McCain Campaign Demands that LA Times Release Tape of Barack Obama, Rashid Khalidi & Bill Ayers

The John McCain campaign is asking the LA Times to release a video tape of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003. So why won’t the LA Times release the tape … WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!!! 

John McCain’s campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.

The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April. The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian.

“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama’s friendship with Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia University.

He said the video could, among other things, show how Obama responded to a poem recited at the party accusing Israel of “terrorism” and warning of consequences for U.S. support for Israel, which Goldfarb described as “hate speech.”

It is safe to that whether the liberal MSM had permission or not from the source if a video tape was damning to John McCain there would have been a world premier of it and all network programming would have been preempted. However, the LA Times who has already endorsed Barack Obama for President refuses to release a controversial tape of Obama, Rashid Khalidi and Ayers at a party. What are they afraid of and what are they hiding? Why are they holding back the tape? Its is obvious that they are once again carrying the water for Obama and do not want the Anerican public to see the truth of what Obama is really all about.

Read more

The Ever Changing Obama Tax Threshold ($250,000? $200,000? $150,000) … How Low Will it Go and include All?

There are three certainties in life, death, taxes and that Democrats will always raise your taxes. For months Barack Obama has stated that he would only raise taxes on those families making more than $250,000 a year. It has been questioned that Obama once in office would lower this amount to fit the massive spending initiatives that he has proposed. As Joe the Plumber had warned and we at Scared Monkeys had questioned as well, when will Obama’s sliding threshold lower to include many more in the middle class than originally stated.

Obama’s position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000.  But in his new ad, “Defining Moment,” he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. “Here’s what I’ll do as president,” Obama says in the ad.  “To deal with our current emergency I’ll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you’ll get a tax cut.” That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: “Families making less than $200,000 get tax cut.” Now, the McCain campaign is pointing out something that Joe Biden said in a Pennsylvania TV interview yesterday:

Obama, what happened to families making $250,000? Obama is already lowering the threshold.

Listen to Joe Biden now say that the threshold for middle class is $150,000 a year. So what is it Obama-Biden, $250,000, $200,000 or $150,000? How soon will it be before the middle class is considered below $100,000? Think all voter who consider themselves middle class should be concerned … YOU BETCHA!!!

UPDATE I: Is It No Wonder that Joe Biden is being Kept Under Wraps by Obama Campaign

As Time Magazine calls it, HIDDIN’ JOE BIDEN. The MSM has wanted to focus on Sarah Palin and how much of a detriment she has been to John McCain; however, it is Joe “gaffe a minute” Biden who has been the issue during this Presidential campaign. Is it any wonder that Obama has put a leash on Biden and if possible would have ordered a judge to put a gag order on his own VP. It must be bad if even Karen Tumulty of Time states that Biden is less accessible than Sarah Palin.

But traveling with Biden during this campaign has sometimes been like reporting on a politician packaged in shrink-wrap. While his windy, off-point pontification was the stuff of legend among his Senate colleagues, Biden is now leashed to a teleprompter even when he is talking in a high school gym that is three-quarters empty. The exposure hound who in recent years appeared more often than any other guest on the Sunday talk shows is a virtual stranger to the small band of reporters on his plane — less accessible than even Sarah Palin is to her traveling pack of bloodhounds. And Biden keeps to a schedule that provides a minimum of off-the-cuff encounters with voters, except across a rope line. See Joe Biden’s defining moments here.

The muzzling of Joe Biden

Joe Biden, The Quiet Man

The muzzling of Biden seems unnatural and inhumane, like taking a proud lion into captivity. Biden, who once scolded Sarah Palin for ducking reporters, hasn’t given a news conference since Sept. 7. The king of the rhetorical jungle hasn’t taken questions from voters in a town hall forum since Sept. 10, when he famously said that Hillary Clinton is “more qualified than I am to be vice president” and “might have been a better pick than me.” He doesn’t even do much chitchat with supporters at events since he was caught on tape on one such occasion contradicting Obama’s energy policy.

Now even Palin takes questions from reporters on her campaign plane. But the wordiest man in Washington has to make his remarks short, sweet and canned.

Potential Voter Fraud: Ohio Judge Says Homeless Voters May List Park Benches as Addresses

UNBELIEVABLE! An Ohio judge has ruled that homeless people can use a park bench as their address in order to vote. Allowing people to vote is one thing and granted homeless people should be allowed to vote if that is their choice, however, that does not mean the homeless should be allowed a greater potential of voter fraud by not knowing who they really claim to be.

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren’t buildings as their addresses.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can’t be invalidated because of poll worker errors.

Monday’s ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

With all the issues of ACORN and voter fraud, how can anyone in good conscience allow a park bench to be used as a legal address in order for people to vote. This would mean that anyone could go to a swing state like OH, claim they are homeless, state that the park bench under the tree next to the duck pond is their home and be allowed to vote. If anyone does not think that voter fraud will ensue from that then you have just not been paying attention during this Presidential election.

Scared Monkeys Radio Daily Commentary – Wednesday, October 29, 2008 – Dana’s Wonky Wisdom Tooth

• Dana takes a unique look at pain in today’s commentary.

Download and Comment at ScaredMonkeysRadio.Com

Its Worth Repeating … Barack Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution … Will Obama preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

“Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?”

Elections do matter. For eight years Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts. Now on the verge of a Democratic controlled House, Senate and Presidency the courts are about to swing far left as Obama will look to appoint judges who legislate from the bench. In the wake of Barack Obama’s 2001 audio interview, all voters should take pause and have deep concern. Obama’s change is radical socialism. This Socialism will come from the Legislative, Executive and now it appears from the Judicial branch as well.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

Another troubling question is brought forth by The Wallstreet Journal and whether Obama can appropriately take the oath to defend the Constitution.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? 

You decide … Is this the change that America really needs?