If one were to judge based on what we get from our hypocritical mainstream news media, one would think persecution of Muslims is rampant worldwide, and persecution of Christians is practically a non-issue. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. Clifford D. May of National Review echoes my sentiments so well in this article that I don't really feel the need to say a lot in the way of introductory comments on this one. The article pretty much speaks for itself. Read on...
=== The War Against the Christians The most important story not being told
January 14, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Imagine if Muslims in Europe were being arrested for nothing more than peacefully practicing their religion. Imagine if Muslims in South America were being sentenced to death for “insulting” Jesus. Imagine if mosques were being bombed and burned by terrorists in a growing list of Christian-majority countries.
Now here’s what you don’t need to imagine because it is all too real: In recent days, Christian churches have been bombed in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, and the Philippines. In Indonesia a mob of 1,000 Muslims burned down two Christian churches because, according to one commentator, local Islamic authorities determined there were “too many faithful and too many prayers.” In Iran, scores of Christians have been arrested. In Pakistan, a Christian woman received the death penalty for the “crime” of insulting Islam; the governor of Punjab promised to pardon her — and was then assassinated for the “crime” of blasphemy.
I could provide dozens more examples of the persecution and, in many cases, “cleansing” of Christians in what we have come to call the Muslim world. If the situation were reversed, if such a war were being waged against Muslims, it would be the top story in every newspaper, the most urgent item at the U.N., the highest priority of all the big-league human-rights groups.
Bob Thiel of the Examiner makes an excellent point about how on the same day that the European Union chose its first president and talk show host Oprah Winfrey announced that her show will be coming to an end in 2011, the media and the American sheeple people as a whole were more interested in Oprah's announcement than the startling developments that just took place in Europe.
With the recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (another buried story in the US media) the EU has essentially established itself as a sort of "United States of Europe". And the selection of Herman Von Rompuy as the first president of Europe now has its "George Washington" to help help this new European entity to establish and assert itself on the world stage as a major player -- and one that appears destined to supplant the USA as the dominant world power. Let's stay tuned and see what new developments will be forthcoming from Mr. Rompuy and this new virtual European superstate.
---------------------------------------------
From Bob Thiel's article:
EU President Herman Van Rompuy vs. Oprah Winfrey
Yesterday and today, there were two items that different people paid attention to.
One was for the first time, the new post-Lisbon Treaty European Union selected a president. He is Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy.
The second was the Oprah Winfrey announced that she would discontinue her long-running television show in September 2011.
While the first item may have been on the televised news last night, this examiner did not see it. Instead, he did see Oprah's announcement on multiple channels.
What about print media?
This morning, the front page of the San Luis Obispo paper, The Tribune, had the Oprah announcement. But nowhere was this examiner able to find any reference to the new EU President. If it was anywhere in the paper, let's just say that it certainly was not prominent.
Herman Van Rompuy is now the president of a supranational state of 500,000,000 people. This state not only has more people than the U.S.A., it has a larger total economy.
From a human interest perspective, apparently more Americans are interested in learning about Oprah Winfrey than certain international events. From an end time prophecy perspective, however, Herman Van Rompuy is more interesting.
Tribune Broadcasting plans to air a daytime talk show featuring preacher T.D. Jakes come fall 2009, according to sources close to the company.
The show, developed and produced by Dr. Phil McGraw’s Stage 29 Productions, will be distributed by CBS Television Distribution. Tribune is likely to add the program to a daytime line-up that includes NBC Universal’s Maury, Jerry Springer and Steve Wilkos.
I guess many of us saw this coming. Some Christians will think this is a good move; others wont. As for me, I think it's best to reserve judgment for now. Let's see how this all turns out.
Well, maybe you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.
Now Barack Obama is "ridiculing" McCain's contention that he's socialist?
-------
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Barack Obama accused Republican rival John McCain on Wednesday of stooping to low tactics by labeling the Democrat a socialist. "I don't know what's next," Obama, the presidential candidate, said at an outdoor rally in North Carolina. "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
Who is this man kidding? Obama's socialist connections from the past have been well documented, including the information on his membership in the socialist New Party in his early days in Chicago politics. This blog has painstakingly documented that information HERE.
And how about his own words where he said he sough out Marxist professors in his college days? This is from his own book, as this FoxNews article spells out:
Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Of course, the Che Guevara flags in his Houston campaign office (see above) should have been a red flag way back in February of this year, as WorldNetDaily reported in this article:
I'm convinced that if the media were doing it's job of properly vetting Obama and shining a light on his questionable past, John McCain would be certainly leading in the polls right now. Of course, it would have also helped if McCain had run a more effective campaign.
Never before has the United States of America had a president who was previously a member of a socialist party. In January 2009, Barack Obama could become the first.
The mainstream media is hiding from this story. But here are the facts:
Below is DOCUMENTED PROOF of Barack Obama’s past membership in the socialist New Party, in Chicago.
Link: Newspaper showed Obama belonged to socialist party
Copies of the New Party News,the party's official newspaper, have been found,which show a photo of Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party Member, and include quotes from him.
The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards.
**********
Archived page from NewParty.org, which speaks of Obama as being a New Party member.
New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:
Illinois:Three NP-members won Democratic primarieslast Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
“New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.”
**********
Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website speaks of Obama as being a New Party member:
Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis.Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
**********
Obama was not just “associated” with the party. To run on their party line he had to be approved by a New Party committee and sign a contract with them.
“Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
**********
The New Party was the creation of the quasi-Marxist Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical community organization ACORN. The DSA is associated with the Socialist International, the worlds largest organization of socialist and Marxist political parties worldwide.Related links
“A spokesman for the Obama campaign insists his candidate ran as a Democrat in that race and said, "Don't believe the trash you read on the Internet."
Note:The rep did not deny that Obama ran on the New Party line, but simply stated that he ran as a Democrat. This answer is misleading because in fact Obama ran both as a Democrat AND a New Party member.
**********
INTERESTING NOTE:
Three organizations, the controversial leftist community activist group ACORN, Project Vote, and The New Party were found to all share the same address in New York:
If anyone ever seriously doubted that there's blatant anti-conservative/anti-Republican bias in the major media outlets, here is CLEAR EVIDENCE...this time courtesy of CBS and also ABC news.
The media is TOTALLY in the tank for Obama. (The only good thing is that in this electronic age, we're able to catch the media in their duplicity... not that they seem to care. )
CBS New anchor Katie Couric ordered staff to drop all references to "Governor" or "Gov." from her interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. When a staff member pointed out that in other venues, Couric and CBS News had referred to Governor Palin's opponent, Joe Biden, using his title of "Senator" or the abbreviation, Couric, according to a CBS News editorial aide, sought approval from CBS News management to drop the "Governor" reference http://www.theamericanprowler.com/ds...p?art_id=13947
Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations.
After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness.
At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript.
I'm quite disappointed in ABC News' Charlie Gibson as I write these words, but maybe I shouldn't be. I thought he was a good choice do do Sarah Palin's first televised interview since she got picked to be McCain's VP. He seemed like a fair person, and one who would do his research and ask solid questions. Maybe I was wrong.
Within minutes of looking at a released transcript of the interview on abcnews.com, one glaring error jumped out at me. Notice the dialogue here:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
-------------
Palin explains herself well here. But frankly, the question didn't even need to be asked, because that same meaning was clear in the original context in which Sarah Palin first made those comments. And ABC news knew this, but chose to ignore the plain truth, so they could come up with a question based on a phony assertion -- that she feels that the Iraq war is "from God".
Immediately, the Charlie Gibson's credibility is shot, in my eyes, because those may have indeed been Palin's "exact words", but those words are pulled blatantly out of their context, cut off from her words immediately previous to those quoted. This of course serves to misrepresent her original meaning. For those who care about truth, here are the the facts:
On June 8, 2008, Sarah Palin spoke at her home church, the Wasilla Assembly of God. During that speech she started speaking about her son Track, who was preparing to be deployed to Iraq. Palin says:
"Pray for our military. He's gonna be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So Bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers. "
Therein lies the key difference. Palin never stated the war was "a task that is from God". She asked that the congregation pray that the soldiers would be on a task that was from God -- in other words, she was praying that the soldiers would be in God's will in what they were doing, and that our national leaders would also be in the will of God. Let's be clear here. Her prayer is quite similar to the many such prayers that concerned mothers and fathers all across the country pray for their own children daily. That is VERY DIFFERENT from the Charlie Gibson's contention that Palin stated they were "on a task that is from God", as news outlets have been repeating for almost a week now. Looking at what was said, any adult with proper reading comprehension can see what was really being said. These media types are almost all college-educated individuals with excellent comprehension skills. For them to take a slice of what she said, and pull it out of context and simply use the piece that they did, simply creates an irresponsible and unconscionable distortion.
Clearly there are many who are eager to portray Sarah as someone who's an irrational warmongering religious kook. And for the media to falsely imply that she believes the Iraq war is "a war from God" just gives further ammunition to her political enemies, and the enemies of Christianity as well.
ABC News and other news outlets that are misrepresenting Palin's words had full access to the full context of what Palin said. (As so we all --- the video clip is all over YouTube.) But they chose to slice the part of her words that woud create a certain impression, rather than just let the truth speak for itself. And in so doing, they give us yet one more reason not to trust the mainstream media.
(The context of Palin's comments can be seen from 3:05 to 3:42 on this video.)
(The photo above is of Amina and Sarah Said, [allegedly] killed by their father in a so-called " honor killing" in Texas on New Years Day 2008. The father is still being sought, and is widely believed to be have fled the country. )
Can you properly discuss the phenomenon of "honor killings" without mentioning Islam? No... but CNN somehow tried very hard to do so. Another example of our liberal mainstream media bending over backward to not offend Muslims or make Islam look bad. Honor killings are are not exclusively a Muslim issue, but they do occur disproportionately in Muslim societies.
...Political correctness run amok. From Newsbusters.org:
Quite a feat: CNN has pulled off the MSM equivalent of describing a spiral staircase without using one's hands. It has managed to produce a segment on "honor killings" and related violence in the UK . . . without using the word "Muslim" or "Islam." CNN Newsroom anchor Don Lemon introduced the segment this afternoon at 1:37 PM EDT.
DON LEMON: Women forced into marriages, or killed for having the wrong boyfriend. So-called "honor crimes" are often committed by fathers or brothers when daughters do something that supposedly brings shame on the family. It's on the rise in Britain, and authorities, they are very worried about it. Our Paula Newton reports.
Slate magazine has an interesting take on why the mainstream media is largely ignoring the recent story that indicates John Edwards may have secretly fathered a child by someone not his wife.
Make no mistake -- if the story is true, it's a sad story all around. No can in good conscience gloat at such an unfortunate turn of events. But the fact is, Edwards is a national figure. He ran for president twice, and is still considered one of the most prominent Democratic politicians in the nation, and is still young enough to be a viable presidential candidate in the future. So when a scandal like this breaks, why is the media silent? They seem to be selective about what scandals they give coverage, and then, how much coverage they give. Clearly, there's an agenda at work here.
For example, Republican senator Larry Craig was crucified in the press last year when he was found to have had a "bathroom encounter" with another man. So why is the Edwards story being ignored, especially since he is much more well known than Larry Craig ever was?
So why hasn't the press commented on the story yet? Is it because it broke too late yesterday afternoon, and news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?
That's my sense. "
Frankly, I think he's way more off base here. The issue is not homosexual vs heterosexual. The issue is liberal vs conservative.
If this were Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, or some other prominent Republican politician, does anyone think there would be a media blackout on this story? Not on your life. But the largely liberal media has much more enthusiasm for crucifying Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and liberals. And here once again, they're following their old pattern of bias again.
Liberals are fond of saying there is no liberal bias in the media. Of course, every major study of the issue has shown that there IS such bias. Funny how liberals can easily see the conservative bias at Fox News, but have a hard time seeing the obvious libreal bias in other media outlets. Willful blindness, I suppose.
So, for those who want FURTHER evidence of the obvious, I present this article from Investor's Business Daily:
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."
Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.
Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.
CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.
The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.
Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.
The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.
The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.
More proof that the far left is dangerous and a threat to the republic. This recent news article tells us how hard-left group Moveon.org now wants to intimidate advertisers who run ads on the Fox News Network.
I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded, and totally in favor of freedom of speech. For too many liberals though, freedom of speech is ok, as long as it's speech they agree with. They give lip service to the idea of free speech, but want to intimidate and remove all those whose speech they disagree with.
Its strange how these people are quick to point out the right wing slant on Fox, but love to deny or ignore the liberal/left wing slant found in the mainstream media as a whole, including the New York Times, National Public Radio, PBS, and to a lesser extent CBS, CNN and so many others. I guess its only bias if its a conservative bias; if its a left wing bias, its simply "the truth". Its ironic that so many on the far left like to use the shrill Bush=Hitler rhetoric, but they dont see that their very tactic of trying to shut down conservative voices they disagree with is itself Nazi-like.
One day, we're going to have a White house, Congress, and Senate all controlled by the liberals, and when that day comes, God help America.
Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network. MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.
The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there. At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.
"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said. ....
Another buried story. Our media apparently doesn't think its important news that the preseident of Iran, who once called for Israel to be wiped off the map, is calling for a "hot summer' in the Middle East, and the defeat for the "region's enemies" . Interestingly he says this standing side by side with President Assad of Syria.
This all comes not long after after one of Syria's top officials threatened/promised that Syria will confront Israel if they don't return the Golan Heights by September. As WorldNetDaily.com reports:
The Baath official said Damascus is preparing for anticipated Israeli retaliation following Syrian guerrilla attacks and for a larger war with the Jewish state in August or September. He said in the opening salvo of any conflict, Syria has the capabilities of firing "hundreds" of missiles at Tel Aviv.
"Syria passed repeated messages to the U.S. that we demand the return of the Golan either through negotiations or through war. If the Golan is not in our hands by August or September, we will be poised to launch resistance, including raids and attacks against Jewish positions (in the Golan Heights)," the Baath official said.
How many Americans have even heard of these comments by these leaders of Iran and Syria? I'd guess less than 5%. How many have heard this week about NFL quarterback facing charges for dogfighting and animal abuse? I'd guess maybe 90% + by now.
Will an armed conflict actually break out this summer between Iran/Syrian and Israel? We don't know for sure, and of course, we hope it doesn't. But when the leader of Iran makes veiled threats against Israel (and possibly the US?), isn't this something that we should be paying attention to over here? To me , thats a much more important story than hearing incessantly about an NFL quarterback facing charges for dogfighting.
Thank God for sites like WND.com , and similar independent news websites that tell us a lot of stuff that CNN, Fox News, etc don't feel like telling us. There's so much that goes on out there that our news media decides to filter out, and not tell the American sheeple people.
I'm happy that America has progressed to the pont that a black man can be a serious contender for the presidential nomination of a major party. For that reason alone I find the candidacy of Barack Obama mildly heartwarming. But the warm fuzzy feelings end there.
I recognize him as a man full of platitudes, full of nice soundbites, but short on the depth and experience that should make a good president. To me its absurd that a man so lacking in gravitas could be so close to becoming the "leader of the free world", as they say.
Obama has taken more than a few shots so far (at times subtly, at times harshly), at the so called Christian Right; his use of the faith issue is the most prominent so far among the leading presidential candidates. He positions himself as someone with a kinder, gentler approach to "faith" than those cyncial hardliners on the Christian right. To Barack ""We" (him and people who are on his side) put their faith in action to truly make a difference in society, while "They" (read: Conservative Christians") just talk about faith and use it for divisive political purposes.
From his website:
"Barack Obama is a committed Christian and his faith informs his values. Barack believes that people of all faiths should come together to put their faith into action to change this country for the better. "
and
"When we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another…others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends." – Barack Obama, Call to Renewal Keynote Address, June 2006
Also from Obama:
Addressing the 50th anniversary convention of his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Saturday that the religious right had “hijacked” faith and divided the country by exploiting issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer.—“But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together,” Mr. Obama said. “Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked.”…
Hmm. Watch for a lot more of this kind of rhetoric from him between now and election day, as well as stories of his "journey of faith". To me, this guy's fakesness is so striking to me, that its beginning to carry an odor to it. Perhaps it's been well said that this man is "the Paris Hilton" of the 2008 campaign.
So now Muslim rioters kill 16 people in Nigeria protesting some cartoons that they say insulted their religion. They attacked and burned Christian churches, killing innocent people. Someone please explain to me what Christians in Nigeria had to do with cartoons printed in Denmark and other parts of Europe. The answer, of course, is NOTHING! Just another excuse for a bunch of deluded radical Islamists to foment hatred against those who don't agree with them. And this is the so-called "religion of peace"? Please. Enough said.
And while we're at it, why doesn't the media address the widespread practice of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian cartoons routinely shown in Arab Muslim countries? Seems to me like today's media is bending almost making a concerted effort to NOT show both sides of this issue. Why? Are they afraid of becoming victims of radical Muslims themselves? As much as the media likes to demonize Christians (such as the "Christian Right), it's interesting how they seem to be trying not to show the real dark side of radicalist Islam in the world today. Still the violence speaks for itself. Even with a compliant media tiptoeing around the issue, the truth about radical Islam can't be hidden.
It amazes me how something can be factual but totally go virtually unreported by the so called mainstream media. Turn out those cartoons that have caused so much uproar in the Muslim world had been printed 4 months ago by an Egyptian newspaper. It ruffled a few feathers then, but caused no uproar to speak of. Now those "evil" Europeans have published the same cartoons and it's "blasphemy" worthy of Jihad against the West. Yeah, whatever. Thank God for alternative media like WorldNetDaily, which reported this story. This just proves to me even more that, too often, you cant trust the mainstream media. Read the story here.
Posts
