Tag Archives: Michael Brown

04/22/15

Gay marriage: a Trojan horse movement aimed at the heart of our Constitution

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes

The Left doesn’t care about gay rights, any more than they care about civil rights, welfare rights, minority rights, animal rights or any other “rights.” According to the Left, “the issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.” The various “rights” the Left has aggressively promoted over the years are merely vehicles to advance the Left’s power.

Consider: the welfare “rights” movement, founded by the notorious socialists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, was not established to guarantee welfare to the poor. As they said, their purpose was to pack the welfare rolls with so many beneficiaries that the government would collapse of its own weight. In the ensuing riots, they hoped policy makers would be driven to accept their socialist solution. In short, they sought anarchy, using a militant poor as their foot soldiers. They could care less what happened to the poor in prosecuting this agenda, and they said so. Doubt me? Just look at the status of the poor today. There are more people on welfare than at any time in history. And the crime and degeneracy that accompany it are epidemic.

Look at our country today. With manufactured crisis Strategist-in-Chief Obama, we are almost there, and Cloward and Piven’s intellectual descendants were out in force in Ferguson. The communist agitators seeking “social justice” for Michael Brown burned down the entire neighborhood. Do black lives matter to them? Apparently not. And they have even said so. The issue is not the issue.

Occupy Wall Street’s black anarchist organizer Nelini Stamp’s new group, Dream Defenders, popularized the slogan “Hands Up Don’t Shoot!” But prior to Ferguson there was Trayvon Martin. Working with Eric Holder’s DOJ, Stamp’s group was responsible for getting Sanford, Florida police chief Bill Lee fired. This despite the fact the FBI agreed with Lee’s assessment that there was no case against Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman. Did Stamp care about “Justice for Trayvon?” Not according to Stamp. “We are actually trying to change the capitalist system we have today, because it’s not working for any of us,” she said.

The Left uses “rights” agendas to wrap itself in the mantle of righteousness and seize the moral high ground, tactically putting us on the defense in the process. But they could care less about the actual issue except in its ability to facilitate their path to power.

The agenda is never the agenda for the Left. And this is especially true for gay marriage. Homosexual marriage is a Trojan horse tactic. The true agenda is to establish the primacy of homosexual rights over the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Our nation was founded on this principle, and the gay marriage movement seeks to destroy it.

Consider that Annise Parker, the lesbian mayor of Houston, Texas, demanded to review pastor’s church sermons before public outrage forced her to back off. We have already seen how small businesses have been singled out and attacked for refusing to provide certain services to gays.

What is less known is that these gay couples are frequently part of the movement. They deliberately seek out businesses known for their Christian owners. They deliberately demand a service they know in advance will be refused. When the inevitable happens they use it as pretext to destroy the business and savage its owners. Doesn’t it amaze you how quickly legal groups immediately materialize to assist in the attack? The fact that they got unexpected push back through a spontaneous crowd sourcing campaign to support one pizza shop will not dissuade them from future efforts. If gay marriage is adopted, their current Nazi behavior will look like child’s play compared to what’s coming.

This is a highly organized, nationwide campaign of vilification against Christians. But even Christians are not the ultimate target. If the First Amendment can be challenged this way; if a certain group’s “rights” can trump the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court can actually issue an edict making it so, then the entire Constitution has become meaningless. This is the Left’s true agenda and it always has been. This is the Cultural Marxists’ endgame. The issue is not the issue. The issue for them has always been destroying our country to impose socialism—with them in charge, of course. In order to do that they have to strip America of its culture, its traditions, and most importantly, the most important law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

We are almost there. Well-meaning liberals and even some conservatives who support the gay marriage agenda are unknowingly committing an act of betrayal against their own country. If the gay marriage agenda wins, those other rights guaranteed by the Constitution will immediately be at risk. Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America will be complete. Everyone in our country, including gays, will find all our rights summarily stripped. And if the gay lobby wants to see what that looks like for them, they should turn to Cuba, Russia or North Korea for their inspiration. It will not go well for them. The Left does not care about your rights. They care about one thing and one thing only: their power.

Yesterday I gave a presentation on cultural Marxism at the National Press Club. It was the latest of Cliff Kincaid’s many conferences held there over the years. I have attended and reported on many of them on these pages over the years. Keynote speaker was former presidential and senatorial candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes, a brilliant orator and Harvard-trained intellectual powerhouse who clearly explained what is at stake. His logic and legal reasoning was flawless and irrefutable. Following his act was quite a challenge for the rest of us on the panel. But together we painted a picture of what the true gay rights agenda looks like. This four-hour presentation will be available for viewing through Cliff’s website in a few days.

04/10/15

Sharpton Calls for “National Policing”

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Al Sharpton, President Obama’s “go-to man on race” as described by Politico last year, is at it again. After riling up the nation over false narratives about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Sharpton has found a case he can get behind where there appears to be little doubt this time that a white policeman, Michael Slager, brutally and unnecessarily shot to death an unarmed black man in South Carolina.

But in our justice system, even that cop deserves his day in court. After all, we were reminded of that right when on Wednesday, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty on 30 counts for his role in the Islamic terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon that resulted in four deaths.

Within hours of the release of the cell phone video of Walter Scott being shot dead in North Charleston, South Carolina, Sharpton announced that “It’s time for this country to have national policing,” adding “We can’t go from state to state, we’ve got to have national law to protect people against these continued questions.” Never mind that the cop in question was quickly charged with murder, fired from his job, and is being held in jail without bail. Once again, it appears that Sharpton draws the wrong lessons from such tragedies. No peace, no justice? Or is this what justice should look like? Sharpton announced yesterday that his organization, National Action Network, would stand with Scott’s family.

Jack Cashill, an outstanding journalist, recalls in his latest article just how those false narratives, including the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, take hold. Cashill cites the case of Rolling Stone’s false, and now retracted, story of a gang-rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. He makes the point that “all right thinking people were of one mind…on the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, a collective misreporting far more consequential than that of the Rolling Stone rape story.”

The mainstream media often treat MSNBC’s Sharpton like royalty, promoting his left-wing agendas while carefully avoiding mention of his conflicts of interest and continuing corruption. The Washington Post recently published a piece that serves as an ideal example of such biased coverage.

The piece, “Sharpton to lead advocacy campaign in advance of 2016 election,” written by Wesley Lowery, acts as a press release for Sharpton’s National Action Network’s radical civil rights agenda. Lowery described this agenda as promoting Loretta Lynch’s nomination to replace Eric Holder as attorney general, and “opposing state-level religious objections bills, seen as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, and pressing Congress to advance reforms of the criminal justice system.”

Accuracy in Media has extensively outlined how the mainstream media have worked first to stoke racial tension in places like Ferguson, Missouri and then called for criminal justice reform throughout the country, with Sharpton as one of the more vocal media mouthpieces.

“Although he is a lightning rod despised by many police groups, especially the New York Police Department, Sharpton is vowing to take a more considerate line,” reported Lowery.

“We demonstrate that we are serious when we say, ‘Let’s take the name-calling down,’ and when we’re willing to hear from everybody as long as they are serious in substance,” said Sharpton, according to Lowery. “We don’t need a season more of screaming. We need some real policy.”

Sharpton has a show, “PoliticsNation,” on MSNBC on weeknights. According to accusations in a $20 billion racial discrimination lawsuit, and public comments by Byron Allen, a black TV executive, Sharpton has his show on MSNBC “Because he endorsed Comcast’s acquisition of NBCUniversal.” Could that have been a factor in NBC getting the first interview with the gentleman who took the video of the shooting in North Charleston?

Sharpton’s MSNBC show wasn’t even mentioned by Lowery. Neither was his failure to pay back taxes, nor allegations of pay for play, nor that Sharpton was found liable for defamation in the Tawana Brawley case. And with Sharpton’s latest call for “national policing,” once again, Sharpton isn’t getting the media scrutiny he deserves.

03/20/15

The Ferguson Hoax and Media Truth-telling

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

You know the standards of the media have hit rock bottom when a liberal commentator makes news for telling the truth. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and MSNBC has become a media star for his belated recognition of the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie out of Ferguson, Missouri. Better late than never, except for the fact that this liberal narrative was always in dispute. There was never any legitimate reason to believe that Police Officer Darren Wilson had simply fired on Michael Brown for no reason.

The appropriate reaction to Capehart’s Damascus Road conversion to the truth should be: What took you so long? And what will you do to make sure you never fall for such a vicious lie again?

Don Irvine, the chairman of Accuracy in Media, notes in his blog on the AIM website that Capehart admitted the narrative was wrong after the Department of Justice found Wilson’s side of the story to be true. Capehart said, “What DOJ found made me ill.” Irvine commented, “I would be ill too if I had helped push a false narrative that gave fuel to the riots in Ferguson that have cost businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars, and ruined the career of Officer Wilson.”

The people who should be ill are those who depend on Capehart and others like him for the truth.  Capehart is just trying to recover some of the credibility he never had in the first place.

Those of us who don’t take Capehart and his ilk seriously as arbiters of truth are watching this celebration of his one-time truth-telling as an example of how, for much of the media, lies and distortions are the standard fare. Otherwise, why would telling the truth be so controversial?

But this case is much more than a few liberal commentators like Capehart taking the side of dishonesty and then waking up, months later, to what actually happened.

Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.

“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.

“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.

Flaherty adds, “The racial grievance industry and their beards in the press put on and took off each lie like a cheap suit. Cute kids made viral videos with the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ pose, and reminded white people of their relentless racism. Members of Congress followed from the floor of the House.

“The President talked about racists in Ferguson at the United Nations. The parents of Michael Brown were honored guests at the gala dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus. The President greeted them from the podium during his keynote speech to extended applause. Then he talked about Ferguson racism.

“The Attorney General traveled to Ferguson and made [a] ‘personal promise’ that he would stand with the people of Ferguson. As long as those people were not cops.”

Flaherty goes on, “Entire cable networks repeated the lie day after day, guest after guest, promo after promo. Death. Murder. White racism. How could we not see it? Were we so blind, so immersed in white privilege, like a fish unaware of the water?”

It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.

The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.

Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.

The media moved on to another issue, without bothering to emphasize how wrong they had been in the months before. This is the performance of a media that promotes and even prefers lies over the truth. The lies, after all, gin up racial controversy and ratings.

Flaherty asks: what about the CNN anchors who were holding the “Hands up, don’t shoot” signs on the air?

That’s a good question indeed. These included what we called a prominent example of the “fake conservatives” in the media, such as when Margaret Hoover joined her fellow CNN panelists in a “Hands up, don’t shoot” display based on the fiction that Brown was surrendering to the police when he was shot.

Hoover has written a book titled, American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party. This self-described conservative thinks she has the answer to saving the Republican Party. She engaged in that display despite the fact that she said the narrative had been discredited because of witness testimony from the grand jury.

So Hoover engages in something she knows to be untrue, simply because it is the fashionable thing to do. What does this say about her ethical standards? “As a reform Republican, who works for the GOP to broaden its base and reach new constituencies, I see no contradiction between supporting law enforcement and the policy solutions highlighted by these protesters,” Hoover says.

The “protesters” were not highlighting “policy solutions,” but a deadly and false narrative about alleged police violence. She could have told the truth. Instead, she participated on the air in a display of a false narrative.

Why doesn’t she have the decency to apologize? Why doesn’t CNN apologize?

Flaherty also wonders why, after the hoax was exposed, we didn’t hear one apology from the media. It’s because our media have no standards of ethical behavior and conduct. Instead, the media went on with their business, acting as if traffic tickets “justified all the rioting, vandalism, fire-bombing, looting, assaulting, attacks on police, gunfire and other mayhem in and out of Ferguson.”

The praise for Capehart for eventually telling the truth may be one way the media can attempt to atone for their sins in this coverage. But it’s not good enough.

02/24/15

Eric Garner & Trayvon Martin Family, Michael Brown Lawyer Say Al Sharpton Exploited Their Tragedies

Project Veritas

(New York, February 23, 2015) – Award-winning journalist and New York Times’ best-selling author James O’Keefe released a powerful new video today showing how the families, and attorneys of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown really feel about Al Sharpton. O’Keefe, president and founder of Project Veritas, led a team of investigative journalists to uncover how these families and the communities of Staten Island, NY; Miami, Florida; and Ferguson, MO really feel about Sharpton’s involvement in the aftermath of the deaths of Garner, Martin, and Brown.

O’Keefe’s latest video confirms and highlights what many have long suspected: Al Sharpton is motivated by avarice and pride, rather than social justice and bringing about change.

A member of O’Keefe’s team spoke with the late Eric Garner’s oldest daughter, Erica, on a brisk January evening in Staten Island. Garner did not hold back when asked about Sharpton’s involvement, stating: “he’s about the money.”

Garner, who has become a passionate champion for social change following the death of her father, accused Sharpton and his National Action Network of “attacking” her for not giving them credit; and trying to capitalize on her father’s death. “Instead of me, he wants his face in front of them,” said Garner of Sharpton.

Garner was visibly angered at Sharpton and the National Action Network. Indeed, rather than help, Garner felt as if Sharpton and NAN were trying to take advantage of her: “Al Sharpton paid for the funeral. She’s [Cynthia Davis, President of the Staten Island Chapter of NAN] trying to make me feel like I owe them,” a statement that shocked one of Garner’s friends who was speaking with Erica and a Project Veritas journalist.

In Florida, a Project Veritas investigative journalist spoke with Tracy Martin, the father of the late Trayvon Martin, at a banquet for the Trayvon Martin Foundation. Martin quickly distanced himself from Sharpton, stating: “he’s on his own personal mission.”

Troy Wright, the President and Executive Director of the Trayvon Martin Foundation, further distanced Martin’s family and the Martin Foundation from Sharpton. When asked about Sharpton and NAN, Wright responded “that’s a sore subject with us right now.” Indeed, all traces of Sharpton and NAN have recently been removed from the Foundation’s website. Wright also strongly insinuated to Project Veritas that a decision had been made not to invite Sharpton to a recent Foundation banquet.

O’Keefe’s team also spoke with prominent leaders in Ferguson, who were sharply critical of Sharpton. Bishop Calvin Scott, whose personal dealings with Sharpton in the aftermath of the Michael Brown tragedy left him critical of the MSNBC host, told Project Veritas that he “incites people for the wrong reason,” that he gets people “all fired up,” and that is “not the way you want to go.” Bishop Scott went as far as to place partial blame on Sharpton for inciting violence in Ferguson: pointedly stating “when you have a fuse that is already lit, you don’t need to add no more fire to it.”

When asked if Sharpton used the Michael Brown controversy to raise money, Bishop Scott told a Project Veritas journalist “you’re not the first person to raise that question… someone in the higher up that even mentioned… the history of an Al Sharpton, and an organization such as him, and they emphatically stated that… for them, knowing their history, it’s about money.”

Stacy Garner (no relation to Eric or Erica Garner) of Ferguson Christian Church told another member of O’Keefe’s team that he believed Sharpton was exploiting the Michael Brown tragedy for his own profit and that “instead of bringing us together, I think he was drawing us apart.”

“Sharpton’s perception of himself is a far cry from how he is perceived by the families and communities he thrust himself upon,” stated James O’Keefe. “By all accounts, Sharpton appears to be abusing the bully pulpit given to him by MSNBC to capitalize on tragedies. It was quite apparent from the number of individuals we spoke to that Sharpton views tragedies as opportunities, and that he is willing to do whatever it takes to further his personal agenda.”

02/23/15

Common Sense Profiling or Racial Bias by U.S. Police Departments?

By: Bethany Stotts
Accuracy in Media

With mainstream media figures such as Al Sharpton acting as race-hustlers, adding fuel to the conflagrations that grow up around police violence, the media establishment has given America’s political leaders cover to claim that last year’s Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases are evidence of endemic police discrimination. But FBI Director James Comey was supposed to strike a new, more moderate tone with his speech at Georgetown University on “hard truths” about law enforcement and race.

“In addressing race relations, Mr. Comey will be trying to do something that politicians and law enforcement leaders—including his boss, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.—have failed to do without creating significant backlash,” wrote Michael S. Schmidt for The New York Times in advance of his speech. If the Director’s speech didn’t invite racial backlash, it’s probably because most people don’t understand the parlance he’s speaking, and the media aren’t about to enlighten them as to how much Comey’s speech echoes the ongoing Department of Justice agenda to reeducate the police.

“In the past five years, Holder has more than doubled the number of police department probes compared with the previous five years, opening more than 20 investigations and pressuring 15 consent orders to stop ‘biased policing’ and other alleged violations,” wrote Paul Sperry for the New York Post last December. One such city was Seattle, where Professor Rachel D. Godsil questioned whether the DOJ-condemned excessive use of police force was due to racial bias.

“To overcome implicit bias in behavior requires people to consciously override their automatic assumptions and reactions,” wrote Godsil. “This is particularly true in policing when the stakes are so high.” She cites studies in which police reacted more negatively to dark-colored faces than white ones when making decisions.

Similarly, the Post’s Max Ehrenfreund picked up on one thing about Comey’s recent speech: the Director said that no one was colorblind and quoted from “Q’s Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” In other words, no matter how colorblind someone attempts to become, they, too, will fail at confronting their own unconscious stereotyping.

The FBI Director’s public admission that creating a completely unbiased person is an impossible goal was apparently “huge” to Ehrenfreund. And the Post reporter referred his readers to an online program which tests racial bias based on how participants sort white and black faces so that they, too, can identify their implicit racism.

“[Lorie] Fridell contrasted implicit bias with what most people think of as racism against minorities,” continues Ehrenfreud. “It doesn’t require any hostility toward those groups,” Fridell, a criminologist at the University of South Florida, said. “It can happen outside of conscious awareness, even in people who are well-intentioned and who reject biases and discrimination.” In other words, such allegations can hardly be quantified—and are therefore difficult to challenge.

“She said that her group, Fair and Impartial Policing, has received several times as many inquiries since Brown’s death as before,” Ehrenfreund continued.

Fridell has ongoing research-related contracts with the Department of Justice, though her opinions about the police are controversial.

“She [Fridell] believes legal definitions of unlawful discrimination are ‘outdated’ and should be broadened to include even unquantifiable prejudice against people of color that occurs ‘outside our conscious awareness,’” wrote Sperry.

“Social psychologists report that bias has changed in our society,” writes Fridell. “What these scientists have determined—through voluminous research on this topic—is that bias today is less likely to manifest as explicit bias and more likely to manifest as ‘implicit’ (or ‘unconscious’) bias.” The solution, she suggests, is counter-stereotyping, or exposing her participants to information “that is the opposite of the cultural stereotypes about the group.”

“By retraining cops’ minds to perceive blacks as less of a threat, Fridell hopes they’ll be less likely to use lethal force against black suspects,” writes Sperry. “Problem is, she’s never produced any empirical results to prove her theories actually work to reduce discriminatory policing. She admits it’s impossible to look at the actions of an individual cop and know for certain they were influenced by prejudice.”

As the goalposts for what constitutes racism or bias shifts in society, we are drifting dangerously toward subconscious vetting and reeducation efforts. Those efforts don’t match common sense or basic assumptions about human psychology. Should America be left with a “modernized” and “de-biased” police force whose members hesitate to make decisions based on prior life experience?

Such psychological experimentation could add a deadly edge to life-or-death confrontations, and could change the instincts of a police officer at a key moment.

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos last year, Darren Wilson, the policeman who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, said, “All I wanted to do was live. That was it.”

“And you’re absolutely convinced, when you look through your heart and your mind, that if Michael Brown were white, this would have gone down in exactly the same way?” responded Stephanopoulos, intent on vetting for subconscious bias—or, at least, securing a good headline.

The mainstream media champion assertions of widespread racism, or at least unconscious bias, because they believe such factors caused the deaths of Brown and Garner, despite evidence to the contrary. Wilson was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing, and eventually of any federal civil rights violations as well.

On the surface, the FBI Director’s speech seemed to call for moderation in this debate made hotter by the media spotlight. “Debating that nature of policing is very important, but I worry that it has become an excuse, at times, to avoid doing something harder,” said Director Comey, going on to say that police enlist because they want to help people and that there isn’t a racist epidemic in that profession.

Rather, he argues, police confront “cynicism.” It isn’t racism that causes the disproportionate number of blacks to end up in jail, but because “young people in ‘those neighborhoods’ too often inherit a legacy of crime and prison,” he said.

However, “Those of us in law enforcement must redouble our efforts to resist bias and prejudice,” said Comey. Something “happens to people in law enforcement,” he said.

“The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others the officer has locked up,” he said. “Two white men on the other side of the street—even in the same clothes—do not. …We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve.” But he still doesn’t think the police are racists.

No, apparently they just are unconsciously biased, jaded, or “cynics” using mental shortcuts.

02/12/15

Of Double Standards and Triple Homicides: Media Malpractice and the North Carolina Murders

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

On the night of Sept. 11, 2011, three men were brutally murdered in Waltham, Massachusetts — their throats slashed and bodies covered in marijuana.

Despite the gruesome nature of the crime, which one investigator described as “the worst bloodbath” he had ever seen, the national media would have never reported on this story, let alone identified the Jewish religion of at least two of the slain, had Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a Muslim and close friend of the third victim, not carried out the Boston bombing.

In fact, in spite of Tsarnaev’s ties to the victims of these yet unsolved murders, to this day articles almost specifically de-emphasize the date of the crime, the fact that as the same investigator described it, the victims’ wounds were akin to those of “an Al-Qaeda training video,” and the religion of the slain.

Contrast this story with the horrific news that three Muslims were murdered execution style in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Suzanne Askar, right, rests her head on the shoulder of Safam Mahate, a student at North Carolina State University, as they stand next to Nida Allam, far left, during a vigil for three people who were killed at a condominium near UNC-Chapel Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, in Chapel Hill, N.C. Craig Stephen Hicks appeared in court on charges of first-degree murder in the Tuesday deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha. (AP Photo/The News & Observer, Al Drago)

Suzanne Askar, right, rests her head on the shoulder of Safam Mahate, a student at North Carolina State University, as they stand next to Nida Allam, far left, during a vigil for three people who were killed at a condominium near UNC-Chapel Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, in Chapel Hill, N.C. Craig Stephen Hicks appeared in court on charges of first-degree murder in the Tuesday deaths of Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha. (AP Photo/The News & Observer, Al Drago)

Unlike in the Waltham triple homicide, this story was explicitly reported as I just laid it out – a man killed three Muslims – a man, mind you, who many reports neglected to note is a militantly anti-religious atheist progressive.

In spite of the fact that stories ran across practically every major publication, with articles from The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal referring to a triple murder of Muslims, social media exploded, with individuals appalled that the crime was somehow being ignored.

The #MuslimLivesMatter hashtag, adopted from the #blacklivesmatter hashtag created in the wake of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases went viral, signaling presumably that people believe atrocities are being carried out against Muslims en masse.

The juxtaposition of these two stories is instructive when it comes to today’s media.

While we might excuse the media in the case of the Waltham homicide for originally ignoring the date, nature of murder and religious identity of the victims, given their involvement with marijuana and law enforcement’s original public hypothesis that the murder was drug related, it is telling that these facts continue to be largely ignored in coverage of the murders.

Conversely, in the case of the Chapel Hill murders, religion was explicitly injected into the story from the start, leading many readers naturally to ascribe an anti-Muslim motive to the triple homicide. Meanwhile, local police believe the murders stemmed from an altercation over a parking space.

It is ironic that in the wake of President Barack Obama’s remarks about a “random” attack by a Muslim terrorist on a Kosher supermarket — note that the White House will not call it a jihadist attack on Jews — in the case of the victims in North Carolina, again from the start they were identified as Muslims. Randomness is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

French police officers storm a kosher grocery to end a hostage situation, Paris, Friday, Jan. 9, 2015. Explosions and gunshots were heard as police forces stormed a kosher grocery in Paris where a gunman was holding at least five people hostage. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

French police officers storm a kosher grocery to end a hostage situation, Paris, Friday, Jan. 9, 2015. Explosions and gunshots were heard as police forces stormed a kosher grocery in Paris where a gunman was holding at least five people hostage. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

In any event, can you think of another case where the media identified the victim(s) by religion?

Can you think of another case where the media identified the victimizer(s) by religion?

In recent instances of Muslim crimes against non-Muslims, whether an axe attack on New York Police Department officers in New York, a beheading in Oklahoma, or the systemic rape and abuse in Rotherham, almost universally the media initially and often ultimately excludes details about the Muslim identity of the attackers.

Instead we are left with euphemisms for the perpetrators, such as that they are “North African” or “Asian.”

In the case of the Middle East, where Western media reports are notoriously anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish, we get stories about Israelis killing two Arabs in a mosque, only later to include the minor detail that these two Arab terrorists were killed in an act of self defense, and then only after they terrorists had murdered five Jews in a synagogue.

One case among all others perhaps best illustrates the media’s unwillingness to put truth above narrative. In one of the most egregious and egregiously neglected stories of all, as we reported last year, Anders Breivik — the Nordic terrorist responsible for killing 77 people and injuring 319 more in a July 2011 rampage in Sweden — by his own admission committed a false-flag attack meant to discredit the counterjihadists and Zionists with whom he claimed allegiance. To this day, almost no others outlets have reported on this.

While journalists should not be selecting and/or framing stories to fit their own worldview to begin with, it would be one thing if these narratives had some basis in fact. But frequently, the evidence directly contradicts the story that the media would like to paint.

In America, according to the most recently available FBI hate crime statistics, it is Jews, not Muslims, who are the most discriminated against of all religious minorities, disproportionately targeted in a staggering 60 percent of all religion-based hate crimes, a rate four times as high as that of Muslims.

In Europe, the Jewish population has continued to plummet precipitously, with Jews from France to Great Britain leaving as anti-Semitism and Islamic supremacism have increased, sentiments that are inherently interrelated.

In Israel, it suffices to say that were its enemies to lay down its arms tomorrow, there would be peace; if Israel were to lay down its arms tomorrow, it would be blown to pieces.

Keen watchers of the media will note that a similar pattern of narrative-setting in reporting occurs in the coverage, or lack thereof, of black-on-white or black-on-black versus white-on-black crimes, and/or cop-on-civilian versus civilian-on-cop killings.

To adopt an Orwell saying, when it comes to the media, some victim(s)/victimizer(s) are more equal than others.

Identity matters only insofar as it serves a political narrative.

These journalistic sins of omission and commission, used to craft a political message, are antithetical to the truth-seeking purpose of the profession.

With the special rights and protections granted to the press comes an obligation to soberly and objectively inform the citizenry.

Today in America, and throughout the West, this obligation is being disgracefully dishonored.

01/19/15

Exclusive!!! Moscow Conference Unites ‘Ferguson’, ‘Palestine’, Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine, US Hard Left and ‘Crazy Right’ – a Warning to America

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Hard on the heels of news that US Black radicals are connecting with Palestinian revolutionaries, come even more disturbing revelations.

In December of 2014, a conference was held in Moscow that united the black struggles in the United States, the “Palestinian” uprising, the Russian sponsored Ukrainian breakaway province now known as Novo rossiya (New Russia), separatist movements from Europe, Asia and even the Southern United States, with the US hard left and some elements of the “crazy right.”

bear

For the conference video, go here

The conference mirrored current Russian geo-political strategy. In search of a “multi-polar” world, Russia is reaching out to its hard left communist allies and to elements of the disaffected nationalist “right” to create chaos in the Middle East, Europe and particularly the United States.

This conferences is part of an anti-Western propaganda war as vicious as anything seen in Soviet times. Its aim is to destabilize and humble, then destroy, Israel and the US.

If the campaign succeeds in destroying “US hegemony” or “uni-polarity,” Russia, China. Iran and their neo-communist and Islamic allies will rule this planet.

Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and Building a Multipolar World was a conference held in Moscow on December 13, 2014, hosted by the Anti-Globalization Movement (AGM) of Russia.

Go to the conference KeyWiki page here.

The conference brought together activists from Novorossiya (Donetsk and Lugansk), TransDniester, Iran, Syria, the Serb Republic, Italy, the United States and several regions of the Russian Federation. The conference was opened by AGM President Alexander Ionov. Other speakers included Oleg Tsarev, the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia and Alexander Kofman, the minister of foreign affairs of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

According to a report from Moscow’s Press TV:

What brought together the participants of Moscow anti-globalization conference is an objective necessity of uniting major public and political organizations, struggling with the ideology of global imperialism domination. Right now it’s time to make real and serious step on the way to multipolar world, stop the civilian population genocide in conflict areas as well as to accept those who are fighting for their rights. Special attention was focused on the peoples right to self-determination. The existing world order is depriving the inhabitants of Novorossiya, Flanders, Catalonia, Texas, Alaska and Scotland and their legitimate right to self-determination, guaranteed to them by the UN Charter. The anti-globalization conference in Moscow was held to find out methods for resisting the ideology of global domination. Participants also discussed how to counter the EU and US policy of undermining sovereignty of independent states by orchestrating what is known as “colored” revolutions.

Conference delegates

Conference delegates

Delegates from organizations around the globe attended, including the Marxist dominated Scottish Nationalist Party, the Catalan Electoral Alliance Convergence and Union, The “rightist” New Flemish Alliance from Belgium and the Venetian Independence Movement.

Participants heard presentations by a number of “leaders from Novorossia (the area declared independent by the people of Eastern Ukraine), leading Russian journalists, representatives of the Italian European Communitarian movement, a representative from Srpska, the Serbian section of Bosnia, Israel Shamir, a leading anti-Zionist writer from Israel and others.”

Major themes of the discussion were the “U.S.-backed war against the people of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine; the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Union and economic war against Russia, Venezuela and Iran; and the ongoing uprising against racism and police brutality in the United States.”

Activists from Donetsk, Lugansk and Odessa “eloquently described the atrocities and humanitarian catastrophe Washington’s proxy war is inflicting on the people of Novorossiya and the urgent attempts to bring medicine and food to that besieged region. The U.S. role in Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people was also on the agenda… Speakers also condemned the U.S.-NATO proxy war against Syria and U.S.-NATO crimes in Libya, Yugoslavia and the TransDniester Republic.”

According to US website UHURUNEWS.COM:

Our panel discussion will include delegations from Venezuela, Iran, Italia, Catalonia, Novorossia, USA, Flanders, France, etc. Famous Russian social and political leaders, human rights activists, members of Russian parliament and other honorable guests are expected to appear.

Essential attention will be given to a detailed report on the events in the American city of Ferguson prepared by one of the leaders of the Black Is Back Coalition, who participated in a series of large peaceful protests held in many cities of the United States.

Five Americans from the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) attended the Moscow conference. They were Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report and the UNAC Administrative Committee; Joe Iosbaker of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, the Rasmea Odeh defense campaign and the UNAC Administrative Committee; Bill Doares of the International Action Center: women’s rights activist, Mo Hannah; and UNAC Co-Coordinator, Joe Lombardo.

US delegates Bill Doares, Margaret Kimberley, Joe Lombardo, Joe Iosbaker

US delegates Bill Doares, Margaret Kimberley, Joe Lombardo, Joe Iosbaker

United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) is dominated by the pro-North Korea/Cuba/Venezuela/Zimbabwe/Russia and Iran Workers World Party – which has been heavily involved in recent anti-police rioting in the US. Its leading body also contains a representative from the Muslim Peace Coalition and another from the Filipino revolutionary support group Bayan USA.

Delegate Bill Doares is a long time WWP member, while Joe Lombardo was a guest at the Party’s 2014 national convention.

Joe Iosbaker is a leader of the Maoist leaning Freedom Road Socialist Organization. He and and several leaders of his group were raided by the FBI in 2010, for their alleged support for Palestinian and Latin American revolutionaries.

Iosbaker incidentally was once part of the Marxist led Chicago New Party – as was President Barack Obama.

FRSO has also been heavily involved in recent anti-police rallies and demonstrations.

Marina Dudanova, who is active in the Antiwar Committee in Chicago, a UNAC affiliated group, also attended on her own and spoke at the conference. She is a Russian from TransDniester, which is part of Moldavia. She spoke on the situation of the Russian minority in Moldavia.

Dr. Michael Hill, President of The League of the South, an anti-Washington, neo-Confederacy group spoke (by Skype) to the conference:

Hill discussed The League of the South and its goal of the survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people and how the South’s identity as an historic “blood and soil” nation conflicts with the current globalist agenda of the USA regime. He emphasized the importance of The League’s work not only in preserving a particular people living on a particular land, but also its direct Southern nationalist challenge to the political, economic, and financial engine of globalism—the Washington, DC/European Union alliance.

Daniel Miller’s Texas Nationalist Movement was also invited:

The Texas Nationalist Movement has been invited, alongside other representatives from independence movements around the world, to an international conference in Moscow in December.

The four day conference, hosted by the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, will discuss such issues as the sphere of the sovereignty, the practical realization of the people’s right for self-determination, the influence of the Internet on independence movements, and mechanisms of the geopolitical influence with the help of legal institutions.

TNM will be the lone representative from Texas.

The UNAC delegate’s report is pure Russian propaganda. Some of it reads reads like the starry-eyed letters sent back home by US visitors to Comrade Stalin’s “worker’s paradise” in the 1930s.

During dinner one evening, we also spoke at length with one of the fighters for the defense forces in Donetsk. He lived in Kiev during the Euromaidan protests and initially joined the protests on the pro-Maidan side. It became clear to him that neo-Nazis were playing a leadership role and were fomenting anti-Russian sentiment. He eventually left Kiev and joined the defense forces in the East. He explained that they have been holding back the Kiev forces. He also said that in July, they had hopes that Russia would join their fight, but by August it was clear that such a move would cause a direct conflict with the U.S. and NATO and possibly a world war, which Russia could not risk.

.Later, we attended a demonstration at the US Embassy organized by our Russian hosts. At the demonstration, we chanted, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” and carried signs with the logos of UNAC and the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia in support of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. We laid flowers in front of the Embassy in honor of the murdered men.

Moscow is a modern city much like any large U.S. city. The people were dressed well, and looked healthy and cared for. We learned that many of the social benefits that existed under the Soviet Union still exist. These include free universal healthcare. For most people, college was free, and students received a stipend for their living expenses. Putin is very popular with a high approval rating among the Russian people. The people see him as a kind of populist leader.

If the UNAC delegates loved Russia, they showed nothing but contempt for their own country.

From Joe Lombardo’s speech:

US delegate Joe Lombardo address the conference

US delegate Joe Lombardo addresses the conference

The movement in the United States has taken heart from other mass rebellions, such as those in Tunisia and Egypt. Though these revolutionary uprisings have suffered setbacks, we saw the tremendous power of mass of people in the streets. Such mass movements were able to topple entrenched dictatorships that had strong U.S. backing. The Occupy movement in the United States tried to copy this, and parks were occupied for weeks in cities all across the country. Though these movements did not bring about a changed government in the U.S. and were defeated by the police, the movement learned a lot from the experience. We got a new vocabulary. We now talk about the 1% who rule our country and the 99% who are ruled for their benefit. We learned that unlike during the Vietnam protests, we don’t want to just protest and get back on our buses and go home. We need to sustain our protests over a period of time.

When Michael Brown, a black teenager was shot down and killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Missouri, the Ferguson community protested and sustained their protests, coming out every day and confronting a militarized police force. This gave heart to the movement, and so the U.S. is now in the midst of mass protests in cities all across the country. The spark of Ferguson has lit a tremendous fire, and however this rebellion ends, we can never go back. There is a new political consciousness, especially in the Black and Latino communities that will not go back to the old status quo. There is a new political reality in the United States today.

From Margaret Kimberly’s speech “Ferguson and American history”:

But in truth, black Americans have always been under the most surveillance, and are the most controlled group of people in the country. This level of control goes back to enslavement in the earliest days of American settler history and impacts us all two hundred years later. Slavery could not exist as an institution without police state terror and the legacy of that history continues until the 21st century and thus Ferguson.

The truth is this. The police in the United States are the 21st slave patrol and unless Americans acknowledge that fact, grand juries like the one in Ferguson, Missouri will issue verdicts that allow them to kill at will. This was a very difficult year for anyone concerned about police misconduct. In July a New York City man named Eric Garner died in what a coroner ruled a homicide at the hands of police. His killer was also not indicted. Two weeks ago a 12-year old child with a toy gun was killed by police in Cleveland, Ohio, a state which has laws on the books allowing for open carrying of firearms.

From Joe Iosbaker’s speech “Rasmea Odeh: Political Prisoner, and the case of the 23 anti-war and international solidarity activists”:

Rasmea Odeh is an activist in the Palestinian community in Chicago and is now a political prisoner. In a Federal Court in November 2014, she was convicted of a violation in her immigration application in 2004. This mockery of justice was a political trial masquerading as a criminal trial.

The case against her grew out of the investigation of 23 anti-war and Palestinian community organizers in Chicago and Minneapolis, who were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in 2010. I am speaking today because I was one of those activists. My home was raided by 25 FBI agents on September 24th, 2010. They came after me because I had been a leader in a large protest against the Iraq War, and because I am a supporter of the cause of the Palestinian people.

The grand jury is investigating myself and the 23 activists for allegations that we provided “material support of terrorism.” This is a lie. The FBI and the Justice Department investigated us and are attempting to “criminalize” efforts to empower Chicago’s Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities, as well as work to build solidarity with the struggle in Palestine.

From Bill Doares’ speech, “NO TO WORLD WAR!!”:

It is in our interest to stand in solidarity with the people of the world who are resisting imperialism. And we call upon people around the world to stand in solidarity with the national uprising now raging in the United States against police terror and mass incarceration. The US police state and prison-industrial complex be part and parcel of the global US war machine, and the freedom struggle of Black, Latino, Native and other people of color against racist oppression is its Achilles heel.

We stand with those around the world who are standing up to imperialism, with the freedom fighters of Novorossiya and Palestine, with all those who seek to build a different world, from Africa, Latin America, East Asia, the Middle East and here in Russia in the heartland of Eurasia. We say no to war, no to sanctions! No to imperialism, yes to a multipolar world, yes to global equality, yes to international solidarity! Together we will win!

From Mo Hannah’s speech:

Warm greetings from the people of the U.S.A. I know that a group like the one gathered here already knows this, but just to remind you, we delegates from the U.S. hate what the U.S. government is doing as much as or even more than our brothers and sisters who are being harmed by its horrific actions across the world. Although we hate this regime, we love our country. We also love the rest of the world, which is one reason why we are here in Mother Russia.

The same devious exploitation perpetrated by U.S. empire builders as they back the most brutal forces in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and other places in the word is also reflected in how the U.S. court system treats women and children. I could spend hours discussing what happens to divorcing and separating women in the U.S. who are victims of domestic violence—but you need only look at how the U.S. treats other disadvantaged groups–especially, of course, unarmed black, brown, and other non-white citizens like Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City, Trayvon Martin in Florida, and countless others—to get an idea.

I myself do not take personal responsibility for the wickedness of the masters of empire, but I do take responsibility, as you do, for doing whatever I can to fight back.

Not content with speech-making, the delegation gave several radio interviews and took part in a press conference on December 15, with Russian and foreign media.

This was followed by a December 17, demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy protesting racism, police brutality and political repression in the U.S. Demonstrators carried photos of Mike Brown, Eric Garner and Rasmea Odeh and chanted, “Hands up! Don’t shoot” and “I can’t breathe!” The protesters “laid flowers outside the embassy in memory of Mike Brown, Eric Garner and others murdered by the U.S. state apparatus.”

AGM President Alexander Ionov with AGM members and UNAC Co-Coordinator Joe Lombardo outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

AGM President Alexander Ionov with AGM members and UNAC Co-Coordinator Joe Lombardo outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

On December 16, the UNAC delegation met with the Embassy of the State of Palestine Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Dr. Fa’ed Mustafa.

“First on the agenda” was to talk with Ambassador Mustafa about the case of Rasmea Odeh, the Palestinian activist from Chicago and the “newest political prisoner in the U.S.”

Bill Doares, Joe Iosbaker, Dr. Fa’ed Mustafa, Mo Hannah, Joe Lombardo

Bill Doares, Joe Iosbaker, Dr. Fa’ed Mustafa, Mo Hannah, Joe Lombardo

He urged our delegation to link her case to the stories of thousands of Palestinians who are also falsely arrested and imprisoned, tortured and brutalized by the Israelis.

Finally, we expressed to him that the U.S. government complicity with the Israeli occupation in Rasmea Odeh’s case exposes their overall role as the main backer of Israel’s occupation”.

Every old Soviet conference ended with a stirring “declaration” – a call to action and this modern version did not disappoint – it even obliquely attacked National Security Agency Intelligence gathering. The NSA is of course the body charged with monitoring people just like this delegation.

The world is changing. And, unfortunately, it is changing for the worse. The worsening geopolitical situation calls on us to support the nations and peoples who oppose the dictate [of] a unipolar world and seek to propose an alternative agenda. [The] progressive part of mankind stands for the development of international cooperation and solidarity, respectful of other peoples, their sovereignty, values and lifestyles as opposed to the current destructive manifestations of the “new world order”: the barbaric exploitation of the majority of the world population, the destruction of national sovereignty and spiritual foundations of society, [and the] suppression of sovereignty of personality through the illegal collection of information.

Then came the inevitable attack on US foreign policy:

Organizations participating in the international panel discussion urge people worldwide to unite and establish a united front against discrimination, violation of human rights, religious and racial intolerance. We condemn the crimes and murders perpetrated against the people of Novorossia. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the innocent victims in Odessa, Lugansk and Donetsk. We strongly condemn political repression, particularly in countries that have positioned themselves as democratic nations.

The interference in the affairs of sovereign states, the sponsorship and support of extremist and terrorist entities are unacceptable in the XXI century. Events in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine demonstrate the predatory foreign policy of the U.S. and its NATO allies. Local conflicts have affected more people than those affected during World War II. The U.N. no longer performs [its] role as peacekeepers, as more than 70 armed conflicts have taken place since the establishment of the organization.

Then the country that murders journalists, jails opponents of the regime, supports global insurrection and invades sovereign countries at will, had this to say about US human rights – even invoking the names of FBI agent murderer Leonard Peltier and cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal:

The U.S. government has depressing statistics in the field of human rights. The latest example of political repression is Rasmea Odeh, an activist of the Palestinian community of Chicago, who is a political prisoner now. The U.S. Department of Justice has sent her to the tribunal because her migration card had no information about the fact that in 1969 she was imprisoned in Israel by the Israeli military court based on the information extracted under torture. As part of the support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the U.S. government supports the Israeli occupation and military courts. Rasmea’s torture was part of a series of repressions against [the] pro-Palestinian movement in the United States. We demand the release of Rasmea Odeh and an end to the U.S. support for the occupation of Palestine!

African Americans, [Latinos/as] and other minorities are oppressed in the U.S. We condemn the systematic killings by the police in the USA!

We condemn the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Eric Garner in New York City and many others!

We support the protests in the U.S. cities as part of their struggle for freedom from police brutality, against mass defiance of human rights by the police, and call for the release of political prisoners such as Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal!

We call upon the people of the United States to take activities of the police under their control and demand investigation into the atrocities committed by the police officers!

And the Grand Finale!!!

The time of retreat has passed! It’s time for advancing! This Declaration is the first step toward the consolidation of the progressive part of mankind! We will make every effort to build a multipolar world! We are the alternative!

This conference could not have occurred without Russian government support. Its program is completely in line with Russian strategy.

It is evidence that Moscow is working with both its old leftist base and less than stable elements of the “right” to export chaos and revolution to the West.

The United States is led by Barack Obama, a man who comes from a similar background to many of the activists profiled above.

His views are the same as theirs. He’s just acting at a much higher level. His goal is the same though – to bring his country to its knees.

As my book The Enemies Within:Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress details, the leadership of the Democratic Party has been co-opted by people of similar views – as sadly have some elements of the GOP.

Many libertarians and paleo-conservatives, though completely sound on the Constitution, have been completely gulled by Russian propaganda and now believe the US government and military as the biggest threats to their lives and liberty. Many of them believe that Russia and China are morally superior to their own country!!!

Part of the “responsible right” has even fallen under Putin and his propaganda machine’s spell. Pat Buchanan loves Putin. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California, a good man and a true Reagan conservative, wants to use Russia as an ally against China!! Russia and China ARE allies against the West.

Just Google the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Many Western Christians and conservatives think that Putin will ally with the Russian Orthodox Church to save us all from Islam.

The cruel hoax there is the that Putin’s Soviet KGB/Russian FSB has always controlled the Orthodox Church, just as it controls much of Islam.

That leaves the defense of the West down to a very small strata of thinking conservatives, who understand that Russia/China/Iran/Cuba/Venezuela/North Korea and radical Islam are all allies and mortal enemies of the West. That these forces have infiltrated every Western country to the highest levels and are now empowering street level agitators to weaken and divide us.

To end this threat, to save the West, security has to be strengthened both externally – and internally. The US military must be cleansed of political correctness, adequately funded and modernized. The Western Alliance must be re-strengthened. That’s a no-brainer.

How much should America and the West spend on National Defense? How much should you spend on household insurance? Whatever it takes to adequately protect you.

Do you think that Putin would begin the re-conquest of Europe, that the Middle East would be on fire, that terrorists would be infiltrating the Southern Border, that China would be bullying its neighbors, if Ronald Reagan was currently Commander-in-Chief of the US military?

But even more importantly, America must begin to take internal security seriously again. More than 100 Democratic Congress members and Senators could not pass a basic FBI security clearance to clean the toilets at any military base in the United States. And neither could the President.

If the new Republican Congress refused to seat any Congress member onto any Congressional Committee without an FBI background check, all hell would break loose. The GOP would lose a few of their own, but the Democrats would be decimated.

The United States of America is under assault from the rulers of Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, Havana, Caracas, thousands of mosques (foreign and domestic), the AFL-CIO, the Communist Party USA, the Workers World Party, Democratic Socialists of America, many elements of the Federal Government, a third of Capitol Hill and the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Winning the first “Cold War” was not the “end of history,” but losing this one certainly would be.

Thinking conservatives and patriots know what has to be done to save the Republic and the West.

Everything we hold dear is at stake. There is no time to lose.

01/7/15

Stonewall is not Selma

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

President Obama has celebrated anti-police riots at a New York City gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, saying, “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma and Stonewall…”

With the new film “Selma” opening on Friday, Obama’s claim deserves some serious scrutiny from the media. In Selma in 1965, protesters were met with force and violence from the police. Martin Luther King, Jr. had led thousands of nonviolent demonstrators from Selma, Alabama to the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama. At Stonewall in 1969, gay protesters waged war on the police. Obama apparently can’t see the difference. (Seneca Falls is the name of the city in New York that served as the location for an 1848 conference on the rights of women in society.)

Our forebears were rioting homosexuals at a bar waging a war on the police? That’s what Obama is saying. What’s more, he’s comparing homosexuals fighting the police to blacks marching for their rights, including the right to vote.

The truth, as the video “From Selma to Stonewall” shows, is that the homosexual demands for political power based on their sexual needs and desires were far different than black people peacefully seeking their civil rights through protests and demonstrations. “Gay is not the new black,” notes the narrator, Eric Holmberg.

What’s more, in 1969 Stonewall was a location for men known as chicken hawks wanting sex with underage boys. Some of the homosexuals were, indeed, harassed by law enforcement. But the police who raided the place were also getting complaints about homosexuals having sex on the streets and in public bathrooms, and their use of illegal drugs.

Nevertheless, the date of the raid and the riots, June 28, 1969, is now “celebrated” as a “gay pride” event.

The far-left view, which has been embraced by Obama, is that violence can be a necessary part of progressive “change,” and that the Stonewall riots were a milestone on the road to equality.

In the case of the riots in Ferguson, the latest example of progressive change, recent documents obtained by Judicial Watch show high-level Justice Department involvement. Judicial Watch reported that the documents “suggest that the [Justice Department] unit deployed to Ferguson took an active role in working with those fomenting unrest and demanding the prosecution of police officer [Darren] Wilson. As indicated by their own activities, the CRS [Community Relations Service] agents were not there to impartially advance the broad public interest. Instead, we learned from the documents that the CRS made every effort to advance a political agenda in tandem in special interests whose only goal was to stir up racial unrest.”

So while we face foreign threats of violence, our own Justice Department stirs things up domestically. In New York City, that has meant the murder of two police officers.

The complete story of the “Ferguson rebellion,” as the Marxists call it, has yet to be written. Meanwhile, under Obama’s direction, the National Park Service is actually designating the Stonewall Inn as a National Historic Landmark, saying, “Stonewall is nationally significant because it is associated with events that outstandingly represent the struggle for civil rights in America.”

These attacks on police are celebrated as “progress” on the road of Marxist dialectical change. So perhaps the Ferguson riots will also become the scene of a national historic landmark.

We had noted back in 2009 in our piece titled, “Obama Celebrates Anti-Police ‘Gay’ Riots,” that “Several police officers trying to enforce the law at the sleazy establishment [Stonewall] were injured by violent homosexuals.” Police had to defend themselves and the community against violent protesters.

Police reports say that one of the victims was a police officer “treated at nearby Saint Vincent’s Hospital after being bitten on the right wrist by a Stonewall rebel.” One officer was beaten about the face with an “unknown object,” one was hit in the eye and injured, and another was shoved and kicked.

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced earlier this year “a new theme study to identify places and events associated with the story of LGBT Americans for inclusion in the parks and programs of the National Park Service.” She made the announcement outside the Stonewall Inn.  This was followed, on June 10, by a National Park Service “scholars roundtable” regarding this initiative.

Jewell declared at the event, “I had a great day, one of the best days in my 14 months or so in this chair about 10 days ago. That was at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village when we announced the National Park Service’s undertaking this theme study. It was a great day.”

Tim Gill joined Jewell at the Stonewall event. He is the founder of Quark, Inc., a computer software company worth $500 million. The Gill Foundation, which now claims assets of $260 million, has been described as the largest funder of gay and lesbian causes in the United States.

Gill is also the major financial supporter of the National Park Service campaign to “celebrate” the riots at Stonewall, and find other places to designate as critical to the homosexual struggle. The study is called a “public-private partnership,” with funding provided by the Gill Foundation through the National Park Foundation.

How far will the recognition of “gay rights” go? Just  a few doors down from the Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street in New York City is a place that sells various sexual devices, blindfolds, handcuffs, and even a cage for one’s sexual “partner.” So-called “leather pride” is a prominent aspect of homosexual rights today. A few doors down is a “New Age” shop with crystals, incense, and books about witches. In the same vicinity is a “head shop” featuring marijuana smoking devices.

The life and times of Harry Hay, a communist agitator for homosexual rights and “man-boy love,” could receive a special designation as well.

A “Spirit of Stonewall” proclamation was issued in 1994 arguing that “man-boy love” had to be recognized as an important part of homosexual history and conduct. Hay, the founder of the modern gay rights movement and member of the Communist Party, was one of the signers. Hay had been upset that sexual abusers of children were not permitted to march in the regular gay pride parade.

The North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrates his contributions to their “struggle.”  NAMBLA calls them “intergenerational relationships.”

The National Historic Landmark Nomination form for the Stonewall Inn notes that Hay had spoken of the “magnificent Stonewall Rebellion [which] erupted here in New York City…revealing in a flash our next new concept…gay—as a socially viable collective identity.” It refers to Hay’s demonstration for adult-child sex as merely an “alternative march” in 1994.

But Hay is not alone in the homosexual rights movement for his support of sex with children.

On October 10, 2009, Obama mentioned Stonewall, as well as his “great friend and supporter, Terry Bean,” a co-founder of the major homosexual lobby, the Human Rights Campaign.  Obama referred to “the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens—(applause)—when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.”

Bean has since taken a leave of absence from the Human Rights Campaign after he was arrested on sexual abuse charges involving sex with a minor.

Charles C. Johnson of GotNews reports that through the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, Bean financed a film called “Dream Boy,” described as a gay, love story about a shy high school kid who gets seduced by his neighbor and school pal. We confirmed that the foundation, which Bean chairs, lists an investment in Dream Boy LLC in its 2010 income tax return, and that Dream Boy LLC was the registered agent for the film when it was featured at a 2008 “Outfest” homosexual film festival. The film was rated R for sexual content, with some violence, including a rape involving teens.

The Holmes Foundation is based on assets accumulated by homosexual pornographer Charles M. Holmes, a friend of Bean who died of AIDS and owned Falcon Studios, which is said to be the world’s largest producer of “high quality gay male videos.”

The Bean arrest has put the focus back on the fact that the idea of having sex with children, in addition to anti-police violence, has been part of the homosexual rights movement in the United States all along. This is what “Stonewall” has come to represent.

Obama wants the taxpayers to sponsor this “celebration” of perversion.

Our first president, George Washington, who court-martialed sodomites and kicked them out of the revolutionary army, must be turning over in his grave.

Considering how the Obama administration regards Stonewall, it is not unreasonable to assume that the location of the “Ferguson rebellion,” as the communists call it, will be designated in the next two years as a national historic landmark. Perhaps the actual location will be a looted or burned-out building.

It will signal yet another phase in the fundamental transformation of the United States.

The new Republican Congress has the opportunity to stop official historical recognition for a gay bar that featured an anti-police riot. But will any GOP House or Senate member challenge Obama’s version of history?