In March 2001, the Taliban and elements of Al Queda destroyed the 'Buddhas of Bamiyan' statues. The statues were located 140 miles northwest of Kabul, Afghanistan. They were built by Buddhist monks at the heyday of their empire in the early to mid part of the 6th century.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) produced a 2011 film offering an account of what happened. This clip was taken from their film, which was produced to mark the 10th anniversary of the statue's destruction:


Notice there is no explanation of who actually is responsible for blowing up the statues. Keep in mind that the United Nations, UNESCO's parent, appointed Moammar Gadhafi to the UN Human Rights Council in May 2010, only to suspend Libya's membership nine months later as the progressive-backed Arab spring unfolded.

Unfortunately for UNESCO, they failed to hire me, a simple-minded brute lacking a college degree, to assist them in researching their video. My typing skills and the ability to navigate around the youtube video database would have yielded them quick (about 20 seconds), decisive results in figuring out who blew up the statues:



The word at the beginning - khilafa - translates to caliphate, meaning islamic empire. These guys seem pretty proud of their work. Were they motivated by islam? To help answer this question, we might ask the opinion of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (superior to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency), as he seems to be an expert on the muslim brotherhood:


If the muslim brotherhood is secular, Jimmy, they sure did pick a funny name.

Why does it seem that the most liberal elements of our society consistently fail to openly criticize the most conservative elements of islamic society?

Why do the most conservative elements of our society get called 'islamophobes' when they openly address certain very troubling aspects of islamic doctrine?

Between these two approaches, which is actually more culturally sensitive? If we are a just society, is justice not best served by identifying perpetrators of an attack by name? Do the victims benefit from the knowledge that others stand with them to face a common threat?

Why did the United States government recently remove of 900 pages of material from FBI and military intelligence training manuals because it was "offensive" to islam? Can these people work more or less efficiently when they lack training in religious fanaticism? If they are efficient in addressing islamic extremism, is that offensive?

Why did the word 'islam' fail to appear a single time in the official summary report detailing the actions of Nidal Malik Hassan's shooting of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood?

Answer to the last question: It failed to mention islam as being Hassan's motivator for the same reason the UNESCO video failed to mention who blew up the 1600 year old Buddha statues. For two reasons: 1.) lack of character to address the truth 2.) moral weakness to stand up for one's own values.

We now know that the video produced by a recent American immigrant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt, was not behind the Consulate attack that killed our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department has recently confirmed that there were no protests prior to the assault - a position that was relayed from people who were actually in Benghazi on the ground.

Were these first-hand accounts relayed to the public by designated spokespeople in the U.S. government? Answer: Probably. How did these leaders forward the message to the American public. Watch:

• Why does Susan Rice, speaking on Meet the Press five days after the attack, place so much emphasis on the video as being the cause of violence when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Why aren't more people acknowledging that the video was first viewable on youtube in June 2012 - a full three months prior to the attack?
• Even the president of Libya admitted that the attack was preplanned a week and a half prior to our own government conceding the point (their admittal, however, was ambiguous at best).
• The FBI team sent to sort through the rubble of the Consulate arrived three weeks after the attack and was on the ground for a total of three hours. How much evidence do you think was left after three weeks?
• We know that CNN had people on the ground almost immediately following the attack - they recovered the dead Ambassador's personal journal. Why was our government so slow to respond?
• Why did Vice President Biden just double down on the administration's assertion that they received no request for additional security from Benghazi Consulate officials, when the Ambassador's own journal said the opposite (as reported by Anderson Cooper)?
• What the eff is going on?

Either elements of our government are grossly incompetent, or something smells foul.

• Is the Obama administration trying to obscure convincing evidence that their foreign policy has proven to be tremendously naive? Are they humble enough to reassess their strategy and change course?
• Why did Hillary Clinton sign on to United Nations resolution 1618 in July of 2011, whereby it would be a crime of the World Court to blasphemize the prophet of other religions?
• Should a lengthy, persistent, and neurotic emphasis on the video as being the cause of violence be considered to be a positive outreach to the muslim world? Should we see it as demonstrative of the implementation of UN resolution 1618? Is the arrest of the film's producer in California proof?

Blasphemy laws in Western culture have been irrelevant since the early 18th century. Today they are still life-and-death relevent in all 57 islamic countries around the world. Yes, you will be thrown in jail or could be sentenced to death there if you speak out against islam. Even in the UAE, a progressive place by islamic standards, Western couples have been thrown in jail for kissing in public.

• Does these types of laws move society forward, or backward, in terms of progressing the rights of human kind?
• Are we really moving in the right direction when we advance the same sort of agenda in our own country?

Lastly, to further assist UNESCO with its protection of human and cultural rights, I will give them something the FBI calls a clue: radical islam has a problem with everyone who is not them, including moderate muslims. Its called jihad. Google it. This is not a Christian thing. Far from it. Why haven't we heard more about this attack on Buddhists in our news, considering that it happened only two weeks ago and comes on the heels of Libya?


Leave it to Russia Today to bring in a guest, author Serge Trifkovic, that gets it 100% right in his description of recent events in the Middle East. I couldn't agree more with his assessment of the situation. Put simply, it is an intelligent response. To him, 2+2 = 4.

I wish I could say the same of our country's academic elites, media progressives, and professional political operatives. To them, 2+2 = 5. They are so obviously in the tank - so much so that they are a national security threat to the American people. Because of their cooperation with a dangerous administration hell bent on fundamental transformation, I fear that very soon someday we will wake up to a very, very bad day in this country.

And the people who haven't daily looked for and found alternative media sources will wonder what happened. They will wonder how such an event could have happened. The reason the mainstream media is a threat is because they are consciously denying people the type of warning information that could be used to lobby their political leaders and demand that a new course be set.

With no night light, a man takes a risk that he pees in the dark all over the floor. With no honest media, citizens are put at risk by their doctor when he tells them to always pee in the dark, and that if it feels like razorblades when they pee, it's normal.