Mediaboss Marketing

Bill Mahers recent monologue on Real Timeexcoriating self-professed liberals for going soft on Islam hotly debated again last Friday with Ben Affleck and Sam Harris, and expounded on in this exclusive Salon interview might well serve as a credo for atheist progressives the world over. He began by introducing a photo, originally posted on a social media site, showing a teenager in Pennsylvania mounting a statue of Jesus Christ in such a way as to create the impression that Jesus was fellating him. Noting that it may not be in good taste, Maher declared that theres no picture that makes my heart swell with patriotism quite like this one.

Why? He explained that in the United States, with separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution, the youth, on account of his sacrilegious prank, would not do jail time or face violence because liberal Western culture is not just different, its better. . . . rule of law isnt just different than theocracy, its better. If you dont see that, then youre either a religious fanatic or a masochist, but one thing you are certainly notis a liberal.

(In fact, Maher proved too sanguine about the supposedly religion-free workings of the U.S. justice system. As punishment for the irreverent post, a court ordered the teen to do community service, observe a curfew, and stay off social media for six months. Hardly comparable to facing a fatwa for drawing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, but indicative nonetheless of the worrisome pro-faith bias infecting at least courts of law in our supposedly secular republic.)

Maher included Barack Obama among those unwilling to talk straight about Islam, and rebutted the presidents repeated statements that ISIS is not Islamic by pointing out that vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe . . . that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book. This means, said Maher, that not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.

Mahers is no offhand opinion, but a blunt statement of fact. A wide-ranging 2013 Pew Research Center poll, conducted between 2008 and 2012 in 39 countries, offered a deeply disturbing, unequivocal overview of the faith-based intolerance prevalent across much of the Muslim world. Among other things, majorities of Muslims varying somewhat according to region favor putting to death apostates and adulterers, condemn homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia as immoral, and believe that a wife must obey her husband. Large minorities condone honor killings. It should be noted that for practical reasons, the Pew Center could not survey Muslims in the repressive, highly conservative Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahhabism), so, if anything, these numbers provide an excessively moderate summary of Muslim positions on issues progressives hold dear.

There can be no doubt about the wellspring of these nevertheless profoundly illiberal results. Texts in the Koran and the Hadith (the sayings and teachings traditionally attributed to the prophet Muhammad) back every one of the retrograde, even repulsive, positions the Pew Center catalogued. There are also passages in these writings that appear more tolerant, but the point is, Muslims looking to back up hardline interpretations of Islam do not lack for scriptural support.

Maher did not cite polls on his show he is, after all, a comedian but had he done so, he would have given doubters a way to verify the veracity of his monologue. That left room for interpretation and dispute, or at least for what passes for such on cable news channels. To decode Mahers pronouncements about Islam, CNN Tonights hosts Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota called on Reza Aslan, the author of No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

To start the discussion, Lemon asked Aslan what he thought of Mahers performance. Jumpy and defensive from the start, Aslan quickly steered the discussion away from the gist of Mahers monologue that Islam does have a violence problem Western liberals need to be frank about and toward Mahers outrage at Female Genital Mutilation. FGM, was not an Islamic problem, its an African problem . . . a Central African problem, Aslan asserted. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is [FMG] an issue.

This is flat-out wrong. Though the barbaric practice predates Islam, FMG occurs, as far as is known, in at least twenty-nine countries (among them Egypt, Kurdistan, and Yemen) across a wide swath of Africa and the Middle East, and beyond. Muslims even exported the savage custom to Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is a growing problem. Those working locally to eradicate FGM have, understandably, a good deal of trouble making it an issue, given the lack on openness in discussing sex-related topics in the countries involved, so the situation may in fact be worse than is now recognized. And if it wasnt originally Islamic, it has so been for fourteen centuries. The Prophet Muhammad, in the Hadith, condoned it, even encouraged it (calling it an honorable quality for women) and ordaining only that it not be performed severely.

Aslans erroneous dismissal of FGM as a central African problem will help none of the tens of millions of girls and women who have suffered mutilation across the Islamic world, but it will give comfort to those who hope to continue butchering their victims without scrutiny from abroad. Neither CNNs hosts nor Aslan mentioned Mahers call to liberals to stop ignoring the practice, nor did they bring up his pointed words about Yales craven, abrupt cancelation, earlier this year, of the invitation to speak sent to one of FMGs most prominent victims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brave, Somali-born anti-Islam activist and writer. Maher blames a misguided attempt at evenhandedness by the schools atheist organization for the disinvitation, but surprise! it was actually the Muslim Students Association that first asked for her event to be called off.

More:
Bill Mahers atheist values: Why progressives must defend enlightenment, critique religious extremism

WMS Life of Luxury | Multiple Progressives | SDGuy1234
This video of the WMS slot machine Life Of Luxury was recorded by SDGuy1234. The Gamblers Network is the premier channel on YouTube dedicated to the biggest ...

By: GamblersNetwork

The rest is here:
WMS Life of Luxury | Multiple Progressives | SDGuy1234 - Video

Proces Mamadou Ndala, Des Revelations Progressives
http://groupelavenir.org.

By: GroupelAvenir RTGA

The rest is here:
Proces Mamadou Ndala, Des Revelations Progressives - Video

Blood Of Slaved On The Hands Of Progressives
http://www.atlah.org The Manning Report Blacks being taught that Islam is their original religion. Recorded on 8 October 2014. "ATLAH: THAT #39;S WHAT GOD SAID." Anointed to establish families,...

By: ATLAHWorldwide

Excerpt from:
Blood Of Slaved On The Hands Of Progressives - Video

Last December, Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler of the Wall Street-funded think tank Third Way penned a widely-discussed op-ed for the Wall Street Journal warning Democrats of the perils of economic populism, which Cowan and Kessler called a dead end for the party. The piece lambasted prominent progressives like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, asserting that their focus on income inequality and their unwillingness to back savage cuts to social insurance programs was both irresponsible and politically foolish.

The piece triggered a fierce backlash against Third Way, and even two co-chairs of the organization disavowed Cowan and Kesslers anti-populist screed. But the plutocratic wing of the Democratic Party hasnt breathed its last, and the latest centrist attack on progressive populism is a real doozy.

It comes courtesy of a Politico Magazine essay by Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall. A co-founder of the now-shuttered center right group the Democratic Leadership Council and a onetime aide to former Sen. Joe Lieberman, Marshall has long been a leading agitator on behalf of a more right-leaning Democratic Party. Aggressively hawkish on foreign affairs Marshall was associated with the erstwhile neoconservative group the Project for a New American Century and was a big booster of the Iraq War Marshall also harbors distinctly center-right views on economic issues, joining deficit scolds in railing against so-called borrow and spend policies and championing entitlement reform and corporate tax cuts.

Marshalls central thesis is that to win power, Democrats must capture the loyalties of moderate voters. Given the high number of Americans who tell pollsters that theyre moderate in their political orientation, it sounds sensible enough. But Marshall proceeds to simply ascribe to rank-and-file moderates the center-right views of the Beltway punditocracy, the better to make his case that progressive populism is a losing prospect. To win moderate voters, Marshall writes, Democrats must shun leftish orthodoxy on by supporting trade agreements, real accountability in education, changes in entitlements, development of Americas shale-gas windfall and efforts to lower regulatory obstacles to entrepreneurship. The party must refocus its efforts toward reducing the budget deficit and national debt, and it must place a higher priority on economic growth, not redistribution to achieve equality.

From a purely political standpoint the vantage from which Marshall is primarily writing this is nothing short of bunk. Most recent polling, for instance, shows Americans are skeptical of free trade agreements and support expanding Social Security. Moreover, while the way a poll frames choices may lead Americans to say growth should be a higher priority than reducing inequality, surveys indicate that Americans see inequality as a dire problem and want to raise taxes to solve it. Asked to chart an ideal distribution of wealth for society, a majority of Americans show preferences for a far more egalitarian society than we have now.

The policies Marshall advocates are no better than the politics. Reducing economic inequality, for instance, is essential to economic growth, while spikes in inequality contribute to financial crises. As economist Thomas Piketty points out, One consequence of increasing inequality was virtual stagnation of the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes in the United States, which inevitably made it more likely that modest households would take on debt, especially since unscrupulous banks and financial intermediaries offered credit on increasingly generous terms. Meanwhile, phrases like real accountability in education are meaningless sloganeering, designed to obfuscate an anti-union agenda and push education reforms that dont actually work. On climate change, Marshall is being nothing short of disingenuous when he suggests that pouring resources into natural gas production is compatible with a sustainable environmental policy. While natural gas itself may be cleaner than other fossil fuels, fracking for natural gas leaks methane, which is 34 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

When it comes to foreign policy, Marshall shows no signs of having learned the lessons of the disastrous militaristic policies he enthusiastically backed in the Bush administration. U.S. foreign policy cant simply be a series of belated, ad hoc reactions to crises,he argues, as if progressives were advocating a belated, ad hoc foreign policy. We need a new strategy for weakening Islamist extremism in whatever form it takes, for revitalizing NATO as a bulwark against Russian expansion, and for creating a balance of power in East Asia that protects the regions free and open societies. Marshall doesnt explain what achieving these sweeping goals would entail, but its clear that the Iraq War cheerleader is fearful that progressive Democrats arent as keen on American interventionism and chest-thumping as hed like.

While Cowan and Kessler at least had the courtesy to name high-profile adherents of the ideology they were castigating, Marshalls piece doesnt name-check a single soul; the closest he comes is a general swipe at self-appointed ideological minders like MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Its possible that Marshall genuinely believes, despite evidence to the contrary, that these unnamed leftist villains policies are politically perilous. But its hard to escape the sense that what really terrifies Marshall and his ilk is the realization that their brain-dead centrism finally faces a robust challenge.

See more here:
The progressives are coming!: Why the latest attempt to save Democrats from populism is so pathetic