Note to American news media: Go ahead and make more excuses for them.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

This in from Jihad Watch. Egyptian Muslims raping a Christian woman in broad daylight yelling “Allahu akbar” (Allah is Great). The woman is being raped because she is a Christian. But according to the leftist American news media this sort of thing is not motivated by religion so we must not place blame on innocent Muslims. What this video shows is the kind of conduct that is typical when Muslims outnumber Christians or have a significant percentage of the population. This same thing happens in India and in some European countries today. As long as they are a minority they pretend to obey our laws. So why do so many Muslims work in America to change our laws to follow their Islamic Sharia code? But of course there are always a few Muslims in America who still want to fight Allah’s war against the non-believers. We read about them every day but our news media refuses to identify their religion.

Islam is different from every other religion in the world in one significant regard. While other religions generally follow some version of the Golden Rule, teach peace toward fellow man and/or follow the Ten Commandments, Islam teaches hatred toward everyone who is not a believer in Islam, and specifically names Christians and Jews in the Qur’an as being the most reviled; Islam calls them “People of the book” meaning The Bible and The Torah. While one law in the Ten Commandments says “Thou Shall Not Kill” and it is directed toward everyone, Islam says thous shall not kill another Muslim but it is alright to kill a non-believer. “Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.” – Sura – 2:98. “Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” – Sura – 2:191. “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people.” Sura – 5:54. “Fight unbelievers who are near to you.” Sura – 9:123 (different translation: Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers…. “Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another.” Sura – 48:25. “The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” Sura – 98:51.

#MyJihad in Egypt: Muslim mob screaming “Allahu akbar” rapes Christian woman in broad daylight

They’re shouting “Nasara! Nasara! Nasara!” (Christians! Christians! Christians!) as they set upon the terrified woman. And then “Allahu akbar” (Allah is greatest) and “There is no god but Allah.”
But remember: it is “hate” to oppose this savagery.

(Video thanks to Mark George.)

Posted by Robert on April 9, 2013 10:05 AM

You can read a cookbook and still never be a good cook. You have to be taught the techniques and steps to turn raw food into a feast. You can play violent video games that allows you to kill and maim hundreds of people and while that may make you somewhat anti-social, it won’t automatically turn you into a terrorist. Neither will reading the Qur’an every day turn you into a terrorist unless someone educates you about the purpose of this book of commands by the Prophet Mohammed and reminds you of some of these commands. Mohammed was a leader of a military rebellion who invented Islam as a force to bind his army together. He chose the crescent moon as the symbol of his new religion, a symbol that before Islam existed belonged to the pagan moon god Allah and today stands atop every mosque in the world. Then Mohammed claimed that Allah was the god of the Islam he invented. His so-called religion was based upon and still consists of a barbaric 7th Century way of life. In the 1400 years since it was created, Islam has been responsible for over 270-million deaths in its quest for world domination.

There is no peace in the Religion of Peace and neither is there love for their fellow mankind. There is no compassion or forgiveness in this book only hatred for the non-believers and the People of the Book (the Christian’s Holy Bible and the Hebrew Torah). There is no “golden rule” as is universally thought as, “”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

According to the publication entitled, Statistical Islam, an analytical examination of the words contained in the three books of Islam: the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, the first step in convincing a Muslim of his duty to Islam is to remind him that his Prophet Mohammed was a “perfect Muslim” and the Koran does this no fewer than 91 times. This publication also points out that only 1/3 of the Qur’an applies to Muslims and 2/3 of it is hatred directed against people of other religions.

“He is the divine human prototype, the only pattern acceptable to Allah. The actions and words of Mohammed are so important that they have a special name—Sunna. We find the Sunna in two texts. The Sira is the biography of Mohammed and the Hadith is the collection of hadiths (small stories, traditions) about Mohammed.”

Islam is based on Koran and Sunna. Since the Sunna is found in the Sira and the Hadith, this means that three books contain all the doctrine of Islam—the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, Hadith), then it is Islam. If something is not in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. All of the Islamic doctrine is found in the Trilogy. Now, we have the complete information with no missing pieces.

We have established our first criteria of knowledge. All authoritative statements about Islam must include a reference to the Trilogy to be authenticated. It does not matter what a scholar, imam, media guru, or anyone else says, if what they say cannot be supported by the doctrine in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. If it is supported by the Trilogy, then it is Islam.

We have been taught that the Koran is the source of Islamic doctrine. However, the Koran is only 14% of the total sacred texts1. Actually, the Sira and the Hadith are 86% of the total textual doctrine2. Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. This is very good news. The Koran is obscure, but anyone can understand the life and sayings of Mohammed. These statistics point to the easy way to know Islam—know Mohammed. Anyone, absolutely anyone, can understand Mohammed and hence, Islam.

Muslims know these are facts and therefore work very hard to keep the politically correct news media from writing about them. They have dreamed up a cunning counter-attack by labeling their opponents Islamophobes, people who fear Islam supposedly for no reason, but those who know the truth say: “It isn’t Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you.”

Seven years after 19 Muslims hijacked 4 airliners and killed almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001, the news media covered up the background for a one-time Muslim Democrat and helped him get elected. And today, the government has purged its training manuals from all mention of terrorists and Muslims and Islam and the U.S. Army has now labeled Christians, along with al-Qaeda and the KKK as being terrorist organizations.


FCC Chairman Wannabe Stars at Left-wing Conference

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Denver, Colorado: As I waited to film an interview with Susan Crawford, who is being promoted by the left as the next FCC chairman, she could be overheard expressing a burning desire to get on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program to attack the telecommunications industry. Crawford has written a new book, Captive Audience, which is popular and for sale here.

Free market advocate Adam Thierer of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University calls Crawford “the ringleader of the growing movement to impose centralized, top-down government control on America’s broadband infrastructure.” Broadband is also known as high-speed Internet access.

Crawford, Obama’s former science and technology adviser, was a hero to the National Conference for Media Reform, which is the brainchild of a group called Free Press. About 2,000 people attended the event.

She delivered a keynote speech, saying, “We need to recapture the regulatory ideal,” and declared the need for “regulation of infrastructure” and “government intervention” in the marketplace of Internet services.

Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, parent of Fox News, was a popular target, with one exhibit allowing activists to throw bean bags at a Murdoch poster. Juan Morales of The Autonomous Playhouse, who ran the exhibit, told me that Fox News should not be allowed to exist unless a “communist” channel was permitted as well.

New York Times staffer Brian Stelter was scheduled to participate in a panel discussion at the conference but bailed out at the last minute, citing a writing assignment deadline. Stelter has described Free Press as a “media reform” group “which advocates for more diversity in media ownership,” without any hint of its leftist tilt.

Free Press was co-founded by Marxist professor Robert McChesney, another favorite at the conference who has his own new book, Digital Disconnect, distributed for free to every conference participant. The book site features the late communist “historian” Howard Zinn saying that “Robert McChesney is one of the nation’s most important analysts of the media.”

This is the third National Conference for Media Reform that I have attended. This year, McChesney and his group are pushing for government control of the Internet in the name of “open access” and “net neutrality.” Another big cause is federal funding of the journalism business.

Their own funding has come from billionaires such as George Soros, the hedge fund operator. But when I asked McChesney and John Nichols, another co-founder of Free Press, about the specific amount of money Soros has provided, they professed ignorance. It is said to be over $1 million over several years. This year, as I discussed in a previous column, the New America Foundation has emerged as a big player. It also gets money from Soros, the Ford Foundation, and the Gates Foundation.

McChesney favorably cites Crawford as a “telecommunication expert” in his own book and also quotes from the writings of Karl Marx in his treatment of “How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy,” the actual subtitle of the book. Marx is given credit for an “insight” that somehow has relevance to the battle for control over the Internet.

When I tried to question this “media scholar” about foreign propaganda channels entering the U.S. media market, he became visibly upset, grabbed my camera, and walked away in disgust, saying other people wanted to talk to him. All of this was captured on film. During the course of the conversation, such as it was, he tried to deny Al Jazeera’s relationship with al Qaeda.

This was in sharp contrast to my friendly interview with former FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who agreed that the activities in the U.S. of Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and other foreign propaganda networks were a proper subject of inquiry by the FCC. “I think you conduct a thorough inquiry to understand what’s going on,” he said about these channels. He wondered about their impact on existing media and communities in the U.S.

Despite Copps’ effort to be cordial and forthcoming about issues not on the official agenda, such as the foreign propaganda channels, this Denver conference of “media reform” activists was designed with the purpose of reshaping the American media by targeting big American companies such as Comcast.

Many people, of course, have gripes about their Internet service, and the organizers of this conference will attempt to exploit them in the weeks and months ahead. These activists want the federal government to regulate how companies provide Internet services, supposedly to make them cheaper and more available.

It is not known how many of these activists, through their associations with various “public media,” may already have benefited from the $7.2 billion Obama spent on Internet broadband services through his so-called “stimulus” package. One expert, Joanne Hovis, told me that “non-profit” groups, public broadcasting entities, and “independent media” did receive some of the money. Hovis also said Susan Crawford—then with the Obama Administration—was an “incredible advocate” for spending on broadband infrastructure.

In my interview with Crawford, she was clear about imposing “public obligations” on the private sector but about her willingness to be the next FCC chairman. Crawford said that when she served Obama, in 2009, telecommunications was not a top priority, since he was wrestling with problems in other industries, such as banks and car companies. But now she hopes the administration will take on the communications industry. “This has got to be a major national issue,” she said.

Seton Motley, president of Less Government, believes the possible nomination of Crawford would be “a terribly dark day” for those who believe in free speech and a free market for Internet services. “The economic and First Amendment ramifications of a Crawford Chairmanship would be most dire,” he told Accuracy in Media. He said her proposals should be sent back to the “fevered swamps of Media Marxism.”

As left-wing as the conference was, there was dissent. I filmed an exchange between one media reform activist and a Free Press representative about the group known as “Project Censored” being “censored” from having a panel discussion of 9/11 being an “inside job” and not the fault of Islamists.

The group Project Censored did have a booth at the conference that included copies for sale of a 9/11 book titled Mounting Evidence.

Another dissident group, led by Webster Tarpley, formerly of the Lyndon LaRouche organization, held a separate event down the road from the Sheraton Denver Downtown Hotel, where the conference was held, to examine whether conference stars such as Amy Goodman were providing cover for Obama’s “pro-war” foreign policy in places like Libya and Syria.

The conference did hold one panel discussion on the subject of covering war. Ironically, Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), had some kind words to say about Fox News.

He said, “Many liberal journalists who were vocal about war and human rights and civil liberties during the Bush era—well they seem to have lost or muted their voices during the Obama era. It says something about the lack of serious national debate, about so-called national security, that last month one of the loudest mainstream TV news questioners of the President’s right to assassinate Americans was Sean Hannity at Fox. And that’s obscene.”

Cohen is described on his website as the founding director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, where he is an associate professor of journalism.

But Burlington College in Vermont went further than just teaching left-wing journalism. Its booth at the conference advertised a degree in “media activism.” The college says, “The degree is conceived explicitly for those who want to become media activists. Through technical training rooted in history and theory, students are encouraged to apply media making technique, craft, and art to issues of advocacy, activism and social change.”

Yet, Josh Stearns of Free Press assured me, during that exchange with the 9/11 activist, that “journalism isn’t really a right-left issue” and that “everybody wants quality journalism.”


Media Misrepresenting Judicial Confirmations

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The path to rule by executive order by the Obama Administration runs directly through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “There are few things more vital on the president’s second-term agenda,” Constitutional Accountability Center president Doug Kendall told The Washington Post last week. “With legislative priorities gridlocked in Congress, the president’s best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. Circuit.”

Currently, the D.C. Circuit, which is considered one notch below the U.S. Supreme Court and deals with many challenges to executive branch actions, has four openings. It currently has four Republican appointees and three Democrats. This is the same court that ruled in January that President Obama lacked the authority to make the three recess appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board.

As the White House looks to pack the court with those favorable to its causes, so too the media swallow whole the Administration’s agenda. “What’s different now, says Mark Jurkowitz of the Pew Research Project for Excellence in Journalism, is new technology that allows the White House to distribute its own content far more widely and effectively than past presidents could,” reported the Associated Press. “At the same time, it’s getting harder for cash-strapped news outlets to resist using photos, video and other content supplied by the White House” (emphasis added). It’s also easier to just take statistics from the White House rather than to do additional research. And the media have never been more willing accomplices than with Obama.

One statistic provided by the White House that has been bandied about by several news outlets, including The Washington Post and Mother Jones, is that “Overall, President Obama’s judicial nominees wait an average of 116 days on the Senate floor for a vote […] more than three times longer than President George W. Bush’s judicial nominee average wait time of 34 days.” And, according to the Post’s Juliet Eilperin, “At this moment 15 such nominations are awaiting a Senate floor vote, 13 of which made it out of committee unanimously.”

“The White House has begun to make a public case for moving faster, though it has not engaged in the sort of horse trading that usually helps ease legislative logjam.” In other words, getting judges confirmed is important to the President, but not important enough to compromise on his legislative agenda.

“A reader might imagine that the reporter is making an intelligent apples-to-apples comparison,” when citing this statistic, noted Ed Whelan for National Review. “But in 2005—the first year of President Bush’s second term—the Senate hadn’t confirmed any of Bush’s nominees by this date. (It of course had confirmed nominees in previous years.)”

The average number of days from nomination to confirmation was 171 days for Bush’s district court nominees and 366 days for the circuit-court nominees from 2001 to 2006, according to the Congressional Research Service (pdf). As for Bush’s nominees confirmed in 2005, as Whelan outlines, they each took between seven months and four years, when measured from nomination to confirmation—and none were confirmed by the beginning of April 2005. He describes the Obama Administration as 0 for 1 so far, since Caitlin Halligan is “the first D.C. Circuit nominee that Republicans have defeated.”

“Would the Obama White House really like to compare the treatment of its nominees to the treatment of Bush 43’s?” he asks.

Eilperin cites a figure from Sen. Charles Grassley’s (R-IA) office, that the Senate has confirmed 178 of President Obama’s nominees to the federal bench, while rejecting only two.

Remapping Debate recently produced a chart which maps the “median number of days between [the] vacancy and nomination,” with the Bush Administration nominating, on average, after 182 days in its first term, and the Obama Administration taking 262 days to nominate in its first term. Clearly, this shows that the current Administration has been slower to nominate than the previous administration. The “median number of days” between the nomination and its “pending before the Senate” was 152 for Bush and 218 for Obama in their first term—much closer numbers than those cited by the news outlets.

While Obama is seeking to “shift” the “conservative tilt” of a key court, as reported by The Washington Post, Bush’s legacy is that of pervasive conservatism with the “potential to affect the law in America for decades.” This double standard has an underlying message: courts in the U.S. should be less conservative and more liberal. Thus, Eilperin asks in her article “How controversial are President Obama’s judicial nominees?” “Senate Republicans are giving President Obama and Senate Democrats what JonesDay partner Michael Carvin calls ‘a taste of their own medicine,’ by filibustering otherwise non-controversial nominees,” she asserts. If that’s so, it’s not a terribly dramatic phenomenon, given the statistics above. But then again, it looks way more dramatic when you use the White House numbers, as Eilperin did.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected].


Watcher’s Council Nominations – Iron Lady Memorial Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Need I even mention whom this week’s contest is dedicated to?

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Council News:

This week, Ask Marion, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pirate’s Cove and Tina Trent.com took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status with some great pieces.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members, while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have this week…

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!