Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2016

White House Censors Hollande’s Mention of Islamist Terrorism

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:53 pm



Ted Cruz often complains that President Obama “literally will not utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.'” Today, we learned that if another leader utters those words, the White House will censor them.

The White House website has censored a video of French Pres. Francois Hollande saying that “Islamist terrorism” is at the “roots of terrorism.”

The White House briefly pulled video of a press event on terrorism with Pres. Obama, and when it reappeared on the WhiteHouse.gov website and YouTube, the audio of Hollande’s translator goes silent, beginning with the words “Islamist terrorism,” then begins again at the end of his sentence.

Even the audio of Hollande saying the words “Islamist terrorism” in French have, apparently, been edited from the video.

According to the official White House transcript of Hollande’s remarks, Hollande refers to “Islamist terrorism.” The audio of the bold text in brackets is missing from the video – the only point in the video were the audio is absent:

“We are also making sure that between Europe and the United States there can be a very high level coordination.

“But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, [Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition.] And we note that Daesh is losing ground thanks to the strikes we’ve been able to launch with the coalition.”

See for yourself:

The White House blames all this on a technical glitch.

I gotta hand it to them. That’s some Trump-level gaslighting.

35 Responses to “White House Censors Hollande’s Mention of Islamist Terrorism”

  1. Almost didn’t mention Trump in a post. Caught myself just before hitting publish. Your welcome, as the Trumpeters would say.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. This is the most dishonest administration in US history. They passed Nixon years ago.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  3. That is some amazing timing on that technical glitch. Mrs. P. doesn’t buy it. And she is very charitable.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  4. it also makes no sense, it becomes a sentence fragment,

    narciso (732bc0)

  5. Obama’s technical issues and oversights always favor the Mohammedian narrative. But when the Dalai Lama or that Netanyahu guy visits the White House, they have to use the rear entrance next to the trash dump.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  6. Technical glitch my arse. Obama is a lying coward.

    JD (34f761)

  7. Technical glitch my arse. Obama is a lying coward.

    A-yup.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  8. i don’t think it was really a technical glitch at all

    happyfeet (831175)

  9. I wonder if someone could calculate the odds of a completely random Technical glitch coming at the precise time so as to censor a phrase and idea that is one of the single most objectionable phrases and ideas to this Administration. The odds would have to be even more incredible than Hillary winning 8+ consecutive coin flips and drawing the higher card in the primaries.

    JD (34f761)

  10. I wonder if someone could calculate the odds of a completely random Technical glitch coming at the precise time so as to censor a phrase and idea that is one of the single most objectionable phrases and ideas to this Administration. The odds would have to be even more incredible than Hillary winning 8+ consecutive coin flips and drawing the higher card in the primaries.

    Heh.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  11. Barack will read about the technical glitch in the newspaper tomorrow. He’ll become upset, and want to get to the bottom of it. Okay, well not that upset.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  12. This might be the same kind of technical glitch which caused the video of Barack’s speech at the farewell party for Rashid Khalidi to disappear into the basement vaults of the Los Angeles Times.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  13. #2… SPQR nailed it. I never would’ve dreamed a man like this would be elevated to POTUS. It’s a goddamned tragedy. The best case scenario is that the country – and much of the world – will spend years digging out from under the damage this sh*theel and his likeminded leftwing criminal cabal have wrought.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. most likely decades.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. Less than 10 months to go.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  16. what is striking it came from hollandaise, who was of a similar mindset, yes I know events intervened,

    narciso (732bc0)

  17. I wonder if someone could calculate the odds of a completely random Technical glitch

    Rosemary Woods could not be reached for comment.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. It isn’t Obama’s fault. All he said was “Who will rid me of that turbulent sentence.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. I never would’ve dreamed a man like this would be elevated to POTUS.

    And what are the odds it could happen twice in a row?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  20. Kevin, good reference but Obama could not carry Henry II’s jock strap.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  21. Of course it was a technical glitch—don’t you remember how badly we technically glitched the roll-out of the Obama Care Website a couple years ago?!!”

    —said White House spokespimp Josh Earnest, uh, NEVER.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  22. 1984, it’s not a cautionary tale for them, it’s an instruction manual,

    narciso (732bc0)

  23. Well sure, criticize! He has to play nice with them, and it works! We haven’t been bombed in, what …days! Leave my boyfriend alone!

    /April Fool’s

    Patricia (5fc097)

  24. #24 narciso,

    Yeah, but they’ll be JV TEAM nuclear drones!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  25. Did the white house blame Rose Mary Woods? Or, say the recording system has not been upgreaded since Nixon because w would not pay for it?

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  26. Greetings:

    And who’s the cheese-eating surrender-monkey now ???

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  27. Re: 27 – you are absolutely correct, the Obama admin is turning us all into fromage eaters.

    Steven Malynn (4bc33a)

  28. Kevin, good reference but Obama could not carry Henry II’s jock strap.

    SPQR (a3a747) — 4/1/2016 @ 9:25 pm

    Nor his cod piece, I’d wager…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. Who knows? Suspicious, yes – but the “infamous phrase” is there in the transcript, after all.

    And just for the record, the “foul deed”/glitch is slightly more odd than reported. (What, if anything to make of that is wholly up for grabs.) To wit, the only words for which audio is not present is the string “Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq.” Immediately following this, Holland continues, audibly saying (in French, as he is wont to speak) “And we therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition.”

    This is heard only in French (at the same sound-level as if it were coming from the interpreter and as if the interpreter’s audio had been dropped from the sound-track). No translation is heard of this phrase (beginning “And” and ending “coalition”). Then, Hollande’s actual words drop down to the normal “interpreter focused” sound level, and the interpreter finishes off.

    Go figure.

    mirabile dictu (f23190)

  30. The only technical glitch is that Obama is technically an asshole.

    If you’ll pardon my French.

    arik (02de93)

  31. It’s so strange how these “glitches” only run one way. They don’t occur randomly, as one would expect if they were really glitches, but instead these “glitches” always conform to Obama’s policies. Such as never associating Islam with terrorism. Because… Crusades!

    There’s a reason for this. Obama agrees with the Islamists, such as those at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting block at the UN. Terrorism is killing a Muslim without right. And according to the Sunnah of Muhammad the only just causes that give anyone that right are blood for blood, i.e. if a Muslim murders another Muslim, illegal sexual intercourse such as adultery, and apostasy.

    So by and large Muslims never commit terrorism. The Israelis, on the other hand, are terrorists when they shoot rubber bullets at rock throwers.

    Everything Obama has ever said or done shows that he’s on the side of our enemies. Look at his “historic” Iran deal. He gave away the store because he thinks Iran is right and we are wrong. He believes the world would be better off if America not only was diminished but if Americans have to live in fear of our enemies.

    That’s why this is the first administration to side with our enemies and go against the US Constitution and agree to support the OIC’s effort to make insulting Islam a crime by helping them pass UN resolution 16/18. The OIC has been trying to get this passed for decades. No other administration would agree, and they always vetoed it. No other administration actively hated this country before Obama. Although the OIC did change tactics just a bit to get Obama on board. They changed the language from “defamation” to “incitement;” any speech that is likely to incite religious violence is illegal hate speech.

    And what language doesn’t incite religious violence in the Islamic world. This, effectively, gives Muslims the veto over what others can say about Muslims, Islam, Muhammad, or Allah. The change in language isn’t a step up. If anything it’s a change for the worse. It adopts the language of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is legally binding on signatories, and the US signed on in 1992. The US signed on with the reservation that nothing in the ICCPR requires or permit the government to interfere with US citizens’ free exercise of constitutional rights. But all it’s going to take is a 5-4 decision that “hate speech” isn’t protected by the First Amendment and then 16/18 has legal force. Anything that causes Muslims to riot and kill is banned speech.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to-stand-with-charlie-hebdo/2015/01/08/ab416214-96e8-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html

    The biggest threat to French free speech isn’t terrorism. It’s the government.

    By Jonathan Turley

    Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

    …The French, of course, have not been alone in rolling back protections on free speech. Britain, Canada and other nations have joined them. We have similar rumblings here in the United States. In 2009, the Obama administration shockingly supported Muslim allies trying to establish a new international blasphemy standard. And as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton invited delegations to Washington to work on implementing that standard and “to build those muscles” needed “to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.” Likewise, in 2012, President Obama went to the United Nations and declared that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    The future once belonged to free speech. It was the very touchstone of Western civilization and civil liberties. A person cannot really defame a religion or religious figures (indeed, you cannot defame the dead in the United States). The effort to redefine criticism of religion as hate speech or defamation is precisely what Charbonnier fought to resist. He once said that by lampooning Islam, he hoped to make it “as banal as Catholicism” for the purposes of social commentary and debate…

    We need to understand something. When Obama talked about slandering “the prophet” of Islam, he chose his words carefully. Slander has a different meaning under Sharia than it does under US law. Slander under Sharia isn’t restricted to lying about someone. It also means revealing a truth that others would rather not be made public. Essentially Obama was agreeing with the OIC that it should be illegal to tell the truth about Muhammad, and by extension Islam.

    I’m not saying Obama is a “secret Muslim,” although Muslims would consider Obama a Muslim since there is no dispute both his father and his step-father were Muslims. It’s in Obama’s own autobiographies. That makes him a Muslim according to all schools of Sharia. This is precisely why, if you can recall events of 2014, Sudan sentenced Miriam Ibrahim to death. Because although she was raised a Christian her entire life her absentee father was a Muslim. That made her a Muslim.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/world/africa/sudan-apostasy-case/index.html

    …A Sudanese court considered Ibrahim a Muslim because her father was Muslim. She was charged with adultery, because a Muslim woman’s marriage to a Christian man is illegal in Sudan. She was also charged with apostasy, accused of illegally renouncing what was alleged to be her original faith…

    So while Obama may not have ever been a Muslim as far as he’s concerned, he is an apostate as far as sharia is concerned.

    It’s an interesting aside, perhaps, but it’s not necessary to explain why Obama is doing what he’s doing. He’s behaving exactly as one would expect for a liberal who spent long years in liberal universities. Both as a student and, as Obama keeps telling us, a “Constitutional law professor.” Edward Said, the infamous Islamic studies professor, asserted back in the 1970s that any Western criticism of Islam is by definition racism. Look at what’s going on across the country on college campuses now. Racist speech is hate speech, and should be banned.

    Obama has also said that he learned about the M.E. at the kitchen table of Rasheed Khalidi, Who, although Khalidi denies it, was a PLO spokesman.

    Obama is a walking, talking “greivance studies” department. The kind you’ll find at any university. If Edward Said and Rasheed Khalidi and others like them at campus Islamic grievance studies departments formed his views than his entire foreign policy as it pertains to the Islamic world is no surprise.

    And it shouldn’t be a surprise; as I’ve been saying since 2008 when he was still candidate Obama, he only ever wanted to be president of his enemies so he could help his friends.

    Obama will never say the words that connect Islam to terrorism because he believes that’s hate speech which should be illegal. So the GOP better hold the line on his SCOTUS appointment because Obama is one justice away from gutting the First Amendment.

    Steve57 (c4148b)

  32. Steve57,

    Obviously, there’s a reason the LA Times refused to release the video of Barack’s speech at Khalidi’s farewell party. He said crap that would damn him even among medium information voters.

    If he hadn’t said anything controversial, then the LA Times would have released it to PROVE that he hadn’t said anything controversial.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  33. or Carlos Slim’s taking gretchen morgenstern’s findings to heart

    https://twitter.com/DaveedGR/status/717080823456014336

    narciso (732bc0)

  34. Just in case anyone is interested I came across this analysis of the WH excuse that there was a “glitch” with the recording. But no deliberate sabotage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S7B5LS5cWs

    Did the Obama Administration Censor French President Hollande? (David Wood)

    Conclusion: the audio itself is conclusive proof that the WH is lying. There is no “glitch” that can explain what is clearly audible on the recording.

    Any news agency would know that the WH is lying. They have far better audio engineering facilities than the guy who did this analysis.

    But we all know they will cover for him despite the fact that the updated video exposes the fact that the WH press office is obviously lying to cover for their boss and they’re too technically inept to know that all the evidence that they’re lying is on their own damn video.

    Steve57 (c108f9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0982 secs.