How To Destroy Hillary Clinton And Every Democrat Who Wants To Have Anything To Do With Her

Remember when reporters were flying all the way to Wasilla, Alaska to dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage and all of her emails?  Do you remember, as the last link documents, how liberal news organizations actually even asked for the public to assist in digging through all of Palin’s emails to find the nugget of dirt so they could attack her???

Of course, if you are Empress of the Universe Hillary Clinton, you are above the press and you are above the petty government rules and regulations and you are far, FAR above the unwashed masses of humanity.

It comes down to this: expose what this wicked fascist woman has done and demand that Republicans be given the exact same “right” to destroy incriminating evidence that she gave herself.

In any and every debate, force Hillary Clinton to either say that what she did was fundamentally and profoundly wrong and a disgusting perversion of any government of the people, or else get her on the record saying that if every single Republican and Republican appointee installs servers in his/her own home, and has his/her own handpicked staff decide which emails to wipe before turning anything over and thus being able to flout any investigation or any freedom of information act request for what had previously always been public records, that Hillary Clinton and every single Democrat would accept and embrace the resulting corruption and accept the responsibility for it.

Take a look at what we’re now learning: Hillary Clinton not only installed a server in her own home to maintain fascist-Nazi-Stalinist control over her communications such that neither the government, nor an email service such as Yahoo, nor any investigator, nor anyone else, could view any communications that Hillary Clinton did not want them to see; she not only purged her server of tens of thousands of emails before turning over only what she wanted to allow anyone to see; but she actually purged her emails AFTER receiving a lawful subpoena for the very records that she purged.

We’ve learned that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama never bothered with an Inspector General whose job it would have been to keep the State Department honest during the ENTIRE TIME she was Secretary of State:

The State Department had no permanent inspector general—the lead watchdog charged with uncovering misconduct and waste—during Hillary Clinton’s entire tenure as secretary, leaving in place an acting inspector who had close ties to State Department leadership.

President Barack Obama didn’t put forward a nominee to lead the inspector general’s office while Mrs. Clinton led the State Department, making it the only agency with a presidentially appointed inspector general that had neither a confirmed nor nominated head watchdog during that full time period.

Five months after Mrs. Clinton left office, Mr. Obama nominated a permanent inspector general, who was confirmed by the Senate three months later.

The lack of a confirmed inspector general raises questions about oversight of the department under Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. The department has been criticized for its failure to gather and archive the email records of Mrs. Clinton and other officials and for responses to public-record requests that lawmakers and advocacy groups say were insufficient, including its response to requests for information from a congressional panel investigating the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The vacancy in the top watchdog spot left the State Department with no confirmed inspector general for more than five years, the longest gap since the position was created in 1957, according to department records. While other agencies have had no permanent inspectors general at various points in recent years, some of those vacancies were due to a lack of confirmation by the Senate on nominees put forward by Mr. Obama.

Is isn’t clear whether Mrs. Clinton had any role in the lack of a nomination.

But yes, it actually is pretty damn clear: if Clinton had wanted an IG, she could have and in fact would have demanded one be appointed.  She DIDN’T want one – and her corrupt behavior that exploited the fact that there wasn’t an IG proves it.

We’ve learned that Hillary Clinton was soliciting foreign governments to give her personal so-called “non-profit” organization millions of dollars and doing so even WHILE SHE WAS SERVING as Secretary of State:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might have had her last pleasant day for quite some time on Tuesday when she received $300,000 to gush insipid platitudes about glass ceilings and everyone coming together for altruism’s sake in Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, the story involving the Clinton Foundation’s scandalous sources of financing have been gaining steam for weeks. Late Wednesday night, it exploded.

On the 19th, the Clinton Foundation revealed that it might shift its policy on accepting foreign donations if Hillary Clinton decides to mount a presidential bid. The foundation did not, however, commit to rejecting foreign donations entirely, a practice from which many Clinton allies have long urged the foundation to abstain. “Democrats in several states that vote early in the presidential nominating process said Thursday they were uneasy with the donations from Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and other nations,” The Wall Street Journal reported on the 19th. These warnings proved prescient.

Outwardly, the Clinton Foundation insisted that it had ceased to accept funds from foreign sources after 2008 so as to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest with Hillary serving as America’s chief diplomat. “During Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, the foundation banned all donations from foreign governments due to conflict of interest it would pose for the foundation and the Obama administration,” CNN reported. “Clinton stepped down as America’s top diplomat in early 2013 and the foundation began, once again, to collect donations from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.”

Since its founding in 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed $2 billion in contributions, and many of those donations came from sources in foreign governments and businesses. Despite the fact that Clinton has been out of public office for two years, activists still warned that these contributions might soon prove ethically problematic. But the political press seemed initially inclined to frame the Clinton Foundation’s questionable funding sources as a political attack line, and a subject that primarily interested Republicans.

“GOP seeks to make Clinton Foundation a 2016 headache,” a CNN headline read. “If the biggest attack on Hillary’s going to be that she raised too much money for her charity, okay, I’ll take that,” Virginia governor and longtime Clinton Ally Terry McAuliffe told The Washington Post. Like so many allegations of unscrupulous behavior that the Clintons manage to convince the press to forget, this one seemed like it might soon join the myriad of questionable episodes in this family’s past that are nothing more than background radiation ahead of 2016.

Shortly before 9 p.m. on the East Coast on Wednesday, the other shoe in the burgeoning scandal involving the Clinton Foundation’s finances landed with a thud. “The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday,” The Washington Post revealed.

In The Post’s sprawling dispatch, it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation sought and accepted donations from foreign governments both during and after Hillary Clinton’s tenure as chief diplomat at Foggy Bottom. “In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government,” The Post’s report read.

The donation from Algeria for Haiti earthquake relief, they said, arrived without notice within days of the 2010 quake and was distributed as direct aid to assist in relief. Algeria has not donated to the foundation since, officials said.

The contribution coincided with a spike in the North African country’s lobbying visits to the State Department.

That year, Algeria spent $422,097 lobbying U.S. government officials on human rights issues and U.S.-Algerian relations, according to filings made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Data tracked by the Sunlight Foundation shows that while the Algerian government’s overall spending on lobbying in the United States remained steady, there was an increase in 2010 in State Department meetings held with lobbyists representing the country — with 12 visits to department officials that year, including some visits with top political appointees. In the years before and after, only a handful of State Department visits were recorded by Algeria lobbyists.

According to the terms of an ethics agreement the Clinton Foundation signed with the Obama administration before Hillary Clinton was tapped to serve as secretary of state, the foundation was not to accept foreign donations but could continue to operate in order to fulfil its philanthropic mission. That agreement was signed by the foundation’s chief executive, Bruce Lindsey, and Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett. The revelation that those terms were violated not only raises questions about Hillary Clinton’s ethics, but also about the White House’s administrational competence.

If a right-wing Republican had this kind of obvious, blatant conflict-of-interest and real possibility of corruption hanging over his head, do you think his communications should be off limits???

We’ve learned that at least some of the emails that Hillary Clinton didn’t want the American people to see likely involved her corruption using her brother as a conduit of the worst kind of government kickback scheme:

The latest baggage threatening to dog Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the White House comes in the form of her brother, who allegedly got help from the Department of Homeland Security in smoothing a business deal.

The department’s inspector general found that Tony Rodham was given special treatment by DHS’ No. 2 in securing visas for foreigners connected to a deal.

Rodham was CEO of an electric car company owned by another longtime Clinton pal, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, when he got help from DHS official Alejandro Mayorkas securing the visas for investors in the firm. It is not clear that Clinton played any role. But the determination could, at least, fuel new questions about what was contained in the thousands of emails sent and received on Clinton’s private server while she was secretary of state — many of which she says were deleted.

Ah, those pesky inspector generals.  Good thing that Hillary Clinton was a good fascist who abolished them from her State Department the way any self-respecting Hitler goon would have done.

If a right-wing Republican had this kind of obvious, blatant, DOCUMENTED example of personal corruption hanging over his head, do you think his communications should be off-limits???

So here’s where we’re at now: Hillary Clinton scrubbed her emails.  AFTER they were lawfully subpoenaed:

Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton wiped her server clean
By Lauren French
3/27/15 6:23 PM EDT
Updated 3/27/15 7:57 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.

Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.

Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton.

“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Gowdy said.

Clinton previously said she decided to delete the emails after her lawyers reviewed the server for work-related correspondence. She said the deletion of private emails occurred “at the end” of that review.

In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home.

“There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the hdr22@clintonemail.com account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”

If Republicans take the White House again, and assuming that Democrats are able to take control of the House and Senate, should any and all Republican communications be off limits to lawful congressional and Senate investigations???

And all I’m doing is demanding that every single Republican on earth have the same exact right.  And the more pathologically distrusted any Republican is by Democrats, the more that Republican ought to follow Hillary Clinton’s example and do exactly what she did.

All I’m demanding is that President Ted Cruz or whatever rightwing president the Democrat Party despises the most along with all of his appointees gets to purge all of his records and be accountable to NO ONE the same way Hillary Clinton was.

That’s what it comes down to: the pollsters are saying that support or opposition of Hillary Clinton is baked in; that people by now either love her or hate her.  So let’s inform those who love her that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to banish any accountability from government – and that if a Republican gets elected president, that you as a member of the Democrat Party have permanently voided any right to ever see the communications of any Republican or Republican appointee ever again.  Because that’s what you voted for when you voted to make Hillary Clinton your party’s nominee.

I’m demanding that if anti-democratic fascism is good for the goose-stepping goose, it ought to be just as damn good for the gander.

And don’t you dare try to pass a law after the fact while continuing to support Hillary Clinton, you fascist cockroach Democrat pile of moral slime: because if what she did was in any way okay, then you shouldn’t pass any laws to stop someone from doing it in the future; whereas if what she did was wrong, THEN SHE HAS NO MORE BUSINESS BEING PRESIDENT THAN THE WORSE SCUMBAG IN AMERICA.

ANY attempt by Democrats to make what Hillary Clinton did illegal after the fact should have a provision inserted within it stating for the official government record that what Hillary Clinton was wrong and both by intent and by consequence violated the democratic process of public official accountability whether her army of lawyers argue it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is or NOT.

Keep pushing home the FACT that a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton is a vote for the most despicable form of unconstitutional and anti-democratic form of fascism there is.  And do it by repeatedly asking voters the question whether every Republican and every Republican official ought to be allowed to keep their communications above the law the same way Hillary Clinton did.

Obama Camp Punishes RARE Reporter Who Asks Tough Questions

The Obama campaign has always had it pretty easy with the press.  It wasn’t too long ago that his extravaganza trip to Europe and Iraq were covered by the anchors of all three major networks.  John McCain couldn’t have PAID Brian Williams, Katie Couric, or Charles Gibson to accompany him on any of his trips to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs has followed the puppydog-like way the media has followed Obama:

The “big three” broadcast networks – NBC, ABC and CBS – remain captivated with Sen. Barack Obama, according to a study of campaign coverage released Tuesday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

Numbers tell all: 61 percent of the stories that appeared on the networks between Aug. 23 and Sept. 30 were positive toward the Democratic Party. In contrast, just 39 percent of the stories covering Republicans were favorable.

“After a brief flirtation with Sarah Palin, the broadcast networks have returned to their first love: Barack Obama,” said Robert Lichter, the center’s president.

“John McCain has not been so lucky. He’s gotten bad coverage from the beginning. It has never varied from that,” Mr. Lichter added.

Unfortunately, the Washington Times decided this October 13, 2008 story titled, “Study: Big Three Networks Still Fixated On ‘First Love’ Obama” harmed “the One” more than they liked; they purged it.  But the fact of media bias for Obama remains whether stories pointing to it are purged or not.  It never ceases to amaze me how quickly articles critical of Democrats get taken down, while articles critical of Republicans stay up for years.

The Media Research Center is another media watchdog that has noticed that the media bias in favor of Barack Obama is pretty much disgusting:

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has “always received very positive press from the national media,” and that was a “huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career.”

That’s contrary to the normal “default position” for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is “not the normal professional approach you see in journalists,” he said.

And the most recent survey from the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election” – Sep 6 – Oct 16, tells us that:

In short, Obama gets nearly 3 times more positive coverage than McCain, while McCain gets nearly twice as much negative coverage as Obama.  Does that sound fair to you?  How is McCain supposed to run against that?

It gets even WORSE for Sarah Palin, believe it or not; she received only 6% positive coverage, and 64% negative coverage!

Realize that John McCain has been routinely portrayed as “going negative.”  Aside from the fact that this is patently false – according to yet another media watchdog, the Wisconsin Advertising Project based at the University of Wisconsin – just what on earth is John McCain supposed to do?  The media is literally doing the lion’s share of Obama’s dirty work for him by negatively covering John McCain under the guise of “news.”  And then that same media attacks him when he goes negative!

Last week Colin Powell – in a powder puff ‘Meet the Press‘ interview – officially endorsed Barack Obama (after officially being one of his ‘advisors’ for months).  The kinds of questions I would have loved to see asked of Colin Powell, such as:

Mr. Secretary, given the fact that you were the man who made the case for war with Iraq at the United Nations – and given the fact that the man you are endorsing has called the war you supported one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in history – are you acknowledging your own personal incompetence.  Are you acknowledging that your judgment should not be trusted?

Mr. Secretary, given the fact that the man you are endorsing has opposed the surge strategy conceived of and carried out by General Petraeus as one that would fail, and which would actually INCREASE sectarian violence, are you stating for the record your belief that General Petraeus was wrong, and that Barack Obama was right?  Are you claiming that the surge has NOT been a military success? Should we take this as further evidence of your own personal incompetence and poor judgment?

Somehow never got asked.  Too bad Colin Powell got to talk with pompous liberal Tom Brokaw rather than having to deal with the likes of a Barbara West.

The amazing thing is that the Associated Press article by Nedra Pickler that acknowledged that the Obama had scrubbed his website of his criticism of the surge strategy has itself been scrubbed.  Fortunately I have preserved the article here.  Kind of reminds me of the great work done by the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s 1984.

So, what happens when some courageous journalist – looking at the total onslaught of pro-Obama bias and downright propaganda – decides to finally ask the Obama-Biden campaign some tough but legitimate questions?

Well, it finally happened, and the Obama campaign has come unglued over it.  Here is a transcript of WFTV anchor Barbara West’s interview with Sen. Biden:

WEST: I know you’re in North Carolina trying to help get out the vote but aren’t you embarassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?

BIDEN: I am not embarassed by it. We are not tied to it. We have not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter. We have the best GOTV operation in modern history. We’ve registered the voters ourselves and so there is no relationship. So I am embarassed for anybody in ACORN who went out there and registered somebody who shouldn’t be registered. I’m not embarrassed by our campaign because we haven’t paid ACORN a single penny to register a single voter.

WEST: But in the past, Sen. Obama was a community organizer for ACORN. He was an attorney for ACORN and certainly in the Senate, he has been a benefactor for ACORN.

BIDEN: How has he been a benefactor for ACORN? He was a community organizer. John McCain stood before ACORN not long ago and complimented them on the great work they did. Does that make John McCain complicit in any mistake that ACORN made? C’mon. Let’s get real.

WEST: Okay, moving onto the next question. Sen. Obama famously told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread his wealth around. Gallup polls show 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving financial conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S. as opposed to taking steps to distributing wealth. Isn’t Sen. Obama’s statement a potentially crushing political blunder?

BIDEN: Absolutely not. The only person that’s spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain’s tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. For the first time since the 1920’s, the top 1% make 21% of the income in America. That isn’t the way it was before George Bush became president. All we want is the middle class to have a fighting chance. That’s why we focus all of our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break. And John McCain doubles down on Bush’s tax cuts and gives a $300 billion in tax cuts for the largest companies in America. We don’t think that’s the way to do it. We think give the middle class a break. That’s the way to do it.

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: It’s a real question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have. What has happened just this year is that the people making $1.4 million a year, the wealthiest 1%, good, decent American people, are gonna get an $87 billion tax cut. A new one on top of the one from last year. We think that the people getting that tax break and not redistribute the wealth up, should be the middle class. That’s what we think. It’s a ridiculous comparison with all due respect.

WEST: Now you recently said “Mark my words. It won’t be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.” But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it won’t be apparent that he got it right. Are you forewarning the American people that something might not get done and that America’s days as the world’s leader might be over?

BIDEN: No, I’m not at all. I don’t know who’s writing your questions but let me make it clear to you. The fact of the matter is that everyone with knowledge, from Colin Powell on down, the next president, whether it’s John McCain or Barack Obama. The reason is our weakened position in the world. We’re stretched thin throughout the world. Our economy is in freefall right now. And they’re gonna be tested. And the point I was making is that Barack Obama is better prepared to handle any crisis than John McCain…

Here’s Obama’s response:

The Barack Obama campaign called Barbara West’s interview with Sen. Joe Biden unprofessional and combative.

The first time that someone actually asks real questions, the Obama campaign whines that the interview was combative. That’s what happens when they’re used to getting softball questions. It’s great to hear West isn’t just sitting back and taking it. Here’s her response:

“I have a great deal of respect for him. I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Obama. We are given four minutes of a satellite window for these interviews. Four precious minutes. I got right down to it and, yes, I think I asked him some pointed questions. These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don’t think I was rude or inconsiderate to him. I think I was probing and maybe tough. I can’t believe that in all of his years in politics, and all of his campaigning and such, that he hasn’t run into some tough questions before. He’s certainly up to it in giving good answers.”

Well, apparently he isn’t.  And apparently you’re not allowed to ask the Obama campaign’s tough questions.

For one thing, he misrepresents Barack Obama’s own stated position:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So when Biden said of Barack Obama, “He’s not spreading the wealth around,” he’s pretty much lying through his dazzlingly bleached teeth.  It’s too bad that Barbara West didn’t have four more minutes.

One would have to be incredibly determined to find a better 4-word definition of Marxism than “spread the wealth around.”  Biden’s response to an incredibly legitimate question was to lie, and then express his annoyance that anyone would dare to ask him a legitimate question.

For the record, the Obama campaign paid $820,000 to ACORN for “lighting” even as they were becoming involved in voter fraud in 15 states (and counting).  Biden says the campaign didn’t “give a single penny to ACORN.”  He’s right; they gave 82 MILLION pennies to them!  And citing the fact that John McCain once gave a speech to ACORN as a dodge for Obama’s years of involvement with ACORN doesn’t merit anything but contempt.

In any event, the Obama campaign didn’t like being asked hard questions – like McCain and Palin get damn near every time they do ANY interview (including ABC’s the View), so the arrogant and imperious Obama campaign arrogantly and imperiously decided to punish WFTV for West’s transgression:

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden’s wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Of course, given the trend, overly-specific articles of this interview will likely be shortly scrubbed by the same Ministry of Truth that has already been hard at work in this campaign, anyway…

The really funny (in a sick, twisted, ironic way) thing about the Obama campaign is that they are willing to negotiate with the leaders of rogue terrorist states without preconditions, but they aren’t willing to talk with reporters who will ask them legitimate questions.

Under a Pelosi-Reid-dominated and even filibuster proof Congress, you won’t have to worry about that kind of interview much longer.  Conservative thought will be criminalized and punished under the Fairness Doctrine.  Nancy Pelosi has already said as much.  People who wish to punish free speech under the guise of “fairness” should be frightening.  But we see just how intolerant Democrats are to free speech given knowledge of the past.

Why Obama Didn’t Go Far Enough To Condemn Palin Attackers

In the face of rather vicious attacks by the left against Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Barack Obama came out with a strong statement that families should be off-limits in presidential campaigns.

But he failed to go as far as he needed to go, or frankly as far as he should have gone.

The worst perpetrator of the hate directed against Sarah Palin came from the Daily Kos.

Barack Obama was one of the Democrats who boycotted the Fox News Debate but participated in the Daily Kos debate.  It is frankly amazing that Democratic candidates for President of the United States would boycott an event hosted by the largest cable news channel in the nation and then attend an event hosted by an organization that rejoiced in the death of Tony Snow in the most graphic, despicable ways imaginable.

Liberals claim that Fox News is biased; but in rejecting the Fox event but agreeing to participate in the Daily Kos event – which is a far left radical hate site (see also its connection to anti-Semitism) – Barack Obama has tied himself to this organization.

By participating in its forum, he helped legitimatize it.

So when the Daily Kos led the shockingly hateful campaign to claim that Sarah Palin was not the mother of her young son Trig, but that rather her daughter Bristol was – and even charged that the father was Sarah’s husband and Bristol’s father Todd Palin – Barack Obama really needed to come out and forcefully condemn this hate group.  He did not do so.

Chutzpah Incarnate: Obama Criticizes McCain on Iraq Even As He Scrubs Own Website

Barack Obama has been running as the guy who opposed the war in Iraq.

Well, if opposing the war is the personification of wisdom, then don’t vote for Barack Obama – who has hedged on the Iraq War at times – vote for Cindy Sheehan. She opposes the war WAY more than Obama.

Shoot, vote for some six-year old liberal’s kid who has opposed the war since he was born!

Obama said today:

WASHINGTON and ALBUQUERQUE – Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that overall U.S. interests have been hurt rather than helped by the Bush administration’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq 18 months ago, and vowed to stick to his plan to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.

Obama said his White House rival, Sen. John McCain, “has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.”

If John McCain “ignores the facts,” Barack Obama changes them altogether.

The absolutely crazy and hypocritical thing is that – even as Barack Obama criticized John McCain for his commitment to the war in Iraq via the “Surge” strategy, Barack Obama had the massive chutzpah to scrub his website of past comments regarding that very strategy.

“My opponent is completely wrong! Oops. Pardon me while I scrub my website to hide what I USED to say.”

It’s simply amazing.

Politico writes about it with the hammer-smashing-the-nail title of “Surge Meets Purge“:

The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today’s New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.

“BARACK OBAMA “REFINING” IRAQ POSITION ON OWN WEBSITE,” blares the McCain release, which helpfully links to the former versions of the site.

The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: “Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

Sean Hackbarth in an American Mind piece calls it, “Obama’s Surge Stance Goes Down Memory Hole“:

Edit a Presidential candidate’s view on the Iraq surge? “Yes we can!” At least that’s what Sen. Barack Obama’s web team did over the weekend. Instead of simply saying he was wrong about the surge Obama and his campaign pretends we won’t notice his alterations in emphasis. Events on the ground in Iraq have changed yet Obama is still adamant to pull U.S. troops out in 16 months. This causes Jim Geraghty to write,

That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the… well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an “improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence” when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret.

Gateway Pundit has a side-by-side before-and-after of Obama’s Iraq page.

Rick Moran goes for the jugular. Just like Obama thinks he’s better on Iraq because he possesses superior judgment it’s been wrong about the surge.

The most devastating article of the bunch is found on Powerline under the title “Obama’s Dishonest Op-ed.” The piece – after damning Obama regarding Iraq with his own words – proceeds to show that Obama has been as dishonest about Afghanistan as he has been wrong about Iraq.

Charles Krauthammer didn’t mention Obama’s reversing position on the surge, or the website purging that preceded the flip flopping. But he very clearly understands the Weasel who is Barack Obama:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What impresses me is his audacity. Everybody moves to the center after securing the nomination. There’s nothing new under the sun there.

He did it in a particularly spectacular way with the flips that you talked about. There are a couple of others on NAFTA and flag pins, and he does it all within about three weeks. It’s sort of unprecedented.

But he goes way beyond that. On each of these he pretends that he has never changed. He says, yes, I said the gun bill was constitutional and I supported it. And now he supports the Supreme Court decision that rules it unconstitutional, and pretends it is the same decision.

But then he goes beyond that, reaching an almost acrobatic level of cynicism here, in which he says, as you indicated, Fred, anybody who believes otherwise, anybody who believes he is not actually a flipper and he hasn’t actually changed, is himself cynical, or, as he puts it, “steeped in the old politics,” and so cynical that they can’t even believe that a politician like him would act on principle.

What non-political no-self-interested reason explains his change on campaign finance other than the fact that he has a lot of money and he would lose it otherwise if he had stuck to his principles?

What non-self-interested reason explains his flip on guns, on FISA, on the flag pins, on everything? But he thinks he–what impresses me is his intellectual arrogance. He thinks everyone is either a fool who would believe all this, or a knave who is somehow distorting his words [Italics mine].

I personally believe that Barack Obama is counting on a very supportive media to help him sanitize his previously held positions by simply refusing to give them the continued coverage that would truly hurt him. Flip flops, reversals, and website purges only hurt him if the American people know about it. And the media seems to develop a convenient pattern of amnesia where Barack Obama is concerned. A recent New York Times piece about Obama’s spirituality, for instance, didn’t even mention the name “Jeremiah Wright.”

John McCain responded to Obama’s criticisms in part with the following:

Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy – a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.

Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.

Senator Obama will tell you we can’t win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge – which Senator Obama opposed — that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

As for Obama’s Iraq “plan” – if you can call it that – ABC’s Martha Raddatz wrote a July 11 article titled “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult: U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare.” She notes that:

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

Of course, liberals don’t let little things like facts get in the way.

And of course, we now know that Obama’s “core plans” – just like his website itself – are both subject to change without notice.