The Obama Media works overtime to fulfill their insistent fantasy that the Boston Jihad attackers were White Conservative Christians.
As if we needed any more proof that mainstream media’s religion, focus and worship is rooted in the MarxoFascist Obama agenda, the disgusting spectacle of the corrupted mainstream press corps in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Jihad attack, reached depths of depravity and propaganda not even I thought possible.
In keeping with the narrative set as policy in the Obama regime, Islamist Jihadists are not considered a threat or risk to the country – while the real danger the government focuses on and preaches against is White, Conservative Christian patriotism. This meme of blaming TEA Party White Conservatives happens every single time a mass casualty event has occurred since Obama’s crowning as our first emperor. And no wonder, since April of 2009, the official policy of Obama and his regime is to classify and redirect the entire government and military structure of the United States to consider it’s own citizens who are beholden to God, the bible and the Constitution, as the greatest threat to public security and safety. While Obama works tirelessly to restrict and rescind our God-ordained Rights, his government works just as tirelessly to aid, comfort and fund Islamists and their Muslim Brotherhood agenda to establish a global Islamic Caliphate that will place the world under Sharia Law.
I find as evidence the fact Obama decided there was no money for Air Traffic Controllers and had them furloughed as part of his ‘sequester’ of so-called budget restrictions in the wake of a Congressional refusal to fund the rate of increase projection in 2013’s budget – but Obama finds MILLIONS of dollars to gift to Islamists and their Jihadists in Syria and Somalia.
Now that it is known that the Boston terrorists were Chechen Jihadists, the media is working overtime to whitewash, bury or justify the Boston attackers. One Jihad Apologist imbecile even went so far as to suggest the Jihadists were driven to hate America because White “Jocks” bullied them, using the Columbine shooters as evidence:
Dave Cullen tells the story of the attack in meticulous detail, debunking many of the popular stereotypes that persist to this day that the attack was meant to avenge bullying by “jocks.”
This is followed by a litany of Media efforts to push the liberal/Islamist alliance viewpoint as the only viable and acceptable view in the wake of the jihad attack.
“If a Muslim did this it will set the Muslim community back a decade,” Khan said. “It will feed into the perception that Muslims are terrorists. Children are more likely to be bullied at school, individuals at work will be treated with suspicion by their coworkers.”
What’s more worrying, to me at least, is the bubbling up of domestic, right-wing terrorist groups and individuals who might commit atrocities out of sheer hatred of government and racial bigotry.
Daniel Greenfield points out the Obama media absurdity of their effort to actually ‘pray’ for the hope that the Jihad attack was the work of White Americans, while the entire event showcases the unrelenting efforts of the Obama regime and it’s propaganda machine, the media to continue to demonize White American Christian Conservative Patriots as ‘hate’ ‘extremists’ and probable domestic terrorists.
Remember this truth – when any government demonizes a segment of their people it hates, it is not long before they end up criminalizing and eradicating that segment of people from society. In this case, efforts are being made to whitewash Jihadist Islam having a role while continuing to warn of the threat White Conservatives pose.
The reactions to the Boston Marathon Massacre were predictable. Alex Jones was going to cry false flag and the media was going to blather about right wing extremism.
Now a suspect, or another suspect, has reportedly been arrested. But before anything happened, the left was hoping he was white. Would his whiteness do anything to change the horror? Would it bring back the lives of the three people murdered, including a little boy?
No, but it would apportion blame in the way that the left thinks is ideologically correct. The loony David Sirota, who has become the go-to guy for bizarre quotes on race and violence, usually finding some backward way of blaming white people for everything, was open about his priorities.
“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” Sirota wrote at Salon. Not, let’s hope he’s caught. Or let’s hope he doesn’t strike again. Let’s hope he’s a white man. That’s not just racism. It’s completely amoral racism.
Sirota looks at terrorism not through the lens of actual existing terrorist organizations, but race.
Privilege tends to determine, he writes, which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
One of the problems with Marxists is that they’re clever idiots. Sirota’s screed is a reminder why. Rather than examining the broader picture of events, they view them through the lens of a single category. Class, race or gender determines everything.
Sirota doesn’t need to know anything about the attack or any other attack. All he has to do is equate Adam Lanza to Nidal Hasan based on minority status. (Though Mother Jones, which Sirota formerly relied on, lists Hasan as a “White Dude” to increase the ranks of white dude killers killing in the name of white privilege.)
Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats
Are they portrayed as such or are they actually members of larger conspiracies? That’s the basic factual question. But we’re not in the realm of facts here.
Sirota isn’t interested in discussing actual real world facts. His facile skill, the one most prized by today’s leftellectuals, is reducing all things to race.
Sure Hasan corresponded with Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Al Qaeda mastermind who found his way to half-white dude, Obama’s kill list. But that’s just more white privilege talking.
Asserting white privilege frees us from having to consider any facts. It preemptively delegitimizes all facts and reduces all dialogues to a catalog of grievances. Even debate becomes a crime.
After September 11, and I do mean right after, lefties hung up signs against the War in Afghanistan, that had not even started yet, arguing that we didn’t bomb any of the places McVeigh lived after Oklahoma City. Sirota brings up a variation of the same tired argument that misses the point.
If McVeigh had been part of an international Neo-Nazi group with thousands of fighters and millions of supporters operating in an area outside the United States, we would have bombed it. He wasn’t. Neither was Adam Lanza or the Columbine shooters. The 9/11 hijackers were.
Those are facts, which are a notorious form of white privilege. Muslim terrorism is a collection of organized international movements with a deep base of support from outside the country. It’s an invasive force. It’s also far more lethal. That holds true regardless of who carried out the Boston Marathon Massacre. The list of bombing plots averted by the authorities in the last 15 years are ample testimony to that. But while most people care about stopping the violence, lefties like Sirota would like us to racially classify the violence.
Tea partiers wouldn’t have done it, because victims weren’t ‘black’
The reason it’s unlikely a tea-party, patriot or right-wing group perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing is because the victims weren’t “black people or Jewish people or gay people or Muslims,” claimed a senior fellow of the Southern Poverty Law Center earlier this week.
The SPLC – a left-wing, nonprofit organization that describes itself as dedicated to fighting “bigotry” and monitoring domestic “hate groups” – keeps an eagle eye on tea-party, patriot, Christian, gun-rights and right-wing organizations, often insisting their fires are fueled by racism and hatred, rather than politics or policy.
SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok continued the narrative in an interview on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” earlier this week, when the host asked Potok if the Boston bomber was more likely to be a lone wolf or part of an existing group.
“It’s more likely to be a lone wolf, these kinds of things, at least in the radical right. The non-Islamic radical right, they don’t tend to be carried out in groups at all,” Potok replied. “It may be, in fact, a home grown radical, but perhaps of the jihadist sort. And the reason I think about that in that way is think about who the targets were. You know, this was not a target that one would associate with a radical right-wing bomber. It was not a government building, it was not the IRS, although it was Tax Day on Monday. It was not a minority group. It wasn’t black people or Jewish people or gay people or Muslims.”
The SPLC paints its listing of official “hate groups” with a broad brush, often lumping in politically or socially conservative organizations with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. For example, the SPLC lists among it’s official “hate groups” the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Traditional Values Coalition.
See “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” which reveals the threat that is hidden in plain sight for Americans.
The SPLC further sounds warnings over tea-party and “patriot groups” who oppose a growing federal government or gun-control legislation, often linking libertarian or conservative political positions to racist “hate” activity.
In a recent edition of the SPLC’s “Hatewatch” blog, for example, the Tea Party Nation was among various “extremists” blasted for blaming the Boston bombing on jihadi terror.
“Linking Islam with Ronald Reagan’s ‘evil empire’ of communism, the [Tea Party Nation] warned that the Boston bombings are just another event presaging future violence in ‘an ideological war’ that can only be won if we have tougher, more anti-Islam U.S. political leaders,” the SPLC explained. “That, of course, would be the Tea Party cabal.”
The current suspects being pursued for the bombing, however, have been identified as Islamic sympathizers, in part because of social media posts where one of the suspects listed his “worldview” as “Islam.”
Yet the SPLC insists the real reason for the rise in patriot groups in recent years has little to do with militant Islam or President Obama’s policies – insisting instead, it’s mostly about race.
“The changing demographics have upset many people, and the country is having a hard time coming to terms with it,” SPLC President Richard Cohen told Connecticut’s The Register Citizen in an interview shortly before the bombing. “Obama symbolizes that change to so many people. We have this Kenyan-born, secret Muslim running the country – that is how the country sees it.”
Cohen added that after the Newtown massacre, in which Adam Lanza gunned down 20 first-graders and six educators, the addition of gun-rights advocates into the mix only makes the potential for domestic terrorism more volatile.
“The 1,300 hate groups we counted were before Newtown,” Cohen said, “and before proposals to reinstitute the ban on assault rifles and to require background checks. We are in a really incendiary situation now. A mixture of those who hate and those with guns is a disaster.”
The SPLC, in fact, wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in March advising them of the growing threat of “patriot” groups.
“In the last four years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of conspiracy-minded, anti-government groups as well as in the number of domestic terrorist plots,” the SPLC wrote. “As in the period before the Oklahoma City bombing, we now also are seeing ominous threats from those who believe that the government is poised to take their guns. Because of the looming dangers, we urge you to establish an interagency task force to assess the adequacy of the resources devoted to responding to the growing threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism.”
“It’s absolutely disturbing,” Cohen told The Register Citizen. “The Department of Homeland Security seems reluctant to devote significant resources to monitoring non-Islamic domestic terrorism, especially in the light of the election of an African-American president and the collapse of the economy.”
Cohen is scheduled to speak before the Salisbury Forum on April 19 at The Hotchkiss School in Salisbury, Conn., on the history of hate groups in the U.S. and what can be done about them.
“One thing I will talk about in Salisbury is how we are seeing similar signs now to what we saw before the Oklahoma City bombing,” Cohen explained. “I don’t think the country is headed for a revolution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another Oklahoma City. I think the prospect of significant damage from domestic terrorism is very real.”