The New York Times Stealth Edits Charlie Hebdo Piece, Deleting Muslim Proselytizing

Jim Treacher at the DC Trawler caught the New York Times egregiously altering their piece about the Charlie Hebdo attack, entitled, “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.”

Here’s the original version of the paragraph before it was stealth edited.

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

It was later changed to this:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

In the new version, the “calm and steady” Jihadist is portrayed in an almost heroic light –  sounding almost chivalrous – not to mention righteous. Gone are the exhortations to convert to Islam and cover herself. Why would the NYTs do this?

It’s no secret that the New York Times is the House Organ of the Obama Regime, so it stands to reason that the original copy did not fit the WH’s desired narrative. And what narrative is that? Well, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, gave us a hint, Wednesday when he told reporters that the administration is going to “redouble” their efforts to explain what the “true tenets” of the Religion of Peace actually are.

“There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are.  And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.

Reminding people about actual tenets of Islam like women being required to cover themselves, and forced conversion, as proselytized by the Jihadists, does not help in their efforts.

They think the problem is one of “messaging” which can be combated with their own messaging.  Simply telling the people the truth, is not even considered.

But the Times’ stealth edit is even worse than that – because not only did they remove the truth, they replaced it with a lie.

In the Radio France Internationale (translated) version of the interview with Sigolène Vinson,  there’s nothing about a calm and steady Jihadist sounding almost Jesus-like with “Be Not Afraid.”

she_said_it

Absent also is the  exhortation to “think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” Where did the NYTs even get that?

A better translation via the Daily Mirror:

Ms Vinson told Radio France Internationale that one of the killers aimed his gun at her but decided against taking her life.

She said the man told her: “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu’ran and wear a veil.”

She added that as the man left, he shouted “Allahu akbar, allahu akbar.”

The altered NYTs version is WAY OFF.

They even left out the “Allah Akbar” and replaced it with, “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”

Pathetic.

SEE ALSO: 

Breitbart National Security: OBAMA WH STILL IN DENIAL AS REST OF WORLD WAKES UP TO ISLAMIST THREAT

“Controversialized” Sharyl Attkisson Not Going Away Quietly (Video)

Screen-Shot-2015-01-06-at-6.08.54-AM

In an interview with John Sexton at Breitbart.com, former CBS reporter and Emmy Award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson said she’s not going to go away quietly and let the Regime do to other Americans, what they did to her..

She announced on Monday she is suing the Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal service for allegedly hacking into her computers.

Sexton asked her about the lawsuit – of which there is more than one part – an administrative claim against the DOJ and the U.S. Postal Service and a separate lawsuit for a violation of her constitutional rights.

“What would be the remedy?” Sexton asked.

Attkisson: There are criminal implications to some of the allegations, but my attorney explained to me it would be up to the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against itself. We don’t think that’s going to happen. So the only remedy we have is probably the civil aspect, which would be financial, monetary damages. And if there’s no monetary damages listed in the lawsuit, that would be because they don’t require it up front as they did for the administrative claim. Just from our viewpoint, and I’ve discussed this with at length with my attorney, our goal is public awareness, getting some answers, getting at the truth and making it a little harder for this to happen to somebody else in the future.

I put in bold the saddest, and most tragic part of this whole thing. Our Department of Justice is so gut-wrenchingly criminally corrupt – it can and will commit criminal acts against fellow Americans, and as long as the media refuses to hold them accountable, their crimes will go uninvestigated and largely unnotied.  The Obama administration can engage in as much criminal activity as they want and the media will let them. The MSM as a whole (a few individual reporters excepted) has done an amazing job “looking the other way” for the past six years and they have no problem throwing one of their own under the bus  to protect President Boyfriend’s agenda to fundamentally transform America. In the unlikely chance a Republican is elected in 2016, they’ll start (over)doing their jobs again.

I think back to the Bush administration when then Attorney General John Ashcroft was savaged by the media because the Justice Department decided to hide the statue of a naked Lady Justice behind curtains during speeches and other events. The official reason was that  the curtains were meant to improve the Great Hall’s backdrop for televised events, but critics viciously derided Ashcroft for being an unsophisticated prude. The ridicule that poor man endured. StatueGate was the big DOJ controversy of the day.

In 2005, Bush’s second Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thought he’d make friends with the media by removing the curtains, making the naked statue visible during public events, again. A lot of good that did him.

When Gonzales fired eight DOJ attorneys in 2006, Democrats had a massive hissy fit and an out-of-control media firestorm ensued.  Mind you – Clinton canned 93 attorneys within the first week or two of his inauguration in 1993. But because this was a Republican administration, the nontroversy stayed in the news until Gonzales was hounded out of office.

The Democrat media complex knows how to get results when they want to.

Incidentally, the Obama DOJ went back to the practice of covering up Lady Justice in January of 2014, but hardly anyone noticed. Moreover, in Holder, we have an attorney general who refuses to fire bad prosecutors even those “whose intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct has been confirmed in court.”  (Why is he still there?)

Holder lets militant black power groups like the New Black Panthers run wild throughout the land threatening white people, lies to Congress about smuggling weapons to drug cartels, works with the IRS to target conservative groups, spies on journalists’ telephone calls,  hacks at least one investigative journalists’ computers and spies on her with Skype. And the media’s reaction to all this is to roll their eyes and look at their watch. OMG. Whatever!

An effort to “controversialize” Attkisson’s allegations about the breach of her computers has been underway for some time.

I also just think the whole dynamic I find very strange, to keep all of the skepticism on anything I or my experts say and none of it on those, whoever they may be, who actually did the intrusion. There’s no outrage about the intrusion. You don’t see these same reporters saying, how could this happen in America? Instead, they say: how dare you say these things happened to you.It’s the craziest dynamic really.

Well it’s not like the the DOJ covered up a nude statue with a curtain, or anything. Oh wait – that’s right – they did do that..

Attkisson had this to say about her attorney:

 I know my attorney spoke to one reporter and the reporter asked well, how are you getting paid? And he said I’m doing this on a contingency. Then the reporter said, you must think then that you’re going to win. And he said, I would do this regardless because this is such an important case. And then the reporter asked what’s your political affiliation? And he said, I’m a Democrat and I voted for Bill Clinton and I voted for Obama and I’m going to vote for Hillary but this is way more important than all of those things. And he said, based on the evidence he’d seen, this is the worst abuse that the government has done to a citizen in the 30 years he’s been practicing law. And he said he would take the case if he wasn’t paid at all to do it.

BN: Obviously, he’s seen all the documents.

Attkisson: Yeah. He’s the one that’s gathering everything… It’s going directly from the forensic experts to him and then to me.

BN: And he clearly believes this happened.

Attkisson: There’s no doubt in his mind. It may be an uphill battle but he said, and I agree with him, what we’re trying to do is just not go away quietly and let this happen to other people without it being challenged and answered to some degree.

Via Newsmax, Attkisson discussed her lawsuit against the Obama Administration over her computer hacking.

SEE ALSO,

Powerline’s interview of Ms. Attkisson.

and Powerline’s review of her book, Stonewalled: 

Disparagement of sources and reporters advancing the story via friendly bloggers and reporters. (Attkisson calls this technique “controversialization.”) Attkisson has been a prime subject of the technique of controversialization. She is speaking from personal experience recounted in the book. Attkisson singles out Media Matters as the prime mover of administration spin into the mainstream media. As Attkisson demonstrates, however, MM’s power derives from the complicity and cooperation of MM’s media allies, i.e., the Obama administration’s media allies.

• And then we have this (page 278): “Perhaps the greatest PR coup of all is that the administration’s expert spinners successfully lead the media by the nose down the path of concluding there’s no true controversy unless there’s a paper trail that lays blame directly on the president’s desk. Time and again, with each scandal and each damaging fact, Democrats and the White House read from the script that says ‘there’s no evidence President Obama knew’ or ‘there’s no evidence of direct White House involvement.’ Anything short of a signed confession from the president is deemed a phony Republican scandal, and those who dare to ask questions are crazies, partisans, or conspiracy theorists.”

• One more quote (also from page 278): “Under President Obama, the press dutifully regurgitates the line ‘no evidence of White House involvement,’ ignoring the fact that if any proof exists, it would be difficult to come by under an administration that fails to properly respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, routinely withholds documents from Congress, and claims executive privilege to keep documents secret.”

Fact-Checking the WaPo Fact-Checker

Last week, WaPo “factchecker”  Michelle Ye Hee Lee  examined Obama’s comments on the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner, “with a focus on his statements from August, immediately after Brown’s death.”

The purpose was to factcheck former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s statement, “We’ve had four months of propaganda, starting with the president, that everybody should hate the police.”

Lee awarded Giuliani with 4 Pinnochios because “it turns out that none of Obama’s statements speak any ill of police officers or condone violence among those reacting to the deaths,” as if the president of the United States would say something openly hostile about the police, and openly encourage violence against them. What was she expecting to find? Obama saying, “Yo! it’s open season on the pigs”, or something?

No. Obama is much subtler than that.

Obama specializes in making butt-covering statements that he can point to when the SHTF.  For instance: the  “no acts of terror…” line at the end of the Rose garden speech regarding Benghazi on 9/12/2012. Yeah, he and his minions focused like a laser beam on the YouTube video for three weeks, but when the YouTube video narrative fell apart, he was able to go back to that throw-away line and say that he was calling it a terrorist attack (not a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Mohammed YouTube video) from the very beginning.

Hence, we get the responsible sounding (and freaking obvious) statements like the one he made on August 14 following the initial looting and violence in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting, “there is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.”

And in the same breath: “There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.”

Hello Ms Lee? Police should not “use excessive force”, “should not be bullying” etc? That sounds like anti-police rhetoric coming from the Commander-in-Chief to me. Shouldn’t he have just told people to calm the hell down, respect the law and wait for justice to take its course so the police don’t have to look like they’re using “excessive force” as they try to control unruly crowds that are rioting or on the verge of rioting?

Rather than encourage people to stay home and trust in the justice system,  he gave credence to the fact-challenged hysteria that followed the Michael Brown shooting.

When the Ferguson Grand Jury rendered their decision, he said that the protesters’ uninformed rage was “understandable.” It wasn’t. The facts of the case never supported their false anti-cop narrative. Our nation’s first black president had an opportunity to defend the police and the rule of law, and he didn’t. The best he could muster were obvious statements like “there’s never an excuse for violence.”

As Lee actually noted in her 4 Pinnochio indictment of Giuliani, Obama had some “pointed criticisms” about the police during a December interview on BET, but declared, ‘it’s a stretch to characterize that as “propaganda” for everyone to “hate the police':

“The vast majority of law enforcement officers are doing a really tough job, and most of them are doing it well and are trying to do the right thing. (Of course he has to say that.)

Here comes the “pointed” part.

But a combination of bad training, in some cases; a combination in some cases of departments that really are not trying to root out biases, or tolerate sloppy police work; a combination in some cases of folks just not knowing any better, and in a lot of cases, subconscious fear of folks who look different — all of this contributes to a national problem that’s going to require a national solution.”

Ugh. Did the president really have to make those insulting and baseless assertions? When the nation’s first black president says that “in a lot of cases” police have a “subconscious fear of folks who look different,” does that encourage blacks to trust the police or discourage them from trusting the police?

How was that not anti-police  propaganda? 

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Obama and Holder knew the facts early on. They knew about the surveillance video of the strong arm robbery (and suppressed it for as long as they could), they knew that eyewitnesses and forensic evidence refuted the hands up/don’t shoot narrative. Even so –  when he met with racial agitator Al Sharpton in the White House the day after the midterm elections, he said, “stay on course.”

That is what Giuliani had in mind when he said,  “He has had Al Sharpton to the White House 80-85 times. Often when he’s talking about police issues he has Al Sharpton sitting right next to him.. ..If you would like to have a poster boy for hating the police, it’s Al Sharpton. You make Al Sharpton a close advisor, you are going to turn the police in America against you.”

So Lee was back at it, today, with another factcheck – — on Giuliani’s assertion that Sharpton has been to the White House 80-85 times and is a “close advisor” to the president.

ORLY, we’ll see about that! harrumphed the WaPo Factchecker:

Giuliani said he took the high end of figures reported in Fox News, which ranged from 60 to 85 visits. The outlets reporting Sharpton’s visits used the White House visitors’ logs, so we looked at those figures. At first glance, there are 82 visits logged for Al Sharpton, Alfred Sharpton or Alfred C. Sharpton – all variations of Sharpton’s name.

After explaining that the the WH visitor database is “not a comprehensive list of all White House visits, and there are potentially thousands of visitors missing from it” Lee arrived at an exact number of 72 meetings anyway.

Of Sharpton’s 72 meetings:

  • One-on-one meetings: 5 (7 percent)
  • Meetings with staff members or senior advisers, with more than one guest: 20 (27 percent)
  • Events with more than 90 people: 16 (22 percent)
  • Miscellaneous meetings or events, ranging from 3 to 700 guests: 31 (43 percent)

Then she labored hard to debunk the idea that Sharpton (Obama’s Go-To Man on Race) is a “close advisor” to the president.

I suspect that Sharpton has become a political liability since the days White House officials were telling Politico “there’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down. He gets it, and he’s got credibility in the community that nobody else has got. There’s really no one else out there who does what he does.”

Now the lapdogs are striving hard to disassociate Sharpton from Obama.

Lee compared Sharpton’s visits to the White House to other Obama cronies who have visited the White House.

Giuliani connected Sharpton’s dozens of visits to the White House to what he described as Sharpton’s role as a “close adviser.” So we looked at the visitor log records of David Axelrod, an actual former White House senior adviser. Since Axelrod left the White House in January 2011, he had 28 official visits – and half of them were one-on-one meetings.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who advises on labor policies, visited the White House 104 times since mid-2009, and 19 of the visits were one-on-one meetings. One-fifth of Trumka’s visits were meetings or events with 100 or more people. Matthew T. McGuire, former Citadel vice president and business liaison for the Commerce Department, visited the White House at least 250 times since 2011. Fifty of those visits were one-on-one meetings, and only 6 percent of his visits were meetings or events with 100+ people. Sharpton’s visits, in comparison, had far more ceremonial events and large-group gatherings.

***

We asked Sharpton if he had any meetings with the president after the deaths of Brown or Garner, or the assassination-style killings of two New York Police Department officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. The only conversation he had with the president about Ferguson was at a public round table with other civil rights leaders, Sharpton said.

Lee gave Guiliani one Pinnochio for his assertions about Sharpton.

… to cite this number (80-85 WH visits) to show that Sharpton is a “close adviser” is an exaggeration — which earns Giuliani One Pinocchio.

Anyway, back to the Politico:

Eventually, Sharpton—often in consultation with Jarrett and Patrick Gaspard, the New York political operative who would go on to run the White House political office — carved out a unique role, defending Obama’s actions to black critics.

***

And the White House, as the crisis following Brown’s death seemed to flare out of control, worked extensively behind the scenes to maximize The Rev’s doing what he does, using him as both a source of information and a go-between.
Is it really an exaggeration to say that Al Sharpton is a close advisor to Obama on race relations? I don’t think so.
Linked by Maetenloch at Ace of Spades, thanks!

Melissa Francis Slams CNBC’s “Glib and Sarcastic” Response To Her Accusation (Video)

Last Friday Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis made news with her allegation that  CNBC “silenced” her for questioning Obamacare.  Francis said executives  chastised her for being “disrespectful to the office of the president” for noting that the ObamaCare numbers don’t add up. She made the point  that the administration relied on people’s (read Democrats) “lack of economic understanding” to help pass ObamaCare and also the liberal media to help cover up the truth.”

On the Kelly File  Monday night, she expanded on her experience at CNBC  and commented on their disrespectful and glib response to her accusation.

Kelly read CNBC’s “nasty little shot” at Francis on the air: “That’s laughable, but we take notice because as the fastest growing network in primetime (Hm! Megyn sniffs) we’re always on the lookout for high quality comedy writers and actresses.”

(Melissa Francis was a child actress who is best known for her role as Cassandra (Cooper) Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie.)

“They don’t try to deny it – they just try to attack you personally,” Kelly declared.

“I guess,” Francis replied. “I thought their response was glib and sarcastic and they treat it like a joke and I don’t think it is a joke.”

SEE ALSO:

The Conversation: Senator Chris Murphy, Jake Tapper and the Unsung Villains of GruberGate

Sharyl Attkisson on the Mark Levin Show: There Is Now a Consensus That Obama Treats Journalists Badly

Sharyl Attkisson was on the Mark Levin Show, Monday night to talk about her to new book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington…which Levin described as “stunningly disturbing.”

Levin, remarking on the amount of government harassment she endured for having the temerity to investigate the Obama administration, said, “I’m sure that so many journalists are coming to your defense, right?”

Attkisson gave a little laugh and said that there are two answers to that: “the usual suspects which are defending the administration and powers that be at all costs and  furthering their propaganda – no they have not come to my defense. But I have been warmly welcomed and supported – much of it behind the scenes – by a lot of journalists who have made similar observations – I mean this is now a consensus – it’s not going on a limb to say that this administration has treated journalists badly.” She added, “some of the anecdotes of other journalists are in the book – so I wasn’t exactly all by myself.”

Anyone who watched Obama’s post-shellacking press conference could see that most journalists are not only no longer on the Obama bandwagon – they have become positively hostile towards him. That is a refreshing change from the “slobbering love affair” we had to endure for the first few years.

The video is 22 minutes long – but worth listening in full. Attkisson has quite a story to tell…the government pushback to her investigations into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the Regime’s surveillance of her computer are covered.

According to the former CBS reported, Senator Coburn sent a letter to Holder over a year ago asking questions about the government surveillance of journalists – specifically citing Attkisson’s case, but of course Holder hasn’t responded. She expressed hope that the new Republican majority in both houses will now wield more influence to do something about it.

“If the enforcer in the law is potentially  involved in breaking the law, and if the media isn’t going to hold their feet to the fire, who is really  going to be the one who does that?” Attkisson asked.

Levin noted that in the past – it didn’t matter what party you were in – if something like this was happening – there was a huge outcry  among the politicians and media. “None of these things are happening!” Levin exclaimed.

“We have slowly come to expect this infringement on our rights,” Attkisson lamented. “And the idea that we may be surveillance  and the government gets to call the shots and may withhold access to things we want if we don’t behave a certain way — I step back and look at it like an outsider and sometimes it seems so Russian.”

Why Does CNN host Carol Costello Still Have A Job?

She is a disgrace to CNN and if Jeff Zucker had any common sense or decency, she would have been fired, yesterday.

In case you haven’t been following this, something pretty extraordinary happened on CNN, this week.

Via The Right Scoop:

CNN host Carol Costello can barely contain her excitement over hearing the new audio of the ‘brawl’ in Alaska that involved Bristol Palin a few weeks back.

She started the segment by claiming it was possibly the best audio CNN had ever gotten:

“Okay I’m just going to come right out and say it. This is quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across.”

Costello then proceeded to describe the “massive brawl” and before playing the audio she told her viewers “so sit back and enjoy.”

What you are asked to “sit back and enjoy” is the sound of a tearful and near hysterical Bristol Palin describing to the police the physical assault she had just experienced.

You really have to see this to appreciate how massive the disconnect is between far leftists like Costello and normal human beings. There is nothing remotely funny about Palin’s distress in the audio.

It’s not too difficult for those of us who track and document left-wing thuggery, to see what was going on there.

Here, in Bristol Palin’s own words, is what happened.

Our friend got knocked out from a cheap shot from behind.  (His injury resulted in ten stitches, so it was really low.)

Why would anyone do this?  Well, here’s a hint.  The guy was on social media during this incident, tweeting, “about to get famous.”

When Willow saw all this happening she looked at the guy’s mom and said “get ahold of your son.”

But apparently the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree, because his mom pushed Willow.  A grown woman pushed my little sister.

By this point, I’d already gotten into the car.  But when Willow ran to me crying, telling me that some lady had pushed her down, I got out of the car to go talk to her.  Any big sister would do this.

Next to God, family is the most important thing to me.

***

But the evening that began so well took a turn for the worse when this guy decided he wanted to “get famous.”

After I got out of the car, I didn’t get far. I never even got to talk to his mom, because a guy in his late thirties or early forties got in my face.  He was towering over me – probably at 6 foot something and over 200 pounds. He puffed his chest out and started yelling.

“You c-nt!” he looked right in my eyes and said.  “Get the f-ck out of here, you slut!”

I was alarmed that things had gotten so bad so fast.  But it got even worse when this guy started pushing me.  He had his hands on me, pushing me down.  That’s when I swung and hit his face.

Some would say I should’ve never retaliated in defense against him, but certainly he should never have pushed a girl.   It didn’t phase him.  He pushed me down to the ground and kept me there.

It was scary and awful.  He held me down until someone got me out of the situation. 

That’s it – that’s the story.

What makes this story all the more remarkable is the gross double standard and mind boggling hypocrisy at play. Costello has gone on the record herself to talk about an assault she once suffered at the hands of an abusive boyfriend.

Via Noah Rothman at HotAir:

National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke noted that Sullivan has heaped far less scorn on the sitting vice president whose son was recently revealed to have engaged in illegal activities which resulted in his discharge from the Navy – activities for which “he is unlikely to face so much as an interview with the police.” How’s that for inequality?

But Cooke focuses primarily on an even stronger point, one which was first observed by The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis: Where are the feminists rending garments over the callous way in which a physical assault on a woman by a man is being portrayed in the press?

“Anyone who is concerned about a ‘war on women’ — but not disturbed by this report — is clearly biased,” Lewis wrote.

Enter CNN anchor Carol Costello.

“I never wanted to become the poster child for anything, let alone domestic violence. But my blood is boiling, so when I say shut up, I’m venting at all those people out there who insist on blaming the victim,” Costello wrote with righteous fury directed at the National Football League (and the morning show Fox & Friends) over what she considered an insufficient level of concern for an incident involving Ray Rice striking his fiancé.

Costello goes on to reveal that she, too, was the victim of what sounds like a horrible assault by her college boyfriend. It was a brave thing for her to admit, and it made her commentary on the lax treatment Rice received from the NFL that much more powerful. But this admission also branded her take on the Palin assault as one which is inexplicably hypocritical.

Costello offered an apology without an explanation in a statement to Politico:

CNN’s Carol Costello apologized on Thursday for joking about a police recording of Bristol Palin.

“Over the past few days I have been roundly criticized for joking about a brawl involving the Palin family. In retrospect, I deserve such criticism and would like to apologize,” Costello said in a statement to POLITICO.

No ma’am. You deserve more than just criticism. You have disqualified yourself from holding a job at a still somewhat respected (debatable, I know) news organization. Folks on Twitter are demanding that she apologize on the air, which she’ll no doubt do, (if she hasn’t already) but after this disgraceful episode, there should be only one place left in the TV news business for her:

UPDATE: 

Mark Levin weighs in.

UPDATE II:

 John Nolte at Breitbart contacted CNN to see if she plans to do an on air apology. The answer was no. The half-hearted statement to Politico was it.

Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!

ISIS Supporters Reach Out To The Ferguson Mob

The  looters and rioters in Ferguson, Missouri have found a new ally in the murderous death cult ISIS.

ISIS militants and their supporters are using social media to egg the protesters on, encouraging them to embrace radical Islam and fight against the U.S. government.

On Monday night, during a CNN report, someone behind Jake Tapper held up an “ISIS is here” sign – shocking more than a few viewers.

isis sign

How badly did the MSM drop the ball on this? We get a screenshot from someone watching the CNN broadcast at home, but nobody on the scene sticks a microphone in his face? Did no one in the media  happen to notice the guy with the huge ISIS sign? (Those would be the genocidal maniacs who have been torturing,  beheading, crucifying, raping and pillaging  innocents in Syria and Iraq, for the past year or so.)  Did anyone in the media bother to interview the ISIS loon? If not – why not? Why is it that out of dozens of reporters on the ground in Ferguson – we only have a still shot from the CNN broadcast – and no story?  I’d like to know why some creep was out there holding an ISIS sign. And I would have liked to have seen him publicly shamed for it.

The Daily Mail reports that ISIS has been reaching out to the Ferguson mob primarily on Twitter.

The militants’ tweets denounce local officers for the way they have attempted to quell the violence, make reference to historic acts of police brutality, and even use the hashtag #FergusonUnderISIS in an attempt to get angry young men in the city to declare allegiance to the Islamist group.

***

One ISIS sympathiser calling himself Mujahid Miski, who claims to be from Minneapolis–Saint Paul but suggests he is now based in ‘the horn of Africa’, has led the campaign to encourage those taking part in the protests to embrace radical Islam.

In one message he tweets: ‘So how is democracy treating you guys? #FergusonUnderIS #Ferguson.’

He adds: ‘I thought u guys back in #Ferguson were supposed to be Free & that u had equal rights. I’d really like to know what changed? #FergusonUnderIS’.

Miski goes on to retweet dozens of messages by a Twitter user with the handle @AmreekiWitness, who claims to monitor and support the growth of radical Islam in the U.S..

article-2728624-20A19D2800000578-150_634x263article-2728624-20A19CEA00000578-305_634x112

Amreeki Witness’ messages focus on the treatment of black people in the U.S., praise Malcolm X for embracing Islam and urge angry young black men to take up the religion as it means the police ‘will fear you’.

In one message Amreeki Witness mocks the curfew police have imposed in Ferguson to bring an end to the disorder, saying: ‘We IS guys hate you for your freedom, eh? Just like that freedom uplifting curfew in #Ferguson? Wake up, or they’ll never let you outside.’

As the social media campaign began to take hold, with dozens of radical Islamists commenting on the Ferguson protests, Amreeki Witness tweeted: ‘May be time to organize the Muslims in America upon haqq and mobilize to #Ferguson. Defend the oppressed, start jihad here.’

The message attracted a large response, with one Islamist calling himself Amarka Al-Ahlam responding: ‘Preach, brother. We must organize brigades in preparation for the oncoming storm. #FergusonUnderIS #JihadinFerguson.’

article-2728624-20A19D1200000578-390_634x200

article-2728624-20A19D4F00000578-522_634x128