Edited by John R. Houk
Posted November 20, 2016
I voted for Donald Trump for President. Although I am not surprised, I am a bit annoyed the Left Stream Media is still printing propaganda and disinformation on the Trump team even though his election is a done deal. I am convinced the desperate Dems and their Leftist friends in the Mainstream Media (MSM – aka Left Stream Media) will character assassinate every single Cabinet and Advisor appoint from President-Elect Trump.
Here are a collection of Pro-Bannon posts defending him from the false accusations and false narratives of White Nationalism and Antisemitism.
Please Support NCCR
Character assassination of Stephen Bannon is an attack on all Trump supporters
By Robert Romano
Stephen Bannon, former Breitbart News Chief Executive is one of the true Donald Trump supporters in the incoming Trump administration.
Bannon was an incredibly effective force for the successful Trump campaign as its CEO, which he was appointed to in August. Now he has been named chief strategist and senior counselor by Trump, a top-tier position in the White House.
Bannon will be the conscience of the White House. As an outsider Bannon will serve as a counterweight to Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, who is now the outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman. He will likely provide advice to Trump that will differ from that given by Washington, D.C. establishment types. It will help keep Trump honest and remind him of the commitments he made to his political base. Nothing wrong with that.
And so, it is no surprise then that the long knives are now out to take Bannon out. Now, there is the unproven charge being pushed by a few media outlets that Bannon is a white supremacist and anti-Semitic. Total nonsense.
This attempt at character assassination of Bannon is no less than an attack on all Trump supporters, who backed Trump’s message on America first, trade and illegal immigration regardless of race. This deplorable attack on a man who did nothing wrong must not stand.
“That’s just folks that are bitter the election’s over,” Jason Miller, Trump campaign spokesman, said to reporters outside Trump Tower on Wednesday. “They didn’t get the result that they wanted.”
Miller said Bannon is of “very high character” and is “someone who’s been a fantastic example of really being inclusive” and “who’s embraced diversity at every step.”
Miller added, “I think he’ll do a great job working with chief of staff Reince Priebus… to implement President-elect Trump’s vision.”
In fact, at a talk to the Vatican from 2014, Bannon actually dismissed anti-Semitic and racist elements in European nationalist movements as “fringe” that “all gets washed out,” according to a transcript released by Buzzfeed: “I’m not an expert in this, but it seems that they have had some aspects that may be anti-Semitic or racial. Some that are fringe organizations. My point is that over time it all gets kind of washed out, right? People understand what pulls them together, and the people on the margins I think get marginalized more and more.”
In the meantime, top Democrat and emeritus law professor at Harvard University Alan Dershowitz defended Bannon in a telephone interview, saying, “I think we have to be very careful before we accuse any particular individual of being an anti-Semite. The evidence certainly suggests that Mr. Bannon has very good relationships with individual Jews. My former researcher, Joel Pollak, is an Orthodox Jew who takes off the Jewish holidays, who is a committed Jew and a committed Zionist, and he has worked closely with him. He has been supportive of Israel.”
Dershowitz added, “I haven’t seen any evidence of personal anti-Semitism on the part of Bannon,” and “it is not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies.”
Of course, there being no evidence has not usually been a problem for media. Just run with the narrative and find some facts later.
“This is no different than the fake protests being organized by George Soros. It’s all theater being produced by the globalist hard left and certain media outlets,” Bill Wilson, a member of Americans for Limited Government’s board of directors commented.
“Having the media in collusion with the left is nothing new, as we recently learned from the election campaign via Wikileaks. They will do anything to undermine the Trump administration,” Wilson added.
In other words, this is just the latest drive-by hit squad attack by the media that hates Trump and hates the people who voted for him, and hates Bannon. If it is necessary to assassinate Stephen Bannon’s character to undermine the incoming Trump administration, then that is the price to be paid. The only thing that’s not news here is that the media has it in for Trump and his supporters.
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.
The Ellison Challenge
By Caroline Glick
November 18, 2016
The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads today. And so do the Jewish Democrats.
Out of power in the White House and both houses of Congress, the Democrats must decide what sort of party they will be in the post-Obama world.
They have two basic options.
They can move to the center and try to rebuild their blue collar voter base that President-elect Donald Trump captivated with his populist message. To do so they will need to loosen the reins of the political correctness and weaken their racialism, their radical environmentalism and their support for open borders.
This is the sort of moderate posture that Bill Clinton led with. It is the sort of posture that Clinton tried but failed to convince his wife to adopt in this year’s campaign.
The second option is to go still further along the leftist trajectory that President Barack Obama set the party off on eight years ago. This is the favored option of the Bernie Sanders’ wing of the party. Sanders’ supporters refer to this option as the populist course. It is being played out today on the ground by the anti-Trump protesters who refuse to come to terms with the Trump victory and insistently defame Trump as a Nazi or Hitler and his advisors as Goebbels.
For the Democrats, such a populist course will require them to become more racialist, more authoritarian in their political correctness, angrier and more doctrinaire.
It will also require them to become an anti-Semitic party.
Anti-Semitism, like hatred of police and Christians are necessary components of Democratic populism. This is true first and foremost because they will need scapegoats to blame for all the bad things you can’t solve by demonizing and silencing your political opponents.
Jews, and particularly the Jewish state, along with evangelical Christians and cops are the only groups that you are allowed to hate, discriminate against and scapegoat in the authoritarian PC universe.
From the party’s initial post-election moves, it appears that the Democrats have decided to take the latter path.
Congressman Keith Ellison from Minneapolis is now poised to be selected as the next leader of the Democratic National Committee. This position is a powerful one. The DNC chairman, like his Republican counterpart, is the party’s chief fundraiser. When a party is out of power, the party chairman is treated like its formal leader, and most active spokesman.
Ellison is the head of the Democrats’ Progressive caucus. His candidacy is supported by incoming Senate minority leader Senator Chuck Schumer and outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid. Obama has indicated his support for Ellison. Senator Bernie Sanders is enthusiastically supporting him.
Ellison made history in 2006 when he was elected to serve as the first Muslim member of Congress. As the representative of an overwhelmingly Democratic district, once he won the Democratic primary in 2006, he was all but guaranteed that he could serve in Congress for as long as he wishes.
As Scott Johnson, a prominent conservative writer who runs the popular Powerlineblog website reported extensively in 2006, Ellison is an anti-Semite. He also defends cop killers.
As Johnson reported, Ellison was a long standing member of the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam. During his 2006 Congressional campaign, the local media gave next to no coverage to this association. But when it did come up, Ellison soothed concerns of Minneapolis’s Jewish community by sending a letter to the local Jewish Community Relations Committee.
In the letter Ellison claimed that he had only been briefly associated with Louis Farrakhan’s outfit, that he was unfamiliar with its anti-Semitism, and that he had never personally expressed such views.
The local media and the Jewish community were happy to take him at his word.
But as Johnson documented, his was lying on all counts.
Ellison’s association with the Nation of Islam dated back at least since 1989 and stretched at least until 1998. During that period, he not only knew about the Nation of Islam’s Jew hatred, he engaged in it himself.
As Johnson noted, in 1998, Ellison appeared at a public forum as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam. He was there to defend a woman who was under fire for allegedly referring to Jews as “among the most racist white people.”
Whereas the woman herself denied she had made the statement, Ellison defended and justified her alleged statement. Referring to her slander of Jews he said, “We stand by the truth contained in [the woman’s] remarks…Also it is absolutely true that merchants in Black areas generally treat Black customers badly.”
As Johnson reported, aside from engaging in anti-Jewish propaganda and actively promoting anti-Semitic messages and leaders, decades before the Black Lives Matter was formed, Ellison was a prominent defender of murderers of policemen.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Ellison likened the attacks to the Reichstag fire in 1933, intimating that the al Qaeda strike was an inside job. He then agreed with an audience member who said that “the Jews” gained the most from the attacks.
As a member of Congress, Ellison has been among the most hostile US lawmakers towards Israel. He has close relations with Muslim Brotherhood related groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Society of North America. Both groups were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, implicated in funding Hamas and al Qaida.
And now, Sens. Schumer, Sanders and Reid and President Obama along with the Democratic grassroots activists and other party leaders are supporting Ellison’s bid to serve as chairman of the DNC.
As Ellison’s statement about “merchants” makes clear, the Democrats’ Jew hatred may not be of the “Jews are the sons of apes and pigs,” variety. In all likelihood, it will be propagated through angry rhetoric about “bankers” and “financiers,” and “the rich.”
Ellison, a supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement, has libeled Israel by likening the Jewish state to apartheid South Africa. Under his leadership, we can expect for Democratic politicians to veer even further away from Israel and to embrace the slander that Zionism is racism.
The populist Sanders’ route seems more attractive to the Democrats than Bill Clinton’s moderate path because the notion is taking hold that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton was.
This view is hard to accept. Most Americans reject socialism, and populist or not, it is difficult to see how Sanders would have sold his radical positions to an uninterested public.
The other problem with the “Sanders would have won,” argument is that it misses the distinction between Trump’s populism and Democratic populism.
Trump’s populism stemmed from his willingness to say things that other politicians and authority figures more generally wouldn’t dare to say. Trump’s allegation that the political system is rigged, for instance, empowered Americans who feel threatened by the authoritarianism of the politically correct Left.
Trump’s opponents insist that his populism empowered white power bigots. But that was a bug in his ointment. It wasn’t the ointment itself. Trump’s willingness to seemingly say anything, and certainly to say things that were beyond the narrow confines of the politically correct discourse, empowered tens of millions of voters. It also empowered white bigots at the fringes of the Right.
Whereas empowering white bigots was a side effect of Trump’s populism, empowering bigots is a central feature of leftist populism. And this is where it gets dicey for Jews.
As Obama – and Ellison – have shown, when Democrats channel populism, they use it to demonize their opponents as evil. They are “fat cats on Wall Street.” They are “racists,” and other deplorables.
There are scattered voices on the Left that are calling for their fellow leftists to revisit their authoritarian practice of labelling everyone who doesn’t walk lockstep behind them as racists and otherwise unacceptable. But for the most part, the populists are winning the argument by essentially demanding more ideological radicalism and more rigidity.
This policy is completely irrational from a political perspective. It’s hard to see the constituencies that will be swayed to support an angry, hateful party.
But this brings us to the Jews, who voted 3:1 for the Democrats, and to the American Jewish leadership whose support for Clinton was near unanimous.
When anti-Semitic, populist voices like Ellison’s began taking over Britain’s Labour Party, British Jews began heading for the exits. When push came to shove they preferred their individual rights and their communal rights as Jews above their partisan loyalties.
So far, this doesn’t appear to be the case among Jewish Democrats.
Consider the Anti-Defamation League’s unhinged onslaught against Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon.
While ignoring Ellison’s record of anti-Semitism and support for Israel’s enemies, as well as his ties to unindicted co-conspirators in funding Hamas, the ADL launched a scathing assault on Bannon accusing him of being an anti-Semite.
The ADL’s assault on Bannon follows its absurd claim in the final days of the campaign that Trump’s ad criticizing George Soros was anti-Semitic. It also follows the group’s bizarre condemnation of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent video clip in which he stated the plain fact that the Palestinian demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the territory they wish to take control over is an anti-Semitic demand.
As many prominent US Jews on both sides of the partisan divide have made clear, the accusation that Bannon, whose Breitbart website is one of the most pro-Israel websites in the US, is anti-Semitic is appalling on its face. The allegation is simply unsubstantiated.
So why do it? Why allege that a friend of the Jews is a Jew hater while ignoring the actual anti-Semitism of another man?
The answer is depressingly easy to discern.
The ADL appears to be trying to give cover to the rising forces of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party. By falsely accusing Bannon and through him Trump of anti-Semitism, the ADL defuses the real problem of Democratic anti-Semitism. And if the ADL doesn’t think there is a problem with Ellison taking over the DNC, but alleges that Republicans hate them, then rank in file Jews will stay put.
The ADL of course isn’t alone in sending this message.
Following the election, Conservative and Reform congregations in major cities throughout the US organized communal “shivas,” to mourn Clinton’s defeat as if it was a death in the family. Such actions, along with characterizations of Trump and his advisors as Nazis or Hitler or white supremacists work to bind Jews to a party that is inhospitable to their communal interests while blinding them to the fact that Republicans do not hate Jews or the Jewish state.
For decades, American Jews have been at the forefront of every major social movement on in the US. But the Democratic Party’s move towards anti-Semitism, a move made apparent through Ellison’s rise, is one movement the Jews mustn’t lead.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
MSM Hypocrisy: Pounds Bannon Appointment, Lets Ellison’s Radicalism Off The Hook
By Rich Noyes
November 18, 2016
The Realistic Observer
Since Sunday evening, ABC, CBS and NBC (along with a host of other establishment media outlets) have been engaged in a feeding frenzy over Donald Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, with reporters relentlessly employing phrases such as “white nationalist,” “white supremacist,” “extremist,” “racist” and “anti-Semitic” to solidify the image of Bannon as a dangerous pick for a top White House position.
But since Friday, those same networks have been blind to the controversies surrounding the top candidate for Democratic National Committee Chairman, Rep. Keith Ellison. Ellison has been accused of ties to the radical Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, and once suggested the 9/11 terrorist attacks were akin to the infamous Reichstag fire used to propel Hitler’s Nazi party into absolute power in 1933 Germany.
From Sunday night through Wednesday morning, MRC analysts found the Big Three had already churned out 41 minutes, 46 seconds of coverage devoted to Bannon’s appointment. An analysis finds that nearly three-fourths (74%) of all references to Bannon were negative; the only positive comments viewers heard came from interviews or soundbites with other Trump campaign officials or Republican officeholders……
The coverage has been so ridiculously excessive, The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro — who dislikes Bannon — said it was evidence the media had “gone nuts” over the appointment:
They claim that he’s personally anti-Semitic and racist and a white nationalist and anti-Israel, without evidence. This is ridiculous. And all it does is provoke defense from the right. For God’s sake, I’m now defending Steve Bannon! The media can’t stop their overreach, because everybody on the right is Hitler to the media, which means that Bannon must be Super-Duper-Hitler.
Contrast that with news coverage of a Democrat accused of radicalism. Since he was first mentioned as a potential candidate on Friday, Rep. Ellison’s bid to take over the DNC has received only two minutes, nine seconds of network airtime, and none of it has focused on his controversial comments or associations.
The only spin network viewers heard was positive. On NBC’s Today show on Sunday, MSNBC’s Joy Reid was brought on to sing his praises: “Keith Ellison as a young legislator, as a Muslim, as an African-American, he really feels like sort of an ideal candidate.”
Ellison has been endorsed by incoming Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, a move which has led to protests against the New York Senator. While CBS has not mentioned those protests, their New York affiliate has done the reporting:
On a trip to Israel last summer, Ellison posted a photo of a sign in Hebron declaring Israel to be an apartheid state. He also proudly defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan against accusations of being anti-Semitic.
“(H)is vile beliefs… ought to disqualify him outright,” said Joel Mowbray, a consultant to Jewish groups. “If Chuck Schumer actually did his due diligence and is supporting Ellison anyway, that’s shameful.”…
Longtime terrorism expert Steve Emerson in 2010 documented that Ellison had financial “donors with a history of Muslim Brotherhood connections.” And in March 2010, according to Emerson, “Ellison attended a private fundraiser at the northern Virginia home of a man who led a group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Add it all up, and Ellison sounds at least as controversial as Bannon. So, if charges of extremism against a potential Republican White House aide are worth massive network coverage, where is the similar coverage of the radical ties of a Congressman who hopes to lead the Democratic Party?
Dr. Bill Warner gives an insight into Islamism
A jihadi said that beheading Kafirs, non-Muslims, is like killing chickens so he has no remorse. And why would he feel nothing? Could it be that he believes that Kafirs are worse than animals? Allah says:
Koran 25:44 Do you think that most of them hear, or understand? They are just like animals; no, they are far worse.
The jihadi has the moral right to behead the Kafir. He is following Allah’s commands:
Koran 8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”
In the early Koran of Mecca, Allah condemns Kafirs to hell 146 times. Of these 146 condemnations, only 9 involve moral wrongs such as greed and lying. The other 137 times are because the Kafir did not think that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. Kafirs reject Mohammed as a prophet and deny the Koran. Killing them by beheading is jihad. Raping them is jihad. The jihad advances Islam.
There are other chickens (cowards), as well. Chicken religious leaders do not stand up for persecuted Christians. There is a chicken media that does not tell the truth about Islam or criticize it. And there are chicken professors who do not teach the truth of the suffering in history caused by jihad over the last 1400 years.
We must stop being chicken cowards. We may have fear, but we must speak out. Only then can we prevent our civilization from being annihilated.
Source: Political Islam
VIDEO: Bill Warner, PhD: Just Like Killing Chickens
Posted by Political Islam
Published on Nov 1, 2016
Character assassination of Stephen Bannon is an attack on all Trump supporters
Copyright © 2008-2016 Americans for Limited Government
NetRightDaily.com is a project of Americans for Limited Government. The project, launched in August of 2008, offers liberty-minded thought on the federal government as well as the threats that exist to individual liberty at all levels of government.
You can connect with NetRightDaily on Twitter at @NetRightDaily. We are also on Facebook at Americans for Limited Government.
The Ellison Challenge
All right reserved, Caroline Glick
MSM Hypocrisy: Pounds Bannon Appointment, Lets Ellison’s Radicalism Off The Hook
How The Realistic Observer Works
Fancy yourself an author, columnist or commentator without your own blog or outlet for those important thoughts burning to get out.
Well, feel free to submit that breaking story or bombshell revelation to me. If it doesn’t suck and interests me in the slightest, I’ll publish your masterpiece here!
Heck, even if does suck, but has potential, I may choose to clean it up and publish it.
Try to keep the subject matter within the general purview of this site.
Simply submit your Post to: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
Ideally, it should be between 300 and 1000 words. Accompanying photos or pictures are not required. I can always add them if I feel the need.
I will edit or change things as I see fit. If you prefer I not, please let me know. If I change the content somewhat, I will forward the draft to you for approval.
Your email address will not be published.
Your Name or Pen Name, for the article
Send Me your e-mail Address
Your Web Site if you have one or a link to it.
Or If you Want to Blog For “The Realistic Observer” let us know, we will send you a sign on.