Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Macsmind says the authors of this smear piece are well known Democrat “assassins” whose sole job is to put out disgusting lies into the blogosphere. Today, they put out that this women supposedly hates Eskimos (even tho she is married to one) AND called Obama a sambo:

Two members of Barack of Obama’s campaign, Dick and Sharon Price, created a post today on their “LA Progressive” blog that accuses Sarah Palin of using the name “Sambo” to describe Barack Obama.

Aside from the fact that this constitutes slander, for there is absolutely no evidence - sources, etc, there is more to the story about “Dick and Sharon”. First, their blog only came into being on 10 March 2008 according to whois records.

This is about the time that several satellite Pro-Obama blogs began to appear around the internet, several of which were found to be funded by the Obama campaign. Most likely this rag is funded by the Obama campaign as well.

Secondly, according to sources they are bona-fide Democrat political operatives that are known for planting such slanderous stories about opposition candidate going back for a while now.

The source called them “assassins”.

Just shows how desperate these yahoo’s have become. They fall all over themselves over a report from Democrat operatives whose only source is a waitress named Lucille (I kid you not) and others who wish to remain anonymous.

Yeah…..

And now it looks like KOS has gotten smarter. He’s deleted the link to the story.

Don’t miss this at Michelle Malkin either. Bill Maher doesn’t know whose the real mother of Trig.

Update

Confederate Yankee has some background on the author:

The LA Progressive post attacking Sarah Palin as a racist and a sexist that has been swallowed unquestioningly by the dimmer lights of the progressive blogosphere is the work of one Charley James.

Who is Charley James?

James is a far left-wing blogger that views radical activist web site Democracy Now! as “one of the few news and public affairs programs delivering real news”… perhaps not that surprising for the kind of person shocked that some damnable Americans in progressive Canada didn’t appreciate his “Bush Lied/They Died” tee shirt.

also:

Did Obama Lie to Bill O’Reilly?

On the night when Senator Obama accepted his hard fought nomination for the Presidency his opponent, Senator McCain, paid a lot of money to run a TV ad that congratulated him. McCain said that out of respect he wouldn’t detract or distract from the moment with competing campaigning that night. In contrast, on the night that Senator McCain accepted his party’s nomination, Senator Obama scheduled an interview with FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly in an obvious and arrogant attempt at taking some of the spotlight away from Senator McCain. It was not a courteous, respectful, or honorable move. It was also not a truthful interview.

Very often when it comes to the Iraq War people are forced to conclude that a politician who was wrong about something war-related was either ill-informed about a matter or that the politician lied. With President Bush, it’s all too easy to believe that he was ill-informed or incapable of processing information…yet, it’s more politically expedient to believe that he is lying when he’s wrong about something. Often this stems from the intrinsic belief that he gets briefed on all the information the Men-In-Black can possibly give him. Since getting his official nomination, Senator Obama now gets similar briefings.

Senator Obama did the interviewon September 4, 2008.
Senator Obama got his first presidential level classified intelligence briefing…September 2, 2008

No doubt at these high level briefings the focus was on the biggest threats in the world today: Al Queda, Iran, the situation in Iraq, and Pakistan. Additionally, Senator Obama was allowed to ask questions about subjects etc.

On Al Queda, the Senator said that Al Queda and the invasion of Iraq were not related. That’s completely false.

On Al Queda, the Senator said in the interview that the US had taken its eye off the ball (off Al Queda) by invading Iraq. The fact is that that Osama Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan in Nov/Dec 2001, and the US invaded Iraq almost 2yrs later. No US forces were pulled from chasing Al Queda in Pakistan. Only 1 unit was pulled from Afghanistan to Iraq before the invasion (the 5th SFG), and while some US units were pulled from Afghanistan later, they were replaced by NATO forces. The covert fight against Al Queda in Pakistan never ended. If anything, it’s increased dramatically (recall that the man who planned the 911 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was captured in Pakistan just a week and a half before the US invaded Iraq).

Surely some of the briefing focused on Iraq where:
1) the Surge worked-even Senator Obama reluctantly admits this now,
2) One man, Senator McCain, expected it to work as well as it did (Senator Obama denies this)
3) the Surge was NOT a military only offensive as the Senator claimed. The Bush Admin NEVER sought a military only solution in Iraq
4) Had Senator Obama’s 2006/2007 strategy been followed instead of the Surge, Iraq would likely have collapsed, caused a regional war, and forced a third American invasion of Iraq
5) The Surge DID work politically as well as in terms of security (this has been common public knowledge since at least July 2007)

On Pakistan, Senator Obama has complained that the Bush Administration hasn’t done enough, but he also admits that his own Pakistan policy is the same as the Bush policy
(interestingly enough, there was NO CONDEMNATION from the Obama campaign regarding the US raid into Pakistan 2 days later)

When it comes to the Iranian nuclear program, Senator Obama-having been informed by American intelligence agencies just days before, was coy at best, and chose to falsely claim that years of diplomatic efforts had somehow failed because of President Bush….not the Iranians.

How can a Presidential candidate be so wrong on such important matters of national security? How can he be so wrong after having been briefed as the President is, and having been able to ask all kinds of questions about today’s threats? The facts are simple. Either Senator Obama slept through the classified briefing, the briefing had nothing to do with the most dangerous threat assessments right now, or he flat out lied to Bill O Reilly.

Does America want a President who cannot admit his mistakes and who deliberately misleads the Americna people on matters of national security? Does America want a President who dismisses classified intelligence and instead misleads America to suit his own arrogance and political agenda? Many make those accusations of President Bush, but as we face the election, the decision moment for all of us, shouldn’t we be brave enough to ask those same questions of the next President before he’s elected rather than after?