You’ll probably not believe what you’ll hear…until she pulls out the documents:

Anti-Shariah conference at Madison church

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by YEAR2012INFO on Nov 14, 2011
The U.S. Constitution is under attack…
Please copy this video TODAY and send it to every person and Church in the USA and Canada.

More from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of Act! For America:

Brigitte Gabriel on Obama

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by megawolf7 on Jul 21, 2009
Brigitte Gabriel, author of the book, They Must Be Stopped, on the Bill Cunningham Show, June 7, 2009

Islamic infiltration of the universities (h/t: Eric Allen Bell):

MSA student supports rounding up Jews to Israel to kill them

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by Dendoi on May 16, 2010

Nazi-like MSA student states that she supports Hassan Nasrallah’s call to round up Jews to Israel so he won’t hunt them down worldwide. This video was put up by the David Horowitz Freedom Center [DHFC]. I just put it up here for educational purposes; so people can see a sample of how bad Islamic anti-Semitism is.

The New York Times has gone all in for Islamic infiltration and the stealth jihad. By now, we have all come to expect an outpouring of hard-left/pro-jihadi/anti-Semitic/anti-Christian propaganda flooding the Anglosphere from not only the New York Times, but also the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, NPR, the CBC in Canada, the BBC and the Guardian in the UK, the ABC in Australia, the AP and Reuters wire services…the list seems endless.

We are so used to it that too few people bother to complain any more as the naked anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic enemy propaganda in the NYT grows ever louder.

Is The NYT’s Agenda to Normalize Islam in the West?

by Phyllis Chesler
Israel National News
January 25, 2012

On a single day, the New York Times has been known to publish anywhere from two to six anti-Israel articles, editorials, op-ed pieces, and letters. Today, I see a new danger arising in their pages.

After spending a year proclaiming the triumph of democracy and the miracle of the Arab Spring and, as PM Netanyahu has just noted, refusing to document the existential danger in which Israel finds herself, the Newspaper of Record has now begun the process of normalizing Islam in North America and Europe. Its pro-Muslim “multicultural” agenda is, paradoxically, another form of racism, but I quibble.

Yesterday, there were at least three articles (3,200 words, four photos, one illustration), devoted to Islam in America and Europe. A 934-word op-ed article titled “How to Integrate Europe’s Muslims” by a Boston College professor is a veritable manifesto of appeasement and racism disguised as a rational call for integration and fairness. Jonathan Laurence suggests that Muslims will be “integrated” into Europe if they are allowed to study Islam at state-sponsored schools, continue their Muslim religious practices, veil women, speak Arabic, Persian, Dari, etc. In his view, this will fend off “fundamentalism” and magically lead to reciprocity in terms of tolerance towards infidels and apostates and to the abolition of Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

According to Canadian professor and author, Dr. Salim Mansur, multiculturalism and the appeasement of tribalism defeats the possibility of citizenship and amounts to a form of “soft bigotry.” As Pascal Bruckner has phrased it: “Multiculturalism is the racism of the anti-racists; it chains people to their roots.” Immigrants are kept confined to their “group” and not encouraged or expected to become “individuals” and “citizens” of a modern democracy.

As we may all recall, the 2011 Goldstone recantation did not make the front page of the NYT; it was buried on page 8. But today, a 1,200 word article, entitled “In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims” is on page one. It continues on page 23 with two photos and it takes up 3/4^th of the second page. The article condemns the use of the film, The Third Jihad, as a “training” device for 1,489 police officers. What is so offensive about this film, which is narrated by a (truly) moderate Muslim, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician and former American military officer? First the film has been funded by Orthodox Jews and Zionists (horrors!). Second, it dares suggest that Muslims have launched a war against the West, a “third jihad.” And, there is “ominous” music. Then “Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, children lie covered by sheets…”

Is this reporter unfamiliar with the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries and with the Islamic terrorist attacks against Muslim and infidel civilians and against Western military and civilian targets?

…There is an Islamic/Islamist war that has been declared against the West as well as against both Muslim and infidel civilians, but it is one that the Paper of Record refuses to acknowledge, or to fight or win.
[...]
Why have papers likes the Times become so obsessed with protecting the religious rights of one single minority group at the expense of every other religious group, including members of moderate and anti-Islamist Islam, and at the expense of women, who represent approximately 53% of the world’s population? Are they, too, possibly being funded by leftists and by Arab oil magnates? Or, do they simply hope to be?

Just wondering.

Read it all here.

What about the one network in the US, namely Fox News, that so many rely on to present conservative voices when no other network will? Those days may be gone soon. Last September (see Fox News “Fair and Balanced”? Bzzzzzt, WROOOOONG!), I challenged its undeserved reputation as a “conservative” and/or even-handed news outlet. More recently, Speranza of 2.0: The Blogmocracy also asked, Is Fox News heading left? Indeed, on Fox News, we are hearing fewer and fewer of those voices, and more and more apologists from the left.

I have had no further use for Glenn Beck after he openly began to shill for that amoral and self-serving RINO candidate, Mitt Romney. That said, if George Soros has the power to censor a major television network and cause him to be fired, that is truly dismaying. The audience of Fox News should determine, through their ratings and their patronage of advertisers, whether Glenn Beck continues to be offered a spot in its lineup.

How George Soros Sacked Glenn Beck

by Cliff Kincaid on 19 Oct 2011
A recent interview of Fox News chief Roger Ailes by Howard Kurtz suggested that the channel is becoming less conservative by design. The real question, not addressed in the piece, is whether the relentless attacks on the channel by George Soros-funded groups have anything to do with this change in the direction of the popular channel and the demise of the Glenn Beck program in particular.

On Glenn Beck’s new TV program, carried on the Internet, Beck himself seemed to indicate this was the case. Talking about Orson Wells, his career, vision and his “Citizen Kane” movie, Beck said, “One of the biggest things [he taught me was] he picked a lot of ill-advised fights, sometimes risking his entire career against titans of industry. It did occur to me recently maybe I should have considered that little part of his life a little more before I locked horns with George Soros.”1 The implication is that Beck’s battle with Soros left him without a job on Fox News.

If this is the case, then we have reached a point in the United States when a private individual has obtained the power to prevent the most popular cable news channel in the country from subjecting his financial and political influence to scrutiny. It is important to see how this was done.

In fairness, Fox has covered Soros after the end of the Beck program. But Beck was doing so in a systematic manner by devoting whole shows to the topic. The sheer magnitude of organizations financially supported by the billionaire makes such an analysis necessary. That is what America’s Survival, Inc. we are doing through our Sorosfiles.com project.
[...]
Beck, who had one of the most successful programs on the channel, left Fox News on July 1, 2011, and launched his own Internet TV show, which appears to be a success in terms of paid subscribers. But some are saying that its influence pales in comparison to the perch that Beck had on Fox News. Clearly, the “progressives” who feared Beck were far more concerned about his Fox News Channel program than his Internet venture.

At the recent “Take Back the American Dream Conference,” held October 3-5. 2011, in Washington, D.C., former Obama “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones claimed that Beck wasn’t on television any more. He said this in the context of admitting that his exit from the Obama Administration, in response to charges made by blogger Trevor Loudon and Beck and others, had been a traumatic time for him.

In fact, of course, Beck is on television, albeit Internet TV. But the point was that Beck was gone from cable television, which was much more of a powerful position in terms of the resources he was able to bring to bear to expose figures like Jones. It is a sign of Beck’s declining influence that Jones was rehabilitated and emerged at the conference as director of the “Take Back the American Dream” movement.

As Howard Kurtz told the story, there has been a “course correction” at Fox News and that the change was “quietly adopted at Fox over the last year” because of the problem posed by the “inflammatory rhetoric” of Glenn Beck, such as “his ranting about Obama being a racist.” Ailes was quoted as saying that this had become a “a bit of a branding issue for us.”

There was no ranting from Beck on this topic. His comments were based in part on Obama’s own statements on racial issues, such as his attack on the police for arresting a black professor, Henry Louis Gates. Obama called the police “stupid,” without knowing the facts about Gates’ obnoxious behavior.

The implication is that Beck was fired – technically a deal was reached in which Fox News said Beck would “transition off” the channel – because of charges that Beck was a racist. But Beck had accused Obama of racism in the summer of 2009 and lost his show over a year later. Something must have happened in the meantime. That “something” was that Beck picked a different target – billionaire George Soros.

It’s true that Beck had been the subject of an advertiser boycott, organized by a group called “Color of Change,” founded by Van Jones, but he still had the number three show in cable news. Howard Kurtz reported Beck still had “monster ratings.”
[...]
Much, much more here.

Glenn Beck Staff Threatened by Soros Operatives

Private Investigator says Beck Staff Threatened by Soros Operatives; News Corporation Failed to Protect Employees, Forcing Beck’s Ouster
…[Cliff] Kincaid recently learned of a private investigator, Douglas J. Hagmann, with information that the Soros role in Beck’s ouster was deeper and more insidious than previously realized. In order to further the public’s right to know as to how the First Amendment right of freedom of the press is being manipulated and subverted by covert forces in U.S. politics, Kincaid asked Hagmann, who is the CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., and director of the Northeast Intelligence Network for permission to pass on this information. He has agreed, as long as the identities of the sources of information are deleted. There are several sources with information about strange goings-on at News Corporation in regard to the Glenn Beck matter, in which the most vulnerable of the news channel staff members have come under pressure not to report certain facts and information about President Obama personally. But Hagmann says the tipping point in the matter of Glenn Beck leaving the channel came when Beck began a series of programs on Soros, labeled by Beck the “Puppet Master” behind Obama and the progressive movement.

Hagmann informed Kincaid of the following:

“One of my sources, beginning in the first part of 2011, told me that the corporate leadership of News Corporation (the parent company of Fox News) began to put pressure on Glenn Beck — and especially his support staff — about certain topics that were considered ‘off limits.’ This source stated that Beck was advised not to focus on George Soros, as there were certain fiduciary relationships he was not privy to between Soros and either News Corporation or one or more of their board members/corporate staff.”

Hagmann went on, “I was informed that News Corporation and/or Fox News Channel officers actually had a meeting with Soros representatives, during which company officials were advised to stop subjecting Soros to on-air scrutiny. This pressure eventually forced Beck off the air, as the Fox News Channel personality became concerned about the physical safety and security of his own personnel.”

Hagmann added that his sources stated that it was Beck’s concern over the safety of certain staff members, the most vulnerable and exposed among them, who were being overtly intimidated. He stated that one young woman, who became a primary source after being vetted and determined to be credible, was genuinely afraid, not only for her career but for her life and the life of her child. It was surreal, she told Hagmann, that she could be subjected to intimidation through surveillance and veiled threats because of her position to Glenn Beck. At some point, Hagmann added, it appeared Mr. Beck knew he could protect himself and his family, but not everyone involved in the program. “I strongly suspect, based on my professional experience as an investigator for the last 26 years, that Mr. Beck made a tremendous career sacrifice for the safety of others. That speaks volumes about Mr. Beck’s integrity, character and concern for others,” added Hagmann.

ASI President Cliff Kincaid said that investigator Hagmann’s information, while non-specific at this point because of concerns over revealing the identities of sources, is extremely troubling, as it concerns the ability of the American people to get access to information of a critical nature…

Read it all here.

Also see:

• Manufactured Anger Over Islamo-realistic Film Designed to Whack NYPD Into Dhimmitude
• ‘The Third Jihad’ Producers Reply to New York Times Articles

Jewish Defence League to confront
anti-Israel Mayor Stéphane Gendron
Thursday, January 26, 2012, 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Office of the Mayor, 23, rue King, Huntingdon, Québec

The recent public statements by Mr. Stéphane Gendron the Mayor of Huntingdon, Québec is a violation of the Charter of Rights of Canada and a threat to the security of the Jewish Community. He recently said Israel should not exist. In other words, the Six Million Jews in Israel should not exist.

As CTV reports, the rant wasn’t Gendron’s first offense; he had been removed in the past from the airwaves following complaints after comparing Israelis to Nazis in a newspaper interview.

Read more: Small-Town Mayor Rants Against Israel

Québec TV Host Claims Israel Indiscriminately Murders Innocent Palestinians With Bulldozers

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Jewish Defence League will picket outside the offices of Mayor Stéphane Gendron and demand that he step down as Mayor or be fired.

For additional information, call 416-736-7000.
www.jdl-canada.com

Blazing Cat Fur has some interesting photos of this Mayor.

Washington Examiner: Conservative silence and the leftist agenda

By Stella Morabito

Occupy Wall Street aims to sway public opinion by projecting the false illusion of a “collective belief” against free markets. Likewise, most leftwing agendas depend on building a fake sense of public opinion support, especially when the agenda cannot withstand prolonged scrutiny or debate.

But the success of leftist activism depends to a great degree on the everyday silence of millions of conservative individuals. The matrix of political correctness built by leftist elites is probably most effective in applying widespread social pressure on conservatives as individuals.

It thereby isolates and discourages many conservatives from exposing their views to co-workers, neighbors, clients, classmates, and anyone else who might be effectively engaged in day-to-day life.

Consider this scenario: The phone rings while Rush Limbaugh is audible in the background. The covert conservative turns off the radio out of dread of being exposed as a listener.

Or this scene: A conservative nods politely while a neighbor pontificates leftist views. He does not correct his neighbor’s mistaken assumption that he shares such views.

Or this: A co-worker expresses disgust for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Without even questioning the premise, the conservative simply changes the subject.

Such reticence to engage contributes to a dangerous reverse bandwagon effect. To understand the mechanics, we might look up the theory of “preference falsification,” a term coined by the scholar Timur Kuran in his 1995 book Private Truths, Public Lies. He defines it as “the act of misrepresenting one’s wants under perceived social pressures.” [emphasis added]

Public opinion is actually “a determinant of people’s willingness to reveal their innermost selves,” observes Kuran.

When we falsify our core beliefs in our daily lives the effect is “the regulation of others’ perceptions.”

This happens in many ways, but when you avoid speaking up truthfully or at all, as the occasion presents itself, you deprive others of your knowledge and lose the opportunity to influence how others think.

The opposing view then takes root more deeply because you’ve also made it harder for those who might agree with you to speak up. [emphasis added]

According to Kuran, individuals’ preference falsification has an extremely powerful ripple effect that influences both the shape of public opinion and the political process.

An interesting sidelight is that President Obama’s current regulatory czar Cass Sunstein has studied this phenomenon in some depth. Sunstein and Kuran co-authored a 1999 Stanford Law Review article on a related theory, the “availability cascade” which they define as “a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation whereby an expressed perception triggers reactions that make that perception seem increasingly plausible through its rising availability in public discourse.”

It involves two mechanisms: “information cascades” in which uninformed people “base their own beliefs on the apparent beliefs of others;” and “reputational cascades,” in which earning social approval or avoiding social disapproval affect how personal opinions are expressed or withheld. Sound familiar?

The process can be very fragile, according to the authors. But it can trigger huge and unpredicted shifts in public opinion. What this means is that no conservative can afford to sit back and expect talk radio or conservative think tanks to save the day.

A more positive shift in public opinion will gain enduring traction only when thousands more conservatives — and, following their lead, millions more — refuse to falsify their preferences to those they meet in day to day life. [emphasis added]

By being friendly, engaging first with those who like and trust them, many conservatives who take the risk of defying political correctness report the pleasant surprise of discovering like thinkers waiting to be emboldened.

Even if this doesn’t happen, breaking out of isolation is essential to discrediting the leftist caricature of conservatives and presenting more and more people with the human face of conservatism.
[...]
Read more at the Washington Examiner.

What’s this all about in plain English? Simple. There are a lot of “closet conservatives” out there. They have been misled by leftist propaganda into believing that “normal people” don’t agree with them, so they’d better keep their opinions to themselves or face social ostracism, job loss, and maybe outright violence. They WILL come out of the closet if, and only if, they see YOU being truthful about your opinions. That’s why it’s time for all of us to step up to the plate and go to bat for the truth, not only in the blogosphere and in letters to elected officials, but also in our real-life, face-to-face encounters.

PJM: In Defense of Starting an Argument in Public for Humanity’s Greater Good

By Megan Fox
A few days ago, I took my kids to one of those places with giant inflatable slides that sane people avoid. My best friend was in town for her once-a-year visit home and in order to show the kids a “good time” took them to inflatable kid heaven, otherwise known as The Jump Zone.
[...]
There were many other mothers there that day but oddly enough, they weren’t doing any of the things we were. In fact, they were happily parked on benches yapping with each other like they were at Starbucks with a nanny at home. In the meantime, their children were terrorizing ours in ways that would have gotten them arrested if they were a few years older. My girlfriend’s three-year-old made it all the way to the top of a very precarious perch just to have some overanxious boy shove her off. She fell about 10 feet to the inflated surface below, unharmed but scared and screaming. The boy, about 6, never even looked back, his mother an invisible mystery. No adult came forward to claim the vicious little brat or to reprimand him and demand an apology for this anti-social behavior. My 5-year-old made a beeline for him and told him off in her babyish way. “That wasn’t nice!” she said in her best Mommy voice. He shoved past her and went on with his reign of terror.

Two minutes later, my 2-year-old was happily standing on top of a plastic baby slide just watching the chaos in front of her when another little boy, old enough to know better (7?) came charging up to the slide, grabbed the whole thing and started rocking it and tipping it over. Something snapped inside my brain as I watched my baby’s face shrink in terror as this monster tried to topple her tower with her in it. I was on him in less than four seconds. I dug my fingers into his ribs and shouted at him, “NO!” in the exact same voice I reserve for the dog when he’s got my shoes.

He dropped the playset and turned to me, shocked, and I continued to scold him uncaring of who was watching. I’m not sure what I said, something about manners and ending up in jail, but I hope he’ll remember it the next time he tries to harm a baby. I looked up, expecting to face his either sheepish or angry parent and to my surprise, no one came. He disappeared into the melee and that was that.

These are only two of the episodes that occurred in that hour. Other, equally disturbing acts of torment continued for our time there and in no instance did any parent but my friend or me intervene. This parenting trend to outright ignore one’s children is puzzling but everywhere. I’m no Parent of the Year here. I mean — I ignore my kids plenty when we’re at home and they’re safe and I have stuff to do. But to take them out somewhere were they could hurt themselves or others and ignore them is an outrage. But I have a solution that I’ve decided can reverse this problem but it will require your help: We’re going to engage in verbal fisticuffs.

The current wisdom says don’t make a fuss because you never know who has a gun or a knife or who’s crazy and will cut you. It’s always a possibility. But have we become so scared by the minute possibility of a random act of violence that we will just watch society degenerate into a place where chaos reigns because parents can’t take responsibility? This is the kind of environment, the Lord-of-the-Flies syndrome, that creates more thugs. Unchecked childish violence becomes unrestrained adult carnage and all of us will pay for it one day. I say, no more! I will not be silent when I witness juveniles acting badly in public. Instead of saying something just to them, the way I did with the little bulldozer boy, I will also seek out their mom or dad, take the offender to them and make my case for that parent to do his or her job better. Sounds dangerous doesn’t it? What can I say? I like to live on the edge.

The point is, we all live here. The world is like a big house. There are rules of the house and if the sheriff isn’t doing his job, I’m appointing myself deputy. It’s time to step up if you want to save America. We have a nation full of takers out there. Takers who would trample their neighbor for a $3 waffle iron, and it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing that a mother should have to be told to watch her child. Maybe embarrassment needs to make a come-back.

…We live with a very thin veil between order and chaos. Has it ever occurred to you that it might be your responsibility to push back against the madness? Popular theory says you can save the world through recycling but what will it matter if the world falls into the hands of bullies and pigs?

We fear that the worst will happen if we say something about someone’s bad behavior — and that’s always a possibility — but probability lies on the side of the idiot backing down. When a bully faces no opposition, the bullying only gets worse. It takes a brave soul to stand up, draw the line in the sand and declare “No further!” It’s the reason the Iron Curtain tore and the Berlin Wall crumbled. It’s the medicine for the national crisis we are in both financially and morally and it starts at home in your community. Personal responsibility, a phrase conservatives have been hawking for years, along with courage is the remedy for all of it.

The American people (mostly conservatives) began standing up to their representatives at town-hall meetings a few years ago and started demanding their government stop spending money it doesn’t have. Their involvement sparked a movement that changed the face of local governments across this nation.

The fight for the moral compass of this country is on and it won’t be won without push-back. The OWS protests are the antithesis of personal responsibility. They are the ones whose parents abdicated their responsibility and allowed them to cut in line and push babies down on the playground. They are the ones who feel entitled to have the first turn, your toys, free college courses in queer studies or anything else they want simply because they weren’t properly socialized. (And yet they consider themselves “socialists” or something. )

Chances are they went to public school where, I am informed, all children go to get “socialized.” I was in a room full of publicly socialized children at the Jump Zone and if that’s as good as it gets I’ll pass and continue my home-socialization experiment. (I home-school.). After all, my kids aren’t the ones knocking over babies and cutting in line.
[...]
This kind of parenting creates non-Americans. It strips the American spirit right out of American children by denying them the chance to understand what it is we do here and who we are. We are good people, we are giving people, we care for each other and that’s why we need to stand up and refuse to allow coming generations to become looting parasites. They need someone to call them on their idiocy and that someone is you.
Read it all.

PJM: Yard Signs Tell the Tale in New Hampshire

Drive through New Hampshire in the next week, and you will see a staggering number of Republican yard signs. They’re everywhere: It seems like every third house has a sign up. They’re on front yards and in the windows of businesses. They’re in every neighborhood representing every demographic. They’re in front of homes along rural roadways, in front of suburban homes in the big southern towns, and in the conservative blue-collar neighborhoods of Manchester.

And there are even Republican yard signs all over the capital city of Concord — a largely Democratic-leaning town in this swing state.

Barack Obama is in big trouble next November.

In elections, yard signs provide the essential “social proof” to back up the television ads, debate performances, and stump speeches — especially when it comes time to close the deal with relatively apolitical or undecided voters.

But this is a Republican primary. What do January yard signs have to do with Barack Obama?

Here is a secret: If you want to predict a general election, count the number of Republican yard signs in “purple” neighborhoods.

Take a drive through an upper-middle class community in a swing state. Find the subdivision where there’s a coffee shop on the corner and an organic grocery store not too far away, ideally where the Priuses outnumber the SUV’s… but not by much. Find the block where the adults are academics, professionals, or government employees and where every household has a couple of kids in the public schools. The voter breakdown in the ideal “purple” neighborhood is about a third Republican, a third Democrat, and a third independent.

Welcome to Concord, New Hampshire. Or Fort Collins, Colorado. Or northern Virginia. Or Raleigh, North Carolina. Or the suburbs and exurbs and small cities in swing states around the country.

Now count the Republican yard signs. Signs are not polling data, and they are certainly not election returns, but a yard sign is a definitive measure of three things: Support (obviously); intensity; and – most importantly — a voter’s willingness to make his political opinions known to his neighbors. A yard sign — especially in a “hostile” environment — is a symbol of political courage, a sign of an impending shift in public opinion. [emphasis added]

The early returns from the yard sign tallies are in: Voters in New Hampshire want their neighbors to know that they are voting Republican this year.

That is a big deal. If you live in a conservative community in a Republican state, it is hard to understand the open hostility towards Republicans in “purple” neighborhoods. Put up a sign in your yard and prepare to have your neighbors approach (or accost) you at the grocery store. Prepare to have them bring your kids into the discussion. Prepare to have your business boycotted. There is no separation between the personal and the political on the left, so in a swing state a sign in your yard marks you as a target.
[...]
More here.

By Peter Brock
Reprinted with permission

Personally, I didn’t watch any of the Golden Globes presentations last night. I was much more interested in the Packers walking through plays in the final five minutes before the climax in their bizarre loss to the Giants.

However, I had my mind on the Globes and was curious about what Jolie & Co. would try to pull off while “From the Land of Blood and Honey” was staggering through its last five days at the box office. (I don’t intend to follow her or her morbid feature-length “animated” disaster all the way into oblivion.)

But, the result of her “directorial debut”—or so the “limited distribution” has been touted since it opened December 23^rd—was reinforced with the addition of eleven more theaters to the original seven in LA and New York by the middle of last week. Since last Wednesday, when the total box office take added up to $103,000, the smaller cadre of “dissenting” movie critics were calling it what it is: a “flop”! As of today, nothing has changed, in my viewing of online videos and other reports about the Globes extravaganza.

As Angelina Jolie was looking wooden and wan on the “red carpet” yesterday, her film was wheezing to get up to almost $146,000. Recalling that she and her investors originally shelled out $13 Million, it continues to free-fall.

But, the “money” side of it is not the story—except for what it’s costing her to ram it into public and political perception as a “success.” Even the “judging” for the Globes could not shove it to the top of the Best Foreign Language Film pile with such a miserable backing from the movie-going public.

Curiously, the reporter for Moviefone.com quoted from a description today that perhaps was unintentional: “Angie looks very Queen of Hearts in a white Atelier Versace gown with pops up red (sic)…”, wrote The Contra Costa (Calif.) Times. The “Queen of Hearts” reference had to be meant as complimentary, if subtly wry. But then, I recalled the booming voice of Verna Felton in Disney’s production—“OFF with their heads!”—and I remembered being just a little kid in the darkened theater and cringing in my seat.

Lots of writers/reporters seemed to be struggling with Jolie’s gaunt, anorexic frame while busied with her obligatory video duty. The “world’s most beautiful woman” looked terrible. And mega-tense, as she and Mr. Pitt awaited the choreographed questions from breathless interviewer Ryan Seacrest.

The poor thing, according to a comment from one online movie mag-wag, needed an emergency dose of two cheeseburgers. Another was disturbed that her hip-bone could be seen through her dress. Everyone else was swooning in cadence to the silver with red-trim gown that limply hung on her.

The canned answers rolled off the Pitt’s tongues as they have in months of promotional appearances, but Jolie’s expression flashed momentarily and her brittle voice cracked slightly when asked if she had been “nervous” about the release of her film. Clearly, she winced at recalling those mostly unreported controversies about stereotyping the actors as Serb monsters during the recent Balkan wars. Also, her memory is fresh with recent ambushes by women’s groups and other humanitarian organizations with accusations of glorifying “rapes.” Governments had threatened to pull their permits and assistance becoming temporarily deaf to pleas of innocence and artistic interpretation. The project was hurried to completion earlier than scheduled—partly explaining the odd release two days before Christmas. Not the best timing, you might think, when having to go up against holiday competition from the latest “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”

Not imaginably unrelated was a barb tossed at the Golden Globes itself by the poison-tongued emcee Ricky Gervais: “…For any of you who don’t know, the Golden Globes are just like the Oscars, but without all that esteem. The Golden Globes are to the Oscars what Kim Kardashian is to Kate Middleton. A bit louder, a bit trashier, a bit drunker, and more easily bought. Allegedly. Nothing’s been proved.”

“More easily bought” than Balkan politicians? What WAS Gervais teasing everyone with?!

Jolie’s carpet performance seemed to overlap clumsily on topics of “victims” and the “acceptance by the people” of her film “in the country,” as the Pitt’s tag-teamed uncomfortably. It took some time to figure out they weren’t talking about movie fans in the U.S.

A nearly palpable tide of paranoia was rising. Surely, Seacrest had no such sinister intentions to talk about the bad reviews and tanked revenues.

Well, the show had to go on. She gratuitously handed Martin Scorsese his Globe for Best Director. But, the similarity between “director apprentice” and “director emeritus” only became more obvious. Even Pitt seemed somewhat off-balance as the whole extravaganza teetered at times with an underlying …tension. “Sinister” may be too hard a word. Pitt himself added to it, wielding a cane for a new knee cartilage injury.

The cameras panned the tables closest to the podium for the rest of the evening’s exercise of insincere applause. The First Couple knew what to do.

So, “From the Land of Blood and Honey” and Jolie continue their odyssey even though they likely will not get serious Oscar consideration during the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, credit Todd McCarthy in today’s The Hollywood Reporter for finally answering the question: Where did Jolie come up with that title about “blood and honey”?

“The title stems from the fact that, in reference to the Balkans, the Turkish word for honey is ‘bal’ while the word for blood is ‘kan’.”

Also see:

• Review of In the Land of Blood and Honey, a movie by Angelina Jolie
• Peter Brock: Angelina Jolie’s ‘Blood and Honey’ directorial debut a ‘flop’

It Began with a Lie (German with English Subtitles)

Click here to view the embedded video.

41:39 – 2 years ago
German documentary about the false pretext and German propaganda used to exert and sustain public support for illegal NATO aggression against Serbia.

With Serbian subtitles:

Es begann mit einer Lüge – Deutschland gegen Yugoslawien (Serbien).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by srbskaskolabuchrain on Jan 8, 2012

Ovakva cuda se ne desavaju cesto! Pogledajte link ispod:
http://dijaspora.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/десило-се-чудо-немачки-фотограф-снима/

So ein Wunder gescheht nicht oft ! Orginal link und klare text auf Deutsch :
http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/s-h_magazin/zeitreise/kosovo197.html

Die Frage ist warum Deutschland wieder die Serben angriffen?

Welche Interessen hatte Amerika an diesem Krieg?

Und wie geht die Politik von Deutschland gegen die serben weiter?

Rudolf Scharping und Joschka fischer zwei Brüder die sich fest entschlossen hatten nach 40Jahren dieserben zu Begrüssen aber mit Bomben.

Fischer äusserte sich ein paar mal beim Besuch dass es nicht wieder passieren darf mit den Konzentrationslagern .Genau richtig was sollen die Konzentrationslager?

Es ist besser wenn man mit Flugangriffen reagieren kann und unschuldige Zivile Serben töten konnte.

Amerika hatte bei diesem Krieg nur unter einer Bedienung mitgemacht!mit der Bitte dass Sie sich noch weiter in den Balkan begeben konnten und somit ganz russland einkreisen konnten.

Klinton hatte keine Interessen was im Kosovo passierte. Seine Interresse war “Amerikanische Basis im Kosovo”die grösste Militärbasis der Welt.

Und wieder ist es Deutschland gelungen Serbischen Boden zu zerstampfen,und wieder zahlten die Serben Ihre freiheit mit Blut.

In Deutschland wo 70% Rasismus herrscht konnte Punkte bei Europa sammeln.Frankreich steht auf diesem Weg mit der Starken Macht und liebt nicht gerade die Lügen der Deutschen Politik.

Zasto je Njemacka napala opet Srbe?Koje interese ima Amerika od toga rata?Kakva je dalja politika Njemacke prema Srbima?Dali sa lazima dobijamo rat i koje su posledice njega?

Rudolf Sarping i Joska Fiser dva brata imaju odgovore na ta pitanja i zelja im je bila nakon toliko godina da se obrate Srbima za poklone doneli su nam Bombe.Joska Fiser izjavljuje u par navrata da se na Balkanu nesme desiti Ausvic jer tamo su stradali?a ja Srbi ali to nije ni bitno.Fiser kaze mi cemo Srbe Bonbardovati samo zato sto su Srbi.Uz taj plan imao je svoga Rudolfa i mocnu Ameriku koja je imala samo jednu zelju,napraviti vojnu bazu na kosovu sa ciljem da opkoli Rusiju sa svih strana.Ma kome je to jos stalo do ljudski prava i ko je to krsio na kome podrucju,apsurd,smesna politika Njemacke odlazi na zapad i uspevaju u Lazima protiv Srba gde Njemacka postaje sila u Evropi.To bi zelela i da ostane ali Amerika ne voli licemerne i lazove pa je za svoga partnera uzela Tursku.Njemacka ima jos jednog prijatelja koji joj neda da siri svoja krila nad Evropom a to je Francuska jedna od naj mocniji zemalja u Evropi pa i Svetu,e ona smeta mozda bi Dotsche Reich i uspeo ali imaju oni i izmedju sebe ljudi zdravoga razuma koji zele da zive ko svi Evropljani ne imajuci zelju da sve bude Velika Njemacka.Americka Baza na kosovu moze da primi preko 60 hiljda vojnika i naj veca je od vojnih Americki baza u Svetu.

Jamie Shea is prominently featured in the video “It Began With a Lie.”

For those who may not have seen: http://home.windstream.net/dwrighsr/a3820cf4d2861.html

(My An Open Letter to Lieutenant General Michael Short, Commandeer, 16th Air Force, United States Air Forces, Europe Commander, Allied Forces, Southern Europe.)

“- Was it your son whose bombs hit the convoy of ethnic Albanians reducing the victims to ashes, and then have your NATO pimp spokesperson, Jamie Shea, have the gall to deny that NATO pilots, possibly your son, were responsible for this atrocity by blaming it on the Serbs?”

Also, please read the comments.

You`re young, you`re drunk, you`re in bed,
you have knives; s**t happens…

When I get logical, and I don’t trust my instincts
– that’s when I get in trouble.
- Angelina Jolie[1]

Well, that’s showbiz, Mrs. Pitt!

January 12, 2012

‘Blood and Honey’ directorial debut a ‘flop’

by Peter Brock
Reprinted with permission

The critics and movie-goers “doth protest too much.”

Make that a silent protest because apparently they have better things to do than say much of anything about Angelina Jolie’s inaugural attempt at writing/directing “In the Land of Blood and Honey.”

The first month’s box office take will likely not even amount to a .01-percent trickle of the $13 million blown on this celluloid cliché that promoters had tried to hype as a Romeo and Juliet tragedy set against the recent Bosnian war. By late January, the three-week mini-run that soaked $90,000 in ticket sales from gullible movie-goers is sputtering.

Only a handful of Balkan war critics had been stirring themselves up at this latest revisionist bid by Hollywood to rile the conscience of the world—while making a few bucks for their trouble. They and diaspora Serbs had grudgingly read the pre-screening synopses which borrowed from two decades worth of lurid headlines about contrived tales of genocide, tens of thousands of fictitious rapes, hyped “concentration camps” and the like.

But after all the buildup, the long-awaited flick rolled in only seven New York and Los Angeles theaters, beginning two days before Christmas in “limited distribution” by FilmDistrict that, as a matter of fact, was quickly getting more limited by the minute. One theater in New York lost no time in yanking it off the marquee.

Worth mentioning is that it didn’t take a second sniff for “Serbian tycoon and media magnate Željko Mitrović” who was earlier asked if Jolie could use his sound stages and studio sets.

“‘I’ve held great affection and admiration for Angelina Jolie both as a person and as an artist, but unfortunately she’s full of prejudice against the Serbs. I do not wish to be part of something that for the umpteenth time presents the Serbs as eternal bad guys.’” It was about the nicest thing anyone would say of the whole project, start to finish.

Story goes that Jolie had originally received a near-epiphany over coffee with unnamed journalists in Budapest when she became inspired to direct the film. A decisive “séance” also occurred with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour whose own words, echoed later by Jolie, were tediously familiar as the former’s signature commentary in wartime “scoops” from Bosnian muslim presidents, prime ministers, United Nations’ goons, bloodthirsty NATO brass and U.S. State Department shills during the ‘90s:

“This was, you know, the worst genocide since World War II in Europe …What were we all doing? And did we do enough? And why do we not speak about this enough?” parrots Jolie.

Amanpour introduced Jolie and the film at its New York Premiere last December 5.

The glitzy premiere after-party was held on The Standard Hotel’s rooftop Hudson River overlook and was co-sponsored by the foreign policy think-tank Council on Foreign Relations of which Jolie, having studied at the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute, somehow earned membership. General Wesley Clark, who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Bosnian War and oversaw 78 straight days of indiscriminate bombing of Serb cities in 1999, also attended the fete and called the film “incredible.”

At first, reviewers grit their teeth while trying to be nice to Jolie—half of the Brad Pitt/Jolie cinematic power couple—in her La-La-Land netherworld romance between a Muslim painter and her fated Serbian lover and guard at one of those sinister “camps”:

“…where rape and brutality against women is business as usual by most Serbian soldiers… Jolie’s phony plotting and graphic depictions of sexual assault and murder are transparent attempts to bluntly convey the war’s atrocities. …Images of men mowed down on the streets, groups of innocents executed in front of mass graves and women raped in the company of their fellow captives all prove Jolie’s admirable commitment to directly addressing the Serbians’ heinous actions. …Her dialogue-heavy sequences are aesthetically inert, further muting the momentum of a tale that, in narrative terms, winds up being a series of clichés piled on top of general preposterousness. …(T)his wannabe-serious film comes off as not just unenlightening, but borderline-interminable.” – boxofficemagazine.com

But, it was as plain as the worrisome wrinkle above one of her eyebrows that Jolie’s film had “flopped and appears to be on its way out of theaters”, said thewrap.com after only two holiday weekends.

“…(N)ot even art-house audiences were clamoring for a subtitled drama about the Bosnian war over the Christmas holiday. …Featuring a cast of no-name performers and the brutal setting of the Bosnian war, the film is an almost impossible sell for audiences of any stripe”, said LATimes.com/entertainment bloggers.

Wrote The New York Times Manohla Dargis on the eve of the showing, touting Jolie’s gratuitous title as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:

“…(T)here’s a somewhat awkward instructional, at times almost proselytizing aspect to the story that seems of a piece with her laudable humanitarian work. That’s especially true in the scenes in which Ms. Jolie switches into full-on expository mode, putting dry, plodding words into the characters’ mouths that would work better in the kind of on-screen textual explanations, with their snippets of history and politics, that open and close the movie.”

That’s Dargis’ long definition of “propaganda.”

Reviewers wasted no time getting into step:

“Is it a bad sign when you want a movie to end almost as much as the war it’s about?” asked Sam Adams in the LA Times. [2]

“A mix of the powerful and the ridiculous, and eventually the ridiculous wins,” said Mick LaSalle nearly simultaneously in the San Francisco Chronicle.[3]

Variety’s Justin Chang penned a pre-release review of the movie, branding it a “dramatically misguided attempt to renew public awareness of the 1992-95 Balkan conflict” that “springs less from artistic conviction than from an over-earnest humanitarian impulse … “(I)ts scenario tilting into tarted-up banality.”[4]

Likewise, The Village Voice’s Karina Longworth characterized it as a coin-toss “between predictable tragedy and ludicrous redemption …a United Nations extra-credit project about the Bosnian War” and sniped at Jolie for “producing a sanctimonious vanity commercial for her own good intentions.”[5]

Nathan Rabin of the A.V. Club panned it as “a film of shuddering earnestness and fevered good intentions gone awry, a dreary slog of a message movie with little but noble if unfulfilled aspirations to commend it.”[6] He noted that “Serbian groups have justifiably complained about Jolie’s glib stereotyping of Serbs as racist heavies” and that she “once again succeeded in attracting international attention to international atrocities and it’s possible, if not particularly likely, that someday she will get around to dramatizing atrocities compellingly as well.”

Maybe even by both/all sides?

Intuiting yowls of protest from the star of “Catwoman”, her litter of “industry” cronies rushed to salve her ruffled fur in early December when the Producers Guild of America announced that the film would receive its 2012 Stanley Kramer Award[7], followed by more institutional feel-good and a nomination in the Best Foreign Language category for the 69th Golden Globe Awards.[8]

Truth be told, Hollywood doesn’t do well with movies about “those” Balkan wars of the 1990’s. Some would like to think that fans got wise to all the political manipulations and simplistic propaganda by American media about Serbs wearing black hats and everyone else as chaste as Snow White in a burka. But Angie, who signed that pre-nup with Brad in 2007 worth $220 million, isn’t getting hurt.[9]

A roll-call of some Balkan war films shows only one money-maker:

• “Behind Enemy Lines” with Gene Hackman from 2001, budgeted at $40 million, earnings worldwide of $92 million. But not a bonanza. (Rotten Tomatoes based on reviews from 129 critics, dubbed it “Rotten”)
• “Welcome to Sarajevo” in 1997 with Woody Harrelson, budgeted at $9 million, no earnings appear visible. No surprise.
• “Savior” and Dennis Quaid in 1998, $10 million budget. Ditto.
• “No Man’s Land,” in 2002, only worth mentioning because it got the Oscar for best foreign film. It cost $14 million; earned $5 million.
• “The Hunting Party”, in 2007 with Richard Gere spent $40 million and made less than a million in the U.S., but $7 million overseas. Kindest words were from New York Times’ Dargis, who called it a “huge disappointment …A misfired, misguided would-be satire.”

Surprisingly, Roger Ebert blinked in lieu of candor—and he probably had a free ticket. What, a quiz?:

“Although the United States and the United Nations had troops involved, I have a feeling that a good many Americans never worked up much interest in the Bosnian war. There were too many complexities for a soundbite. Was it Serbs against Croatians? Christians against Muslims? A free for all? Wasn’t it all once Yugoslavia? Which side were we on? Or did we simply want all of them to stop fighting?

“I hope I don’t sound snarky. The indifference of many moviegoers to world events affects the box office for any movie about such conflicts. It took a long struggle to get audiences worked up over, and even then, the key words were ‘bomb disposal’ and not ‘Iraq.’ Although we’ve spent a fortune in blood and resources in the Middle East, Hollywood has found audience indifference to events there. Even more so in the former Yugoslavia. When I mention Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia, how many nations have I named? Are they in fact nations? Here’s a curveball: Where are the Balkans?…[10]

Too touchy for ol’ Rog and all his politically-correct pals who sit together in the balconies?

But, among the biggest head-scratchers for “In the Land of Blood and Honey”? Why the obscure title? From an obscure poet? Or, more likely because Jolie had to hurry because bad pre-premiere publicity was going around that the film celebrated rape, and production had to be shortened before the “Mothers of Srebrenica” came stomping over the castle moat—with torches and pitchforks!

She told insidemovies.ew.com last May that coming up with the title was “driving me crazy. I have lists and lists of titles all over. She cited the subject matter of the film, which is set against the backdrop of the Bonsian Civil War in the 1990s, as the primary reason she was having such a hard time.

“‘It’s a heavy film,’ she added. ‘You want to find that title that really helps the audience know what they’re walking into.’”

Or, not walking into, as it turns out.

“…In making the announcement, Jolie said: ‘The film is specific to the Bosnian War, but it’s also universal. I wanted to tell a story of how human relationships and behavior are deeply affected by living inside a war.’”

Huh? Which “universe” does she live in?

[1] brainyquote.com
[2] Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2012.
[3] San Francisco Chronicle, January 5, 2012.
[4] Variety, December 16, 2011.
[5] The Village Voice, December 21, 2011.
[6] The A.V. Club, December 22, 2011.
[7] MSNBC. December 13, 2011.
[8] The Telegraph. December 15, 2011.
[9] Celebrity-Gossip.net, July 13, 2007
[10] January 4, 2012. n

Also see:

• Review of In the Land of Blood and Honey, a movie by Angelina Jolie
• Gray Falcon: A Dreary Slog
• Gray Falcon: War Porn

By William Dorich

I preface this review by admitting that I am not a film critic—however, I have written six books on Balkan history and as a journalist, many of my articles have been published dealing with the Balkans, that have been reproduced in the International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times among others and published in the Serbian press for two decades.

Regarding In the Land of Blood and Honey, I wish to correct what I observed, especially the distortion of historic facts. I will leave the artistic side to those who are more qualified. Sex, violence and fabrication appear alive and well in Hollywood as cinematic tricks are used to distract and “entertain” us.

Angelina Jolie wrote, directed and produced Blood and Honey. Jolie has unfortunately diverted our attention away from the facts regarding the Bosnian Civil War that she used as the backdrop for her exaggerated melodrama. She seems clueless that she plagiarized Shakespeare.

When Jolie went into this film production, she was fully aware of the emotional scars and personal losses of many Bosnian families, especially those of mixed marriages who will view this film. Pretending that her film is just make-believe but based on actual events, is a cop-out lacking responsibility—the kind of responsibility Jolie demands when human rights are violated.

Jolie arrogantly brushes aside the real Romeo & Juliet of Bosnia killed by a sniper on May 19, 1993. He was Bosko Brkic, a Bosnian Serb, and she was Admira Ismic, a Bosnian Muslim—they were assassinated as they tried to escape the Muslim side of Sarajevo by crossing the Vrbanja Bridge for safety on the Serbian side of the city. In their dying embrace they remained on that bridge for several days. The media, like vultures, manipulated their deaths and the ugly visual image for the benefit of their front page stories and nightly news.

But Jolie’s newest Romeo, Danijel, played by Serbian actor, Goran Kostic, and Juliet, Ajla, played by Muslim actress Zana Marjanovic, weaves a different story using sex, aggression and murder that perverts audiences’ senses into believing that violence, mistreatment and enslavement are supposed to represent a romance in the midst of an ethnic war. Granted, this is the prerequisite for a successful film today in Hollywood, and I acknowledge that the film was not intended to be a documentary, but, then again, propaganda always starts from this position.

The beginning of the film shows Ajla getting dressed for a date with a Serbian policeman. The following scene is of them dancing in a Sarajevo nightclub, meant to show a multi-ethnic city being shattered by a bomb blast, obviously launched by the Serbs. The next scene erupts with women being dragged onto a bus headed for what else? A Serb Rape Camp! Little footage is wasted before these women are taken from the bus, and moments later, a Serbian policeman throws one of them over the hood of a vehicle, pulls down her pants and rapes her. Next, the policeman grabs Ajla and proceeds to rape her when Danijel, her Serb love interest, prevents the rape and tells his fellow officer that she is not to be touched. Ajla survives the story locked in a room and only sleeps with Danijel. Why a young man would spend a war defending a woman with whom he only had one date, rings hollow in this plot. Turning that into another “Romeo & Juliet of Bosnia” comes off as rather naïve.

Jolie uses this Serbian bombing as the beginning of her film, ignoring the real start of the Bosnian Civil War when Muslim terrorists crashed into a Christian Serbian church during a wedding in Sarajevo, telling the guests that “Serbs were no longer allowed to display their centuries-old flag because Bosnia was now a Muslim country.” The thugs then shot and killed the father of the groom and seriously wounded the Serbian Orthodox priest and a dozen of the wedding guests.

Jolie omits any reference to the more than 2,000 Muslim terrorists who came to Sarajevo from Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan and who tortured and executed a dozen Serbian soldiers by roasting them on spits like animals and decapitating dozens more. Then carried their severed heads around Sarajevo as trophies. My files contain several of those hideous photographs.

Jolie also cleverly omits the fact that thousands of Serbs were fired from their jobs including my friend who worked for Sarajevo Television for over 25 years. Muslims went throughout Sarajevo’s apartment buildings evicting Serb tenants who lived in those units for decades. After tossing Serb families out they threw their possessions out of the windows into the street. Jolie never touches on the fact that 250,000 Serbs were cleansed from Sarajevo and were forbidden to return to cast their ballots in the first Bosnian election in which Alija Izetbegovic won the presidency by only 44,000 votes. Any rationale for the Serbian retaliation including self-defense in this film was obviously left on Jolie’s cutting-room floor.

The Croats who fought the Bosnian Muslims for 4 years escaped notice and were made invisible in this film. The Bosnian Muslims were portrayed as innocent victims brutalized by overpowering Serb forces.

As I sat through this film, I was reminded of Peter Brock’s outstanding book, Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting—Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia, in which one chapter is entitled, “Only Muslim Victims, Only Serb Perpetrators.” This movie, much like the contemptible record of the partisan press that covered this Civil War, keeps reinforcing the lie that “300,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed.” Like Goebbels during the Holocaust who preached “Tell a lie a hundred times and it becomes the truth,” the lie of 300,000 deaths and 60,000 rapes was repeated by the media for seven years, and the world was made to believe it.

Through reputable human rights organizations we now know that less than 97,000 victims were killed on all sides in these Balkan Civil Wars, hardly enough victims on any side to be considered “genocide.” We also know that Jolie was fully aware of the 800,000 victims hacked to death in Rwanda two years earlier that Jolie managed to ignore. However, it appears she embraced any Bosnian propaganda that fit into her melodrama. Blood and Honey was nominated in the foreign film category, but I do not think many in Hollywood expect much from her film-directing debut.

The dialogue does briefly acknowledge Serb victims at The Battle of Kosovo in 1389, an historical event that will escape 99% of any audience viewing this film. Also, the casual mention of the Croatian Ustashe Nazi forces in WWII who liquidated 1.4 million Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 78,000 Roma Gypsies is connected with a “Chetnik” remark (Chetniks were the Serbs who fought the Nazis) that will escape her audience as well.

While the Serbian Orthodox church received its share of blame in the media and in this film, no connection is made to the late Serbian Patriarch Pavle who led over a million Serbs in protest marches that were the largest and longest in decades against the Milosevich government. During an interview with the Swiss Federal Parliament on December 10, 1992, the Patriarch told officials: “800 Serb women were documented as repeated rape victims in 20 camps operated by Muslims and Croats.” The patriarch also cited the Yugoslav State Commission for War Crimes on August 2, 1992—the same day Newsday’s “death camp” stories went on American newsstands that identified locations at Sarajevo, Tuzla, Bugojno, Bihac and Slavonski Brod where Serb women were confined, raped and murdered by Croat and Muslim soldiers.

The Romeo & Juliet “love story” wears thin before the film finally puts the audience out of its misery when Danijel shoots his Muslim lover Ajla in the head at point blank range. The last scene of the film provides a final opportunity for Jolie to demonize the Serbian people as Danijel crawls to his knees before UN police and claims several times: “I am a War Criminal, I am a War Criminal,” a remark designed to remain in the minds of the audience as they leave the theater.

The film, however, does not embrace an audience; it stuns and bludgeons them with the rape issue. Jolie does not waste a good opportunity for full-blown propaganda by ending her film credits with various war-related statistics. In bold type one reads: “50,000 Bosnian rape victims,” a number that has long been discredited numerous times over the past dozen years. If this film is being presented as fiction, these statistical records were totally out of place and were used for political reasons.

The fabrications, partisan journalism and crude propaganda of the Bosnian Civil War by the international media can be summed up by one lone account from French journalist Jerome Bony, who described in a February 4, 1993 broadcast about his trek to Tuzla, which gained notoriety as the most prominent Bosnian town for finding Muslim rape victims:

“When I was fifty kilometers from Tuzla I was told to ‘go to the Tuzla gymnasium (high school) there are 4,000 raped women.’ At twenty kilometers, this figure dropped to 400. At ten kilometers, only forty were left. Once at the site, I found only four women willing to testify.”

The Land of Blood and Honey hemorrhages vulgarity with no “honey” to sweeten the pain of multi-ethnic violence in which all sides were responsible for war crimes in a three-sided civil War.

Like the kangaroo court in The Hague, Angelina Jolie’s film continues the process of condemning the Serbian people with collective guilt—denying them equal rights and equal justice as international political leaders continue to amputate portions of Serbian territory against her will and in violation of the UN Charter in which Serbia was a founding member; the Geneva Conventions, the Helsinki Final Act, and the NATO Treaty including violating UN Resolution #1244 that guaranteed Kosovo as sovereign Serbian territory as part of the peace agreement arranged by Richard Holbrooke. Surely, Jolie cannot be this ignorant?

Actor Jon Voight, Angelina Jolie’s father, attended Archbishop Stepinac High School in White Plains, New York, a school built in the 1950s and named after the Croatian Roman Catholic priest who was convicted by the allies of war crimes in WWII. He spent ten years in prison for his crimes against Serbs and Jews in Croatia, perhaps a clue to Jolie’s obvious anti-Serb bias.

If this film was meant to portray Ms. Jolie’s impressions of the recent civil war, sadly she did not take advantage of her public persona to give the wounded and divided people of Bosnia a reason to heal. As a Serb, I left the screening appalled that once again the word “Serb” has been made synonymous with evil—It appears then that Blood and Honey is Angelina Jolie’s attempt at cinematic genocide.

__________________

William Dorich is the author of 6 books on Balkan history including his 1991 book, Serbian Genocide 1941-45 and his 1992 book, Kosovo. He is the recipient of the Order of St. Sava, the highest recognition given to a layperson by the Holy Synod of Serbian Orthodox Bishops; an Award of Merit from the Serbian Bar Association of America and a Freedom Award by RAS—The International Serbian Organization.

For more information about the Balkans and books offered by this writer visit:
http://www.gmbooks.com

Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting – Peter Brock
http://www.gmbooks.com/product/MediaGM.html

Jasenovac Then & Now—A Conspiracy of Silence – Wm. Dorich
http://www.gmbooks.com/product/JasenovGM.html

Kosovo is Serbia – Dr. Vojin Joksimovich
http://www.gmbooks.com/product/Kosovo-GM.html

Hilandar Octocentenary – Wm. Dorich
http://www.gmbooks.com/product/HilandarGM.html

Liar’s Poker – Michel Collon
http://www.gmbooks.com/product/PokerGM.html

Occupy America: Leftists and Islamists United

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by Acts17Apologetics on Nov 20, 2011

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
Muslims have joined forces with the “Occupiers” to redistribute wealth.

WOULD YOU SPONSOR TERRORISM, PEDOPHILIA,WIFE BEATING?

(h/t: Matt Keegan)

Well, evidently Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Clinique Cosmetics have no problem with it…because they did. Take a read. And remember, this is America.

From The American Kafir, Walter Long, by permission.

Source Link: FrontPageMag

The Islamic Feminism of All-American Muslim

By Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time there used to be billboards for Virginia Slims cigarettes with the slogans, “You’ve come a long way, baby.” The billboards are gone now, but in their place are billboards for All-American Muslim which substitute the hijab for the cigarette. The same left which was outraged at a company marketing cigarettes as a form of female empowerment is completely supportive of marketing 7th century Islamic misogyny as female empowerment.

“The Fast and the Furious,” the second episode of TLC’s All-American Muslim, plays out like a hijab commercial, along with a pitch for the Ramadan fast. But what is missing is any acknowledgement of the violent means by which the hijab is imposed on Muslim and non-Muslim women around the world. For many women, even in North America, the consequences of not wearing the hijab can be fatal…

Read it all.

November 12, 2011
Letter to the Editor
The Toronto Star

Dear Editor:

If the Toronto Star provides editorial page space to Haroon Siddiqui the newspaper is responsible to assure your readers that what is printed is honest.  His lack of integrity reveals pure propaganda.

Beginning the article with an exaggerated lie, Siddiqui repeats the worn out mantra that “8,372 Muslims were massacred,” that is totally unsubstantiated with any evidence now for 16 years.  After the fall of Srebrenica the 8,000 figures was immediately reduced to 7,000 by the media, but apparently that fact flies in the face of Siddiqui’s obvious racists ploy. At the time international journalists interview dozens of eyewitnesses, none of who saw or reported any mass killings yet this lie continues to be repeated.

Mr. Siddiqui never once mentions Nasir Oric, one of the worse Muslim thugs in this Bosnian war. Along with his gang of butchers they not only destroyed 38 Serbian villages that surrounded Srebrenica, razing hundreds of homes, he used the so-called “Safe-Haven” as a retreat each night to hide among the protection of NATO forces. Oric video taped his slaughters of over 3,400 Serbian victims. To Siddiqui and all Bosnian Muslims those unarmed and innocent Serbs do not deserve the same justice he demands for his Muslim comrades.

Ten days after the fall of Srebrenica the Washington Post carried a story by John Pomfret who was a witness to what he called “About 4,000 Muslim troops from Srebrenica made their way through the forest to safety in Tuzla.” The ICRC released a memo two weeks prior to the fall of Srebrenica that disclosed that “About 4,000 Bosnian troops in Srebrenica were reassigned to other military duty kept secret even from their own families.”  If you add this 4,000 to those seen by Pomfret plus the alleged victims this totals more than 15,000 Muslim troops, a third of the Bosnian army in a safe haven? Siddiqui treats your readers like idiots.

I remind The Toronto Star that you carried a story of Nasir Oric written by Bill Schiller who said he was “forced to sit in the living room of Oric and watch the video of him decapitating his Serbian victim.”  Schiller called that video “Oric’s Greatest Hits.” Siddaqui never mentions this disgusting piece of video evidence.  The Hague Tribunal watch it and set Oric free, revealing the contempt this Kangaroo court has for real justice.

If Mr. Siddiqui is going to lecture your readers about justice, truth, stabilization, Dayton and victimology he should start with the facts, it is both insulting and immoral to repeat fabrications that have long been disproved.  Your readers deserve better.

William Dorich
Los Angeles

The writer is the author of 9 books on Balkan history and music including his 1992 book, Kosovo. He is the recipient of The Order of St. Sava the highest recognition given to a layperson by the Holy Synod of Serbian Orthodox Bishops.

Simon Deng tells it like it is.

With thanks to Hudson New York

Like you, I came to this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance to protest this third Durban conference which is an effort based on a set of lies, and organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

Durban III will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has lost its way. Its obsession with the Jewish obvious: . For over 50 years, 82% of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel. Hitler could not have been made happier.

Given all the good Israel does in the world, given its democracy and its striving to follow the highest standards of human rights, even in the face of the most brutal, the most fanatic enemies, the Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people know that.

But friends, I come here today to make a different case. I come with what you might at first think is a radical proposition: I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over fifty years the indigenous black African population of Sudan — Christians and Muslims alike — have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, Sudan, about four million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed, and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

Everybody at the United Nations is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency to provide for them; this agency, UNWRA, treats them with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN even resisted using the word “slavery” to describe the enslavement of tens of thousands of my people. Why? Because slavery is a crime against humanity, apparently no one committing it wanted to end up before an international court. When Khartoum insisted that the term “abducted people” be substituted for the word “slaves,” the UN, caved to Arab pressure and agreed. Try that in America. Try calling Frederick Douglas an “abducted person.” It is outrageous.

The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts. Take Darfur, for example. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.” It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism, as it has typically been practiced in Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And they also do not want to be Arabized. They like their own African languages and dress and customs. They resist Arabization. The Arab response is genocide. But nobody tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The regime is targeting the black Africans — Muslims and Christians. This happened to the Nuba people before. In the 1990′s hundreds of thousands were murdered; a large number of women were raped; children were abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Nobody at the UN told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you see a massive amount of outrage and reports and protests about this coming out of the UN or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Do you hear them condemn Arab anti-black racism?

Look at the pages of the New York Times, or the record of the UN condemnations, What you will find is “Israeli crimes” and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages by the exaggerations of Palestinian suffering. Why? Because what Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin that we are all supposed to address.

The truth is that the West commits a real sin when it abandons us: the actual victims of non-Westerns. Our suffering has become almost taboo.

Let me return to the topic of slavery: while there are issues that divide public opinion, we can all agree that for one man to own another is a sin, and it should be stopped. The Americans tore themselves apart over the issue of slavery.

Chattel slavery, a centuries-long practice in Sudan, was revived as a tool of war in the early ’90s. The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad, or holy war, and thereby legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.

I do not like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.

I was only nine years old when I was made a slave. An Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat destined to Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no.” All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”

The United Nations knew about the brutal enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs from the early days of the conflict. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group — sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening.

As soon as the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, the UN agency backtracked, and proceeded to criticize the Non-Governmental Organizations that worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League. So much for “human rights for everybody”.

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United Nations closed its doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least 26 of them.

After this event the Sudanese realized that Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So they continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for punishingly long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel’s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

The fact that even Darfuris, who are Muslims, chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area, speaks volumes.. Israel is racist? Israel is against the Muslim world? Ask the thousands of black Muslim Darfuris who found shelter inside the Jewish state.

When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response is absolutely the opposite of what the United Nations alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as “heaven.” No-one called them “abid” – an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations.

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. It is a state of people of the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with beautiful black Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Israel is a state that has taken my own black people in, rescued them, and helped them.

So, yes … my claim may be a radical claim: I claim that the victims who suffer most from the UN’s anti-Israel policy are not just the Israelis but all those people who have to be ignored in order for the UN to tell its big lie against Israel: all those victims of non Western abuse, especially all those victims of Arab and Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab and Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

So far, the Israelis have only been cursed by the UN. But look at the situation of the Copts, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais and Sikhs who suffer from Islamic oppression. We all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned so that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

Before I conclude let me tell you a story that reflects a special connection that the people of South Sudan feel toward Israel. In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor, and then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked and numb. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On July 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. We achieved freedom despite the opposition from the Arab world and despite the United Nations, whose General Secretary, Bi Ki Moon, lobbied for the unity of Sudan. For the South Sudanese, that would mean continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland; and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel’s legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I salute the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, who had the courage to state publicly that South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built— not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its people, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth.

This originally appeared in a a slightly different form as an address at a conference titled “The Perils of Global Intolerance”, in New York City, September 22, 2011.

Learn more about the new nation of South Sudan at Pickle92′s Blog.

Zilla of the Resistance writes:

I hope you can stop by my place to check this one out:

Grover Norquist’s dirty islamic supremacist ties finally have been exposed – on the floor of Congress.

Grover Norquist’s Islamic Supremacist Chickens Come Home to Roost

If you scratch the surface of any “Republican” who claims that “islam is a religion of peace“, who denies that there is a growing threat to our security and freedom from islamic supremacist conquest of the West, odds are, you will find links to Grover Norquist. The anti-jihad movement has been raising the alarm about him for years, but they have been either dismissed, ignored, or demonized for doing so. However, members of Congress can no longer pretend that they don’t know.
[…]
Much, much more here. Please read it all.

It totally surprised me that so many believed Clinton in his war against the Serbian Christians – when in my opnion, Clinton was one of the biggest con-artist presidents this country has ever seen, and yet the American people believed his hypocrisy…

- Sparta

What Really Happened in Bosnia

June 1, 2011 | From theTrumpet.com

The untold truth about Ratko Mladic

By Richard Palmer

It was genocide. Charles Krauthammer called it “the largest ethnic cleansing of the entire Balkan wars.” A March 1999 New York Times article agreed with him.

“Investigators with the war-crimes tribunal in the Hague have concluded that this campaign was carried out with brutality, wanton murder and indiscriminate shelling of civilians,” Krauthammer wrote.

Is this the dreaded “Srebrenica” massacre, the “worst atrocity in Europe since the Second World War” perpetrated by the evil Serbs led by Ratko Mladic, who has now been arrested and will be brought to justice?

No.

This genocide was carried out by the Croats—the “good guys”—and so it was encouraged and praised by the West.

The massacre Krauthammer was describing was in the region of Krajina in Croatia. Croatian troops forced an estimated 200,000 Serbs to flee (National Post, March 13, 2004).

“A war that begins with civilian areas being shelled at 5 a.m. when women and children are asleep in their beds and ends with a massive exodus of more than 100,000 people is surely tantamount to ethnic cleansing,” said UN spokesman Chris Gunness.

According to Robert Fisk, writing in the Independent, the European Union’s confidential assessment from Krajina stated the following:

Evidence of atrocities; an average of six corpses p/day, continues to emerge … the corpses; some fresh, some decomposed, are mainly of old men. Many have been shot in the back of the head or had throats slit, others have been mutilated. Isolated pockets of elderly civilians report people recently gone missing or detained …. Endless Croat invitations for Serbs to return, guarantees of citizens’ rights and property rights, etc., have gushed forth from all levels …. However, Serbian homes and lands … continue to be torched and looted.

Contrary to official statements blaming it on fleeing Serbs and uncontrollable elements, the crimes have been perpetrated by the HV Croatian Army, the CR Croatian police and CR civilians. There have been no observed attempts to stop it and the indications point to a scorched-earth policy.

Two senior Canadian military officers present in Croatia at the time testified that the Croatians attacked indiscriminately and targeted civilians.

One of these officers, Maj. Gen. Andrew Leslie, estimated around 500 civilians were murdered.

“In the hospital itself, there were bodies stacked in the corridors,” he said. “There were bodies in almost every hospital bed. And there were bodies lying in the foyer, the reception area and some of the corridors” (National Post, Dec. 9, 2005).

Yugoslav envoy Vladimir Pavicevic claimed that 15,000 Serbs were dead in Krajina, and that this total included slain refugees and soldiers who had already surrendered (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Aug. 14, 1995). The International Committee of the Red Cross reported that 10,000 to 15,000 refugees were still missing, over three weeks after the initial attack (Sun Herald, Aug. 27, 1995).

Why is Srebrenica everywhere, yet Krajina barely gets a mention? On April 15, Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ictyf) for what he did in Krajina. It was hardly mentioned in the press. Ratko Mladic is captured. It’s all over the papers.

Media Deception

Serbia’s earliest defeat came in the PR war. Early on, Serbia’s enemies engaged Ruder Finn, an American public relations firm, to get their message out. James Harff, director of Ruder Finn’s Global Public Affairs section, boasted about his success against Serbia.

“Nobody understood what was going on in (former) Yugoslavia,” he said in an October 1993 interview. “The great majority of Americans were probably asking themselves in which African country Bosnia was situated.”

Ruder Finn took advantage of this ignorance. Its first goal was to persuade the Jews to oppose the Serbs—not an easy task. “The Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by a real and cruel anti-Semitism,” said Harff. “Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps. So there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians.”

Harff used a couple reports in the New York Newsday about Serbian concentration camps to persuade Jewish groups to demonstrate against the Serbs. “This was a tremendous coup,” said Harff. “When the Jewish organizations entered the game on the side of the Bosnians, we could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind.”

He continued: “By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by targeting Jewish audience, the right target. Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with the use of words with high emotional content, such as ‘ethnic cleansing,’ ‘concentration camps,’ etc., which evoked inmates of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. The emotional change was so powerful that nobody could go against it.”

Western reporting of the Balkan wars became spectacularly biased…

Foreign Policy magazine pointed out that news outlets published many photos they said showed victims of Serbian persecution. But the captions simply weren’t correct. In many cases, the victims themselves were Serbs.

Read the rest.

Relabeling slaughtered Serbs as “victims of Serbian persecution” is the equivalent of re-murdering the dead.

Also see:

• Srebrenica, A Town Betrayed: Finally, a Critical Documentary about the Srebrenica Tragedy

This Soros-funded course for journalists slanders the entire Counterjihad as an “astroturf” right-wing conspiracy.

Project much, George?

Media Research Center Network/CMI has the story:

(h/t: Big Journalism)

Program launched to teach press about Muslim sensitivities blames ‘right-wing activists.’

By Iris Somberg Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:34 AM EDT

A new course on Islam designed for journalists tries to minimize the impact and importance of “jihad” by comparing it to the number of murders in America each year. That same course claims “right-wing activists” tried to tie American Muslims to terrorism and doesn’t mention examples of Islamic attacks on press freedom.

That’s the way a prominent news organization is teaching journalists in a three-hour online course. The Poynter News University, part of the Poynter Institute, launched the free course “Covering Islam in America” to guide the media on their coverage of Muslim communities.

The George Soros-funded Social Science Research Council, which received $50,000 from the Open Society Institute “For Initiative on HIV/AIDS and Social Transformation,” is one of the groups behind the initiative, along with the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. That fits with a theme for liberal financier Soros, who has spent more than $52 million on influencing the media. The Islamic course also links to another Soros-funded entity, the well-financed Center for American Progress.

In about 30 pages of text with links to other reports and articles, journalists can go through and read about the history of Islam, Muslims in America, and how to cover stories on Islam. Besides learning basic facts about Muslims and their history, the course adds ways to put “jihad” into perspective, attack conservatives, and provide a list of liberal groups that can be contacted for expert advice and quotes.

The pre and post-assessments give a hint as to the nature of the course. One question asked, “What grievances might sources associated with ‘Political Islam’ hold against Western journalists?” The answer is that “Western journalists are seen as all of the following: “hostile to Islam,” “focus too much on Islamic violence,” “viewed as water carriers for Western government agendas,” and “thought to be unable to understand Islam unless they embrace Islam.”

Course instructors Lawrence Pintak and Stephen Franklin are both former foreign correspondents. Pintak serves as dean at The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University, which is a partner of the project…

Edward R. Murrow must be turning in his grave.

…He also has two books on journalism and Islam and defends the biased, activist network Al Jazeera English.

This course is “A project of The Poynter Institute funded by The Knight Foundation.” Soros’s Open Society Foundations have worked closely with The Knight Foundation. They partnered up to start the Investigative News Network, which received $200,000 from the Knight Foundation and $100,000 from the Open Society Foundations. The Knight Foundations President and CEO, Alberto Ibarguen, is also on the board for AOL and yet another key Soros backed group, the progressive investigative reporting start-up ProPublica.

There is some useful information in the Islamic course for those journalists that did not pay attention in their history classes and are ignorant of Islamic beliefs. However, this does not excuse statements that accuse conservatives of bigotry.

“Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a group of right-wing activists who view themselves as ‘anti-Jihadists’ have aggressively tried to tie American Muslims to terrorism overseas and in the United States. You can learn more about some of these groups in the following…”

The reports that journalists are told to look at to uncover the “right-wing activists” agenda are even more telling. The first is a report from none other than the Soros-funded progressive group Center for American Progress, which received $7.3 million from the Open Society Foundations since the year 2000.

Read it all.

This is just one method George Soros uses to plant his agenda into the minds of media professionals.

Also see:

• Big Journalism: FCC Orders NBC Newsrooms To Partner With Soros-Funded Non-Profits