Browse By

Terrorist Plot Uncovered Outside San Francisco, Then Covered Up Again

william celliA terrorist plot to kill people in the United States has been uncovered, as police have raided a terrorist cell just outside of San Francisco, and discovered a bomb in the process of being made. Police have one suspect, an unemployed plumber, in custody, and are not yet sure whether others are involved in the conspiracy.

Only, when the Contra Costa Times reported on the terrorist plot, the newspaper refused to call it a terrorist plot.

Why? The man accused of plotting a terrorist attack is named William, not Mohammed. He is a supporter of Donald Trump, not of the Islamic State. The people he threatened to kill were Muslim Americans, not Christian Americans.

Activists from Town Hall, Western Journalism, Charisma News and American Clarion have declared that there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist. So, when a man stands outside of a Mosque, shouts, “I’m going to kill you all!” and then is found with a bomb inside his home, newspapers don’t use the word “terrorism”.

Apparently, it doesn’t count as terrorism if the targets aren’t Christians. That’s why William Celli has been accused of making criminal threats and possession of an explosive device. He won’t be charged with terrorist conspiracy. He won’t be waterboarded. He won’t be sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He won’t face a military tribunal.

Neither will Celli be noted as evidence that “they” are invading the United States. As of the time that I write this, Donald Trump has not yet responded to the news by calling for all plumbers to be banned from entering the United States.

When incidents of violent extremism don’t fit into pattern asserted by Homeland Insecurity ideology, they’re simply dismissed.

As a recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found, religious violence gets tagged to Islam more easily than it does to Christianity. “Three-quarters (75%) of Americans say that self-identified Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christian. Only 19 percent of Americans say that these types of perpetrators are actually Christian. In contrast, only half (50%) of the public say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really Muslim.”

5 thoughts on “Terrorist Plot Uncovered Outside San Francisco, Then Covered Up Again”

  1. ella says:

    Peregrin Wood, glad you brought this up. This link goes to a short article that makes a strong point. Democrats and the Clinton’s have been acting like parents of children who aren’t allowed to know the truth. Hillary was making an attempt to cover up something she probably knew was available to come out in the campaign. Yell a lie first, repeat it loudly second, and many will believe you. http://www.infowars.com/isis-recruitment-video-features-a-clinton-not-donald-trump/

    The real video of Bill Clinton, is what she attempted to cover up, do damage by putting the lie in the minds of as many as possible so they won’t hear the truth.

  2. Leroy says:

    Not sure what that comment had to do with this article. Maybe someone forgot their morning “tea”. InfoWorld, like Drudge Report, World News Daily, and Townhall (and many, many others on the Web) are simply NOT credible “news” sites, but self-identified very conservative agenda sites.

    The problem is a media that is hyperfocused on an issue (Islamic “terrorist attacks”) that they have become rabid about.

    This psychic phenomena has come about by politicians who are making an even bigger issue of it. Some politicians, being xenophobic, racist, Islamophobes themselves and promote this position publicly for personal as well as political reasons.

    Other politicians have adopted this stance to play to the fringe element within the ranks of the Right who are xenophobic, racist, and Islamophobic to the extreme. So those politicians, fearing that this element will sway the primary nomination, trumpets this fury also. (Reading the newer works of far rightwing commentator and author David Brock who was a part of the rightwing noise / propaganda machine until his “repentance” and turn to the Left in the late 1990s where he proceeded to expose the lies of the Right – yes, Virginia, Hillary was right, it WAS a vast rightwing conspiracy – to include repudiating articles and books of his own that were lies being spread by that rightwing conspiracy would be exceptionally beneficial to MANY people).

    As a result you have a self-feeding cycle of hatred.

    The unfortunate result is that the media is plunging into the days of the late 1890s circa Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer and the grossly horrific “yellow journalism”.

    1. Leroy says:

      Yellow Journalism:

      “Joseph Campbell defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics of scandal and corruption and national threats, etcetera, using heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was first extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers around the late 1800s and early 1900s as they battled for circulation.

      Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:

      – scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
      – lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
      – use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called “experts”
      -dramatic (but superficial) sympathy with the (supposed) “underdog” against “the system.”

      (Things were so bad in the competition between Pulitzer and Hearst – and the other newspapers that emulated them – that their urges for war likely helped create one: “Pulitzer and Hearst are often adduced as the cause of the United States’ entry into the Spanish–American War due to sensationalist stories or exaggerations of the terrible conditions in Cuba – part of the Spanish Empire and under rebellion by Cuban native insurgents. The most famous example of a claim is the apocryphal story that artist Frederic Remington telegrammed Hearst to tell him all was quiet in Cuba and ‘There will be no war.’ Hearst responded ‘Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.’ … Hearst became a war hawk after a rebellion broke out in Cuba in 1895. Stories of Cuban virtue and Spanish brutality soon dominated his front page. The stories ranged from dubious accuracy to highly exaggerated, to outright false. Pulitzer, though lacking Hearst’s resources, kept the story on his front page. The yellow press covered the revolution extensively and often inaccurately, exaggerated, and false, but conditions on Cuba were horrific enough without this extreme sensalization. Having clamored for a fight for two years, Hearst took credit for the conflict when it came: A week after the United States declared war on Spain, he ran ‘How do you like the Journal’s war?’ on his front page.”)

      Back then yellow journalism son after began collapsing after a horrifying incident.

      “Hearst later ran (unsuccessfully) for mayor and governor and even sought the presidential nomination, but lost much of his personal prestige when outrage exploded in 1901 after columnist Ambrose Bierce and editor Arthur Brisbane published separate columns months apart that suggested the ASSASSINATION of William McKinley. When McKinley was shot on September 6, 1901, critics accused Hearst’s Yellow Journalism of driving Leon Czolgosz to the deed.”

      Is it going to take the assassination of a liberal president or presidential candidate (who is the continuous target of TODAY’S yellow journalism) to finally reverse this obvious trend of today’s media to practice yellow journalism?

    2. Leroy says:

      David Brock….

      “In 1986 he joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times. After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas’s accuser, Anita Hill, in The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill’s claims of sexual harassment. The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, who was at that time a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in (very rightwing) The American Spectator where he was now employed.

      In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton’s time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate. Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named ‘Paula’ who state troopers said offered to be Clinton’s partner.

      Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled ‘The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.’

      If we all gave $3, the fundraiser would be over in an hour. DONATE NOW
      David Brock
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      For other people named David Brock, see David Brock (disambiguation).
      David Brock
      Born November 2, 1962 (age 53)
      Washington, D.C., United States
      Education University of California, Berkeley
      Occupation Journalist, author
      Known for Author of The Real Anita Hill, founder of Media Matters for America and American Bridge 21st Century Super PAC
      David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American journalist, author, and political operative who founded the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[1] He was a journalist during the 1990s[2] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
      In the late 1990s, Brock’s views shifted significantly towards the left.[3] In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a progressive non-profit organization. Through his work at Media Matters and with the Super PACs American Bridge 21st Century and Priorities USA Action, Brock has supported Hillary Clinton’s political career.[4][5]
      Contents [hide]
      1 Early life and education
      2 Journalism career
      3 Shift to the left
      4 Political operative career
      4.1 Media Matters for America
      4.2 American Bridge 21st Century
      4.3 Priorities USA Action
      4.4 American Independent Institute
      4.5 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
      5 Personal life
      6 Books
      7 References
      8 External links
      Early life and education[edit]
      Brock was born in Washington, D.C., and was adopted by Dorothea and Raymond Brock.[6] He has a younger sister, Regina. Brock was raised Catholic; his father held strong conservative beliefs.[6]
      Brock grew up in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, where he went to Our Lady of the Assumption School, and later attended Paramus Catholic High School in Paramus, New Jersey. During his sophomore year of high school, Brock’s family moved to the Dallas, Texas area where Brock attended Newman Smith High School. Brock became editor of his high school newspaper, which he says he “fashioned into a crusading liberal weekly in the middle of the Reaganite Sunbelt.”[7]
      Brock attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked as a reporter and editor for The Daily Californian, the campus newspaper. Brock arrived at college as a liberal Democrat, but at Berkeley he was “repelled by the culture of doctrinaire leftism” and turned to the political right.[5] He was an intern at The Wall Street Journal. He graduated from Berkeley with a B.A. in history in 1985.
      Journalism career[edit]
      In 1986 he joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times. After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas’s accuser, Anita Hill, in The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill’s claims of sexual harassment.
      The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, who was at that time a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in The American Spectator.
      In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton’s time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate.[2] Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named “Paula” who state troopers said offered to be Clinton’s partner.[2] Jones called Brock’s account of her encounter with Clinton “totally wrong,” and she later sued Clinton for sexual harassment, a case that became entangled in the independent counsel’s investigation of the Whitewater controversy. The story received an award later that year from Joseph Farah’s Western Journalism Center, and was partially responsible for a rise in the magazine’s circulation.[8]
      Shift to the left[edit]
      Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster’s then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another bestseller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point: he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his “friends” had not really been friends at all because of the open secret that Brock was gay.[9]
      In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled “Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man,” in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.[10][11] Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, ‘I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead.’ Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year.

      Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade (*).

      In 2001 Brock accused one of his former sources, Terry Wooten, of leaking FBI files for use in his book about Anita Hill. Brock defended his betrayal of a confidential source by saying, ‘I’ve concluded that what I was involved in wasn’t journalism, it was a political operation, and I was part of it… So I don’t think the normal rules of journalism would apply to what I was doing.’

      (*) He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2002 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project’s efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill.

      Brock directly addressed the right-wing ‘machine’ in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed a clearly interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and pseudoscience academic ‘studies’, and other methods.”

      1. Leroy says:

        David Brock books to read:

        – Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. 2002, Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4000-4728-4

        – The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. 2004, Crown. ISBN 978-1-4000-4875-5

        – Free Ride: John McCain and the Media with Paul Waldman. 2008, Anchor. ISBN 0-307-27940-5

        – The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine with Ari Rabin-Havt. 2012, Anchor. ISBN 978-0-307-94768-0

        – Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary and Hijack Your Government. 2015, Twelve. ISBN 1455533769

        The latter book should be required reading by certain posters here!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!