Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Monday, November 23, 2015
Media Coverage Empowering ISIS?
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Ben Carson Responds to GQ Article: We Should Pray for Them
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
How the Media Protects President Obama
Monday, October 28, 2013
President Getting a Pass for Scandal He 'Didn't Know About'?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
THE JERUSALEM POST: Fundamentally Freund: President Barack Obama and much of the Western press seem to have difficulty saying in close proximity to one another: ‘Islamic’ and ‘terror.’
The past few weeks have been difficult ones for the United States and its allies, as they received some painful reminders that the war on terror is far from over.
In a dastardly attack on April 15, two bombs went off at the Boston Marathon, killing three people, wounding 264 others and leaving more than two dozen amputees. A week later, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced that they had arrested two people in a plot to attack a passenger train heading to Toronto from New York.
There were other incidents as well. On April 18, gunmen stormed a hotel in the Kenyan town of Garissa and sprayed bullets into the restaurant, killing 10.
And on April 28, two assassins opened fire on army intelligence officers in the town of Lamitan in the Philippines, killing two people.
What all these episodes have in common is one highly conspicuous fact: they were all carried out by Muslim terrorists bent on killing as many “infidels” as possible.
Indeed, despite an ongoing avalanche of violence being perpetrated around the world by Muslim extremists, there are two words President Barack Obama and much of the Western press seem to have difficulty saying in close proximity to one another: “Islamic” and “terror.”
They would rather soothe themselves – and us – into complacency, as if refusing to call something by its name will magically make it go away. » | Michael Freund | Monday, May 06, 2013
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
And the media despises Newt, right? He's so sarcastic and condescending towards us, brands us as elite liberals and uses us to whip up the Republican base.
Actually, wrong and wrong.
Gingrich loves the press. In some respects we are, as John McCain famously noted, his 'base'. He craves the media.
I've never seen a man so happy as Gingrich was when he ambled into the spin room in Myrtle Beach last Monday night and about 200 of us swarmed around him hanging on his every word.
Romney would have rather been anywhere else in the world than that in the middle of that heaving, sweaty scrum. But Newt was in pure heaven. He loves the game.
And it's mutual. The press laps up all things Newt. Like him, we thrive on chaos. He's a walking quote machine. You never know what he'll say next and he can't resist answering a question or engaging with a reporter. Read on and comment » | Toby Harnden | Sunday, January 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
THE SPECTATOR: A week ago, the offices of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo were burned down. This attack came after it advertised the founder of Islam, Muhammad, as 'editor-in-chief' of the new issue. The move was a light-hearted response to the very serious matter of the election of an Islamist party (the Ennahda party) as the leading party in Tunisia (a result which, incidentally, appears not to have greatly bothered most European media).
As the staff of Charlie Hebdo contemplated the ruins of their magazine, a much grander and richer magazine, Time, ran one of those pieces which have become familiar whenever there is an Islamist assault against free speech. As Nick Cohen has also noted, the Paris correspondent of Time magazine –- the almost too-perfectly named Bruce Crumley –- used the burning of their offices to taunt Charlie Hebdo's journalists[.]
'Do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of 'because we can' was so worthwhile?' he asked before going down a related track by denouncing French politicians who had criticised the firebombing. Mr Crumley is apparently not a fan of free-expression, or even slight jokes, when it comes to Islam. In this respect he is not unique. He follows in a long and ignoble line of useless idiots.
In 2004 when Theo van Gogh was murdered on a street in Amsterdam by a Islamic fundamentalist it was Index on Censorship's turn. You would have thought that with a title like 'Index on Censorship', the reader could expect such a magazine to do what it says on the masthead. Yet in what should have been a pretty straightforward test ('for or against the murder of people who express their opinions') Index on Censorship managed to land it wrong.
They published a piece which claimed that it was not van Gogh's murderer but van Gogh himself who had been a 'fundamentalist'; not Mohammed Bouyeri (the killer), but van Gogh (the killed) who had been on a 'martyrdom operation' by having the temerity to say mean things about Islam. Index on Censorship's author went on to imply that the whole murder was some type of performance art designed to promote van Gogh's new film on the assassination of another critic of Islam, Pim Fortuyn. Read on and comment » | DOUGLAS MURRAY | Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH – BLOGS – JANET DALEY: In New York last week everybody – and I mean everybody, not just the self-obsessed media crowd – was talking about the sacking of Juan Williams by National Public Radio. The significance of this saga seemed to encapsulate all the major points of contention in the political commentary wars which have become such a feature of American public life.Mr Williams is an engaging, black liberal broadcaster who has been a pillar of NPR’s left-of-centre journalist tradition. In addition to the day job, he appeared regularly as a panellist on Fox News discussions, representing the left-liberal opposition to the channel’s more rightwing commentators. It is widely suspected that this established connection with Fox had something to do with the bizarre vindictiveness with which he was summarily dismissed by his bosses at NPR. Officially, Mr Williams’s sacking offence was to have declared (on a Fox News programme, as it happened) that he felt uneasy when he entered an airplane and encountered Muslims in tradtional religious dress.
That was it. He did not expand this comment into an anti-Islamic diatribe or make any hostile remarks about Muslims or their religious beliefs. But NPR felt that this was sufficient cause for terminating his employment (of many years’ standing) without further notice. Whereupon, virtually every sentient being of every political persuasion from Whoopi Goldberg on the left to Bill O’Reilly on the right, condemned NPR – whose knowledge of the constitutional right to free speech seemed surprisingly inadequate considering that it is exists by virtue of government subsidy - and Fox News immediately offered him a contract worth a reported $2 million. Read on and comment >>> Janet Daley | Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Related >>>
Friday, October 22, 2010
THE GUARDIAN: Sacked NPR man Juan Williams cheered on by US rightwingers including Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Mike HuckabeeThe sacking of a Washington public radio broadcaster over remarks about Muslims turned into a political row last night.
Juan Williams was fired as a news analyst with National Public Radio, the closest equivalent in the US to the BBC, after saying on the Fox News Channel that Muslims in traditional dress boarding planes made him nervous.
NPR issued a statement expressing regret at his departure after so many years' service but said his comments "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."
Prominent rightwing figures, from Sarah Palin to radio talkshow host Rush Limbaugh, rushed to his defence and Fox offered him a three-year $2m (£1.3m) contract. Williams, 56, has been a decade-long contributor to NPR, but has also worked elsewhere, including at Rupert Murdoch's Fox. >>> Ewen MacAskill in Washington | Friday, October 22, 2010
THE GUARDIAN: Soros donates $1m to the fight against Fox News >>>
THE TELEGRAPH: Sacking of US broadcaster Juan Williams sparks Muslim debate: An American broadcaster has been sacked for saying he did not like sharing flights with Muslims, prompting a high-profile row about censorship and political correctness. >>> Jon Swaine in New York | Friday, October 22, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
BNP – Editorial: The printed media’s hysterical Nazi-like smears and slander against British National Party leader Nick Griffin today have finally revealed their hatred for the indigenous population of this country.
The wall-to-wall coverage has included cartoons ranging from the pathetically childish (see The Daily Express portraying Mr Griffin as a devil) to the outright Nazi (see The Daily Mail comparing Mr Griffin and BNP supporters to rats emerging from a sewer[)] — a scene taken from the Nazi film Die [sic] Ewige Jude* which showed Jews as rats emerging from a drain.
Many led with front page editorials personally attacking Mr Griffin and at least one quoted from a seriously mentally ill homosexual “right wing” lunatic while another printed even more fantasy from the serial liar Dominic Carmen.
All of this media coverage was directed against Mr Griffin personally — and none of it was directed at the policies of the BNP. >>> BNP News | Friday, October 23, 2009
*Der ewige Jude
Saturday, February 14, 2009
For God’s sake, the British government is so YELLOW! Appeasement of Islam is the name of the game! Gordon Brown, Jacqui Smith (Jackboot Jacqui), and David Miliband are all part of the ‘axis of cowardice’!
By disallowing Geert Wilders into the United Kingdom to show his film, Fitna, to the House of Lords, the UK has shown that it is well on the road to dhimmitude, well on the path which will lead to Eurabia.
Not since Neville Chamberlain has any British government shown such readiness to appease its enemies. And let’s make no mistake about it, Islam is the enemy, for it is the enemy of democracy and freedom, but nobody in the MSM or in politics wants to admit that this is so. But it is so. What else can an ideology be when it doesn’t recognize the separation of religion and politics? Whichever way anyone slices it, any ideology that does not regognize this separation, the sine qua non of democracy, can only be one thing: the enemy of democracy.
If you are aware of what is going on, then you must be, as am I, absolutely fed up with reading articles in the press which make excuses for the excesses of Islam and its adherents. You must also be sick to death of listening to, or reading about, politicians stating that Islam is not the problem. These people insist that some radical Muslims who espouse an extremist version of Islam are the problem. This is HS! Islam is the problem; and Islam pure and simple. There is, anyway, but one Islam. Any Muslim will tell you that. The moderate Muslims that politicians tell you about are non-existent, for moderate Islam doesn’t exist. There is but one Islam, and that’s Islam! The real deal!
A so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ is a Muslim who doesn’t follow his religion; and that’s no real Muslim at all!
What are we to do? Are we to wait until the crocodile devours us? Or are we to find our spunk and backbone, and confront this problem NOW, head on?
Our politicians and the people you watch on TV and listen to on your radio are spinning yarns, they’re peddling lies. They will go on doing so until YOU stop them! Tell them you’ll have no more of this crap, no more of this nonsense, no more of this poppycock! Tell them you want the truth. Insist on the truth; it’s your right.
That’s why banning Geert Wilders from the shores of the United Kingdom is such a nonsense. If what he has to say is false, then it will soon be seen as such. Nothing exposes the truth like the light of day. And if it is true, then we will have to confront the reality that faces us. But isn’t that the problem? Isn’t that what people like Jacqui Smith, David Miliband, and Gordon Brown do not want: the truth?
The following brilliant film, Fitna, is hurtful to our leaders, the mainstream media and the establishment simply because it is truthful. Were it not to be, then these stupid people that lead us would simply refute it. But they cannot because the film is masterful. Why? Because it encapsulates the problems we face with Islam in a short, sixteeen or so minute film. How brilliant is that? – ©Mark Alexander
Here is the film the establishment – our craven establishment – do not want you to see. It is to be hoped the Lords are watching:
Fitna: Original Version
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>
Monday, December 01, 2008
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM: Islam was born as a religion spread through violence. There is a direct line from the prophet Muhammad to today’s Islamic terrorists, whose latest deadly attacks wreaked havoc in Mumbai, India. The ongoing effort in the United Nations and the politically correct media to disassociate Islam from terrorism is a sham.
Just days before the Mumbai attack, a United Nations Committee passed a resolution entitled “Combating Defamation of Religions”, which will be going to the General Assembly for approval in mid-December. It is one in a series of such resolutions pushed by the Organization of Islamic Conference. While ostensibly applying to all religions, it refers only to Islam by name. The text “expresses deep concern … that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
The New York Times’ lead news stories in the aftermath of the Mumbai massacre played right into the Organization of Islamic Conference’s campaign of obfuscation. It omitted the central fact that the terrorists who murdered more than 170 innocent people were fanatical Islamists. The Times referred to them simply in generic terms as “gunmen”, “attackers”, and “militants”.
The only hint of a Muslim connection to the terrorist acts reported in the New York Times’ lead article on November 28, 2008 was the recounting of a complaint from two of the attackers to local television stations about the treatment of Muslims in India and about hostilities in the disputed territory of Kashmir. The Times actually quoted one of these cold-hearted terrorists, who tried to play victim in justifying the carnage.
Islamic terrorists always have some kind of excuse for their wanton killings. Usually it starts with the Jews, whom the religious fanatics believe are responsible for every ill befalling Muslims everywhere and thus deserve to die. It was no surprise that a Jewish center in Mumbai was among the prime terrorist targets, with deadly consequences to a rabbi, his wife and other Jews.
Westerners also must be punished for keeping the Muslim people down, so the Islamists’ rationalization for murder goes. American and British citizens in particular were targeted at hotels and other locations in Mumbai where they were likely to congregate. However, the slaughter soon became indiscriminate. In fact, most of the dead appeared to be Indians and tourists of other nationalities caught in the midst of the terrorists’ mayhem. Indian commandos involved in an operation to end the siege described the terrorists as "showing no remorse, firing at anyone who moves". >>> By Joseph Klein | December 1, 2008
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback – USA)
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Hardcover – USA)
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Hat tip to Pastorius: Find him HERE and HERE
Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)