Friday, 28 March 2008
ANOTHER LIE ABOUT McCAIN
If you think that the nuclear war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
means the Democratic BS iniative against John McCain isn't in full gear,
read this. It comes to us from Michael Calderone of www.politico.com:
retracts McCain plagiarism charge
Yesterday, liberal blog Think Progress published
an explosive and "EXCLUSIVE" charge that John McCain had plagiarized from a 1996
speech by Adm. Timothy Ziemer.
Now Think Progress takes it back.
Think Progress had gotten a tip and searched Nexis
to verify the scoop. But it never contacted the campaign. From the explanation:
"After we published the post, the McCain campaign contacted us and pointed to a
speech given by the senator in 1995, which appears on McCains Senate
-They lied about the affair Mr. McCain was supposed to have had with a
lobbyest - not one single shred of any evidence has been produced.
-They lied about his supposed comment that it's ok with him if we fight a
war in Iraq for 100 years. He never said anything like it
-Now they are lying about him being a plagiarist.
At some point you have to face the fact that these people will lie about John
McCain at will, because they do not like him and do not want him to be
Remember that the next time a claim is made against Mr. McCain. The
record so far is abysmal. His attackers will lie to your face and not care
a bit about it.
There is an old adage: Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice,
shame on me. Don't let them shame you. You know
A TASTE OF THE FUTURE: PART 36
Here is the latest installment detailing how we will live
if radical Islam makes good on its threat to end western
civilization and put us under shari'a law. It is an excerpt from a larger
story found on www.islam-watch.org. For the entire
article, just click here:
London Imam's Attempt to Carry Out
Sunna Gone Awry
22 Mar, 2008
During a question answer session in East London Mosque,
preacher Imam Abdul Makin was asked by a niqabi muslima about recent fatwa from
a well known Imam .
Naqabi Woman: One eyed hooked Imam Hamza Mesri said muslims can kill British
infidels and have sex with their wives and daughters, Do you agree with
Imam: It is not what Imam Hamza said nor is there a question of my agreeing
with him or not. It is in Quran thus those are Allahs orders.
- N.W.: But why would Allah tell muslims to kill and rape innocent
Imam: Because Non-muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying
Allah and his prophet. If you dont believe me, here is the legal authority, the top muslim lawyer of Britain,
Anjem Choudhary (Video).
N.W. But our Prophet was sent as a mercy for all the humanity; he never
hurt any body in his life
Imam: Yes he never hurt a muslim in his life. But Allah said non-muslim are
lowest beasts and worst creatures in ayas 8.22,8.55,95.5 and 98.6 and muslim are
ordered to kill them."
N.W.: But did prophet approve of killing them and raping their wives?
Imam: Yes he did. He not only approved of such acts, he
and his sahabas practiced it regularly under Allahs orders. He was helpless in
it... If you dont believe me , you have to believe sahih hadiths. I will quote
you two hadiths about his typical day after a raid. These hadiths are about the
raid on jewish village Khaibar whose chief was Kinana who had gorgeous 17 year
old wife Safia. Prophet tortured and beheaded Kinana in front of Safia and raped
her all night afterwards.Police arrest 24-year-old man from Naura, an
Israeli-Arab town in northern
, who shot his 19-year old sister to preserve 'familys honor.'
Family members arrived to congratulate shooter
Take a good look. Because this is what will replace western
civilization if we allow it to. And it will be the way YOU live.
If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may
lose. If we do not fight, we will most assuredly lose because, either way,
And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by
what? A society in which it is permissible to kill and rape any
non-Muslim, based on a belief that the koran teaches that non-Muslims are
the lowest beasts and worst creatures? Based on the belief
that murder and rape of non-Muslims is not only approved by Muhammed,
but that he practiced it personally under Allah's orders?
God help the people who want to live this way. I know I'm not one
of them. Are you?
We play political games with this lunacy at our own
GET OFFA ME!!....AND G'DAY
I sometimes post blogs with the lead-in that "you
can't make this stuff up". So, this time, I think I'll show you one that
up. It comes to us courtesy of the London Telegraph:
Man said 'wombat rape' led to accent
By Nick Squires in
A New Zealand man who claimed he was raped by a wombat and
that the experience left him speaking with an Australian accent has been
found guilty of wasting police time.
Weird Wired Web: Most ridiculous crime in the
Rogue monkey accused of attempted
How about that: Weird and bizarre stories from around
Arthur Cradock, 48, from the
South Island town of Motueka, called police last month to tell them he was
being raped by the marsupial at his home and needed urgent assistance.
Cradock, an orchard worker,
later called back to reassure the police operator that he was all right.
"Ill retract the rape
complaint from the wombat, because hes pulled out. Apart from speaking
Australian now, Im pretty all right you know. I didnt hurt my bum at
He pleaded guilty in Nelson
District Court to using a phone for a fictitious
purpose and was sentenced to 75
hours community work.
Police prosecutor Sergeant
Chris Stringer told the court that alcohol played a large role in
Judge Richard Russell said he
was not sure what had motivated Cradock to make the extraordinary claim.
In sentencing Cradock, he
warned him not to do it again.
Wombats are native to Australia
and are not found in New Zealand. Although powerfully built and about the
size of a small pig, they are very rarely dangerous. There are three
species: the widely distributed common wombat and the much rarer southern
and northern hairy-nosed wombats.
I hope for Cradock's sake it was the northern hairy-nosed variety. Then
at least he could have gotten a back scratch too.
Note: Be sure to read the three links that are in blue. If you want
weird, this is a treasure trove of it.
OBAMA AND ISRAEL: REALITY VERSUS POLITICS
A lot of what Gary Bauer covers in his article about Barack Obama (which is
taken from www.humanevents.com) has
already been noted in this blog. But Mr. Bauer puts it all together very
thoroughly and professionally, so I am posting it below.
Besides, despite the rapidly growing number of reasons for Israel supporters
to run, not walk, away from Mr. Obama, there are still people who do
not see what is in front of their eyes. Maybe this
fact-filled analysis will help them:
Controversial Views on Israel
Innuendo about Barack Obamas faith and upbringing
often dominate discussions regarding how the likely Democratic presidential
nominee might conduct his foreign policy. Thats a shame, because it distracts
us from more legitimate and far deeper concerns over Obamas relationship not
with Islam but with Israel, the principal rhetorical and military target of that
religions most extreme adherents.
Of course, as with Obamas remarks on many issues,
its easy to cherry-pick a few of his statements about Israel that make it seem
as if a President Obama would be a loyal friend of the beleaguered state.
Such as when he says, peace through security is the only way for Israel and
when I am president, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with
Whats not to like, right? Well, a more
thorough examination of Obamas statements, his background and previous
associations and, most importantly, his would-be foreign policy team reveals a
far different reality -- one that has caused many supporters of Israel,
including me, to worry about what an Obama presidency might do to the long-term
support for the Jewish State.
First off, Obama demonstrates a deep
misunderstanding of the Middle East when he calls for the immediate removal of
American forces from Iraq, which would expose Iraq to worse ethnic bloodshed and
embolden the enemies of Israel and the United States. Senator Obama also
voted against legislation to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the list
of terrorist organizations and criticizes Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of
the legislation, which passed with the support of over three-quarters of the
Senate. He has also pledged to meet without preconditions with Irans
Holocaust-denying leader, Ahmadinejad.
Just as disturbing are Obamas statements about
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which include: Nobody has suffered more than
the Palestinian people and the clueless remark that the Israeli government
must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart.
These troubling statements caused my friend and
former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Danny Ayalon to ask in a recent op-ed,
Who are you, Barack Obama? Ayalon wrote that after meeting with Obama on
two occasions, he was left with the impression that [Obama] was not entirely
forthright with his thinking [about Israel].
Ayalons skepticism no doubt stems from the fact
that Obamas more recent pro-Israel statements do not square with his past
sympathy for Palestinian radicals. Anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah
claims to know Obama well and to have met him at several pro-Palestinian events
in Chicago when Obama was an Illinois state senator. In an article,
Abunimah lamented that Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for
and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli
occupation. Obamas about-face is not surprising, Abunimah insisted, He is
merely doing what he think is necessary to get elected and he will continue
doing it as long as it keeps him in power.
Then theres Obamas church, Trinity United Church
of Christ, whose anti-Semitism is now well known. Among many anti-Semitic
documents that the church has published on its website is a letter that alleges
Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and claims that
Israelis worked on an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs. Trinitys
former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama has described as a spiritual
mentor, gave anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan an award for being a leader who truly
Wright even traveled to meet with Libyan terrorist
leader Muammar al-Gaddafi and has compared conditions in Israel to the apartheid
of South Africa. Of course, you wont hear much from Wright these
days. As Wright told PBS last year, he understands that Obama must keep
his distance because he cant afford the Jewish support to wane or start
questioning his allegiance to Israel.
But nothing should concern Israel supporters as
much as Obamas foreign policy team, which consists of the likes of Zbigniew
Brzezinski, a remnant of the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, like
Rev. Wright, calls Israel an apartheid state. Brzezinski, Carters
national security advisor, has long held anti-Israel views and supports open
dialogue with the terrorist group Hamas. Other top foreign policy advisors
with avowed hostility toward Israel include Susan Rice and Robert Malley.
Most recently, it was revealed that Obama military
advisor and national campaign co-chairman Merrill Tony McPeak has a long
history of criticizing Israel and in 2003 alleged that American Middle East
policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of American interests in the
Middle East. During the interviewer with the Oregonian, McPeak
was asked why there was a lack of action in the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process. He responded, New York City. Miami. We have a large
vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run
Whats most worrying about Obamas foreign policy
team is that given the candidates extreme lack of foreign policy experience (he
once declared that the four years he spent living in Indonesia as a child give
him credibility on the world stage), one would expect Obama to lean heavily on
it for advice. Thats something that should concern anyone who understands
the value of supporting Americas only reliable ally from a region in which we
are engaged in two wars.
Bottom line: the more you know about Barack Obama, the more you realize
that an Obama presidency would be damaging, bordering on disastrous, for the
state of Israel.
Since Israel is our most loyal ally in the middle east (and, arguably, in the
world), not to mention a beacon of freedom and democracy in a region where it is
virtually unknown, that can't be good.
Please, please pass this information on. Friends who support Israel
don't let friends who support Israel remain ignorant about Barack
C.A.I.R. - MORE EVIDENCE IT IS A DOMESTIC TERROR GROUP
It's not like there isn't damning evidence already against CAIR (the Council
on American Islamic Relations). But you should know it all.
This additional damning evidence comes to us from Charles Johnson's
invaluable site, www.littlegreenfootballs.com:
Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:34:57 am
Today brings part 5 of the Investigative Project
on Terrorisms giant expos of the radical Islamic front group calling itself
the Council on American Islamic Relations; this installment looks at CAIRs
universal readiness to defend Islamic terroristseven defending Al Qaeda
immediately after the 9/11 atrocities: Quick To Defend Alleged Terrorists, CAIR Even Questioned Al
Qaeda 9/11 Role.
CAIRs soft spot for terrorists extends well
beyond the Hamas connections documented in yesterdays installment in this
comprehensive series on the group. Today we focus on its portrayal of
virtually any law enforcement action against radical elements as an assault on
all American Muslims.
* Days after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, CAIR-New York Executive Director Ghazi Khankan used
an online chat with the Washington Post to launch a weeks-long campaign
casting them as part of a conspiracy to discredit Muslims. Citing spurious
evidence, he claimed that many of the names of the terrorists are people
impersonating innocent Muslims and Arabs.
CAIR pushed Khankans misidentification theory
in an October 2001 statement, speculating that three of the 19 suspected
hijackers were still alive in the Middle East and asking, Who is
impersonating these three Muslim Arabs? Why are Muslim Arabs been (sic)
implicated in this terrorism? And, who could benefit from this horrific
* CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper similarly
hesitated to blame Al Qaeda. We condemn the attacks on the buildings, he
told Salon.com, adding, If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by
name. Asked why he qualified the response, Salon.com reported, Hooper said
he resented the question.
* As late as June 2005, CAIR-Canada Advisory
Board Member Jamal Badawi questioned responsibility for 9/11. Calling the
attacks un-Islamic and declaring, I strongly condemn them, he told the
Saudi Gazette it had not yet been confirmed who was actually behind the
actions. And at an August 2005 Know Your Rights workshop sponsored by
CAIR-San Diego, invited speaker Randall Hamud responded to an audience
members comment that there was still no evidence that Muslims carried out
9/11 by saying, Maybe a hundred years from now well find that
An accompanying PDF file has much more detail and documentation.
Where are the mainstream media on this story?
Answer: theyre still uncritically publishing CAIRs propaganda: Southfield Muslim charity executive
indicted as spy.
Al-Hanooti was active in many area Muslim and
Arab organizations and briefly worked for the Council on
American-Islamic Relations in 2000, executive director Dawud Walid
CAIR will be closely monitoring to make sure he
has his rights afforded to him and that he receives due process, Walid said.
He is innocent until proven guilty.
Briefly worked for CAIR? Muthanna
Al-Hanooti was the head of the Michigan branch of CAIR.
At the end of this piece, littlegreenfootballs.com asks "where are the
mainstream media on this story?"
Great question, and here's the answer: if there is a car bombing
somewhere in Iraq, I promise you will see it in the first two minutes of
your network news show. That's where.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
LYING ABOUT JOHN McCAIN'S "100 YEARS" COMMENT
On March 17th, I blogged about what a liar keith olbermann was for suggesting
that John McCain said it would be ok with him if we fought in Iraq for another
100 years. Here is the specific passage:
Mr. olbermann told me that John McCain wants to be
at war in Iraq for 100 years - which is an absolute lie. The truth
is that McCain said it's ok with him if we are there for 50 or even 100
years as long as we are NOT at war - i.e. not being harmed, attacked hurt or
killed. McCain specifically referenced our presence in Japan
and South Korea to make his intent 100% clear. But olbermann, who
apparently has little use for truth, misled his viewers about it anyway.
Today, the redoubtable
Charles Krauthammer has a column in which he enumerates other similarly dishonest
claims about what John McCain said. I am posting excerpts of the column,
but you can read it all by clicking here.
I very much hope you do.
First we have Mr. Krauthammer's lead-in:
WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign
stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make
it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've
been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest
anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining
a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long
as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking
about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it
would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of
Now that is pretty clear, isn't it? Not much room for error, is
Ok. Let's see how it was turned into a lie by Democrats and at least
some media (not just the pathetic olbermann). For this I am posting the
latter part of Mr. Krauthammer's column:
-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send
our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain
now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).
-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going
for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
-- "What date between now and the election in
November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris
Matthews, March 4).
Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it:
"John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years"
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often
enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are
ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national
security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.
Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging
McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National
Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war
without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."
The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit
and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University
of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of
wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq
something like the U.S. role in South Korea."
The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get
such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you
see such a dirty lie.
There you have it. Dishonesty in the first degree. And don't
doubt for a minute that these people know
they are lying about Mr.
It is utterly shameful. They've seen the same quotes you have.
They are doing this intentionally and making fools of anyone who makes the
mistake of believing what they say.
Don't expect this disgraceful bottom-dwelling to get any better in the forseeable future.
OBAMA LIES TO YOUR FACE. AGAIN
Barack Obama is lying to our faces. Again.
The following excerpt is taken from an Associated Press story. You can
read the entire story by clicking here:
Obama would have left if Wright
White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would
have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American
comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's
campaign, not stepped down.
"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not
acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were
inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this
country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the
church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View."
The interview will be broadcast Friday.
In his sermons over the years, the Rev. Jeremiah
Wright has railed against the United States and accused it of bringing on the
Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism. He also has said the government
invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has shouted "God damn America"
for its treatment of minorities.
This, readers, is an absolute lie.
How do I know? Because, until wright's sick hatred surfaced and became
known to the public, Obama DIDN'T leave for almost 20 YEARS,
that's how I know.
If you remember, Obama lied to our faces by claiming he didn't know that
wright preached this kind of filth. Almost two decades attending the
church and hearing wright's sermons and he didn't know.
Then Obama lied by saying that, yeah, wright sometimes made offensive
statements, but I wasn't in the church when he did so. Again - almost two
decades of attending a church led by a "Black liberation theology" lunatic and
he didn't hear him say anything about it?
Then Obama lied by saying, in last week's speech (the one our "neutral"
media have been drooling over ever since), that, ok, he was there to hear
some of wright's ravings. Finally he told the truth -- but since it is a
100% contradiction of what he said the week before, it counts as a lie too.
Now Obama is telling us that if
wright had continued on as pastor, he would have left the church. But
for 17 years wright WAS the pastor and not only did Obama not
leave, he adoringly fawned over wright and called him his "spiritual mentor".
Anyone who thinks this is not another lie is either brain dead or might as
The article notes that Obama's latest lie will be stated on today's airing of
"The View". I have not seen a pre-screening of the show, but I am betting
that Obama gets a round of applause for his latest lie.
Any audience that can applaud LAMBs*** like Rosie O'Donnell, Joy Behar
and Whoopi Goldberg is going to eat this up.
***Members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade
FAIR AND BALANCED
By now, most people are aware that Fox Sunday host Chris Wallace had an
on-air disagreement with other Fox personalities about what Wallace referred to
as "Obama-bashing". Although there were no raised voices and no one walked
off the set (for real or for show), both sides strongly presented their
point of view during this exchange.
For days afterwards we were treated to reports that it was "mayhem" (it
wasn't) and that Wallace was going to jump ship because of it.
Can you spell w--i-s-h-f-u-l- -t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g?
Here, courtesy of Noel Sheppard at www.newsbusters.org, is Chris Wallace
discussing this incident in his own words to talk show host Steve Malzberg:
Wallace Discusses 'Fox &
Friends' Tiff and What 'Fair and Balanced' Means
Who's the best
political talk show host on television every Sunday? Tim Russert? George
Stephanopoulos? Bob Schieffer? Wolf Blitzer?
Get real! There's nobody on the television
landscape that comes close to Fox News's Chris Wallace. And, there's nobody on
Fox News that better exemplifies and understands what the network's slogan "fair
and balanced" means.
To drive home the point, Wallace was Steve
Malzberg's guest on WOR radio Wednesday, and quite candidly discussed how his
little tiff with the good folks at "Fox and
Friends" last Friday demonstrates vividly
why FNC is indeed the only fair and balanced news network on television
(15-minute audio available here):
I would take mild exception to "scolding." I
would say I took exception, or you know, offered a different point of view.
No, I thought it was a legitimate story. I thought that what he said was
regrettable and probably not, if he had, you know, it was in an off the cuff
statement to a sports radio interviewer, and you could tell that as he went on
he realized that's not really what I want to say, and he was trying to soften
it, and say that someone who's been brought up and has a certain instinctive
reaction to things. Uh, and, and, I thought it was a perfectly legitimate
thing to talk about. I just thought that they talked about it, and talked
about it. And so, all I was saying was, enough. But, you know, that was my
opinion, and they obviously disagreed.
You know, the point is we really are, despite
the sniffing or dismissals of our liberal critics, "fair and balanced" at Fox
News. And, and we, you know, generally speaking, that means that we at least
offer, not that we espouse, but that we offer the conservative point of view
because that is not often represented in the mainstream media. But,
occasionally, at least in my mind, if I think that, you know, you're going too
far the other way, it means offering, in this case, Obama's point of view, or
at least a caveat about it, and, and, I don't think that's a bad thing. I, you
know, I don't think you want to do it all the time, but if that occasionally
spills out on the air, I don't think that's a bad thing for Fox or our
Exactly, which was my point in originally covering
Earlier in the week, Wallace further elaborated on this issue with the
New York Observer (emphasis added):
Mr. Wallace later told The
Observer that in fact he had received one e-mail from a Fox News
executive (he declined to name names). It was not at all in the sense of, you
know, how dare you defend Obama, said Mr. Wallace. It was in the sense that,
isnt this the kind of thing we should be talking about off camera, not on
camera? I e-mailed him back and said, I think youre generally right, and
Im not going to make a habit of it. He wrote me right back and said, Fine,
forget about it. Have a good Easter.
To date, over this prolonged primary
season, Mr. Obama has yet to appear on Mr. Wallaces Sunday program. In
response, several weeks ago, Mr. Wallace introduced Obama Watchessentially
a running clock adding up the amount of time that has elapsed since Mr. Obama
had failed to make good on his apparent promise to appear on the show.
Mr. Wallace said that in the wake of
his Friday comments, he received two supportive e-mails from members of the
Obama campaign. But nobody offered to put Obama on the air, said Mr.
Wallace, chuckling. He hastened to add, Which wasnt the point of this whole
thing in the first place.
Any questions about what "fair and
Does that suggest Chris Wallace is on his way out of Fox? Does it
suggest that his different point of view was discouraged or disparaged in any
way? No, and no.
Fox, it should be noted, is the news channel that is scorned as NOT
presenting both sides by competitive networks. Is it fair to wonder if
they are more than a little envious of the fact that Fox blows them away in
the ratings? You tell me.
I get a particular laugh out of MSNBC's keith olbermann calling it "Fixed
News". On olbermann's show, - other than the racist,
anti-semitic, isolationist oddball Pat Buchanan - there is virtually no one
who ever disagrees with him on anything. But he's tossing rocks at
Fox? What a joke.
keith olbermann is about as fair and balanced as fidel and raul castro
are closet conservatives.