Ted Cruz onstage with Trevor Loudon via Breitbart [screenshot]
Trevor Loudon was honored to speak with presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) at the Iowa Grassroots Coalition Candidate Honest Assessment Summit, which was live streamed at Breitbart News on Saturday!
The event was held at the National Cattle Congress Pavilion in Waterloo, IA, and sponsored by the Iowa Grass Roots Coalition and the Cedar Valley Patriots for Christ.
During a speech before the interview, Trevor discussed what it would take for the grassroots to decide the presidential candidate like they did when they chose Ronald Reagan. Trevor also discussed Amnesty, declaring “any candidate who supports amnesty supports the demise of the United States!”
Trevor Loudon via Breitbart [screenshot]
Trevor had the opportunity to moderate a discussion with presidential candidates, beginning with Ted Cruz, who discussed ISIS (stating simply that he would “kill ’em all” and further elaborating that he would arm the Kurds and provide “overwhelming air power” that would diffuse the jihadists), state sovereignty, the refugee crisis, birthright citizenship (he is against it and believes in doing what it would take to end it), Obama’s “illegal executive amnesty,” Obamacare and religious liberty among others.
Cruz noted that millennials are being pounded by “the great stagnation,” i.e., the economic result of Obama’s policies. Cruz believes that tax reform, regulatory reform and adhering to free market principles would help all Americans, particularly young people.
Judd Saul of the Cedar Valley Patriots for Christ via Breitbart [screenshot]
Next, Trevor spoke with former Gov. Mike Huckabee, who spoke about the value of experience, his strong belief in the Fair Tax and the IRS (which Huckabee believes is a “rogue agency” that is unconstitutional), Americans’ moral and financial obligations to Veterans (here, Huckabee blasted the Veterans Administration), his dedication to the pro-life movement and his interest in helping women have options other than abortion, among other topics.
One interesting topic was Common Core (which has become a “cancer,” according to Huckabee). Huckabee said that the federal government should not have anything to do with education (echoing a statement made by Ted Cruz earlier).
Trevor questioned Huckabee’s previous support of Common Core. Huckabee said in part:
“Like Frankenstein, when a monster gets out of control it is time to kill the monster.”
As an aside, this author previously questioned Huckabee’s view on Common Core.
Mike Huckabee onstage with Trevor Loudon via Breitbart [screenshot]
Mike Huckabee onstage with Trevor Loudon via Breitbart [screenshot]
Trevor Loudon introducing former Governor Mike Huckabee via Breitbart [screenshot]
Finally, Trevor spoke with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who stressed the need for a “spiritual revival” and touted his conservative record in Louisiana. Jindal declared that we must “save the idea of America before it is too late.”
Bobby Jindal via Breitbart [screenshot]
In a world where CNN and even Fox News asks presidential candidates ridiculous “gotcha” questions intended to boost ratings, it is refreshing that Trevor Loudon moderated a substantive discussion that focused on the Constitution, as well as real issues impacting Americans every day.
Cruz voted for Obama’s Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) the first go-around in the Senate based on McConnell’s word and he famously turned against the fast-track trade authority later. Because it was based on lies.
In a stunning attack on a leader of his own party, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of lying to him and said he couldn’t be trusted.
Cruz, a Texan who is running for president but ranks low in early polling, delivered the broadside in a speech on the Senate floor, an extraordinary departure from the norms of Senate behavior that demand courtesy and respect.
At issue are assurances Cruz claimed McConnell, R-Ky., had given that there was no deal to allow a vote to renew the federal Export-Import Bank – a little-known federal agency that has become a rallying cry for conservatives. Cruz rose to deliver his remarks moments after McConnell had lined up a vote on the Export-Import Bank for coming days.
“It saddens me to say this. I sat in my office, I told my staff the majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 Republicans in the eye. I cannot believe he would tell a flat-out lie, and I voted based on those assurances that he made to each and every one of us,” Cruz said.
“What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was a simple lie.”
A spokesman said McConnell would have no response. The majority leader was not on the Senate floor when Cruz issued his attack.
“Today is a sad day for this institution,” said Cruz with a heavy heart. “What we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing.” Betrayal always is, especially from someone you really, really want to believe in. Cruz made his statements after McConnell set up a procedural vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which expired last month. Democrats claim McConnell agreed to allow a vote on attaching the Export-Import Bank to “must-pass” legislation to win support from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) for a trade package earlier this year.
When Cruz approached McConnell on the floor in a private conversation, McConnell, with biblical overtones, denied to him three times that there was such a deal. “The majority leader was visibly angry with me that I would ask him such a question,” Cruz said. “The majority looked at me and said ‘there is no deal, there is no deal, there is no deal.'” The good senator’s staff tried to warn him about McConnell, but Cruz just couldn’t believe that McConnell would lie to his face and to every other conservative out there like this. He was wrong and learned of McConnell’s treachery the hard way. But then Ted Cruz did something that no one in my memory has done… he called McConnell out for his lying ways on the Senate floor. McConnell’s errand boy say’s he has no response. Maybe not verbally, but Ted Cruz has made a very powerful and evil enemy. You know what? I don’t think he cares. Good.
Cruz pointed out that McConnell’s move to allow the Export-Import Bank vote shows that he does not always mean what he says – that he’s dishonest. “Well, we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment that he is willing to say things that he knows are false,” Cruz added. He also pointed out that it could have ramifications down the road. That’s an understatement. We now have open warfare in the Senate and that is a good thing. “That has consequences for how this body operates,” Cruz said. “If you or I cannot trust what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other legislation, as well as on how this institution operates.” Plainer and truer words have never been spoken.
It doesn’t end there. Cruz also berated McConnell for using a procedural maneuver to prevent other amendments from being offered to the Highway Bill. That’s the vehicle that will be used for the Export-Import Bank vote. In a breathtakingly hypocritical move, McConnell “filled the tree” just as Harry Reid frequently did. This was to stop amendments when Democrats had a Senate majority. Of course, when McConnell did it, Reid screamed to the heavens. McConnell also set up a vote on repealing ObamaCare. That particular maneuver was a faux move to appease conservatives – it would not have succeeded and McConnell knew it, so it was safe to set up the vote. Cruz is a smart guy and saw right through McConnell’s machinations. “I agree with Senator Reid when he said the ObamaCare amendment is a cynical amendment. Of course it is. It is empty showmanship,” Cruz added.
This is a bitter fight between the GOP leadership and conservatives and it’s about to get real. While Donald Trump is excoriating the media and bringing illegal immigration to the forefront, Cruz is in the Senate stirring the pot and calling out the Washington Cartel. Joining Cruz in the political brawl are Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).
From the Conservative Review:
McConnell has avoided one procedural blockade. The Senate Majority Leader has attached the highway bill to an unrelated bill from the House to make sure that he does not violate the Constitution.
Leader McConnell called up a House passed bill and added the text of the highway bill to it, then he called up an amendment that allows the Export-Import Bank to continue. This married an unrelated House bill to the highway bill and EX-IM. But then Senator McConnell did something that was unexpected.
Next, Senator McConnell offered an amendment for a full repeal of Obamacare. This seemed to be an attempt to intimidate the Tea Party faction in the Senate to take the vote on a full repeal of Obamacare and walk away from the fight over EX-IM. The problem is that nobody believes the Obamacare amendment to be anything other than meaningless vote.
McConnell then proceeded to use a parliamentary maneuver, abhorred by many conservatives and Senate procedure strict constructionists, to block all other amendments to the bill. This tactic, known as “Filling the Amendment Tree,” enraged many members of the Republican caucus who wanted to offer their own amendments to the bill. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) ran the Senate he frequently filled the amendment tree as a way to block Republicans from ever offering amendments. This obstructionist tactic still rubs many conservatives the wrong way and is still considered by many to be an abuse of power.
Enter Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz took to the floor and offered an amendment to condition the Iran deal on Iran recognizing the right of Israel to exist and calling on Iran to release Americans held hostage. The Cruz amendment violates the Senate’s rules, because, under the current scenario, only certain amendments are allowed.
Do you see the shady dealings that McConnell is engaged in here? It’s dirty political pool. All meant to reinstate the Export-Import Bank by whatever means necessary. It’s a slap in the face to conservatives and furthers crony capitalism in the ranks.
This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party between Progressives on the Right and Constitutional conservatives. As Reagan did, the conservatives are trying to reform the Republican Party from within. The fight will be bloody and definitive. If the Progressives win, a third party will be born and the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. Marxist rule will most likely prevail in America for the foreseeable future if that happens. If the conservatives ascend, then the GOP will take a much needed sharp turn to the right and the Tea Party and other conservatives will become the new face of the GOP. It will mark the beginning of the war to return the US to its Constitutional roots and freedoms.
Conservatives in the U.S. Senate are gearing up to challenge Republican leadership today, setting their sights on a plan to repeal Obamacare with 51 votes—a measure that will easily pass if the 54 GOP senators support it.
The move comes after several contentious days of fighting over the GOP leadership’s priorities. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., allowed a vote Sunday to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank despite his stated opposition. It passed, 67-26, but drew a sharp rebuke from conservatives.
“The American people elected a Republican majority believing that a Republican majority would be somehow different from a Democratic majority in the United States Senate,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. “Unfortunately, the way the current Senate operates, there is one party, the Washington party.”
Mike Lee and Ted Cruz couldn’t get anywhere over the weekend in the Senate on their Planned Parenthood and Iran amendments. Both were denied a roll call vote, a maneuver Senate experts said was highly unusual. Cruz called it an “unprecedented” plot by McConnell and Reid. And that is exactly what it was.
“What we just saw a moment ago is unprecedented in the annals of Senate history,” Cruz said. “It consisted of the majority leader and the minority leader denying members the ability to have votes on their amendments and indeed the ability even to have a roll call vote.” Mike Lee will be making his move for an amendment on repealing Obamacare shortly and we can only hope and pray that it goes through, but I doubt it. The Export-Import Bank measure easily passed Sunday with unanimous Democrat support. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell renewed funding for the Export-Import Bank despite previous promises. Then McConnell blocked defunding Planned Parenthood and Ted Cruz’ Kate’s Law, which mandates that undocumented aliens who are deported and return to the United States would receive a mandatory five year sentence in a federal penitentiary upon conviction. That piece of legislation arose after Trump turned a spotlight on Sanctuary Cities – specifically San Francisco where Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien criminal who had been deported five times. Tell me again whose side McConnell is on?
Ted Cruz was predictably rebuked by McConnell’s henchmen: Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. All because he exposed the backroom deals of Mitch McConnell and the fact that he’s a prolific liar. McConnell is sooo busy with his backroom deals, bribes, schemes and illicit doings that he can’t bother with being subtle anymore. I guess he figures Americans are either too stupid to get it or just aren’t paying attention. We’re broke as a nation – utterly bankrupt. Yet, McConnell is for more and more taxation and deficit spending. He doesn’t care what the fallout is down the road… he’s in it for the here and now and how much power, control and wealth he can amass personally. Constitution and America be damned. There is no difference between what Mitch McConnell does and what the Marxist Democrats do – none.
In the end, this also benefits not only McConnell, but Obama’s minions, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. Cruz has criticized politicians on both sides of the aisle for this type of complicity and corruption. He has stood for principle and the Constitution unfailingly. McConnell despises him for it as do his cronies.
Ted Cruz defended himself in a special session against charges that he broke Rule 19 of the Senate rules by calling Mitch McConnell a liar concerning what he had promised him personally. Cruz says there is nothing wrong with telling the truth on the floor. There certainly isn’t and it takes courage to do so. He went on to say, “I entirely agree” with Hatch’s call for civility. But says “speaking the truth” is “entirely consistent with civility.” I couldn’t agree more.
Ted Cruz has set his sights on the Washington Cartel. He means to take them down with his band of conservatives. I believe Reagan would approve and this is a fight that must happen. It’s what I have been waiting for and I roundly applaud Cruz for leading the fight in the Congress and Trump for taking on the media and rallying the grassroots. This is a brilliant divide and conquer technique playing out. I don’t know who will be president in the end, but I can tell you this… when the dust settles, the GOP will never be the same. And I suspect standing in the midst of victory will be a man of honor – Ted Cruz.
Editor’s Note – From the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, the following summary identified what the Defeat Jihad Summit was designed to accomplish, this followed by notes taken by one attendee, Diana West:
Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C.
Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.
The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah.
Please read the notes here and then go their site and view the videos of the speakers and more. Videos for Senator Ted Cruz. Governor Bobby Jindal, Speaker Newt Gingrich, General Jerry Boykin and a list of many others are on that link.
I find that the several hours of speeches and discussion have distilled into some salient recollections and comments.
1) There remains a chasm between American “messaging” and that of some of our European friends who were invited to speak, including the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, who contributed a taped message, and Lars Hedegaard, who addressed the conference via Skype from Denmark.
American participants in the main demand, even a little truculently, that we now, finally, break the bonds of “political correctness” and speak frankly about “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “ideas of ISIS,” etc.
Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is No. 1 in the Dutch polls, and Dispatch International editor Hedegaard both speak, and have always spoken about “Islam” — pure and very simple.
Indeed, Wilders has encapsulated everything you need to know about Islam and the West thus: “The more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”
This difference is more than semantic.
The primary mechanism of control that Islam exerts over people is Islamic slander law, Islamic blasphemy law. This is the institutional means by which Islam protects itself against criticism, even objective facts about Islam that might be construed critically.
The penalty is death. Not for nothing did Yusef Qaradawi state that Islam wouldn’t even exist without the death penalty for “apostasy.”
We have seen innumerable instances, particularly since the 1989 publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, where Muslims have executed, or tried to execute this death sentence even against non-Muslims, from Europe to Japan, in efforts to extend the rule of Islam.
When American lawmakers, generals and security experts omit “Islam” from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed “radical Islam,” “Islamism” and the like, they are succombing to this same control mechanism.
They are protecting Islam. They are themselves sheltering Islam against the cold light of analysis. By extension, they are also preventing their own Western societies from devising means of defense against Islamization. They are accepting and carrying out what is probably the most important Islamic law.
There is concrete danger in this. Unless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called “Islamism,” or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermine our constitutional liberties, we cannnot protect our way of life from these teachings, whose popularity grows with the increasing Islamic demographic.
This is what the advanced Islamization of Europe shows us. A nominally sensible US immigration policy would immediately halt Islamic immigration to prevent a sharia-demographic from gaining more critical mass in the USA, democratically.
Then again, we don’t have a national border, much less a sensible immigration policy. That means many of these questions are moot.
2) Still, it bears noting: The Left has responded to the current cycle of Islamic jihad — a recurring blight on civilization, as Andrew Bostom’sLegacy of Jihadamply documents — by inventing a foe called “violent extremism.”
The Right, scoffing at this euphemism, “pinpoints” the threat of “radical Islamism.”
What is the difference? Ultimately, I see none. Both terms protect Islam.
Warning against the dangers of “radical Islam” implies that there exists some “normal Islam” that is completely compatible, perhaps even interchangeable, with Christianity and Judaism.
Indeed, this ongoing effort to normalize Islam is equally as dangerous as the institutional efforts that long ago “normalized” Communism.
This officially began when FDR “normalized” relations with the wholly abnormal Soviet regime in 1933, a morally odious event whose horrific repercussions are treated at length in American Betrayal.
Just as it required endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” Communism, so, too, does it require endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” or “moderate” Islam.
According to all of Islam’s authoritative texts, according to the example of Islam’s prophet, this “moderate” creed does not Islamically exist.
To turn the notion around, as Lars recently reminded me, when the brave and splendid ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan was asked several years ago to distinguish between “Islam” vs. “Islamism” at a Copenhagen conference, she brought the airy theory back to earth by asking: Based on your definition of Islamism, was Mohammed a Muslim or an “Islamist”?
3) This brings me to The Best Line of the summit, which was spoken by Nonie Darwish: “Islamism is Islam and Islam is Islamism.”
4) The Spirit of ’76 Award goes to retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons who inquired of guest speaker and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whether there was any movement in the Congress to censure Obama or initiate impeachment hearings. The consensus on this burning, patriotic question is, no, expediently speaking, there is not nor will there be such a movement.
As per the entire US elite’s corruption and complicity in Soviet crime outlined in American Betrayal, it seems we have arrived at the point where Obama’s political judge and jury — our elected representatives in the Congress — is surely complicit in his crimes against the Constitution, as well as with his identity fraud on the American people.
5) The Most Profound New Thought of the summit came from brave and splendid ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish (who, bonus, I met for the first time here).
Nonie conveyed her understanding, having grown up in Egypt the privileged daughter of an Egyptian shahid (martyr), that terrorism, the threat of terrorism is a feature of Islamic life at all levels: inside the family, in the public square, and everywhere in between.
I’m paraphrasing, but what came through her talk was the idea that Muslim “moderates” in Islamic society (which I am taking to mean human beings who do not have the seeds of violence within them) have come to take Islamic terrorism/violence/coercion as a given.
This means that they have come to accept such terrorism/violence/coercion as normal. Her great fear is that Americans, too, are coming to accept such Islamic violence as normal — that we, in a sense, are taking on the role of such Muslim moderates. This is, if it can be imagined, an even darker iteration of dhimmitude.
6) Speaking of ex-Muslims, I made a comment about the role of the apostate in the great ideological battles of our time. Today, it is the ex-Muslims who offer special insight into totalitarianism of the Islamic kind.
Many of my American colleagues, however, still prefer to lean on guidance from Muslim “moderates” — despite the fact, referenced above, that Islam’s own sacred texts, including the example of Islam’s prophet, support no such “moderation.”
As they wish, they may await, or even themselves lead an Islamic reformation, but this in no way protects free speech or preserves public safety in our country now — especially when there are indicators that an alarming level of support for curbing and even criminalizing free speech about Islam exists among American Muslims — punitive measures, again, that find support in Islam’s texts.
In the 20th-century-battle against totalitarian Communism, anti-Communists did not embrace “moderate Communists.” Rather, they embraced ex-Communists who understood the totalitarian teachings and practices of Communism in Moscow’s gangster-quest for global dominance — a “caliphate” a la Lenin & Marx.
It was mainly the Left and Center — the anti-anti-Communist Left and Center — that made common cause with “moderate Communists,” i.e., Social Democrats, Communist apologists, also Soviet agents among others, engendering meaningless treaties, defeats and loss.
Even more pernicious, though, was the resulting “postmodern” rot across the political spectrum, which tells me, as I argue in American Betrayal, that the West lost the “struggle of ideas” in the “Cold War.”
This spectral shift is interesting in and of itself. I see its patterns repeat in the past decade of military disaster in which it was US military strategy to ignore the teachings of Islam and instead lean on perceived Muslim moderates, or just bank on a hoped-for emergence of Muslim moderation, in the Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrible defeats ensued.
As former FBI special agent John Guandolo pointed out at the summit, we’ve tried this type of thing for 15 years and it doesn’t work.
Nor does it make sense — logically, doctrinally, strategically. But then neither does seizing on “radical Islamism” and other terms of art that exclude and thus protect Islam.
The Moral of this summit: You can’t protect Islam and defeat jihad at the same time.
Accurately reporting on no-go zones dominated by Muslims in Europe is now a no-go zone. Our media have made a mess of the whole issue and are now afraid to dig themselves out. What a disgrace and disservice to news consumers.
Jumping on the pile, the left-wing Politico has published a story accusing Louisiana Republican Governor and possible presidential candidate Bobby Jindal of telling a “lie” about the no-go zones by saying they exist. But the story is itself based on a lie. Things are so twisted that Politico is doing the lying by denying that the no-go zones exist. How did we get in such a mess?
Let’s understand that the method in this madness is to accommodate the radical Muslim lobby and demonize politicians who talk about the jihad problem.
First of all, the evidence shows that the zones or areas do exist. We cited evidence for them, and numerous other outlets have done so as well. The confusion stems from a Fox News apology over the matter that should never have been made.
Steve Emerson made a mistake on one Fox show in saying that “in Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”
Acknowledging his error, Emerson tells WorldNetDaily that he is nevertheless appalled that the media have now decided that any and all reporting on no-go zones is wrong. “It’s outrageous for media outlets to apologize, saying ‘no-go zones’ don’t exist in Europe, when even the New York Times for years has published articles documenting Muslim ‘no-go zones’ do exist in European countries like France,” he tells WND reporter Jerome Corsi.
Corsi notes that “NBC News, the New York Times, the Associated Press and others were using the term ‘no-go’ zones for Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Paris when Muslim youth gangs were rampaging through the streets and setting cars on fire.”
We made the same point in our treatment of the issue, noting that Fox News suddenly altered its reporting of the Muslim riots in France in 2005, determining them to be “civil riots” instead. We saw then the power of the Islamists to alter Fox’s coverage.
Fox News media reporter Howard Kurtz had a great opportunity on his Sunday show “Media Buzz” to set the record straight. Instead of confronting his own channel over the unnecessary apology, Kurtz praised CNN’s Anderson Cooper for making the same kind of apology. But then he mentioned that other outlets have been reporting on the no-go zones for years. So an apology wasn’t necessary after all! “The subject is complicated,” he said. No it’s not. Just tell the truth.
If all of this is unnecessarily confusing, it’s clearly because of the unnecessary Fox apology. It was a political apology. There is no other explanation. It is this kind of pandering that is becoming a pattern at Fox, which had earlier yanked anchor Bret Baier from a Catholic conference under pressure from the homosexual lobby.
Liberal special interest groups should not have this kind of influence on a news organization, especially one claiming “fair and balanced” coverage that is also supposed to be accurate.
Journalism 101 teaches that corrections or apologies are called for when errors are made. Since no-go areas do in fact exist, according to numerous sources, no apology was necessary. Yet, Fox News offered the view that since the no-go zones are not “specific” or “formal” entities, they really don’t exist. Fox was wrong. This is complete nonsense and a gross distortion of the concept.
Robert Spencer makes the observation, “The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.”
Citing just one example of many, he notes that David Ignatius had written in The New York Times back in 2002, “Yet Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”
Spencer notes that Fox’s apology “only plays into the hands of leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.”
He suggests that Fox “apologize for its apology.” That would perhaps further confuse matters, but it is the right thing to do.
Without an apology for the apology, those who apologize for the Islamization of Europe like Arif Rafiq will continue to claim, as he did in Politico, that Jindal, by even discussing the no-go zones, “has been repeating a lie that even Fox News was forced to apologize for.” The Fox News correction, or apology, though unwarranted, is now being cited as the media standard.
Politico headlined the piece, “Bobby Jindal’s Muslim Problem,” as if the governor has a bias against Muslims. So a Fox News apology has now been transformed into an indictment of a conservative political figure. Soon, Jindal will be denounced as an “Islamophobe,” another smear term used by the radical Islam lobby.
The liberal media won’t believe any of Fox’s normal day-to-day reports. But when the channel claims to have made an error that makes the rest of the media look good by comparison, that suddenly becomes the truth and the channel has to be believed. This is how reality is turned upside down.
The real story is why Fox made this unnecessary correction. The clout of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Council on American-Islamic Relations is the most likely explanation. Fox has undermined its own credibility by apologizing for something that was true. It is bizarre and was absolutely unnecessary.
Pamela Geller is correct that the major media are “failing us.” It’s terribly tragic that at a time when we were depending on one channel, Fox, to tell the truth, it has failed us, too.
The disease known as political correctness has infected Fox News. First, anchor Bret Baier withdrew from a Catholic conference under pressure from his management and the homosexual lobby. Now, Fox News has bowed to pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood lobby, issuing an embarrassing “correction” that was not warranted for having reported factually on the existence of Muslim-dominated “no-go zones” in Europe.
These zones, which are better understood as Muslim-dominated enclaves or ghettos, were the scene of much-publicized violent riots in France in 2005.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) decided to target Fox News after several programs featured commentators who noted the existence of no-go Muslim-dominated areas where Islamic terror cells take root and find recruits.
In response to CAIR’s criticism, Fox News has apologized, even saying the coverage of the no-go zones was offensive. It is as if the forces of the global Jihad have acquired a veto over what appears on the air on the channel.
While CAIR’s pressure was certainly a factor in the capitulation to the Muslim Brotherhood lobby, another factor could well have been the influence of the Saudi billionaire, Alwaleed bin Talal, who controls an influential number of voting shares in the Fox News parent company. We noted that Alwaleed had prompted the Fox News Channel to dramatically alter its coverage of the Muslim riots in France after he admitted calling the channel to complain.
At that time, Fox News and other media outlets had noted that “Muslim riots” had erupted in the mostly Muslim suburbs of Paris and other French cities. These are some of the no-go zones. Acting offended, Alwaleed said he had called Rupert Murdoch to complain and that Fox News anchors changed the term “Muslim riots” to “civil riots.”
In the latest case, CAIR called on Fox News to stop using “Islamophobic commentators,” a smear term for critics of radical Islam, and focused on terrorism expert Steven Emerson’s description of Birmingham, England as “totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.” Emerson admitted he was wrong and had misquoted his sources.
Although Emerson exaggerated the problem, the fact is that Muslim groups and even gangs are known to be a problem in the city and a threat to some non-Muslims. In 2008, for example, two evangelists said they were threatened with arrest and warned by a police officer in Birmingham that they should not hand out Christian literature in a certain area of the city because they could get “beaten up” by mobs and charged with a hate crime.
At the time, a senior Church of England bishop, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, had warned about “already separate communities” in Britain turning into no-go areas. During a 2009 visit to the United States, he was reported to have said that “Christians have been prevented from advertising church events in these parts of town and even police have been reluctant to enter these communities.”
So while Emerson made a mistake, his basic point about Muslim intimidation of outsiders remains valid.
Evidence of the problem has been available for years. In Belgium, for example, the district of Molenbeek was investigated in an undercover capacity by Moroccan-Belgian journalist Hind Fraihi, who wrote a 2006 book, Undercover in Klein-Marokko (Undercover in Little Morocco). She found the area to be an essentially ungovernable hotbed of extremism, anti-Semitism, and a breeding ground for jihad. The book “shocked” Belgium, one television news reporter noted. “Many police officers are afraid that the state no longer wields authority here, at least not the sole authority,” the reporter said. “They know that Islamists view Molenbeek as subject only to Muslim law.”
This is the same general area where Muslim riots are reported to have just taken place, following the anti-terror raid by police that left two terror suspects dead. The suspected leader of the terror cell, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is described as a 27-year-old Belgian of Moroccan origin who once lived in Molenbeek.
The term “no-go zone” is certainly politically incorrect. For that reason, other more obscure terms have been put forward to refer to the Muslim-dominated areas. For example, the term “Territories of Identities in France” has emerged as one of the descriptions. One academic analyst traced their emergence in France to a French Socialist Party policy in 1981 which allowed foreigners to create their own “voluntary associations,” based on a supposed “right to difference.”
Another more popular term is “exclusion areas.” Whatever they may be called, there can be no doubt they exist. And that was the main point of the Fox News coverage. There was nothing to correct except for Emerson’s inaccuracy about Birmingham. And he had already apologized for that.
Yet, anchor Julie Banderas said in her on-air correction and apology that the channel was sorry for being offensive.
Banderas said the channel had “made some regrettable errors on air, regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France.” She explained, “Now this applies especially to discussions of so-called no-go zones, areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in, and police supposedly won’t go.”
But she went on to distort what the channel had actually put on the air. She said, “To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country, and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion. There ARE certainly areas of high crime in Europe, as there are in the United States and other countries, where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors, and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.”
Of course, nobody claimed on the air that these enclaves are “formal” or “specific” areas in the sense that the national government has decided to recognize or categorize them as such. In addition, they don’t “exclude individuals based solely on their religion” in a government-recognized legal sense. Rather, these areas take the form of segregated neighborhoods or enclaves. That was the point made by several commentators.
The dramatic correction from Fox News is proof that the Muslim Brotherhood lobby, of which CAIR is a part, has demonstrated clout at the channel, perhaps through figures such as the Saudi billionaire Alwaleed, who also happens to be a financial contributor to CAIR.
There’s no reason for the channel to pander to radical Islam in this dramatic fashion. Clearly, the dramatic Fox News correction of its coverage of the no-go zones was overblown and unnecessary, since Emerson had already admitted his mistake. As a result of the Fox News “correction,” many media outlets are now saying that the concept of no-go zones in Europe for non-Muslims has been thoroughly “discredited.”
What is desperately needed is more, not less, coverage of the Islamization of Europe. Fox should have let Emerson’s correction speak for itself and moved on.
Several observers point to the 1980 book, Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States, published by the Saudi-funded Islamic Council of Europe, as helping to develop this deliberate strategy of establishing Islamic enclaves in European countries that are marked by religious customs and rules. This is shariah—the supremacy of Islamic law.
Political figures can keep the debate going, even if the media now shy away from it. Bucking the tide of appeasement, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal framed the issue in specific and accurate terms in a January 15 speech in London, saying, “It is startling to think that any country would allow, even unofficially, for a so called ‘no-go zone.’ The idea that a free country would allow for specific areas of its country to operate in an autonomous way that is not free and is in direct opposition to its laws is hard to fathom.”
In a column, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney praised Governor Jindal, saying that he said what has been “the unsayable about Islam’s supremacist ideology known as shariah and the holy war, or jihad, it demands all of its adherents to engage in or support.”
However, it appears that the “unsayable” may now be left unsaid on Fox, a channel many conservatives have come to rely on for information about jihad. It’s “highly unlikely” that Emerson will “ever be booked again” on Fox News, a spokesman for the channel said.
If true, this will be a great victory for CAIR and its collaborators, including what Gaffney calls in a new report “The Global Jihad Movement.” The report identifies a victory strategy, in part by identifying the components of this movement, including CAIR.
For his part, Emerson has been consistently correct about the development of the Islamic extremist networks that now threaten America and the world. His latest film, “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” describes how Muslim Brotherhood fronts, such as CAIR, have pursued a strategy described in secret documents as the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” of destroying Western civilization from within.
It is this kind of work that has made Emerson into a target.
As far back as 1994, Emerson had served as the executive producer and reporter for the public television documentary “Jihad in America.” The film included previously unknown videos of the clandestine activities of radical Islamic terrorist groups in the United States. Oliver Revell, former associate deputy director of the FBI, stated that Emerson’s program had discovered details about these terrorist networks that the FBI didn’t have.
Emerson testified before Congress on the subject of “Foreign Terrorists in America” in 1998. It was five years after the first World Trade Center attack and three years before 9/11.
Emerson has been proven correct again and again about the terrorist problem we face.
But to make matters worse, Fox media reporter Howard Kurtz made much of the fact that Emerson was only a “guest” on the January 10 edition of the “Justice with Judge Jeanine” show, and not a paid contributor. It was as if he was also trying to separate Emerson from the channel.
For being right about the threat over the course of decades, Emerson deserves our thanks. We need more journalism of this quality. He deserves better treatment from a channel that has now clearly shown it could use more and not less of his expertise.
In a story about Bret Baier’s withdrawal from a Catholic conference, where he was going to speak about his Catholic faith, the website known as Mediaite noted that Republican Governor Bobby Jindal (LA) was going to go through with his appearance at the event. But the website warned him about the consequences of offending the homosexual lobby. “Given the controversy that follows House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) more than a decade after he allegedly spoke before a group connected to white supremacists, Jindal, who has presidential ambitions of his own, must be giving his appearance some serious thought right about now,” it said.
Hence, the philosophy of white supremacism associated with the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis is compared to Catholicism. That’s the message this so-called “respectable” source of news and information is sending. Jindal rejected that. The governor’s spokesman said, “Governor Jindal looks forward to addressing the summit and speaking about what faith means to him.”
The summit is sponsored by Legatus, a group that upholds the teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality and other matters.
If Baier was speaking at or attending a fundraiser for the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), that would have been perfectly okay. After all, many Fox media stars, including Megyn Kelly, have done so in the past. In addition, Fox pours money directly into this important lobby in the homosexual movement, and it’s not even a controversy.
What’s fascinating in this case is that the attacks which forced Baier and actor Gary Sinise out of the Legatus conference do not involve opening fire on anybody’s editorial offices and murdering the offenders. These things are mostly done differently in America. I say “mostly” because of the terrorist attack on the Washington, D.C. offices of the Family Research Council (FRC) in 2012. That was inspired by a “hate map” posted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) pinpointing the location of the FRC. A security guard was injured as he stopped a homosexual militant from trying to carry out a massacre in the FRC offices.
In most cases, however, the weapons of character assassination, distortion, and anti-Christian bigotry will suffice. The purpose is to intimidate and ostracize those who dare to associate with groups affirming traditional standards of morality. One of the new tactics, as used by Mediaite, is to associate Catholics with racial extremists. This is a smear that is beneath contempt, but the gay lobby and its fellow travelers will stop at nothing.
The message that the site was sending to Jindal is that he risks his political future by associating with a notorious hate group called the Catholic Church. It was a threat disguised as news.
The leftists have no quarrel with the views of the pope on economic matters. And they certainly won’t quibble with his encyclical on climate change when he issues that in March. But challenging the morality of the lifestyle of so many in Hollywood and the media is something else. Questioning the homosexual lifestyle simply cannot be tolerated.
Jindal, who is a Catholic, didn’t succumb to the pressure. He had the intestinal fortitude to remain true to his beliefs. He understood that the attacks on Legatus were an attack upon his own faith. He couldn’t back down and maintain his own principles. Jindal’s decision to stand up to the modern totalitarians in the gay rights movement has to be seen as courageous.
Backing out is especially troubling in the case of Bret Baier, since his speaking appearance at the Legatus summit was for the purpose of talking about his own Catholic faith expressed in his book, Special Heart: A Journey of Faith, Hope, Courage and Love. He wasn’t there to talk about gay rights. Neither was Sinise, for that matter.
Baier, or his corporate bosses, have to take the blame for giving in to the pressure. We would have thought that the Fox News Channel would have stood firmly for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. It sets a terrible precedent that a “conservative” news channel, which became successful by speaking for many without a traditional voice in the liberal media, should bow at the altar of political correctness. Why they buckled to the pressure is a story in itself.
As we have pointed out, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith is allowed to pontificate on the air, including on behalf of the gay rights cause. But a Bret Baier speech about his book at a Catholic event is supposed to be offensive. This is the state of our media today.
The tactics used by the homosexual lobby have been perfected by such groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American-Islamic Relations against their enemies. What’s new is that the official Catholic Church teachings on human sexuality are now labeled as so offensive that people can’t even be associated with a group that promotes them. This is the kind of religious discrimination we have seen in countries like France against the Jews.
Some in the media called the summit “anti-gay,” which is a complete lie. As Legatus Executive Director John Hunt said in a statement, “Legatus embraces all that the Catholic Church teaches—nothing more, nothing less. Of course, at the core of all that the Church teaches is Christ’s unconditional love for every man and woman. While the Church has and always will teach about the morality of certain behaviors, these teachings are always to be understood in the context of the value of and respect for every human person.”
Turning Christian love into “hate” is an indication of how a situation can be twisted into something it’s not. This is how political correctness, a form of cultural Marxism, works in practice. The homosexual lobby has perfected this tactic of intimidation.
Hunt said the group’s members are only asking for the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs, “which includes the ability to gather together and discuss their faith.”
That such a meeting has become controversial, to the point where major figures in the media and Hollywood can be forced to back out, is a terrible reflection on the condition of the First Amendment right to free speech in America today. The news organizations that are involved in this silencing of freedom of expression have shown they have no understanding of what “I am Charlie” is all about.
Even while our media pay lip service to freedom of expression in France, the pressure to conform to the left-wing homosexual agenda continues in the U.S. and has now scored a direct hit on the Fox News Channel. Fox News personality Bret Baier has been forced to pull out of a Catholic Christian conference because of homosexual pressure.
Once again, for all the world to see, we have a stark example of how the freedom to object to the homosexual agenda is being denied to those in the news business.
Baier has been an outspoken conservative voice at the channel, hosting the blockbuster “13 Hours: The Inside Story,” a Fox News special featuring exclusive interviews with the American security operatives who fought on the ground during the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
The Baier case comes on the heels of the firing of Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran because of a book he wrote for a men’s Bible study group at his Baptist church that included statements in favor of traditional marriage and values.
A practicing Catholic who says his faith has pulled him through some family and personal turmoil, Baier carries the titles of Fox News Chief Political Anchor & Executive Editor and Anchor of “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
LifeSiteNews criticized Baier, saying that by backing out of a speaking engagement at a Catholic conference, he “has shown himself to have a thinner skin than might be guessed from his on-air persona.” But it appears, based on what is known about decision-making at the channel, that corporate pressure was behind the capitulation to the gay lobby.
Fox News Channel is a major contributor to the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), and recruits homosexuals at the group’s events.
While Baier is apparently being muzzled because of the Catholic credentials of the group he was scheduled to speak to, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith has been able to spout pro-homosexual views on the air, such as when he denounced Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day as the “National Day of Intolerance.” The outburst was triggered by a Chick-fil-A executive speaking out against gay marriage. Smith is said to be dating a young Fox News male staffer.
Baier was advertised as a speaker at a Catholic conference sponsored by Legatus, a group promoting Catholic teachings. The conference was to begin with the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, celebrated by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York.
Homosexual activists had demanded that Baier and other speakers withdraw because some Legatus material advocates that homosexuals change their lifestyle. Catholic teaching holds that the practice of homosexuality is a violation of Biblical standards of morality. But some gay militants assert that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change their sexuality under any circumstances.
The “Good as You” militant gay lobby group had attacked Legatus as “a very anti-gay organization of Catholics” because of passages in some of its material opposing the practice of homosexuality and saying that homosexuals can change.
Baier’s withdrawal from this conference stands in stark contrast to Fox News’ regular practice, carried out over many years, of providing financial support to the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). Fox News chief Roger Ailes has refused to discuss the ethics of these money transfers to the special interest group.
It is believed that these payments are a form of hush money to keep the gay lobby from complaining too loudly about the conservative orientation of some Fox News programs and personalities.
But that strategy went out the window with the Bret Baier fiasco involving Legatus, which is now making headlines across the country. “Bret Baier Withdraws from Legatus Summit” is one of many headlines resulting from the successful homosexual pressure campaign to force Baier out of the event.
Now the whole world can see that even the powerful Fox News Channel can be intimidated to toe the homosexual line. The thousands of dollars in payments to NLGJA did not keep the gay lobby at bay.
The conference that was supposed to feature Bret Baier also includes Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana. Actor Gary Sinise also withdrew under pressure, saying he didn’t want to look divisive.
Baier was asked in the Legatus interview, “You’re in a high-profile job with a ton of pressure. How does your faith help you?” He replied, “I rely on it heavily. I think it helps ground me. When the world is spinning faster and faster, the occasional close-the-door-and-meditate-in-prayer is helpful for anybody, no matter what your religion is. It’s the vehicle that takes you to that place and calms you down.”
But the pressure from the gay lobby has apparently proven to be too much for this Fox News personality. Or perhaps he was pressured to withdraw by his corporate bosses.
A Fox News spokesperson told LifeSiteNews that Baier pulled out of the Legatus conference “due to the controversy surrounding some editorial stances in the organization’s magazine.” The spokesperson added, “Bret accepted the invitation to speak about his book, his faith, and his son’s congenital heart disease. He was unaware of these articles or the controversy surrounding them.”
It is unclear why the “editorial stances” that are consistent with Catholic teaching should have been a surprise to the Fox News anchor, or why they should be controversial.
Baier was raised a Catholic, attends a Catholic Church in the Washington, D.C. area, and has raised money in the past for Catholic schools. He must surely be familiar with Catholic teachings on homosexuality and the role of Catholic groups like Legatus in promoting the official church position.
The only possible explanation is that the homosexual lobby is so powerful that even the mighty Fox News cannot stand up to the pressure it can generate.
The motto of Legatus is, “To study, live, and spread the Catholic Faith in our business, professional, and personal lives.” That now seems to be difficult to do at Fox News.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...