Photos of Peaceful Muslims not shown in the United States Media

These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers, but were forwarded by a Canadian friend who thought all Americans ought to know!

 

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent ' Religion of Peace Demonstration.

Conservatives Must Join the Battle for America On Twitter

 

In 2004,  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth scared the hell out of the corrupt media. The MSM was sure incumbent President George W. Bush would finally get the humiliation he deserved after the close election in 2000 because, in a time of war, Democrats had nominated Senator John F. Kerry, a "war hero." 

Those best laid plans completely fell apart when a number of veterans, some of whom had served with Kerry in Vietnam, came out with a series of television ads attacking the credibility of Kerry's wartime claims, and most especially, the hagiography the media had written to back those claims up.  

At first, Kerry and his media minions willfully ignored the Swift Boat Veterans, assuming they could wait them out. What happened, though, is that the story took off in the alternative media: Drudge, blogs, and Fox News. 

Finally, the media was forced to report on it, and the result was the whole episode blowing up in the media's face. Kerry's primary strength was undermined by the truth, and Bush went on to a second term. 

The media was rattled to the core by this and quickly figured out what had happened. A narrative had grown on New Media, damaged their candidate, and by the time the corrupt media got around to attempting to destroy the credibility of the story and, quite reprehensibly, the men who told it, it was too late.

The media cried "Never again!" and, as a result, birthed an unholy set of twins to back that cry up: Media Matters and a number of corrupt truth squads and fact checkers, like Politifact. 

Both of these entities are what I call Inconvenient Narrative Zappers. Their job is to spot emerging and potential narratives damaging to the Left and, before they make their way into the mainstream media, to use lies, half-truths, rationalizations, shameless spin, and anything else they can think of to discredit those narratives and ensure they gain no traction. This allows the MSM to either completely ignore stories it doesn't want to amplify or to simply report on "an already discredited story" bubbling online.  

Think about what the anti-Semitic, Soros-funded, tax-exempt Media Matters and its equally dishonest brethren in the form of these MSM fact-checkers would've done to the Swift Boat Veterans. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it, because we all saw what was done to stories inconvenient to Obama's ascendancy to the presidency in 2008. 

Anything and everything having to do with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and the rest of Obama's inexperienced and shadowy past was attacked, marginalized,  and exploded in a controlled environment before it ever got to the MSM. By the time Anderson Cooper or Bryan Williams got around to the story, they had already been supplied the talking points necessary to downplay it. This tactic was absurdly effective and now 23 million unemployed Americans are living with the result of an unqualified Leftist sitting in the Oval Office. 

We all laughed in 2009 when Politifact fact-checked an "SNL" sketch critical of Obama, but there was a method to their madness. Leftists like those at Politifact understand the power of satire to define someone. Thus, in order to protect Obama, Politifact was willing to make of fools of themselves to undermine any traction the "SNL" sketch about Obama's broken promises might have received. 

On a more serious note, here's the harrowing story of how Media Matters stole justice from a black man beaten in public by Obama's SEIU thugs only hours after the White House issued an order to "punch back twice as hard." Most importantly, it's the tale of how Media Matters gave the media the cover it so desired to ignore the story. 

But it's not 2009 anymore; it's 2012, and Twitter has not only changed everything, it's allowing everyday American conservatives the opportunity to beat Media Matters and these corrupt fact checkers at their own game. 

Read More: Breitbart 

What did Al-qaeda have to do with Benghazi?

 

All scandals have layers of meaning. Watergate was about a second-rate burglary, but more importantly, it was about Richard M. Nixon's abuse of presidential power. 

However, much of that message was ruined by the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson abused power as much as Nixon did. Because Nixon is still a convenient whipping boy for the left, we never hear about LBJ's sins. 

Twenty years before Watergate, Nixon was engaged in a brutal battle with the Stalinist left of the 1950s. Watergate "gave the left a sword," as Nixon famously said. The Washington Post assaulted the Nixon presidency in collusion with Mark Felt (Deep Throat), who hated Nixon for passing him up for FBI director. 

Watergate was therefore a major battle in the long war between the radical left and mainstream America. 

Like Watergate, Benghazi has several layers. But the most revealing one is the active collusion between this administration and Al Qaida.
 
Al Qaida is a Saudi-inspired and Saudi-funded terror gang. Almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. Those facts are always covered up, but they are crucial to understanding the Jihad War. 

In Benghazi we ran arms from Libya to Al Qaida rebels in Syria. The Saudis are funding that rebellion. 

There's that Saudi link again. 

In Egypt we backed the Muslim Brotherhood against Hosni Mubarak, who kept the peace treaty with Israel for 30 years. Thirty years of peace in the Middle East is a huge achievement. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat the peacemaker, one of the rare Arab moderates who saw the light. Today we are in league with those who assassinated Anwar Sadat. For shame.

Today Egypt is starving, and the people hate the new regime. 

The Saudis are naturally on the side of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood because they share the Sunni war theology. 

So the Saudis have won again, with Obama acting as their American errand boy. 

In Libya, we again made common cause with Sunni radicals against Muammar Gadaffi, a real nutcase, but a man who was able to run Libya's tribal federation for years. Gadaffi had turned over his nuclear program to the George W. Bush Administration. We still betrayed him to support his enemies, and Libya is in a civil war even now. 

Again, the Muslim radicals won. 

The bottom line is that Obama has consistently supported the most radical Muslim elements in the Middle East. 

But we never supported the young people of the democratic Green Revolution against the vicious mullah regime in Iran. When Obama first met Benyamin Netanyahu he acted like an abusive bully. 

Obama only bows down to Third World reactionaries. 

That is consistent with his extreme leftist ideology. It also fits the worldwide left-Muslim alliance that has made Israel and the U.S. the targets of the most vicious hate campaign since World War II. Check MEMRI.org if you doubt it.

Obama may not be committing technical treason. 

But he is a revolutionary, and so are all his friends.

Read More: The American Thinker

 

 @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

What does the United Nations really cost the U.S. Taxpayer?

 

Year after year, the U.S. pays more into the United Nations system than any other nation. Yet figuring out exactly how much we spend on the U.N. and its affiliated organizations is deceptively difficult.

Although most U.S. contributions come from the State Department, hundreds of millions of dollars also flow from other parts of the federal government. Thus, relying on State Department data fails to capture the full picture.

In 2006, Senator Tom Coburn addressed this issue by asking the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a comprehensive report on total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The OMB is in charge of overseeing the preparation of the president’s budget, so it was in a position to require all U.S. agencies to report the requested information.

That 2006 report was an eye-opener. The OMB calculated that U.S. contributions totaled $4.115 billion in 2004 and $5.327 billion in 2005. By comparison, the State Department had estimated 2004 contributions at “well over $3 billion” — far short of the actual amount reported by the OMB.

Five years later, the OMB reported that FY 2010 contributions the U.N. system exceeded $7.691 billion — more than $1.3 billion higher than the previous record, set the year before.  Indeed, 2010 marked the third consecutive year in which U.S. contributions had reached a new high.

Unfortunately, the mandate requiring the OMB to report on U.S. contributions to the U.N. system expired in 2011, and the Obama administration has chosen not to report this information since then. As a result, there is no comprehensive accounting of U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for FY 2011 or FY 2012. Nor will we know how much will be spent this year or in the future, unless Congress renews the OMB report mandate.

Republicans Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mo Brooks have introduced legislation to fix this lapse. Whether you favor cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N. or increasing them, everyone should agree that good governance requires that the U.S. accurately track and report those contributions to Congress and the public.  

Another Great Report via: National Review

Why is Jay Leno Trouncing David Letterman in the ratings?

 

We've already seen audiences fleeing MSNBC, the network that religiously carries the Obama administration's water, as a number of scandals rock the White House.

Now, it looks like the long-running battle between Jay Leno and David Letterman is also being affected by the toxic headlines swirling around the president.

During this year's May sweeps, "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" posted a 39 percent lead over "Late Show With David Letterman" in the advertiser-cherished 18-49 demographic -- the widest May sweep margin over "Late Show" since 2004, and a 12 percent increase over last year's May sweep....

In total viewers, Leno also widened the lead over Letterman compared to last year, averaging 3.515 million versus 2.767 million for Letterman. That's a 27 percent advantage, up 16 percent from last May.

So, what changed?

Leno continues to hammer President Obama for his connection to several political nightmares, from the IRS hounding Tea Party groups to the Department of Justice eavesdropping on high-profile journalists. Meanwhile, Letterman is still focusing his comic firepower on the GOP, all but ignoring Obama as a target of mockery.

Audiences apparently want their late night hosts to do their job rather than protect the powerful.

By:  Christian Toto at Breitbart