From WorldNetDaily
By Joseph Farah
Posted: October 31, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
There was pompous old Bill O'Reilly again this week attacking one of his favorite targets – "birthers."
He had two guests on with him – neither one cognizant of the facts surrounding the Barack Obama eligibility questions. Both of them happily nodded in agreement to most of the tripe emanating from O'Reilly's big, ill-informed mouth.
Night after night, show after show, network after network this goes on.
This is journalism?
Whatever happened to "fair and balanced"?
Whatever happened to getting other points of view?
Whatever happened to the idea of interviewing those with whom you disagree?
Whatever happened to the notion of representing honestly the opinions of others?
I'm getting flat-out sick of it.
It's not just the Obama flacks at MSNBC and CNN. It's Fox, too. Let's be honest about it. And it's not just the issue of eligibility where minimal journalism standards go right out the window. But it is a perfect illustration of my point. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
RELATED STORY:
Who is behind quashing the birth certificate issue? ~ By Joan Swirsky
From RenewAmerica
This article from August 26, 2009, by Joan Swirsky, is being included today to go along with Mychal Massie's column, "Globalist cover-up hiding Obama's past?" which had referenced it. I must agree with the way Mychal Massie stated his feeling about it: "I'm not an investigative journalist. I write opinion, and it is my opinion that Obama is but the tip of something much larger, and if same were to become known it would reverberate worldwide."
By Joan Swirsky
August 26, 2009
Back in October of 2008, when the subject of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States was just a blip on the radar screen of public awareness, I wrote an article about how easy it was to find my then- 92-year-old mother's birth certificate.Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care [in a nursing home] that she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913. When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name. Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!" Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!
Obama was born not in 1913, like my mother, but in 1961 — or perhaps in 1957, according to his MySpace page, which would make him 52, born supposedly in Hawaii before it became a state in 1959. So it was quite curious that not one cyber-sleuth could find an authentic, verifiable copy of his original vault-copy birth certificate. I'm not talking about the faux version Obama posted on his website, which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a "truth"-detecting site that is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a research project in Chicago. In other words, the least credible source!
Even more significant is that no one in the media thought Obama's missing birth certificate worth even casual mention. Their thinking seemed to be: We're not going to check on his eligibility to be president, if we don't even question why other crucial documents were — and continue to be — sealed? For instance: his baptism certificate; elementary, high school, college and graduate school transcripts; visa(s); selective service record; alleged multiple Social Security numbers; Illinois attorney's license; Illinois State Senate records; law practice client list; Univ. of Chicago scholarly articles; financial records while a community organizer in Chicago; and medical records. I'm also curious about why Michelle Obama's law license was suspended in 1993 by the Illinois Supreme Court, but then again she wasn't running for president.
Instead, the media were frantically busy trying to divert public attention away from those pesky things known as credentials with gossip-driven tabloid reportage of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in order to avoid the bigger-than-Watergate potential scandal of whether or not Obama was eligible — according to the U.S. Constitution — to become President of the United States!
NOW WE KNOW WHY
In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th with Douglas Hagmann — a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press — the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials! [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Mychal Massie
Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Barack Obama has spent (or had spent for him) between $1.8 million and $3.2 million in legal fees to keep his personal records secret. These include his birth certificate, his college records and all else that could provide more insight into his past.
But why? Who spends that kind of money to keep their records hidden unless they have something to hide? And if someone (especially a political figure, not to mention a sitting president) is willing to go to such lengths, it is reasonable to believe he has something to hide. It is reasonable to believe that whatever it is they are hiding would be damning if revealed. What could it be that Obama is so fearful of having revealed?
Consider the kind of power it takes to command such silence. Let's face it – there is nothing not known that cannot be made known – Jimmy Hoffa's resting place notwithstanding.
Let's first start with what it takes to keep the cacophony of silence and complicit cover-up silent and covered up.
Joan Swirsky writes that Douglas Hagmann, in an interview with Dr. Laurie Roth, revealed, "The reason for the media blackout about [Obama's] birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media, issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations, but also from Federal Communication Commission officials. According to Hagmann and [his investigative partner] Judi McCleod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously," threats were made to fire major talk-show hosts if they mentioned Obama's birth certificate, threats were made by FCC officials to yank broadcasting licenses, and memos were circulated by corporate TV headquarters to all on-air employees advising them not to mention the birth-certificate issue, his lawyer's license or his college records. ("Who is behind quashing the birth-certificate issue?"; Aug. 26, 2009; RenewAmerica.com)
According to Swirsky, during the interview Hagmann and McCleod alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession – copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations.
But the question that begs answering is: Why go to such lengths to keep documents away from public scrutiny? The birth-certificate issue is only a critical problem if, as many believe, it contradicts Obama's citizenship story. And why prevent access to college records or restrict inquiry concerning his law license? It was Michelle who mysteriously had her license suspended in 1993.
An even more pressing question is: How does a person like Obama – a nobody from nowhere – come to command such power and money so as to pull this off? Think about what it takes for a presidential candidate, and now sitting president, to have such power.
The answer can only be that Obama is the front man for something far more sinister. One person, without the strength and backing of a cabal capable of toppling governments and affecting worldwide currencies, etc., could not even consider such an undertaking, much less pull it off. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
UPDATE, November 1, 2009: This column is no longer available at tulsatoday.com. Was it scrubbed? Be sure to read the related story.
By Joan Swirsky
Monday, 24 November 2008
Analysis: Last week, newscasters reported that al Qaeda’s #2 terrorist disparaged the election of Barack Obama, and hurled racial slurs at Obama himself. “The report has not been confirmed by the State Department,” they all said, but they reported it anyway. Fox News reporter Carl Cameron told viewers that three “anonymous” insiders of Sen. McCain’s campaign said that Sarah Palin was, in essence, a diva and a dunce. He – and dozens of others who picked up the story on other channels – never identified, or even verified, the sources of the quotes, but they reported them anyway.
Contrast these shabby examples of “journalism” with the legions of identifiable, verifiable and credible sources who for months have been investigating the disturbing allegation that Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he has failed to meet one of the three requirements that the U.S. Constitution mandates, specifically that he provide proof of his “natural born” U.S. citizenship.
What follows is a partial list of people and organizations that have challenged Obama’s eligibility. Further on I will comment on how egregious the media’s failure to cover this story has been. And last, I will speculate on the reason for the cover-up of this full-blown scandal. ~~ Continue reading
digg story, submitted by SamMcPhy
Related Story:
Why Tulsa Today went dark ~ Tulsa Today
Posts
