« Rabbi Convicted Of Molestation | Main | Haredi Rabbis Ban Mishpacha Magazine »

May 05, 2011

Hasidic Paper Removes Hillary Clinton From Osama Picture

Situation Room Osama Bin Laden Hit Hillary Clinton in picture 5-5-11 Di Tzitung cuts Hillary Clinton out of the iconic picture of government leaders watching the Bin Laden hit.

Di Tzitung's photoshopped version of the picture:

Der Tzitung Hillary Clinton's pic removed 5-5-11

The unaltered picture:

Situation Room Osama Bin Laden Hit Hillary Clinton in picture 5-5-11

Der Tzitung's photoshopped picture with my annotations showing where Hillary Clinton was actually sitting:

Der Tzitung Hillary Clinton's pic removed 5-5-11 annotated

Update 10:43 pm CST – FGBA notes that the original picture was posted by the White House with the following caption and disclaimer (emphasis added):

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Seated, from left, are: Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Tony Binken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

[Hat Tip: Critical Minyan.]

 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill must be thinking, "if only it was that easy..."

There's another woman in the back that they also removed.

I'm surprised they left President Obama in the photo.

If this paper is Satmer, OBL's killing was not necessarily a good thing for them....


And, WSC, you are hysterical.

They wanted to protect Hillary from the embarrassing anxiety that she portrays. Or was it allergies????

I can't get their facts straight anymore.

WSC,

LMAO!

maybe it is not because of tzinius like they claim.

maybe the reason is they are afraid that if their wife's see this they will think i thought we where stupid and not able to be involved in such things.

a dangerous thought to the men

This is a collective clinical psychosis. There's no other way to see it. There's simply no way to say, "This is a valid alternate way of viewing reality."

Allowing them to raise their own kids is child abuse, but there's nothing to be done about it. There are too many of them now.

You know, Scott - between these people and the evangelicals, I really don't want to be in this world any more. They've spoiled it all for me. I mean, how can reality possibly be this way? How can human beings with functioning nervous systems behave like this? How are they even walking around, getting through life day-to-day? Why aren't they in psychiatric facilities? It's all just too much. I can't deal with it.

And WSC - yes, very funny. Or it would be, if weren't so bloody true.

Stupid post. What did you expect ?? A chareidi newspaper to leave the pictures of women in the paper ?

@a, you're an idiot for writing such nonsense.

Thanks to all!

The White House put this picture up on their Flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream

The description includes this notice:
"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."

However, the picture was photoshpped by many folks, some examples here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/
the-situation-room-meme-the-shortest-route-from-bin-laden-to-lulz/238251/

What is un-tznius-dick (emphasis on the 'dick') about Hillary or that other woman in the back?

Or do all women, no matter what, get removed from any photo?

And Darn, what the hell are you talking about, "embarrassing anxiety"? Amazing how political hacks will look for ways to insult the people in this photo.

"Softly, my Chasidic friend", said I. "That's where babies come from."

nu,not one chassid wrote to suggest maybe the hassidishe paper has the REAL picture and the other papers added hillary .

Posted by: FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican | May 05, 2011 at 10:06 PM

The other photoshopped images are satires or humor and may be exempt from the White House's restrictions on use.

But Der Tzitung's is not (intentional, at least) humor or satire and would seem to be in violation of the White House's restrictions on use.

Next time one of these imbeciles gets married and stands under a chupah, the decorous requirement should insist that the kallah be draped behind some curtain while a cutout of her likeness, with face obscured of course, be stationed next to the choson.
Now that level of ritual might elevate charaidism to the next level of kedusha. Or at the very least, offer an entre to chareidi sex with carboard cutie

Abe, don't give them ideas.

This is a bit silly. Secretary of State Clinton was not dressed immodestly. There was no intent of objectification in the photo. Haven't the editors got something better to do ?

fabulous and troubling.

Just to correct: The name of the paper should be transcribed "Der Zeitung" ("The Time" in Yiddish).

And for the person above who wondered if they thought killing Bin Laden was a good thing: The title in Hebrew is the biblical quote "when the wicked fall there is joy" - so yeah, they liked it.

Reading those newspapers makes one wonder how all these men were born. Are there any women in Williamsburg?

Also, did they fondle and rape these women before removing them from the photos?

It would be better if they censor photos of male children instead of photos of adult females.

It's not the first time. There was another picture of Hillary with some rabbis in a kitchen, where there was a reflective steel table. I forget which publication. She was photoshopped out of the picture, but they left the fuzzy reflection of her bright-red dress on the tabletop. "You cannot see me, for no frummer Yiddele may see me and live, but you can see my aftereffect".

Posted by: FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican | May 05, 2011 at 10:06 PM

The other photoshopped images are satires or humor and may be exempt from the White House's restrictions on use.

But Der Tzitung's is not (intentional, at least) humor or satire and would seem to be in violation of the White House's restrictions on use.

Posted by: Shmarya | May 05, 2011 at 10:24 PM

1)How do you know they didn't ask permission from the White House to photoshop the women out of the picture?
2)Photoshoping the picture for religious purposes might still fall under fair use or similar exemption to copyright law.
3)Altering the image creates a potential civil liability if and when White House lawyers might decide to sue them (which might happen as soon as hell freezes over since the whole point of the restrictions was to prevent the photoshoping to be used for propaganda in political campaigns that would imply endorsement by Obama so admit that you are picking on them just to score more points against the Chareidim not because you really think they are being uber-criminal copyright violators.)

"What is un-tznius-dick (emphasis on the 'dick') about Hillary or that other woman in the back?"

Her hair is uncovered. I mean dude, where have you BEEN?

Anyone who would be sexually excited by a picture of Hillary is seriously ill. What am I saying? All these haredim ARE seriously ill...or at least delusional.

I assume, when she flies on a plane, that no haredim are allowed to sit next to her.

Jeff:
I can stop the world for you if you'd like to get out...

The paper also removed the woman hiding in th back (top right corner)

A Yid:
I don't know if the newspaper,
http://ditzeitung.com
which claims to be the Yiddish paper of record, sought permission to alter the picture. But doesn't altering a picture no longer make it a "record"? If the editors thought their readers should not see the picture, they should just not have run it.

About the White House getting upset, I can it it now:
"Hello SEAL Team Six? This is Hilary. Look, there are these idiots in Brooklyn who don't know how to put out a newspaper of record. Do you think you could send out a few of your folks to explain to them what publishing a newspaper of record means?"

You got it wrong, the reason they photshoped Hillary’s and the other woman photo was, to remove the idea that woman could be in a leadership position, nothing about tzinius, Seymour you are on the right track.

Wait, so if they took Hillary Clinton out of the picture, then who do they think the Secretary of State is?

I'm surprised they didn't Photoshop a burka over her, given their attitude towards women is not so different than Bin Laden's.

I just heard from a frind that not only are herideim changing prictures to fit theirm crazy idea, they started editing the torah to.

In the new herdie torah it say and god created man and then omitted all reference to his wife, and other woman of the torah.

++David | May 06, 2011 at 10:45 AM++

Audrey Tomason, Director for Counterterrorism; also does not exist in the frumma world.

Wait, so if they took Hillary Clinton out of the picture, then who do they think the Secretary of State is?

Posted by: Trisha Lynn | May 06, 2011 at 11:39 AM

They don't ask the question. They don't know there is a Secretary of State because they don't understand (or care) how the Government works.

I'm surprised they didn't Photoshop a burka over her, given their attitude towards women is not so different than Bin Laden's.

Posted by: Zusya | May 06, 2011 at 11:50 AM

It is only a matter of time before the frumma wear the burka. Hell, a handful already do. You are right when you say Bin Laden's view aren't so different. Examples in Bnei Brak or Mea Sharim with their modesty/shabbat/chastity squads and insane kabbalistic, psak din chumrot. Halakha is no longer kosher.

What if Hillary were the President, would they still remove her from all photos..? They are not very evolved thinkers...

Isn't it funny that the fundamentalist, radical religious zealots from ALL religions identify themselves by the differences between religions....

They are ALL THE SAME, when it comes to rhetoric and mistreatment of women and minorities. No matter how much a group of people is persecuted NOTHING gives them the right to persecute others....

Flipping jews! /s

Very true, Albert. The only thing I'd add is that Jews should know better. We've been on the receiving end so many times you'd think we'd understand that dehumanization, oppression and hatred are wrong. Some yidden get it. Others just wake up with enormous erections dreaming of the day they get to hold the whip.

Other violations: They left in the ties!!!!

Where do the editors get taught these photoshop skills? YU?!

There is no Halacha that I am aware of that would be violated by printing the original picture showing the two ladies. So what EXACTLY is the point that these non-Jewish imposters are trying to make by deleting their images? Will the US Government sue them for breach of the distribution conditions?

Someone should send the doctored photo to Jay Leno. He would show it on his Monday night 'headlines' segment.

the guy is good in photoshop hahaha

@WoolSilkCotton so, you're saying Obama is like a woman, and in saying this, you're implying women are less than men. So, you're a misogynist. (That means a woman hater.) This makes you no better than the idiot religious zealots who shopped the women out of the picture in the first place.

hmm. "godly" Jews acting without Trust in God? I think so. Good job brethren. I am so proud to say you are fellow Jews. Huh?

Very amusing how in some cases frum Jews are little different to frum Muslims.

Why would they do this i start to ask do they have somthing to hide?

Are we sure the Whitehouse didn't photoshop her in in the first place?

Religious bigotry at its most asinine

Stupid Jews. What a dumb religion.

Where do the editors get taught these photoshop skills? YU?!

Posted by: ShockedMizrahi | May 07, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Whilst the Charedim largely lack useful skills, it may be that they have a person specially trained in computer graphics to manipulate pictures of this kind, and, more importantly, use these same skills to forge documents for the purpose of welfare fraud etc..

More comments and opinions on this (crazy they thought they could get away with it): […]

Posted by: Alan C | May 08, 2011 at 04:59 AM

Lets see.

You steal my work, use it without attribution and then try to use my blog to increase traffic to your theft.

That is so completely obnoxious I'm deleting your comment and banning you.

Seriously - wtf is wrong with those jackasses?

Both women are removed.

Why photoshop them out? That took a lot of work, even to do badly.

If it's obviously objectionable content based on your religion/world view/editorial slant/crazy/etc then a simple black box over them or highly pixelated area should do. Yes, it's more obvious, but that's kind of the point. It's part of the visual lexicon in news. When we watch the news and see an image obfuscated it's either to protect the identity of the subject or to avoid showing something that the editors deem harmful/illegal upsetting.

But photoshopping something out? That's simply lying. Why publish the photo at all? It's much harder to damn a newspaper for omission than for downright lying.

That newspaper's target audience are automatons with no concept or connection to the rest of the planet. It is of no consequence to anyone reading that paper as to who is in that photo.

That's the critical feature of reality. It is still there even when you pretend it is not.

Shmarya

it's not nice to steal from other sites and take credit for it. Tell that to "critical minyan."

and the name is Di Tzeitung. Not "Der."

i see they deleted the page from there website.
see www.ditzeitung.com

Thank G-d for our Judeo-Chr-stian tradition and its respect for women. I am unceasingly disgusted by the ever-lower depths of misogyny to which the Islamofascists continually sink. Oh, wait ...

"Just to correct: The name of the paper should be transcribed "Der Zeitung" ("The Time" in Yiddish)."

Actually it should be transcribed as "Die Zeitung", the gramatical gender of Zeitung being female...

I hope the White House pursues the fact that they specifically forbid manipulation in the photo release. Rewriting history like this to conform to your idea of what reality "should" be is just the first step down the road to evil, Big-Brother-esque control.

Matzav didn't take it from Shmarya

Shmarya took it from my website, or, as he claims, from someone who took it from my website. But let him get the credit. That's what he does best.

I don't read your blog, Herschel.

As you know, a couple years ago you printed complete falsehoods about me and then refused to retract them or correct them. I even gave you the name of a Chabad shaliach who could confirm that I was telling you the truth.

But you didn't care about the truth, now did you?

All you cared about was smearing me. You wouldn't ask the shaliach and you wouldn't do even the simplest level of fact checking. You just continued to lie and to smear me.

Now, time passes and you indignantly want me to credit you for this picture.

So I asked my source and he told me where he got the picture from and it wasn't from you. (It wasn't his original, either, and I chastised him for that.)

Unlike you, I cite my sources and I link to them – and I also tell the truth. I don't publish lies about people I don't like. But you do. You lie and you cheat and you smear.

Sorry my source wasn't you, and sorry my source's source wasn't you, either. Maybe down the food chain somewhere, one of your readers took it from you. Or maybe you took it from them.

Lord knows, you do not have a track record of honesty.

The most amusing thing about this whole episode is that if you look closely at the full-res image on flickr, you can see that Clinton's eyes are actually the focal point of the entire photo.

That is to say: The photographer actually took a photo of Clinton. Everyone else is filler, atmosphere and context supporting a shot of Clinton's facial expression.

To airbrush her out leaves the photo empty. It'd be like taking a photo of your house then airbrushing the house out of it.

Shmarya, a lot of sites will put their name emblazoned on a photo, so if someone tried to use it elsewhere, the original site's name would be on it.

It's like the photographer's proofs that you pick from when you had your portrait taken and now must pick which shot you like best; he stamps each photo 'proof' so you can't just keep the photos.

Perhaps you could find out about doing the same with photos exclusive to FM.

So Der Zeitung publishes a picture of people in the White House that has been deliberately falsified.

What part of Exodus xx:16 do they not understand?

Well done Charedim! You make real Jews look like a bunch of idiots, AGAIN.

But why? Even Wim Heitinga is puzzled.

Great work!

You know, even Chabad allows the printing of pictures with both sexes in them...

It's not just that these automatons deleted Clinton and the other lady. They actually created part of the image of the fellow sitting to Clinton's right. Can someone remind me how this forgery of history could possibly be halachically permissible?

Shmarya, may I suggest you ask them for a "please explain".

You know, even Chabad allows the printing of pictures with both sexes in them...

Yes, but they see themselves as very liberal for doing so.

And as all "Torah True" yidden know, Chabadniks aren't really frum.

I was thinking they should take all the men out of the photos for the chasidic women that read the paper.

I'm a little skeptical of this story because (a) it seems super-bizarre (it isn't as though they expect men to be reading this newspaper while davening) and (b) the title of the newspaper is "The Newspaper"? (which is what "tzitung" means) and (c) "tzitung" is feminine, and "the newspaper" is "die tzitung", not "der tzitung".

Anyone know how I can get a copy of the photoshopped pic (legally)?

just goes to show that there are nut case zealots in EVERY religion

Jews, muslims, same difference: irrational, delusional, woman-hating primitives.

Anyone know how I can get a copy of the photoshopped pic (legally)?

Posted by: Michele Chabin | May 09, 2011 at 06:57 AM

Impossible. The Photoshoped picture is an illegal violation of the original Whitehouse distribution conditions.

Shmarya

He's lying. Your sources are as bad as you are. The proof is that he got the name wrong, just like you and all the other hundreds of sites that made the same mistake as you, since they never actually SAW THE ORIGINAL PICTURE!

nobody else had it

it's from me.

(And the story about you that I wrote to explain your baffling obsession with SMR is 100% true and you know it.) But I'm happy you got credit for the Chilul Hashem and not me.

Are the folks that fear this crap, and inflict it upon those they raise dead yet?

I find myself more and more interested in the side argument going on between HT and Shmarya. I came for the Photoshop controversy, I stayed for the thievery controversy.

"... the newspaper Der Tzitung, described by the Jewish Week as "ultra-Orthodox," has a policy of never printing photos of women in its pages because it thinks they could be sexually suggestive."

They aren't trying to be controversial, they're just trying to stick to a standard. It's only like a rated version of a movie, get over it people. It's not that big of a deal. Maybe they should have just blurred them instead, but someone wanted to show off their photoshop skills. Come on now.

"...policy of never printing photos of women in its pages..". ok, but the honorable thing to do would be to not try to falsify the picture, but simply blank out the women in an obvious way. Not simply try to imply that the two women weren't there. That seems to me to be a gross breach of journalistic ethics.

They are just trying to keep a women from being seen in a position of authority or power as her face is covered. It should meet those type of standards.

Why didn't they just photoshop a burqa onto Mrs. Clinton's face? These fanatical people, I hesitate to call them Jews because they aren't, are no better than the Taliban.

This is pure ignorance.....nothing more, nothing less.

dont bye there worthless paper


(And the story about you that I wrote to explain your baffling obsession with SMR is 100% true and you know it.) But I'm happy you got credit for the Chilul Hashem and not me.

Posted by: HT | May 09, 2011 at 09:11 AM

You lie and lie and lie and somehow think you can get away with it.

What you posted about me two years ago was not true and the fact that it was not true was easy to verify.

But you chose not to verify it, and you chose to continue to lie.

I never lived in Rubashkin's basement, used his car, ate his food, received his charity, needed his charity, etc. Those are all lies you and your buddies invented to make seem ungrateful to man who had 'given me' so much. But they were all lies, Hershel, lies of your own making.

Just like I told you two years ago, I'll tell you again: You can call Chabad's local head Rabbi Feller or his son Mendel to verify what I'm saying.

But in your warped little world, smearing those you hate is more important that telling the truth, now isn't it?

They could have put a burqa on the two women in the photo and then they would have stooped to the same level as the Taliban. Are these creepy people so easily arosed that they can't look at women? No market for Viagra or Cialis amongst these fanatics.

As repugnant as this is, I have to question whether the White House's restrictions on use of the picture have any legal force. Works produced by the federal government are automatically in the public domain. Sometimes this is dodged by having the work performed by a contractor, who then assigns their copyright to the government... which is a questionable practice in itself, but common.

This is exactly what the dreaded Taliban would do.

BTW, is the headline--"b'ivud resha'im rinah"--referring to bin Laden, or to the "lost" women?

Such actions make me worried for reputation of Jews. Promoting modesty and morality is understandable and commendable. However, taking out the images of political leaders and, thus, misinforming readers about historical facts defies the whole purpose of having a newspaper. On top of that, gives bad reputation to the essence of Judaism. Thoughtless acts like this add to creation of antisemitism. As a Jew myself who studies Torah, I must say this is not what Torah teaches Jews to do. On the contrary, it teaches "not to put a stumbling block before the blind". And this is exactly what the editors of the paper did: by cutting out the images of women, they created a lie and misinformed their readers. Additionally, Torah teaches to think about consequences of one's actions and not to cause others to judge. In fact, causing others to judge or provoke negative actions is a sin for which we ask forgiveness on Yom Kuppur.
I hope the editors will recognize the mistake they made and will pray to be forgiven on this one. At the end we all make mistakes.

This religion extremism scares me. People who are scared of women scare me. And one question: women may inspire sexual thoughts in men, but where does picture leave women? What if a woman gets so excited she can no longer think straight after seeing so many men in a room? including a hunk in a spectacular uniform, mmh mmmh mmmhh Are Hasidic ladies totally a-sexual? Yeah...right....lollllll

Simply the best article to observe how fanatic jews and fanatic muslins are so alike .Does anyone sincerely see any diference in this kind of behavor ? not me , both create their own trueths , both want to impose their views , both use lies , both consider woman as an inferior human . I think this tell everything. Maybe because extremists like these , in both sides are in the power , the problem in the midle-east remains.

PLEASE do not think all Orthodox Jews think like this. My son is an Orthodox Rabbi and we are Orthodox and believe me this is not how we or anyone we know thinks. It is a shame but in ALL faiths we find those few who are just fanatics and they tend to make everyone else look bad :-(

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

----------------------

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!

----------------------

----------------

----------------

Please Scroll Down Toward The Bottom Of This Page For More Search Options And For A List Of Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Audio: Rabbi Eliezer Silver on Child Sexual Abuse.

Do you need help leaving an ultra-Orthodox community or navigating life outside one? Call Footsteps.

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar
Jibbadgefinalist

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

Comment Rules

  • 1. No anonymous comments.

    2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.

    3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.

    4. Do not sockpuppet.

    5. Try to argue using facts and logic.

    6. Do not lie.

    7. No name-calling, please.

    8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.

    ***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Rubashkin Protest Gear

  • Rubashkin_parody_1

    Buy one of these and wear it to shul. Other Rubashkin gear as well. Protest!
  • Rubashkin_label_parody_1

    Wear this amazing T-shirt to your local supermarket. Better yet, buy a dozen and bring your friends – with signs! Available here!

Older Posts Complete Archives

Search FailedMessiah

Lijit Search

----------------------

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!

----------------------

----------------------

FailedMessiah.com in the Media

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

RSS Feed

Blog Widget by LinkWithin