Real Time Analytics



 

 

The left likes to call it the “birther” issue.   The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is.   Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.

 

I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue.  Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side.  It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.

 

Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too. 

 

Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him. 

 

Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue.   Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”

 

This issue does matter.

 

There are three variations on the eligibility issue.  Two are based on undisputed facts.  The third is in dispute.

 

The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii.   I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii.   Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight. 

 

Why?

 

Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama.  (See his website, Cashill.com).   In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.

 

The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.

 

The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen.   Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship.   He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President. 

 

What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues. 

 

The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters.  They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement.  Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.

 

If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out.  Obamacare is gone.  The START treaty is gone.  The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.

 

Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone.  Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves.  They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.

 

The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims.  None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue.   Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues.  We can only hope.

 

What are the chances of success?  Who knows?

 

Why do football teams run the flea flicker play?   It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular.  Why should conservatives all hope this works out?  Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done.  We get a do over.

 

You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.

Views: 85708

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Gerald Celente is the owner of Trends Research and publisher of "Trends Journal" (which is often referred to as "The Bible" by people in the world of finance).

    

Here is an idea. Start tracking the banks. Start tracking the members of CFR. Start learning the real history of the last hundred years.  All the evidence is available.

 

Thank you for for posting the cartoon, Royce.   My PC would not do it.

  

Catching uo. That reference Elizabeth seemed to have retired.

This video is unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
Sorry about that.
   


Gerald Celente - Marc Carbonaro, Fox News Radio - June 20, 2012

 

Interview with Gerald Celente of Trends Research and publisher of “Trends Journal” --  Fox News Radio.

 

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Od0eb-...

Go to http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com for more.

         


    
ASK, AND YE SHALL RECEIVE: A list of strong anti-Islam proponents in Congress
by barenakedislam
Thanks to my self-proclaimed enemy, Sheila Musaji at The American Muslim, for providing a list of what she calls 'Congressional Islamophobes.' Be sure to support the people on this list in their re-election efforts:



SHEILA WRITES  It is interesting how many of those in Congress who have an Islamophobia problem are members of the same group CAPITOL MINISTRIES which hosts regular Christian Bible studies for, and ministers to, members of Congress.  Capitol Ministries has a website at http://www.capmin.org/site/  

Who are the elected representatives active in this group?

On the Capitol Ministries page listing Congressional Sponsors here are those listed as of 7/20/12:

Todd Akin (MO), Michele Bachmann (MN), Spencer Bachus (AL), Marsha Blackburn (TN),Paul Broun, (GA), Dan Burton (IN), John Campbell (CA), John Carter (TX), Bill Cassidy (LA), Jeff Denham (CA), John Duncan (TN), Mary Fallin (Gov. OK), John Fleming (LA, Trent Franks (AZ), Scott Garrett (NJ), Louie Gohmert (TX), Tom Graves (GA), Ralph Hall (TX), Gregg Harper (MS), Pete Hoekstra (MI), Randy Hultgren (IL), Bill Johnson (OH), Jim Jordan (OH), Steve King (IA), James Lankford (OK), Doug Lamborn (CO), Mike McIntyre (NC), Gary Miller (CA), Sue Myrick (NC), Randy Neugebauer (TX), Steve Pearce (NM),Mike Pence (IN), Mike Pompeo (KS), Bill Posey (FL), Tom Price (GA), Ben Quayle (AZ), Tim Scott (SC), Lamar Smith (TX), Steve Southerland (FL), Marlin Stutzman (IN), Glenn Thompson (PA), Scott Tipton (CO), Joe Wilson (SC), Allen West (FL), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), Steve Womack (AK)

Here are some of the positions taken by members of the Capitol Ministries.  All of those members whose names are bold above are those that I am aware of who have taken bigoted anti-Muslim positions:

Representatives Trent Franks, John Shadegg, Paul Broun, and Sue Myrick objected to Muslim interns on Capitol Hill, calling them “infiltrators”.

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), invited Citizens for National Security to present its alarm of Islamic sedition in the basement of the Rayburn House office building.

When Gaffney’s anti-Sharia report was released, it was praised by Republican members of Congress Trent Franks (AZ), Michele Bachmann (MN), and Pete Hoekstra (MI).  I also posted a follow up report Frank Gaffney’s obsession with Sharia.

Last year, after the first reports about serious problems with anti-Muslim materials being included in training programs, the government said that it would conduct an inquiry into the problem.  In the article American Muslims welcome Senate inquiry into accuracy and effectiveness of counterterrorism training I note that The Westminster Institute reports that Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02); Rep. Dan Burton (IN-05); Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03); Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-04); Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-02); Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01); Rep. Kay Granger (TX-12); Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14); Rep. Mike Kelly (PA-03); Rep. John Kline (MN-02); Rep. Bill Posey (FL-15); Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46); Rep. Allen West (FL-22); Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03); Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10) all signed a letter sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Attorney General Eric Holder objecting to changes being made to training programs.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Ralph Hall (R-TX) and State Rep. Jerry Madden (R-TX) were on the Honorary Host Committee for a Collin County Conservative Republicans 2009 evening with Pamela Geller of the hate group SIOA?  **

An Islamophobic site called Democracy Under Attack lists those in Congress who should be thanked for “leading the fight against Sharia in America”.  Their list of those who have worked to on anti-Sharia measures includes:  Trent Franks, Tom Price, Mike Pence, Dan Burton, Dennis Moore, Pete Hoekstra, Michele Bachmann, Sue Myrick, Zach Wamp.

James Lankford of Oklahoma has as on the issues page online, and one of those issues is Principles and Values, in which he proudly lists:  - Shariah law is major threat; Islam not like other religions. (Aug 2010) - Council on American Islamic Relations is linked to terrorism. (Aug 2010) - Designate first weekend in May as Ten Commandments Weekend. (Apr 2011).

The Center for Security Policy, the 7th Amendment Advocate and The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum presented a discussion on Capitol Hill entitled, Shariah vs. the Constitution. Making opening remarks on that topic was the event’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO).**.  Speakers included Frank Gaffney and David Yerushalmi.

On his website Rep. Steve Pearce declares “The rise of radical Islam in recent years has brought a new threat to America. We must maintain a strong military that continues to be second to none. … Military engagement is always a decision with severe long-term consequences. In making that decision, we must be prepared to commit fully, or not at all.”

This year, Representatives Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland sent out the infamous letter demanding an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood “infiltration” of the U.S. Government.

In our TAM collection of anti-Muslim statements made by elected representatives the following members of Capitol Ministries are listed: Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Gary Miller, Sue Myrick, Lamar Smith, Allen West.



Shariah Scoreboard:America at a crossroads.

Islamic Sharia Law does NOT represent a "religion" - rather it is the manifestation of a brutal, tyrannical system of values in the arenas of politics, finance and law.

The Democracy Under Attack Shariah Scoreboard seeks to keep voters apprised of currently elected officials who have taken a firm stand against - or FOR - Islamic Shariah Law in America.

Our sincere thanks to the following members of Congress for leading the charge against Islamic Shariah Law in America:

CLICK  THIS LINK to see who in Congress has answered affirmatively or negatively or not at all to the question: Will you stand FOR US Constitutional Law and AGAINST Shariah Law in the 112th Congress?

AZ Representative Trent Franks    
GA Representative Tom Price    
IN Representative Mike Pence    
IN Representative Dan Burton    
KS Representative Dennis Moore    
MI Representative Pete Hoekstra    
MN Representative Michele Bachmann    
NC Representative Sue Myrick    
TN Representative Zach Wamp    

So, if I understand this article, there are plenty in Congress who are "leading the charge against Islamic Shariah Law in America", only Michelle Bachmann is being demonized for it, right?  Could it be because she started and is the head of the "Tea Party Caucus" in the House (rhetorical, I already know the answer)?

We are having problems understanding why the Vatican is siding against Israel and is a proponent of having more mosques in Europe.

This may explain the conundrum.

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html

Millions worship a deadly demon named Allah, never realizing that their religion was started by the Vatican,

Islam is the Western leg of the Roman Empire as foretold by Daniel the Prophet.

 

Many think that Islam is the third Judaic religion, but the source of Islam is really pagan moon worship.

from:http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

Allah - the Moon God

The Archaeology of the Middle East

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.



The reader must know that Islam, Judaism, and organized Christianity (so-called) all worship a trinity of gods

Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-God. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites. "

In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a crescent moon inlaid on its forehead with shells. In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950's a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest. The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms."

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.

In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.

This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha, that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple. An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists.

The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad's day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al- ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."

This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?" Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.

In effect he said, "Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods." This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This "Allah" was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.

Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans. They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, "Islam proved itself to be...a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry." Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews." The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities. Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets? That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?

CONCLUSION

The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.,

The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.

The religion of ancient Israel was based on revelation; the Old Testament says that God appeared in diverse places and spoke to the Patriarchs; there they raised altars of undressed stones, called Beth-el—or House of God. Man's sensual imagination soon led him "to collect his gods in the dust and fashion them as he pleased," imagining that God resided in these Stones. Thus it became Beth-aven or House of Vanity. Beth-el abounded in Chaldea, Asia, Egypt, Africa, Greece, in remote parts of Europe, among the Druids, Gauls, and Celto-Scythians, and in North and South America.

In the Hebrew language, stones fallen from the sky are called Bethel (Heb. "House of God"). After dreaming of a ladder reaching to heaven, Jacob called his stone pillow a Bethel-stone (Genesis 28:10-22).

"The Pagans imitated the Beth-el of Jacob and consecrated them with oil and blood, making them gods, calling them Betyles (betylus, baetyl, betyles). In classical antiquity a stone, either natural or artificially shaped, venerated as of divine origin, or as a symbol of divinity. There were a number of these sacred stones in Greece, the most famous being on the omphalos at Delphi. Likewise there were the so-called animated or oracular stones. "Strabo, Pliny, Helancius (Hellanicus) or Beth-al-Jupiter, Cybele, Venus, Mithras). The greater part of the natural Betyles were the black meteorites or fire-balls fallen from the heavens and regarded by the Sabeists as heavenly divinities. These meteorites were the Cabiri, and the Pelasgi—whose most noted worshippers were wandering or dispersed men" (The Trail of the Serpent, by Inquire Within, Boswell Publishing Co., Limited, London (1936) p. 10).

Meteorites-cults are common in Greco-Roman civilizations. According to the religious historian Mircea Eliade, the Temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus contained a squat statue of the mother-goddess, carved from a meteorite that fell from Jupiter (Acts 19:26-35). The Palladium of Troy and the conic black stone or (Baetyl) of Elagabal in Emesa, Syria, are believed to be of meteoric origin. Likewise, the Phrygian mother goddess Cybele worshipped in Pessinus (later Rome) was a stone; doubtless a meteorite. A further example is the meteorite of Pessinunt in Phrygia, which was worshipped as "the needle of Cybele," brought to Rome in a powerful procession after the Punic war on advice from the Delphic oracle; there the meteorite was worshipped as a fertility goddess for further 500 years.

Hadschar al Aswad"The most famous of all of the stone fetishes of Arabia was, of course, the black stone in the sanctuary of Mecca. The Kabah was, and still is, a rectangular stone structure. Built into its Eastern corner is the black stone which had been an object of worship for many centuries before Mohammed appropriated the Kabah for his new religion, and made the pilgrimage to this holy place one of the pillars of Islam" (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p. 13-30; Britannica, Arabian Religions, p. 1059, 1979). The "Hadschar al Aswad" in the Kabah is the most well known example of meteorite worship in newer times. Despite the prohibition of portraying God and adoration of objects, pilgrims to Mecca kiss this "Hadschar al Aswad" (black stone) which, according to the prophet is "Yamin Allah" (the right hand of God), supposedly a divine meteorite or Bethel-stone predating creation that fell at the feet of Adam and Eve. It is presently embedded in the southeastern corner of the Kabah. Muslims touch and kiss the black stone during Hajj. moongod.htm

Further information: thoroughly study the links in this file and also in The Cult of the Moon God  The True Origin of 'Allah': The Archaeological Record Speaks The Vatican and Islam

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/

New York Times admits to submitting to Obama censorship.  Just shut the doors.  No one believes you anyway.

from:http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/proof-establishment-media-controlled/

There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.

The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.

What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”

It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!

Even “progressive” WND columnist Ellen Ratner agrees – media under ...

Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m exaggerating:

  • “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.”
  • “They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”
  • “Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”
  • “Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”
  • “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
  • “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”
  • “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”
  • “Those [reporters] who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal.”
  • “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”

I could go on and on. I urge you to read the entire story. This may be the most important story broken by the New York Times in years.

What it means is this: When Americans read these reports – whether in newspapers, wire services or on the Internet – they are not really reading news stories at all. They are reading approved, pre-packaged press releases from the government and politicians. But, even worse, they are not labeled as such. They are labeled as actual news.

That’s how low the national press establishment has descended. And, when you read the story in its full context, you will understand that the concerns expressed about this practice by those submitting themselves to it are not ethical concerns. They are not concerns for the truth. They are concerns about their own convenience and for the loss of “color” in their stories.

Let me state what I hope is obvious to all reading this column: This sort of willing capitulation to government censorship was not the norm five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. This is a new phenomenon – chilling and alarming to an old-timer like me who would never agree to submit his copy for approval to politicians.

These so-called journalists are selling their ethical and moral souls for access to politicians. And this practice raises expectations by politicians that they can routinely manipulate the press to their advantage. That makes the job of real journalists – independent reporters faithful to their craft – even more difficult, because they will be shut out from access.

It reminds me of the fact that, just last week, WND was denied credentials to cover the Democratic National Convention. Why do you suppose what has become one of the largest and most influential news agencies in the country would be denied access to the convention floor? Simply because the Democrats know we won’t play by their rules of control like the members of the establishment press club.

All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues” is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.

It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.

I go on major sites and have some highly charged debates in the comments sections. One journalist kept sending me emails that he called me out, so I would go back on his site to continue the debate. He ignored my facts all backed up by sources of course.

When I leave comments on the MSM sites of the liberal columnists I invariably end up calling them Obama's lapdogs. Now I have a link to prove it.

It all comes out in the wash, doesn't it?

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network

 






© 2013   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service