Liberal Media Misses This One...

...not that I expected them to get it.  In my opinion, the media wants BHO to win.  Again, that's my opinion and I could be wrong. 

But then we have the MTV's awards host Russell Brand:

"Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president.

"But I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years?"  A link is here:   http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4703539.ece

Ok.....I've said this before, too:  I would have no problem with an African-American being the President.  But General Powell isn't running.  Neither is Dr. Rice.  The liberal media seems to be saying that if we don't pick Obama that we're racists.  I'm not a racist, I just don't want Obama to be the President.  It really is that simple.

For me, it's not about race or gender.  It's about their stance on the issues and whether or not I agree with them.  And, for the record, I don't agree with Obama.

But then we come to this, courtesy of the Northeast Intelligence Network:  http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/node/1437

The title?  I'm glad you asked:  "ISNA's Illegal Endorsement of Obama and Obama's Illegal Campaign Presence at ISNA's National Convention." 

What is the ISNA that they're referring to?  Islamic Society of North America.  Of course, the liberal mainstream media won't touch this one.  And they still haven't addressed the question of whether or not Obama is even eligible.  Here's that link again:  http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/20080823O

These questions need to be answered.  Is Barack Obama eligible to be President?  What, exactly, are his ties to the Islamic Society of North America and what is ISNA's exact relationship with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)?

Intrigued?  I know I am.

There's also this.  This link leads to ANTI-CAIR, a website that presents another, quite different view of CAIR.

This particular link leads to the announcement that CAIR's lawsuit against ANTI-CAIR had been dismissed by the Court with prejudice.*

Here's the link:  http://www.anti-cair-net.org/Dismissed

It should be noted that the statements made about CAIR on the website are what triggered the lawsuit.  The lawsuit, again, was dismissed with prejudice* and the statements remain.

* with prejudice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_prejudice  "This directly differs from a dismissal with prejudice, in which the right of the claimant to file another case on the claim is barred."

In plainer words, CAIR cannot sue ANTI-CAIR again for the statements on its website ... if I'm understanding it correctly.