LA Times Holds Tape That Would Hang Obama
by Big Dog on Oct 30, 2008 at 00:14 Political
The tape that the LA Times refuses to release is reported by a source to contain two quotes from Obama that would end his run at the presidency. Doug Ross reports:
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. Tha’s[sic] why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Couple that with this video and the Jew Bashing Obama would not make it through this weekend.
If John McCain attended a function where he was wearing a Nazi uniform and talking badly about Jews, how long do you think the LA Times would hold onto that video? They would break every promise in the world to get it out. They are covering for Obama. If you are Jewish and are reading this then you need to send it to all your friends.
Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel and he is not a friend to Jewish people.
Tags: jew bashing, la times, Obama, video
Please vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Why vote for McCain? He voted for the bailout, just like Obama. And both McCain and Obama voted for US government investment in big commercial banks, which is socialist. This is Socialism, maybe even Communism.
So, we should send a message to both parties that we have decided to vote on principles? It is time to vote on principles. YES, we should!
Only Bob Barr is moral enough and conservative enough to deal with the issue of housing, Wall Street, and the rest of the current mess. He has not taken a cent from Fannie or Freddie or from any of the Wall Street firms that profit from the bailout. And Bob Barr has the support of Rep. Ron Paul, who did so well in the Republican primary debates.
Here’s Bob’s Web site: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
Here’s a recent press release from Bob (who has the backing of Rep. Ron Paul):
Press Releases › Wall Street Benefits Twice from Bailouts
October 11, 2008 11:36 am EST
Senator John McCain attempted to disguise reality by calling the $700 billion Wall Street bailout a “rescue,” but it’s obvious that the only people he and his colleagues were rescuing were the executives who had made bad investment decisions, as well as the politicians who had pushed increased mortgage lending, irrespective of cost, triggering today’s crisis. Now it turns out that the companies getting bailed out will benefit twice.
Most everyone has seen the story of how executives at AIG partied at a resort after the taxpayers were stuck with the bill for an $85 billion bailout—now being supplemented with another Federal Reserve loan of $37.8 billion. But what’s $440,000, including more than $23,380 for spa services, among friends when the taxpayers are paying?
Normally politicians wouldn’t have any business complaining about the cost of a corporate retreat, but what might be unexceptional for high-flying companies in a booming economy becomes outrageous when taxpayers are getting stuck with the bill. In this case they are paying twice, with the company collecting a new loan because its bottom line is even worse than originally thought.
Loan-two to AIG is small change compared to the extra benefits that Wall Street will receive. Many of the largest firms will be going to the spa, figuratively, at least. You see, someone has to manage all of the securities and other assets that the government plans on buying with taxpayer funds. And who better to manage them than the very companies that bought the bad paper in the first place!
The Treasury Department has requested proposals for asset managers, and according to the Wall Street Journal, the government “wants large, established firms with significant assets to work for the government’s program.” That means managing at least $25 billion, and in some cases at least $100 billion, in private assets. There will be a lot of money in fees—typically 1 percent of the assets managed, which could come to as much as $7 billion a year or more if government purchases go past $700 billion, as is widely expected.
Wall Street is looking forward to milking this latest cash cow. Since government jumped into the investment business, the Journal tells us that “a range of firms—from large investment banks to boutique real-estate companies—have been angling to grab some of the advisory business.” Representatives of some companies showed up in Washington to lobby even before Congress approved the bailout. And who can blame them? The Journal reports that “sales, financing and other traditional forms of real estate business have dried up with the credit crisis.”
Of course, most of these firms helped cause that very crisis. Most of the companies bidding for government business are suffering big losses and preparing to unload lots of bad paper on the government. Bad paper that other big companies with big losses and lots of bad paper will manage.
And so the circle will go on endlessly, at taxpayer expense.
The only problem is potential conflicts of interest, since companies will, notes the Washington Post, “be managing the assets while also selling their own troubled securities to the government.” But officials say they will attempt to “minimize” any conflict. No doubt, Washington won’t let a little thing like ethics stand in the way of letting everyone on Wall Street profit.
Indeed, politics are starting even before the president’s signature on the bill is dry. One analyst predicts that the Treasury Department will focus bailout funds on regional banks and thrifts, thereby providing “critical political support for Treasury’s efforts.” After all, “Congressmen who had to swallow hard to vote for this think will feel a lot better about it if they see the impact in their local communities.” Which is just another name for pork, like the spending programs and tax preferences loaded into the $700 billion bailout bill to win votes for passage.
All of this is politics as usual in Washington, and it won’t change whether Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain is elected president. Both of them supported the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, as well as the many other bailouts that preceded it. Both of them are part of the political establishment that helped create today’s economic problems. Neither of them will take the steps necessary to ensure that this sort of economic crisis doesn’t hit again. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are offering the sort of fundamental change that the American people need and deserve.
And here’s an article about the upsurge of interest in Bob Barr from the Atlanta Constitution:
The Wall Street debacle and the Barr effect
Friday, October 10, 2008, 04:20 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Just checked in with Russ Verney, the campaign manager for Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.
Verney said the Wall Street crash and bailout has revived Barr’s standing as a factor in the 2008 presidential race.
“We’re seeing an enormous amount of activity coming in from the web site, from people opposed to the bailout,” Verney said.
Many are die hard Republicans, he said. “They’ve had it, they’re coming over and they’re bringing their friends.”
This low-key but effective criticism of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue, videotaped in Barr’s Smyrna headquarters and posted on YouTube, is driving much of the traffic.
Verney said Barr’s new standing in the presidential campaign remains hard to measure. “Most of the polling eliminates us,” he said — under the label of “other.”
Here’s Bob’s Web site: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
The LA Times is bleeding red ink because nobody buys their “yellow” rag anymore. Their reputation is as low as it can get. Releasing the tape would improve the LA Times reputation and probably their subscriptions. Why are they willing to fall on their swords to protect Barack Obama. Why is it that the mainstream media no longer practices journalism? It seems they are all nothing more than unpaid campaign staff for liberals. Some “free press” we have today.
Voting for Bob Barr is a waste of a vote. There are only two viable candidates in this race.
The LA Times has problems for sure.. I heard they just laid off another 75 employees.. sounds like an Obama plea.. Obama went to Hawaii just as the Birth Certificate scandal was building.. now the LA Times is not doing their job on a very controversial “public-has-a-right-to-know” issue.. sounds like Obama made another deal.. whatever the case, the LA Times is swimming in red ink.. serves them right, they can drown for all I care.