Maybe I’m just paranoid, but something seems strange about this. Mark Halperin of The Page is touting a joint Obama/Clinton anti-McCain spot that won’t get produced.

Here’s how he concludes it:

ANYONE WANT TO CUT THIS SPOT ON THEIR MAC AND SHOW IT TO THE WORLD ON THE PAGE?

Go ahead and send it to us for posting.

A little excited about the prospect of McCain getting slammed there, Mark? The front page text:

With talk fading of an unusual Obama-Clinton joint fund to pay for negative television ads against McCain right now (imagine the earned media press coverage THAT would draw…) — read the script of the spot that won’t see the light of day with real money behind it (or huge publicity) anytime soon here.

Again, maybe I’m just being paranoid, but Mark seems a little excited about the possibility of the anti-McCain ad getting produced.

Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard about this survey. Regardless, it seems someone’s been telling a bit less than the whole truth.

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

Obama apparently doesn’t dispute the writing is his, but continues to insist the answers on the survey don’t represent his views.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires — a staffer did — and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His 11 years in public office do.”

So Obama knew the paper existed, personally wrote on them, but never actually looked to see if his views were being misrepresented in them? Then there’s this:

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion.

The first version of Obama’s questionnaire responds with a simple “No.”

The amended version, though, answers less stridently: “Depends on how young — possibly for extremely young teens, i.e., 12- or 13-year-olds.”

By 2004, when his campaign filled out a similar questionnaire for the IVI-IPO during his campaign for U.S. Senate, the answer to a similar question contained still more nuance, but also more precision. “I would oppose any legislation that does not include a bypass provision for minors who have been victims of, or have reason to fear, physical or sexual abuse,” he wrote.

The evolution continued at least through late last year, when his campaign filled out a questionnaire for a nonpartisan reproductive health group  that answered a similar question with even more nuance.

“As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults — an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor,” his campaign wrote to RH Reality Check.

Obama is always quick to tout what he believes he has over everyone else: judgment. From what we’ve learned about his past, he hasn’t shown much of it. Now some are getting confused as to what exactly the Senator believes.

Is it possible Obama truly didn’t know about the answers provided on the questionaire? Absolutely. But, as Politico points out, there’s usually a vetting procedure to make sure the answers are, oh, somewhere in the same zipcode as the politician’s positions. Read as to why Politico believes there’s reasons to suggest this case was no different.

Absolutely outrageous.

The Dutch prosecutor’s office is preparing to take legal action against the maker of an ‘anti-Koran’ film in an attempt to ease tensions over the film’s release, the Dutch foreign minister said on Monday.

Not acceptable. Now the Dutch are prosecuting someone for (literally) criticizing a religion? Exercise your right to free speech, go to jail?

Rusty Shackleford writes:

If Wilders is indeed prosecuted, it’s time to boycott the Netherlands.

Couldn’t agree more. Obviously the freedom of expression isn’t a coveted human right there. The government is more interesting in bowing down to foreign Muslim countries in their attempts to stifle criticism of Islam.

Liveleak had once been forced to take down Fitna due to direct threats to its staff from those looking to suppress free speech. Having now upgraded its security features, the brave video hosting company has now decided to once again stand up for the freedom of expression.

On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film “fitna” from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don’t consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

Bravo. Basically they bought more armor and went back into the fight.

The English version now has over 4.33 million view, with countless other independent sites and torrent providers now hosting it. Which brings us to an interesting point by Allah:

Like I said on Friday, their job here is done. If they’re reinstating it, it’s only because the principle means that much to them.

Words fail me. Staff Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin had been missing in Iraq since April 9, 2004. Today the military can confirm that it has located his remains.

His father, Keith Maupin, said military officials informed the family Sunday afternoon that the remains of the 24-year-old Army reservist had been identified.

“Every parent knows the possibility exists that they may have to face the death of their child when they volunteer to go to war,” he said. “However, those who are fortunate make peace with that and support their soldier, because they enlisted at their own free will.”

A Defense Department official also confirmed the identification, saying the remains of the 24-year-old were found last week but DNA results just came in.

Maupin and another soldier, Sgt. Elmer Krause, were captured by insurgents April 9, 2004, after their convoy came under attack near Baghdad International Airport. A week later, Maupin was shown on a videotape, surrounded by several armed masked men.

A word from his father:

“Matt is coming home. He’s completed his mission,” his father, Keith Maupin, said.

Rest in peace, Sgt. Maupin. Rest in peace.