Statistics About “Radical” Islam The Left DOES NOT Want To See

A religion of peace? Is there a difference between RADICAL Islam and just Islam itself?

Pew Research (2013):
  • Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda.
  • Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban.
  • 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.

Wenzel Strategies (2012):
  • 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
  • 45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
  • 12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
  • 43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
  • 32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.

ICM Poll:
  • 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK
  • 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers

Pew Research (2010):
  • 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
  • 70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
  • 42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
  • 82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
  • 56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

WZB Berlin Social Science Center:
  • 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Global (2006)
  • 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
  • 43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
  • 38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
  • 15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.

World Public Opinion (2009)
  • 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
  • 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
  • 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
  • 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
  • 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
  • 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)

NOP Research:
  • 62% percent of British Muslims say freedom of speech shouldn’t be protected 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
  • 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons

People Press Surveys
  • 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.

Belgian HLN:
  • 16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is “acceptable”.

ICM Poll:
  • 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.

Pew Research (2007):
  • 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
  • 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
  • 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
  • 22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
  • 29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).

Al-Jazeera (2006)
  • 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden

Populus Poll (2006):
  • 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
  • 37% believe Jews in Britain are a “legitimate target”.

  • 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state

NOP Research:
  • 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam;

MacDonald Laurier Institute:
  • 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)
  • 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate al-Qaeda

  • 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure

  • 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% “fully”, 6.5% “mostly”, 23.1% “partially”)

Policy Exchange:
  • 1 in 4 Muslims in the UK have never heard of the Holocaust
  • Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust ever happened.

al gore

After Stating How Grave The Danger Facing The California Coastline Is Al Gore Buys a Mansion On The California Coastline

You cannot overstate the hypocrisy folks. A tweet from MARK SIMONE‏ (originally seen on r/The_Donald) grabbed our attention:

The Twitter-verse proceeded to excoriate Gore and his continued hypocrisy:

twitter gore

From LA Times

In a move that critics may cite as his own inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a house in secluded Montecito to their real estate holdings.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.

Montecito has long been a haven for Southern California’s rich and famous, a spot where celebrity faces can blend into the crowd. Among the community’s notable residents have been talk show giant Oprah Winfrey, actors Michael Douglas and Christopher Lloyd, and golfer Fred Couples. The 93108 ZIP Code, which includes the coastal hamlet, was ranked as America’s seventh most expensive area last year by Forbes.

Word of the purchase was reported in late April in the Montecito Journal. Gore, 62, did not respond to The Times’ requests for comment.

An Inconvenient Sequel Trailer

cnn fake news

CNN eclipses AP as “Worst media outlet”

It is now official: Hell has frozen over.


On more than a half-dozen occasions, I have shared with you my outrage over the biased, anti-Trump slant of the Associated Press. No major newspaper or broadcast media outlet in America is immune to the AP’s tentacles reaching into the nation’s newsrooms with ever- more-hysterical examples of Yellow Journalism disguised as “news.” (Full disclosure: my Salem Radio Network’s 24/7 SRN News and News services are AP subscribers and—thus—must devote considerable staff time to ferreting out the actual news within AP’s unending distribution of anti-Trump screeds which apparently must meet fewer standards of objectivity than your average high school newspaper or free neighborhood PennySaver.)

Example: during President Trump’s comments at his Rose Garden speech withdrawing the United States from the so-called Paris Climate Accords, he correctly observed that he was elected “to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” AP’s Jill Colvin and Julie Pace then raced to file their “coverage” of the President’s speech, breathlessly offering this analysis: “Allegheny County was won by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the November election. In Pittsburgh, Clinton won 114,847 votes, while Trump won 31,805.”

Oddly, most of us were under the impression that a President is supposed to represent the interests of all Americans, not just those who supported him. But like their acolytes in what’s left of the Democratic Party, the AP never misses an opportunity to buy into the balkanization of America…stabbing its own credibility in its displays of naked bias against Donald Trump at every opportunity.

So AP long ago abandoned any semblance of journalistic ethics. In what they like to refer to as “the age of Trump,” anything goes if AP thinks it will somehow make the President look bad.

But incredibly, the AP has now been eclipsed in its shameful bias by the onetime pioneer of cable news, CNN. (Second full disclosure: my radio network partnered with CNN during the broadcast of four 2016 GOP Presidential debates; back then, I was impressed by CNN’s solid staff, its professionalism and the men and women we interacted with during each of our broadcasts.) Sometime after Donald Trump captured the Presidency, however, the wheels came off the “old” CNN and it has increasingly morphed into a 24-hour depressing, one-note rant against Donald Trump.

The network which Ted Turner once promised would be the gold standard of journalism has, sadly, devolved into what I call “Reverse Alchemy”: they have turned gold into lead.

don lemon fake news

Don Lemon—whom President Trump accurately describes as “perhaps the dumbest person in broadcasting”—presides over a nightly “news” program that is the linear equivalent of the old Jerry Springer show, minus the Klansmen and feuding landlords. Non-stop Trump-bashing with six-person panels all acting as myna birds parroting any absurd thing Lemon throws at the President.

CNN’s “New Day” anchor Chris Cuomo (always good to have the son and brother of Democratic governors of New York in the anchor chair of an objective “news” program) used his national platform last week in a juvenile, embarrassing segment wherein he and FOX turncoat Alisyn Camerota badgered young Scripps spelling bee champion Ananya Vinay into defining the word “covfefe” (a typo in one of Donald Trump’s recent Tweets.) Hilarious: dragooning a 12-year-old as an on-camera prop in CNN’s dopey quest to mock President Trump at every turn.

And then there was the capper: CNN’s New Year’s Eve star Kathy Griffin thinking it was “comedy” to appear—ISIS-like—on camera holding up what appeared to be the severed, bloody head of President Trump. This one was a no-brainer for the average viewer anywhere in the civilized world. But CNN instead engaged in prolonged, tortured, pants-wetting deliberations for hours before finally jettisoning Griffin from future broadcasts.

What must THOSE discussions have sounded like? (“Gee, holding up an image of the bloody head of the President of the United States IS an all-time low in bad taste….but we’re CNN and if we fire Kathy it might look as if we’re supporting Trump. What SHOULD we do, guys? We need to get past this so we can get back to hectoring 12-year-olds on NEW DAY to try and embarrass Trump. Yeah, let’s fire her and just move on…”)

Personally, I have nothing but pity for the people I know who still are employed at CNN. It must be tough dragging yourself to work at a place so obsessed with distorting the facts and presenting such one-sided on-air broadcasts where the #1 goal every day—week in and week out—is nothing less than to vilify the man who won 306 electoral votes and captured the Presidency with a concise, easy-to-understand message: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

But rather than suffering more agita by watching CNN’s hysterically biased Trump-bashing any longer, I’m adopting the outlook of Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather: “It makes no difference to me how a man makes his living, as long as his interests don’t conflict with mine.

OG Content


Proof! – DNC manufactured the Russian controversy in June 2016

Democrats manufactured the Russian interference story as a disinformation campaign all the way back in June 2016. 

And this post will prove this beyond reasonable doubt with evidence. Not just that, but there is great circumstantial evidence of illegal activity going all the way up to the Obama administration, and provides new motive for why Seth Rich was murdered.

The evidence is presented in this post.


Understanding the order in which the events happened will be important to understand why it was the DNC and only the DNC could have manufactured the Russian campaign.

In bullet point form:

  1. DNC announces they’ve been hacked.
  2. The day after, a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 claims to have taken credit for the hack and announces he will be giving his documents to Wikileaks. Guccifer 2.0 vehemently denies being Russian, a façade he keeps up throughout his activity.
  3. Bolstered by Crowdstrike’s report and the metadata in Guccifer 2.0’s documents, media outlets immediately start screaming that Guccifer 2.0 must be Russian agents.
  4. Finally, Wikileaks releases the DNC documents a month after Guccifer 2.0 did.

This post unmasks Guccifer 2.0’s identity as none other than the DNC.

What did Guccifer 2.0 do?

Guccifer 2.0 hosted a WordPress site where the DNC documents could be publicly downloaded. June 15th was the date of the first Guccifer 2.0 leak; further leaks would continue thereafter. I focus only on the first leak, as they contain the metadata which are essential to proving it was a DNC operation.

What were in the leaked Guccifer documents?

Guccifer 2.0 leaked a total of 10 Office documents from the DNC in the first batch (many more would come, but none contain the same “mistakes” as the ones I shall detail).
All Microsoft Office documents have metadata entries which contain attributes about the document itself such as the user that created them, the user that modified them, and so on. This metadata is usually invisible to viewers but can be viewed with a raw text editor like Notepad, or on Mac OS, vim.
It would be unusual for a leaker to modify the metadata, but Guccifer 2.0 did, claiming that it was his “watermark.”
In Office, the metadata includes the owner of the Office application who created the file and the owner of the Office application who modified the file. I present a list of the document names having metadata values for original author & modified author:

So what… Warren Flood, Blake, and jbs836 were the original authors?

Short answer: No. Non-technical answer: For one thing, we can cross-reference the actual authors from the Wikileaks dump. 1.doc is in the “verified” Wikileaks release as the attachment which can be downloaded from here which has the original author of “Lauren Dillon.” So, wait, who is Warren Flood et al? Each of these documents had a creation date of June 15, and were modified by “?????? ??????????” a few minutes later.

In Office 2007 format specification, there is a certain stylesheet template which dictates overall formatting for the document. In three of the documents by Warren Flood, we find the identical metadata.

The above line appears across all three of Warren Flood’s documents. styrsid11758497 is an unique identifier that is author-associative. The fact that it does not appear in the other documents indicates it’s associated with Warren Flood and not “?????? ??????????”.

Why is this important? Well, the \langfe1049 portion is a setting saying that Russian language should be used as the default language for the document.

Had “?????? ??????????” been setting the “watermark,” it would be the same across all documents. But instead, distinct watermarks were created for each document creator, suggesting inconsistent application or three different creators applying their own watermark.

In other words, document creators set the document properties to use Russian language and created three distinct so-called ‘watermarks’ in doing so, not ‘?????? ??????????.’
Also, cross-reference to Wikileaks shows that Warren Flood did not author any of the documents. And given that the timestamps are all on June 15th, this is the sequence of events:

  • Warren Flood opens a DNC document, copies it, and pastes it as a new document to his computer.
  • Warren Flood sets the theme language to Russian in some way (this process is different for all authors).
  • Warren Flood modifies the document’s author to ?????? ??????????.
  • The modified document is then uploaded to the Guccifer website and publicly published a short time thereafter.

Who is Warren Flood?

Warren Flood is a high-ranking technology official for Democratic operatives, having worked for Obama for America, DNC, and Joe Biden.  It’s a unique name.

His name does not appear in any of the Wikileaks emails, meaning that he appears to be a third party as far as the DNC email leaks are concerned.

Other than his (professional Internet) profile, he is a social media ghost, never having made any Tweets nor any evidence of real social media activity.

The pertinent point is that: the metadata forensic proof is irrefutable that Warren Flood, or someone who owned a copy of Word registered to Warren Flood, shoehorned in obvious “Russian” fingerprints all over the documents.
Guccifer 2.0 is none other than a botched DNC creation to create a false flag for Russia.

Impact of Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC creation

The “Russian influenced the US election” campaign all started from the DNC leak.
Allegations of Russian influence was built on a completely fabricated foundation of lies.
In hindsight, we now know that Obama administration unmasking of US campaign officials on the pretext of “Russian interference” started in June 2016, same date as when Guccifer 2.0 began. The implications that the unmasking all was predicated on a DNC psy-ops is staggering.

Who cares why the DNC did it?

Because it proves that “Russian interference” started as a total DNC fabrication that persists to today. The whole Russian campaign started before Trump made his infamous joke about Russians getting Hillary’s emails.
Illegal unmasking of Trump campaign officials over Russian interference began June 2016. Was this predicated on Russian interference with the DNC hacks? If so, this means that the leaks not only implicate DNC and plague President Trump himself, but also implicates Obama administration officials and all the involved intelligence agencies.

Why did DNC leak their own documents?

It’s right in Guccifer 2.0’s blog. Pertinent quote: “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon.” TheDNC knew they were having their documents leaked to Wikileaks, and wanted to make sure a Russian hacker took credit for the leaks.

How did the DNC know Wikileaks was going to release the DNC emails?

Great question. It’s hard to imagine them knowing without assistance from intelligence agencies – and indeed unmasking of campaign officials started in June 2016.
This is, of course, highly illegal, and would mean that the Russian disinformation campaign wasn’t just a DNC operation, it was also created from collusion with the Obama administration using highly illegal means including violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Since Guccifer 2.0 was a botched operation, that might make the continued existence of the real leaker who might draw scrutiny that much more precarious…

What about Crowdstrike report?

The metadata I described above can be independently verified by a non-technical person with access to any text editor like vim (which is available on Mac OS terminal command line). It does not require special forsenic analysis to identify. There are only two explanations: staggering incompetence, or DNC collusion.
I cannot say if Crowdstrike is competent, but I can say that their co-founder and CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, a think tank whose policies could be termed as anti-protectionist.

Who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks?

In short, all circumstantial evidence points to Seth Rich.
Seth Rich was killed on July 10, after the Guccifer drops and before the Wikileaks release. Wikileaks offered a 20,000 reward for information on Seth Rich’s death.
Craig Murray, a British national connected with Wikileaks, claims a disgusted Democrat insider was the leaker and he personally flew overseas to make the drop.

Was Seth Rich murdered by the DNC?

We are getting in speculative territory here. The circumstances of his death are suspicious – there had never been a homicide prior or after in his area. The assailants did not steal any of his valuables.
Conspiracy theorists assume Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC to “set an example.”


Personally, I think that as long as Seth Rich existed, he could have spoken up as the leaker at any moment and drawn scrutiny to Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC operation. To our knowledge, the unmasking of Trump and related officials started in June 2016 using the DNC hacks as a pretext. Seth Rich’s continued existence could have lead to the fall of the White House and intelligence agencies.
Is that motive enough for a political hit? You tell me.

News sources say that the “documents contain DNC metadata” is disproven.

In addition to hosting them on the official WordPress website, DNC documents were sent directly by Guccifer 2.0 to media outlets such as The Hill (despite Guccifer 2.0 himself claiming hatred of these very same media outlets accusing him of being Russian).
What Guccifer 2.0 sent was not always the same as what was on the official Guccifer 2.0 website. My speculation is that Guccifer 2.0 revised the documents to remove the metadata, and sent those corrected documents to media outlets. He could not do the same on his WordPress site for without drawing intense scrutiny, so the botched documents remained.
Bottom line:it is unimpeachable that watermarked Russian metadata in Guccifer’s first document drop are associated with a DNC tech worker named Warren Flood who otherwise has nothing to do with the DNC emails.Any media outlet reporting otherwise are probably either working from their own “corrected” copy from Guccifer or spinning hard or both.

Appendix – Technical details

Microsoft Word 2007 format specification:

Much more detailed analysis of the Warren Flood documents –

(Spezzes are for formatting/proofreading)

Spez: Corrected ?????? ?????????? to say Felix Edmundovich . It’s been pointed out in the comments that it is not a legitimate Russian surname, but rather someone copied and pasted only the first & middle name of this guy:



BREAKING: Barack Obama’s FBI Exposed Classified Info On USA Citizens To People Outside Of Government

A stunning statement from uncovered on Friday that the FBI under director Comey “Unlawfully shared raw intelligence about US Citizens with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents.” That’s a bombshell charge – Comey informed Congress earlier in May that the FBI only used warrantless info that was “legally gathered, carefully overseen and examined” – but the details are possibly more damning.

According to Circa, one ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) “list[ed] hundreds of violations of the FBI’s privacy-protecting minimization rules that occurred on Comey’s watch.” That included giving intelligence data to third parties who weren’t cleared to see it, among them “a private entity that did not have the legal right to see the intelligence.” The FBI claims that the number of violations is small by percentage of all data operations.

Trump acolytes will undoubtedly suggest that this is precisely what happened with Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who was caught up in surveillance of Russian third parties, unmasked by the Obama administration, and then revealed to the press by someone in the know. They will suggest that we now know that the FBI was often exceeding its mandate by searching data without a warrant that they should not have, and by occasionally allowing that information to flow outside of established channels.

In reality, the business of national security is sloppy. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made. The question is twofold: what sort of mistakes were made with regard to leaking the identity of Flynn to the press? And more generally, were the systems in place for restricting the free flow of classified information about American citizens sufficient?