A Community Activist in L.A., a Movie and Libya

There is a community activist in Los Angeles, his name is John Walsh and he has a website, here is the link. HollywoodHighland.org is the site. Now we are going to follow a little trail, I hope you enjoy the ride.

The movie trailer called "The Innocence of the Muslims" was original a full length film titled "The Innocence of Bin Laden". There is only claimed to be one showing of the film ever and that was in Hollywood at a theater on Vine Street. Prior to the film being shown, Mr. Walsh had complained to the Los Angeles City Council and had sent an e-mail to all of the press in town about the film.

According to the Los Angeles Times, nobody saw the film. Anti-Muslim film: ‘Nobody showed up’ for Hollywood screening. Then we have this article from The Daily Beast - Anti-Muslim Movie Maker a Meth Cooker. The article states that at two policemen had been at the theater the night of the first screening and spoke to a man claiming to be the producer who had a western accent. We are now told that he has a foreign accent.

I guess we are not supposed to look into the history of the film. Los Angeles has a very large Jewish community and a large Muslim community. Both of the communities are sensitive about being attacked. Neither made a big deal about the film and the only media it got was by Mr. Walsh, even though the articles state that he had notified all of the media. It seems the only people that may have seen the movie may have been people involved in it; but, I doubt that was true. We know that police were on the scene and it is highly likely that if anyone did watch the movie, at least one of them was working for the police, FBI, Homeland Security or a Jewish or Muslim organization.

I have a problem believing that Muslims attacked the Libyan embassy because of this film as was originally claimed. In fact, we now know that the attack was planned prior to the movie trailer. So, what is going on here. Why did the media attempt to blame the film when it so glaringly ignored it when it was shown in Hollywood?

Just so my readers know, the LAPD has a section that works directly with Homeland Security on a daily basis, what do you want to bet that the officers that were sent to the theater were with that group? If someone is showing a movie in Hollywood that claims to be pro-Bin Laden, you send the anti-terrorist police, you don't send the ones that work on movie reviews.

The only known screening of the film was on June 23rd. On September 11th there is an attack on the U.S. Embassy and our Ambassador who is considered a hero in Libya is killed. Libyans protest his killing and track down the party believed responsible.

Now if you go back to the Los Angeles Times article, we are told that on September 10th, some crackpot idiot preacher said he was going to show the film on his Anti-Muslim day, but, it also points out that the new films trailer had already been translated into Arabic and posted on YouTube for months with no response. There is a report of one Muslim cleric denouncing the film and that occurs BEFORE the wacko pastor said he was going to show it and in the end we do not have any report of the wacko pastor ever showing it. Think about that. The Muslim baiting pastor who has burned the Koran in the past said he would show it and then didn't. The media didn't even pick up on his saying he would show it because the movie did not exist and still does not.

If you are confused it is not surprising. The original film was titled "Desert Warriors" and that is how it was pitched to the production crew. The film was made and was originally called, "The Innocence of Bin Laden" and was promoted as a pro-terrorist movie. The "movie" that was posted on YouTube was a trailer for a movie called "The Innocence of the Muslims"; but, that movie did not exist.

When the movie was shown in Hollywood nobody other than the cops even showed up. Here is a link to the video. YouTube - Muhammad Movie Trailer. It is just about the worse piece of film making I have ever witnessed. If you can bare to watch it you will agree. Even the actors said they just thought they were getting paid to be in a horrible movie and that what was shown was not the movie they thought they were going to be in.

Now, the clown that claims to be the film maker also claims that he was given $5 million dollars to make the film which looks like it cost about $50,000 to make. We are also being told that he used to make meth and went to jail multiple times. Are we to believe that an ex-con was paid to make a film such as this?

Why did the mainstream media and the government blame what happened in Libya on the film when in fact they knew the film had nothing to do with it, it had been planned well in advance of the September statements by both the cleric and the pastor and nobody to this day has seen the film because it was never made, the video is merely small cuts that have been re-edited with words being dubbed over the original actors words.

After the embassy attack, the supposed movie maker, who now has an accent, is arrested for a parole violation and goes to court in a manner that you cannot make out his face. We are told that they had to figure out who he was, that the federal government did not know who the real Sam Bacile was; but, my friends and dear readers, that is a bald face lie. Remember the article that said that a minimum of two police officers spoke to him at the screening back in June. I want you to sit back and let that sink in.

Here is what we are supposed to believe. We are supposed to believe that some ex-con scammed some anti-Muslims to make a film that attacked the Muslim faith. I guess we are then supposed to believe that this modern day Ed Wood made the film, showed it in Hollywood once and pocketed most of the money. A failed film and the conman keeps the money, oh, they haven't told us that story quite yet. Instead he was put back in jail for causing problems by his free speech; but, is he?

Lets say for a minute that the film maker was a con artist that bilked some Muslim haters out of enough money to make the film and lets even say that he kept most of the money and put out a garbage film that he thought nobody would ever see and they didn't when it was shown in Hollywood. WHY WOULD HE THEN TRANSLATE IT AND PUT IT ON YOUTUBE AND DRAW ATTENTION TO HIMSELF? You do not publicize ripping people off and anyone that had paid him to make the movie would have been outraged when nobody paid to see it, it had no effect and brought on a police investigation. The film maker knew the police were investigating him because they spoke to him in June.

I feel like screaming, "WAKE UP, WAKE UP, WAKE UP". This is some of the shoddiest work I have ever seen in the press. The press talked about how the movie maker was a shady character, heck, the whole thing doesn't make and sense and stinks. They say that reporters are supposed to follow the money and nobody has followed the bank trail that funded the film. We are told that they think anti-Muslim groups funded it; but, the movie that was pitched and financed and made was not anti-Muhammad or anti-Islam, at least not according to the actors and people involved.

Now here is my final word. If it were not for a community activist, none of the rest of the story would have come out. I know that now and again another community activist, Zuma Dogg, reads my blog and I also know that he knows Mr. Walsh because he also attends the L.A. City Council meetings and has done so for years. Mr. Zuma Dogg has a much greater following than do I; but, if he reads this I do hope that he asks Mr. Walsh about what I have said and about what happened.

The question I ask is who benefited from all of this? The only known effect was that the media claimed that the film was what caused riots and a disturbance in the middle east. I should point out something that most people forget, the largest group of Muslims are not Arab, they are Asian. They don't talk about that in the media often. We didn't have riots in the Asian countries that have lots of Muslims, we had it in the oil owning nations in Arabia. The same ones that have either removed or are in the process of removing their governments.

You might want to believe that I am just reading into the tea leafs, okay. You might want to believe the garbage we are being told in the media. You might hate Muslims and think that this stupid movie caused riots and killings in Arabia. Believe all of that if you will; but, what we do know is that the police did talk to the film maker and knew exactly who he was months before there were any problems, three months before and then we are to believe that they didn't. Which is it, did the police go to the screening in June as they stated to the newspaper or did they not? If they did and they are to be believed, then they knew who he was. If they did then they made a report, that is a requirement. If they made a report then Homeland Security knew because they work directly on a daily basis with the LAPD. We are being deceived by the media and the government. The question, is why?

The mainstream media originally told us that the Libya attack was because of the retarded video on YouTube, then the media began investigating who made the film and found out that he was not a real person, then we are told that the attack had been pre-planned and had nothing to do with the movie and finally we are being told that Hillary Clinton takes all responsibility for what happened and not having provided the embassy with more security as had been requested. Do you know what the government does when it is caught in a lie, it muddies the water, it changes the subject and it looks for a new person to blame in muddy waters.

I do not anticipate that my lone post on this will make a difference; but, Mr. Walsh and his post did and I have time to write so I should say things that are of interest to someone. I hope every reader found it of some interest, I write for you.