By now, many of you know of this latest smoking gun, but just in case you have not been following the news, just in case you’ve been sick or have been dead…. Here is a small excerpt from Fox News (October 28) regarding The Los Angeles Times:

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barrack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

According to an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

In the article -- based on the videotape obtained by the Times -- Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

Khalidi is currently the Edward Said professor of Arab Studies at Columbia. A pro-Palestinian activist, he has been a fierce critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, which he has accused of establishing an "apartheid system" of government. The PLO advocate helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s, but he has denied he was ever an employee of the group, contradicting accounts in the New York Times and Washington Times.

The LA Times told FOXNews.com that it won't reveal how it obtained the tape of Khalidi's farewell party, nor will the newspaper release it. Spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan said the paper is not interested in revisiting the story. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she said.

And now, an important update: The Los Angeles Times claims they agreed not to reveal their source and not to show this video, back when they obtained the video. Allow me to make a few personal observations:

I do accept the idea of confidential sources as part of journalistic integrity. But I must be honest: I have not seen a whole lot of journalistic integrity from the mainstream media in quite a while.  To say they have been in the tank for Obama is one of the great understatements of the 21^st Century. That they do this while arrogantly laughing at the bias of Fox News and Talk Radio is one of the great ironic hypocrisies of the 21^th century.

Originally, the L.A. Times simply said they refused to release the video. They said nothing about protecting a source until they came under fire and criticism. Why didn't they talk about this protected source right from the beginning?  Wouldn't that have stopped the controversy dead in its tracks? This makes me wonder if they are speaking the truth. It should make any thinking person wonder. Besides, (if I may make one of those obvious boneheaded observations) supposedly, the person who gave them the video, had every intention of spilling the beans, but did not want the video shown . This leaves us to suspend belief and accept the idea that somebody wanted the story released but not the video. Why? Because the video reveals more detail? Who would choose to blow the whistle, provide proof, but then not want the most persuasive elements displayed?  Just questions. This much we know: The Los Angeles Times has endorsed Obama. That is fine. Most newspapers will endorse a candidate, but can you just imagine some video about McCain at a Nazi rally or Ku Klux Klan meeting with the L.A. Times refusing to release the video?  If you believe that would happen, allow me to introduce my two good friends, Santa  Claus and  The Easter  Bunny! And now, here’s one you do not need to imagine: It’s about The Los Angeles Times' east coast cousin, The New York Times. While one smoking gun after another comes out about Obama and his “casual associations of the past,” The New York Times does a front page headline story about Sarah Palin’s expensive wardrobe. Never mind that she did not buy the clothes. Never mind that the McCain campaign bought them for her, that she is only using them, that after they are returned, the money will be given to charity and the only reason such clothes were rented in the first place is that Sarah Palin is the only candidate in the race who is not independently wealthy and cannot afford such clothes herself. And never mind that the ridicule is coming from the Democratic Party which likes to squawk at those “Rich Republicans.”  Never mind all that. This is a HUGE STORY, much bigger than Obama’s humble, little expositions.

While we're on the subject of simple observations:

He raised funds for a self-confessed, unrepentant terrorist. This does not concern them. He sat for 20 years in the church of a racist pastor who was never too shy about his opinions. Still, he looked up to his pastor enough to name a book after one of his sermons and enough to have his children baptized by him. This does not concern them. He trained people in the corrupt voter fraud organization, ACORN. This does not concern them. He used his powers as Senator to shut down a political ad that criticized him and by an amazing coincidence, Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS just days after daring to ask him a question. This does not concern them. If he comes into power, he, along with the Democratic Congress, will shut down Talk Radio under the lie of “fairness.”  To do such a thing, he will have to ignore the First Amendment. This does not concern them. Speaking of the constitution, another old recording for Public Radio came out just recently in which he confessed a desire to have judges change our constitution so as to legally redistribute wealth. This does not concern them.  He will sit down and have peace talks with the Hitlarite Ahamadinnejad. This does not concern them. Finally, (not that it’s the last, but we don’t have time to read a whole phone book of culpabilities) he voted against the Illinois Infant Protection Act which wanted to make infanticide illegal, (not abortion, infanticide) This does not concern them. But Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? That concerns them!

Yes sir!  I do respect journalistic integrity.

SPECIAL NOTE: Sadly, even if they prove that Obama supports the Palestinian terrorists, many college age people will not care, due to the horrible Anti-Semitism and historical revision about Israel and Palelstine being taught at our universities. If you do not understand what is going on in the Middle East, you do not understand the world we live in right now. For your convenience, a link to my important and revealing Townhall series about Israel and Palestine has been provided.

The Truth About Israel and Palestine