American news media are deliberately reshaping war-on-terror terminology for propaganda purposes to prevent radical Muslims from being perceived in a negative light in the wake of the 9/11 attacks a decade ago.

American news media are deliberately reshaping war-on-terror terminology for  propaganda purposes to prevent radical Muslims from being perceived in a  negative light in the wake of the 9/11 attacks a decade ago.

That’s the claim of Pamela Geller, author of the just-released book, “Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

“A big part of the problem facing America today is the obfuscation and  disinformation fed to the American people as a daily diet of slow poison,” says  Geller, publisher of the popular

“Today the left is manipulating language to make Americans ignorant or  complacent about the Islamic threat.”

Read more: Leftist media employ devious, sinister tactic

Sarah Palin speaks to see and hear the video

Sarah Palin speaks

Clarice Feldman


Here is a part
of the statement
Sarah Palin issued today, something no one else in her
party (are you listening Governor Pawlenty ?) has had the wit or wisdom to say:

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and
praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled,
then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from
people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s
broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the
American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of
monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals
who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with
those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both
sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise
their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly
voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s
future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would
join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his
party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the
will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power
proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most
cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to
work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you
don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision.
If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But,
especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should
not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and
violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Clarice Feldman

Page Printed from:
January 12, 2011 – 10:13:37 AM CST


The peasants are revolting

The peasants are revolting

Rosslyn Smith

The national press corps is beginning to get a taste of the anger they have created among a large percentage of the American public over their treatment of Sarah Palin. It will take some longer than others to grasp the magnitude of the disaster they have created for their failing industry.


Joe Curl of the Washington Times reports  that angry crowds vigorously booed the media in Cedarbug, WI:


Hundreds of angry people in this small town outside Milwaukee taunted reporters and TV crews traveling with Sen. John McCain on Friday, chanting “Be fair!” and pointing fingers at a pack of journalists as they booed loudly.


Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer is not happy at the amount of attention her incredibly snide, error filled September 1 column A woman – but why this woman? has garnered.
A handful of people wrote to say that I had captured exactly their reaction to the Palin nomination. But the rest of the responses were vehement or venomous… And more than 316,000 people viewed the column on The Baltimore Sun Web site. That number — more than 100 times the attention I normally receive — actually frightened me.


Newsbusters‘ Warner Todd Huston notes


She was “actually frightened,” you people! Give me a break. What? Is she crying? There’s no crying in journalism.


He then dissects Reimer’s original bit of feminist snark before taking her and her colleagues to task over the clueless bubble they seem to occupy.  


To close my discussion with you, Reimer, I have to ask: don’t you see the hatred that you expressed for this woman? Don’t you see that your snide comments about her Down Syndrome child and your abhorrence with every American that votes Republican — which is half the electorate, by the way — just might raise a bit of ire out there? Can you really be so shocked that your spittle specked rage was met with a bit of resistance?
If not, well, you really aren’t as smart as you might like to imagine.


It may still be uncertain who will win this campaign, but it is clear who already has lost: the legacy media.

Media Lies

Media Lies
By Alan Nathan | February 9, 2007

Plenty know by now that in 2004 the progressive Pew Foundation published an extensive poll exposing the five-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives in the news-reporting media. Strangely, media outlets must believe that we have forgotten this because they continue marching forward just like the vain and gullible monarch penned by Hans Christian Andersen. The Washington Examiner’s editorial page editor Mark Tapscott recently found that the Associated Press had misstated facts surrounding a February 5th Senate vote. The chamber was determining which of the Iraqi War resolutions relevant to Bush’s troop surge could be debated. After the Republicans stopped the Democrats from shrinking the debate, the AP reported it as the direct antithesis. Their headline was, “Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq,” written by David Espo. His opening salvo was: Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops. But Tapscott argued:The only problem with this is that it gets the facts exactly wrong. The cloture motion defeated on the 49-47 vote prevented Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, from limiting the Senate debate to only the Iraq resolution favored by his party.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, led the opposition that defeated the cloture motion and thus succeeded in keeping open the possibility that Reid and the rest of the Senate would have the opportunity of debating the Democrats favored resolution AND a GOP alternative.

So why are AP and Espo writing that the GOP is blocking debate on Iraq? (Tapscott’s Copy Desk, February 5, 2007)Unfortunately, the examples are relentless. The Washington Post had earlier reported on our policy of “capture and kill” when coming across Iranian intelligence officers operating in Iraq. The White House defended the tactic by explaining that Iranians are aiding and abetting both the insurgents and the Shi’ite sectarian fighters in an effort to kill American and Iraqi forces endeavoring to secure the country. Calamitously, the paper was unable to mask their inveteracy for undercutting anything that would tip the scales in our favor. In their January 27th edition under the headline “Lethal-Force Order Justified, Bush Says,” they characterized presidential staff forecasts as if they were dissent: But the policy has attracted some influential skeptics inside the Bush administration and the intelligence community who are concerned that Iran could respond with escalation. The director of the CIA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, counseled the president to consider that Iran could undertake its own program to kill or kidnap U.S. personnel in Iraq or neighboring Afghanistan. So this supposedly warmongering White House actually has people telling the president that we better not fire upon an attacking enemy because that enemy might attack again? By that measure, the Iranians are allowed to blow up our people with impunity.  Here’s a tip for all the slow learners: You never make things worse by defending yourself from getting killed! How many wet-bars are there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anyway? The answer is, not enough for this part of the report to be taken seriously. It’s true that not all escalations lead to victory, but every victory was still preceded by some kind of escalation. No one ever triumphed by retreating. Whether it’s the Iranian agents, insurgents, or sectarian fighters, the enemy’s likely inclination to ramp up their violence in response to our elevated counter-attack is a natural byproduct of their resistance. However, when did the enemy’s resistance become the self-fulfilling justification for our surrender – or redeployment as it’s euphemistically called? By that gauge, we’re only permitted to wage battle with those not fighting back – how is that anything but untenable?  

Consequently, the story’s impression sounds disconnected from its own basis. Yes, some of the president’s advisors are “concerned that Iran could respond with escalation.” But that forecast did not double as a recommendation against killing those who are killing us. Warning of the enemy’s reprisal so as to better prepare for the encounter is not a call for standing down.

You oppose a plan because it might not work; not because the enemy will predictably increase their assaults following your own heightened offense. Only the most sheltered and least educated fail to grasp this. You know them as the mainstream media.

Click Here to support