Tag Archives: president-obama

On civil liberties, Obama is worse than Bush

Last week it was reported that the Obama Administration wants to give the FBI power to force internet companies to reveal information about their users' internet activities: things like who they send email to, times and dates of emails, and maybe also information about their web browser activity. Even worse, they want the FBI to be able to demand this information without a warrant! President Obama is racking up an atrocious record on civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment. When he campaigned, he talked a lot about civil liberties. But when he got elected, he made an about-face and started expanding the abusive policies of the Bush Administration. For example, his Justice Department claimed that “state secrets” doctrine started by Bush gave the government even more secrecy powers than Bush had claimed! And earlier this year, the president signed a bill re-authorizing even the most abusive parts of the PATRIOT Act. It seems that Obama has lots of respect for government power, and little or no respect for the rights of the people. Just like his predecessor. Democrats and Republicans are cooperating to grow the power of government and trample on our rights. Please support the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidates this year. We are the only real opposition. _______________________________________________ I find it strange all the civil liberty activists are quiet now that a Democrat was elected. added by: libertyforall

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq “on schedule.” But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008. The agreement , which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011. “Today’s vote affirms the growth of Iraq’s democracy and increasing ability to secure itself,” President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. “Two years ago this day seemed unlikely – but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament.” At the convention for disabled vets on Monday, many of whom served in Iraq, President Obama took credit for ending the war. “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said. “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. “And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end,” Obama said . “And that is exactly what we are doing – as promised and on schedule.” On Feb. 27, 2009 — one month after taking office as president — Obama in a speech said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can. By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” On his campaign Web site, Organizing for America, however, it states that Obama would end the “war responsibly” within 16 months of assuming office, or by roughly May 20, 2010. The Web site reads: “Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months.” A Dec. 2, 2008 article in the Christian Science Monitor reported that President-elect Obama told Iraqi officials he supported the SOFA. “The security pact was the first such agreement since the invasion to outline specific terms for U.S. involvement in Iraq,” the article stated. “It was also the first in the region to be publicly debated and approved. Iraqi leaders backed the agreement after reassurances from President-elect Obama that his administration would not try to change the accord negotiated by the Bush administration.” The “surge” by U.S. troops in Iraq was announced by President Bush in January 2007 and involved the deployment of more than 20,000 additional soldiers. By mid-June, the additional brigades were in place and the surge began, focusing on al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia foes in Anbar, Baghdad, Babil and Diyala provinces. By September, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus was able to report to Congress that “the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.” At the time Bush announced the surge in January 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said, “I personally indicated that an escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake and that we need a political accommodation rather than a military approach to the sectarian violence there.” Then, in January 2008, after Bush’s state of the Union Speech and when it was evident that the surge had been successful, Obama said , “Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also opposed the surge, issued a statement on Monday this week giving Obama credit for ending the war in Iraq. “America’s brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them in the war in Iraq; they have performed excellently,” Pelosi said. “Soon, our nation will begin a new chapter in this effort, ending combat operations on the schedule President Obama promised.” But in February 2008, Pelosi said Bush’s military strategy in Iraq had failed. “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.” In Atlanta on Monday, Obama praised the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which will finally end, according to the SOFA agreement, on Dec. 31, 2011. “Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases,” Obama said. “We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. “By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office – more than 90,000 have come home,” Obama said. Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews .

Originally posted here:
Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

In Light of NAACP Condemnation, Media Brings Back Tea Party Fraud

Memo to media members wishing to invite the Tea Party Founder on your show, or use him as a source for your biased reports:  He isn’t exactly who you think he is. Since the NAACP voted to condemn extremist elements in the Tea Party, news networks, sites, and liberal blogs have rushed to include ‘Tea Party Founder’, Dale Robertson, in their reports.  Problem being, Dale Robertson as Tea Party anything has frequently and thoroughly been, um … ‘refudiated’.    Despite this, the media has a history of holding Robertson up as a shining example of Tea Party racism.  Why?  Robertson once demonstrated a level of ignorance that boggles the mind by holding a sign reading “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = (N-Word)”, at a Houston Tea Party Society (TPS) event. The reality however, is that Robertson has predominantly self-described, if any, links to the Tea Party movement, while legitimate factions of the movement have had to repeatedly distance themselves from the man.  Robertson was expelled from the event at which he was holding the aforementioned sign on the very same day.  He was formally denounced in a statement released by the Houston TPS.  He was called ‘no friend’ of the Tea Party at Pajamas Media, and mocked at RedState.  He was shown to be for his infamous sign , before he was against it. So logically, the media has decided to help further the cause of the NAACP by bringing Robertson back out of the shadows.  Since word of the the NAACP resolution got out, Robertson’s name has appeared at… The Huffington Post CBS’ Face the Nation ABC News Beyond Chron , San Francisco’s alternative newspaper The Kansas City Star The Daily Kos A blog called The Stir , which also offers a handy list of ‘phrases to drop’ to counter the Tea Party defense. An Op-Ed at the Daily Caller And Mediaite It should be noted that Mediate refers to the fact that the Houston TPS still has the offending image of Robertson on their web site, in an apparent attempt to demonstrate their tolerance for his bigotry.  But it fails to include the context that yes, while the image is on their site, it is there as a reference to explain just who this guy is, and why they have had to deal with him.  They actually link to the image with the following statement: “Yes, at our very first tea party event in February of 2009, this piece of work strolled in with his awful sign, attracting the lone media camera and sentencing us to an eternity of disassociation.  We dealt with him on that day, expelling him from the event.” Then of course, there’s the NAACP themselves.  They have Robertson’s photo featured on their page announcing the condemnation of extremist elements in the Tea Party.  They were also kind enough to include photos which show the kind of fringe group that could only be protesting a President because he’s black, and because they’re racist.  For instance, a racist picture of the President being portrayed as Hitler.  No not this one …

Time vs Politico: Halperin Rebukes VandeHei for Characterizing GOP Group as ‘Shadowy’

In the “secret” underworld of Republican fundraising, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie use “cloaked” donor lists to “dig up dirt” on Democrats and funnel campaign contributions to Republican candidates. At least that’s the impression left by Politico’s Jim VandeHei. On the June 21 “Morning Joe,” Time magazine’s Mark Halperin challenged VandeHei’s characterization of American Crossroads GPS, a Republican political organization that finances issue ads designed to promote conservative positions on policy issues. “With all due respect to Jim and the folks at Politico, you know, they make this these shadowy donors, this shadowy group, I mean, these are citizens who, under the law, are able to give anonymously to a group like this and to fund political activity to help them win races,” complained Halperin. Highlighting the fact that American Crossroads, classified as a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, is not required to disclose its donor list, the Politico piece lead Halperin, who is no champion of conservative causes , to conclude that VandeHei and his colleagues believe the Rove – Gillespie operation is a “shadowy” organization. Halperin also accused VandeHei of promoting a double standard: “I’m not sure if this were a Democratic group people would look at this as something sinister but rather an attempt to fight for what they believe in the marketplace of political ideas.” “I think there’s been a big push of late to try to get at least more disclosure of donors I think from both sides,” countered VandeHei. It’s hard to believe Politico’s executive editor would paint other 501(c)4 organizations like the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, or the Natural Resources Defense Council as clandestine operations. But when it comes to a non-profit organization run by prominent Republicans, Politico cast a menacing shadow over the organization. The transcript of the program can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe July 21, 2010 8:23 A.M. E.S.T. WILLIE GEIST: With us now, Executive Editor of Politico, Jim VandeHei, he’s back with a look at the Playbook. Hey, Jim. JIM VANDEHEI, Politico executive editor: Hey, how you doing? GEIST: Good. Let’s pick up on something we were talking about earlier in the show and that’s Karl Rove, had been having trouble apparently raising cash from donors because they don’t want to get their names out there so he did something about it. VANDEHEI: Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, some other prominent Republicans have put together a group they were trying to get a bunch money to run attack ads and go after Democrats. They weren’t having much luck because the way they set it up donors had to disclose their names. Now they’ve created a new organization that allows them to cloak the identity of donor names. Money is pouring in and they’re saying they’re going to put that money in to some dirt-digging against Democrats and also painting what’s happened in the Gulf as Obama’s Katrina. GEIST: Hey Mark Halperin, is this a new concept? Has Karl Rove tapped into a new idea here? We’re going to give him a mic too, it’ll be great. MARK HALPERIN, Time magazine: There are new groups based on this Supreme Court decision from January but I have to say, with all due respect to Jim and the folks at Politico, you know, they make this these shadowy donors, this shadowy group, I mean, these are citizens who, under the law, are able  to give anonymously to a group like this and to fund political activity to help them win races. I’m not sure if this were a Democratic group people would look at this as something sinister but rather an attempt to fight for what they believe in the marketplace of political ideas. VANDEHEI: I disagree with you, Mark. I think there was a tremendous amount of coverage back when George Soros and others were starting to do this for Democrats if you recall back in 2006, which helped them take back control of power and I think there’s been a big push of late to try to get at least more disclosure of donors I think from both sides. And there still exists this caveat in tax law – 501(c)3 or 4 – which allows you to do some of this activity anonymously. So I think certainly both sides do it. I think it’s most interesting right now for Republicans because they desperately need this infusion of cash to be able to win back the House and Senate because they’re suffering when it comes to money. HALPERIN: I agree, I just like to get under Jim’s skin when I can. VANDEHEI: You sound better when you didn’t have a mic, Mark. GEIST: The page and Politico in a smack down. Judge Buchanan would you like to render your ruling? Who’s right in this case? –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Follow this link:
Time vs Politico: Halperin Rebukes VandeHei for Characterizing GOP Group as ‘Shadowy’

HuffPo’s New Travel Section Just Another Spot for Liberal Spin

What sets The Huffington Post’s new travel section apart from the rest? That in addition to travel tips and destination profiles, readers also get a health dose of the sites liberal agenda. With President Obama coming under fire from Republicans for taking yet another family vacation – this time to Maine – HuffPo jumped to his defense by highlighting a comparison between Obama and his predecessor Bush – in the travel section.  “The Obamas just returned to Washington from their weekend long excursion to Maine,” Kate Auletta wrote. “While the President was given grief about a) taking a vacation and b) taking a vacation that wasn’t to the Gulf, Obama’s vacation days have really been, in comparison to his predecessors, few and far between. CBS took a look back at the history of presidential vacations.” The post also contained a clip of a CBS news video justifying Obama’s frequent vacations by comparing him to Bush, who was widely criticized by the media for trip to his Texas ranch. When CNN mentioned the first family’s vacation, it was under their political ticker blog , not in the travel section. “It will be a one-stop shop, bringing you up-to-the-minute travel news, travel tips and advice, the hottest deals, reviews of hotels, cruises, spas, and airlines, compelling photographs, blog posts about travel, and more, ” HuffPo founder Arianna Huffington said in the launch announcement. It is evident that the “more” Huffington was referencing was political bias. 

See more here:
HuffPo’s New Travel Section Just Another Spot for Liberal Spin

CBS Continues to Defend Obama Vacation Time With Bush Comparison

Following a report on Saturday’s CBS Evening News , in which White House correspondent Chip Reid defended President Obama’s Maine vacation with a comparison to President Bush’s vacation time, Monday’s Early Show took the same approach as correspondent Michelle Miller reported: But it’s not just where and when presidents travel, it’s how often. Ronald Reagan took 349 vacation days at his California ranch during his eight years in office. In his first year and a half as President, George W. Bush vacationed 96 days. Over that same time period, President Obama has taken 36 days. On Saturday, Reid had similarly noted: “Whatever criticism there may be of the President’s vacation choices, he’s spent 33 days on vacation in his first 18 months. His predecessor, Bush W. Bush, spent 96 in the same period.” When Obama vacationed on Martha’ Vineyard in August of 2009 , Reid highlighted how it helped the local economy: “One thing that’s going to give a huge boost to the economy is all the Obama paraphernalia…t-shirts, it’s baseball caps and magnets and coffee mugs and glasses. And restaurants are selling the ‘Baracko Taco.’ Bars are selling ‘Ale to the Chief.’ And all of it is selling like crazy.” In the Monday Early Show report, Miller cited liberal presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, who further defended Obama’s decision to vacation in Maine, rather along the tourist-starved Gulf coast: “Sure, people might wish that Obama had gone to the Gulf, but had he gone to the Gulf, now people would have said he was going there for politics.” Goodwin went on to declare: “I think presidential vacations are essential. It allows a President to relax, to replenish his energies, to think. Something they sometimes can’t do enough of in Washington.” At that point, Miller observed: “Despite any criticism, presidential vacations leave indelible images.” Goodwin chimed in: “JFK sailing is forever in our mind, that rugged JFK.” Miller concluded: “Only time will tell how President Obama’s hike in his dress shoes will compare with President Nixon’s similar walk on the beach.” Following Miller’s report, fill-in co-hosts Jeff Glor and Erica Hill shared their thoughts on the presidential vacation controversy. Glor sympathized: “I mean, the camera’s always on….I mean even when he’s there, they’re there following from spot to spot. So, you’re never really off that job.” Hill agreed: “No, no. And that kind of comes with the territory.” Glor then remarked on the First Family’s choice of getaways: “And not quite as hot there. Only high 80s, I think.” Hill added: “Oh, it’s so relaxing. Plus that nice breeze off of the Atlantic, it’s fine.”    Here is a full transcript of the Early Show’s July 19 report: 7:17AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Plus, why the first family is under fire for enjoying a little R&R. [FOOTAGE OF OBAMA EATING ICE CREAM] HILL: The ice cream gets you every time. 7:30AM TEASE HILL: Speaking of vacations, the first family spent a fun-filled weekend in Maine, a little mini vacation, but their time in the sun is stirring up plenty of controversy. So we’ll take a closer look at that as well. 7:46AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: President Obama catching a little more flack from critics this morning. But not for his policies this time, it’s for taking a family vacation in Maine. CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports. MICHELLE MILLER: The First Family returned to the White House Sunday from a weekend vacation, a getaway that included hiking, boating, and eating ice cream in quaint Bar Harbor, Maine. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: First Family’s Maine Event; President’s Getaway Draws Criticism] UNDENTIFIED WOMAN [BAR HARBOR ICE CREAM SHOP]: I think everybody needs a weekend off to recharge and get some ice cream. MILLER: Given the ongoing crisis in the Gulf, the President’s weekend escape received a good share of criticism. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN [PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN]: Sure, people might wish that Obama had gone to the Gulf, but had he gone to the Gulf, now people would have said, he was going there for politics. MILLER: Questioning presidential vacations is a time-honored tradition. The Clintons frequently sailed off of Martha’s Vineyard. But after polling the public, they switched to middle-America-friendly Wyoming. George Bush senior took heat for golfing in Kennebunkport, Maine as troops were deployed to the Persian Gulf for the Iraq war. But it’s not just where and when presidents travel, it’s how often. Ronald Reagan took 349 vacation days at his California ranch during his eight years in office. In his first year and a half as President, George W. Bush vacationed 96 days. Over that same time period, President Obama has taken 36 days. GOODWIN: I think presidential vacations are essential. It allows a President to relax, to replenish his energies, to think. Something they sometimes can’t do enough of in Washington. MILLER: Despite any criticism, presidential vacations leave indelible images. GOODWIN: JFK sailing is forever in our mind, that rugged JFK. MILLER: Only time will tell how President Obama’s hike in his dress shoes will compare with President Nixon’s similar walk on the beach. Michelle Miller, CBS News, New York. HILL: That may be the strangest thing, taking a hike in dress shoes. Out of all of this, all the criticism aside, it’s not very comfortable. You could slip very easily. JEFF GLOR: But there’s the thing, I mean, the camera’s always on. HILL: Always there. GLOR: I mean even when he’s there, they’re there following from spot to spot. So, you’re never really off that job. HILL: No, no. And that kind of comes with the territory, which- GLOR: Which he knew that. HILL: Which everybody – which everybody knows going in. GLOR: They all knew that. HILL: It’s true. GLOR: And not quite as hot there. Only high 80s, I think. HILL: Oh, it’s so relaxing. Plus that nice breeze off of the Atlantic, it’s fine. GLOR: Yes, with dress shoes.

The rest is here:
CBS Continues to Defend Obama Vacation Time With Bush Comparison

BREAKING NEWS: BP Announces Oil Spilling Into Gulf Has Been Stopped By The Cap..

! http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/15/2010-07-15_bp_announces_no_m… http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/16spill.html/ BP Says That Oil Flow Has Stopped as Cap Is Tested NEW ORLEANS — Oil stopped gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for the first time in nearly three months, as BP began testing the cap atop its stricken well, a critical step toward sealing the well permanently. This Land: From an Oyster in the Gulf, a Domino Effect (July 16, 2010) Times Topic: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill (2010) Reuters “I am very excited that there’s no oil in the Gulf of Mexico,” Kent Wells, a senior vice president for BP, said about the flow during a teleconference on Thursday, “but we just started the test and I don’t want to create a false sense of excitement.” Oil stopped flowing at 2:25 p.m. local time, Mr. Wells said, when engineers closed the choke line, the final seal of the well. Engineers and scientists will now examine the results of the tests every six hours to determine the pressure levels. The view one mile beneath the gulf on BP’s continuous live video feed was conspicuously calm, devoid of the clouds of crude oil that had been billowing since the disaster first occurred in April. Despite the long-anticipated moment, officials involved in the spill effort, including President Obama, were quick to downplay the development as a temporary measure. “I think it is a positive sign, we’re still in the testing phase and I’ll have more to say about it tomorrow,” President Obama said in response to a shouted question at the conclusion of a news conference devoted entirely to the passage of the financial regulatory bill. “We’re encouraged by this development, but this isn’t over,” Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is overseeing the federal response to the spill, said in a statement on Thursday. “It remains likely that we will return to the containment process using this new stacking cap connected to the risers to attempt to collect up to 80,000 barrels of oil per day until the relief well is completed.” Earlier on Thursday, the national incident commander, Thad W. Allen, said that closing the well off using the containment cap would only be an interim measure, and that the company must still complete the relief wells it is working on in order to seal the well for good. The test commenced after two days of delays while BP fixed a leak in the equipment that engineers discovered on Wednesday night. Engineers replaced equipment on the tight-sealing cap that has been placed at the top of well, 5,000 feet under water, said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of the company. The equipment, part of a choke line that was the last valve to be closed before the pressure test could begin. BP said that its three-ram capping stack was closed, “effectively shutting in the well and all sub-sea containment systems.” Live feeds of video images from the undersea well clearly showed that the release of oil had had been completely halted. Mr. Allen, clarified the role of the cap in his news conference on Thursday morning, saying that this mechanism was never meant to be the ultimate solution to closing the well. Mr. Allen called it a “precursor” to containment, making it possible for the gushing crude to be captured through four different systems that together can keep up with the estimated rate of flow, which the government now puts at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day. If all goes well, it may also be used to seal the well completely for brief periods. “I don’t want to reverse the priorities here, because the priority was to contain and stop the flow of oil,” he said, “but the design of the cap itself, if we can withstand the pressures and the well bore stays intact, presents the opportunity to shut the well in, which will give us the ability to abandon the site in a hurricane, so it’s a two-for if we can do it.” The test involves closing all the valves on the new cap, which was installed earlier in the week, to increase pressure in the well so that BP can assess its condition over the length of the well bore, which extends 13,000 feet below the seabed. Mr. Allen likened the process to putting a thumb over the end of a running garden hose. If the pressure does not rise as a result, that means there is a leak somewhere. In the case of the well, if the resulting pressure is high, that means the well bore is intact, he said. “We have been slowly using mechanisms to close off the hose,” Mr. Allen said. With those mechanisms all but closed off by Thursday morning, BP prepared to start watching the pressure readings. If all goes well and the pressure remains high, the test will continue for 48 hours. But even then, the oil will not be completely stopped, Mr. Allen said, as BP evaluates the test results with seismic readings beneath the sea. added by: keithponder

Proof That The TEA Party Is Not Racist And Doesn’t Tolerate Racists

Proof That The TEA Party Is Not Racist And Doesn't Tolerate Racists added by: CarlosBobthe3rd

Daily Caller Gets KeithOlbermann.com, But Will Olbermann Sue?

Tucker Carlson is now the proud owner of a slightly used Keith Olbermann. With a large-print headline announcing “We own you” and a picture of ol’ Keith looking bemused whilst he adjusts he glasses, The Daily Caller promoted their newest acquisition: http://keitholbermann.com/ . It’s just the latest shot across the bow in the escalating feud between Olbermann and Carlson, which will one day be featured on a Cracked.com list of the top eight inconsequential personal feuds the media chose to cover instead of events that were actually newsworthy. The Daily Caller criticizes Olbermann at least once a week, with reporter Ruth Graham regularly writing sarcastic critiques of his shows, a feature called “We watch because we’re paid to.” According to Don Irvine of Accuracy in Media, the spat betwixt Carlson and Olbermann began over the David Weigel scandal. Olbermann and The Daily Caller exchanged pithy insults on Twitter, each claiming that the other did not know what they were talking about with Olbermann additionally saying that Tucker Carlson’s “bowtie contained [his] brain.” The must have been the straw that broke the camels back. There is only one hope for the future of the nation and that is for President Obama to personally step in and mediate between the two media personalities by throwing a wild kegger at Joe Biden’s place . Alas, they will probably go to court, as Michael Calderone writes : In a similar case, The World Intellectual Property Organization ruled in favor of actor Hill Harper when he sought to take back hillharper.com. The WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] noted in the ruling that that a complainant—say, Keith Olbermann—could qualify to block the transfer of a domain name to the respondent—in this case, The Daily Caller—if the petitioner can prove that the name ‘is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights,’ that the respondent ‘has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name’ and if the name ‘has been registered and is being used in bad faith.’   *Update According to the US Copyright Office : “Copyright law does not protect domain names.”

Read the original here:
Daily Caller Gets KeithOlbermann.com, But Will Olbermann Sue?

VIDEO: Yes, there is racism in the Tea Party movement

After months of racist incidents and rallies filled with hateful signs disparaging President Obama’s ethnicity and other minorities, the NAACP has passed a resolution officially condemning racism in the Tea Party movement. This morning, Tea Party leader Mark Williams — who has been paid over $20,000 by the Tea Party Express political action committee — attacked the NAACP’s resolution, charging that the NAACP makes “more money off of race than any slave trader ever.” Other Tea Party leaders have criticized the resolution and claimed that there is no racism within their movement. Phillip Dennis, the leader of the Dallas area Tea Party, told Fox News that the Tea Party never focuses “on the pigment of people’s skin.” However, ThinkProgress has produced a short video demonstrating the vile racism that has been exhibited at some Tea Party events: DENNIS: The Tea Party does not focus on the pigment of people’s skin. TEA PARTY ACTIVIST1: He’s too black to be President. TEA PARTY ACTIVIST2: I’m a proud racist, I’m white. TEA PARTY ACTIVIST3: Afro-Leninism! Coming to you on a silver platter, Barack Hussein Obama! TEA PARTY ACTIVIST4: Go home wetbacks! Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/tea-party-racism/ added by: unimatrix0