Hamas OPENLY Admits Intimidating Foreign Press

So, this terrorist group is openly admitting that Journalists should report it their way or it is the “highway.” The significant of this video admission is the fact that by labeling them as “pursuing the Zionist narrative, they were collaborating with the Zionist”, it proves that Hamas has been lying about what really is happening in Gaza. Of course, it has always been a method utilized by dictators and illegal terrorist groups to control the media because that is exactly how they are brainwashing their people to even support their cause. You see people like her and supporter of Hamas are not really civilized or support freedom of information. These people think that they are obligated to force their narration on others, which happens to be completely false and almost nothing but propaganda. Funniest part of this equation is the fact that UN and UNRWA are taking these false and fake reports produced by this terrorist group as fact. These Hamas supporters know full-well the level of the fraud that they are executing and that is why they see the need to intimidate the journalist and distort the truth. I have always said this, “if Palestinian claims to be just and truth, why do they always have to distort truth and facts in order to prove their point?” Israel conducted one of the most ethical military operations in the history of military conflicts and yet the world has decided to condemn her for protecting its citizens. This is the proof for Global Anti-Semitism that I have written about in my previous posts.

Three Moral Questions Raised

As the Operation Protective Edge is concluding, it is becoming more apparent that the Media did a horrendous job in terms of reporting the real issues and instead acted as Hamas Propaganda Mouth-piece. Of course, again, as I will explain later, pure global Anti-Semitism had a lot to do with it plus Muslim and Arab population that these Media were catering to in order to grab more viewers. A lot of reporters are speaking out against their treatment by Hamas in Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Operation.

Media was absolutely controlled by Hamas in those regions in order to provide fake images that Hamas wanted to provide to the world. Of course in today’s fast paste of communications, the news comes and grabs the shock value and sympathy regardless of its accuracy or the proper explanation. By the time these news items have been clarified, there are two or three news cycle over it and it gets lost in the explanation. What would be the result? Pure propaganda utilized to serve the global Anti-Semitic thirst. However, these three issues and the picture provide a glimpse of Media’s horrific coverage of Operation Protective Edge.

1) "Why don’t the media show the relatively open areas of the Gaza Strip?” He then poses a couple of answers. Firstly, it would reveal that Hamas could be firing rockets and building tunnels in these areas but has chosen not to. Or that Hamas won’t let the media access those areas. In either case, it would be something worth reporting.

2) “Why doesn’t Hamas use sparsely populated areas from which to launch its rockets and build its tunnels?” The answer here is crystal clear: Palestinian civilian casualties would decrease dramatically but the death of terrorist would do the opposite. Hamas uses civilians as shields – which their own battle manual mandates, completely the opposite of Israel. Simply put, this is a war crime and Hamas is therefore responsible for its own civilian deaths.

3) “Why does the United Nations try to shelter Palestinian civilians right in the middle of the areas from which Hamas is firing?” Why not use the sparsely populated areas for refuge? The result of this would be to deny Hamas the ability to use civilians as shields and lead to a dramatic reduction in the deaths of civilians. By not doing so, the UN supports precisely what Hamas intends: to force Israel to attack areas where UN-protected civilians are.

Hamas's Treatment of Media!

As the world is basically trying to condemn Israel for defending herself against a terrorist group, it is becoming more apparent of the level of hatred and fraudulent measures taken by Hamas to persuade global attitude toward Israel. Of course, global Anti-Semitism that is becoming more prevalent is not helping the situation either. Here is a small glimpse of a brave Spanish reporter describing Hamas's actions when it came to reporting the truth in Gaza.

A Spanish journalist told Israeli filmmaker Michael Grynszpan that the reason television news does not broadcast images of Hamas fighters in action is because of fear of immediate execution.

Grynszpan, who directed the film ‘Forgotten Refugees‘, about the 800,000 to 1 million Jews expelled from their homes in the Arab world in the 1950s, posted his interview with the unnamed Spanish journalist on Facebook on Wednesday.

“I met today with a Spanish journalist who just came back from Gaza. We talked about the situation there. He was very friendly. I asked him how come we never see on television channels reporting from Gaza any Hamas people, no gunmen, no rocket launcher, no policemen. We only see civilians on these reports, mostly women and children.”

“He answered me frankly: ‘It’s very simple, we did see Hamas people there launching rockets, they were close to our hotel, but if ever we dared pointing our camera on them they would simply shoot at us and kill us.’”

“Wooh, impressive. Then I asked him ‘Would you mind saying that on camera? I can film you explaining this…’”

“For some reason I cannot really understand, he refused and almost ran away. I guess my camera is as dangerous as Hamas threats…”

“So just for you to know, the truth will never appear on the images you see on television.”

Grynszpan‘s interview was flagged on Thursday by blogger Elder of Zion who compared the many reports of the dangerous intimidation endured by journalists from Hamas in Gaza to what was reported in 2006, at the hands of Hezbollah, in Lebanon.

“CNN’s Nic Robertson dutifully accompanied Hezbollah on a planned tour of a bombed out building, repeating Hezbollah’s talking points about not seeing any military targets there and not telling viewers that it was staged entirely by Hezbollah. Only when he was safely back in the U.S., and challenged on TV about his report, did he admit the truth,” the blogger said.

Robertson, as reported by Newsbusters, said on air: “Hezbollah has ‘very, very sophisticated and slick media operations,’ that the terrorist group ‘had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath,’ and he even contradicted Hezbollah’s self-serving spin: ‘There’s no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities.’”

But Elder of Ziyon also quoted the reporting of CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who he credited as being “the only one of scores of journalists who exposed the facade of impartiality while he was in Lebanon.”

“As the video showed a group reporters and photographers interviewing a single woman on a blanket, Cooper explained, ‘Civilian casualties are clearly what Hezbollah wants foreign reporters to focus on. It keeps the attention off them — and questions about why Hezbollah should still be allowed to have weapons when all the other militias in Lebanon have already disarmed.’”

“After letting us take pictures of a few damaged buildings, they take us to another location, where there are ambulances waiting.”

“This is a heavily orchestrated Hezbollah media event. When we got here, all the ambulances were lined up. We were allowed a few minutes to talk to the ambulance drivers. Then one by one, they’ve been told to turn on their sirens and zoom off so that all the photographers here can get shots of ambulances rushing off to treat civilians. That’s the story that Hezbollah wants people to know about.”

“These ambulances aren’t responding to any new bombings. The sirens are strictly for effect.”

Occupy L.A Cost the City Millions of Dollars

Ok, so let me get this straight, these bastards and freeloaders don’t have jobs and they don’t want to work, and now I have to also pay for their pure stupidity too?! As if the hard-working people are not paying their “fare-share” which is more than we all should, now they are also costing us additional money?!

The two-month encampment cost the city at least $2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday. Much of that cost -- more than $1.7 million -- will be added to the growing pool of red ink in this year's city budget. The Occupy bills will increase an anticipated $72-million shortfall over the next six months, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said.

Los Angeles Times

Seriously, I am sick of these whack-jobs Occupiers. I lived in Berkeley who had Occupiers EVERYDAY in People’s Park. You know what we called them?! We called them “BUMS” and/or “HOBOS”. Seriously, these Leftist Former Bastard of Children of Communism who are too lazy and/or stupid to get a job should stop blaming others and start looking for a job. You want to make your voice heard, stop destroying property and acting like Lunatics and start voting. If that’s not working, then stop voting all the way to the Left of the political spectrum. California went down the tube long looong time ago with Leftist agenda that were implemented in this state. Every single big business and corporation left this state because they could not take it anymore. Big and Small businesses are suffering everyday as a result of this state’s hostile attitude toward them. The Unions are the one who are assisting this state.
The Occupiers should seriously go back because with exception of Media and bunch of Leftist Wackiests who love this kind of movements, the American public quickly grew tired of them. They were super rude, disruptive and ignorant of other people. Not to mention they were incredibly dirty and they fell into every single stereo type they could possibly have when it comes to protesters. They were also instances of blatant Anti-Semitism. There were reports of Rape and sexual assaults in their camps. Media hated Tea Party Movement, but they were never like this. This is amazing. Tea Party Movement and their protests were never like this and yet the Media destroyed them. Yet, these Occupiers are being cheered like bunch of heroes when they are actually costing us a lot of money.
Either way, it really pissed me off when I saw that news article about additional cost to the city. The reason I am saying is that I live in this town. This town is broke already and there are many things wrong here. This town has already destroyed business through high taxes and parking tickets and anything and everything that could milk people. Why should we pay for these idiots?! Why did the city drop charges against these guys?! Why?! Now they are going back to their lives while we are stuck with the bill?! Seriously where is the justice in that?! Did Tea Party ever do anything like this?
I really hope Americans could come to their senses. It seems like as times are getting worse, sanity is also losing its grip and it is being replaced by Leftist Wacky Agenda that has produced nothing exception, death, starvation, mass murderers, and other global crisis every time it has been implemented.

Perfect Example of Mainstream Media’s Support for Obama

As a reader, please answer whether I am wrong to think like this at the comment section of this blog. I really want to know if I am just reading too much into this. Why is this not a Scandal? Why is it that only Fox News who is the Republican Mouthpiece, is the only Media outlet who is covering this story? If it was during Bush Administration, the Media would have ripped Bush a new one in terms of out of control corruption and lack of transparency claims. How many scandals did the media create during Bush’s Administration or events that they classified as “scandals?” During tough economic times, when our Debt is to the roof, the country is bankrupt, millions of dollars gets wasted and it is not considered a scandal? Yet, Obama administration and his loonytoons approves massive amount of money for this so-called Energy Saving company or Green Jobs, and the company went out of business after Millions of dollars were given to them and there was simply no results. What would have happened if Republicans have done that? Here is a quick summary:

Obama administration officials on Wednesday defended a $528 million loan to a solar-panel company that went bankrupt this month, claiming the firm fell victim to global economic trends but that federal investment in alternative energy must continue.
The testimony came as Republican and Democratic lawmakers raised sharp questions about the decision that ultimately left taxpayers on the hook for millions, and as newly released emails show administration officials were raising doubts about the loan proposal to Solyndra months before it was finalized.

This is a perfect example of failures of the Stimulus package and the Leftist agendas. The whole Green Job movement and government involvement to revive the economy through taking over it and passing out hand-outs simply WON’T WORK. Besides all the ideological failures that this news update proves, this is also the perfect proof that the Mainstream Media is in bed with Obama. They simply do not want to accept the fact that this has been one of the worst Presidents this country has ever seen. The Media is simply trying to get him re-elected and they are doing their best to try to cover for this guy. To be honest, they did get him elected on the first place when he simply had no qualifying job experience to ever be the president of this country.
My favorite moment comes from Oprah where she was so excited about him and she was pushing his agenda directly to her female audience that was the directly resulted in Hilary losing to this incompetent president in the Democratic Primaries. Then when they asked her couple of months ago about Obama’s approval, she responds, “I am not involved in Politics, I really do not know what is going on, therefore I cannot comment on Obama’s approval and job performance”. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? YOU ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS HE GOT ELECTED AND NOW YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN POLITICS?! In that case, you only helped him out because he was BLACK and Oprah you voted only based on racial preference and THAT MAKES YOU A RACIST!!!! If you are not involved in politics, then based on what criteria did you use your power to get this fool elected as the President of this country? If you are not involved in politics, what qualifications did you have to go to such extend and putting on those crazy shows about him? If you are not involved in politics, next time, please shut the hell up instead of trying to influence American Publics opinion. Well, no matter how much they try to cover Obama’s butt, there is one thing they could never do anything about which is unemployment rate which is above 9%. You could not lie about the unemployment rate and that is the perfect proof of the incompetency of this President.
At the end, I cannot predict what would happen on November of next year due to the fact that GOP has been taken over by Rightwing Extremists such as Perry and Bauchman. I do not know a lot about Perry and I am still trying to learn more about him, however he strikes me as a Nutjob. I like Mitt Romney but his chances of being the GOP candidate is slipping to the craziness involved in the extreme right. This is subject of another argument of why extremism is gaining more power in this country as oppose to sanity that we desperately need in these tough economic times.

So, am I being wrong here?

Read more on this story here.

Obama is a Loser

In 2008 when Obama was elected, I was not too thrilled. Obama has alienated a lot of this country’s allies. I saw right through his rhetoric from day one and realized that this guy is all talk. Oh well, two years into his presidency and our country is facing a crisis. This article summons it in the best way possible. Obama is a “loser” and that is why Americans do not like him.

The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."

Here is the link to the rest of the article. I believe this article explains Obama’s popularity in an honest fashion where Mainstream Media has failed to do due to their love affection with Obama. Remember, this is what happens when Media elects a president instead of the people.

Unknown Heroes Behind the Mission that Located Osama Bin Laden

This is an amazing story about a man who was behind the mission who captured the arch terrorist of our decade or possibly this century. Heroes like these never receive public acknowledgment of their success nor will they ever be publicly thanked by the main-stream Media. It has to do with these agents safety and security. However, some of it has to do with the fact that our society has lost touch with who are the true heroes of our society. They are more concerned about consumerist and pop-culture heroes or some dumb singers, actors, and/or activist doing something for publicity stunt and they hold them up as to be the icon of our society. However, heroes like these don’t need public recognition of their good work. I believe they get the true satisfaction when they can see the title “mission accomplish” and that would be more than enough for them. From bottom of my heart, I salute heroes like “John” and I thank them for their hard work. Here is the story from MSNBC.com:

WASHINGTON — After Navy SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden, the White House released a photo of President Barack Obama and his Cabinet inside the Situation Room, watching the daring raid unfold.
Hidden from view, standing just outside the frame of that now-famous photograph was a career CIA analyst. In the hunt for the world's most-wanted terrorist, there may have been no one more important. His job for nearly a decade was finding the al-Qaida leader. The analyst was the first to put in writing last summer that the CIA might have a legitimate lead on finding Bin Laden. He oversaw the collection of clues that led the agency to a fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. His was among the most confident voices telling Obama that Bin Laden was probably behind those walls.
The CIA will not permit him to speak with reporters. But interviews with former and current U.S. intelligence officials reveal a story of quiet persistence and continuity that led to the greatest counterterrorism success in the history of the CIA.
Nearly all the officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters or because they did not want their names linked to the Bin Laden operation.
The Associated Press has agreed to the CIA's request not to publish his full name and withhold certain biographical details so that he would not become a target for retribution.
Call him John, his middle name. John was among the hundreds of people who poured into the CIA's Counterterrorism Center after the Sept. 11 attacks, bringing fresh eyes and energy to the fight.
Disparate strands
He had been a standout in the agency's Russian and Balkan departments. When Vladimir Putin was coming to power in Russia, for instance, John pulled together details overlooked by others and wrote what some colleagues considered the definitive profile of Putin. He challenged some of the agency's conventional wisdom about Putin's KGB background and painted a much fuller portrait of the man who would come to dominate Russian politics.
That ability to spot the importance of seemingly insignificant details, to weave disparate strands of information into a meaningful story, gave him a particular knack for hunting terrorists. "He could always give you the broader implications of all these details we were amassing," said John McLaughlin, who as CIA deputy director was briefed regularly by John in the mornings after the 2001 attacks.
From 2003, when he joined the Counterterrorism Center, through 2005, John was one of the driving forces behind the most successful string of counterterrorism captures in the fight against terrorism: Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Nashiri, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Bin Alshib, Hambali and Faraj al-Libi. But there was no greater prize than finding Bin Laden. Bin Laden had slipped away from U.S. forces in the Afghan mountains of Tora Bora in 2001, and the CIA believed he had taken shelter in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.
In 2006, the agency mounted Operation Cannonball, an effort to establish bases in the tribal regions and find Bin Laden. Even with all its money and resources, the CIA could not locate its prime target.
By then, the agency was on its third director since Sept. 11, 2001. John had outlasted many of his direct supervisors who retired or went on to other jobs. The CIA doesn't like to keep its people in one spot for too long. They become jaded. They start missing things. John didn't want to leave. He'd always been persistent. In college, he walked on to a Division I basketball team and hustled his way into a rotation full of scholarship players.
The CIA offered to promote him and move him somewhere else. John wanted to keep the Bin Laden file. Champagne was uncorked at the CIA's headquarters after it was confirmed that Navy SEALs had killed Osama Bin Laden.
He examined and re-examined every aspect of Bin Laden's life. How did he live while hiding in Sudan? With whom did he surround himself while living in Kandahar, Afghanistan? What would a Bin Laden hideout look like today?
'We'll get there'
The CIA had a list of potential leads, associates and family members who might have access to Bin Laden. "Just keep working that list bit by bit," one senior intelligence official recalls John telling his team. "He's there somewhere. We'll get there." John rose through the ranks of the counterterrorism center, but because of his nearly unrivaled experience, he always had influence beyond his title. One former boss confessed that he didn't know exactly what John's position was. "I knew he was the guy in the room I always listened to," the official said. While he was shepherding the hunt for Bin Laden, John also was pushing to expand the Predator program, the agency's use of unmanned airplanes to launch missiles at terrorists.
The CIA largely confined those strikes to targets along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. But in late 2007 and early 2008, John said the CIA needed to carry out those attacks deeper inside Pakistan. It was a risky move. Pakistan was an important but shaky ally. John's analysts saw an increase in the number of Westerners training in Pakistani terrorist camps. John worried that those men would soon start showing up on U.S. soil. "We've got to act," John said, a former senior intelligence official recalls. "There's no explaining inaction." John took the analysis to then CIA Director Michael Hayden, who agreed and took the recommendation to President George W. Bush.
In the last months of the Bush administration, the CIA began striking deeper inside Pakistan. Obama immediately adopted the same strategy and stepped up the pace. Recent attacks have killed al-Qaida's No. 3 official, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, and Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. All the while, John's team was working the list of Bin Laden leads. In 2007, a female colleague whom the AP has also agreed not to identify decided to zero in on a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, a nom de guerre.
Other terrorists had identified al-Kuwaiti as an important courier for al-Qaida's upper echelon, and she believed that finding him might help lead to Bin Laden. "They had their teeth clenched on this and they weren't going to let go," McLaughlin said of John and his team. "This was an obsession." It took three years, but in August 2010, al-Kuwaiti turned up on a National Security Agency wiretap. The female analyst, who had studied journalism at a Big Ten university, tapped out a memo for John, "Closing in on Bin Laden Courier," saying her team believed al-Kuwaiti was somewhere on the outskirts of Islamabad.
Bigger picture
As the CIA homed in on al-Kuwaiti, John's team continually updated the memo with fresh information. Everyone knew that anything with Bin Laden's name on it would shoot right to the director's desk and invite scrutiny, so the early drafts played down hopes that the courier would lead to Bin Laden. But John saw the bigger picture. The hunt for al-Kuwaiti was effectively the hunt for Bin Laden, and he was not afraid to say so. The revised memo was finished in September 2010. John, by then deputy chief of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Department, emailed it to those who needed to know. The title was "Anatomy of a Lead."
As expected, the memo immediately became a hot topic inside CIA headquarters and Director Leon Panetta wanted to know more. John never overpromised, colleagues recall, but he was unafraid to say there was a good chance this might be the break the agency was looking for.
The CIA tracked al-Kuwaiti to a walled compound in Abbottabad. If Bin Laden was hiding there, in a busy suburb not far from Pakistan's military academy, it challenged much of what the agency had assumed about his hideout.
But John said it wasn't that far-fetched. Drawing on what he knew about Bin Laden's earlier hideouts, he said it made sense that Bin Laden had surrounded himself only with his couriers and family and did not use phones or the Internet. The CIA knew that top al-Qaida operatives had lived in urban areas before. A cautious Panetta took the information to Obama, but there was much more work to be done. The government tried everything to figure out who was in that compound.
In a small house nearby, the CIA put people who would fit in and not draw any attention. They watched and waited but turned up nothing definitive. Satellites captured images of a tall man walking the grounds of the compound, but never got a look at his face.
Again and again, John and his team asked themselves who else might be living in that compound. They came up with five or six alternatives; Bin Laden was always the best explanation.
This went on for months. By about February, John told his bosses, including Panetta, that the CIA could keep trying, but the information was unlikely to get any better. He told Panetta this might be their best chance to find Bin Laden and it would not last forever. Panetta made that same point to the president.
Panetta held regular meetings on the hunt, often concluding with an around-the-table poll: How sure are you that this is Bin Laden? John was always bullish, rating his confidence as high as 80 percent. Others weren't so sure, especially those who had been in the room for operations that went bad. Not two years earlier, the CIA thought it had an informant who could lead him to Bin Laden's deputy. That man blew himself up at a base in Khost, Afghanistan, killing seven CIA employees and injuring six others.
That didn't come up in the meetings with Panetta, a senior intelligence official said. But everyone knew the risk the CIA was taking if it told the president that Bin Laden was in Abbottabad and was wrong. "We all knew that if he wasn't there and this was a disaster, certainly there would be consequences," the official recalled.
Reassuring confidence
John was among several CIA officials who repeatedly briefed Obama and others at the White House. Current and former officials involved in the discussions said John had a coolness and a reassuring confidence.
By April, the president had decided to send the Navy SEALs to assault the compound. Though the plan was in motion, John went back to his team, a senior intelligence official said. "Right up to the last hour," he told them, "if we get any piece of information that suggests it's not him, somebody has to raise their hand before we risk American lives."
Nobody did. Inside the Situation Room, the analyst who was barely known outside the close-knit intelligence world took his place alongside the nation's top security officials, the household names and well-known faces of Washington.
An agonizing 40 minutes after Navy SEALs stormed the compound, the report came back: Bin Laden was dead. John and his team had guessed correctly, taking an intellectual risk based on incomplete information. It was a gamble that ended a decade of disappointment. Later, Champagne was uncorked back at the CIA, where those in the Counterterrorism Center who had targeted Bin Laden for so long celebrated. John's team reveled in the moment.
Two days after Bin Laden's death, John accompanied Panetta to Capitol Hill. The Senate Intelligence Committee wanted a full briefing on the successful mission. At one point in the private session, Panetta turned to the man whose counterterrorism resume spanned four CIA directors.
He began to speak, about the operation and about the years of intelligence it was based on. And as he spoke about the mission that had become his career, the calm, collected analyst paused, and he choked up.

Click here for the link to the story on MSNBC.com