Expect the Unexpected: Pope 2.0...

...Imams 101. No, it's not a soccer score, it's Religion going cyber.

The Pope's on Facebook and All Is Well. The Pope's new account, entitled "Pope2You, " shares the marketing ring of names like ToysRus, and invokes the concept of an all inclusive, direct line to the head of the church. Even the Imams are getting on board, having recently decided that their flocks may use Facebook, but only for contact with work and friends--no gossip or flirting allowed.

Meanwhile, the Boys From Brazil are back in the form of a new generation of race "purists," 14 of which, according to the Jerusalem Post, were recently arrested for an alleged neo nazi plot to bomb two synagogues in Southern Brazil's Porto Alegre.

Today's coup de grace, however, underlining all of these surrealities, [there's *THAT* word again] is Joseph Farah's World Net Daily report on the Billboard Movement that's sweeping the country which he has named "The Truth and Transparency Campaign." Within 48 hours of the request for donations, a billboard owner contributed his space to add to the fast growing campaign to erect billboards requesting proof of Obama's citizenship and eligibility to serve as POTUS across the country.

As WND's billboard campaign to raise visibility of the issues surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility yesterday continued to attract eager donors, the president had this to say:

"I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable." [SayWHATT??]

[Like myself, and any other reasonable person], Joseph Farah, WND's editor and chief executive officer, reacted to Obama's statement in stunned amazement.

"This is a guy who has no trouble turning over sensitive documents from previous administrations, but he still refuses to release for public view something seemingly so innocuous as his own birth certificate...This is a double-standard wide enough to sail the Queen Mary 2 through. Statements like this need to be challenged by a vibrant and free press. And that's what our 'Where's the birth certificate?' billboard campaign is all about."

More than $35,000 has been raised in the first 72 hours of the national billboard campaign – and the first sign, an electronic one, is already up and online. Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, said he's calling it "the truth and transparency campaign." The money is being used to erect billboards around the country that ask a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The first such sign to be posted under the 3-day-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to contribute to this nationwide campaign to raise awareness and get the truth out may do so by clicking on http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=13&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=84&ITEM_ID=2866

Please note, however, that the birth certificate is NOT the ultimate arbiter here. Irrespective of WHERE this man, whatever his name is, was BORN, NEITHER OF HIS PARENTS were legally able to confer American citizenship on him: his father was Kenyan and his mother was too young. ADDITIONALLY, the fact that he was an Indonesian citizen and travelled to Pah-kee-stahn on that passport in 1981 would further disqualify him as a natural born American citizen because having become a citizen of Indonesia at some point after having been adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his resultant allegiance to a country other than American renders him ineligible to serve. See: http://birthers.org , http://puzo1.blogspot.com , http://therightsideoflife.com

And so, at the start of this 2009 Memorial Day weekend, ["Official, " NOT "Actual"] consistency continues to reign: The Rabbit Hole remains the center of our Universe, and the only reasonable approach is to live expecting the unexpected.

Blessing all Warriors and watching over them this weekend, be they on battlefields or highways for holiday travel. [The latter can, at times, resemble the former, so be careful out there everyone!]

bwssnino;)

It's ABOUT TIME, CNN...and Tea Parties

FINALLY! CNN is getting a taste of its own bile. World Net Daily reported yesterday that the FCC has been flooded with complaints about the vile manner in which news readers Anderson Cooper, David Shuster, whose vile statement about Chelsea being "pimped out" to campaign for her mother last year elicited public outrage, and David Gergen referred to Americans at the massive Tea Party rallies across the nation on April 15. Anyone who missed it can click on the World Net Daily link above, but be forewarned--it is truly nasty, sophomoric and insulting to the sensibilities of everyone save the perpetrators. I would urge EVERYONE to go to the FCC site and lodge a complaint against CNN, Cooper, Gergen and Shuster. The more complaints registered, the better the public can register its distaste for these shamefully immature, biased and uninformed individuals who have no business invading our homes through the airwaves. CNN and MSNBC are notorious for their low journalistic standards, poor quality reporting and extreme bias. Allowing these individuals, and people like them, to retain their jobs is an affront to every American.

UPDATE: Discouraging Words, the 1st Amendment & YOU

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Wiki episode started two days ago, when Aaron Klein reported in WorldNet Daily that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism.
The article was picked up by Fox News, the London Telegraph and was linked on Drudge.

Mr. Klein's article noted that Worldnet Daily monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc.) was scrubbed. [NOTE: This can easily be confirmed independently by simply going through the tens of thousands of attempted edits to Obama's Wikipedia page and seeing how a large number of critical edits are erased, including edits seemingly backed up with third-party media references, which, as previously noted, are requisite for Wiki posts].

Further, WND published a follow-up the next day, noting that many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See here. Indeed, WND has been flooded the past two days with e-mails from readers with their own "Wikipedia stories" of how they were barred from entering what they claim is legitimate, well-substantiated criticism on Obama's Wikipedia page.
Mr. Klein's article also referenced one user who attempted to add backed-up material to Obama's Wiki page on Wright, Ayers, and even eligibility issues. That user's edits were erased within 2 minutes and he was barred from editing again on Wikipedia for 3 days.

After Mr. Klein received a query about that one user, asking whether it was he, he updated the article to reflect that indeed it was his researcher. He wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. He was investigating scores of claims he had received via email that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism.

Next, a fulltime anti-WND blogger named Terry Krepel, who also works for George Soros-backed Media Matters, put his spin on Klein's scoop, suggesting that Klein was the Wikipedian in question. A few pro-Obama blogs yesterday seized on his one edit to falsely claim that Klein had "manufactured controversy." Their spin was based upon his one test edit and tries to suggest that the article was manufactured due to Klein's one edit being rejected at Wikipedia. In other words, they tried to claim that Klein tried once to add something to Obama's Wiki entry, was blocked and then based his entire article of "scrubbing" on that one blocked edit, as if the edit had not been investigating pre-existing claims of scrubbing; as if Klein had not documented how he had observed Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and watched all sorts of things scrubbed. As if one cannot verify all of this by simply browsing the history of Obama's page to see how literally TENS of thousands of edits were scrubbed of controversy and how until Klein
wrote on the issue, Ayers and Wright weren't even mentioned on Obama's page.

It is also necessary to point out that after he wrote the story, Klein received the largest volume of email ever sent to him for a single story, most of which related personal tales of having the writers' edits scrubbed from Obama's page. In other words, nothing was manufactured by Mr. Klein. But wait--there's more!

Next, the Sydney Morning Herald joined the fray with a false story. Klein is now getting calls from pro-Obama reporters, all asking about this non-story--all because he DARED to write something negative about Obama and report the incredible propaganda machine that works 24/7 to suppress facts about this man. Klein first broke the story at WND about Ayers' and Rashid Khalidi's ties to Obama. It was also stated in an interview with radio host John Batchelor and Klein that Hamas infamously "endorsed" Obama, with Hamas' comments to Klein becoming a major theme in a presidential debate.

Below is Klein's retraction demand to the Herald (just submitted) which best summarizes the issue:

RETRACTION DEMAND:
Mr. Moses:
I demand an immediate retraction of your Wikipedia article today, which is defamatory and libelous. You stated, "A right-wing pundit has been caught red-handed manufacturing controversy after claiming US President Barack Obama's Wikipedia page was being whitewashed."
This is entirely false. You should refrain from obtaining information from pro-Obama blogs without doing your own research. It is accurate that one out of many edits were monitored by me -- I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. I was investigating scores of claims that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism. For your information, often investigative journalists engage in exactly this kind of testing, like seeing if they can bypass mandatory disclosures while donating to a candidate (several newspapers did this prior to the November election), or if they can register a dog to vote in Illinois. Thus, even if I had personally edited Obama's page as a test to investigate allegations of scrubbing, this is entirely legitimate journalistic practice. A few pro-Obama blogs yesterday seized on my one edit to claim I manufactured controversy.

Second and more importantly, your article is entirely misleading and false; it claims I "Manufactured" controversy"; it paints a picture that my piece from was reliant simply upon "Jerusalem21" being barred from entering information on Wikipedia that is critical of Obama, suggesting the controversy was both "invented" and based on that one account. But my article from yesterday notes that "multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately." The article further notes that WND monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc) was scrubbed. This can easily be confirmed independently by simply going through the tens of thousands of attempted edits to Obama's Wikipedia page and seeing how a large number of critical edits are erased, including edits seemingly backed up with third-party media references. Further, World Net Daily published a follow-up today noting many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91257. Indeed, WND has been flooded the past two days with e-mails from readers with their own "Wikipedia stories" of how they were barred from entering what they claim is legitimate, backed-up criticism on Obama's Wikipedia page.
The claim that I invented controversy that wasn't there must be removed, updated with correct information and retracted.

You further falsely state that I "appeared on Fox News airing the claims." I did not appear on Fox News airing the claims and this must be retracted.
My article from yesterday noted what is clearly a major trend at Wikipedia and is a very legitimate piece. I demand your article be immediately retracted.

Sincerely,
Aaron Klein
Jerusalem Bureau Chief
WorldNetDaily.com