From a delighted Associated Press:

Abu Ghraib inmates sue contractors, claim torture

HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) — Former detainees of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are suing U.S. contractors in four states for alleged torture.

The first complaint was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Seattle. Others are being filed in Detroit; Columbus, Ohio; and Greenbelt, Maryland.

The complaints allege that innocent people who were arrested and taken to the prison were subjected to forced nudity, electrical shocks, mock executions and other inhumane treatment by employees of defense contractors CACI (KAK-ee) International and L-3 Communications, formerly Titan Corporation.

The plaintiffs are represented by law firms in Philadelphia and Detroit and by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Nice to see our old friends, the Communist front Center For Constitutional Rights are keeping true to their America-hating, enemy aiding roots.

We posted about this last August when the great man made his pronouncement, but somehow it seems again relevant to today’s news.

From the Fox News and the Associated Press:

Obama: U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Must Do More Than Kill Civilians

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

HANOVER, N.H. — Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was warned by a friendly voter Monday to avoid public spats with his Democratic rivals — but remarks he made later could add fuel to the criticism against him…

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” …

How could anyone ever question his patriotism?

From the endlessly despicable New York Times:

John Kerry, hands on hips, and Roy F. Hoffmann, kneeling, in Vietnam. Mr. Hoffman helped start the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which criticized Mr. Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid.

Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 30, 2008

Years ago, when William Miller talked about being in the Vietnam War — if he talked about being in the Vietnam War — he would tell people he served on a Swift boat.

At least now they have heard of it. But not in the way he would like.

“I was proud of what I did, and all the guys I was with,” Mr. Miller said. “Now somebody says ‘Swift boat’ and it’s a whole different meaning. They don’t associate it with the guys we lost. That’s a shame.”

“Swift boat” has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not be Swiftboated.

Swift boat veterans — especially those who had nothing to do with the group that attacked Senator John Kerry’s military record in the 2004 election — want their good name back, and the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.

“You would not hear the word ‘Swift boat’ and think of people that served their country and fought in Vietnam,” said Jim Newell, who spent a year as an officer in charge on one of the small Navy vessels in An Thoi and Qui Nhon. “You think about someone who was involved in a political attack on a member of a different party. It just comes across as negative. Everyone who is associated with a Swift boat is involved in political chicanery.” …

Sorry, but that is as far as I could read.

And not because this is yet another typically overly wordy and meandering New York Times article.

But it is Olympian grade hypocrisy for The Times to shed crocodile tears over the supposedly negative connotation of the term "Swift boat."

For it is only due to tireless efforts by The Times and the rest of our Democrat owned and operated media that the name has become pejorative — if it has.

After all, what did the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth do? What were their crimes against humanity?

They exercised their God given right to express their political opinions about a Presidential candidate.

Moreover, their opinions were based upon their personal experience and knowledge — none of which has been refuted by Mr. Kerry nor anyone else.

In truth, many if not most of the SBVT were lifelong Democrats, including John O’Neal.

Their personal knowledge was supplemented by research by people like yours truly, who uncovered further damning material about Mr. Kerry, after he returned from his four months in Vietnam.

Such as how Mr. Kerry lied about our soldiers, gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, negotiated with representatives of the enemy, and even was present at a meeting where plans to assassinate pro-war Congressmen were discussed.

This was information a real media concerned about having an informed citizenry media should have been eager to report.

But instead our watchdog media sought to cover-up and even denigrate these facts, and those who dared to bring them to light.

And once again, this is information that has never been refuted.

But as we now know all too well, being "Swift boated" actually means having someone tell inconvenient truths about a Democrat.

Which is of course exactly why this is being trotted out at this time. We are being warned not to "swift boat" Mr. Obama.

That is to say, we are not to bring up any unpleasant facts about him.

The New York Times and their Democrat masters have spoken.

From the CBS News program "Face The Nation":

SCHIEFFER: With us now from Little Rock, Arkansas, retired General Wesley Clark. He was for Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Once Hillary was out of it, he announced that he was supporting Barack Obama.

And let’s get right to it here, General. You heard what Senator Lieberman said. He said that Barack Obama [sic] is simply more ready to be president than Barack Obama.

General WESLEY CLARK (Retired; Obama Supporter): Well, I think–I think Joe has it exactly backwards here. I think being president is about having good judgment, it’s about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, `The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade.’ And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment. You look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together and who has good judgment in moving forward. And I think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about the old politics of left and right and we need to pull together and move the country forward. And I think that’s what Barack Obama will do for America.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you’re talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy, he’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?

Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk, it’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, `I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?’

SCHIEFFER: Well…

Gen. CLARK: He hasn’t made those calls, Bob. So…

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe–could I just interrupt you?

Gen. CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean…

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president…

"Riding in a plane"?

Mind you, if anything like this had been said about a Democrat — and it were true, it would be denounced as "Swift boating."

But since it is a preposterous claim made by a borderline lunatic against a Republican, it is deemed to be a fair and indeed apt criticism by our one party media.

By the way, here is what Mr. Clark said about his idol John Kerry, back in July 20004 at the Democratic National Convention:

Gen. Wesley Clark Talks About John Kerry’s National Security Plan

July 29, 2004

… John Kerry has lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a Senator. He proved his physical courage under fire. He’s proved his moral courage, too. John Kerry fought a war and came home to fight for peace – his combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need in a commander in chief…

Testify!

From the Orlando, Florida television station WKMG:

‘Obama’ Hate Messages, Graffiti Cover 60 Orlando City Vehicles

June 29, 2008

ORLANDO, Fla. — Vandals spray-painted "Obama Smokes Crack" and other hate messages on 60 city vehicles parked across the street from City Hall in downtown Orlando.

Investigators said the vandals painted the messages — which appear to be politically motivated — after dark Saturday night.

Local 6 showed several vehicles covered in different colors with the "Obama" messages.

A passing motorist initially spotted the damage and called police.

"I’m driving by and every car I see has been hit with spray paint," witness Mike Lowe said. "There is so much damage to them. There are messages written on them and the vandals left their business card, which is crazy."

Special business cards left near the damaged vehicles contained negative messages about Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. However, there were positive words about Sen. Hillary Clinton, Local 6’s Kimberly Houk reported.

Some of the vehicles also had opened gas tanks.

Orlando police are investigating the incident and the business cards left at the scene.

Anyone with information concerning the crime is urged to call Crimeline at 800-423-TIPS.

Yes, this is of course despicable. But is it a "hate crime"? (Which probably gets you several years in the big house in Florida.)

Of course it could be the handiwork of a couple of drunken Hillary supporters.

It certainly isn’t out of character for her supporters — or indeed any Democrats.

Ask anyone who has been "keyed" or worse for daring to display a Bush bumper-sticker over the last eight years.

Or it could turn out to be yet another hoax done to engender sympathy or support.

But in any case this will sure play into our watchdog media’s storyline. As long as they remember to downplay the "negative messages" about Mr. McCain.

Which they surely will.

From the Agence France-Press:

A Hezbollah militant plants his group’s flag on a billboard bearing the images of captured Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser (right) and Eldad Regev on the outskirts of Aita al-Shaab village near the Lebanon-Israel border in 2007.

Israel approves prisoner swap with Hezbollah

by Marius Schattner

JERUSALEM (AFP) – The Israeli cabinet gave its green light on Sunday for a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah, even though two soldiers captured by the Lebanese militia two years ago are known to be dead…

Israel is seeking the return of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser or their remains. The two were captured by Hezbollah guerrillas in a deadly cross-border raid on July 12, 2006 that sparked a devastating 34-day war in Lebanon.

At the start of the session, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called on ministers to approve the proposed prisoner exchange even though the two soldiers were dead…

The heads of the Shin Beth internal security agency and of the Mossad foreign intelligence agency had urged ministers to vote against the deal…

The proposed deal has drawn criticism in Israel because it is believed to include the release of Lebanese prisoner Samir Kantar, who is currently serving a life sentence for killing two men and a four-year-old girl in a 1979 attack in northern Israel.

Kantar, a member of the Palestine Liberation Front, was sentenced in 1980 to 542 years in prison.

Olmert said Hezbollah’s goal from the very beginning had been to secure the release of Kantar…

Under the deal, Israel would release four more Lebanese prisoners, and hand over the bodies of eight Hezbollah fighters buried in Israel, an official said. "A certain number" of Palestinian prisoners would also be freed…

On June 1, Israel freed and deported to Lebanon a convicted Hezbollah spy and the Shiite militant group handed over the remains of Israeli soldiers killed in 2006.

Last October, Israel handed over a Hezbollah prisoner and the remains of two militants in return for the body of an Israeli and information on the fate of airman Ron Arad, missing since 1986…

The largest prisoner swap took place in January 2004 when Israel released 400 Palestinians and 31 other people, including 23 Lebanese, in exchange for an Israeli reservist and the remains of three Israeli soldiers.

Once again the Israelis are giving back live terrorists for dead soldiers.

It is an understandable sentiment, of course.

But it’s also a sure way to guarantee still more dead soldiers and civilians.

From the oh so fey yet viciously anti-American journal, The New Yorker:

Iranians take part in a rally against the Iranian government, organized by the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran, in Villepinte, a northern suburb of Paris, Saturday, June 28, 2008.

Preparing the Battlefield

The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.

by Seymour M. Hersh July 7, 2008

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.

“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said…

"Journalist" Seymour Hersh speaks at Al Jazeera Forum “Media and the Middle East – Beyond the Headlines” in Doha April 1, 2007.

Perhaps it is needless to say that coming as this does from Mr. Hersh, none of this may be true.

For this despicable traitor "journalist" has a long history of grossly exaggerating stories or simply making them up out of whole cloth.

Indeed, he is a confessed liar, not that we really needed his confession.

But if any of this report is true, then Mr. Hersh has once again revealed secrets which are vitally important to our national security.

Perhaps there are no laws against this at the moment per se. Though I would contend there are several on the books that would apply.

But if they aren’t, there should be.

Our country needs some way to protect itself from "the enemy within," for which Mr. Hersh serves as the poster child. He is a one man fifth column.

At the very least, whether it is true or not, this article will make it that much more difficult for any political opposition within Iran.

But of course that is also Mr. Hersh’s intentions. Since any enemy of of the US, such as Iran, must be protected at all costs.

(Thanks to Sheehanjihad for the heads up.)

From the Canadian Press:

Maclean’s mag complaint turfed

Sun, June 29, 2008

Islamic group’s human rights claim dismissed

By THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO — The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed a complaint filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Maclean’s magazine.

The Congress claimed an article written by Mark Steyn, entitled The Future Belongs to Islam and posted on Maclean’s website in October 2006, made a number of statements and assertions that were likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.

In its ruling, posted on Maclean’s website, the commission acknowledges "the writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike."

But the commission also says that, overall, "the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court."

Maclean’s says it’s pleased with the ruling, saying it’s in keeping with the magazine’s long-standing position that the article was a worthy piece of commentary, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.

"Turfed"?

Of course it is a travesty that this preposterous complaint ever got this far.

Still, it’s a small victory for whatever is left of free speech north of the border and surely a big relief for the great Mark Steyn.

From the Obama campaign outlet, the New York Times:

Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, who have adopted the middle name Hussein include J. T. Marcum, left, Aaron Barclay, Alex Enderle, Norm Shoemaker and Chelsey McCune. They use the name on the Internet and in greeting one another.

Obama Supporters Take His Middle Name as Their Own

By JODI KANTOR
Published: June 29, 2008

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.

Mr. Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Hussein is a family name inherited from a Kenyan father he barely knew, who was born a Muslim and died an atheist. But the name has become a political liability. Some critics on cable television talk shows dwell on it, while others, on blogs or in e-mail messages, use it to falsely assert that Mr. Obama is a Muslim or, more fantastically, a terrorist.

“I am sick of Republicans pronouncing Barack Obama’s name like it was some sort of cuss word,” Mr. Strabone wrote in a manifesto titled “We Are All Hussein” that he posted on his own blog and on dailykos.com.

So like the residents of Billings, Mont., who reacted to a series of anti-Semitic incidents in 1993 with a townwide display of menorahs in their front windows, these supporters are brandishing the name themselves.

“My name is such a vanilla, white-girl American name,” said Ashley Holmes of Indianapolis, who changed her name online “to show how little meaning ‘Hussein’ really has.”

The movement is hardly a mass one, and it has taken place mostly online, the digital equivalent of wearing a button with a clever, attention-getting message. A search revealed hundreds of participants across the country, along with a YouTube video and bumper stickers promoting the idea. Legally changing names is too much hassle, participants say, so they use “Hussein” on Facebook and in blog posts and comments on sites like nytimes.com, dailykos.com and mybarackobama.com, the campaign’s networking site…

What a hoot of a news article this is. Even by the execrably low standards of the New York Times.

Some critics on cable television talk shows dwell on it…

Name one, Ms. Kantor.

But isn’t it all too telling to see the "newspaper of record" passing off the juvenile claims of a handful posters at Daily Kos as national "news"?

It is of course somewhat tricky to limit a search to reveal the full extent of this alleged activity.

But the following returns may give some indication of just what an enormous phenomenon we are talking about:

(Click on images to enlarge.)

Gee, there are about 388 mentions of this practice on the whole internet — including various permutations of the New York Times article. (In fact, most of the hits in the second search are due directly or indirectly to the NYT piece.)

This is obviously "news that is fit to print." — And not an attempt to drum up support for a juvenile idea. That wouldn’t do at all.

Well, at least The Times didn’t just make the whole story up out of whole cloth, as they are wont to do.

By the way, this is the self-same Jodi Kantor who tried to "whitewash" Reverend Wright for the New York Times’ few remaining readers.

So it is just another Times reporter doing the bidding of their masters at the DNC.

Still, do you remember when the New York Times was a real newspaper and not merely a propaganda sheet for the Democrat Party?

I don’t either.

From the UK’s Telegraph:

Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my ass’ for his support

By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in New York
29/06/2008

Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support…

The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.

A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.

Mr Clinton last week issued a tepid statement, through a spokesman, in which he said he "is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States "…

It has long been known that Mr Clinton is angry at the way his own reputation was tarnished during the primary battle when several of his comments were interpreted as racist.

But his lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: "He’s been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn’t. I’ve spoken to a couple of people who he’s been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

"He’s saying he’s not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

"You can’t talk like that about Obama – he’s the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.

"Hillary’s just getting on with it and so should Bill." …

Joe Klein, the author of Primary Colours, a fictionalised account of Mr Clinton’s 1992 election, who has known the former president for 20 years, said he also heard that he was "very, very bitter", from people who have spoken with him…

We were wondering why Mr. Clinton was a no show at yesterday’s preposterously phony "Unity Rally."

Let’s see if any of our stateside media pick up his pithy remark.

From those champions of free speech and inquiry at the Washington Post:

An Attack That Came Out of the Ether

Scholar Looks for First Link in E-Mail Chain About Obama

By Matthew Mosk
Saturday, June 28, 2008; C01

PRINCETON, N.J. – The e-mail landed in Danielle Allen’s queue one winter morning as she was studying in her office at the Institute for Advanced Study, the renowned haven for some of the nation’s most brilliant minds. The missive began: "THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO."

Laid out before Allen, a razor-sharp, 36-year-old political theorist, was what purported to be a biographical sketch of Barack Obama that has become one of the most effective — and baseless — Internet attacks of the 2008 presidential season. The anonymous chain e-mail makes the false claim that Obama is concealing a radical Islamic background. By the time it reached Allen on Jan. 11, 2008, it had spread with viral efficiency for more than a year.

During that time, polls show the number of voters who mistakenly believe Obama is a Muslim rose — from 8 percent to 13 percent between November 2007 and March 2008. And some cited this religious mis-affiliation when explaining their primary votes against him.

As the general-election campaign against Sen. John McCain has gotten underway, Obama’s aides have made the smears a top target. They recently launched FightTheSmears.com to "aggressively push back with the truth," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, and go viral with it. The Web site urges supporters to upload their address books and send e-mails to all of their friends. "

But long before this, Allen had been obsessing about the origins of her e-mail at the institute, which is most famous for having been the research home of Albert Einstein. Allen studies the way voters in a democracy gather their information and act on what they learn. She was familiar, of course, with the false rumors of a secret love child that helped sink McCain’s White House bid in 2000, and the Swift boat attacks that did the same to Democrat John Kerry in 2004. But the Obama e-mail was on another plane: The use of the Internet made it possible to launch anonymous attacks that could reach millions of voters in weeks or even days.

As an Obama supporter — she had met the senator while she worked as a dean at the University of Chicago — it made her angry. And curious.

"I started thinking, ‘How does one stop it?’ "

Allen set her sights on dissecting the modern version of a whisper campaign, even though experts told her it would be impossible to trace the chain e-mail to its origin. Along the way, even as her hunt grew cold, she gained valuable insight into the way political information circulates, mutates and sometimes devastates in the digital age.

How Rumors Are Born

Allen was ideally suited to embark on such a difficult hunt. She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don’t have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.

While Allen was already an expert on the mechanics of politics, she fast began to learn the mechanics of the Internet. She discovered, for instance, that the recipe for launching a chain e-mail attack is not as simple as typing it up and hitting the send button to a long list of recipients. It takes effort to seed a chain mail that spreads as widely as the Obama missive, explained Jeff Bedser, president of the Internet Crimes Group, a company that helps corporations battle such broadsides. "Lighting that fire, getting something to have momentum, takes work," he said.

For this kind of chain-mail message to gain traction, it must be plausible, and it has to resonate, said Eric Dezenhall, a public relations specialist who once worked in the Reagan White House. Obama was vulnerable, Dezenhall said, because of his unusual name, his childhood in Indonesia, a foreign-born father, and his sudden arrival on the national stage without a fully fleshed-out biography. "All of these things gave it merchandising legs," Dezenhall said.

As Allen scrolled through the e-mail about Obama, she saw that the list of people who had received the missive consumed several full screens. Her first thought was to try to learn about the people behind the addresses. She traced a number to North Carolina Web sites about golf, but quickly hit a dead end. Then she had another thought: What if she took some of the unusual phrases from the text of the e-mail and Googled them?

Her eyes fell on this untrue sentence: "ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (Their equivalency to our Bible, but very different beliefs)."

The use of "their equivalency" and the spelling of "Kuran" instead of "Koran" made the sentence her point of departure.

That search showed that the first mention of the e-mail on the Internet had come more than a year earlier. A participant on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com posted a copy of the e-mail on Jan. 8, 2007, and added this line at the end: "Don’t know who the original author is, but this email should be sent out to family and friends."

Allen discovered that theories about Obama’s religious background had circulated for many years on the Internet. And that the man who takes credit for posting the first article to assert that the Illinois senator was a Muslim is Andy Martin.

Martin, a former political opponent of Obama’s, is the publisher of an Internet newspaper who sends e-mails to his mailing list almost daily. He said in an interview that he first began questioning Obama’s religious background after hearing his famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. In an Aug. 10, 2004, article, which he posted on Web sites and e-mailed to bloggers, he said that Obama had concealed his Muslim heritage. "I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama," Martin wrote in an accompanying press release, "but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage." Martin’s article did not suggest an association between Obama and radical Islam.

Martin was trying to launch a Senate bid against Obama when he says he first ran the Democrat’s name by a contact in London. "They said he must be a Muslim. That was interesting to me because it was an angle that nobody had covered. We started looking. As a candidate you learn how to harness the Internet. You end up really learning how to work the street. I sort of picked this story up as a sideline." Martin said the primary basis for his belief was simple — Obama’s father was a Muslim. In a defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times and others several months ago, Martin says that Obama "eventually became a Christian" but that "as a matter of Islamic law began life as a Muslim" due to his father’s religion.

The belief that Obama unavoidably inherited his religion was not uniquely Martin’s — as recently as May, it was proffered by Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, in a New York Times op-ed piece.

(After the Times was deluged with complaints, the paper’s public editor, or ombudsman, later wrote that he had interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them disagreed with Luttwak’s interpretation of Islamic law.)

Martin said he posted his 2004 article on Web sites, and distributed it by e-mail to authors of other popular blogs. But he said he had nothing to do with the chain e-mail that got Allen’s attention. "I’m not trying to smear anybody," Martin said. "I just felt that was an underreported story."

But Martin said he understands how his initial article has taken on a life of its own. "There’s nothing sinister here. I was thinking of running for Senate and was looking for a story to put some sizzle on the plate."

Other articles followed Martin’s. Andrew Walden, the founder of an alternative Hawaiian newspaper with the motto "The untold story, the unspoken opinion, the other side," published an article with many of the same false biographical details from the e-mail in the weeks before Obama announced for president — that he was "Raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools." He said in an interview that Obama’s "alliance with Islam" was "all over the Internet," a source he often considers more trustworthy than the mainstream media.

Around the same time Ted Sampley, a North Carolina man who runs his own Web site, published a similar piece. In an interview, he denied authorship of the e-mail, but said he did not doubt that his article had provided source material. "That’s the miracle of it," Sampley said. "Once it takes off, and people start posting it on Web sites, you really have no idea how far it goes or who reads it. You get a ripple effect. It’s like a little pebble and then it gets bigger and bigger."

Poring over these early articles on the topic, Allen noticed what she thought was an important pattern. In each instance, someone had posted the articles on the Free Republic Web site, prompting a discussion involving the same handful of people, with several expressing a desire to spread the word about Obama’s supposed faith.

Keeper of the Obama File

Of the file folders that are spread in neat rows across Allen’s desk, only one is bulging. It holds printouts of the reams of conversations about Obama’s religion appearing on Free Republic. Since its start in 1996 by Jim Robinson of Fresno, Calif., the site has grown into a home for discussion of all types — though it is particularly noted for spirited political discussions dominated by conservatives and libertarians. Freepers, as they’re called, converse with a varying degree of transparency. Most remain anonymous.

Allen counted 23 freepers among those engaging in regular discussions about Obama’s religion, and isolated a handful whom she began to suspect as having a role in the e-mail. Sifting through hundreds of postings, she began to piece together their identities. There was "Beckwith," whom she pegged as a veteran from Boston, old enough to vote for John F. Kennedy, in uniform by 1964, and host of a Web site that devotes considerable space to an "Obama file" that says the senator is "by birth, blood and training, a Muslim."

Continue…

From an elated Associated Press:

Obama plans visits to Europe, Mideast this summer

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama plans to visit the Middle East and Europe this summer, taking time off from campaigning in the United States in an effort to boost his foreign policy credentials.

Obama’s campaign said the likely nominee will travel to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The Illinois senator also has said he intends to visit Iraq and Afghanistan this summer; his campaign would not say whether those stops would be part of the trip to the Mideast and Europe.

"This trip will be an important opportunity for me to assess the situation in countries that are critical to American national security, and to consult with some of our closest friends and allies about the common challenges we face," Obama said in a statement. "This will be an important opportunity to have an exchange of views with leaders in these countries about these and other issues that are critical to American national security — and global security — in the 21st century." …

Obama’s campaign manager said this past week that Iraq and Afghanistan would be part of an official congressional trip. The other stops are part of a campaign-funded visit.

It is unusual for a presidential candidate to travel internationally so close to Election Day, especially in a closely fought campaign…

Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said the senator wants to consult with leaders of the countries he plans to visit about issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. But he’s planning other public events as well…

The trip is an attempt to address Republican rival John McCain’s criticism that the first-term Illinois senator lacks the international experience to be commander in chief…

An Associated Press-Yahoo News poll taken this month found that 61 percent of those surveyed see McCain as a good military leader, compared with 27 percent for Obama. But they see Obama as more likely to improve America’s standing in the world, 43 percent to 33 percent who said the same about McCain.

Even if the last bit of agit-prop from the AP is true, exactly what effect — good or bad — does ‘America’s standing in the world’ have?

One would think our standing was pretty good at the end of the Second World War, and yet half the world proceeded to go Communist.

Obama’s campaign manager said this past week that Iraq and Afghanistan would be part of an official congressional trip.

So the taxpayer gets to fund this very expensive campaign trip. How nice.

It is unusual for a presidential candidate to travel internationally so close to Election Day…

It is more than "unusual," it is entirely unprecedented. And it shows either incredibly hubris — or a real fear that he may lose the election on foreign policy issues.

Which, in a sane world, he of course would.

Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said the senator wants to consult with leaders of the countries he plans to visit about issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

Mr. Obama is managing to act even more presumptuous than Hillary.

Gee, even Mrs. Clinton was willing until she was elected (though not yet inaugurated) to start acting as President.

Who would have thought that was possible?

And where is there any mention of the sizable carbon footprint this trip will have?

This thread is for the busy bees of S&L to post news items themselves.

In order to make the articles as readable as possible, please try to stick to the format described in the first of these weekly editions here.

Of course articles that fit under the topic of a recent thread should be posted there. As always, remember to excerpt heavily and to provide a link to the original source.

From Gallup:

Obama Beats McCain on Most Character Ratings

by Lydia Saad

June 27, 2008

PRINCETON, NJ — In the June 15-19 USA Today/Gallup poll, Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters in a presidential preference test, 48% to 42%. The same poll finds Obama swamping McCain in Americans’ perceptions of who has the better grasp of the problems Americans face, while McCain leads Obama by a slight margin as a "strong and decisive leader." …

The two dimensions on which Obama does best relative to McCain — understanding the problems Americans face in their daily lives and caring about "the needs of people like you" — both concern his perceived empathy for average Americans. He outscores McCain by more than 20 percentage points on both of these.

Obama also leads by double digits on two dimensions that tap Americans’ perceptions of the candidates’ political independence: being independent in his thoughts and actions, and standing up to special interests.

Obama performs well on two dimensions related to his effectiveness in achieving public policy objectives: working well with both parties to get things done, and having a clear plan for solving the country’s problems…

Obama and McCain are more closely matched when it comes to their personal ethics or values. Obama leads McCain, but only slightly, on the "shares your values" dimension, while the two are nearly tied in perceptions of who is more "honest and trustworthy."

Obama clearly wins Gallup’s character ratings by volume; the question is whether he wins by a large enough margin on the dimensions that are most important to Americans when electing a president. Obama’s six-point lead in the horse race in the same poll is an important summary indicator suggesting that he does.

(Click on images to enlarge.)

This is nothing less than the victory of our non-stop propagandizing media and our dumbed-down propagandizing education system and "culture."

From an outraged Associated Press:

After-tax incomes and spending show big gains

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON – The millions of economic stimulus payments gave a massive jolt to household finances in May, sending after-tax incomes up by the largest amount in 33 years.

The payments helped boost consumer spending by the largest amount in six months.

The Commerce Department reported that disposable incomes, the amount left after paying taxes, surged by 5.7 percent last month. It was the biggest increase since May 1975, reflecting $48.1 billion in rebate payments made last month. The surge in incomes helped boost consumer spending by 0.8 percent, the biggest gain since last November.

The administration is hoping that the $106.7 billion in stimulus payments being made this year to 130 million households will be enough to offset serious drags on the economy at the moment from a prolonged housing slump, a severe credit crisis and soaring energy bills.

However, economists are worried that the boost from the stimulus checks will be only temporary and once the checks are spent, the risks of the economy falling into a deep recession will increase…

The rebate checks are part of a $168 billion package of tax relief for individuals and businesses that Congress passed in February at the urging of the administration in an effort to give the economy a boost and ward off the threat of a deep recession. The payments began on April 28 and are scheduled to be completed by mid-July.

The Bush administration currently is resisting Democratic calls for a second stimulus package even though economists are worried that the effects of the boost will prove temporary at best. They fear the stimulus will fail to prevent a serious slump in the second half of this year as the economy’s troubles from housing, a severe credit sqeeze [sic] and soaring energy prices mount…

On the face of it this article appears to be surprisingly upbeat, especially coming from the professional doom-sayers of the Associated Press.

But when you unpack it the message is clear. All of these gains are simply due to the "rebate checks" and therefore are temporary at best.

Never mind that there have been several such stimulus packages over the last 33 years without any such dramatic up-ticks in income and spending.

Of course the real motivation for the piece is buried way down in the article:

The Bush administration currently is resisting Democratic calls for a second stimulus package even though economists are worried that the effects of the boost will prove temporary at best.

This entire story is simply a push for a second stimulus package, as now demanded by the AP’s masters.

But isn’t it funny that these selfsame Democrats will fight any permanent tax cuts with their dying breath?

Why is that?