Look who's headlining Las Vegas tea-party convention!

Yes, it's true, I would love to go the National Tea Party Unity Convention, July 15-17, at the Palazzo Las Vegas Resort in Nevada. Not just to see Lou Dobbs, but also to hear all of the other outstanding speakers who will be there, including Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com. Yes, I really, really, REALLY want to go! And yes, I wished upon the falling star I saw just an hour ago... Of course, I am also praying.  Just sayin'...

"He's not going to toe the line for the sake of toeing the line," he said. That's why he's such a fantastic guy and why he's so attractive to the movement."

While Dobbs is known for expressing his opinion on a variety of controversial subjects, Phillips said Dobbs and other convention speakers plan to emphasize unification of the tea-party movement in their speeches.

"If we're going to win this fall, we have to be united," he said. "If we split up, we'll end up with two more years of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid axis of fiscal evil."

CNN's loss, tea partiers' gain seeking to unify movement in run up to fall election

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: May 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Lou Dobbs

He caused quite an uproar as a CNN anchor when he advocated for stronger U.S. border enforcement and when he refused to drop "birther" stories about challenges to President Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold office.

Now he's a headlining speaker at the second tea-party convention in July in Las Vegas, an event geared toward unifying the tea-party movement in the run-up to the fall congressional elections.

Lou Dobbs will rally tea partiers at the National Tea Party Unity Convention, July 15-17, at the Palazzo Las Vegas Resort in Nevada. The Tea Party Nation, along with ResistNet, Leadership Tea Party, the Tea Party Leadership Coalition and other groups, is organizing the event.

"Lou Dobbs is just an amazing guy," Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips told WND. "He stood up to the powers that be at CNN. He had a very high-rated show there, and he could have kept towing the party line and doing what they wanted him to do. But he spoke up for America."

In 2009, Dobbs was voted to the top 10 list of the most important radio talk-show hosts in America by Talkers Magazine. He graduated from Harvard University with a degree in economics.

The award-winning journalist and best-selling author's refusal to drop "birther" stories about challenges to Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold office was a major source of contention with CNN management, leading the unconventional anchor to walk away from the network and more than $9 million in November, the New York Post reported.

The Post, citing anonymous sources, said the beginning of the end of a long-simmering dispute came in July last year, when CNN President Jonathan Klein told Dobbs' staff in a memo to stop reporting on lawsuits that demand Obama produce evidence he's a natural-born American citizen, as required by the Constitution.

Dobbs said several times he believed Obama was a U.S. citizen, and all he wanted was the president to produce a copy of his birth certificate, but the network clamped down on the host nonetheless.

Dobbs, who also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, told his radio audience in July that "even though I said I believe the president is a citizen of the United States, I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate. My God, you're talking about the third rail of American journalism, baby! That's it. I'm not going to back off."

Joseph Farah

In a November column, WND CEO and Editor Joseph Farah called Dobbs a "real newsman" whose departure from CNN after 30 years left the network "in a state of programming irrelevancy."

"What makes Lou Dobbs so special," Farah writes, "is his independence and fearlessness. Dobbs clearly set his own agenda. He had no interest in the 'conventional wisdom' of his industry. Dobbs thinks like a real American newsman – a throwback to an age when journalists actually believed they were watchdogs of government and asked tough questions in the interests of the people."

The New York Post also noted that CNN had long been asking Dobbs to "tone down his harsh rhetoric" on issues such as immigration. For years, in his "Broken Borders" segment, Dobbs warned of the dangers of illegal immigration. Several campaigns were launched to convince CNN to "dump Dobbs."

As WND reported, Dobbs told his radio audience Oct. 26 a gunshot was fired into his home after a series of threatening phone calls.

Dobbs said advocacy groups that support illegal immigration pressed for him to be fired and had been "unrelenting in their propaganda."

Outspoken opponents of Dobbs include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of La Raza, Internet media watchdog Media Matters and Geraldo Rivera of Fox News.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Memo to CNN President Jon Klein ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: August 08, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 It has been more than a week now since you wrote a memo to your entire editorial team explaining that the Obama birth certificate story was "dead" because Hawaii had destroyed all original, long-form, hospital-generated documents. In fact, it has been a week since the state of Hawaii repudiated your baseless assertion. Isn't it time to apologize for your error and to Lou Dobbs for attempting to intimidate him for covering the story? And since your basis for not covering the story has been blown to smithereens, isn't it time for you to issue a new edict to your news team to get back on the story? What am I missing? Perhaps you were just looking for an excuse not to cover the story in the first place? Your network is going to be left in the dust on one of the biggest stories in the history of the country. But I don't suppose that matters to you. My guess is that you are one of those media executives who puts politics ahead of news. That's what I surmise of your network's coverage of this story as well as many others. Your original position, which I can only assume you have modified after being proven wrong, was laughable even if your facts were correct. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Watergate. I was trying to imagine Ben Bradlee or Katherine Graham calling off the Washington Post's Watergate investigation because an 18-and-a-half-minute gap had been discovered in a critical White House recording. It's a good thing we had more determined media executives – and reporters – in the 1970s than we have today. While most of the big corporate media coverage of this story has been AWOL, CNN's is in a class by itself. It speaks for itself as well. As an example, I would cite this report CNN prepared on Lou Dobbs' program when he was absent.

Is this what you would call an "objective" report? Is this what you would call "balanced"? Is this what you would call "fair"? It's a 6-minute-45-second report. More than half was a one-sided set-up. Then two people who actually know something about the controversy are given less than two minutes to explain to the nation why the president of the United States has never proven his constitutional eligibility for office. Then two people who know nothing about the issue go on a name-calling binge – including maligning my own news agency, the only one that has actually investigated the story. [CONTINUE READING]

The eligibility propaganda blitz ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: July 31, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 In the last two weeks, we have crossed the Rubicon in the media's coverage of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility. There's little attempt at reporting by Fox, CNN, AP, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the rest. My colleagues in the press have ceased even to allude to facts. They are embarked on what appears to be a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign to assert there is no other reasonable position any informed American can hold except that Obama is a "natural born citizen." It is an accepted article of faith. If one doesn't subscribe to it, you are ex-communicated from the profession and polite society. You become, God forbid, a "birther." Blustering Bill O'Reilly, for instance, just insists Fox News investigated this whole matter a year ago and concluded there was nothing to it. O'Reilly doesn't bother to share any facts gleaned in this investigation. We're just supposed to take O'Reilly at his word – just like we were supposed to take CNN President Jon Klein at his word when he told the world Hawaii had destroyed all the original birth certificates, so therefore the story was "dead." Pardon me, but I'm a journalist. You have to show me the facts before I accept them. What are the facts? To listen to the propaganda press, you would believe that certification of live birth settles the matter of where Obama was born. "He's got a birth certificate!" they exclaim. "It's right here. You can see it on the Internet." However, that document proves nothing about where Obama was born. Nothing! Neither do any of the statements offered by Hawaiian officials who claim to have inspected his birth documents. Nor do the newspaper ads published in 1961. Why? Because you could easily secure one of these documents for a foreign birth. One parent could simply fill out a form, saying the birth took place in Hawaii, and the certification was issued – no questions asked. [CONTINUE READING]

The 'non-issue' everyone is talking about ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: July 29, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Have you noticed the way the rest of the media discusses the Barack Obama eligibility story? Everyone from Ann Coulter and Michael Medved and Neal Boortz on the right to Geraldo Rivera and Chris Matthews and CNN's heretofore unknown president want you to know there's nothing to talk about here. But yet they keep on talking about it. And they never really explain why they are talking about it and why it's not worth talking about – other than the fact that it's all been researched before and Barack Obama really is a "natural born citizen." Now, as one of only a handful of colleagues who has actually investigated this matter – most of whom work for me – I would like to understand from these people how that little matter was settled. Is one of them capable of uttering even one articulate, coherent statement that would help me understand how Obama established his constitutional eligibility for office? Did he produce an actual long-form birth certificate that would show which doctor delivered him and in which hospital? Who are the two U.S. citizen parents to whom he was born – an absolute requirement to be a "natural born citizen" circa 1961? Why do these media people show so little natural curiosity about the conflicting stories that have been dished out by Hawaiian officials claiming they have inspected the original document and later claiming the original document was destroyed in 2001? Can any of these people point to any official document from Obama's past that he has willingly released? Now, I like Ann Coulter. I consider her a good friend. But when she starts hurling labels like "crank" toward me and my news agency – the only one, by the way, that has thoughtfully, meticulously and thoroughly investigated this matter for 11 months – I take offense. I expect what I get from the others. When the facts finally come out – and they will – I doubt I will get an apology from any of them except Coulter. But clearly, this is not a left-right issue. This is not a conservative-liberal issue. This is not a Democrat-Republican issue. This is not an ideological issue. This is a matter of what's true and what's not. It's a matter as simple as whether we take the Constitution seriously and do our best to see that it is honored and observed and defended. [emphasis mine] [CONTINUE READING]

Eligibility story is dead? ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: July 27, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I love the way the media enterprises that have never investigated the eligibility story when it was alive now feel compelled to pronounce it dead. CNN President Jon Klein sent an e-mail to his staff last week explaining, "This story is dead." Apparently he felt compelled to make the official statement because one CNN rogue, Lou Dobbs, had recently discovered the fact that Barack Obama had never established his bona fides as a constitutionally eligible president – failing to prove he was a "natural born citizen" as his Republican opponent was forced to do in Senate hearings. Why was Klein so sure there was nothing to it? His reasoning was very strange indeed – and his logic even more twisted. It seems CNN researchers contacted the Hawaii Public Health Department about the missing long-form birth certificate – the only document absolutely essential to determining where Obama was actually born. What they were told was stunning. The long-form birth certificate no longer exists! It was destroyed in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless. Now, what's shocking about that? The same media outlet that claimed the story was dead because the birth certificate hasn't existed in eight years previously claimed that a Hawaiian official had personally inspected it to determine its authenticity. Now maybe I'm an unusual newsman, but when I get two entirely contradictory statements from public officials, it makes me more suspicious and curious, not less. How is it that state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino was able personally inspect the birth certificate in November 2008 when it had been destroyed seven years earlier? How is it that FactCheck.org was able to have "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate" around the same time if it was destroyed in 2001? These supposedly first-hand observations have heretofore been used as prima facie evidence that a long-form birth certificate confirms Obama's story about a Hawaiian birth Aug. 4, 1961. But somebody's lying. How can both stories be true? How can they both be used to suggest there is no story here? Where is the natural curiosity by the rest of the press? How is it that they can accept at face value two patently contradictory statements and claim they both provide evidence of Obama's natural born citizenship and eligibility for the highest office in the United States? [CONTINUE READING]

RELATED STORY Don't Give Up! ~ By John Kubicek (And I dedicate this story to Joseph Farah!)