It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jibeho
I'd like to address #5. The amazing disappearing Khalidi tapes.
Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by anon72
Funny how not one of the points you listed is even remotely as grave as Romney not releasing his tax returns.
:
I thought you said that President Obama won't release the tape?????.....Shouldn't this go on the list of things you want the LA TIMES to release?
There is some illness in the congnitive processes on this forum.
Originally posted by jibeho
Why hasn't the IRS or the SEC investigated these alleged crimes? No evidence yet of any crime. Period. Just talking points. The IRS scrutinizes the returns of "whales" like Romney with a fine tooth comb. Still no charges filed after all these years.....
Khalidi’s 1986 book, Under Siege: P.L.O. Decision-Making During the 1982 War, was dedicated to Yasser Arafat. Opening with a glowing tribute to anti-Israel fighters (“to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982 … in defense of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon”), the book offered an airbrushed account of PLO-instigated violence against Israelis and Lebanese. By contrast, Syria’s brutal occupation of Lebanon elicited no criticism from the author.
In 1995 Khalidi and his wife founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), noted for its view that Israel’s creation in 1948 was a “catastrophe” for Arab people.
Khalidi deceptively styles himself as a “severe critic of Hamas.” But mere days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he rebuked the news media for what he termed their exaggerated “hysteria about suicide bombers.”
During a June 2002 speech before a conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Khalidi offered a justification for the murder of armed Israelis:
“Killing civilians is a war crime. It’s a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They’re civilians, they’re unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that’s different. That’s resistance.
Khalidi is longtime a friend of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. In the 1990s, Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Chicago home. During the 2000 election cycle, Mr. and Mrs. Khalidi organized a fundraiser for Barack Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods Fund of Chicago, while Mr. Obama served on its board, made grants totaling $75,000 to Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network. In 2003 Obama would attend a farewell party in Khalidi’s honor when the latter was leaving the University of Chicago to embark on his new position at Columbia.
In a 2008 interview, Khalidi praised Obama effusively, stating that, if elected President, Obama would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than other politicians. “He has family literally all over the world,” Khalidi noted. “I feel a kindred spirit from that.”
This post has several important updates. The first brings a passage from a 1978 New York Times report from Beirut, noting that Rashid Khalidi “works for the P.L.O.” The third uncovers a passage from a 1976 Los Angeles Times report, also from Beirut, describing Khalidi as “a PLO spokesman.”
The fourth update, the most compelling, unearths a 1979 radio documentary on the PLO featuring Khalidi, in which he is repeatedly identified as an official PLO spokesperson in the Palestinian news service, Wafa. The interview with him was conducted at PLO headquarters in Beirut. The documentary may be heard in its entirety. —Martin Kramer
He, just like you, is allowed to keep his private life private. . . . .
Obama doesn't have to hand over. . . .
Obama doesn't have to respond at all. . . .
Obama doesn't have to do anything further, there is no requirement of him do so, it was never a requirement. . .
Obama doesn't have to rely on. . . . . . . .
Obama doesn't have to worry about . . . . . .
Obama doesn't have to prove anything.
Obama doesn't have to explain it to people.
Obama doesn't have to ask Congress . . . . .
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by beezzer
Difference is, in Obama's case people are speaking about bat# crazy birther accusations...and in Romney's case it's a legitimate concern that he's hiding something (or that he's a fellon). Every president has released several years of tax returns, so aren't you at least a bit perplexed when Romney refuses to do just that?
A TON of presidents haven't released what those bat# crazy birthers want from Obama...yet for some reason they only now get outraged about it, now that the president isn't white. And no, that's not playing the race card, that's stating a highly suspicious coincidence.
Originally posted by beezzer
Is Romney required to release 10 years of taxes?
Is he?edit on 18-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by beezzer
Is Romney required to release 10 years of taxes?
Is he?edit on 18-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)
Nope. He is not 'required" to be President either...lets see how this works out for him
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by beezzer
Difference is, in Obama's case people are speaking about bat# crazy birther accusations...and in Romney's case it's a legitimate concern that he's hiding something (or that he's a fellon). Every president has released several years of tax returns, so aren't you at least a bit perplexed when Romney refuses to do just that?
A TON of presidents haven't released what those bat# crazy birthers want from Obama...yet for some reason they only now get outraged about it, now that the president isn't white. And no, that's not playing the race card, that's stating a highly suspicious coincidence.
Is Romney required to release 10 years of taxes?
Is he?edit on 18-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrXYZ
By the way, anyone up for betting on who wins?
He doesn't have the latino vote...and that alone makes it clear he's almost bound to lose.
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by MrXYZ
If he lied to the SEC and is guilty of all things claimed against him, he would have never run for office or gotten this far. If he is guilty of all things and still made it this far, I am convinced that our nation has indeed spiraled out of control.
From everything that I read regarding his IRA investment, it was all legal and within the boundaries. That's why guys like Romney and Obama hire accountants and tax attorney's. Oddly, he will pay a larger tax rate when he withdraws that money than he would pay in Capital Gains taxes from more conventional investments.
Definitely strange...
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by MrXYZ
He doesn't have the latino vote...and that alone makes it clear he's almost bound to lose.
In comes Marco Rubio for VP.edit on 18-7-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Rubio doesn't want to run with Romney because he knows Romney's now the fall guy, he's supposed to lose. That's the only explanation for why even so many rightwing pundits now speak out against Romney.