Dr. Sally Leivesley is a security and terror expert in the UK and she said in response to the recent London Moque attack that “Some of the 23,000 ISIS supporters in this country that are known about at present, have gone on to social media to create social divide and to attempt to weaken their perception of government security in this.” http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/how-london-mosque-attack-plays-into-islamic-states-hands/news-story/55579a9f2d697654c9241bd54011e241
Now, look again and note the NUMBER of ISIS supporters this security expert SAYS are KNOWN to be in the UK? DO YOU FEEL SAFER NOW?
The following is a portion of a speech by Michael Goodwin ‘…delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.’
‘I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I’m not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it’s a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
The rest of that journalistic ethos—“afflict the comfortable”—leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
A New Dimension
I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump’s candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn’t a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.’ https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/?appeal_code=MK617EM2&utm_source=housefile&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2016_election_demise_journalistic_standards&utm_campaign=imprimis&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8xC9qvSWV5-xz889Lo2pUynHpbDIeJNdI0N-j9LKB2mTI5Caki20vGUTsvAzQhXcBZKR0gt3XOpDvyC_vrvbTlKbiHlw&_hsmi=53242815
Thankfully Obama and his Muslim Marxist buddies are out of office; But are they?
Alan Joyce is CEO of Qantas Airlines and an outspoken sodomite. This year Mr Joyce was among 673 who were recognised as “role models across the country who have made a contribution to the nation.”
Role model? Hey, Mr Joyce may be a “good” (and this is debateable) businessman but his desire for sex with another man does not seem like a good role model!
Mr Joyce “…told The New Daily he was honoured to be made a Companion of the Order, the second-highest level of membership. He said it was important Australian leaders continued to push for equality.” Equality of what? Sodomy laws are no longer being enforced so Mr Joyce and other sodomites can have all the sex they desire with one another without fear of the law! That is until Islamic Sharia is imposed!
With Joyce at the helm “Qantas has led a public campaign to support marriage equality, resulting in the recent controversy with Australian tennis champion Margaret Court. Mr Joyce, who is gay, was last month hit in the face with a pie because of the airline’s stance on the issue.” http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/people/2017/06/12/queens-birthday-honour-list/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170612_TND
It is pretty clear why Alan Joyce received this honour! It isn’t just because he is Qantas CEO but because he is a prominent person who is pushing for society to accept people of the same sex having sex together!
The honour of receiving the Order of Australia has just become less honourable?
Believe it or not ‘In a case of classic American vigilante justice, a couple found the people who stole their SUV and held them at gunpoint until the police arrived.
HOWEVER, ‘Q13Fox notes that while the couple is not facing charges for pulling out their gun, Snell said the man can be charged with assault.
The couple called 911 before apprehending the passengers.’ http://www.mrctv.org/blog/couple-finds-their-own-stolen-suv-holds-thieves-gunpoint
Unbelievable, but is it?