Displaying posts published in

October 2016

Report: Israel ‘Panicked’ by Quality, Quantity of Russian Presence, Weaponry in Region, Which Dramatically Hamper IDF Operations Ruthie Blum

The IDF is in a panic about the Russian military’s presence and deployment of sophisticated weaponry in the region, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Sunday.

According to the report, though the IDF is not admitting this openly, high-ranking officers have said behind closed doors that the “surprising” quality and quantity of Russian systems in the area is dramatically hampering the way the Israeli Air Force and Navy are able to operate.

Both these branches of the IDF, according to Channel 2, were used to flying and sailing wherever and whenever they saw fit, with no real threat to their movement. But since Russia began to intervene in the Syrian civil war last year in an attempt to protect the regime of President Bashar Assad, things have changed.

One particular worry, the report said, was the impending arrival of the Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s flagship aircraft carrier, which is on its way from the North Sea to the Middle East, and is expected to anchor off the Mediterranean coast of Syria in the coming weeks.

The Kuznetsov force is made up of some 1,900 sailors, more than 50 advanced fighter jets, the latest aeronautical defense systems, radars and among the world’s best electronic warfare capabilities. The force has anti-submarine capabilities and boats with a wide range of missiles for aerial photography and intelligence-gathering.

The report said Israeli defense officials admit that the Russians know about every movement Israel makes in its air and sea space, as there is no way to elude Russian radars, and thus Russia has been able to collect massive amounts of information.

As was reported by The Algemeiner in April, the Russians announced several months ago that they were leaving Syria. Since then, however, according to Channel 2, they have been dispatching more ground troops to the area; they have increased their air power; and they have brought in ground-to-air missiles — with a range of more than 200 kilometers – and are capable of employing cruise and ballistic missiles, planes and drones. At present, they are also reinforcing their naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, in parallel with a decrease in the presence of the US Navy there.

Hillary: No Commenting on Criminal Investigations … Unless It Helps Me July: Comey has exonerated me! October: Comey is undermining our republic! By Andrew C. McCarthy

How rich of Hillary Clinton to complain now that FBI director James Comey is threatening the democratic process by commenting publicly about a criminal investigation on the eve of an election.

Put aside that Comey did not say a single thing last week that implicates Clinton in a crime. The biggest coup for Clinton in the waning months of the campaign has been Comey’s decision not to prosecute her — a decision outside the responsibilities of the FBI director and publicly announced in a manner that contradicts law-enforcement protocols. There has been nothing more irregular, nothing that put law enforcement more in the service of politics, than that announcement. Yet, far from condemning it, Mrs. Clinton has worn it like a badge of honor since July. Indeed, she has contorted it into a wholesale exoneration, which it most certainly was not.

Just to remind those whose memories seem so conveniently to fail, Comey is the FBI director, not a Justice Department prosecutor, much less the attorney general. The FBI is not supposed to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The FBI is not supposed to decide whether the subject of a criminal investigation gets indicted. The FBI, moreover, is not obligated to make recommendations about prosecution at all; its recommendations, if it chooses to make them, are not binding on the Justice Department; and when it does make recommendations, it does so behind closed doors, not on the public record.

Yet, in the Clinton e-mails investigation, it was Comey who made the decision not to indict Clinton. Comey, furthermore, made the decision in the form of a public recommendation. In effect, it became The Decision because Attorney General Loretta Lynch had disgraced herself by furtively meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s husband a few days before Comey announced his recommendation. Comey, therefore, gave Mrs. Clinton a twofer: an unheard-of public proclamation that she should not be indicted by the head of the investigative agency; and a means of taking Lynch off the hook, which allowed the decision against prosecution to be portrayed as a careful weighing of evidence rather than a corrupt deal cooked up in the back of a plane parked on a remote tarmac.

Now, suddenly, Mrs. Clinton is worried about law-enforcement interference in politics. And her voice is joined by such allies as Jamie Gorelick (President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general) and Larry Thompson (Comey’s predecessor as President George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump). Like Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson were delighted by Director Comey as long as his departures from orthodoxy were helping Clinton’s candidacy. But now, as they wrote in the Washington Post on Saturday, they are perturbed by the threat Comey purportedly poses to “long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations . . . in a way that might be seen as influencing an election.”

Freedom Center Urges College Presidents to End Aid to Campus Supporters of Terror “We ask that you withdraw all university privileges granted to SJP.”

Editor’s Note: The following letter was sent to the presidents of the ten campuses named in the Freedom Center’s report on the “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists.” In alphabetical order, the ten campuses are: Brooklyn College (CUNY), San Diego State University, San Francisco State University, Tufts University, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Irvine, University of California, Los Angeles, University of Chicago, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Vassar College.

Dr. Janet Napolitano President
University of California

Dear Dr. Napolitano,

Your school purports to promote the values of diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance yet provides resources, funding and legitimacy to Students for Justice in Palestine. Students for Justice in Palestine is a campus organization whose sole purpose is to conduct hateful propaganda against Jews and the Jewish state for the terrorist organization Hamas. The explicit goals of Hamas are the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and genocide against its Jewish population. For these reasons, among others, three campuses of the University of California—Irvine, Los Angeles, and Berkeley—have been named among the “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists” by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. You may read the full report here: http://www.stopthejewhatredoncampus.org/news/top-ten-schools-supporting-terrorists-fall-2016-report

While it masquerades as a typical campus cultural group, SJP is an integral part of Hamas’s efforts to annihilate Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. This is an insidious effort that attempts to delegitimize Israel, and smear it as a rogue “apartheid” nation. These claims are ludicrous. More than a million Palestinians enjoy Israeli citizenship including the rights to vote and to sit on the Israeli courts and parliament. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz has said of the BDS movement, “It is anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-human rights, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-negotiation, anti-peace, anti-compromise, and anti-Palestinian workers when they are denied opportunities to work.” Both Larry Summers and Hillary Clinton have denounced BDS as anti-Semitic Jew hatred. Yet your school provides a platform and funding for its sponsors.

With university support, SJP also conducts “Israeli apartheid” hate weeks on campus quads. These events feature pro-Hamas advocates, the construction of “apartheid walls” featuring pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic propaganda, and the creation of mock checkpoints and die-ins that disrupt student movements on campus. SJP actively disrupts pro-Israel campus events—a threat to free speech and a violation of your university’s stated values and rules of conduct.

In addition to being scripted by Hamas terrorists, SJPs pro-terror campaign is funded and guided through a Hamas front called American Muslims for Palestine. In recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Jonathan Schanzer, who worked as a terrorism finance analyst for the United States Department of the Treasury from 2004-2007, described how Hamas funnels large sums of money and provides material assistance to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) through the Hamas front group American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) for the purpose of promoting BDS campaigns on American campuses. AMP was created by SJP co-founder Hatem Bazian, a pro-terrorist lecturer at UC Berkeley who called for a suicide bombing “Intifada” inside the United States. It employs high-ranking officials from other Muslim “charities” that were previously shut down for providing material assistance to terrorists.

Daniel Gordis, ‘Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn’ a Review by David Isaac

It’s refreshing, in a world rife with anti-Zionist propaganda, to read a book written by someone who actually thinks Israel was a good, indeed a grand idea. Daniel Gordis describes the Jews’ return to their homeland as “one of the great dramas” of human history—the story “of a homeless people that kept a dream alive for millennia, of a people’s redemption from the edge of the abyss, of a nation forging a future when none seemed possible.” From a collection of “vulnerable settlements,” Gordis describes how Israel grew into a flourishing country with the largest Jewish population in the world using a revived language that even the founder of Zionism believed could not be resuscitated.

Gordis ascribes the book‘s origin to the request of a friend of his, a leader of a major Jewish organization, that he recommend a serious but readable history of Israel that he could give to a group of lay leaders he was bringing over for a visit. When Gordis couldn’t find one that fit the bill, he decided it was time to fill the gap himself.

Gordis brought to the task a talent for deftly summarizing complex events—a skill he displayed in his last book, Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel’s Soul. More important, Gordis has an ability to get to the core of issues and to discuss them in straightforward language that nevertheless conveys sophisticated analysis. Consider his treatment of the contradictions within Zionism. While it grew out of the millennia long Jewish yearning to return to Zion, modern Zionism was also a revolutionary effort to sever the connection to what came before. Gordis writes: “So desperate were the Jewish people to fashion a new kind of Jew that they even changed their names … it was time for a new Jewish worldview, a new Jewish physique, a new Jewish home, new Jewish names. It was time for a ‘new Jew,’ a Jewish people reborn.”

The story of modern Zionism cannot be understood without reference to ancient Jewish history, and Gordis manages to distill what needs to be told in a mere 15 pages. Gordis describes the Bible as ” a kind of ‘national diary,’” with the Land of Israel at the center of the story, its centrality maintained even when the Jews were repeatedly cast into exile.

One of the best features of this book is the way Gordis weaves into his narrative literature, music—even dance—that capture, and sometimes shape, the emotions of the people at a pivotal point. For example he quotes Chaim Bialik’s famous poem “In the City of Slaughter,” written after the poet’s visit to Kishinev following the pogrom there in 1903. Bialik attacks the Russian mob, but also the passivity of the Jewish men, whom he scathingly describes hiding behind casks as the Cossacks rape their women. The poem had a huge impact in underscoring not only the need for Jews to return to their land as a shelter from anti-Semitism but as a place to create a “new Jew.”

Gordis cites the enormously popular songs of Naomi Shemer: the first, Jerusalem of Gold, written just before the triumphant Six Day War, and the second, equally prescient, written just before the disastrous 1973 war, a version of the Beatles’ Let It Be. Just as Shemer had to add a stanza to Jerusalem of Gold to reflect the fact that the Old City was now in Israel’s hands, so she had to change the lyrics to the second song, “There is still a white sail on the horizon but beneath a heavy black cloud” and modify the chorus, “All that we long for, let it be.” To convey the country’s deep, ongoing sadness after the Yom Kippur War, Gordis offers the lyrics of a popular song written over 20 years later: “You promised peace; You promised spring at home and blossoms; You promised to keep your promises; You promised a dove.”

Hillary Clinton and the President’s ‘Longer Game.’ At home and abroad, a nation less affluent, less free, and far less secure. Lloyd Billingsley

The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, used a pseudonym to communicate with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her private, unsecured email server. As Andrew McCarthy contended, that was the reason the FBI declined to prosecute Clinton, because the president would have been part of the same action, and that wouldn’t be politically correct.

The current president of the United States is also on record that, contrary to custom, he will linger in Washington DC for a few years. Wherever he chooses to live, the email intrigue suggests continuing back-channel communications with Hillary Clinton, should she become president. That invites a look at what the man the New York Times dubbed “Obama’s narrator,” the White House adviser who sat closest to the president and signed off on his every word, had to say about the president’s vision of the future.

“Few of the decisions he had made would satisfy the politics of the moment,” David Axelrod explained in his massive 2015 Believer. “But at home and abroad, Obama was playing a longer game.” As he explained in Columbia, Missouri, on October 30, 2008, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

If this man was a liberal, as Barry Rubin wondered in Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance, why did he see a need fundamentally to transform a nation shaped by liberals such as Franklin Roosevelt with his New Deal and Lyndon Johnson with his Great Society? He saw the need because he was not a liberal but a lifelong leftist radical.

As David Horowitz explained in Volume 7 of the Black Book of the American Left, the president was “born, bred and trained in the progressive movement.” His mentors were “Communists and their progressive successors,” so no wonder he presided over “the institutionalizing of the policies of the left in government” for eight years. What that means in practical terms is becoming painfully evident.

The economy remains sluggish and under Obamacare, the president’s signature plan, premiums are skyrocketing. This suggests that, as many believe, Obamacare was simply a demolition plan. In the “longer game,” designated successor Hillary Clinton will impose government monopoly healthcare, what some candidates erroneously call “socialized medicine.”

Meet Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State Send a $200 million check to Iran. Daniel Greenfield

September 11, 2001 has come and gone. Countless bodies lie scattered in fragments around where two of the country’s tallest skyscrapers once stood. Some have burned to ash. Others had their throats slashed by Islamic terrorists. Still others fought and died on a plane to prevent another Islamic terror attack from taking place.

But Joe has an idea. Joe is a guy with lots of big ideas and this one is a real doozy.

The Senator from Delaware has come a long way since his days as a sixties shyster drumming up business in Wilmington. His formerly bald head is covered in hair so shiny is gleams under neon lights. His teeth are capped and shine almost as brightly. After a generation holding down a squeaky seat in the Senate, seniority makes him a man to be reckoned with. And therefore a man to be listened to.

Even if you wish he would shut up.

“I’m groping here,” Joe says. For once he isn’t referring to his notorious habits with women that will go on to make him the star of countless viral photographs, massaging, squeezing, caressing. Instead he’s talking about foreign policy. The Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has no clue.

Joe is worried that the Muslims will think badly of us after they murdered thousands of us. And he has a plan to make them feel better.

“Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” Senator Joe Biden says.

The remark isn’t quite as random as it seems. The Senator from Delaware, a state not known for its large Muslim or Iranian population, has a friendly relationship with the Iran Lobby. That relationship will only grow friendlier during the Bush era as he attacks America and appeases its enemies.

Iranian-Americans who hate the Jihadist government that has taken over their country and oppressed the Persian people are outraged when he attends a fundraiser at a pro-Iranian lobbyist’s home in California while treasonously attacking his own government for naming Iran one of the members of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

The Rats are Leaving the Ship By Frank Friday

The city I live in is sometimes called the biggest little town in the country because everybody seems to know everybody else’s business, but we have nothing on the nation’s capital. After James Comey’s bombshell announcement that thanks to Anthony Wiener’s laptop, the Hillary investigation is back on, who gets drafted by the Clintons to fight back? Jamie Gorelick. Yeah, that Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton’s cover-up artist who left DOJ for the big bucks at Fannie Mae, was involved in everything from the 9/11 hearings to the IRS scandal and was even considered by Obama to run the FBI. (Today, Ms. Gorelick tells us, James Comey is a threat to our very democracy, but just three years ago, her friend was “one of the great lawyers of the Justice Department.”)

Of course, when President Bush came to office he wanted to clear away all the Clinton mess, even appointing a lawyer of immeasurable talent and integrity, he was told, to look into the 2001 Pardongate scandal. A guy by the name of James Comey. It seems he had the goods on Hillary, her brother Hugh, Bill, and his brother Roger. But Mr. Comey went all squishy. If you’re a Republican, don’t expect that kind of treatment, though. Even if you quit and resign your office, then like Nixon, you’d better hope to get a pardon on the way out.

Comey certainly crossed me up earlier this year when I thought the enormous FBI investigation taking place meant he was serious about the Hillary’s latest scandals. In retrospect, it was just to keep from empaneling a grand jury that might get out of control. Comey is best friends with Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel/weasel who spent four years investigating the leak of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame’s name, even though he knew within days of his appointment Richard Armitage was the leaker and no laws had been broken. No matter, scalps must be taken, so journalists were jailed for months on end and Scooter Libby eventually found guilty of an utterly trivial offense, most likely with false evidence.

Comey and Fitzgerald have an interesting pattern of prosecutorial toughness when it comes to Democrats. If you have no political pull, like Martha Stewart, or are an embarrassment like Rod Blagojevich, they throw the book at you, but the big shots get a pass. Lee Cary’s article in AT nicely explains the extent to which Comey, Fitzgerald and Loretta Lynch were willing to steer prosecutions around then Sen. Obama and nail Tony Resko and Blagojevich. No doubt Obama was grateful, for he even thought to reward Comey with a Supreme Court appointment.

Surrendering Our Birthright? By Eileen F. Toplansky

How do you tell a cynical millennial that there is still hope and promise in America? How do you persuade a young person who sees a tattered American dream that there are ways to reinvigorate this country? How do we convince a young American to realize that “if freedom is lost here there is no [other] place to escape to?”

How do you explain to a generation of students who have never learned about socialism and communism that these ideas are inimical to what the Founding Fathers wanted? How do you remind them of the radical idea that “government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people?” And that if we give up this birthright of ours, we have surrendered to the totalitarianism that describes far too much of the world.

How do you assert that America’s best years are not behind us but that the best is yet to be — if, and only if, we begin a return to America’s ideals of freedom and opportunity and not let an overweening government sap away our energies and our dreams?

How do you prove to a generation who receives its news in sound bites and from uninformed entertainers that a separation of powers is critical to maintaining a balance of power? How do you emphasize to them that when a government agency breaks the law and we do not rise up to demand a rectification, we, the American people, have foolishly chosen a “downward path?”

Time is truly short, but, it behooves us to be reminded of the words of Ronald Reagan when on October 27, 1964 he wrote “A Time for Choosing”

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

Consider that Hillary has hinted that she likes the confiscation of guns as she cites the Australian example and ignores the Second Amendment.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, ‘What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.’ But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

‘Asiya’ & Gabrielle Lord People Can Hear You (Highly recommended!!!rsk)

I thought Australians didn’t like us. We were always taught that Islam is all about temptation and being tested to prove your faith is unshakeable. Outsiders were to be kept away, because they were only coming to test us or try to change us, so we shouldn’t talk or engage with them.
Gabrielle Lord: In 2014, I published a novel titled Dishonour, about an Iraqi girl in Australia who is desperate to avoid a forced marriage to a cousin back in Iraq and the female police officer who tries to help her. The fictitious 18 year old Rana fears she will be taken out of the country against her will and forced to marry a man who is almost twice her age and who is “traditional” in his religious observance. This means that the intended fiancé lives his life under sharia law, and that Rana’s position back in Iraq would be that of a subservient, second-class human being, a servant subject to the domination and sanctioned violence of her husband and his family, relegated to childbearing and endless cooking. Rana rejects this; she wants that most basic of all human rights: the right to self-determination. She wants to complete her pharmacy degree, as well as follow her heart. She has become attracted to Christianity, is in the process of converting, and is in love with a young Copt who wants to marry her. In other words, she wants the freedoms that other Australian women take for granted, but which are prohibited to her by sharia law.

In the course of researching this novel, it was necessary to interview several women of Muslim background who had converted. This wasn’t easy and I was shocked to hear that they live in fear of their own communities and that if their families ever discovered that they were “losing their religion,” they would be shunned, their entire extended families shamed and they themselves possibly exposed to retributive violence. What I was writing as fiction in a novel, was the lived experience of women and girls living in Australia. I had to operate with a go-between, a trusted clergyman, in order to gain access and their confidence.

Recently, I was fortunate enough to meet “Asiya”, a highly intelligent Iraqi girl, in her early twenties, smart, elegant and insightful, who was willing to speak frankly about her childhood and her observations of family life as a young Muslima in Sydney’s western suburbs. Asiya is very concerned about the isolation of girls such as she was, growing up in Australia and yet completely unable to access the wider community of Australians, or “the Europeans”, one of the words her family used to refer to the rest of us.

As she spoke, I thought she was talking about her experiences back in Iraq, but no, her story is one which takes place in the western suburbs of Sydney. She believes there are thousands of young girls trapped as she once was.


Asiya: We were kept locked up at home. We never went anywhere except to [Islamic] school. Even when our parents went shopping, we were not allowed to go. I didn’t know what a shopping mall was. I didn’t even know where I lived—apart from the name of the suburb—but I had no idea where that was. Sometimes, when the parents were out, my brother would disconnect the satellite dish and we could watch ordinary television. That was the only time I saw anything of the outside world.

My father was very devout, but he was an educated man and ran a very successful business. My mother was emotionally unstable and had a lot of issues. We were beaten for everything and the beatings were accompanied with threats about how we were going to hell where we would burn for eternity. I think my mother suffered from postpartum depression; a lot of the women do, because they’re forced to marry men they don’t want and then have children that they don’t want and so they take it out on the kids who are just another chore for them. They’re suffering because they’re “living beyond their own choice”. I honestly think that I would have died of neglect except for my older sister who cared for me. In fact, my mother used to openly say that I would have died except for my sister’s intervention. She wasn’t upset about saying that. She hated me.

According to my mother, I was a rebellious child, and was always being beaten. There were no bedtime stories, just the endless threats of hellfire because we were disobeying Allah. There were nine of us and the house was ruled by fear. If anything was broken or damaged in the house, we were lined up and interrogated, one by one.

In Year 5, I read Robin Klein’s novel People Might Hear You, which made a deep impression on me. (GL: It is the story of Helen, who tries to escape from an overwhelming religious cult, in which the girls are kept as servants, submissive and silent, in a regime imposed by her stepfather.) It was a turning point for me. I realised that what was happening in our house was actually strange, and not the norm. Then from about age ten to thirteen I became very religious and started to wear the hijab. But around thirteen to fourteen, I started to question my religion. I had a massive obsession with astronomy and as I studied science, I came to see that the planets and the galaxies move according to their own laws and that Allah has nothing to do with it. I was always in trouble at school because we are Shia and the school was Sunni. My answers were always wrong. The Sunnis say there’s only one person worse than a Jew and that’s a Shia. It’s twice the honour for killing a Shia than for killing a Jew. That’s what they say. At school, teachers saw the bruises on us from the beatings but they didn’t do anything. Even the Australian teachers. They’d try to make it up to us by being extra-sweet to us, or giving us better marks, but they never reported the abuse.

I was only a baby during the time the whole family fled to Saudi Arabia to avoid the war. My sisters told me about it later. It’s the most awful place in the world. The Sunnis despise the Shia so we were badly treated and forbidden to leave the camp which was in the middle of the desert. The religious police were on the alert for any breach of the rules, enforcing strict Wahhabism/sharia. If a woman stepped outside her tent without her scarf, she could be arrested and whipped.

Peter Smith Islam’s Apologists Encounter Reality

One-third of Australians, according to the latest poll, oppose Muslim immigration — down on an earlier survey which put the figure at around fifty per cent. Whatever the actual number, it is heartening to note that good sense continues to defy the elites’ favoured narrative
I was (pleasantly) taken aback by the recent Essential Research survey which found that half of those polled favoured a ban on Muslim immigration. Apparently half of my fellow citizens have a deep concern about the threat that Islam poses to our way of life. Alas, and unsurprisingly, this is a stretch. Another survey points to fewer Australians having this level of concern. Roy Morgan research (26 October) reports as follows:

In a special Roy Morgan survey conducted over three nights last week, clear majorities of Australians signalled their support of Muslim immigration (58% cf. 33% oppose) and Asylum-seeker immigration (66% cf. 25% oppose). This applies to the majority of all major political parties’ supporters (including L-NP voters). These results are in stark contrast to Essential Research’s recent poll, which claimed that half of the population would support a ban on Muslim immigration.

The report went on to criticise surveys based on internet soundings – which I assume refers to the competitor poll. There it is then. Sixty per cent or thereabouts of Australians are quite happy to welcome Muslim immigrants; only one third are opposed. Hold on, only one third? This ain’t bad.

Despite determined and concerted efforts to sanitise the problem on the part of the political and media class, and on the part of many ‘wets’ among Christian church leaders, one third of Australians have seen through the BS. This is striking as only a handful of people know anything at all about Islam. At a guess, 99.99 per cent would not have been within cooee of a Koran. And the BS would make Goebbels proud.
See also ‘People Can Hear You‘

First, Islam is described as religion of peace by the great and good Western political leaders; particularly (and gallingly to those not taken in) after each barbaric Islamic terrorist attack. Second, the welter of Islamic hate speech and barbarities are ascribed ad nauseam, by politicians and the MSM, to those who have a perverted their religion, in contrast to the overwhelming moderate majority. It doesn’t matter what Pew poll comes out vouchsafing the fundamentalism of vast swathes of Muslim populations worldwide. These are all ignored in favour of the moderate-Muslim narrative.