Hillary Clinton showed up on the June 13 Today show, co-host Savannah Guthrie pushed: “Continually you hear policymakers and the President say, ‘The American people are with us, they don’t think that common sense gun reforms are a problem.’ And yet, even after you have 20 first graders killed, you can’t even get the bare minimum of gun legislation passed. Why is that? What needs to change?”

While this was just a handful of the examples given, one can begin to see how feverish the media has become in pushing for gun control in wake of the largest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. It didn’t even take the New York Daily News twenty four hours before blaming the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the terrorist attack. On their front cover for the June 13th edition, the headline blared “Thanks NRA” while the piece went on to state that the jihadists “killing machine of choice was a mass murderer’s best friend — and his enabler a gun lobby that has long opposed efforts to keep assault weapons out of the hands of bloodthirsty maniacs.” Not to be outdone though, the Boston Globe published a full front page editorial three days later on June 16th with the headline “Make it Stop” featuring an image of an AR-15. The editorial of course goes on to attack the Second Amendment while calling for an “assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.”

If you were wondering why the Democrat Media Complex is pushing this agenda, in unison, it’s because they received their marching orders by the President himself the day of the attack on June 12th. Speaking during an appearance at the White House not even five hours following the attack, President Obama stated that “this massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”

The steady drumbeat by the President and the media continued as last week White House press secretary Josh Earnest revealed that Obama had become “profoundly frustrated” after Senate Republicans blocked anti-gun legislation from being rammed through Congress. Earnest continued by mocking Republicans as “cowards” who talked tough on terrorism, but were “AWOL” when it came to standing up to gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA). Obama, like Hillary Clinton, believe that the “gun lobby” which is the NRA, is at the root of impairing progress to solving America’s “gun problems.” Moreover, the real impediment to their anti-Second Amendment agenda always traces back to Republicans, which Democrats and the media at large have asserted were the ones responsible for the Orlando terrorist attack.

To reinforce the Obama adminstration’s stance, the New York Times last Wednesday ran a piece by their editorial board in which they argued that Republicans were to blame for the Orlando terrorist attack committed by the jihadist Omar Mateen. In an excerpt from the piece the Times states that, “while the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.” Completely ignoring the fact that jihadist openly declared allegiance to ISIS multiple times to 911 operators, Alex Griswold of Mediate explains that the New York Times piece doesn’t even bother to mention ISIS or Islam (radical or otherwise), or even hint at Mateen’s faith or ideology at all. Griswold writes, “Were it not for his traditionally Arabic name, it’s not an exaggeration to say that one gets the impression from the Times piece that the shooter must have been an ultraconservative Christian nut,” which was precisely the effect of the piece. It could be argued that this was also the intended effect of Obama’s own statements following the attack.

Yet, this wasn’t enough for the Democrat-Media-Complex as this week the American people were treated to a full-court press by the media in their over the top coverage of the Democrats taking to the House floor to demand gun control with an all-night sit-in. On Thursday morning the media went into propaganda overdrive by promoting the Democrats childish sit-in as “unprecedented” and “historic.” Here are just a few of the examples:

  • On NBC’s Today, correspondent Peter Alexander declared the partisan political stunt to be “truly one of the most dramatic demonstrations on the House floor in modern American history.” Alexander continued by announcing that the “Democrats with signs bearing the names and faces of gun violence victims….Their voices echoed on the Capitol steps, hundreds gathering in support, rallied by Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights icon who spearheaded Wednesday’s sit-in.”
  • On ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts stated, “breaking overnight, the historic sit-in showdown stopping Congress in its tracks as the battle over gun control boils over.”
  • On CBS This Morning correspondent Nancy Cordes asserted that “the rules appear to have gone out the window” and promoted the propaganda effort stating, “It started as a sit-in, but by nightfall, Democrats were on their feet, holding up the names and pictures of Orlando victims as a crowd of supporters swelled in the gallery and outside.”

From here, the media then perpetuated the myth that according to polls the majority of Americans want “common sense gun control” measures. As NBC’s Matt Lauer on Thursday’sToday show pleaded with Congress to take action. Lauer stated, “If you look at the polls…people across this country say they want more than a moment of silence after a mass shooting, they want some real change.”

In closing, with the media pushing the Democrats agenda and carrying weight for the Obama adminstration on not only gun control but issues ranging from Illegal immigration to Islamic terrorism, it is worth recalling the following statement delivered by Joseph Goebbels during his first official press conference as the head of the Third Reich’s Propaganda Ministry on March 15, 1933. Goebbels, whom turned press conferences into secret meetings where the Propaganda Ministry would pass on detailed instructions to selected journalists, supplying articles to be printed verbatim or used as the basis for reports stated the following to the journalists, “You are to know not only what is happening, but also the government’s view of it and how you can convey that to the people most effectively.” That they were not to convey or print any view in opposition to the regime did not need to be said. This applies to our own press today.

Categories: Democrat establishment, Gun control, Media, Obama and media, Propaganda Ministry
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech

June 27, 2016

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech, Fox News via YouTube, June 27, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJlQgN5p7EE

Categories: 2016 elections, BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Islamic immigration, Media, Obama, Opinion polls, Republican establishment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Exclusive – #FeelTheByrne: Secret Service Agent’s Expose Of Hillary Clinton Set To Rock 2016 Campaign

June 27, 2016

Exclusive – #FeelTheByrne: Secret Service Agent’s Expose Of Hillary Clinton Set To Rock 2016 Campaign, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, June 26, 2016

WASHINGTON, : US First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) greets Phil Lader in the receiving line at the White House 08 April in Washington. The Clintons hosted the Prime Minister of Canada and his wife at an official White House dinner. (ELECTRONIC IMAGE) AFP PHOTO/STEPHEN JAFFE (Photo credit should read STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, : US First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) greets Phil Lader in the receiving line at the White House 08 April in Washington. STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

A new trailer highlighting the media coverage of the forthcoming expose on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time as an irate First Lady to former President Bill Clinton shows viewers how much the Clinton machine fears the book’s publishing.

“I believe if I answered that question, I would be revealing privileged information,” former U.S. Secret Service Agent Gary Byrne — who was stationed right outside the Oval Office for three years during the Clinton administration — says in a clip of a videotaped deposition that opens up the video. “Yes I do know where he was — but I believe if I tell you though I’d be revealing privileged information.”

The deposition was one Byrne gave to special investigators digging into Bill Clinton during his presidency, and specifically this clip comes in a section of the deposition that focused on Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. That part of the three-hour-long videotaped deposition focused specifically on one of many incidents where Lewinsky was sneaking around the White House near the Oval Office — presumably to find the president and engage in sexual activity with him — and specifically whether Byrne knew the location of the president at that time.

“Without revealing any privileged information, do you know where the president was at that time?” the investigating attorney asked Byrne during that part of the deposition, which again focused on Lewinsky attempting to enter an area near the Oval Office where she was not supposed to go. The full June 25, 1998 deposition is available for the public to watch on C-SPAN and contains many details that prove, once again, Byrne is a completely credible source on everything Clinton.

As Hillary Clinton, Bill’s wife, runs for the presidency and has become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 after a failed White House bid of her own in 2008, the former president’s lurid history of affairs, alleged sexual assault and even alleged rape of various women during his time as president, as the governor of Arkansas and even before then have found their way back to the front and center of political discussion in America.

That’s thanks in no small part to the imminent book from Byrne, who for some time in the 1990s was the uniformed division officer posted right outside the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president. He personally knew Monica Lewinsky, and his testimony was critical in proving the sex scandal toward the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The president originally denied the sex scandal then some months later admitted to it.

Byrne’s book, Crisis of Character, exposes the Clintons in a manner that’s never been done before. This new trailer promoting the book, which Byrne’s team provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release, goes from that deposition clip to news clips about his forthcoming book.

“The man who stood outside the Oval Office door during the Bill Clinton presidency says he is doing what he can to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency,” Bret Baier of Fox News’ Special Report says in the next clip in the video.

It then shifts through several media clips of several more news anchors and commentators discussing the book, including a clip of Fox News’ Steve Doocy who noted that “none of the other networks are going to book this guy to be on.”

“Team Hillary apparently is trying to put the kibosh on all that,” Doocy said, referencing reports that surfaced on The Drudge Report last week that detail how the mainstream media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to silence and discredit Agent Byrne’s story.

WATCH THE FULL TRAILER VIDEO

Drudge, in a rare and high profile Drudge Report exclusive, reported that “Hillary’s campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread ‘lies’ on any of the nation’s broadcast networks.”

One Hillary Clinton campaign official, according to Drudge Report exclusive, even warned a television network producer that Byrne’s book is “trash for cash.”

Experts close with many agents and high-levels inside the Secret Service, however, including Ron Kessler — an award winning journalist formerly with both the Washington Post and Boston Herald — have backed up Byrne’s book. Byrne, as Breitbart News has reported, has also been commended not only by the agency but also by several political appointees of none other than President Bill Clinton for his service.

As Drudge predicted, Politico—the degrading mainstream media outlet that Breitbart News has exposed as having been taken over by a group of Democrats who are not impartial — sure enough ran a hit piece on Byrne shortly after details of the book started trickling out. Politico’s national editor now claims she is no longer a Democrat, but admits she was once a member of Clinton’s political party. Media Matters for America, the far-left progressive political operation that seeks to push the mainstream media in an even more liberal direction than it already is and is closely aligned with the Clinton machine through its founder and renowned Clinton enforcer David Brock, actually published its own attempted takedown of Byrne’s book that ran concurrently with the Clintons’ allies’ piece at Politico.

This new exclusive video also includes at the end a pun on the failed campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders against Clinton. Sanders’ slogan was #FeelTheBern, and this video includes the hashtag #FeelTheByrne.

This Breitbart News exclusive is the second such video promoting Byrne’s tell-all on the Clintons.

“It was a terrible tumultuous time for us,” Byrne says in the first video, out in early June. “We were being subpoenaed by the U.S. government. We didn’t have confidentiality agreements with our lawyers because we were government employees. It was horrendous and it affected over 20 Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and agents. So this story is all true — it is basically about my life and one of my biggest fears was, especially after President Clinton showed up one morning with a black eye after a fight that night in the mansion that everybody working that night heard it was: ‘How do you protect the president from his wife?’ I’m not telling this story, I didn’t write this book for partisan politics. I wrote it so I could get the truth out. Now that I’m retired, I also feel that I have a responsibility to the American public to tell my story so you know what the truth is. I was the first Secret Service employee to be subpoenaed to testify against the president in a criminal case. I was subpoenaed six times before the Supreme Court Justice [William] Rehnquist forced me to testify — and many other Secret Service employees. If she gets elected, it’s probably going to be another four to eight years of the same double standard: ‘Do as I say, not as I do. Do as I say, or off with your head.’ This is why I felt compelled to come out and tell my story.”

WATCH THE FULL FIRST TRAILER VIDEO

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Hillary Clinton, Media
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Op-Ed: The American Gulag

June 26, 2016

Op-Ed: The American Gulag, Israel National News, Phyllis Chester, June 26, 2016

For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having “gone over to the dark side,” as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.

My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken–although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.

Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right–but not quite as much.)

A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need “love and compassion,” not profiling or detention.

I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes–or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.

“But,” I said, “on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?”

That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”

His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him:  If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.

I welcomed him to the American Gulag.

He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.

Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.

Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a “right-wing hater.” He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.

I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.

The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.

For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.

Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view “mental illness,” “gun control,” and “American right-wing hatred of gays”–not Jihad–as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer “Palestine” to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.

A number of European activists have recently visited me.  They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey;  along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.

So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.

And now, European women are being told to “dye their hair black,” stay home “after 8pm,” “always have a male escort at night;” a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to “cover up” because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.

Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?

Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.

Categories: Antisemitism, BREXIT, Censorship, Extremism, Freedom of speech, Homosexuals, Islam and homosexuals, Islamists, Leftists, Media, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Right wing haters
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

June 25, 2016

H/t The Conservative Tree House

trust-the-government-they-know-best

H/t Power Line

Brexit-Godzilla-copy

 

Media-Obamabots-copy

 

Obama-to-Middle-East-Bitter-Clingers-copy

 

Hillary-Build-on-Success-copy

Categories: Guns and Bibles, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Media, Obama
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »