Jihad Rising — on The Glazov Gang

To sign the Freedom Center’s  petition to stop the Islamist witch-hunt against Rep. Michele Bachmann,  click here. To read and order Frank Gaffney’s pamphlet, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, click here.

Don’t miss this special episode of The Glazov Gang in which Mike Finch, the Chief Operating Officer at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Dwight Schultz, a Hollywood actor who played Murdock on NBC’s The-A-Team, discuss: Jihad Rising. The discussion occurred in Part I, during which the Gang focused on Hillary’s Benghazi testimony and the catastrophic failure it reflected in Obama’s handling of the terror war. In Part II, the Gang unraveled why the Unholy Alliance is waging a war on heroic truth-teller, Rep. Michele Bachmann.  Watch both segments of the two-part series below:

Part I: Jihad Rising.

Part II: The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration.

You can make sure that Jamie Glazov Productions continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by clicking here and making a tax deductible contribution today. To see the archives of The Glazov Gang, click here.

  • Ceroth

    I always loved Reg Barkley.

    • Mary Sue

      you mean H.M. Murdock! :p ;)

  • Keiko_Infidel

    This is a great episode!

  • Keiko_Infidel

    The Left is certainly strangely defensive and protective of Huma Abedin. If she were a Catholic caught praying the Rosary during office hours the Left would go insaaaaaane. Vatican secret agent! Vatican takeover! Puppet of the Pope!

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      NOT only are high powered leftists protective of Humala, but they are complicit in her activities, even if not obviously so to the general public. Therefore, targeting Bachmann is a must. Why is this?

      She is one of a handful, courageous enough to stand in a front line defense position against the infiltration/penetration of Sharia Law into the U.S. body politic – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/17/u-s-rep-miche

      Therefore, she is to the leftist cabal, Public Enemy Number One. No target is too big to place on her back. Talk about a witch hunt. On the other hand, Humala is protected like an "etrog" – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/20/senator-john-
      http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/03/hillary-clint

      Supporting Bachmann IS supporting America. Simple as that.

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Mr. Polly

      That sounds more like the far right.

  • Flicker

    Next time that anyone says that they “take responsibility” or “it is my responsibility” the interviewer should clarify with: “You are responsible?” and “You are the person responsible for this?”

    Then see how they take responsibility or not.

  • Flicker

    In fact, the second question should be: In what wasy are you responsible?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "In fact, the second question should be: In what wasy are you responsible?"

      I don't tolerate weasel statements like that. My question would be, "By 'responsible' do you mean to claim that you are accountable or merely empowered to have done something if you had elected to?

      Once they answer the question whether or not they are accountable, then you zero in.

  • Flicker

    "I may be responible, but it certainly isn't my fault."

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I may be responible, but it certainly isn't my fault."

      Right. By her definition she is not accountable, but she can't say that here. She can use the vague "responsible" claim and then walk it back later. In theory, I'm responsible too since I failed to recruit enough people to defeat the Democratic Party in 2008.

      Whatever. You have to be familiar with the slippery tactics of these evil liars.

  • Raymon Silipino

    "What does it matter?" Well! Ms. State Department, I believe it surely matters to the families of the men involved. The men that were at their post at the direction of the US Government. The Government had the moral obligation to support these men in the most expeditious manner availiable. To do otherwise is nothing but a mere dereliction of duty that should be awarded a prompt "pink slip" from the position that you occupy! Ms. State Department, I ask you this question! Would you have been this nonchalant, had it been someone in your family or dear to you that were involved?

    • Jim_C

      She was answering a question: What does it matter whether the information being released AFTER the attacks was saying whether it was reaction to a film that incited a riot, or whether it was stated that it was a planned operation?

      It doesn't matter one damn bit. So get off your high horse.

      • Mary Sue

        it matters because even her false other choice in the sentence was bullcrap. These weren't some guys running around like skinheads suddenly seeing a gay man walking down the street and beating him up on impulse.

        What it means is that you can't trust what the administration says. And that's terrible. Particularly because there was NO REASON to lie like that about it!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "She was answering a question: What does it matter whether the information being released AFTER the attacks was saying whether it was reaction to a film that incited a riot, or whether it was stated that it was a planned operation? "

        Because if it was the film. that gives 0'Bama more cover for pointing away from his failed policies. You can't be that dense, can you? Did you not hear about the speech at the UN? Do you think all of this is appropriate, or whether we can have confidence any other claims they make?

        I guess good faith means zero to you. That is why 0'Bama was elected. People like you aren't even the worst we have to deal with. You're not a radical, just a dupe and yet you are responsible in part too for empowering and encouraging these people.

      • http://blogtalkradio.com/freedom Pat C

        It matters completely. Why invent a fable about a film unless you are covering something. Hillary presented no evidence to support the fable at the hearings, or where she got that story. To be fair, the Republican Senators and Reps were useless in finding the truth. The outcome was a forgone conclusion. Hearing was a huge insult to the American people and the men who have sacrificed everything for our freedom.

        Hillary is a very dangerous woman.

      • reader

        Here you go. Say, if after the Apollo program crewmembers got killed during the capsule test, the program director would yell, what difference does it make why it happened – would that make any sense? No, it wouldn't. Moreover, it would be even less sensible if the program director would keep knowingly circulate the false version for quite some time. But, of course, as Hillary herself said, the suspension of disbelief is in order when it comes to this bunch.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "…if after the Apollo program crewmembers got killed during the capsule test, the program director would yell, what difference does it make why it happened – would that make any sense?"

          How dare any elected or appointed government official utter those words during an investigation? That is contemptuous. I'll not forget this. I don't care who tries to spin it. She has to make the case that her position is rational. For her to belittle people elected and paid to find answers for us is unforgivable.

  • Ethyl

    If Abedin was really working with the Muslim Brotherhood, she'd need a good cover–something to make her immune to scrutiny. You know what would work great?–if she were married to a Jew (then no one would suspect a thing. Sure, if she were married to another Muslim, that would be suspicious, but not a Jew–that would absolutely put her above reproach). What would be really great is if she could find one with high-ranking political connections–like if he were a Congressman or something. (It would be too much to ask for if he were a member of the Energy and Commerce committee, so we won't even mention that). The icing on the cake would be if he were either crooked himself or not too smart so as to be easily manipulated. But how would she ever find a corrupt Jewish Congressman who was a total dim-wit? That would just be impossible.

  • WildJew

    J. Glazov: "Is Barack Obama an anti-Semite?"

    M. Finch: "His policies can certainly be construed as anti-Semitic….He sympathizes with the Arab and the Muslim cause. He doesn't like Israel. He doesn't like the Jews, in Israel….Barack Obama is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood outlook…."

    Let's apply the "Duck Test." Is Barack Obama an anti-Semite?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Let's apply the "Duck Test." Is Barack Obama an anti-Semite?"

      0'Bama is an Islamic supremacist communist duck that hates Israel and any Jew or Christian that rejects the koran. He probably hates all other non-Muslims, but they're useful right now. He needs pawns to destroy those who might "slander" the "prophet" of Islam with the facts.

    • JacksonPearson

      "Let's apply the "Duck Test." Is Barack Obama an anti-Semite?"
      Add, how about he's a Muslim test too?

      "The most beautiful sound in the world," according to Barack Obama, is the Islamic call to prayer. So it is no surprise that one of the ancillary events at the Democratic Party's convention in Charlotte will feature two hours of "Jumah" (Friday) prayers.

      The Blaze reports that the Democratic National Committee has teamed up with radical Muslims to promote the event. The event's promotional video is less than reassuring, promising to call out "anti-Shariah" views.

      Politics makes strange bedfellows, but a DNC that touts Sandra Fluke and Jumah organizers in the same breath strains that maxim to its breaking point. Were Sandra Fluke living in Saudi Arabia instead of Georgetown, she would be stoned to death.

      So how does one explain this exceedingly odd and unholy alliance? The answer apparently lies in another old political maxim: "the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend".

  • http://blogtalkradio.com/freedom Pat C

    Excellent presentation. Its time to bring down Hilary, Benghazi or not. Lets not wait until she has the nomination. Every word presented here is a fact. Go GG.

  • WildJew

    Mike Finch, you may think I am quibbling here. To your statement earlier, unlike the Obama administration, the Bush administration was "antagonistic" to the Muslim Brotherhood. I do not think that is accurate. If you look at research/ writings of Robert Spencer, Paul Sperry, Frank Gaffney and others, Bush was not antagonistic to Muslim Brotherhood activists or Wahhabi Muslims. He met with them in the White House and at his Crawford, Texas ranch. He prayed with them in their mosques, in the White House; he held hands with them. He campaigned with them. While Bush might not have been as friendly to the Muslim Brotherhood as Obama, he did not help our cause. George W. Bush hurt our cause.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      You're not wrong, entirely, but presidents can't go out on verbal tears attacking people. Bush is deluded, still, but 0'Bama is wide awake leading the MB push for sharia. Bush was somewhat resistant to elements of the MB, but not as much as we would have liked. That is for sure. Bush did hurt our cause, but you can say that about any president since FDR or even Woodrow Wilson. We can't do the final accounting until the war is over. And we don't know if it will ever end by our means.

  • BOB

    If Obama and Hillary get away with this it will be end of The USA !!!

  • john

    The existence of jihad is in the air. Everyone has his/hers opinion and here is mine. The fact is that many young muslims born in Western countries travel back and forward to islam countries to be trained for the jihad. It's all about to fight the Western nations. Our children and grandchildren will be fighting this religion jihad that will be worse than world war2.

  • PAthena

    Where can I find comments about Obama's speech in Cairo about Mohammedanism? (1) Why was he in Cairo making this speech? (2) Has anyone pointed out what an ignoramus he proved to be – or perhaps liar? He said that Muslims invented the printing press – Johannes Gutenberg was not a Mohammedan. He said that Muslims invented the compass – the Chinese who invented the compass were not Mohammedans. He said that Muslims established the first university – the Italians who established the first university in Bologna in, I think, the 12th century, were not Mohammedans.

  • qsome

    when i first saw susan rice on all these shows i thought maybe it was a way of showing support for the resolution at the un about not critizing islam and other religions ( of course they really meant only islam ). i thought obama was trying to get the most out of a crisis by showing the un support and digging his way out of the nonsense he had sold everyone that he was defeating terrorism. they both seem to admire the control islam has on the people. power corrupted these two long ago.