Suddenly appearing among the Google search results for “sarah palin gay,” a web site titled: Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights.
Sarah Palin (GOV-Alaska-Republican), supports gay rights, says Anchorage Daily News.
Quote "Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples."
Quote ""It is the Governor’s intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin’s administration said."
Coghill said he’s interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person — maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate — who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to his or her benefits."
Sarah Palin’s veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska.
A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage.
Interesting. There’s nothing else on the page. This sure looks like the work of the dastardly right-wing anti-gay attack machine, doesn’t it?
But look who’s really behind this.
In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.
host sarahpalingayrights.com
sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232
Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.
host 74.208.74.232
232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com
Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?
And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browser’s address line?
Why, you’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site that’s supposed to be defending him against smears.
Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.
(Hat tip: sk.)
UPDATE at 8/30/08 11:14:12 am:
Here's another site that traces back to obamadefense.com: ObamaTaxCut.com.
UPDATE at 8/30/08 11:24:46 am:
Two more web sites that share the IP address of obamadefense.com:
John McCain opposes the new GI Bill, but why?
John McCain Prefers War
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Obama_Campaign_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site/
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault on Free Speech
Michelle Malkin
Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.
On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.
"Accountable America" is trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising. (You'll be interested to know that the official registered agent of Accountable America is Laurence Gold, a high-powered attorney for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) who has testified before the Senate complaining about the use of campaign finance laws to stifle the speech of union workers -- a pet cause of the ACLU.)
The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail:
"I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement..."
ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back:
"Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam."
My reply: "Pam -- Does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?"
On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.
So, I won't bother asking the ACLU's opinion of the latest wave of speech-squelching moves by the Obama campaign:
On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.
On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.
And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The "Obama Action Wire" supplied Rosenberg's call-in line and talking points like this:
"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. ... It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."
Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.
Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy.
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1019/pub_detail.asp
Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.
On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.
"Accountable America" is trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising. (You'll be interested to know that the official registered agent of Accountable America is Laurence Gold, a high-powered attorney for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) who has testified before the Senate complaining about the use of campaign finance laws to stifle the speech of union workers -- a pet cause of the ACLU.)
The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail:
"I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement..."
ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back:
"Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam."
My reply: "Pam -- Does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?"
On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.
So, I won't bother asking the ACLU's opinion of the latest wave of speech-squelching moves by the Obama campaign:
On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.
On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.
And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The "Obama Action Wire" supplied Rosenberg's call-in line and talking points like this:
"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. ... It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."
Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.
Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy.
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1019/pub_detail.asp
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Obama's Economic Fairytale
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- August 24, 2008 - Barack Obama has made his economic thinking excruciatingly clear, so it also is clear that his running mate should have been not Joe Biden, but Rumpelstiltskin. He spun straw into gold, a skill an Obama administration will need in order to fulfill its fairy-tale promises.
Obama recently said he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term -- more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."
By 2012 he would "require" the economy's huge energy sector to -- here things become comic -- supply half as much energy from renewable sources as already is being supplied by just one potentially renewable source. About 20 percent of America's energy comes from nuclear energy produced using fuel rods, which, when spent, can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.
Obama is (this is part of liberalism's catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says -- and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state -- he distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation -- nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.
But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.
Obama has also promised that "we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a tranquilizing verb "get" is. This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both -- billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would spurn.
Conservatives are sometimes justly accused of ascribing magic powers to money and markets: Increase the monetary demand for anything and the supply of it will expand. But it is liberals like Obama who think that any new technological marvel or other social delight can be summoned into existence by a sufficient appropriation. Once they thought "model cities" could be, too.
Where will the electricity for these million cars come from? Not nuclear power (see above). And not anywhere else, if Obama means this: "I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80 percent reduction by 2050."
No he won't. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes that in 2050 there will be 420 million Americans -- 40 million more households. So Obama's cap would require reducing per capita carbon emissions to levels probably below even those "in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood."
Regarding taxes, Obama says "we don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today's politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, "saving the planet," and promising edicts to "require" entire industries to reorder themselves?
In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign's scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: "Where's the outrage?" This year's campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?
georgewill@washpost.com
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
WASHINGTON -- August 24, 2008 - Barack Obama has made his economic thinking excruciatingly clear, so it also is clear that his running mate should have been not Joe Biden, but Rumpelstiltskin. He spun straw into gold, a skill an Obama administration will need in order to fulfill its fairy-tale promises.
Obama recently said he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term -- more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."
By 2012 he would "require" the economy's huge energy sector to -- here things become comic -- supply half as much energy from renewable sources as already is being supplied by just one potentially renewable source. About 20 percent of America's energy comes from nuclear energy produced using fuel rods, which, when spent, can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.
Obama is (this is part of liberalism's catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says -- and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state -- he distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation -- nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.
But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.
Obama has also promised that "we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a tranquilizing verb "get" is. This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both -- billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would spurn.
Conservatives are sometimes justly accused of ascribing magic powers to money and markets: Increase the monetary demand for anything and the supply of it will expand. But it is liberals like Obama who think that any new technological marvel or other social delight can be summoned into existence by a sufficient appropriation. Once they thought "model cities" could be, too.
Where will the electricity for these million cars come from? Not nuclear power (see above). And not anywhere else, if Obama means this: "I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80 percent reduction by 2050."
No he won't. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes that in 2050 there will be 420 million Americans -- 40 million more households. So Obama's cap would require reducing per capita carbon emissions to levels probably below even those "in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood."
Regarding taxes, Obama says "we don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today's politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, "saving the planet," and promising edicts to "require" entire industries to reorder themselves?
In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign's scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: "Where's the outrage?" This year's campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?
georgewill@washpost.com
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
B. Hussein Obama & Domestic Terrorists
If you want to host this poll on your site, please copy and paste red code below:
<form method=post action=http://poll.pollhost.com/vote.cgi><table border=0 cellspacing=10 cellpadding=0><tr><td colspan=2><font face="Arial"><b>Which Domestic Terrorist Barack Obama Is Friendly With?</b></font></td></tr><tr><td width=5><input type=radio name=answer value=1></td><td><font face="Arial">William Ayers</font></td></tr><tr><td width=5><input type=radio name=answer value=2></td><td><font face="Arial">Theodore Kaczynski</font></td></tr><tr><td width=5><input type=radio name=answer value=3></td><td><font face="Arial">Timothy McVeigh</font></td></tr><tr><td width=5><input type=radio name=answer value=4></td><td><font face="Arial">Does it matter? A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist!</font></td></tr><tr><td colspan=2><input type=hidden name=config value="YmFyYWNrMTk4MwkxMjA5Mjc3MDY2CUVFRUVFRQkwMDAwMDAJQXJpYWwJUmVk"><center><input type=submit value=Vote> <input type=submit name=view value=View></center></td></tr></table></form>
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Obama 'credential' criticized for upside-down flag
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72802
DENVER – The "credentials" issued by the Democratic National Convention for fans of Sen. Barack Obama to attend his nomination-acceptance speech next week at Denver's football stadium are raising questions because they apparently have the U.S. flag flying upside down – an international signal of distress.
KUSA-TV in Denver reported its viewers have raised the issue, and online, a participant in a Gateway Pundit forum said, "That's an upside-down flag. It may not be intentional, but there it is."
The television station said viewers see the blue field and stars in the lower left corner, even though published flag etiquette states the stars should be displayed – always – in the upper left corner.
Obama spokesman Matt Chandler told the station the flag isn't upside down; it was just stylized to blend the stars on Obama's shirt with the flag.
"The DNCC community credentials incorporate patriotic design elements," said Natalie Wyeth of the DNCC in a statement to the station. "They do not depict an actual American flag. The DNCC has full and complete respect for the flag and all rules of display."
Such affirmations, however, were lost on some of those commenting on the issue.
"Dude can't stop disrespecting this Country!!!" wrote a contributor to the station's forum page.
Said another, "It's an upside down American flag. Which has always had a very specific meaning. Declaring it is anything else is a lie. Deflecting attention from it is a typical political maneuver. Falling for it is more proof of the dumbing down of the American voter."
It isn't the first time issues over such protocol have been raised by critics of Obama. He was photographed with Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin at a steak fry for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin during the playing of the national anthem. Richardson, Clinton and Harkin placed their hands over their hearts, but Obama is standing casually with his fingers laced in front of him.
He also previously said he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism."
To an Iowa television station, the Illinois senator explained he stopped wearing a flag pin following the 9/11 attacks.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he told the station. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great."
DENVER – The "credentials" issued by the Democratic National Convention for fans of Sen. Barack Obama to attend his nomination-acceptance speech next week at Denver's football stadium are raising questions because they apparently have the U.S. flag flying upside down – an international signal of distress.
KUSA-TV in Denver reported its viewers have raised the issue, and online, a participant in a Gateway Pundit forum said, "That's an upside-down flag. It may not be intentional, but there it is."
The television station said viewers see the blue field and stars in the lower left corner, even though published flag etiquette states the stars should be displayed – always – in the upper left corner.
Obama spokesman Matt Chandler told the station the flag isn't upside down; it was just stylized to blend the stars on Obama's shirt with the flag.
"The DNCC community credentials incorporate patriotic design elements," said Natalie Wyeth of the DNCC in a statement to the station. "They do not depict an actual American flag. The DNCC has full and complete respect for the flag and all rules of display."
Such affirmations, however, were lost on some of those commenting on the issue.
"Dude can't stop disrespecting this Country!!!" wrote a contributor to the station's forum page.
Said another, "It's an upside down American flag. Which has always had a very specific meaning. Declaring it is anything else is a lie. Deflecting attention from it is a typical political maneuver. Falling for it is more proof of the dumbing down of the American voter."
It isn't the first time issues over such protocol have been raised by critics of Obama. He was photographed with Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin at a steak fry for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin during the playing of the national anthem. Richardson, Clinton and Harkin placed their hands over their hearts, but Obama is standing casually with his fingers laced in front of him.
He also previously said he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism."
To an Iowa television station, the Illinois senator explained he stopped wearing a flag pin following the 9/11 attacks.
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he told the station. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great."
Sunday, August 17, 2008
B. Hussein Obama: My Plan to Bend Over
"I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems" - B. Hussein Obama
One of the main goals of the Future Combat Systems is to decrease the number of troops on the battlefield replacing them with hardware. What kind of moron would brag about placing our troops in harms way when they could be fighting via remote control?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Obama site: Jews must be 'burned': Anti-Semites congregate on candidate's official presidential campaign blog
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Jews should be "burned" and "thrown in the oven."
Israel murdered 6 million Arabs.
Jews control American politics and dictate decisions of war and peace.
The Jewish state is leading a "Holocaust" against the Palestinian people and was responsible for 9/11.
The above are just a sampling of a large volume of racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda that can be found on user-generated pages on Sen. Barack Obama's official campaign website, which allows registered members to form groups and post content in online "community" blogs.
The Obama campaign does not monitor all blog material but says it removes offending posts brought to the attention of site administrators.
A search through the community blogs on Obama's official site under such key words as "Zionists," "Israel Lobby," or "Jews" brings up thousands of entries, some containing what can easily be described as hate material.
In a blog posting on Obama's site titled, "Are Israeli Zionists in Control of Our Democracy?" user "Stan" claims "Israeli elements" in the U.S. who possess both American and Israeli citizenship "dominate our political process so we cannot act as an honest broker in the Middle East."
He said members of Congress "know that they must support the will of Israel or be subjected to the wrath of [pro-Israel groups]."
The posting goes on to urge a U.S. military boycott of Israel, lamenting that Hamas is labeled a terror group while the U.S. supplied Israel with "planes, rockets, cluster and phosphorus bombs for Israel to use at will."
Another blog entry, simply titled "Palestinians," concocts "Jewish genocide of six million Palis (Palestinians)" and urges Obama to "level the playing field for the suffering Palestinians."
"Many non-militant Arabs and Muslims await some degree of fairness from you if you are elected," noted the entry.
In a blog titled "Palestine vs. Israel," MyObama user "Patti" complains she "cannot comprehend how many Jewish people can speak of the Holocaust as well as stating that Israel is the Holy Land and commit the atrocities they are committing against the Palestinian people."
A blog labeled "The only way to free America" urges Americans to "throw the Jews in the oven."
"Shed ourselves from the racist Zionists in America. They control everything. But they won't keep us down any longer. Throw the Jews in the oven this November. Its the only way we can free America and make sure barack obama is elected!
One entry titled, "Stop the attacks on Muslim Nations to please Zionists," announces "Israel has destroyed its own image in the world and is taking America down with its Zionist aggression."
Anti-Semitic rhetoric is not limited to blog entries alone, but can also be found in user comments on some of the blog postings.
For example, a comment on a blog discussing energy, reads "Burn something else besides oil...start with the Zionists."
Many of the "Israel Lobby" entries have comments accusing Jews of controlling the U.S.
Still some comments are positive.
A comment on one anti-Israel entry asks the user, "Please re-think posting material like this; we are not interested in an anti-Israel policy."
The same entry elicited a comment from an Obama registered user stating, "The last thing we need is to be aligned with more anti-Semitic rhetoric. Jewish conspiracy speculation should be left to the experts at the United Nations."
Several offensive postings on the Obama site previously noted by WND and some Internet blogs have been removed by the Obama website staff.
One recently removed posting claims Jews control the media. Another referred to Jews as "puppet masters" and "war criminals." Yet another posting, titled "The Israeli connection to 9/11," claimed Israeli intelligence was involved in the mega-attack and planted "false flags" to blame Arab countries.
Other removed MyObama posts have warned of "Judeofacists and their Neocon comrades" who "already destroyed America" and declare the "entire Congress should be overthrown by revolution for having sold America to the Israelis."
Obama's campaign did not return a WND e-mail request for comment before press time, but Obama spokesmen previously have stated the campaign cannot monitor all content but it promptly removes content brought to its attention that is deemed inappropriate or hateful.
A disclaimer on the MyObama blog section reads, "Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign."
Monday, August 4, 2008
Did we miss the election?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/03/politics/fromtheroad/entry4317827.shtml
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Obamessiah, the chicken shit
Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.
In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.
On Saturday, in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones.
"We've committed to the three debates on the table," campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday in an interview. "It's likely they will be the three appearances by the candidates this fall."
Asked by The Associated Press if that meant Obama would not agree to any other debates, Psaki said, "We're not saying that." She said the McCain campaign had rejected Obama's proposal for two joint town hall meetings.
The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The first debate planned by the commission is set for Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., three weeks after the Republican National Convention concludes Sept. 4. The Democratic convention is scheduled for Aug. 25-28.
The other presidential debates are set for Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 and the vice presidential debate for Oct. 2.
A day after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in early June, McCain challenged Obama to a series of 10 town hall meetings with voters in the months leading up to the conventions. The candidates' campaigns began negotiations, telling reporters that they agreed in spirit to the joint appearances.
When the idea first came up from the McCain campaign that May, Obama was still battling Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Obama said then: "Obviously, we would have to think through the logistics on that, but ... if I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that's something that I am going to welcome."
In June, Plouffe had suggested Obama-McCain meetings more along the lines of the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. In 1858, during Abraham Lincoln's Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas, the candidates met seven times across Illinois. One spoke for an hour, the other for an hour and a half, and the first was allowed a half-hour rebuttal.
Plouffe said Saturday that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois will be Obama's representative in further discussions with the commission.
The Commission on Presidential Debates, established in 1987, sponsors and produces debates featuring the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the major parties. The nonprofit and nonpartisan organization has sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988.
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.
In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, "I think that's a great idea." In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.
On Saturday, in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones.
"We've committed to the three debates on the table," campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday in an interview. "It's likely they will be the three appearances by the candidates this fall."
Asked by The Associated Press if that meant Obama would not agree to any other debates, Psaki said, "We're not saying that." She said the McCain campaign had rejected Obama's proposal for two joint town hall meetings.
The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The first debate planned by the commission is set for Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., three weeks after the Republican National Convention concludes Sept. 4. The Democratic convention is scheduled for Aug. 25-28.
The other presidential debates are set for Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 and the vice presidential debate for Oct. 2.
A day after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in early June, McCain challenged Obama to a series of 10 town hall meetings with voters in the months leading up to the conventions. The candidates' campaigns began negotiations, telling reporters that they agreed in spirit to the joint appearances.
When the idea first came up from the McCain campaign that May, Obama was still battling Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Obama said then: "Obviously, we would have to think through the logistics on that, but ... if I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that's something that I am going to welcome."
In June, Plouffe had suggested Obama-McCain meetings more along the lines of the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. In 1858, during Abraham Lincoln's Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas, the candidates met seven times across Illinois. One spoke for an hour, the other for an hour and a half, and the first was allowed a half-hour rebuttal.
Plouffe said Saturday that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois will be Obama's representative in further discussions with the commission.
The Commission on Presidential Debates, established in 1987, sponsors and produces debates featuring the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the major parties. The nonprofit and nonpartisan organization has sponsored all the presidential debates since 1988.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Obama The Patriot - Removes American Flag From His Plane
Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757. And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail...
What American running for President of the United States would remove the symbol of his country? And worse, he replaced the flag with it with a symbol of himself...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)