Image 01 Image 03

Obama Admin to Fight ‘Anti-Jihad’ Articles

Obama Admin to Fight ‘Anti-Jihad’ Articles

Claim they’re doing it for the troops.

What is wrong with this picture?

Neil Munro of The Daily Caller reports that Obama is planning to use his influence as president to run interference in the media on behalf of Jihadists. Naturally, he’s doing it for the troops:

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Here’s a video report:

This should come as a surprise to no one.

Back in 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney chastised Charlie Hebdo for ridiculing Islam.

Keith Koffler of the White House Dossier blog reports that nothing has changed:

White House Stands By Earlier Criticism of Charlie Hebdo

The White House Monday refused to back away from its pre-Paris-attack criticism of the magazine Charlie Hebdo’s exercise of free speech, claiming it was meant as some kind of defense of our troops.

The criticism came from former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who on September 19, 2014, accused Charlie Hebdo of lacking “judgment.”

That puts the White House among the many in the Je suis Charlie Hebdo crowd who failed to stand up for free speech until the magazine’s cartoonists died for it.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Monday piously explained that Carney – who spoke in September 2012 after the attacks on U.S. embassies that were being blamed on an anti-Muslim video – was objecting to speech that could cause harm to American servicemen and women:

It would not be the first time that there has been a discussion in this country about the kinds of responsibilities that go along with exercising the right to freedom of speech. And in the scenario — or in the circumstances in which my predecessor was talking about this issue, there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk.

Hope and change.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Let’s destroy freedom, to save freedom.” Or some such similar logic, I suppose. Obama is so sagacious and astute with respect to theology and foreign policy (among myriad other subjects), so, who am I to question his policy choices?

What is really nauseating here is cloaking this abject cowardice and capitulation to Islamist violence and intimidation in the banner of “protect the troops.” As if Obama has ever given a damn about their welfare.

Also nauseating is the resurrection of the brazen lie of that obscure Youtube video as being the cause of the Benghazi attack — anything to avoid placing blame at Obama’s feet for his obvious foreign policy failings, or, which serves to absolve Muslims of self-examination and taking responsibility for their behavior and their ideology.

The Left’s standard responses post-Danish Muhammed cartoons, post-Hebdo and post-Benghazi are always the same: something along the lines of, “These [depictions] were deeply offensive and unnecessary provocations to Muslims. But, it bears repeating that no image or printed words can justify violence.”

So, which is it? Why add the qualification that the images are “offensive?” Either we live in a secular democratic society in which freedom of expresion and a free exchange of ideas (which necessarily encompass the right to express the inane, the asinine, the obscene, the irreverent and the offensive; works of dubious or non-existent intellectual or artistic merit) is unabashedly, unequivocally and unapologetically exercised, or, we decide to live our lives quaking in fear, perpetually walking on eggshells for fear of offending the delicate sensibilities of the Gestapo-sharia police.

I think the corrective is a concerted campaign across the board to offend all hypersensitives wherever they are found.

And I’m dead serious. Whether the delicate snowflakes of the Ivy Covered Towers or Ahmed sitting in the dust oiling his AK-47 and tending his goats, as a favor to them and civilization, they have to be taught to tolerate…or that they simply are not going to be permitted to dictate to the rest of humanity.

And that there will be consequences if they try. A very full range of consequences.

    kevino in reply to Ragspierre. | January 14, 2015 at 9:47 am

    Yes, indeed, the way to advance your idea or cause is not to present facts or logical argument. Instead, you kill people and blow things up. Then liberals or progressives or whatever we’re calling these brainless invertebrates will knuckle under.

      Ragspierre in reply to kevino. | January 14, 2015 at 9:59 am

      So, is it that you CAN’T read, or that you simply like to lie?

      Because there’s no other explanation for what you wrote.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Ragspierre. | January 14, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    I think the corrective is a concerted campaign across the board to offend all hypersensitives wherever they are found.

    Truer words were never spoken. And the place to start is on American university campuses. An ‘offend the hypersensitives’ campaign would be the antidote to the ‘offend the Establishment’ campaign that led to the current leftist monopoly on opinions and allowable sayings in the education, entertainment and ‘news’ media worlds.

    The Revolution 2.0, baby! Let’s offend some precious being today!

“The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet of Islam!”

Isn’t not like he never warned us or anything.

The White House Monday refused to back away from its pre-Paris-attack criticism of the magazine Charlie Hebdo’s exercise of free speech, claiming it was meant as some kind of defense of our troops.

Out: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

In: “For the sake of our troops, the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

“The only reason I’m taking away your freedoms, and running interference for the jihadis, is to make you rubes safer. You should be thanking me!” Barack Hussein Obama

It is going to be a long 2 years with this bunch of Marxist clowns.

    guyjones in reply to OldNuc. | January 14, 2015 at 10:50 am

    Obama’s five years in office already feels like an interminable decade. And, the euphoric, halcyon days of “hope and change” and fawning worship of the Obozo cult of personality seem like they happened in another lifetime.

Since Jihad in this context is a violent struggle against those who do not accept The Prophet or do not accept submission to the Word of the Prophet (dhimmitude), then Jihad is, by definition, racism.

President Obama has announced that he intends to attack the free speech to defend racism — days after the Paris attacks.

I’m shocked. Shocked.

    Ragspierre in reply to kevino. | January 14, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Islam isn’t a race.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | January 14, 2015 at 10:28 am

      Then again, racism isn’t racism any more.

      Actually that kind of depends on your point of view from an ‘Islamic’ standpoint.

      The Persian (Shia) version of Islam sees itself both as a religion AND as a race. If you’re not Persian, even if you are a follower of Islam, the Persians Islamists will treat you as a peasant or worse.

      Its entirely why we cannot negotiate with Iran. They have no compunction about lying to the United States in negotiations because (drumroll) we are not Persian.

Oh, so that explains why Obama fought so hard to stop the Senate “terror” report from being published … oh wait, he didn’t fight the reports release …

    Ragspierre in reply to dorsaighost. | January 14, 2015 at 10:46 am

    Yah, no. I don’t remember him uttering a word about the NYT obsession with Abu Ghraib over the WEEKS that it ran front page crap on that incident.

    OR the various Koran desecration lies that have been given VERY heavy press over the years.

    Maybe this is another example of “prosecutorial discretion”.

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | January 14, 2015 at 10:56 am

Where is that reporter who reported, during the Vietnam “War,” that the US had to destroy a village to save it? Wonder who originally made that statement, which the reporter so “faithfully” reported?

Will authors of these nasty anti-jihadi articles go to jail along side of that nasty person who caused all that trouble during the Benghazi troubles?

The administration can’t stop what they don’t know about in advance. Imagine what kind of name a publication could make for itself it were willing to throw itself into the first amendment breach that our President has created here.

Which one of these sounds like Obama?

1) Give me liberty or give me death!

2) I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

3) If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.

4) Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

5) Later, losers! I’m outa here !

Let me see if I got this right. The administration is against anti-jihad because it might cause the jihad they consider to be a threat! Did I get that right?


Jihad is bad but we are against those who are against jihad.


We are for jihad because some are against jihad.

Damn I’m confused what my stupid a$$ President wants from me. Am I for jihad or against jihad. Is jihad good or is jihad bad?

Do they not even read what they are going to say before inserting their foot in our mouths?

Obama’s concept is that since anti-jihad speech prompts jihad terrorism against our troops, censoring anti-jihad speech is justified and morally responsible.

This is a variation of ‘we must do _______ or our children will die!’, except it’s ten years later and the children are now in the military.

Devoid of substance or reason, the concept is forced to rely on appeals to emotion. Like any good student of fascist propanganda, Obama understands that the heart thinks every bit as well as the brain pumps blood.

It’s how state lotteries are sold, among many other things. In NC we have the Education Lottery. It’s for the kids, you see. You love your kids, don’t you? WELL?

For a “constitutional scholar” Obama sure seems to have a tough time with the document and its amendments.

    Of course he does. He’s of the opinion that the Constitution should be a ‘living document’ to be reinterpreted as the times change.

    Which is utter and complete bullshit from a reasoning standpoint.

    The reason you HAVE a WRITTEN Constitution is that it is supposed to be a fixed point in time, with fixed principles as they are understood at the time the document was written. That is why there is an amendment process: so that as changes are necessary, that the people can come together to make the changes which a sufficient number AGREE UPON to make, in order to change the fundamental principles of the effectively 50 individual nation-states that make up the ‘United States’ as a whole.

    The Constitution is effectively a treaty between 50 individual nations. The moment you think about it that way, you (should) understand exactly WHY it is such a limited document and why the Federal Government is supposed to have such limited powers.

    This is the danger of allowing the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution by Judicial Fiat, and why it is so important to have ‘Originalist’ Justices. By allowing them to “reinterpret” the words in light of today’s meaning, they make the words themselves MEANINGLESS.

Orwell, eat your heart out.

    I always think of ‘Squealer’ every time I see Jay Carney (aka “The Carnival Barker”) or Josh Earnest (aka “The Earnest Man”).

    These two elevated outright lies, denials and obfuscations told by an administration to a form of performance art.

    Anyone with half a brain (and who is willing to use even the tiniest critical thinking skills) can see through their routine lack of honesty.

DevilsPrinciple | January 15, 2015 at 2:15 am

Obama has lost the battle to win hearts and minds. His party’s loss in November and his approval ratings speak to this.