Wikipedia Scrubbing Obama Entry of Any Critical Content

Yet another example of dangerous media tyranny defending Dear Leader. This report is from World Net Daily:

Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.

A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.

Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.

Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.

In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:

"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."

As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com. The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.

As a point of comparison, you can compare Obama's Wikipedia entry with that of George W. Bush. You can see, there is no prohibition of "fringe material" when it comes to George W. Bush. A perfect example of Wikipedia's double standard which has allowed this entry to be written about Bush:

Bush's intellectual capacity has been satirized by the media, comedians, and other politicians. Detractors tended to cite linguistic errors made by Bush during his public speeches, which are colloquially termed as Bushisms. Some publications refer to Bush as "the worst president ever."

It is what it is. Be wary of Wikipedia.

Bush Shoe Statue Taken Down

We reported on this yesterday. Smarter heads have prevailed.

A sculpture of a shoe erected in Iraq to honour a journalist who threw his footwear at George W Bush has been dismantled, reports say.

Foreign media say the bronze-coloured fibre-glass shoe was removed from its site in the city of Tikrit on the orders of the local authorities.

It had been erected in the grounds of an orphanage.

The monument was reportedly taken down just a day after being unveiled in the late Saddam Hussein's home town.

The head of the Childhood organisation, which owns the orphanage, said she had been told to remove the monument immediately by the Salaheddin Provincial Joint Coordination Centre.

Iraqi Ingrates Erect Statue of Shoe Thrown at Bush

Turds!

Now, a giant fibreglass and copper statue of the shoe has been unveiled in Tikrit - the hometown of former dictator Saddam Hussein.

It is inscribed with a poem which pays tribute to the missile-throwing journalist.

Here's a video report:

Dalai Lama: "I Love George Bush"

No word on what he thinks about Obama.

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

Bush Bids Farewell

George W. Bush said goodbye tonight. And many think this marks the dawn of a new age. And it does. But an age of what? Do you know? Can you even guess? History will judge President Bush as a defender of freedom and liberty. Will history judge him as the last defender of freedom and liberty? Let us hope not.



Remember the man who took it to the bastards.

Mickey Rourke Defends President Bush -- Slams Muslim Extremists

Interesting. I don't think he gives Bush enough credit, but he's definitely right about the situation Bush inherited. And I give him a lot of credit for having the guts to say this.

He tells the publication, "President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation.

"I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.

"It's too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don't think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

And the star is baffled by the U.K.'s approach to fundamentalists - insisting he was taken aback by the freedom of speech allowed in the U.K.

He explains, "I was in London recently and I couldn't believe all these hate-talking fanatics you have over here who are allowed to carry on doing their thing even when a bus full of women and children gets blown to pieces.

"I know you've deported one or two of them, but it seems crazy. I think there is worse to come, something terrible will happen to either America or the U.K., or France even. I don't think these fundamentalists should be allowed to talk all this crap, and brainwashing these young kids."

This will probably cost him any chance at winning any awards for his role in his comeback movie, The Wrestler, which has received rave reviews.

Video: Iranian Shoe Tossing

Iranians tossing shoes at pictures of George Bush. Keep it up fools. Your day is coming.

Dana Perino Speaks About the Shoe Throwing Incident -- Blasts the Far Left's Reaction

Dana Perino talks about how she got her black eye in Baghdad. She also says the Far Left reaction to the attack on Bush by the Baghdad shoe-chucker was "just gross."

WHY HASN'T AL QAEDA ATTACKED?

This is from Daniel Byman at Slate. He proffers some reasons as to why Al Qaeda may be laying low:

Bin Laden has other fish to fry. Although Americans understandably focus on the threat al-Qaida poses to the United States, from Bin Laden's point of view, we are only one concern among many—even if we are still a favorite target of his rhetoric. Al-Qaida's primary day-to-day focus is currently on events in Pakistan, where the organization is based, and Afghanistan, where it is helping to support the massive insurgency that is battling the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai. As if this were not enough, al-Qaida has ambitions in Iraq, the Levant, the Maghreb, and Central Asia, as well as against Israel. These theaters are important to al-Qaida leaders, and many in the organization would prioritize them over attacks in the United States. Even if the United States remains the primary focus of al-Qaida's core leaders, expanding operations in several of these theaters provides the organization with opportunities to strike at America outside the U.S. homeland. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan allow it to showcase one of its preferred methods: support for insurgents.

Al-Qaida's operational capacity is limited. Al-Qaida has re-established a base in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and its operational capacity is growing when compared with the organization's dark days in 2002. Al-Qaida can still plot attacks from Pakistan, and its propaganda is prodigious. But in many respects, Pakistan is a tougher haven than the Taliban's Afghanistan. Unlike Afghanistan in the pre-9/11 era, al-Qaida leaders in Pakistan spend much of their time battling and intimidating government forces, hiding from U.S. Predator strikes, or otherwise focusing on their daily survival.

U.S. government efforts at home are paying off. The Department of Homeland Security is much-maligned, but at least it is trying to stop jihadists from entering the United States. And trying counts. The FBI has made numerous arrests on terrorism charges (often, we find out later, on quite thin grounds), suggesting that it is aggressive in going after potential jihadist threats at home.

Aggressive intelligence efforts abroad keep us safer at home. More important than strictly domestic efforts, U.S. intelligence is working with its counterparts around the world to disrupt al-Qaida, making it harder for the organization to plan and mount sustained operations. Remember, preparations for the 9/11 attack occurred not only in the United States and Afghanistan but also in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and other countries. Such a global plot would be far more difficult to orchestrate today. Senior leaders would be more likely to be killed, and junior operatives would be more likely to be arrested.

Al-Qaida wants to outdo 9/11. Bin Laden does not think small, and he consistently seeks terrorism "spectaculars" against the United States (for example, the plot to bomb multiple trans-Atlantic flights from the United Kingdom, which was foiled in August 2006). A spectacular attack might inflict mass casualties like 9/11, or it might involve fewer casualties but more publicity, such as an operation involving chemical weapons. This ambition may have dissuaded Bin Laden from making a low-level strike before the election. He may care more about a successful spectacular than he does about striking on or by a particular date.

There is no "al-Qaida of the United States." Even if the U.S. government were not more aggressive at home and abroad, al-Qaida's ability to operate in the United States is limited. In contrast to Britain, Egypt, France, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and many other countries, the United States does not have a significant jihadist network within its borders. Many of those arrested in the United States on terrorism charges were incompetent dreamers who had little or no ties to the al-Qaida core, in contrast to their counterparts in Europe and the Arab world. Infiltrators that Bin Laden sends to the United States would find it hard to obtain local assistance as they prepare for an attack. The few radicalized American Muslims might still attack in al-Qaida's name, but the likelihood is far lower than in many other countries, and the skill level of the attackers would probably be limited, making a 9/11-scale operation particularly unlikely.