Oh, right. Never mind. All the reporters are still dumpster-diving in Alaska and Ohio.

“Damning” Obama Video Shows “Steve” And Palestinian Fellow UoC Professor Toasting For Peace In The Middle East Between Israel And Palestine — Bin Ladin’s Favorite Candidate, Panama Juan, Says This Links “Steve….

To expect or even entertain the thought that this organization could possibly tell the truth or honestly report anything, is total insanity.

From spies within I know that it is an organization of liars and ideologues who’s main goal is the manipulation of the public through their publication.

(BOWLING GREEN, OHIO) Over the course of her two months on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin has accused Barack Obama of “palling around with a terrorist,” wanting to “wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists” and has suggested that he doesn’t want to win the wars the United States is fighting. At a rally here this afternoon, she upped the ante even further by wondering aloud whether the Democratic nominee really supports Israel in the way he has repeatedly affirmed he does.

Palin’s impetus was a story published in the Los Angeles Times in April about a 2003 banquet, in which the then Illinois state senator spoke about his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO spokesman and current Columbia University professor, who has a history of espousing views on Israel that many consider incendiary.

“And the twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for this person, back in 2003, a celebration of him, and Barack was there, and we know some very derogatory things were said there about Israel and America’s support for that great nation,” Palin said. “And among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim.”

Palin then insinuated that Obama might not support Israel in the way he says he does.

“What we don’t know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support,” Palin said.

Over the chorus of loud boos from the crowd, Palin pointed out that the Los Angeles Times has refused to release the videotape of the banquet, which was explained in detail in the story that the newspaper published over six months ago.

“Maybe some politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own,” she said. “In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed.”

Palin, who majored in journalism in college, went on to mock the LA Times and question its integrity.

“And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kowtowing, then the LA Times, you’re winning,” she said.

And by the way, I know who gave him the tape: Ali Abunimah.

“The Obama camp offered a 3 million dollar bribe to destroy the Michelle Obama tape” — From Obambi.com at http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/payola3million/.

The LA Times should release the tape to the public for consideration; it is un-American not to do exactly that.

2008. The year the One … Lost.

Elect John McCain President of the United States of America.

However, I received a tip from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., “All six of CNN’s ‘undecided voters’ were Democratic operatives”). Take it for what it’s worth, but I believe this person is on target.

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can’t release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

It would be really controversial if it got out. That’s why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Note that Barry’s former foreign policy advisor (who BTW is the wife of Cass Sunstein) Samantha Power shares Obama’s views vis a vis Israel and “genocide”, so this is definitely within the realm of possibility.

Free to pick sides in an election, and suppress any news unfavorable to that side. Free to issue the most fatuous and patronizing explanations imaginable about why we the people shouldn’t worry our little heads about it, but should be scared out of our minds by the fact that President Bush got Congress to pass an act that allows terrorists to be subjected to eavesdropping?

Free to just ignore the fact that public servants in Ohio apparently have an allegiance to Obama that transcends their sworn oath to defend the rights of citizens to privacy, and able to get away with it because the Governor of Ohio also supports Obama.

Free to dissemble to us about how address verification of credit cards works, when it is the core of world commerce, so that they can pretend that their favorite candidate is not knowingly breaking the law and committing massive fraud?

I wonder, does anyone at the LAT, or any other newspaper or news channel remember what that quaint saying about a “Rule of laws, versus a rule of men” actually means? Or do they know full well, but just find it a little inconvenient at the moment?

I also wonder, do they think we are sheep? Perhaps they do, because anyone who pays money to read their lies a is indeed a sheep, and an idiot.

In the case of the LA Times, we have an entity whose circulation and ad revenues are plummeting. They’re hemorrhaging readers and advertisers, and they’re laying off folks in droves.

So, knowing they’re about to die, they decide to take their remaining credibility and integrity (as little as remained) and dive headfirst into the U.S.S. McCain Campaign. Sure, they’ll be a smoldering heap of ash when it’s all said and done, but at least they inflicted one last bit of parting damage on behalf of The Cause before their permanent exit.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/10/prove_me_wrong.html

Here’s the original link:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/red-alert-tip-why-times-wont-release.html

Aston might want to prep for the very public colonoscopy he’s about to receive.

My points presented to the subscription manager:

- Am I important to LAT?
- Does LAT think they are important to me?
- What service does LAT provide to me? Do they feel that me being an informed electorate is important?
- Why are they sitting on this tape?
- In 2006, they had a tape regarding Schwartzenegger talking about “Hot latina women” that they released immediately. Why is this one being held? Is it because one candidate had an (R) next to the name and the other a (D)?
- John McCain was in the navy. If he had been caught on tape in a TailHook party, would that have been important? (the LAT lakie said it would be)
- It sure seemed to me that LAT has picked a candidate and are not protecting him. My vote be damned. Democracy be damned. Obama must be protected.

His points were-
- If they wanted to suppress the story, they wouldn’t have written about it at all. In fact, they say they reprinted the story. I countered by saying that I want to view the video my self to make my OWN decisiont, not hear theirs.
- He said that he didn’t think this one story would sway the election one way or another. I said that Dan Rather faked a news story in 2004 to try and sway the election.
- I finished up by saying that in my opinon our support of Israel is critical to middle east stability. I need to know if BO is an antisemite. Not to mention the people he shared the table with: Dohrn and Ayres.
- He agreed that this was important to him to and would relay my thoughts to editorial.