w/ Brad & Desi
NATIONWIDE STUDY FINDS ALMOST NO VOTER FRAUD
Just 10 cases of in-person impersonation in all 50 states since 2000...
VIDEO: 'Rise of the Tea Bags'
Brad interviews American patriots...
'Democracy's Gold Standard'
Hand-marked, hand-counted ballots...
GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal 2012...
The Secret Koch Brothers Tapes...
|U.S. Chamber of Commerce 'Terror Tools' Spy Plot...|
|Wisconsin 2011 Supreme Court Election Debacle...|
|Japan Quake/Tsunami/Nuke Emergency...|
|WikiLeaks / Julian Assange...|
|More Special Coverages Pages...|
You may remember the various outrageous and unsupported statements by Cheney, Bush, Hastert and the rest of the Wingnuts suggesting outright that "The Terrorists support John Kerry". (In case you don't, the ad at right was on Drudge a few months ago. Just one of many created to send the message). UPDATE: Another story on this point, just released by AFP
Of course, in none of those cases did any of the irresponsible folks making the claim have a shred of actual evidence to support their smear. They were just smearing for Smear & Fear sake. Anything to win a Presidential election.
It seems obvious to me that Bush has been a terrorist's Dream President as he's effectively done everything they could have hoped for. Even Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that our actions in Iraq are likely "creating terrorists faster than we can kill them".
When it comes to hard evidence one way or another as to whom "The Terrorists" support however, there is only one clear statement from any Terrorist that I know of. And they have firmly endorsed George W. Bush for President as reported by the International Herald Tribune last March just after the Madrid bombings.
The note claiming responsibility for those bombings made "The Terrorists" preference for George W. Bush quite clear:
"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," it said.
Addressing Bush, it said: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world. Comparing Bush with his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, the statement tells the president, "Actually, there is no difference between you and Kerry, but Kerry will kill our community, while it is unaware, because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish infidelity and present it to the Arab and Islamic community as civilization." [emphasis added]
So shouldn't the ad at right be changed to "1 out of 1 Terrorist Agrees! VOTE BUSH!"? Or should Bush/Cheney change their slogan to "Bush/Cheney - Even the Terrorists Support Us!"?
At least there is actual documented evidence to back up those claims.
(Thanks John Aravosis for the tip)
This is the ad currently appearing on Drudge's site...
Ironic today, if only for this item. Not to mention the countless hundreds of other biased and incorrect reports like the one I pointed to that are featured every single month on Drudge and echoed in the rest of the Right Biased media chamber.
The beat goes on. Anything to win.
For how long now has the White House told us they've "released everything pertaining to Bush's National Guard service"?
Yes, it was another late-on-Friday-night, too-late-to-make-it-onto-the-Nightly-News coincidence again this week.
Yesterday, The Washington Times lied in a story about a John Kerry appearance on CNN's Crossfire in 1997 where they claimed, after viewing a copy of the tape, that John Kerry had said: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. ... We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
Unfortunately, the piece was a complete lie, as blogged yesterday right here, made even more destructive as it was picked up by Drudge, and thus predictably carried by the rest of the Rightwing Echo Chamber (Rush, Sean, Fox, the wingnut Blogosphere, etc.) Drudge, predictably, has not bothered to carry the "Correction" posted today.
Today, The Times has just made matters worse by running a "Correction" to the story right here.
Here is the letter I just sent off to Mr. McCaslin (following up a note I sent yesterday) along with a CC to his Managing Editor. Feel free to do the same!
It's nice that you attempted some correction to your grossly incorrect story on Kerry. It's further evidence of the example that Republicans follow their "President" by blaiming things on anyone but themselves when things go wrong.
Your correction to your erroneous story today begins with: "Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King..."
And yet, in your original incorrect story, you made it quite clear that "While no 'Crossfire' transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with...this Inside the Beltway column for publication."
You were wrong that no "Crossfire" transcripts were available (a point you didn't bother to correct at all in your "Correction") and more to the point, you said you were given access to the tape itself! The tape that supposedly contained the Kerry quote that you completely made up!
And now you are blaming Rep. King for your errors?
Might I remind you, you are the supposed journalist here. It is your responsibility to get the facts straight. And since you had them right in front of you (the actual tape of the show, and the transcript as easily available from Lexus/Nexus) you bear the responsibility for getting the story entirely wrong. Not Rep. King.
The fact that your error went out over Drudge, and subsequently every Rightwing parrot in the Echo Chamber certainly compounds the problem. The fact that your paper and others in the Chamber have the unmitigated gall to call for Rather's resignation when he made an error by being too hasty with releasing a story he thought to be true, versus a story that you clearly made up out of whole cloth is beyond appalling. But unfortunately, it's also symptomatic of both the Rightwing Echo Chamber, and, in your passing the buck to someone else, symptomatic of precisely what's wrong with the "Leadership" in this country.
I look forward to you now correcting the Correction and taking the responsibility you have in the matter. Beyond that, I'd hope that your Managing Editor would show the appropriate journalistic ethics and fire you, since it's clear you either out and out lied when you indicated you had a tape of the program, or you out and out lied when you printed a quotation from the show that simply didn't exist.
If newspapers will allow writers to continue contributing to their paper after indisputable lying in those same pages, then all journalistic credibility for such a paper is wholly and irretrievably lost.
Los Angeles, CA USA
Bad news for Kerry! DRUDGE has the scoop! Right on the top of his page, you can still click on this headline: "Kerry Argued Case For Unilateral Preemptive Action In Iraq On CNN's CROSSFIRE In 1997..."
The link is to a new Washington Times piece by John McCaslin quoting Kerry on CNN's Crossfire in 1997, when we are told Kerry said: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. ... We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." McCaslin also said that "no 'Crossfire' transcripts from 1997 are available" but that he recieved a tape of the show.
Only problem? Kerry never said it.
Media Matters has the full story of what Kerry actually said...along with the transcript!
In the wake of "Rather-Gate" has anyone yet heard the cries for McCaslin and Drudge to resign? McCaslin had the actual tape of the show, so why would he put quotes around what he knows full well that John Kerry didn't say? I think you know the answer.
Still trying to decipher what message he thinks he was actually sending with that quote, but in the meantime, the Kerry Campaign has responded --- and quickly! --- with another new ad. Good rapid response. Good to see.
As I've received so much Email of late on the topic of the Jimmy Swaggart video ad I released recently, I've been pondering a few of the related ideas.
Swaggart, as many "Christian" homophobes enjoy mentioning, said in his sermon after announcing that he'd kill a gay man who looked at him the wrong way and then "tell God he died", that the bible says homosexuality is "an abomination". He reminded us of that just before he endorsed George W. Bush from his pulpit.
Swaggart is right, of course, on the bible calling homosexuality "an abomination" in Leviticus 18:22. Subsequently, God also is quoted as suggesting in Romans 1:32 that those "who commit such things are worthy of death".
This got me pondering about which of the bible thumpers out there (and I know we have one or two who read this Blog regularly) might agree that gays should be put to death as the bible would seem to advocate? Any of you Theo-Cons willing to ring in on that? You know where the Comment button is.
So I started looking around for more information on what else Leviticus has to say about things, and I came again across this letter to Dr. Laura that has made it's way around the Internet starting sometime in 2000, not long after Dr. Laura informed her listeners that homosexuality was a "mistake of nature", "a biological error" and that gays are in fact "deviants".
I don't know if Laura (not an actual medical or psychological or sociological Doctor, by the way) still feels that way as she seems to flip-flop on her opinions quite a bit. For example, she had years ago converted to Orthodox Judiasm, only to then renounce her religion on the air in July of 2003.
In any case, if you haven't seen this letter, or even if you have, it seems timely in this day and age to reprint it here again, along with a picture of the good "Doctor" (pictured upper-right, I'm sorry, it was amongst the least pornographic shots that I felt it proper to display on the front page here as it was one of the few without visible pubic hair from the series of photos it seems she posed for during one of her extra-marital affairs) to remind folks who Dr. Laura is, in case they're not familiar with her work. It's interesting to "heathens" like myself, what else the bible, including Leviticus and other chapters, has to say about a few other things:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
No word yet, four years after this letter was sent, on Dr. Laura's reply.
A day or so ago, Josh Marshall said: "Every so often you just have to sit back and marvel at the Twilight Zone we're living in at the moment."
Indeed...Here's one of those Twilight Zone moments from Wednesday, as reported by NY Times:
Untwist that logic while you stir yourself up another pitcher.
After a couple of days of hemming and hawing and "Who us?"-ing, the Republicans have come "clean" on the story we mentioned here and then here a couple of days ago, wherein we predicted this came from the same filthy bag of dirty tricks that the Republicans used to slime their own John McCain in 2000.
As reported in tomorrow's NY Times:
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
In case you missed it the first time, here's the thoughtful mailing being sent out in Arkansas and West Virginia to help voters understand the "issues" at stake this year:
Just wait though. There's plenty more to come, I predict, from their filthy bag of tricks. So hold your nose and stay tuned. That rancid smell is the boyz just getting warmed up in the pig pen. These things get easier and easier, you know, when there's no troubling moral compass by which one needs to measure ones self.
A rather brilliant piece from Juan Coles...I'll give ya the first few grafs, please drop by to read the rest:
President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.
What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.
Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.
And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?
What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?
What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?
There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?
Inform yourself and pay attention.
A Few Great Blogs
· Baghdad Burning
· Brilliant at Breakfast
· Crooks and Liars
· Dan Froomkin
· Fired Up! Missouri
· Freedom's Phoenix
· Freeway Blogger
· Glenn Greenwald
· Huffington Post
· Jesus' General
· Juan Cole
· Washington Monthly
· Media Matters
· Nashua Advocate
· Oliver Willis
· RAW STORY
· Sanoma State's
Project Censored Sites:
· Daily Censored
· Media Freedom
· Project Censored
· Scholars & Rogues
· Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
· Talking Points Memo
· Think Progress
· Tom Tomorrow
· TV Newser
· Ben Sargent
· Bill Deore
· Bob Gorrell
· Cagle's Index
· Chan Lowe
· Don Wright
· Doug Marlette
· Glenn McCoy
· Jeff Danziger
· Joel Pett
· Mike Luckovich
· Non Sequitur
· Not Banned Yet
· Pat Oliphant
· Paul Conrad
· Ted Rall
· This Modern World
· Thomas Burns
· Tom Toles
· Tony Auth
· Stuart Carlson
Or by Snail Mail
Make check out to...
7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
Los Angeles, CA 90028