Ok, back to the media bias.
There is an LA Times video tape that reportedly show's Obama and Ayers (that guy from the neighborhood that bombed several US institutions including the Pentagon and NYPD headquarters, oh and somehow convinced Obama to write a blurb for his book, and of course held that silly fund raising coffee event to get Obama's political career off the ground for State Senate (Like that hasn't happened to all of you too)) praising Rashid Khalidi, the former PLO spokesman/Arafat supporter turned Columbia University Professor (an oddly similar path to Ayers who also became a professor, has if hiding in a liberal school somehow vindicates years of terrorizing.)
The LA Times refuses to release the tape. The LA Time said three days ago that it had already run the story, and the tape doesn't need to be released. When pressed hard publicly, the LA Times has now come back with the "can't reveal our source" argument, which is very fair and true, actually. But why was this the argument 72 hours in, and not on day one. And how does releasing a tape reveal a source? Unless the source says on the tape "I am XYZ and I am video-taping this with the goal of giving it to the LA Times," how would we know who the source is simply by watching the tape?
The non Fox News world has ignored this issue until today. The Chicago Tribune, which in the interest of full disclosure has thrown its editorial support behind Obama thus rendering them completely biased and not a beacon of truth and free speech, had the following to say today:
The Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin challenged the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday for withholding a video of a 2003 dinner in Chicago where Democrat Barack Obama praised a Palestinian scholar who has spoken out for Palestinian rights.
So Khalidi is now "a Palestinian scholar" that speaks out for "Palestinian rights." Not a former PLO supporter that wants Israel wiped off the map? Not a member of a violent organization with the goal of taking statehood away from the only Democracy surrounded by enemies in the world. A scholar? Speaks out? If I spoke out with bombs and terrorist-like action, I would be in jail.
What a Joke. Let the games continue. Given the number of potential fire-storms surrounding Obama, I believe Dem's need to be very careful. First, they just lost the Jewish vote in Florida, and that's a battleground state with one of the highest concentration of Jewish people in the country. Second, I predict that in an Obama victory, more details on all of these issues related to Obama (see story below) will come to light through the first 2-years of an Obama administration, and the mid-term elections will deliver a land-slide Republican sweep, and Obama gets payback for the way he treated Bush's Judge nominees and never gets a judge appointment passed.
There is an LA Times video tape that reportedly show's Obama and Ayers (that guy from the neighborhood that bombed several US institutions including the Pentagon and NYPD headquarters, oh and somehow convinced Obama to write a blurb for his book, and of course held that silly fund raising coffee event to get Obama's political career off the ground for State Senate (Like that hasn't happened to all of you too)) praising Rashid Khalidi, the former PLO spokesman/Arafat supporter turned Columbia University Professor (an oddly similar path to Ayers who also became a professor, has if hiding in a liberal school somehow vindicates years of terrorizing.)
The LA Times refuses to release the tape. The LA Time said three days ago that it had already run the story, and the tape doesn't need to be released. When pressed hard publicly, the LA Times has now come back with the "can't reveal our source" argument, which is very fair and true, actually. But why was this the argument 72 hours in, and not on day one. And how does releasing a tape reveal a source? Unless the source says on the tape "I am XYZ and I am video-taping this with the goal of giving it to the LA Times," how would we know who the source is simply by watching the tape?
The non Fox News world has ignored this issue until today. The Chicago Tribune, which in the interest of full disclosure has thrown its editorial support behind Obama thus rendering them completely biased and not a beacon of truth and free speech, had the following to say today:
The Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin challenged the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday for withholding a video of a 2003 dinner in Chicago where Democrat Barack Obama praised a Palestinian scholar who has spoken out for Palestinian rights.
So Khalidi is now "a Palestinian scholar" that speaks out for "Palestinian rights." Not a former PLO supporter that wants Israel wiped off the map? Not a member of a violent organization with the goal of taking statehood away from the only Democracy surrounded by enemies in the world. A scholar? Speaks out? If I spoke out with bombs and terrorist-like action, I would be in jail.
What a Joke. Let the games continue. Given the number of potential fire-storms surrounding Obama, I believe Dem's need to be very careful. First, they just lost the Jewish vote in Florida, and that's a battleground state with one of the highest concentration of Jewish people in the country. Second, I predict that in an Obama victory, more details on all of these issues related to Obama (see story below) will come to light through the first 2-years of an Obama administration, and the mid-term elections will deliver a land-slide Republican sweep, and Obama gets payback for the way he treated Bush's Judge nominees and never gets a judge appointment passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment