Category Archives: Media

Former Reporter Receiving Death Threats Over Revealing Obama’s Fake Past

Former Reporter Receiving Death Threats Over Revealing Obama’s Fake Past

“Ever seen a photo of a pregnant Michelle Obama?”

by MAC SLAVO | SHTFPLAN.COM

Former Breitbart reporter and founder of GotNews.com, Charles C. Johnson, claims he has never before seen information that answers to why no one has seen photos of a pregnant Michelle Obama, why Obama’s family photos are fakes, and why his birth certificate is anything but authentic (but says he was born in Hawaii not Kenya).

But ‘serious’ death threats are so far keeping Johnson quiet, according to a barrage of recent Twitter posts.

If true, the former Breitbart reporter may be in an eerily similar position to that of his former boss, Andrew Breitbart, who promised to reveal bombshell info on President Obama on what turned out to be the day died, officially of a heart attack.

In early 2012,Andrew Breitbart reportedly told Sinclair News, “Wait til they see what happens March 1st.” He added this teaser, “I’ve got video from his college days that show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008 – the videos are going to come out.”

While the importance of the information Johnson claims to have cannot be verified, he gives some hints that would be – if proven true – not only embarrassing to the Obama family, but threaten to unravel his entire legacy and shatter the false history that has been presented as unverified fact. It likely far too late to unravel his presidency:

Jesse Jackson, Jr. possibly the father? The Obama’s rise in politics could not have happened without the aid of the prominent Jackson political family. Michelle Robinson Obama “just about grew up in Jesse Jackson’s home,” and received numerous jobs and positions with their aid, while Barack was boosted by political capital and campaign help from Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Sr. alike.

Related: Is Michelle Obama Really A Man?

WND’s Jerome Corsi, who authored the book Where’s the Birth Certificate?, wrote:

“If you want to understand Michelle Obama, you’ve got to go back to Jesse Jackson,” a woman called “Robyn” for this article told WND.

Robyn, who spent several years working for Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, explained to a WND investigator in Chicago that Michelle Obama “just about grew up in Jesse Jackson’s home.”

[…]

“At the City of Chicago, where she worked under Mayor Daley, Michelle had one of those ‘Jesse hires’ positions. These are patronage jobs where the recipients did nothing.”

Robyn claimed that while working for Daley, Michelle just collected a check, doing very little work.
[…]

The Chicago sources told WND the selection of Michelle Robinson for Obama was made by Jesse Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright agreed it would be a good combination.

“It all relates back to Trinity United and to the Jesse Jackson orbit of blacks here in Chicago who gave Obama legitimacy and helped him establish his identity as a black man ‘from Chicago,’” Robyn explained.

“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”

According to Robyn, Jackson explained to Michelle that she would live a life of luxury once Obama was president, and that she never again would have to worry about money.

[…]

“The political left wanted to push a black to the presidency, and the key operatives in the Democratic Party decided long ago it wouldn’t be Jesse Jackson (Sr.). […] So, the political left then chose Obama.”

Meanwhile, there are other phony aspects of Obama’s past which Johnson also ranted about on Twitter.

For Johnson, the “birther” issues is a distraction from the true dark secrets of Obama’s past. Regardless, the American public was not told the truth about our sitting two term president, and Obama was not properly vetted by the media lapdogs people have been conditioned to trust as watchdogs.

Read more: InfoWars

Reporter Interviews Edward Snowden, Dies Suddenly Later That Night

Reporter Interviews Edward Snowden, Dies Suddenly Later That Night

By 

[Watch] Reporter Interviews Edward Snowden, Dies Suddenly Later That Night

Described as the finest media reporter of his generation, remarkable and funny, and a leader in the newsroom, New York Time‘s columnist David Carr, 58, was remembered by his colleagues after he collapsed in the newsroom and died suddenly last Thursday night.

Earlier in the evening on the day Carr died, he had moderated a TimesTalks discussion ofCitizenFour, the Oscar nominated documentary about whistle-blower Edward Snowden, the man who gave up life as he knew it to expose the global surveillance program perpetrated by the United States government.

“For now, know that every border you cross, every purchase you make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friend you keep, site you visit, subject line you type, is in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but who’s safeguards are not. In the end if you publish this source material I will likely be immediately implicated.” – Edward Snowden, CitizenFour

[Watch] Reporter Interviews Edward Snowden, Dies Suddenly Later That Night

The discussion panel was comprised of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who first published Snowden’s findings, Academy Award nominee and Pulitzer prize-winning director Laura Poitras, and Edward Snowden, who attended via live video feed from Russia.

Watch Carr’s last interview:

During the interview, Carr asked Snowden how he felt about putting his life at stake.

“I think everyone involved has paid some cost or another,” Snowden humbly replied.  “I can’t live with my family nowadays, I can’t go back to my home.. there’s a lot of things, but it’s incredibly satisfying to be a part of something larger than yourself. And there is a tremendous sense of peace that comes from doing what you believe is the right thing to do.”

Later, Carr asked Greenwald about our world ranking in relation to freedom of the press.Reporters Without Borders finds that the United States sits in the high 40’s in the rankings; edged out by El Salvador, Botswana, and France, just to name a few. The ranking of some countries has been affected by a tendency to interpret national security needs in an overly broad and abusive manner to the detriment of the right to inform and be informed. This trend constitutes a growing threat worldwide and is even endangering freedom of information in countries regarded as democracies, such as the United States.

“We are leading the free world from the rank of 49.” Greenwald commented sarcastically.

Also mentioned, Snowden waited before he leaked the NSA’s spying protocol. He wanted to see what Obama was really all about, if he was truly serious about a transparent presidency or not. Carr had also wondered. They came to the conclusion that Obama’s administration is the worst in our history in terms of transparency.

During the interview’s wrap-up, free options that ordinary citizens can use to keep their privacy more secure by protecting their transmissions were mentioned, such as phone encryption and the TOR browser.

Snowden then candidly reminded watchers that if the government targets you specifically, they won’t just catch things as they pass by on the Internet, they will embed themselves into your devices; your smart phone, your computer, even ‘your new Samsung tv, they’re listening to you as it sits in your living room.’

Snowden insisted that we need to create standards that protect everyone and we need to enforce them. Also, we need to enforce our rights. Snowden called on companies like Googleand Facebook to stand up and protect their users rights, saying, “If the government wants to investigate someone, they need to do it the old-fashioned way.”

[Watch] Reporter Interviews Edward Snowden, Dies Suddenly Later That Night

An autopsy has since revealed that David Carr died from complications from lung cancer and heart disease. His conversational, analytic, and humorous writing style will be missed by his readers and colleagues. He was a reporter’s reporter, Carr didn’t just write about journalism — he practiced it, taking on media heavyweights with in-depth pieces that exposed wrongdoing.

NBC News Knew Brian Williams Was ‘Pathological’ Liar

NBC News Knew Brian Williams Was ‘Pathological’ Liar

NBC

by JOHN NOLTE

According to Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, NBC News executives knew Brian Williams had a problem with the truth but the infrastructure wasn’t in place to do anything about it. Per Dowd, things were so bad with Williams that his “flourishes to puff himself up” became “a joke in the news division.”

HIS was a bomb that had been ticking for a while.

NBC executives were warned a year ago that Brian Williams was constantly inflating his biography. They were flummoxed over why the leading network anchor felt that he needed Hemingwayesque, bullets-whizzing-by flourishes to puff himself up, sometimes to the point where it was a joke in the news division.

But the caustic media big shots who once roamed the land were gone, and “there was no one around to pull his chain when he got too over-the-top,” as one NBC News reporter put it.

It seemed pathological because Williams already had the premier job, so why engage in résumé inflation? And you don’t get those jobs because of your derring-do.

I would argue that things were much worse than that. The truth is that things got so bad and out of control at NBC News that as recently as last Friday Williams was able to retell for the umpteenth time his lie about being shot down over Iraq on the NBC Nightly News.

Ex-CIA officer convicted of leaking secrets to reporter

Ex-CIA officer convicted of leaking secrets to reporter

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — For years, ex-CIA case officer Jeffrey Sterling was the one under indictment but prosecutors’ primary focus of pursuit was journalist Jeffrey Risen.

Prosecutors believed Sterling leaked details to Risen about one of the government’s most closely held secrets: a secret CIA mission to derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions by giving them deliberately flawed blueprints.

Risen, though, wouldn’t divulge his sources. Prosecutors sought court orders forcing Risen to testify, saying their job would be immeasurably more difficult without his testimony.

Ultimately, though, prosecutors won their case without Risen. On Monday, Sterling was convicted in federal court on all nine charges he faced after a two-week trial in which Risen never made an appearance.

Experts said the trial shows the government can pursue leak investigations without relying on recalcitrant reporters.

At issue in the two-week trial: Who told Risen about the mission, one that former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified was one of America’s best chances to derail Iran’s nuclear-weapons ambitions?

The case was delayed for years as prosecutors fought to force Risen to divulge his sources. Risen eventually lost his legal battle to quash a government subpoena. But prosecutors ultimately decided not to call him to testify after the Justice Department, bowing to pressure from free-press advocates, promised it would not ask Risen sensitive questions about his sources.

Lacking Risen’s testimony, prosecutors acknowledged a lack of direct evidence against Sterling, 47, of O’Fallon, Missouri, but said the circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming.

Defense lawyers had said the evidence showed that Capitol Hill staffers who had been briefed on the classified operation were more likely the source of the leak.

Following the verdict, defense lawyer Edward MacMahon said he was disappointed, but “we still believe in Jeffrey’s innocence.” Sterling will have the option to appeal his case after he is sentenced in April. Motions to dismiss the case on various legal grounds are also still pending in front of the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema.

Lucy Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland‘s journalism school and former director of theReporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said she was not surprised by the verdict, which followed days of testimony from CIA officials who testified without revealing their last names and from behind a gray screen that shielded their faces from the public. She called it groundbreaking in the sense that it showed how prosecutors are willing to pursue such cases without reporters’ cooperation.

“They’re going to use this case to terrify federal employees. They’re going to use this case to teach the intelligence community a lesson” about the consequences of leaks, she said.

The Obama administration has brought more leak cases than all of his predecessors combined. U.S. Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who leaked more than 700,000 secret military and diplomatic documents to the WikiLeaks website, was convicted at a military trial and sentenced to military prison.

Other cases were resolved before trial. Former CIA officer John Kiriakou pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 months in prison for disclosing to a reporter the name of an undercover agency officer. Thomas Drake, who worked for the National Security Agency, disclosed government waste and fraud to a reporter. He pleaded guilty to a minor charge and did not receive prison time.

A former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, was charged with leaking to journalists but received asylum in Russia.

Going back earlier, Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin received a 12-year sentence after a guilty plea for leaking classified information to a reporter and two pro-Israel Lobbyists, though his sentence was later reduced significantly.

French Police: Gun Control Isn’t Work For Us!

French Police: Gun Control Isn’t Work For Us!

Muslim Terrorist in Paris

Following the deaths of two French police officers during the January 7 Charlie Hebdoattack and another officer death during an attack the following day, French police are demanding more guns and guns that are more powerful.

The situation during the Charlie Hebdo attack was very lopsided–in favor of the terrorists–because of current policing and arms policy. Breitbart News reported that “unarmed Paris police officers” were forced to flee when confronted with the armed attackers. UK’s Independent reported that “three policemen arrived [at the scene of the attack] on bikes but had to leave because [the attackers] were armed.” A policeman assigned to the duty of body guard to Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier was killed, and an officer on a mountain bike was gunned down.

The Associated Press reports French police unions met with Interior Ministry officials on January 19, seeking to take the advantage away from terrorists and other attackers. The unions demanded “more” guns and “heavier” guns, as well as “protective gear, better training for first-responders, and more legal tools to guard against terrorists.”

The violence and death French police endured over a two-day period because of gun control is a perfect microcosm of the violence and death gun control has caused on larger scale in other European countries, like England. On September 24 Breitbart News reported that gun control had made England “the most violent country in Europe.”

In 2009, twelve years after England’s most stringent gun controls were enacted, the Daily Mail reported “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins   Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Paris mayor threatens to sue Fox News, faces uphill fight

Paris mayor threatens to sue Fox News, faces uphill fight

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo poses near a banner which reads 'Charlie Hebdo, Honorary citizen of Paris' displayed in front of the Paris City Hall January 9, 2015. REUTERS-Jacky Naegelen
Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo poses near a banner which reads ‘Charlie Hebdo, Honorary citizen of Paris’ displayed in front of the Paris City Hall.

(Reuters) – The mayor of Paris on Tuesday said she intended to sue Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News over insults she said the U.S. cable television network hurled at the French capital following this month’s massacre at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper.

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Mayor Anne Hidalgo said Paris planned legal action because the city’s honor was “prejudiced” by Fox reports that wrongly suggested areas of the city were “no-go zones” that were closed to non-Muslims.

“The image of Paris has been prejudiced and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced,” Hidalgo said.

Fox on Saturday issued several apologies for statements made on-air that suggested such zones existed in Europe.

In one such apology, anchor Julie Banderas said the network “made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe,” and apologized “to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.”

It was not immediately clear where Paris might sue Fox, a division of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc.

Legal experts said the city faced an uphill legal fight, especially in the United States, which has strong protections for media against defamation and libel claims.

“I believe there is no cause of action in the United States, period,” said Jane Kirtley, a media law professor at the University of Minnesota.

“This is an example of someone from another country not recognizing the force of the First Amendment, which allows criticism of governmental entities,” she said, referring to part of the U.S. Constitution.

Kirtley said France has potentially more accommodative “insult” laws that could let government officials claim that published statements, even if truthful, assaulted their dignity.

But even if Paris prevailed in France, enforcing a judgment might be difficult, because a 2010 U.S. law called the Speech Act makes a variety of foreign libel judgments that conflict with U.S. laws unenforceable in U.S. courts.

“Even if a judgment were obtained in France, it would be impossible under American law to enforce it here,” said Robert Drechsel, a journalism professor who teaches media law at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Michael Clemente, Fox News’ executive vice president of news, said in a statement on Tuesday: “We empathize with the citizens of France as they go through a healing process and return to everyday life. However, we find the mayor’s comments regarding a lawsuit misplaced.”

Gunmen on Jan. 7 stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing 12 people to avenge cartoons they said had mocked Islam.

(Reporting by Jennifer Saba and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Toni Reinhold, Leslie Adler and Howard Goller)

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

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 defense 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.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest White House

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.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and 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.”

In December, Congress approved and the president signed a $585 billion defense budget to train and equip soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to defend Americans — including journalists — from foreign threats. The nation’s media industry does not have a defense budget to protect soldiers.

Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty.

Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters.

The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

He repeated the two-fisted formulation a moment later. ”What won’t change is our view that that freedom of expression in no way justifies an act of violence against the person who expressed a view. And the president considers the safety and security of our men and women in uniform to be something worth fighting for,” he said.

Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.

But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said.

Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to shift the public’s focus away from the jihadi threat toward his domestic priorities.

He also repeatedly praised Islam and Muslims, and criticized criticism of Islam. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told a worldwide TV audience during a September 2012 speech at the United Nations.

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he declared in a 2009 speech in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar [seminary] — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” he claimed.

Obama ha also tried to elevate the status of Islam in the West. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he told his audience in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

To reduce the public’s focus on jihadis, Obama has even named the jihadi threat as a non-specific issue of “violent extremism,” and has repeatedly said jihadis have no connection with Islam. “Those who have studied and practiced this religion would tell you — Islam is a peaceful religion. … [Violent acts are] entirely inconsistent with the basic principles of that peaceful religion,” Earnest said Jan. 12.

But that claim of a peaceful Islam was repeatedly coupled with Obama’s policy of pressuring journalists not to anger aggressive Muslim believers. ”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform,” Earnest said.

“I wouldn’t rule out making those kinds of expressions again,” he added.

Follow Neil on Twitter

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

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

He won’t defend Christians, Jews, Or Christmas But Stands Up For Islam

by NEIL MUNRO

Obama Muslim dressed like Islam supports

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.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of tho 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and 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.”

In December, Congress approved and the president signed a $585 billion defense budget to train and equip soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to defend Americans — including journalists — from foreign threats. The nation’s media industry does not have a defense budget to protect soldiers.

Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty.

Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters.

The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

He repeated the two-fisted formulation a moment later. ”What won’t change is our view that that freedom of expression in no way justifies an act of violence against the person who expressed a view. And the president considers the safety and security of our men and women in uniform to be something worth fighting for,” he said.

Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.

But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said.

Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to shift the public’s focus away from the jihadi threat toward his domestic priorities.

He also repeatedly praised Islam and Muslims, and criticized criticism of Islam. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told a worldwide TV audience during a September 2012 speech at the United Nations.

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he declared in a 2009 speech in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar [seminary] — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” he claimed.

Obama ha also tried to elevate the status of Islam in the West. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he told his audience in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

To reduce the public’s focus on jihadis, Obama has even named the jihadi threat as a non-specific issue of “violent extremism,” and has repeatedly said jihadis have no connection with Islam. “Those who have studied and practiced this religion would tell you — Islam is a peaceful religion. … [Violent acts are] entirely inconsistent with the basic principles of that peaceful religion,” Earnest said Jan. 12.

But that claim of a peaceful Islam was repeatedly coupled with Obama’s policy of pressuring journalists not to anger aggressive Muslim believers. ”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform,” Earnest said.

“I wouldn’t rule out making those kinds of expressions again,” he added.

Follow Neil on Twitter

Brian Williams Says About His Daughter’s Analingus Scene ‘No Animals Were Harmed’

Brian Williams Says About His Daughter’s Analingus Scene ‘No Animals Were Harmed’

Screenshot/HBO Girls

During Sunday night’s season premiere of HBO’s Girls, Lena Dunham and company once again pushed the boundaries with a racy sex scene in which Allison Williams was on the receiving end of… well… the receiving end.

The show’s cast seemingly hopes to create a new normal in revolutionizing television, and scene’s like Williams’s, pictured above, will spearhead the show to the front of the movement, while focusing on the “backs” of its characters.

Vulture spoke to Allison about the episode; she revealed that she went to her parents for advice, beforehand, on how to approach filming the scene.

“I got some advice from my parents, because they too are veterans of the show, so their thinking has changed as well,” she said. “Just your regular dinner conversation! We’re changing as a family; it’s lovely.”

Allison also told Entertainment Weekly about the elaborate preparations for the simulated sex act, which reportedly involved Spanx, menstrual pads, and “two of those weird thongs.”

“It’s total TV magic,” she said.

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, Allison’s father, weighed in on the release of the new season’s first episode, in which his daughter, who was recently panned for her performance in Peter Pan Live, was the subject of the indecent act.

During the interview, Williams was asked how he felt about his daughter’s performance in the scene, which aired while Sunday evening’s Golden Globe awards were being hosted in Los Angeles.

“She’s always been an actress. For us, watching her is the family occupation and everybody has to remember it’s acting, no animals were harmed during the filming, and ideally nobody gets hurt,” he explained.

Lena Dunham, creator and writer of the series, said that she’s proud of Allison for being a “good sport,” and offered some insight as to how personal something like the aforementioned sex act actually is.

“Let me tell you this, when someone puts their face in your butt, whether there’s a barrier or not, their face is still in your butt. And she handled that with aplomb,” said Dunham.

Zosia Mamet, who plays Shoshanna Shapiro on the show, said she understands that Dunham and the other writers wouldn’t incorporate anything that’s “uncomfortable or scary” into the script, unless it served a purpose.

“So whenever she writes something that’s uncomfortable or scary, we just roll up our sleeves and we can’t wait to do it for her and for our show. It’s not just, you know, a little eatin’ out from behind. It matters!” she said.

According to cast member Alex Karpovsky, there’s a sexual revolution evolving this year, and this episode may be a representation of what to expect in the future of television.

“Maybe that’s one of the cliffs or peaks that we need to begin to incorporate into our societal representation of this revolution, specifically in television. This could be the year of the anus,” he said.