I am downright disgusted with the way the media has been reporting the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. While reporters have downplayed, if not ignored acts of Islamic terrorism, they have been gleefully reporting that Anders Behring Breivik was some sort of Christian conservative terrorist. Out of all media outlets pushing this nonsense, This anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias demonstrates the lack of journalistic integrity of those pushing baseless nonsense. There are, however, those in media who aren’t willing to use this tragedy to push their political beliefs. Thanks to SDAMatt2, we have video of SunTV’s Charles Adler, Ezra Levant and Michael Coren speaking out against this anti-Christian narrative (hat-tip Blazing Cat Fur).
As outlined by all these commentators, Breivik is neither a Christian nor a conservative. Aside from the fact that he admitted that he hasn’t been to church in fifteen years, Breivik also admits that he doesn’t have a special relationship with Jesus Christ and God. How can one not have this relationship and still be considered a Christian? It is a key tenet of Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity. To Breivik, to be a Christian, one just has to be non-Muslim and living in the Western world. How is it possible that those in the media can ignore these statements and continue to claim that this deranged individual represents Christianity? It’s downright dishonest and irresponsible, but that doesn’t matter to far-left political partisans who have an agenda to push.
I could continue and discuss why this deranged individual isn’t a conservative, but I made that point in my previous post. If anything, this tragedy has exposed the anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias of the media. If these so-called “journalists” weren’t too busy gleefully pushing this nonsense, they would realize that the facts concerning Anders Behring Breivik and his actions don’t support their narrative. Pathetic…
I first heard of this story while listening to ‘The Larry Elder Show’ this morning. Honestly, I don’t like Cenk Uygur, not in the least. I believe his is downright dishonest, immature, ill-informed and extremely partisan. If MSNBC fired Cenk because of any of these reasons, or because of his extremely poor ratings (despite what Cenk said to Kurtz, the truth is that his ratings were terrible), then there wouldn’t be anything wrong here. The issue here that, as Cenk told CNN’s Howard Kurtz during his interview on ‘Reliable Sources’, he was replaced simply because he was being critical of President Barack Obama. Do I believe him? In this instance, yes.
If anything, the recent Mark Halperin incident shows that the White House is not only keeping a close eye as to what is being said on MSNBC, but that MSNBC is listening to what the White House says. It could be because they want more access to Obama and his staff, or simply because they support the far-left politics of this administration. Either way, it’s obvious to anyone who has spent any time watching MSNBC that they are in the tank for this White House. If anyone needs proof of this, I recommend that they visit NewsBusters.org and read some of the articles concerning MSNBC’s news coverage.
If this was about content or ratings, MSNBC wouldn’t have offered Cenk another position on their network. Keeping him as a contributor would allow MSNBC to control what Cenk said by choosing what discussions he could participate in. By replacing him with Al Sharpton, MSNBC still has a rabid far-left partisan, but one that will not be critical about Obama and the Democrats. Because of his name recognition, Sharpton might also give MSNBC a short-term ratings boost, but his controversial history and bigoted views will eventually turn off most viewers. As Larry Elder said this morning, Sharpton is the “black David Duke,” and I doubt most Americans will tolerate that kind of nonsense.
By replacing Cenk Ugyur with him, MSNBC goes from bad to worse. Despite how unwatchable Sharpton’s show will be, MSNBC now has someone hosting MSNBC Live that will not be even the least bit critical of President Obama. MSNBC’s “Lean Forward” has become a deep bow to a thin-skinned White House. Pathetc…
UPDATE: It appears that’s there far more to this story than I first believed. Larry O’Connor at BigJournalism.com has put up a post pointing out that Al Sharpton was crucial in bringing about the Comcast/NBC merger.
…It’s not like Sharpton was an early champion for the mega-media-merger out of the kindness of his heart. His political organization National Action Network (NAN) has received $190,000 since 2009, when the merger was first announced.
Also, Sharpton and NAN ferociously fought on behalf of James Clyburn in his struggle to retain a leadership position in the House when the Democrats were consigned to the minority earlier this year. The Democratic leadership created a position called “Assistant Minority Leader” so that he could retain the #3 position, something that does not usually exist for the minority party in the House. Subsequently, Comcast has donated over $10,000 to Rep. Clyburn’s political committees further assisting the father of the key FCC vote in favor of the merger, Mignon Clyburn.
Criticism is pouring in from left-leaning publications who realize this move doesn’t pass the smell test…
I recommend my modest readership give O’Connor’s post a read as it’s very enlightening.
Would it surprise anyone if this hosting job was payment for Sharpton’s work in assisting with the Comcast/NBC merger? I doubt it. Sharpton is far from a morally upstanding individual, so it wouldn’t surprise anyone if his support for the mega-merger came with a such a price. Does that mean Cenk Uygur was wrong for believing that Sharpton got his job because he wouldn’t criticize President Barack Obama? Not at all. MSNBC was looking for someone to replace Sharpton with and the White House expressed concern over some of Cenk’s comments.
While this explains is why Al Sharpton was at the top of the list for a hosting position at MSNBC, I am still convinced that Cenk Uygur was replaced because he dared to criticize the thin-skinned President. Pathetic…
A frail-looking Jack Layton has announced he is taking a leave of absence from his party’s leadership to fight a “new form of cancer” that requires immediate treatment.
The NDP leader, stunning many in the room with his gaunt appearance and hoarse voice, made the announcement at a hotel in Toronto with his wife Olivia Chow at his side.
He explained that while his battle with prostate cancer has been going “very well,” he began experiencing pain in the closing days of the last parliamentary session. Medical tests revealed a second form of cancer.
He did not specify what form of the disease he was now battling but said he received the final test results only last week.
“So, on the advice of my doctors, I am going to focus on treatment and recovery,” he said.
“…I’m going to fight this cancer now, so I can be back to fight for families when Parliament resumes.”
Layton appeared to have lost a good deal of weight since his last public appearance, which was on June 28, during a garden party at his official residence, Stornoway.
Layton insisted he was “hopeful and optimistic about the personal battle that lies before me in the weeks to come.”
He said he has requested that NDP President Brian Topp convene a meeting of the party’s federal council to appoint an interim leader. Layton said he will recommend Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel for the job.
“The interim leader will serve until I resume my duties,” the NDP leader said. “I intend to do so when Parliament meets on Sept. 19.”
Layton has battled health problems for close to two years. He was diagnosed in February, 2010, with prostate cancer and then incurred a broken hip in the spring, just before the start of the federal election campaign.
But he kept up a rigorous schedule throughout the election trail. His party went on to win more seats than it ever has in its history, buoyed in good measure by Layton’s personal popularity.
I saw the announcement live and I can’t help but ask two questions, the first reflected in the title of this post. Is Jack Layton’s move really temporary or is it actually permanent? Despite the positive spin put on this announcement by Layton himself, he looks very sickly. Long gone is the athletic and energetic politician who helped the New Democratic Party (NDP) make significant gains in the previous election. Layton’s battle against prostate cancer has reduced him to a shell of his former self, and now that we know he is also fighting another form of cancer, I don’t know if he will pull through. Though I am not a fan of Jack or his politics, my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.
The second question concerns the fate of the Layton’s political party following this announcement. Can the NDP thrive, let alone survive without their charismatic leader? My opinion, as well as the opinion of many political commentators, is that it was Jack’s charisma, not his politics, that allowed the NDP to make serious political gains in the previous election. Looking at the list of possible interim leaders, however, I don’t not see anyone who’s even the least bit charismatic. Matter of fact, considering the support those like Libby Davies have within the NDP right now, they might very well select the wrong person to lead and that will be politically disastrous. I seriously doubt that Canadians would support, let alone tolerate, a political party that pushes anti-Israel and “9/11 Truther” legislation.
Despite what was said in the press conference, I do think this is the end of Jack Layton’s political career. I also think that this is the beginning of a turn in the NDP’s political fortunes. I might be wrong, and I hope I am wrong about the former point, but I doubt it. We will see what happens in the coming months, but I do feel this announcement is bad news for Layton, the NDP and their supporters.
Before I start I would like to say that my thoughts and prays go out to the victims and families of the victims of today’s attacks. I couldn’t imagine the horror they must be going through at this hour as we’re all still trying to sort out what happened, who’s responsible and what their motives were. As of now, it appears that a Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, is to blame. This from the Toronto Sun(hat-tip Michelle Malkin).
Anders Behring Breivik is a conservative Christian who enjoys classical music and the video game World of Warcraft.
Breivik has been named by several Norwegian media outlets as the suspected shooter at a youth camp in Oslo, where 10 people were killed Friday and he may be linked to a bombing near the prime minister’s residence that killed seven others.
On his Facebook page, which appears to only have been started July 17, Breivik mostly posted music videos and said his interests include hunting and bodybuilding.
Under education, Breivik wrote he studied independently, noting he has “approximately 14,500 hours of study” equivalent to a bachelor of business administration and masters in history, as well as “3,000 hours of study in micro and macro finance, religion.”
His profile also says he’s a director at a company called Breivik Geofarm.
He lists himself as single and has five profile photos – four of which are headshots, and one of him at a wedding with two women, one of which is the bride.
A Twitter account is also being linked to Breivik, although there is just one tweet on July 17.
“One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests,” he wrote.
The television station TV 2 in Norway reported Breivik had right-wing extremist tendancies and had two guns registered under his name.
VGTV reported Breivik was unknown to police prior to Friday’s shooting.
So, at this time, the main suspect for the horrific attacks is the exact opposite of who many assumed was behind this attack. Once this information came to light, however, those on the left quickly blamed Christianity and conservatism for these terrorist attacks. Anyone looking for examples of this twisted logic need not look any further then the comments section of the Huffington Post’s most recent article on this tragedy. Here are some examples.
ElBruce – So this means all Christian conservatives must be subjected to additional scrutiny and security procedures? You know, like they were saying Muslims should?
Szanbar – If a Muslim had done this, it would have been the Main news for at least next week, on this website, CNN, FOX, BBC, Drudge report, Yahoo etc etc.. Since the killer is a Christian terrorist, this news has been so conveniently dropped to 3rd or 6th place, on this website and is already missing from all the major media outlets (At least in USA).. That stupid Drudge is still linking to a bogus story about some Global Jihad BS.. Good Job media. Lets get back to Obama bashing, since it wasn’t a muslim…
lonewolfwisconsin – Holy Cow!! Teabagger disease has spread to Norway???
aonorat – Just another example that proves that no particular religion or group has exclusive ownership of terrorist acts. Plenty of other examples exist, to include Timothy McVeigh here in the USA. Hope we don’t send our troops to Norway to prevent Christian terrorists from establishing a safe haven there. (sarcasm) These are crimes against humanity by fanatics or lunatics which require bringing the specific culprits to justice as opposed to engaging in broad scale military ventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Eddy333 – The minute they said the shooter was blonde and spoke Norwegian I knew what was coming next. All too predictable given the delusions the far right engage in–no matter what the country.
lovethesinner – “… he describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo. He also lists political analysis and stock analysis as interests.”
I half expected them to say, “and Fox News analyst” at the end, there.
PanFx – Regardless of how real the proof that the perpetrator is a white Christian male, conservatives will deny it. Most of those deniers will do it only because they want to get a reaction out of their counterparts. It helps soothe their bruised ego after realizing that they are no better than the Taliban. It also soothes their cognitive dissonance, which as of late, is in overdrive.
TeraWatt60 – We now have proof that the Tea Party is helping the American Economy ….they have exported their nutt.iness to Norway!! Sharron Angle and her “2nd Amendment Remedy” is now an international sensation !
This is just some of the twisted comments I found in the comments section. It’s good to see that many have been removed by moderators, and that there are quite a few comments from more individuals pointing out that this isn’t “Christian terrorism” or “conservative terrorism.” The problem, however, is that the majority of comments are similar to those I have posted. As per usual, the Huffington Post’s readership doesn’t fail at reaching new lows.
Aside from these anti-Christian and anti-conservative comments, there are many, on the Huffington Post comment section and on other pages from people who believe that the media was too quick in blaming these attacks on Islamic terrorists. In response to them, I have two points to make. Firstly, Islamic fundamentalism has become a serious problem in Norway. If it isn’t Islamic radicals like Mullah Krekar, who preaches about the “eventual” Islamic domination of Europe and his support for armed jihad, its the assault raping of young Norwegian girls by Muslim men. Secondly, it was only after “Helpers of Global Jihad” took credit for the attacks that the media began treating this as another case of Islamic terrorism. The Guardian has a timeline of today’s events which puts this at roughly two-and-a-half overs after the first attack. It definitely wasn’t a rush to judgement, especially seeing as many in the media would rather ignore stories about Islamic terrorism. Case in point, the lack of coverage of the United Airlines Flight 944 incident earlier this month.
In any event, at this point we don’t know exactly why Anders Behring Breivik committed these horrible acts. My best guess is that he believed Norway’s Labour Party was to blame for the country’s problems, and that destroying them would somehow save his country. This kind of twisted nationalism is reminiscent of Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, Texas. Until we have more details, there isn’t anything more I can say.
I will hopefully be updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE:Michelle Malkin’s newest post raises two points in particular about yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. The first point is that, despite what those on the left believe, it wasn’t Christians who were praising the actions of Anders Behring Breivik. Matter of fact, Christians were condemning the attacks before and after it was learned who was responsible. On the other hand, as the Jawa Report reported yesterday, Muslims leaders like Britain’s Anjem Choudary were praising the attacks. Choudary himself tweeted that “The Norwegian regime & Stoltenberg should not have sent their troops to kill Muslims in Afghanistan or mistreated the scholar Mullah Krekar!” Aside from the fact that “Helpers of Global Jihad” initially took credit for the attacks, is it any wonder why the media was focused on Islamic terrorists?
This leads to the second point, that the left somehow believes these Muslim extremists are owed an apology for being blamed for yesterday’s terrorist attacks. It isn’t just the usual suspects at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos either who believe this nonsense. As Michelle wrote, a writer for the Atlantic, James Fallow, believes that Jennifer Rubin, who wrote a piece earlier yesterday for the Washington Post concerning Islamic fundamentalism in Norway, should apologize for it. The only thing Fallows’ incoherent rant does is highlight the warped mentality of those who share his social and political beliefs. Why should there be any apology when these people not only praised the attacks, but some even took credit for them? Only those with a twisted sense of reality could believe that these wannabee terrorists were mistreated by yesterday’s media coverage.
Once again, I will be updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE:Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has a post up concerning Anders Behring Breivik. As usual, I recommend my modest readership give his post a read. Ed draws a comparison between Breivik’s actions and those of Timothy McVeigh, instead of Jared Lee Loughner. It’s easy to understand why considering the use of an explosive device to attack a government building, but we don’t know at this point whether or not Breivik was part of paramilitary group, or whether or not his actions were fueled by political ideology similar to McVeigh’s. I won’t make definite statements about his motivations without the evidence to back it up.
Aside from this, I would like to address this idea that Breivik is a “Christian conservative terrorist.” At this time, there are conflicting reports about his religious beliefs. I have been reading various sites which claim that Breivik wasn’t a Christian, but instead a Freemason. That being said, none of the eye witness accounts have him quoting the Bible or any Masonic text, as Islamic terrorists do. Simply put, just because he is a member of a particular faith, it doesn’t mean that he is a religiously motivated terrorist. In fact, I believe all signs, at this point at least, point his actions being politically motivated.
So if this is politically motivated, does that mean he is a “conservative terrorist”? Once again, as I stated previously, his political beliefs are warped. Just as Jared Lee Lougher’s motivations were only understandable only to him alone, I believe this may also be the case for Breivik’s motivations. If his actions were indeed due the result of his hatred for Islamic fundamentalism as many have been saying, why didn’t he target a Muslim leader like Mullah Krekar? At least then his actions would have made more sense. If it was the Labour Party’s push for multiculturalism, why didn’t Breivik’s writings, as far as we know, speak of his hatred for non-Muslim minority groups? Why were was the target of his attacks the Labour Party and not minority groups? Simply put, there is some warped reason for these attacks that makes sense to Breiviki, but probably won’t make sense to anyone else.
In any event, aside from reports of a possible second gunman, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of new information. When more information does become available, I will update this blog entry.
The whole world now knows Anders Breivik is a heartless, cold-blooded killer.
The suspected right-wing zealot has already taken responsibility for the deadly bombing in Oslo, Norway, and the shooting spree on nearby Utoeya island that, together, have claimed nearly 100 lives, most of them youths, and wounded at least as many more.
But on Monday, the 32-year-old is expected to answer the question everyone is asking:
Why?
“He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary,” defence lawyer Geir Lippestad told TV2 news on Saturday.
Lippestad’s client apparently has told him he is willing to explain himself when he makes his first court appearance on Monday.
Shortly after the bombing of a downtown Oslo government building, a man dressed in a police uniform opened fire on hundreds of youths on the island 30 kilometres away.
The shooting rampage went on for 90 minutes.
When a SWAT team finally arrived, acting police chief Sveinung Sponheim said Breivik immediately surrendered and confessed to both attacks.
Police also said the accused, who belonged to an anti-immigration party and wrote blogs attacking multiculturalism and Islam, had been unknown to them.
In a YouTube video promoting a fight against Islam, Breivik is seen wearing a wetsuit and pointing an automatic weapon.
Forensics officers gathered evidence at a small farm in the village of Aasta, about 160 km north of Oslo, that was allegedly leased by Breivik two months ago.
Half a dozen bags of fertilizer could be seen stacked against an outbuilding on the property. But it’s not yet known if fertilizer was used to make the bomb that rocked Oslo.
Arild Tangen, a taxi driver who claims he drove Breivik from a train station to the farm on Thursday around 1 p.m., said he did not know the accused, but he seemed to be “a nice guy.”
“He seemed like an up-and-coming businessman coming right from the job,” Tangen told Reuters. “I could never imagine he could have done something like that.”
If Breivik is convicted on terrorism charges, he would face a maximum of 21 years in prison, police said.
It seems that the we’re all going to be learning more about Breivik’s motives very soon. I still, however, find it troubling that there seems to be a significant disconnect between his anti-Islamic positions and these attacks on the Labour Party. If he was so intent on a fight with Islam, why didn’t he target Muslim leaders like Mullah Krekar? Does he believe that the Labour Party is a pawn of Muslim fundamentalists? I expect his reasoning to be that of a deranged conspiracy theorist.
I will continue updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE: Here’s a few more posts concerning the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway.
Donald Douglas at American Power Blog has a post up concerning Anders Behring Breivik’s apparent political motives. Douglas makes the point that an anti-immigration, pro-homosexual and pro-Israel is far from the platform of a far-right extremist, especially in Europe where far-right groups are traditionally anti-homosexual and anti-Israel.
Mark Humphrys points out in his post that “for all his protests, Breivik is no different to the jihadists, and should be treated the same as them.” Looking at Breivik’s manifesto, which includes the forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity, the destruction of mosques and Islamic centers, and the use of terrorism against political opponents, it’s not hard to see why Humphrys would make this assertion. I highly recommend my modest readership give Humphrys’ post a read because sheer amount information it provides on Breivik’s political beliefs.
Celestial Junk has a post up concerning the ninety minutes it took for police to get to Utoya after receiving calls for help as Breivik, and possibly another suspect, started opening fire on Workers’ Youth League (Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking or AUF in Bokmål) summer camp attendees. As Celestial Junk pointed out, considering that the region is dominated by water and mountains, why wasn’t there any boats or helicopters on standby? Do Norwegian authorities even have a special police force on standby in case of such an emergency? If so, why did it take them so long to get to Utoya? One wonders if the media will tear itself away from the “Christian conservative terrorist” meme long enough to ask these questions.
…Within its Judaic mundane-societal context, the Sabbath Goy [Breivik] is simply there to accomplish some minor tasks the Jews cannot undertake during the Sabbath. But within the Zion-ised reality we tragically enough live in, the Sabbath Goy kills for the Jewish state. He may even do it voluntarily…
Atzmon wasn’t the only one pushing this warped belief. Swedish-Algerian journalist Yahya Abu Zakariya also believes at Breivik’s actions were part of a greater Israeli conspiracy against Muslims.
I blame two parties in the West [for the Norway attacks] – the extremist right and the Israeli Mossad… You will witness similar operations in Denmark, in Sweden, in Iceland, in Finland, and in Britain. This is [part of] the Zionist strategy of ridding Europe of its Muslim population under the slogan of preventing Islam from settling in Europe, so that Europe will continue to support the Zionist entity…
In my opinion, this derangement rivals Breivik’s. As I stated previously, Muslims weren’t the target of Breivik’s attacks. If this was an Israeli conspiracy against Muslims, why would they target Norway’s Labour Party? I also recommend my modest readership give Aussie Dave’s post a read, if for nothing else than to better understand how twisted those who believe this nonsense are.
Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for posting these links to posts about or related to this story.
UPDATE: More nonsense from those on the left about how those on the right are to blame for the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. Here’s the segment from ‘Jansing and Company’, with Chris Jansing “interviewing” (and I use that term loosely) Michael Isikoff (hat-tip Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs).
Is it any wonder why MSNBC’s ratings are so bad? This wasn’t an interview, it was a rant, a collection of loaded questions and baseless claims. Firstly, there is no proof of a “surge in right wing attacks.” There’s a surge in Islamic terrorist attacks, but unless you count mentally deranged people with far-left political beliefs (Amy Bishop, Joseph Andrew Stack and John Patrick Bedell to name a few) as “right wing extremists,” then there isn’t any evidence to back up this claim.
Secondly, this talk about how the “real threat” is the “fringe, extremist terrorist groups on the right feeding off islamophobia” is nonsense. What about the very real threat of Muslim fundamentalism? Those like Isikoff would rather invent bogeymen than address issues like the assault raping of Norwegian girls by Muslim men (same link as above). How about the calls for jihad by those like Mullah Krekar? To those on MSNBC, to even raise that issue makes you an “islamophobe.” To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury, there isn’t anything irrational about a fear of people who advocate violence against unbelievers.
If MSNBC had standard, not only would they apologize for airing this segment, but fired Chris Jansing for this unsupported and downright hateful nonsense. Pathetic…
UPDATE: Instead of updating this post, I have put up a new post discussing this anti-Christian narrative the media is now pushing. While it’s pathetic to see how dishonest and irresponsible these so-called “journalists” have become, it was inevitable when Anders Behring Breivik was revealed to not be a Muslim terrorist. Pathetic…
Posted by NorthernThoughts 
