Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Campaign Site: "Throw the Jews in the oven"
Obama for America ^ | 8/7/08 | Winged Hussar

Posted on 08/07/2008 10:21:43 AM PDT by Winged Hussar

The Obama campaign exercises editorial control over this site. The staff admittedly threw Al Jefferson's blog under the bus, but probably only because Aaron Klein quoted this in World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71574).

the only way to free america By Al from Tucson, AZ - Aug 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm EDT Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

is to shed ourselves from the racist zionists in america. they control everything. but they won't keep us down any longer. throw the jews in the oven this november. its the only way we can free america and make sure barack obama is elected!

This is far from the only entry at my.barackobama.com that talks about Jews with divided loyalties, the Jewish lobby, the Israel lobby (a term sanctioned by the official campaign staff), Jewish control of various things, and also a reference to Hillary Clinton's African-American supporters as "house negroes" ("negroes" is not exactly the word they used).


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antisemitism; antizionism; demokkkrats; demonazis; liberalfascists; mybarackobamacom; mybo; nobama; obama; obamination; wright
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Winged Hussar

While you were at it, why did you bring that post over here?

What does that post being on Obama’s sight say to you? What do you think we should draw from it?


21 posted on 08/07/2008 4:08:36 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Re: “While you were at it, why did you bring that post over here?”

So people would (hopefully) circulate and re-post it as an example of the kind of material that Obama’s campaign tolerates on a site that is under its editorial control, and so people can see what kind of following Obama seems to attract. The same strategy crippled MoveOn.org in 2006 by forcing it to take down its Action Forum. Obama can’t afford to take down My.Barackobama.com, so we should do our best to make sure he can’t afford to keep it up either.

I have reams of hateful and other offensive content from that site, all under Barry’s official campaign picture. I and others are circulating that. It is turning into a major embarrassment. This particular one is all over the place, e.g. World Net Daily.

Let Barry explain how this stuff gets on his site, and why it is allowed to remain there.

“What does that post being on Obama’s sight say to you?”

His campaign attracts anti-Semites (and also misogynists, ageists, and racists, per other material I have seen) the way a dumpster attracts flies.

“What do you think we should draw from it?”

The hate speech at MyBO is consistent with the kind of people and groups (MoveOn.org, Pfleger, Wright, Sharpton, and a church that cheered Pfleger’s racist tirade) with whom Obama surrounds himself, at least until they become embarrassments to him—then they go under the bus.


22 posted on 08/07/2008 11:59:37 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar
Thanks for your diligence in bringing us info on Hussein's followers.

Ignore the snivelers, there are many agendas here on FR.

23 posted on 08/08/2008 12:09:48 AM PDT by roses of sharon (SAVE YOUR GAS RECIEPTS, SEND TO PELOSI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Is this post still up on Obama’s sight right now?


24 posted on 08/08/2008 12:17:36 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Let me rephrase that. How long did this post remain up on the forum?

The person that posted it is history. So is the post.


25 posted on 08/08/2008 12:30:29 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

From the link at World Net Daily that you provided.

“The Obama campaign does not monitor all blog material but says it removes offending posts brought to the attention of site administrators.”

That seems to be the case.


26 posted on 08/08/2008 12:39:20 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar; roses of sharon

I consider Obama to be suspect on the issue of Israel and the Jews, but let’s be frank about it, I’m not convinced he’s any more favorable to Whites, knowing what Wright is like.

Obama has used extremely poor judgment in his relationships. He has complemented Louis Fahrekan (sp?). That in and of itself is extremely troubling. Other relationships are too. And so I say take the guy to task on those points.

Taking him to task for a comment on his forum, that his staff doesn’t monitor, seems rather suspect to me. In your post you said Obama’s team exercises editorial control. That was somewhat misleading in that they don’t monitor the sight, and you should have known that. They don’t review the posts there. WND stated they do take down bad posts, if they are notified. And it seems they do.

Are you notifying them of offensive posts? Has their staff refused to take down offensive posts?


27 posted on 08/08/2008 12:46:43 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Re: “Taking him to task for a comment on his forum, that his staff doesn’t monitor, seems rather suspect to me. In your post you said Obama’s team exercises editorial control. That was somewhat misleading in that they don’t monitor the sight, and you should have known that.”

I know nothing of the sort (i.e. that they don’t monitor the site). I created a blog in which I posted anti-Obama material, using the same standards of decorum we expect at Free Republic. The postings and my account were history within 36 hours, which suggests that they do monitor the site very closely. I therefore stand by my assertion that they do exercise editorial control. The fact that this control seems highly selective is hardly complimentary to the Obama campaign.

In contrast, Tony Wicher’s material about the “Jewish Lobby” and “Zionist Thought Police” stayed there for more than half a year, and it went under the bus only when it became an issue elsewhere on the Internet. Same for the New Black Panther Party page. Same for a wish that President Bush had been assassinated, and that John McCain, an “old man,” should “visit the undertaker.”

Re: “Are you notifying them of offensive posts? Has their staff refused to take down offensive posts?”

When I last checked, I have not recieved a W2 statement from the Obama campaign. I do not get paid to monitor his site for hate speech that might embarrass his campaign, and to tell him to throw it under the bus before his opponents use it against him.

To answer your question, though, I did report several instances of libelous material (false accusations of crimes) that I did not want to quote elsewhere because I would be repeating the libel, even in a condemnatory context. At least one such item (actual libel) was still online more than a week after I reported it. I won’t repeat the details but it was directed at AIPAC, that “Jewish Lobby” that Obama’s people like to talk about. Libel was even directed at Democrats whom someone or other disliked.


28 posted on 08/08/2008 1:23:23 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar
Re: “Taking him to task for a comment on his forum, that his staff doesn’t monitor, seems rather suspect to me. In your post you said Obama’s team exercises editorial control. That was somewhat misleading in that they don’t monitor the sight, and you should have known that.”

I know nothing of the sort (i.e. that they don’t monitor the site). I created a blog in which I posted anti-Obama material, using the same standards of decorum we expect at Free Republic. The postings and my account were history within 36 hours, which suggests that they do monitor the site very closely. I therefore stand by my assertion that they do exercise editorial control. The fact that this control seems highly selective is hardly complimentary to the Obama campaign.  It suggests nothing of the kind.  It suggests that one of the posters over there probably saw your posts that were not compimentary of Obama, and the sight staff.  The sight staff being under the employ of Obama, they ditched your blog.  Bud, they followed the precise policy that was related at the WND site.

In contrast, Tony Wicher’s material about the “Jewish Lobby” and “Zionist Thought Police” stayed there for more than half a year, and it went under the bus only when it became an issue elsewhere on the Internet. Same for the New Black Panther Party page. Same for a wish that President Bush had been assassinated, and that John McCain, an “old man,” should “visit the undertaker.”  I see that later on you dismissed my suggestion that you report stuff like this.  Neither you or I want it there.  If you had badgered them about it and they hadn't taken it down, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with you, but you didn't.  What am I supposed to do with that.  You state that they left it up.  Yes they did.  It's a leftist sight and the leftists didn't report it.  That's doesn't surprise me much.

Re: “Are you notifying them of offensive posts? Has their staff refused to take down offensive posts?”

When I last checked, I have not recieved a W2 statement from the Obama campaign. I do not get paid to monitor his site for hate speech that might embarrass his campaign, and to tell him to throw it under the bus before his opponents use it against him.  Yes, I understand that.  The problem is, the sight's stated policy according to WND, is not to monitor the site.  That seems to be the case.  So if we don't like them leaving that stuff up, we should say something to them.  If we don't say something to them, aren't we in effect allowing that stuff to stay up without trying to get it taken down?  Someone could say we don't mind it being there either.  You're admitting you saw it.  You're now admitting you left it there, without reporting it.  No harm no foul, but someone has to report it if we want it taken down.

To answer your question, though, I did report several instances of libelous material (false accusations of crimes) that I did not want to quote elsewhere because I would be repeating the libel, even in a condemnatory context. At least one such item (actual libel) was still online more than a week after I reported it. I won’t repeat the details but it was directed at AIPAC, that “Jewish Lobby” that Obama’s people like to talk about. Libel was even directed at Democrats whom someone or other disliked.  Okay great.  Look, you have no obligation to help Obama's staff clean up his sight.  That's not exacly my point here.  My point is that they have a policy and seem to be following it.  In at least one of several instances, they seem to have responded to your mention of problematic materials.  In the other instance, it sounds like they didn't follow through.  If it was also critical of Democrats, I'm not sure why.

Obama has a Wright problem.  He has a Fahrekan problem.  I've seen other names mentioned as well.  He is way overexposed on the issue you have tagged him with here.  My point is, get him for those abysmal connections, pointing out what the people have done that he still respects and associates with.  Don't get him for what some lamebrain posted on a site that his team doesn't monitor.  And don't blame him team for not taking it down, if even you don't want to bother to see that it is taken down.

If you're going to frequent the place, you have somewhat of an obligation to contribute toward keeping it clean.  And if they ignore you over and over on things like you clipped and brought here, I do think that is a rather important thing to report.  I would very much support your reporting that far and wide.


29 posted on 08/08/2008 1:44:19 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar
Here's a rule of thumb.

Some guy comes along and posts a real Klan wing dingger in support of McCain here.  Then a lefist comes here and sees it.  Instead of telling Jim and the moderators about it, he copies it and takes it over to some leftist sight and trashes FR for allowing that kind of thing.

Woudln't you rather he just hit the abuse link, and help us remove the trash?

We don't support that type of thing.  I'm still not convinced Obama wants something on his site that mentions Jews and Ovens.  And what was actually said, was extremely offensive.  I don't think for a moment he wanted or would have tollerated that there.

Thanks for discussing the matter.

Take care.

30 posted on 08/08/2008 1:52:58 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Re: "Some guy comes along and posts a real Klan wing dingger in support of McCain here. Then a lefist comes here and sees it. Instead of telling Jim and the moderators about it, he copies it and takes it over to some leftist sight and trashes FR for allowing that kind of thing."

If it were just "some guy," I would be inclined to agree with you and conclude that a fly-by-night troll dropped in to make the site look bad.

In the case of My.Barackobama.com, and MoveOn.org in 2006, it wasn't "some guy," nor was it even ten guys. It was literally dozens or more. Nor were they fly-by-night operatives; the point scores at MyBO showed many to be long-term participants. A Google search brings up more than 300 pages that talk about the "Israel Lobby," a term approved by an official campaign staffer (Emily). There are still more than 60 pages that come up under "Jewish Lobby," although I think they are now trying to sanitize their site by removing these.

If you do a Google search on barackobama.com for "McCain" and "Alzheimer's," you will find more than 300 pages that propagate this rumor, with no more foundation than McCain's age as a risk factor. This isn't "some guy" or even "a few guys," it's a pattern of behavior.

MoveOn.org tried exactly the same excuses unsuccessfully. MoveOn tried to blame Republican operatives while denying that it ever saw the hate speech. The only thing that saved MoveOn was its decision to finally close the Action Forum, and I am one of the people who made that happen.

Your argument (anonymous people are posting hate speech to slime Obama's site) could easily be turned around. How do we know Obama campaign staffers aren't posting the Alzheimer's stuff at MyBO and YouTube under pseudonyms to promote this rumor, thus allowing Obama to reap the benefits without taking the blame?

I'm already working on payback for that one by pointing out references that say cocaine use, to which Obama admitted, is a risk factor for permanent mental impairment. It's also a disqualifier under the Nuclear Weapon Personnel Reliability Program, which raises questions over whether Obama should have authority to use such weapons. Glass houses...stones...

31 posted on 08/08/2008 2:11:13 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Having head about DailyKOs, Du, and Moveon.org, it doesn’t surprise me that you find that stuff on Obama’s sight. I wish folks who are reasoned would go over and look around, finding the things you have. What it proves more than anything to me, is that there is a wing-nut faction on the left that is just about certifiably mad.

Normal folks need to know that. Do you want to line up with these wing nuts? Obama aside, I sure wouldn’t.

You take care.


32 posted on 08/08/2008 2:16:47 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Re: “ The problem is, the sight’s stated policy according to WND, is not to monitor the site. That seems to be the case.”

That is what they say, just like MoveOn.org said it didn’t see the hate speech on its site until it became a public scandal.

“So if we don’t like them leaving that stuff up, we should say something to them. If we don’t say something to them, aren’t we in effect allowing that stuff to stay up without trying to get it taken down? Someone could say we don’t mind it being there either. You’re admitting you saw it. You’re now admitting you left it there, without reporting it.”

During wartime, the only “report” a convoy commander gets that one of his ships has strayed is that of the torpedo that sinks it. A speeder’s first warning of a speed trap normally consists of the state trooper’s lights flashing behind him. Didn’t England lose the War of Independence because its soldiers insisted on marching around in bright red coats while beating drums to advertise their presence? Why do you think that I have some kind of duty to help the opposing side avoid the consequences of its bad actions instead of using those actions against it?

By this time, MyBO has gotten nailed for this hate speech so many times that it should have cleaned itself up and kept itself clean. The fact that it has not done so speaks for itself.

If McCain makes an error or misstatement, do Obama’s people give him a chance to do the equivalent of taking his move back? Do you remember what the Democrats did to Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond (noting that Thurmond renounced his pro-segregation positions decades ago)? Did Obama’s friend Al Sharpton counsel Don Imus before doing everything possible to wreck his career? Why should I warn Obama about the hate speech on his site instead of using it against him on the spot?

As I said, I did tell them about the libel of AIPAC (and I also told AIPAC). It took them more than a week to remove the comment in question, which suggests that keeping outright libel (at least of AIPAC) off the site was not among their highest priorities.


33 posted on 08/08/2008 2:53:43 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

Thanks for the additional comments.


34 posted on 08/08/2008 7:47:16 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We're a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 2, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

We have to start calling him Borat Obama


35 posted on 08/08/2008 7:52:25 PM PDT by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson