Ashley Todd exposed as HOAX.
Posted By: Racial baiting will not win any elections. nm on 2008-10-24
In Reply to:
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
First of all, did Todd personally call you
and tell you he would be at home with the kids?! Last I checked he had a "career" too! Second of all, on another post about this whole O/Palin thing, I DID say that I believe his kids are too young for him to be running, but their mom is at least with them! Yes, I do think the mother ultimately needs to be there when they are little!
No tank you - sofa king wee todd id
Methinks they have been talking to Sarah and Todd...hmmm...
I don't know if it is a hoax or not, but
I do try to find my news from more reliable sources than TMZ.
The NAU is a hoax.
Perpetuated by a bunch of paranoid fear mongers until people have started to believe it. Check Snopes.
Hillary Exposed? Not quite....
I took the time to watch the trailer of Peter Paul's Hillary Exposed trailer again this morning, took a few notes, and did a little internet research. It is my conclusion that this is mostly fabrication with a stab at Hillary because he is angry that his investment/ideas didn't go as he had planned.
The 2000 Hollywood Gala was a farewell for Bill to garner his favor in supporting him on a business venture, with the added benefit as a fundraiser for Hillary. Paul also gave fundraisers for others. For whatever reason, this didn't go as he had planned. Paul specifically stated that he only gave the fundraiser for Hillary to get to Bill. There is no evidence suggesting that Clinton told Levin to seduce Oto to oust Paul to destroy him and SLM.
The phone call to SLM from Hillary says nothing other than that she is pleased with what they are doing for her and thanking them. I do not believe that she helped plan the gala whatsoever nor knew the full details.
Is being a fundraiser the same as campaign contributor? If you are shelling out money for the affair, is that considered a campaign contribution? I didn't have time to dig into that this morning.
As David Rosen was Hillary's finance director, if he falsified documents, whether on his own or told by someone else to do it, he is the one culpable.
Digging into Peter F. Paul's past doesn't lend much to his credibility. I am loath to believe anything from such a person. I think he is just trying to save his own butt and trying to get back at Bill through Hillary. His stint in Brazil and being put in jail was of his own doing.
In essence, there is just not much substance here when you start digging. This is the first of many attacks that are just beginning for Hillary as well as the other presidential candidates and should not be taken at face value.
I told you it was a hoax!
The story made no sense from the very beginning. What is really amusing to me is how quickly the rabid right-wing posters jumped all over this story. Makes me wonder about their judgment and their ability to make an intelligent decision about voting.
Liberals exposed in all their glory. SM
Ain't it grand.
Ron Paul exposed, literally!
This is priceless! Ron Paul being backed by pimp Denis Hof and traveling with Tucker Carlson. OMG! Could this get any better? Per Huffington:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/20/nevada-brothel-owner-pimp_n_73633.html?load=1&page=5
False charge exposed
RE: Obama filed lawsuit that "bullied" banks into giving risky loans.
Buycks-Roberson vs CitiBank Federal Savings Bank 1994. This was a class action lawuit which sought to challenge the practice of redlining, based on the 14th Amendment requirement of "fair and equal treatment for all citizens." The lawsuit charged that CitiBank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. This was settled out of court. Some class members received cash payments and CitiBank revised its discriminatory lending practice policies.
The action was brought against a single bank…CitiBank, though redlining was a widespread practice at the time. Obama DID NOT FILE this lawsuit. He was a junior member of an 8-member team that worked on the case. The lead attorney for CitiBank does not recall ever seeing Obama in the court during the proceedings. Obama charged a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes for his work on the case for reviewing some documents before a deposition and appeared ONCE before the judge to request an extension of time for filing a response to a motion in the case.
This decision did not "force banks" to do anything except to process minority loan applications the same as they were processing loans to white applicants. If this outcome in any way contributed to the mortgage crisis some 14 years later, it would be based on the fact that the banks were already handing out those "bad loans" hand-over-fist to the white applicants…a practice they agreed to extend to ALL applicants as "fair and equal treatment" under the 14th Amendment.
Once the facts get a thorough look-see, it becomes evident that the charges the McCain camp are trying to lay on Obama are (surprise, surprise) patently false.
Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Mark my words...this is a hoax!
All you have to do is look at the picture and see the backwards "B" on her cheek. By the way, she was working at a McCain/Palin call center just before this alleged attack took place.
This is an unfortunate email rumor that is actually a hoax
nm
What facts support that the "left" exposed this news as you say?
get the information that it came directly from the left? A left-leaning media doesn't count, either. When you say it came from the "left," it insinuates Barack's camp was responsible somehow. Is that the case?
Sham: a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax. No spellcheck needed.
Maybe you should stop worrying about petty bunk and face the issues.
SHAM!
Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc
They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
Anti-choice movement gets duped in a Blogger Baby Hoax
The unmarried mother's story about giving birth to a child diagnosed as terminally ill in the womb hit a major nerve on the Internet.
Every night for the last two months, thousands of abortion opponents across the nation logged on to a blog run by the suburban Chicago woman who identified herself only as "B" or "April's Mom."
People said they prayed that God would save her pregnancy. They e-mailed her photos of their children dressed in pink, bought campaign T-shirts, shared tales of personal heartache and redemption, and sent letters and gifts to an Oak Lawn P.O. box in support.
As more and more people were drawn to her compelling tale, eager advertisers were lining up. And established parenting Web sites that oppose abortion were promoting her blog -- which included biblical quotes, anti-abortion messages and a soundtrack of inspirational Christian pop songs.
By Sunday night, when "April's Mom" claimed to have given birth to her "miracle baby" -- blogging that April Rose had survived a home birth only to die hours later -- her Web site had nearly a million hits.
There was only one problem with the unfolding tragedy: None of it was true.
Not the pregnancy, and not the photos posted on the blog of the supposed mother and Baby April Rose, swaddled in white blankets. The baby was actually a lifelike doll, which immediately raised the suspicion of loyal blog-followers.
"I have that exact doll in my house," said Elizabeth Russell, a dollmaker from Buffalo who had been following the blog. "As soon as I saw that picture, I knew it was a scam."
--
She had expected only a handful of friends to read it, but when her first post got 50 comments, she was hooked.
"I've always liked writing. It was addictive to find out I had a voice that people wanted to hear," Beushausen said.
"Soon I was getting 100,000 hits a week, and it just got out of hand," she said. "I didn't know how to stop. ... One lie led to another."
So the lie isn't the problem, but the fact that she got addicted to blogging made her continue on. What a sad and disgusting tale. Using a phony story to whip up the anti-choice movement is pretty vile. A woman has the right to choose in this country, but the religious right will do anything it can to try and take that right away. You never hear them talk about the mother in any of their debates. It's like the woman is only a "vessel" to carry a child and doesn't exist in any other manner. "Bring the vessel here." "How dare the vessel speak out."
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law
The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.
The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.
Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.
Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson
The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.
Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.
Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.
Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8
The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.
Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.
ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.
In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.
Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy
The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.
In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:
"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...
"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"
The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.
Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.
In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."
Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda
Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.
In 1998, Mother Jones reported:
"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...
"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."
Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.
In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."
"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."
To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
typo - meant cite things as hoax, not "site" things
Just thought I'd correct that before I get pummeled by the people who want to believe snopes is a truthful organization.
|
