Atlas Shrugs

Obama Betrays Media Lapdogs: Secretly, Illegally Obtained Records of Journalists

Ha! Obama's lapdog media is shocked (shocked, I tell ya) to have been betrayed by the most dangerous man who ever sat in the Oval Office. They were stunned to find that they were not immune to Obama's now trademark abuse of power. Did they really think that just because they carried his water and covered up his failures, ignored real news stories that made him look bad, and attacked his adversaries, that they wouldn't suffer the same gross injustices as the rest of us?

I, for one, am laughing at these tools. Lord knows what Obama got off those phone records. But a good many AP tools must be quaking in their boots. Impeachable offense? For sure -- but not any more than Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Obama OBL NAVY SEAL leak, etc.

That the WaPo is still polishing O's knob indicates how beyond help these lovesick puppies are. Check out the WaPo headline: US secretly obtained records of journalists. Not "US" WaPo collaborators, Obama. Do these dupes still think they are immune?

Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP phone records in leak investigation, Washington Post, May 15, 2013

Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi

On top of which:

Top Obama official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over "aggressive" Benghazi coverage (thanks to Robert Spencer)

Sharyl Attkisson should know the basic rule of American journalism: do not investigate scandals perpetrated by Leftist presidents. Instead, cover them up. "Top Obama official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over Benghazi coverage," by Patrick Howley in the Daily Caller, May 11:

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

AP omits "Muslim" from Obama White House Correspondents Dinner joke

Apparently the Associated Press thought that people might not get the joke. Joke, what joke? AP scrubbers and sanitizers must get time and half -- they are always working overtime.

AP omits "Muslim" from Obama White House Correspondents Dinner joke Jihadwatch

Why? Did they think it had too much of a ring of truth?

Why did some editors at AP or at the publications that picked up the AP story think it necessary to run interference for Obama on this point?

By mocking the idea that he is a Muslim (and a Socialist), Obama is trying to render these things too ridiculous for serious public discussion. Fine. His personal beliefs are of no moment, except insofar as they influence his public stances. And the direction of his public policies is obvious. He has maintained a consistent foreign policy line that has enabled the establishment of several Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia states in North Africa and the Middle East, and a domestic policy that has enabled the advance of the Islamic supremacist agenda to assert the primacy of Islamic law over American law and practice wherever they conflict. No amount of mockery will obscure that.

"AP Omits 'Muslim' from Obama WHCD Joke," by Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart, April 29 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):

In some of its reports on Saturday night's White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD), the Associated Press failed to include one of President Obama's own gags. 

AP strangely left out the word "Muslim" in one of Obama's self-referential jokes.

Early in his comments on April 26, President Obama made reference to his young life with a joke and a visual image projected on the video screen.

The President joked that everyone loves Michelle and mentioned that she has even appeared on magazine covers. The President said he also appeared on one and showed a mock magazine cover on the video screens. The faux cover showed the President golfing on the cover of "Senior Leisure."

President Obama then said, "These days I look in the mirror and have to admit, I'm not the strapping young Muslim Socialist that I used to be. Time passes, you get a little gray."

In one version of the night’s story (as seen at Huffington Post, Time Magazine, Breitbart Wires, the Ottawa Citizen, and The Columbian to name a few), the AP's Bradley Klapper forgot one part of the President's joke.

"I'm not the strapping young Socialist that I used to be," the president remarked, and then recounted his recent 2-for-22 basketball shooting performance at the White House Easter Egg hunt.

In other versions of Klapper's story, the word "Muslim" does appear.

The New York Times Wages Jihad on the Truth: Boston Bomber went jihad because the Golden Gloves changed their rules

As the enemedia continues to search for any 'root cause' that doesn't involve a Koran, it keeps getting sillier and sillier.

According to the New York Times, poor Tamerlan Tsarnaev turned into a Muslim terrorist and murdered children because he couldn't withstand losing the ability to compete in the Golden Gloves boxing matches.

The Golden Gloves changed the rules, you see, and that set him off.

I am sure that it is true of most folks, that life's disappointments has them blowing up women and children at a Patriot's Day event in the cause of Islam.

How a dashed boxing dream left Tamerlan Tsarnaev adrift

DEBORAH SONTAG, DAVID M. HERSZENHORN AND SERGE F. KOVALESKI

Boston and Makhachkala, Russia — The New York Times News Service,  Apr. 27 2013

It was a blow the immigrant boxer could not withstand: After capturing his second consecutive title as the Golden Gloves heavyweight champion of New England in 2010, Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev was barred from the national Tournament of Champions because he was not a U.S. citizen.

The cocksure fighter, a flamboyant dresser partial to white fur and snakeskin, had been looking forward to redeeming the loss he suffered the previous year in the first round, when the judges awarded his opponent the decision, drawing boos from spectators who considered Tsarnaev dominant.

From one year to the next, though, the tournament rules had changed, disqualifying legal permanent residents – not only Tsarnaev, then 23 who was Soviet-born of Chechen and Dagestani heritage, but several other New England contenders, too. His aspirations frustrated, he dropped out of boxing competition entirely, and his life veered in a completely different direction.

Tsarnaev portrayed his quitting as a reflection of the sport’s incompatibility with his growing devotion to Islam. But as dozens of interviews with friends, acquaintances and relatives from Cambridge to Dagestan showed, that devotion, and the suspected radicalization that accompanied it, was a path he followed most avidly only after his more secular dreams were dashed in 2010 and he was left adrift.

His trajectory, authorities say, eventually led the frustrated athlete and his loyal younger brother, Dzhokhar, to bomb one of the most famous athletic events in this country, killing three people and wounding more than 200 at the Boston Marathon. They say it led Tsarnaev, his application for citizenship stalled, and his brother, a new citizen and a seemingly well-adjusted college student, to attack their American hometown on Patriots’ Day, April 15.

Tsarnaev now lies in the state medical examiner’s office, his body riddled with bullets after a confrontation with the police four days after the bombings. He left behind an American-born wife who had converted to Islam, a 3-year-old daughter with curly hair, a 19-year-old brother charged with using a weapon of mass destruction, and a puzzle: Why did these two young men seemingly turn on the country that had granted them asylum?

Check the link for the full and lengthy article that contains much more of the same.

Why is AOL using litte kid pics of Boston Jihad Bomber?

Check out the main page of AOL -- what's with the children's picture of a vicious murderer, maimer, and child killer in the cause of Islam? More media manipulation ....

Media's Boston Jihad

This is just unforgivable -- it's criminal. 

MSNBC's Martin Bashir: Boston jihad bombers bury the "peace, compassion and kindness of the Koran"

Chris Matthews on Boston jihad bombers: "What difference does it make why they did it if they did it? I'm being tough here."

Atlantic Wire: "The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?"

If you missed my column yesterday on Sunday on this -- go here. The sharia-compliant media is carrying water for the most brutal ideology on the face of the earth. This is the poisonous fruit of  the leftist/jihadist alliance:

Jihad is in America

Why do the media cover up, obfuscate and mislead the American people about the gravest national security threat this nation faces? Why do the enemedia viciously attack anyone who is brave enough to suffer the libel, defamation and death threats that follow speaking out against jihad and Shariah? This is a sickness – a societal death wish and orgy of self-hatred. The furious rush to sanitize the motive is the sanction of the victim. The enemedia are disarming the American people, inevitably leading sheep to slaughter.

Worst of all was Elspeth Reeve of the Atlantic Wire, who ran a spiteful story titled, “The U.S. Anti-Muslim Crowd Is Quite Pleased with Itself.” As the wounds are still gaping and the baby’s body not yet cold, the ghouls on the left attack those of us who have been warning of this very thing.

This vicious tool should be thanking me and apologizing for the years of smears, defamation and libel that the enemedia have directed against me, my work and my colleagues. Instead, she aids and abets the most gruesome slaughterers ever on American soil.

And there is more enemedia willful blindness from Time: They talk about some of their obvious jihadi ties and then say that there is no evidence that Dzhokhar was motivated by religion – as if the brothers had different motives, and ignoring Dzhokhar’s statement that his “worldview” was “Islam.”

The media’s knee-jerk reaction is to go into full spin mode, not to take a step back and think, or to say to themselves, “Maybe we got this wrong.”

The jihadists told us why. What’s it going to take?

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have deeply imbibed the jihad ideology that permeates Chechnya and the Muslim areas of the Russia Caucasus in general. And even the mainstream media can’t entirely ignore this: The New York Times reports: ”On Vkontakte, Russia’s most popular social media platform, the younger brother, Dzhokhar, describes his worldview as ‘Islam’ and … lists a verse from the Koran, ‘Do good, because Allah loves those who do good.’”

Apparently targeting, mutilating, and slaughtering women and children falls under the category of “doing good.”

Why?

Why, indeed? Why does the media cover up, obfuscate and mislead the American people on the gravest national security threat this nation faces? Why does the enemedia viciously attack anyone who is brave enough to suffer the libel, defamation and death threats that follow speaking out against jihad and sharia? The enemedia is disarming the American people, inevitably leading sheep to slaughter.

The jihadists told us why. What's it going to take?

The same headline splashed across enemedia news outlets: WHY? Their cowardice is killing us -- more here.

Here are some of them : CNN, WP, HP. (screenshots thanks to Paulo)

Another Jewish Blood Libel Exposed: Media Lied -- Hamas, Not Israelis, Killed Palestinian Boy

Despicable. It's the exact same motive that the media is employing in portraying our AFDI jihad campaign as "hateful" and "racist." The enemedia has joined forces with the jihad.

Media Fail: Hamas, Not Israelis, Killed Palestinian Boy Breitbart

by AWR Hawkins

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has released a report that says Palestinians, rather than Israelis, killed the infant son of BBC journalist Jihad al-Masharawi on November 14.

When the boy was killed during Operation Pillar of Defense in November, the media and various monitoring groups piled on Israel. Photographs of the father holding the deceased infant were shown around the world.

The Washington Post featured the picture on the front page and above the fold on November 15, 2012, attributing the boy's death to "an Israeli airstrike" (source: UK Spectator):

Neither the Washington Post nor the rest of the media bothered to check Palestinian claims or to report them with an appropriate degree of skepticism.

U.N. watchdog group Human Rights Watch, which attempted to keep a running tally of all the civilian deaths Israel and Hamas had caused during Pillar of Defense, reported that Israel had killed Mishrawi's "11-month old" son the day after the infant died.

BBC journalists used tweets to imply Israel's guilt in the infant's death the day the child was killed.

But now, the U.N. says the infant was killed by a rocket fired at Israelis "by Palestinians that missed its mark." The infant boy and his mother were both killed by the Palestinians.

This incident serves as an example of how the mainstream media amplifies Palestinian casualties to hurt Israel's image but rarely, if ever, clarifies the record once Israel is shown to be innocent.

Pamela Geller, WND Column: New York Times jihad on free speech

My Monday column for WND:

DEFENDING THE WEST

New York Times sides with jihad
Exclusive: Pamela Geller blasts newspaper for 'assassinating' victim's character

A Muslim in Denmark recently tried to assassinate freedom fighter Lars Hedegaard. Now the New York Times has done its part by assassinating Hedegaard’s character, smearing him in a notably belated piece on the attempt on the Danish activist’s life.

It’s a pity that lily-livered cowards at the New York Times like Andrew Higgins can’t distinguish between savages and their victims. The Times’ coverage of the assassination attempt was long overdue, but the article just added insult to injury. Hedegaard is a free-speech activist who was targeted for death by Muslims who use brutal violence to impose Shariah. But you’d never know it from the New York Times article, which could easily have run in the Tehran Times.

Higgins immediately rips into Hedegaard, a man of principle and nonviolence, characterizing his opinions as “a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war.”

In his article, Higgins furiously spins a new narrative: that Muslims might rightly despise Hedegaard, but they actually support him. He even includes this claim in his article’s title: “Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak.”

“That Danish Muslims would rally to defend Mr. Hedegaard, a man they detest,” writes Higgins, “suggests a significant shift in attitudes, or at least in strategies, by a people at the center of a European debate over whether immigrants from mostly poor Muslim lands can adjust to the values of their new and, thanks to a long economic crisis, increasingly wary and often inhospitable homes.”

A shift in strategies, indeed. Higgins quotes Karen Haekkerup, Denmark’s minister of social affairs and integration, saying of the Muslim leaders: “They have changed their approach.” He also quotes Imran Shah of Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, saying this of the murder attempt on Hedegaard: “We knew that this was something people would try to blame on us.” Higgins doesn’t explore the implications of these statements about how the Muslim leaders have just changed their approach and strategy out of concern for being blamed, without changing their core beliefs. He doesn’t explain how the Islamic leaders justify discarding Islam’s blasphemy laws, or even question whether they’re really sincere in claiming to support Hedegaard’s freedom of speech.

Even worse, Higgins strongly implies that Hedegaard himself is responsible for the attempt on his life: “The response from native Danes has grown more equivocal over time, with some suggesting Mr. Hedegaard himself provoked violence with his strident views and the activities of his Danish Free Press Society, an organization that he set up in 2004 to defend free expression but that is best known for denouncing Islam.”

Higgins quotes Mikael Rothstein, a religious history scholar at the University of Copenhagen: “I think that Hedegaard wanted this conflict … brutal words can be as strong as the brutal physical act of violence.

Read the rest. Go.

BRAND NEW Geller E-Book Available Now! Freedom or Submission: On the Dangers of Islamic Extremism & American Complacency - Get it!

Related articles

Pamela Geller, WND Commentary: Fighting Shariah in Dearborn

Blaming the Victim: Andrew Higgins of The NY Times Assassinates [the Character of] Lars Hedegaard

#StandWithPamelaGeller

Pamela Geller, WND Column: My 'prosecution' by a Muslim journalist

Blaming the Victim: Andrew Higgins of The NY Times Assassinates [the Character of] Lars Hedegaard

It's a pity that lily-livered cowards at The NY Times like Andrew Higgins can't distinguish between savages and their victims. Higgins smears Lars Hedegaard in a long overdue piece on the assassination attempt on Hedegaard's life. Hedegaard is a free speech activist who was targeted for death by Muslims who use brutal violence to impose sharia. But you'd never know it from the article, which could easily have run in The Tehran Times.

Higgins immediately rips into Hedegaard, a man of principle and non-violence:

However, as Mr. Hedegaard’s own opinions, a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war, came into focus, Denmark’s unity in the face of violence began to dissolve into familiar squabbles over immigration, hate speech and the causes of extremism.

Higgins is furiously spinning  a new narrative that Muslims might rightly despise Hedegaard, but they actually support him. And his article all about that: "Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak."

That Danish Muslims would rally to defend Mr. Hedegaard, a man they detest, suggests a significant shift in attitudes, or at least in strategies, by a people at the center of a European debate over whether immigrants from mostly poor Muslim lands can adjust to the values of their new and, thanks to a long economic crisis, increasingly wary and often inhospitable homes.

“They have changed their approach,” said Karen Haekkerup, Denmark’s minister of social affairs and integration. “It is a good sign that the Muslim community is now active in the debate.”

When the news broke on Feb. 5 that Mr. Hedegaard had narrowly escaped an attack on his life, recalled Imran Shah of Copenhagen’s Islamic Society, “we knew that this was something people would try to blame on us. We knew we had to be in the forefront and make clear that political and religious violence is totally unacceptable.”

The Islamic Society, which runs Denmark’s biggest mosque and played an important role in stirring up passions against the cartoons of Muhammad, swiftly condemned the attack on Mr. Hedegaard. It also said it regretted its own role during the uproar over the cartoon, when it sent a delegation to Egypt and Lebanon to sound the alarm over Danish blasphemy, a move that helped turn what had been a little-noticed domestic affair into a bloody international crisis.[...]

The response from native Danes has grown more equivocal over time, with some suggesting Mr. Hedegaard himself provoked violence with his strident views and the activities of his Danish Free Press Society, an organization that he set up in 2004 to defend free expression but that is best known for denouncing Islam.

“I think that Hedegaard wanted this conflict,” Mikael Rothstein, a religious history scholar at the University of Copenhagen, said during a discussion on Danish television, adding that “brutal words can be as strong as the brutal physical act of violence.”

So it's the Danes who blame Hedegaard but the Muslims who forgive his love of freedom.  The NY Times continues to blame him and almost laments Hedegaard's escape from death. It's hard to believe that The Times is reporting from the capital of the Western world, New York, and not from some Islamic backwater living under the boot of the sharia.

You can read the whole thing here: "Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak." It just gets worse, and the vile description of our colleague in Europe, Anders Gravers, as an "xenophobic butcher" is really despicable.

Blaming the Victim by Douglas Murray

Since when is criticizing Islam a crime? Since when was defending the rights of writers, journalists and artists to say, write and draw what they like a crime? You really do have to rub your eyes. These are not Saudi papers or the Tehran Daily News running these smears — they are allegedly "liberal" papers in an allegedly "liberal" country in an allegedly "liberal" democracy.

So much about the rottenness of a culture and a brand of politics can be told from the matter of whom people blame. Strong cultures which know themselves do not find it hard to discern the difference between a firefighter and a fire. Weak, confused and fearful cultures lack any such ability.

If someone carries out a terrorist attack, they worry: Is the attacker to blame or are the victims? When a country suffers an outrage, are the people who carried out that outrage to blame, or might it be the fault of the country which has been subjected to the assault?

BBC Spreading Islam to Children

The BBC unmosqued. This is really sick. There is conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. And the BBC is most clearly aligned with the jihad force. Can you see the BBC doing this with a Purim seder or Lent?

"Non-Muslims are being asked to try a hijab for a day" BBC Children Channel February 1, 2013 thanks to Armaros

Non-Muslims are being asked to try wearing a hijab, a type of headscarf, for a day to find out more about why women wear them.

World Hijab Day calls on non-Muslim women to try out life under the traditional head scarf.

Some people think women should not have to cover their hair or face and think it is unfair because men don't have to wear them.

But for many women around the world, it is an important show of their faith.

Huffington Post Masks Religious Identity of U.K. Acid Attacker: Changes Report from "niqab" attacker to "masked"

The horror of the sharia and Islamic culture is monstrous enough, but this media cover-up is truly horrible. It's bad enough that mindless followers of a religious culture engage in these atrocious mandates (it's their religion), but for non-believers (with the influence of a big media voice) to cover up for this brutal ideology is pure evil. These reporters are not believers; what's the excuse for their depraved inhumanity?

The writer of this Puff Ho piece is one Sara Nelson, who is based in the UK. And if Nelson is not a devout Muslim (who would sanction such savagery) than she "unmasks" herself as an evil tool betraying herself and her gender to advance the most brutal and oppressive ideology to women (and non-Muslims, secular Muslims, et al).

One has to wonder how this dhimmi knave might write up the Muslim sex gangs in the UK that gang-rape, groom and traffic in tween infidel girls.

Huffington Post Masks Religious Identity of U.K. Acid Attacker Answering Muslims

Some Muslim women use the niqab to conceal their faces and show off their modesty. Similarly, some newspapers use their articles to conceal reality and show off their dhimmitude. In more ways than one, the century of the veil is upon us.

Consider the case of Naomi Oni, a 20-year-old Victoria's Secret employee who recently suffered an acid attack in Great Britain. Here's part of The Daily Mail's discussion:

The young victim of an acid attack that left her partially blind and scarred for life has revealed she is not angry at her attacker, but is desperate to understand why she was attacked.

Naomi Oni, 20, suffered horrific burns to her face, leg, arm and head and was left partially blinded after a person in a niqab threw acid over her as she returned to her home in Dagenham following a shift working at the Victoria's Secret store in Stratford Westfield.

Naomi, who also lost her hair and eyelashes in the attack, has undergone multiple operations and skin grafts to repair the damage to her skin, hair and eyes.

So the woman who attacked Naomi was wearing a Muslim veil. Even The Huffington Post initially reported that the attacker was wearing a niqab:

An unidentified assailant severely mutilated a 20-year-old girl on her way home from work in an acid attack in Dagenham, East London.

According to the Independent, Naomi Oni was walking home from her job at Victoria's Secret on December 30 when an attacker wearing a niqab (a full face veil) sprayed her face with acid. The liquid burned parts of Oni's head, arms and legs, and left her partially blind.

Nevertheless, when the media reported that a woman wearing a niqab had sprayed acid in a Victoria's Secret worker's face, many readers couldn't help but wonder if they were witnessing the beginning of a campaign of violent intimidation against women and businesses not in compliance with the demands of Sharia.

Apparently, the thought of people actually thinking critically about Sharia was too much for The Huffington Post to bear. Check out their latest description of the brutal attack on Naomi Oni:

A Victoria's Secret shop worker who had acid hurled in her face as she walked home has revealed she feels no hatred for her attacker.

Naomi Oni was attacked at midnight by a masked woman on December 30 in Dagenham. She has spent the last month receiving skin grafts and nearly lost her sight.

That's right. Oni was attacked by a "masked woman." What kind of mask was she wearing, you ask? A Halloween mask? A ski mask? A gas mask? A hockey goalie's mask? Was she attacked by Catwoman? Or a female Lone Ranger? We'll never know, because the cowards over at The Huffington Post are deliberately leaving out relevant details to keep people from wondering about Islam's impact on Western society. After all, we can't have readers questioning Muhammad's similarity to George Washington, can we?

Hitlerian Press: Obama's "the Second Coming"

The Propaganda Ministry, through the Obama Press Chamber, has jumped the shark.

In the new issue of Newsweek online (the print is understandably defunct), President Obama's inauguration is deemed "The Second Coming." Clearly the editor of the magazine, the goosestepping Obama shill Tina Brown, has taken the Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to the Obamessiah.

The writer of the article, Evan Thomas, has imbued Obama with the divinity of Christ before (but Muhammad is better suited to Obama, IMO). Back in June of 2009, naturally on MSNBC, Thomas asserted: “In a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”

And we see how Obama has brought different sides together. No President has done more to divide the nation outside of Lincoln, but that was to free a nation. Obama means to enslave it. Only the left could paint the epic failure that defines Obama's reign as godly. The big lie, that's what they do.

And the more consistently wrong they are, the more accolades and power they get. The more right we are (and I have been proven right time and time again), the more marginalized and demonized we are. Truth is the silver bullet to these vampires.

And now a reality check -- whole swaths of the Middle East and Africa have been turned over to jihad regimes with Obama's explicit support and sanction (Egypt, Libya, Mali, Tunisia ....)

After running up the national debt by $5.8 trillion and taking 13 vacations over 83 days, President Obama will begin his second term with an official swearing-in today.

His first term, like those of other presidents, was marked by hundreds of numerical milestones — and CBS News reporter Mark Knoller tracked them obsessively:

After four years, the unemployment rate stands at 7.8 percent — exactly where it stood in January 2009. It peaked at 10 percent in October 2009 and began a slow decline to land right back where it started.

Obama’s 22 pardons were the fewest granted by any commander-in-chief since James Garfield, whose presidency lasted just 200 days in 1881. Obama denied 1,019 pardon requests.

He vetoed just two bills passed by Congress.

He took 836 flights on Air Force One and 801 on the Marine One helicopter.

He went on 113 golf outings, 52 of them at Andrews Air Force Base.

Today’s official swearings-in for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be private, with ceremonies adhering to the Constitution, which decrees that the new term must begin on Jan. 20.

The 800,000 people expected to attend tomorrow’s public inaugural festivities are about a million fewer than four years ago.

The pomp and circumstance is to include performances by Beyoncé, James Taylor and Kelly Clarkson.

The Comedy Stylings of the New York Times

Check out this headline on the jihadists waging war in Mali, "Malian Rebels Take Town and Vow to Avenge French Attack." Oh how these spineless, gutless wonders turn themselves inside out not to report the story.

"Malian rebels" -- lml! It's jihad, quislings. These are devout Muslims whose sole motive is to wage jihad in the cause of Islam and impose the sharia on everyone.

"Malian" -- perhaps they are waging jihad in the cause of ......  Malia, Obama's daughter.

Malian Rebels Take Town and Vow to Avenge French Attack
New York Times
At the same time, an Islamist leader in Mali said France had “opened the gates of hell” for all its citizens by intervening, reinforcing concerns that the far-flung military operation in Africa could inspire vengeance in mainland France. French forces ...

Sick. Self-enforcing the sharia.

HRW Confirms Gaza Jihadists Killed Gaza Boy Shown in Iconic Photo of Egypt’s PM and Hamas’s Haniyeh

Human Rights Watch has finally acknowledged that jihadists killed civilians in Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense when rockets being fired into Israel fell short. As if the truth matters to the corrupt and criminal media. I mean, really. It's about the victimhood narrative and the unending blood libels employed to turn people against the Jewish people.

They kill their own and use the killings to blame the Jews. That is the very definition of evil.

HRW Confirms Gaza Terrorists Killed Gaza Boy Shown in Iconic Photo of Egypt’s PM and Hamas’s Haniyeh Algemeiner, December 26, 2012

Human Rights Watch has acknowledged that terrorists killed civilians in Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense when rockets being fired into Israel fell short.

“Rockets that fell short of their intended targets in Israel apparently killed at least two Palestinians in Gaza and wounded others,” Human Rights Watch said.

The specific case mentioned in the report involves the four year-old boy used as a political tool by Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil during his visit to Gaza.

Holding back tears, Kandil kissed the boy’s lifeless body as he was presented him by Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh. Kandil said,”What I saw today in the hospital, the wounded and the martyrs, the boy … whose blood is still on my hands and clothes, is something that we cannot keep silent about.” At the time Israel strongly denied being involved in the boy’s death.

In the report Human Rights Watch places blame squarely on terrorists in Gaza for the boy’s death. “Some rockets launched by Palestinian armed groups fell short and struck inside Gaza. On November 16, a rocket that appears to have been launched from within Gaza hit a crowded street in the Gazan town of Jabalya, killing a man, 23, and a boy, 4, and wounding five people.”

The report, released Monday, accuses terror groups in Gaza of violating the laws of war. It states: “Under the laws of war, parties to an armed conflict are required to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under their control from the effects of attacks and not to place military targets in or near densely populated areas. Human Rights Watch has not been able to identify any instances in November in which a Palestinian armed group warned civilians to evacuate an area before a rocket launch.”

The report continues: “The rockets launched by Palestinian groups cannot be aimed precisely enough to target military objectives in or near civilian areas. Under the laws of war, such weapons are therefore indiscriminate when used against targets in population centers.”

Pamela Geller Wednesday WND Column: Huffington Post's jihad against freedom

Norming the most barbaric and brutal ideology on the face of the earth.

"Huffington Post's jihad against freedom"  WND, December 26, 2012 

Exclusive: Pamela Geller asserts fellow columnist is covering for Islamic violence

The Huffington Post continues to wage its jihad against freedom and its champions.

The Huffington Post, aka the Puff Ho, consistently displays an editorial bias that is almost indistinguishable from that of the designated terrorist news outlet, al Manar.

There was no holiday reprieve from the Islamic supremacists at the Puff Ho. No, on Christmas day, Sarah Sayeed of the “Interfaith” Center of New York wrote: “A new set of ads by Pamela Geller show the Twin Towers in flames next to a passage from the Quran warning that ‘fear that shall strike the hearts of unbelievers.’ Many see the message as Islamophobic and intended to provoke fear about Islam in America.”

Sayeed’s timing was unfortunate, to say the least. On the same day her article appeared, Nigerian Muslims murdered six Christians who were attending Christmas services. And in Indonesia, a savage mob of 200 Muslims, including hijab-wearing women, pelted Christian worshippers with rotten eggs and bags of urine and dung. Both of these Muslim groups were motivated by Quranic teachings like the one quoted in my ad, making it harder for Sayeed to convince anyone who is informed about current events that my ads are “Islamophobic and intended to provoke fear of Islam in America.”

If anyone is promoting fear of Islam in America, it is the Muslims worldwide who kill people in the name of Islam and jihad. Sayeed should be challenging them, not me.

In her article, Sayeed attempted to teach us about freedom, explaining what’s wrong with it, and how we can adhere to the Shariah so that Islamic supremacists won’t get all angry and violent and kill people – which, of course, is their right in the event that we say something that violates the Shariah and upsets them. Sayeed explains “that individual freedom need not compromise collective well-being,” and that freedom of speech should be “responsible.”

Responsible? According to whom? Shariah advocates? She goes on to preach to us that each one of us is “not truly independent.” Not under Islam, Sayeed, but under the Constitution I am.

It pains me that Sayeed is not railing against the oppression, subjugation and slaughter of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries. Nor is she battling the influence among Muslims of the Quranic verses that inspire jihad, such as the one depicted in my ad, or calling for a reform of these Quranic teachings. Instead, she perverts the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Sayeed contends that by pointing out the ideology behind the over 20,000 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11, I am “boost[ing] their message and potency.” As if the slaughter of hundreds of thousands wasn’t “potent” enough. Does she condemn that? Uh, no.

Sarah Sayeed should be fighting for the rights of non-Muslims under the Shariah. She should be fighting for the rights of women under the Shariah. She should be fighting against forced marriage, female genital mutilation and child marriage. Contrary to the claims of Islamic apologists at the Huffington Post and elsewhere, Islamic clerics justify all of those things by pointing to Islamic texts and teachings. Instead, Sarah Sayeed is fighting … me.

And it’s not just Sayeed: No Muslim group anywhere has any program or initiative for teaching against the ideology that inspires jihad. There is no large-scale or serious attempt at reform going on, despite the fact that Muslims worldwide commit violence in the name of the Quran and Islam on a more or less daily basis. This month Robert Spencer has been running a daily series at his website Jihad Watch, “Hatred and Violence in the Quran Awareness Month.” Seeing it, it’s easy to understand why this violence is happening: The Quran is full of vitriol and contempt for non-Muslims and calls to wage war against them.

Sarah Sayeed should be fighting against that. By fighting against me instead, she reveals her real agenda: to front and cover for those violent jihadists and deflect attention from the root causes of their actions.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/huffington-posts-jihad-against-freedom/#Qeo2W6Tbt5bqSeVF.99

Read the rest.

Israeli soldiers nail Reuters employees working with Hamas

Enemedia...not hyperbole. Al Reuters. I wonder if these reporters were rubbing their hooves in glee when Hamas was dragging the bodies of Palestinian "collaborators" through the streets.

Stacking the deck in the information battle-space. David vs Goliath -- and we know how that worked out.

"Israeli soldiers nail Reuters employees working with Hamas" Conservative Animal, December 14, 2012 (Thanks to Laura)

YJN: The Israel Defense Force, has nabbed two Reuters employees working with Hamas operatives in Hebron, according to Israeli military officials.

Israeli soldiers stopped the two Reuters employees traveling together with Hamas operatives and forced them to strip naked in the street, before letting out a tear gas canister in front of them, leaving one of them needing hospital treatment.

Israel's military said on Thursday it will investigate the incident further, according to press reports.

"The regional brigade commander was ordered to open an investigation," the spokesman of the Israeli Defense Forces Avital Leibovich, said in an email. No additional information will be provided until the investigation is complete.

Yousri Al Jamal and Ma'amoun Wazwaz said that they were on foot patrol when they were stopped on their way to a nearby checkpoint, where a Palestinian teenager was shot dead by a border guard.

Their car was clearly marked "TV" and the two were wearing blue vests with “Press” stamped on the front.

The soldiers forced them to abandon their vehicle and hit them, beating them with rifle butts. They were accused of working for an Israeli NGO B'Tselem, which documents human rights violations in the West Bank.

Human Rights Watch: Iran's genocidal calls for annihilation of Israel not "incitement," but "advocacy"

When is genocide not genocide? When it calls for the annihilation of the Jews. And genocide is certainly not genocide when it's Islamic. Obama say, "respect it!"

More moral depravity from the leftist/Islamic alliance.

Soros-funded Human Rights Watch: Iran's genocidal calls for annihilation of Israel not "incitement," but "advocacy" Jihad Watch

How compromised and in thrall to Islamic supremacism is the Left? This much. "Dancing Around Genocide," by David Feith in the Wall Street Journal, December 4 (thanks to Paul):

Is promoting genocide a human-rights violation? You might think that's an easy question. But it isn't at Human Rights Watch, where a bitter debate is raging over how to describe Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel. The infighting reveals a peculiar standard regarding dictatorships and human rights and especially the Jewish state.

Human Rights Watch is the George Soros-funded operation that has outsize influence in governments, newsrooms and classrooms world-wide. Some at the nonprofit want to denounce Iran's regime for inciting genocide. "Sitting still while Iran claims a 'justification to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel' . . . is a position unworthy of our great organization," Sid Sheinberg, the group's vice chairman, wrote to colleagues in a recent email.

But Executive Director Kenneth Roth, who runs the nonprofit, strenuously disagrees.

Asked in 2010 about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel "must be wiped off the map," Mr. Roth suggested that the Iranian president has been misunderstood. "There was a real question as to whether he actually said that," Mr. Roth told The New Republic, because the Persian language lacks an idiom for wiping off the map. Then again, Mr. Ahmadinejad's own English-language website translated his words that way, and the main alternative translation—"eliminated from the pages of history"—is no more benign. Nor is Mr. Ahmadinejad an outlier in the regime. Iran's top military officer declared earlier this year that "the Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

Mr. Roth's main claim is legalistic: Iran's rhetoric doesn't qualify as "incitement"—which is illegal under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948—but amounts merely to "advocacy," which is legal.

"The theory" to which Human Rights Watch subscribes, he has written in internal emails, "is that in the case of advocacy, however hateful, there is time to dissuade—to rebut speech with speech—whereas in the case of incitement, the action being urged is so imminently connected to the speech in question that there is no time to dissuade. Incitement must be suppressed because it is tantamount to action."

Mr. Roth added in another email: "Many of [Iran's] statements are certainly reprehensible, but they are not incitement to genocide. No one has acted on them."...

Not yet, anyway! So relax!