The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
YouTube Banned Me, But Not the Hate Imams
by Michelle Malkin
.
Paris Climate Accord Pollaganda
Plastered among this week’s headlines (some even sporting the “Breaking News” banner) are the findings of a new poll on public opinion regarding Donald Trump’s decision to say au revoir to the Paris climate accord. A Washington Post headline emphatically declared, “Post-ABC poll: Nearly 6 in 10 oppose Trump scrapping Paris agreement.”
According to the survey, 59% of Americans overall disagree with Trump’s decision. In contrast, a paltry 28% support it. Unsurprisingly, the majority of that support comes from Republicans, 67% of whom condone Trump’s move. Also unsurprisingly, 82% of Democrats and 63% of Independents believe the exit was wrongheaded (if not flat out apocalyptic). However, Democrats — besides having lost the climate accord battle — don’t necessarily have a lot to celebrate in this poll, for two reasons.
First, there’s a major caveat in these numbers that reflects the Democrats' worst bane: Their failure to garner overwhelming support for their statist policy prescriptions. The fact that just 59% of Americans supposedly oppose Trump’s move actually represents a remarkable failure on the Left’s part. Why? For 30 years climate alarmists have been lecturing, pleading with and vilifying climate skeptics. And 59% support is the best they can muster?
Of course, that’s assuming the poll is even accurate (a dubious proposition), which brings us to the second point. We define Pollaganda as “polling used to manipulate public opinion and advance a particular bias,” or “instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome.” In the minds of leftists, the Post-ABC poll shows just how “out of touch” Trump is with the majority of America. But polls — particularly Leftmedia ones — prove nothing because they are manipulated from the start.
The next time the Post uses damning surveys to belittle Trump’s policy decisions, just remember this: Those same surveys unanimously, prematurely and wrongly predicted a blowout victory for liar-Hillary Clinton. Moreover, remember that the Paris exit is good for America (and, more importantly, the Constitution) regardless of opinions so-called experts try to extract from polls. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/digests/49505
https://patriotpost.us/digests/49505
.
.
Indiana: Muslims enraged by
billboard telling truth about Muhammad
by ROBERT SPENCER
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ Rep. Andre Carson "said he believes the billboard is untrue and that the billboard's author takes Islamic text and history out of context ‘just like al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Klan do to religious texts to justify their bigotry.'"... "Untrue" is not the same thing as "out of context," and of course the latter is the tried-and-true dodge of Islamic supremacists when presented with uncomfortable passages of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Notice also Carson's invocation of "al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Klan." Two are international jihad terror organizations that have mounted murderous jihad attacks all over the world and continue to be global threats. The other is a tiny organization of nuts that would get no notice at all were it not for its usefulness to the Leftist establishment. Carson is trying to give the impression that, as we hear so often, every religion has its "extremists," and so Islamic jihad terrorism really isn't all that unusual. "Faryal Khatri, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis-based Islamic Society of North America, said not only is the billboard not true, it is hurtful to her as a practicing Muslim. To Khatri, the most disappointing aspect of the sign is that it could incite hate crimes toward Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim."...The billboard is true and correct. This needs to be sent to all. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/indiana-muslims-enraged-by-billboard-telling-truth-about-muhammad?f=must_reads
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ Rep. Andre Carson "said he believes the billboard is untrue and that the billboard's author takes Islamic text and history out of context ‘just like al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Klan do to religious texts to justify their bigotry.'"... "Untrue" is not the same thing as "out of context," and of course the latter is the tried-and-true dodge of Islamic supremacists when presented with uncomfortable passages of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Notice also Carson's invocation of "al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Klan." Two are international jihad terror organizations that have mounted murderous jihad attacks all over the world and continue to be global threats. The other is a tiny organization of nuts that would get no notice at all were it not for its usefulness to the Leftist establishment. Carson is trying to give the impression that, as we hear so often, every religion has its "extremists," and so Islamic jihad terrorism really isn't all that unusual. "Faryal Khatri, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis-based Islamic Society of North America, said not only is the billboard not true, it is hurtful to her as a practicing Muslim. To Khatri, the most disappointing aspect of the sign is that it could incite hate crimes toward Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim."...The billboard is true and correct. This needs to be sent to all. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/indiana-muslims-enraged-by-billboard-telling-truth-about-muhammad?f=must_reads
.
Clapper Smears Trump To
Australia Media, Worse Than Watergate
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs has a few thoughts on “the latest efforts of the Dems, the left, the deep state to subvert the Trump administration... and to try to damage President Trump in any way they can with the help of the left-wing national media.” Dobbs continues, “Earlier today, deep state spymaster, former Director of National Security James Clapper was at it again. Talking his usual spook-speak that enthralls only the deadheads on Capitol Hill, Clapper, who previously has admitted there’s not a scintilla of evidence that President Trump or his campaign ever colluded with the Russians, travelled all the way to Canberra, Australia.” Dobbs explains Clapper was there, “To tell Australia’s national press club about the difference between Watergate and the concocted claims of collusion with the Russians.”... http://rickwells.us/dobbs-clapper-smears-trump-australia-media-worse-watergate/
.Comey hearing: Ex-FBI director
talks Trump, Russia investigation
by foxnews.com
{foxnews.com} ~ Former FBI director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intel Committee on his conversations with President Trump. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/08/comey-hearing-ex-fbi-director-talks-trump-russia-investigation-live-blog.html
.
Trump didn't ask me to stop Russia investigation
Lynch/liar-Clinton meeting was why email probe went public
Trump didn't order me to drop Flynn probe
James Comey Admits He Leaked Information To Media
Comey Debunks NYT Report About Trump Campaign Having Repeated Contacts With Russians
.
Levin on Media’s Rehabilitation of
James Comey: ‘The Media Will Run with Anything’
by Theresa Smith
{cnsnews.com} ~ During his nationally syndicated radio show on Tuesday, Mark Levin called out the liberal media’s inconsistency toward former FBI Director James Comey, saying, “The media will run with anything.”... “Now, the media will run with anything,” stated Mark Levin. “The media will do anything. All of a sudden, they rehabilitated James Comey.” Levin read from a story from ABC News regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before congress members, which provoked Levin’s comments... http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/theresa-smith/levin-medias-rehabilitation-james-comey-media-will-run-anything?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWW1RMFpHUmtPRFpqWXpjMCIsInQiOiJDUnVmMXBMQmk5Nk
5WZ1Rxd3FteGxiMnB3VHIydFBrejVBQWNwK3g3RXhZNytWQ09WdHdvMlVXdHp
BaXNkSEVuZmpRVW13MnRlMk4wUFA2NTF5Ykl5eUZkUFFuSlhsQjg1RjhiTzU5Q
TVla05vb0s0cE43QW1rbGFKWE0rYzZBViJ9
RNC's talking points for
James Comey hearing revealed
by Washington Examiner Staff
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ The Republican National Committee has a battle plan for former FBI Director James Comey's testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday... In talking points obtained by the Washington Examiner, the RNC offers Republicans a number of pointers including how to respond to Comey's opening statement, which was released on Wednesday. He is expected to testify at length about his private conversations with President Trump while keeping talk about the ongoing federal investigation into Russian interference relatively brief. Here's a sneak peek of the line of attack Republicans are encouraged to take Thursday:... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rncs-talking-points-for-james-comey-hearing-revealed/article/2625307
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ The Republican National Committee has a battle plan for former FBI Director James Comey's testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday... In talking points obtained by the Washington Examiner, the RNC offers Republicans a number of pointers including how to respond to Comey's opening statement, which was released on Wednesday. He is expected to testify at length about his private conversations with President Trump while keeping talk about the ongoing federal investigation into Russian interference relatively brief. Here's a sneak peek of the line of attack Republicans are encouraged to take Thursday:... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rncs-talking-points-for-james-comey-hearing-revealed/article/2625307
.
.
YouTube Banned Me, But Not the Hate Imams
by Michelle Malkin
{truthrevolt.org} ~ One of the many maddening takeaways from the London Bridge jihad attack is this: If you post videos on YouTube radicalizing Muslim viewers to kill innocent people, YouTube will leave you alone.
But if you post a video on YouTube honoring innocent people murdered by barbaric jihadists, your video will get banned.
I know. It happened to me in 2006. Eleven years later, the selective censors at Google-YouTube still can't competently distinguish terrorist hate speech from political free speech. Islamic hate preachers such as Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose bloodthirsty rants against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader, have flourished.
Meanwhile, other anti-jihad and conservative content creators have been throttled, flagged, demonetized and kicked off the site since the P.C. hammer first came down on me.
My two-minute clip, which I titled "First, They Came," spotlighted authors, editors, politicians, and other targets of Islamic intolerance and violence. Among those featured in the video on radical Islam's war on Western free speech: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker murdered by jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri for his outspoken criticism of Muslim misogyny; Salman Rushdie, whom the Ayatollah Khomeini cast a fatwa upon after he published the "blasphemous" "The Satanic Verses"; Oriana Fallaci, the fiery journalist put on trial in Italy for "defaming Islam;" and the editors of the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper, who faced death threats for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, which prompted violent riots and terror plots around the world.
I contrasted the plight of those killed with the hordes of Muslim protesters in London's safe spaces fearlessly waving their signs demanding that the faithful "Behead all those who insult Islam" and "Exterminate those who slander Islam."
Several months later, YouTube yanked the innocuous, harmless, nonviolent, nonprofane, nonhateful, and nonthreatening mini-film. The company informed me that the video contained "inappropriate content." I complained across social media — posting additional YouTube videos calling attention to the ban. But "First, They Came" stayed deep-sixed on my YouTube channel. Other bloggers and video consumers tried to subvert the censors by posting the clip on their sites; it became a game of whack-a-mole as the YouTube police hunted it down.
Counterjihad activists nicknamed YouTube "JihadTube" or "Dhimmitube" to mock the censors' acquiescence to Islamist restrictions on acceptable speech by infidels — as Islamic radicalization videos festered on the site.
Three pieces in The New York Times covered my skirmish over the little video. Reporter Tom Zeller Jr. reported that YouTube had emailed him a statement suggesting that my video "violated the company's terms of service." YouTube also told the newspaper, "Our customer support team reviews all flagged videos before removing them."
The statement "specifically referred to the part of the YouTube user agreement that forbids users from submitting material that is 'unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate.'"
George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a New York Times magazine article on "Google's Gatekeepers" that he "watched the 'First, They Came' video, which struck me as powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman, the takedown was a routine one that hadn't been reviewed by higher-ups."
Only after receiving fair exposure in The New York Times (my, how times and the Times have changed) did the video magically reappear on my channel.
Now, contrast Google/YouTube's ridiculous stifling of "First, They Came" with its hands-off treatment of murder-inciting videos of hate imams Ahmad Musa Jibril and Abu Haleema.
Their rancid rants encouraging jihad by the sword and murder of non-Muslims have racked up millions of views over the past five years. Millions. Counterterrorism officials in multiple countries have tied their social media poison to jihad plots. The company told Conservative Review's Jordan Schachtel that it had reviewed the hate imams' channels and "found that they do not violate YouTube's guidelines on extremist or hateful content."
The enlightened peace-and-love progressives of Silicon Valley don't just have egg on their faces. They have blood on their hands.
But if you post a video on YouTube honoring innocent people murdered by barbaric jihadists, your video will get banned.
I know. It happened to me in 2006. Eleven years later, the selective censors at Google-YouTube still can't competently distinguish terrorist hate speech from political free speech. Islamic hate preachers such as Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose bloodthirsty rants against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader, have flourished.
Meanwhile, other anti-jihad and conservative content creators have been throttled, flagged, demonetized and kicked off the site since the P.C. hammer first came down on me.
My two-minute clip, which I titled "First, They Came," spotlighted authors, editors, politicians, and other targets of Islamic intolerance and violence. Among those featured in the video on radical Islam's war on Western free speech: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker murdered by jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri for his outspoken criticism of Muslim misogyny; Salman Rushdie, whom the Ayatollah Khomeini cast a fatwa upon after he published the "blasphemous" "The Satanic Verses"; Oriana Fallaci, the fiery journalist put on trial in Italy for "defaming Islam;" and the editors of the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper, who faced death threats for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, which prompted violent riots and terror plots around the world.
I contrasted the plight of those killed with the hordes of Muslim protesters in London's safe spaces fearlessly waving their signs demanding that the faithful "Behead all those who insult Islam" and "Exterminate those who slander Islam."
Several months later, YouTube yanked the innocuous, harmless, nonviolent, nonprofane, nonhateful, and nonthreatening mini-film. The company informed me that the video contained "inappropriate content." I complained across social media — posting additional YouTube videos calling attention to the ban. But "First, They Came" stayed deep-sixed on my YouTube channel. Other bloggers and video consumers tried to subvert the censors by posting the clip on their sites; it became a game of whack-a-mole as the YouTube police hunted it down.
Counterjihad activists nicknamed YouTube "JihadTube" or "Dhimmitube" to mock the censors' acquiescence to Islamist restrictions on acceptable speech by infidels — as Islamic radicalization videos festered on the site.
Three pieces in The New York Times covered my skirmish over the little video. Reporter Tom Zeller Jr. reported that YouTube had emailed him a statement suggesting that my video "violated the company's terms of service." YouTube also told the newspaper, "Our customer support team reviews all flagged videos before removing them."
The statement "specifically referred to the part of the YouTube user agreement that forbids users from submitting material that is 'unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate.'"
George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a New York Times magazine article on "Google's Gatekeepers" that he "watched the 'First, They Came' video, which struck me as powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman, the takedown was a routine one that hadn't been reviewed by higher-ups."
Only after receiving fair exposure in The New York Times (my, how times and the Times have changed) did the video magically reappear on my channel.
Now, contrast Google/YouTube's ridiculous stifling of "First, They Came" with its hands-off treatment of murder-inciting videos of hate imams Ahmad Musa Jibril and Abu Haleema.
Their rancid rants encouraging jihad by the sword and murder of non-Muslims have racked up millions of views over the past five years. Millions. Counterterrorism officials in multiple countries have tied their social media poison to jihad plots. The company told Conservative Review's Jordan Schachtel that it had reviewed the hate imams' channels and "found that they do not violate YouTube's guidelines on extremist or hateful content."
The enlightened peace-and-love progressives of Silicon Valley don't just have egg on their faces. They have blood on their hands.
Comments