October 31, 2008
Los Angeles Times
To the Editor
The election of the President of the United States and the peaceful transition of power from one president to the next is the hallmark of America’s constitutional democracy. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press, another hallmark of our democracy. It is, therefore, most disturbing that your paper is hypocritically hiding behind a promise to a source and withholding information from the public that could affect the outcome of next week’s presidential election.
Senator Barack Obama became the Democratic candidate for President, despite his affiliation with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The Senator’s repudiation of his pastor was accepted by Americans who believed the assurances of this charismatic candidate.
The Times is in possession of a tape of a 2003 event that Senator Obama attended with Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi. The Times is refusing to allow the pubic to review the tape claiming that they promised anonymity to the source who provided them with the tape.. Steve Barry, writing in your paper on March 24, 1998, criticized the secret settlement of civil cases because they often hide issues that are “immensely important to the public.” Tresa Baldas in the National Law Journal of September 15, 2005, quoted Susan Seager, an attorney representing a number of media outlets, including the LA Times, who did not want the court records sealed in the case of Armour v Ritter. Ms. Seager said: “When courts conduct private proceedings behind closed doors, it creates public mistrust and suspicion.”
In an August 29, 2003 interview with Joe Scarborough, Mr.Khalidi hedged when Mr. Scarborough asked him if he said “Israel is a ‘racist’ state with an ‘apartheid’ system and that America has been brainwashed by Israel.” The transcript of that broadcast provided the actual cite for Mr. Khalidi’s quote. (Jordan Elgrably, “Crisis of Our Times: Nationalism Identity and the Future of Israel/Palestine, an Interview with Rashid Khalidi.”)
Your paper claims that the outcome of civil court proceedings is “immensely important to the public” and that “private court proceedings create public mistrust and suspicion.” These positions are ludicrous in light of your intentionally withholding information of grave concern to members of the public. Surely the outcomes of civil court proceedings pale in comparison to the importance of a presidential election. The failure to publicize the video “creates mistrust and suspicion” among Jewish and pro-Israel voters as to Senator Obama’s record. “The public has the right to know.”
Sincerely,
Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, President
National Council of Young Israel
(To voice your outrage to the LA Times, send them an email to [email protected])
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
20 Responses
RIGHT ON!!!! I have gotten sick and tired of the Democratic Party taking the Jewish vote for granted and lying and manipulating us all of the time!!!
Coming from the organization that pronounced Agriprocessors kosher, I’m not impressed by their demands. First, YI needs to do tshuvah for misleading the kahilla about Agri. After they have shown contrition for their role in this boosha, then they can talk about the errors of others.
SZM– you are 100% percent right!
What exactly is the crime of Rashid Khalidi? Is it forbidden to demonstrate any sympathy with the grievances of the Palestinian people?
Finally somebody has the guts to stand up and fight for the truth.Well done Mr. Mostofsky and credit to Yeshiva World for continualy keeping the public informed. Knowledge is power.
The LA times stonewall is yet another example of a corrupt liberal media controlling the message of our hijacked election.
As for Barack Obama,if you are reading this and consider yourself honest and objective ask yourself or better yet google-
Who is professor Kalidi?
Who is Bill Ayres?
Who is Rev. Wright?
Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?
On many of these Obama associations the plot keeps thickening.What does the LA Times have that it refuses to share? Do you smell a cover up?
The LA times should be boycotted by advertisers until they give up this video, even after the election.Freedom of the press goes both ways. The LA times should be ashamed and punished by the American public for withholding a potential game changer.
Americans have the right to know if we can or cannot trust our elected officials.Denials and stonewalling may work but for just so long. The truth is we do not know Barck Obama. It is an honest statement to say- we have no real idea of his religious ideology or his real feelings about Jews or Israel. His bio is incomplete, his history mostly unknown.His associations questionable.Mostly he has been kept at arms length from us-WHY? It is not fear mongering or racist to ask legitamate questionsof our/about candidates. Many would argue that it is un- American to not ask.
This race is for the American Presidency not some city council. Shame on the media and shame on us if we allow an incomplete vetting. The alarmists and liberals will scream but i insist that this is not fear mongering it is legitimate to question and finish the investigative job that has been left undone by a clearly biased media.
When the euphoria dies down, Americans of all stripes and colors will wake up on Wed morning or Thursady in total disbelief that we have allowed an inexperienced leader of questionable character to hold the keys of power of this country simply because of his superior oratory skills and not because of his abilities or policies.On the contrary,on most issues he has proven to be wrong or at the very least inconsistent or not truthful. He has little or no record of any achievement in the US Senate and because of his skin color, John McCain went out of his way to ignore most of the troubling aspects of Mr.Obama’s character for fear of being accused a racist i.e. Rev. Wright.
For so many reasons we must encourage our brethren and like minded friends to vote for our core beliefs and our values.
Mr. Obama does not share the values of the Jewish community plain and simple.We value family, religion and life. The democratic party is out of step with our fundamental core values. To argue this factual point only shows how brain washed many have become even in our own community. As we get deeper into this financial disaster Mosdos and Yeshivos that were being supported by our dwindling G’virim will sadly suffer more under an Obama Presidency. Non- public schools already left to basically fend for themselves will be crushed under the Democrats who are beholden to the powerful teacher unions. We are in terrible trouble now as a community. Eretz Yisroel already facing tough decisions with a friend currently sitting in the oval office, will be forced by an Obama administration to make unthinkable concessions, G-d forbid. Do you doubt that? This is a Palestinian’s dream come true. Obama’s current advisers are not our best friends.
Google Zbigniew Brzezinski among others, see what pops up.
The bottom line is-
There is very little room for error and now is the time to stop this potential disaster before its too late.Open your eyes America, behind the cover lies a great untrustworthy unknown-BEWARE! It is obvious that the media has become so worthless and discredited,their obvious bias has muddied the water.Don’t trust them or their polls.
Urge your friends to vote for America. Vote for McCain.
Excellent letter. Here is hoping the fact that the LA Slimes won’t release the video will cause many ‘undecided’ people to finally realize that much of the press has been in bed with Osama Obama since day 1 & if the press wants Obama soooo bad…. There is OBVIOUSLY something wrong.
This Tuesday is perhaps the most important election to date (seems like each one since 2000 has been more & more critical) & it is important for people to vote. NY’ers should not feel their vote is a waste since the state ‘will for sure’ go Obama. Each vote counts especially nowadays when they could track votes to each district.
#7
The point here is not that Kalidi is or is not something.For all we care he can be the devil himself. The point I am making is that we have been fed an incomplete picture by the Democratic party and by the campaign themselves.Questions have not been answered.Video tapes are being hidden,WHY? Associations have been denied only to have the truth begin to slip out. Every candidate for high office is vetted. It is the opinion of many that we truly do not know who Barack Obama is and the little that we have gleaned has been troubling. It is legitimate to ask questions.
#7
You need to have a head and Neshoma exam!
To bacci,
I agree with your point, not your conclusion.
Like I posted before McCain is really a Democrat. There are no conservatives in this election. So the question remains who is the best candidate for American and Jewish issues? Maybe if they would release the tape if would be very evident.
But the liberals will stop at nothing to get their man in. But Bacci as a frum yid who supports this guy Obama, you should be the first guy calling for the release of the tape so you can back up your claim that he is the right one for the Jews. I don’t particulary care if they release it or not, I already know who is the lesser of two evils.
Writing letters ain;t gonna help
rather get people from LA kehilla to cancel subscriptions
write letters to their advertisers
dont get so worked up over bacci40. obama has a huge (palestinian funded) staff of people watching every website and every blog. it is clear this guy is a paid staff member.
he’ll deny it and express outrage, but we’re on to you bacci 40!
#7 First of all ur a liberal Dem. who is pro every perversion of the 7 mmitzsvos of Goyim. #2 ur .ur prob a reformed jew. #3 u have zero sechel,cause ur ashamed of being conservative. Rush,Sean Mark and michael S.have more basic understanding of US patriotism in thier fingernails then u have in ur empty torah violation Kupf.
COPY OF LETTER SENT TO LA TIMES:
Dear Editor,
You have a responsibility to the American electorate to produce the Obama video NOW. Not tomorrow or after the Election … but NOW. I would cite the analogy of Justice Holmes in Schenk v. US, that to yell “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected speech. To sit on this video when the entire country may be “burned,” or worse, is a fortiori not protected speech.
NOTE, I hope YWN readers will bombard the LA Times with similar demands!
re 17, I thought it was to the PA for some neutral civic purpose, schools, etc. or the like.
#16, i’m maskim the republicans have been affected by the moralless society we live in. but the democrats in general and obama in particular support toevah marriage and KILLING BABIES. i repeat, KILLING INNOCENT NEWBORNS that have SURVIVED abortions. if you honestly believe that KILLING INNOCENT CHILDREN is the “moral high ground”, there is no insult ever made that can begin to describe you.
The sad part is The Orthodox Jewish community could have very easily supported an Obama candidacy. The economy being down hurts our community deeply.Israeli security is also not where it should be and this upsets us greatly. We too are desperate for change. John McCain is not our perfect candidate but at the very least we have a complete picture and history of the man and his record. When held up against Obama, it is simply child’s play. McCain is an American hero etc… Obama the great unknown hope is a blank piece of paper surrounded by questionable mentors and friends. Surly you see our legitimate problem.
On the surface Sen.Obama seems genuine.But the surface is where ignorant people are satisfied and informed educated engaged voters continue. We simply need more.
The candidate while very charismatic, fails to convince us of his intentions and raises the skepticism with his associations.
While all of you Obama supporters feel justified in your outrage at anyone who questions the authenticity of Barack Obama, it is he himself and the type of stonewalling from the LA times, that has continued to cast this negative vibe.
So the question has continued to be- “who is Barack Obama?” Answer from the liberal left- “how dare you assume that he is a bad guy.”
The whole exercise is ridiculous.
It is his failure and the failure of the Democratic party to present a complete picture and put our fears to rest once and for all. Because Hilary was originally the anointed one and because Obama’s handlers have hidden him from the real media, many America who would happily vote for a black or brown candidate are not comfortable with the unknown ideology of the man. Skin color got nothing to do with it.The answers do not satisfy us,therefore the debate has been forced into guilt by association. Unfair maybe, but again not our fault.We are left with inadequate personnel ideological information about the candidate for President of the United States and that scares the hell out of us.We live in a dangerous world where our very future is in question. Iran, Israel, economy, taxes. The man has not been helpful to his cause.We want answers not sound bites.Assurance not reverse discrimination from the liberal left for having the nerve to become educated. Why is this bigoted or racist?
The LA times foolishness only serves to exacerbate the question on everybodys mind-WHO IS BARACK OBAMA and why should I vote for him.
This is not smear get over yourselves.
I neverget the LA Times, nor would I read it if it was given to me for free. As R’ Berel Wein once said “The bigger the lie, the more believeable people think it is”
Hypocrisy, Lies and Videotape at the L.A. Times
by David B. Phillips
The L.A. Times is in possession of a videotape of a 2003 event – variously characterized as a “banquet,” as a farewell party, as a tribute, and by the Times itself as a “celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics” – all in honor of a friend and frequent dinner companion of Barack Obama, Palestinian scholar, Rashid Khalidi, who was leaving Chicago for a job in New York.
About this tape only one thing is certain: Its release will not help Barack Obama get elected on Tuesday. As a matter of fact, it could hurt him in critical states.
The L.A. Times admits it is in possession of this tape but refuses to release it, despite demands that it do so by John McCain, Sarah Palin and others. Simplified, the arguments boil down to this: Those demanding its release accuse the Times of throwing away the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed, while the Times says they are ethically bound to abide by a promise to a confidential source not to share the video.
In an article in the Times dated October 30, 2008, James Rainey, an L.A. Times staff writer, quotes several journalism professors, authorities on journalistic values and ethics, all of whom side with the Times in their decision, some of which say that it is not a good idea to enter into such agreements [to begin with].
Besides noting the obnoxious habit of the media – and its obvious hypocrisy – of picking and choosing between values in conflict as it suits them, it is worthwhile to consider – and I admit, in the absence of knowing who the mysterious confidential source is, speculate – as to the motive of the source and exactly what the agreement between the source and the media is.
Let’s examine the timing of the release of the video. It appears that the confidential source notified the Times of, or provided the Times with, the video sometime in the end of March or beginning of April of this year. The original article, by Peter Wallsten, a staff writer at the Times, was dated April 10, 2008.
In early February, Hillary Clinton had won the California primary and over the course of the next two months the race for the Democratic nomination looked very close. Hillary made her claims to be the nominee of the party, as did Barack Obama. Let’s try to figure out what the politics of this confidential source could possibly be.
The source clearly cannot be a McCain supporter or they would have provided the video to the McCain campaign. It clearly could not be an Obama supporter, because if that were so, why release the tape at all? The only logical conclusion is that the tape was provided to the L.A. Times by someone who believed that Hillary should be the Democratic nominee. And in that likelihood rests the logic behind the demand that the tape would not be released by the Times to the public. The intention of the tape was to “wound” Obama, but not “kill” him. It was intended to give Hillary an edge in the Democratic nomination but the source was very clever in hedging his or her bets: If Hillary should lose the nomination, he or she didn’t want this incident to be used by the Republicans to defeat Obama in the general election.
In this sense, the Times was used, possibly duped. It allowed its journalistic pages, its reporters, to be used for a very partisan purpose – to try to help Hillary get the Democratic nomination.
What exactly was the agreement between the Times and the source? How much detail could the reporter write about what they saw on the tape and how much could be quoted? Who reached this agreement with the source? Was it the reporter alone or was this reviewed by editors and publishers? In other words, what was agreed to – and by whom? We just don’t know. None of this has thus far been detailed by the Times – and don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation.
A review of the original article shows that not a lot of detail was included. For example, we don’t know who sponsored or paid for this event. Was it a private function or was it (semi-)public? Were there 50 people in attendance or 500? Was the tape made surreptitiously or did all the speakers – including then state Senator Barack Obama – know it was being recorded? Who was it being recorded by and for? Were multiple copies disseminated? How did this source come by his or her copy of the video?
Wallsten wrote in his April article that Palestinian American leaders believe “that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say,” and that this belief stems from “his [Obama’s] presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.”
Yet he cites but one example and only two quotes from the entire event: “At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, ‘then you will never see a day of peace.’ One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’.”
Wallsten then writes, “Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground.”
Is that all that was said negative about Israel and American policy towards the Middle East? Does the agreement between the newspaper and the confidential source preclude the release of a full-transcript of the event and greater details about the number in attendance – and the guest list?
Admittedly, this entire incident is more than a little bit embarrassing for the Times. First of all, they had endorsed Obama for the California primary in February which, as was already noted, Hillary won. But despite that endorsement, they allowed themselves to be used to hurt Obama while he still was contending with Hillary for the nomination.
The Times, of course, would counter-argue that the publication of this article only shows how their news reporters are unbiased and independent of their editorial stance and that their reporters report the news both positive and negative about candidates they endorse. That may be true. However, it doesn’t take away from the likelihood that (1) their reporters were taken advantage of by the source, and (2) that their editorial board is now protecting Obama from further hurt by cloaking themselves in cherry-picked ethics.
In law there is the concept of “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” that all information and evidence derived from an originally illegal method (i.e., a search conducted without a proper warrant) is tainted and is not admissible at trial.
Similarly, the agreement entered into between the L.A. Times and the confidential source – the terms of which remain unknown, as do the names of those who negotiated it on both sides – was itself highly unethical. To now claim the ethics of upholding an unethical agreement as the reason to avoid the tape’s release– if such an agreement even exists – is in itself unethical, immoral, hypocritical and an untenable position, given the counterweight of the public’s right to know and to decide for itself the value of the tape.
————–
David B. Phillips is an attorney and forensic accountant based in New York.
#21 and #22, the following article recently appeared in the Wisconsin Tribune:
Election 08: Obama tainted by votes against abortion survivors
What does Sen. Barack Obama have against Gianna Jessen, a gifted 31-year-old woman who sings, composes, travels the world giving speeches, and runs marathons? Jessen had the tenacity to survive an abortion attempt. Obama voted four times as an Illinois state senator against providing care and protection to babies like Gianna who are born alive after an abortion.
Advertisement
Quantcast
Obama’s votes on this matter contrast starkly to the entire U.S. Congress, which passed without dissent a 2002 federal law, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, to provide care and protection to abortion survivors. Obama is running fast to distance himself from his record, feigning outrage whenever anyone exposes it and spinning “defenses” at will.
SPIN: Given the chance, Obama would have voted for the Illinois Born-Alive bill if it had been the same as the federal law.
FACT: Illinois documents indisputably prove that Obama voted against a bill (Illinois SB 1082, March 2003) that was virtually identical to the 2002 federal law. FactCheck.org concluded that “…Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported.”
SPIN: No new law was needed because Illinois already had a law protecting babies who survived abortions.
FACT: Nurses testified before Congress that a Chicago hospital, right in Obama’s backyard, was performing induced labor abortions and not even providing comfort care to living, breathing survivors. One nurse testified that an aborted baby “was left to die on the counter of the soiled utility room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.” (September 2000 report of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee, H. Rept. 106-835, Page 9). The fact that the Illinois attorney general stated the hospital was breaking no law encouraged the U.S. Congress to pass a federal law and the Illinois Legislature to attempt to pass a state law.
None of the spin attempts mention the Illinois documents that lay Obama bare. After they came to light, the Obama campaign said, “The recent attacks on Sen. Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.”
If you are Obama and caught red-handed, you viciously attack anyone who exposes your record, claim they are despicable liars, act offended, invoke your family as protection, and pound the table. By and large, the media is letting him get away with it.
Couple his actions against abortion survivors with his lack of support for an Illinois state partial-birth abortion ban, and you have a man whose concept of abortion “rights” is so extreme that every abortion should result in a dead baby, no matter if the baby is four-fifths or even fully outside the mother.
Obama wants taxpayers to pay for abortion demand. He told Planned Parenthood: “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” FOCA would overturn all federal and state laws that ban partial-birth abortions, prohibit taxpayer abortion funding and require parental involvement before a minor’s abortion.
Unbelievably, Obama is asking the public to swallow his statement that he is going to reduce the number of abortions.
The Wisconsin Right to Life PAC is urging people who want to protect unborn children, reduce the number of abortions, and/or retain common sense restrictions on abortion to vote for Sen. John McCain. McCain’s 25-year right-to-life voting record on abortion deserves the confidence of the American public as a man who truly cares about all members of the human family.
For documentation on Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain’s records, please visit http://www.nrlc.org.
Barbara L. Lyons is executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, a position she has held for 21 years. According to the organization, the mission of Wisconsin Right to Life is “to make euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and the destruction of human embryos socially, ethically and legally unacceptable solutions to human problems and to promote positive alternatives to these acts.”
In your voice