Not reporting destroys media credibility

My first question after reading the details in the enclosed article was “Why did MSM outlets go to the expense of covering a hearing in Georgia when there was zero chance they would report the proceedings?” I soon realized they have to be prepared for the unexpected in order to maintain control over everything the public learns —— in this case does not learn.

Since the 1960s media liberals decided which issues were important in every national and state election. Then, to focus everyone’s attention on those issues the MSM stirred up dialogue on how the candidates stood on those issues in the past. That template guarantied the same issues would be discussed over and over again in election after election until the public wearily accepted the media view of how the world should be. Hillarycare II is a good example of how it works.

Hussein took the media beyond issues. The media is now committed to making the public accept tarnished media darlings as well as accept those issues the public rejects. It is no wonder fewer voters turn out to vote in election after election.

Irrespective of how you feel about Hussein’s presidential eligibility he deserves credit for demolishing media credibility —— not because he exposed a media coverup, but because the best-known coverup in history is working. A coverup that is so widely-known and understood by so many people benefits Hussein while it leaves no room for media credibility.

The question of Hussein’s eligibility is the exact opposite of Nixon and Watergate. In Nixon’s case the MSM’s true motives were shielded by plausible deniability. Thanks to the blogosphere plausible deniability left town with the media monopoly.

In addition to plausible deniability media mouthpieces still maintain their actions in the Nixon Affair protected the Constitution from the evil machinations of Dastardly Dick. A substantial number of Americans did not buy it, but there was no forum to challenge the MSM in the 1970s.

In Hussein’s case the MSM is complicit in shredding the Constitution to assist the evil machinations of Hellacious Hussein. Had Hussein’s eligibility received the same kind of ‘gotcha’ coverage Nixon’s dirty tricks received he would have resigned long before now.

Finally, Nixon was forced out of office because of unfair reporting. Hussein is kept in office because of NOT reporting. Call it a coverup by omission.

January 30, 2012
Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case
By Cindy Simpson

Last week, I noted that Obama turned his back not just on Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer, but also on the laws of the State of Georgia. I closed my column, "Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks on By," with the observation: "And most of the media has followed along right behind him."

At the time, I had just witnessed an historic hearing that actually discussed the eligibility of the sitting president of the United States to run for a second term. The president had been subpoenaed to appear, and instead of his attorney respectfully following protocol to have that subpoena recalled, both Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, simply failed to show up at all or offer any defense whatsoever.

Isn't there a headline in there somewhere?

The hearing proceeded as planned, even though the table for the defense was empty. Attorneys Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield presented their cases first and offered compelling arguments -- not regarding Obama's birthplace, but rather that the non-U.S. citizenship of Obama's father precluded Obama's "natural born" eligibility under the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. Attorney Orly Taitz, however, did present interesting evidence that questioned the validity of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number.

When the hearing ended, the media in attendance almost literally pounced on Taitz. Irion and Hatfield and their clients had left the premises earlier, while Taitz was still presenting her case; however, Irion asserted to me that not one member of the press stopped them on their way out. Doubtless the media did not want to discuss the law -- they'd rather write their usual stories on the birth certificate and interview the one they've dubbed the "birther queen."

Attorney Taitz handled herself well, even though the press taunted her with rudeness and leading questions she has doubtless experienced many times. After the reporters finished letting Taitz feel the full extent of their contempt for both her and the entire morning's event, they packed up to leave.

I walked up to one particular reporter from one of the prominent mainstream entities, noting that he seemed frustrated that he didn't get a clear answer from Taitz to one of his questions, and I informed him that I did know the exact answer, if he'd like to hear more about it. He said no, he didn't. I asked then, wasn't he a reporter, and why did he ask the question if he didn't want the answer? And as I was speaking, he turned and walked away from me.

The same thing happened with another reporter from another major network. He had asked Taitz why no one cared that there were past presidents who had fathers not born in the country. I explained to him that it was not the place of birth of the presidents' fathers that was the issue, but rather the status of their citizenship at the time of their sons' births. The reporter scoffed and told me that that was just my opinion, but when I attempted to inform him that it was also the opinion of the Supreme Court, he turned and walked away from me while I was in mid-sentence.

Does this behavior seem familiar?

Even though I saw reporters from every major network on the scene, the actual reporting of the event was scant -- primarily only in blogs or local news. Google "Georgia Ballot Challenge" and note the non-mainstream coverage of the event.

Rachel Maddow must not have gotten the memo, though, because she dedicated a full 8 minutes of her January 26 show to telling her viewers why they should "feel almost duty-bound as a patriot to ignore" the hearing and not to "dignify this nonsense or elevate it by paying it any attention." Not only were none of the legal points addressed in the hearings brought up by Maddow, but Maddow excused the extraordinary fact that Obama and his counsel, instead of respecting the law, had simply snubbed it, calling the case "ridiculous."

As Sunny of Sunny TV points out in this hilarious but uncomfortably true video, "Tyranny is as Tyranny Does"; "[l]et's just hope the next President is just as benevolent as Obama because they could really use that power for bad." At the end of the clip, as Sunny pretends she is Obama, issuing orders right and left, she points to her crown and says: "This makes me in charge." As Teri O'Brien noted in her interview discussing Obama's penchant for walking away from those with whom he disagrees, "[g]ods don't debate. They issue decrees."

Attorney Irion, in this follow-up letter from his Liberty Legal Foundation, pointed out: "Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged."

Yes, Obama shrugged, and the media has shrugged along. Irion further noted:

Obama's behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon's. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorneys show up in court and follow procedure[.] ... Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn't petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing[.] ... Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

It is disconcerting to see that the president, whose primary duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, has turned his back on the rule of law of one of those states. Especially, as Sunny uncomfortably reminded us, since this is the same president who routinely sidesteps the law or places himself above it.

Even more troubling is the fact that the mainstream media not only seems to approve -- but they fail to report it at all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...in_obama_georgia_ballot_eligibility_case.html

 

This would be a better fit in the conspiracy theory section, being that it's a birther rant about how unfair it is that even FOX News won't cover birthers any longer.

 

To mamooth: Read this thread in the Conspiracy Theories forum:

http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/226976-vrwc.html

 

The Georgia challenge to Hussein’s ballot eligibility went in his favor —— so far:

Even as a challenge to Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 primary election ballot in Georgia moves to the appeals court level, the next state up for the arguments appears to be Indiana, which in just the last few weeks has removed a state official from office over eligibility issues.​

Will Hussein’s media stooges give events in Indiana any more coverage than it gave Georgia? I doubt it. Hussein will have to be forcibly removed from office before the MSM admits the story is newsworthy.

Indiana next state for Obama eligibility protest
Secretary of state already has been removed over qualifications
Published: 7 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

Even as a challenge to Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 primary election ballot in Georgia moves to the appeals court level, the next state up for the arguments appears to be Indiana, which in just the last few weeks has removed a state official from office over eligibility issues.

And there appear to be other state challenges lined up to follow even that one, including pending cases in Mississippi and Arizona.

Citizens across the country are utilizing each state’s election procedures to challenge Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot because of questions over his eligibility which were raised during the 2008 campaign but have yet to be resolved.

Two mainstream arguments are that he either was not born in the state of Hawaii as he has claimed, which could make him ineligible under the Constitution’s requirements that a president be a “natural born citizen,” or that he doesn’t qualify for that status since he’s written that his father never was a U.S. citizen.

Many analysts believe the Founders considered a “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two citizen parents. A Supreme Court opinion from 1875 seems to support that argument.

California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of cases challenging Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office on the grounds he’s not eligible, confirmed to WND that she has a hearing scheduled Feb. 24 before a state commission in Indiana regarding a challenge to Obama’s eligibility.

“Indiana is a very important state, as recently they threw out of office … their Secretary of State Charlie White for not updating his voter registration card,” she reported.

It is important to shove in front of the elections board … all the evidence of Obama using a stolen Social Security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate. I want to see how they will justify keeping … Barack Obama on the ballot after they removed the secretary of state for something minor,” she said.

In fact, it was reported just this week that now-former Secretary of State Charlie White was removed from office and the state Supreme Court now is deciding the procedures to replace him.

A hearing is scheduled there Feb. 29 to determine whether White, who won the office on the GOP ticket in November 2010, was eligible to be a candidate at all – because of discrepancies in voter registration.

A state elections commission had ruled in his favor last year, but a judge later overturned that decision.

The eligibility issue is separate from vote fraud convictions that also involve White. A jury found he illegally registered to vote at his former wife’s home. The conviction is being appealed.

The fact that there are two cases complicates the issue of his replacement, because if there’s a determination he never was eligible, the argument is that his Democrat opponent in the election should take the office. If the prevailing case stems from the vote fraud, then the governor would appoint a replacement.

Evidence of the removal from of an ineligible officeholder has not, in the past, swayed courts even to consider the case against Obama.

Previously, in a California case on which Taitz worked the issue was raised.

In that challenge there were two groups of plaintiffs, one led by Taitz and the other by attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

The case cited what happened in North Dakota in the 1930s when Thomas H. Moodie was removed from the office of governor. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state Supreme Court over that failure.

The court in the Moodie case held, “The lack of residential qualifications on the part of the governor is a legal disability. The [North Dakota] constitution does not differentiate between a disability existing before election and one occurring after election in regard to the right of the lieutenant governor to assume the powers and duties of the office of governor. The provision in the constitution devolving these powers and duties upon him must be construed in the light of reason. … When the framers of the constitution used the language which we are here considering, they intended to include legal as well as physical or mental disabilities, and did not exclude disabilities existing prior to election.”

The case argued that Obama was legally disabled by his birth status. “The condition of being ineligible for particular elected office does not change on account of winning the requisite number of votes to otherwise win the office. If one is ineligible when a candidate, the same person continues to be ineligible after being elected,” the brief said.

“If Mr. Obama is, in fact, ineligible for the office of president of the United States, it is insufficient that he received a majority of the Electoral College votes and has served for some time in the office, because ineligibility is not vacated by votes, else the Constitution could be amended contrary to the Constitution’s own dictates,” it said.

While Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” was released by the White House, other documentation for him remains sealed, including kindergarten records, high school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The Supreme Court justices repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. The justices apparently are “avoiding” the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O7qEH-tKoXA

The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud:

CLICK ON LINK TO VIEW REPRODUCTION OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE BEING QUESTIONED.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/indiana-next-state-for-obama-eligibility-protests/