Why would Fox News stir its audience up against the proposed new Muslim facility in lower Manhattan, if a large Fox News shareholder is a member of the Saudi Royal family? On his radio show for Monday, August 23, 2010, Mike Malloy slowly and methodically dealt out facts to validate and explain that apparent contradiction. Any member of the Party of Teabaggers who happened to listen would have been left no grounds for refuting Malloy's conclusion that stirring up Muslim resentment of America is part of that news organization's (hidden) agenda.
The argument, which took Malloy an hour to develop, can be summarized thus: The Saudi makes his money from oil. If Muslims perceive America as a group of hate filled infidels who are stealing oil from the Middle East, the various resistance groups will continue to need money to fund their attempts to use guerilla warfare to halt the Americans. As long as petroleum is in high demand, the Saudis will have an unlimited amount of cash available and will be able to maintain control of the resistance efforts in the Middle East.
Malloy pointed out that Fox's mocking of efforts to encourage means of transportation that are not fueled by petroleum is a part of the overall pro-Arab Royal Family strategy.
By fomenting religious bigotry, Fox News can insure that journalism documenting the anti-Muslim sentiments in America is available to propagandists throughout the world to prove to Muslims that America, despite the fact that one of the Four Freedoms promoted as the motivation for fighting World War II, is hypocritical when they say they believe in Freedom of Warship.
Images of anti-Masque demonstrators in lower Manhattan will not need any complex philosophical/psychological explanations for poor uneducated Muslims around the globe. The propagandists will show the news videos and ask "What part of hate your guts" don't you understand?"
By prolonging the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rich Saudis and Fox News will insure the continuation of the political status quo in Saudi Arabia for a long time. War has continually proven its value to news media as a way to post large gains in the total audience numbers. Isn't resistance to change the essence of the conservative philosophy?
Malloy pointed out to his audience, the political advantages Republicans would accrue if they advocated religious intolerance rather than continuing the American tradition of Freedom of Warship; they would get the "incumbent" advantage in future elections.
Malloy also read excerpts from Frank Rich's New York Times column that pointed out that the Mosque issue would add increased difficulty to General Petraeus' assignment for his troops to promote good will among the local citizens in Afghanistan.
Mike Malloy did a marvelous job of outlining his thesis in a way that should be understood by anyone who has the intelligence required to use a deck of cards to play a game of solitaire.
This columnist seconds the motion for Malloy's point and now will add this columnist's own original insights and obtuse associations to the topic.
Back when President George W. Bush ordered American troops to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, Republicans stoutly maintained that any dissenting point of view by the Democrats was tantamount to acts of sedition, but when the Fox News Agit-prop Machine spews religious prejudice which will increase the resistance efforts aimed at the members of the American Military fighting in Afghanistan, Fox, magically, is exempted from any assertions about acts of sedition. The reasons leading to that conclusion are rather vague and nebulous.
Wouldn't it be very poignant if the footage of the animosity in lower Manhattan, causes some very old, unindicted German fugitives to suffer sever pangs of nostalgia?
That, in turn, brings up this question: Wasn't the oil which would be shipped to market through a pipeline in Afghanistan, the very same natural resource which was also coveted by the German Army when they reached as far into Russia as Stalingrad? Wouldn't you think that source would have been depleted by now?
During World War II, the American Military fought for the Four Freedoms, as enunciated by President Roosevelt in the Atlantic Charter. One of them was Freedom of Worship; can you name the other three?
Does the large number of foreclosed homes in America, add a dash of irony to the deaths, in WWII, of Americans fighting for the Freedom from Want? Did American military in WWII fight for the bankers or for the people whose homes are now being foreclosed? How would Glen Beck answer that question?
Does opposition to a Muslim Community Center mock both the principle of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
