Overall, the media remains pathetic, however, Fox and MSNBC actually share a miraculous moment when their primetime competitors both admit Obama has never released his original 1961 natal documentation.
by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen
New York, NY - After nearly four years of weakening attempts to dismiss the subject, the media’s coverage of the actual details and essential questions about Obama’s legitimacy to be President remains pathetically wanton on every news network and publication in the world.
On its December 30, 2010 broadcast of “America Live”, Fox News, the self proclaimed “fair and balanced” network, with the help of legal maven Megan Kelly, tried, futilely, once again, to present the reality about the gaping voids in Barack Obama’s ambiguously documented biography. Fox may have a trademark claim on equilibrium but the network is vastly inaccurate when it comes to this subject.
Credit to Fox, although Kelly piggy-backed an excuse to talk about the mythology of Obama’s legitimacy on the lead-in that newly elected Hawaiian Democratic Governor, Neil Abercrombie, claims that he is currently working with the Hawaiian Attorney General to determine if there are legal channels which could allow him to release more original, biographical information about Barack Obama and, as Abercrombie says, “…put an end to the offensive claims of birthers.” Fox did talk about it.
Miracle number one!
While Kelly fumbled through the clumsy dialogue with her two guests, Fox’s ugly, evil cousin network from the other side of the tracks, MSNBC, made a fool of itself a few days earlier during its December 27th broadcast of “Hardball” when Chris “Leg Tingle” Matthews interviewed two southpaw guests, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, and Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn.
MSNBC is so biased for Obama it can no longer discern between news reporting and propaganda.
See videos here:
If Fox’s indifference hasn’t been bad enough, MSNBC has taken a position on the other extreme of super-bias in favor of Obama’s secrecy…with an equal degree of inaccuracy. Matthews' opening introduction indicates the myopic perspective poisoning MSNBC's capacity for objectivity. While displaying a copy of an image of what appears to be a photo static version of an original, standard U.S. "Certificate of Live Birth" (probably one of two containing information about the Nordyke twins posted last year), Matthews said, "This is an actual birth certificate, the long-form Certificate of Live Birth in the State of Hawaii..."
Miracle number two!
This is the very first time anyone at MSNBC has ever broadcast its endorsement of this 110 year old document format! For the first time in more than four years of unacknowledged reality, MSNBC admitted the single most important fact about Obama's natal documentation!
However, don't expect the ultra-liberal delusional minions to be cured in one shrink session. Matthews, then held up a copy of an image of an independently published, post-2000, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, (the document commonly associated with Obama), continued, "...this, on the other hand, is what they release, generally, to the public, a 'thinner' form...I'm not sure if it has less information, but it is digital, of course it doesn't have signatures on it, and to the 'birthers', is evidence he really ain't one of us!"
Also, just so Matthews knows we all are aware of his passive aggressive, snarky comment, no one has ever said that Obama's lack of standard, original documentation means that 'he ain't one of us'. It just means his legitimacy to be president has not been clarified based on the evidence. Apparently, according to MSNBC and Matthews, everyone not automatically qualified to be the U.S. President is a victim of racism. If Matthews had his way, America could be led by genocidal fascists as long as they were not white.
Matthews ignorance about the Constitution is so absurd, its laughable.
That leg tingle is fading for Matthews. He's had more fun at the dentist. Even while the reality of the disparity between these two massively different documents is being held in his very hands, he still had difficulty accepting the facts.
"I'm not sure if it has less information.."??!! Is Matthews serious? Look at the document content, man! Can he count? He is so blinded by his leftist delusion, he still is unable to behold the painful truth, even while holding it in his own hand.
While main street conservatives push the essential questions about Obama’s deception, the San Fransicko-liberal establishment has mounted a ridiculous mock-fest at anyone with any question doubting Obama’s suspiciously vacant past. The true evil in both sides of this derision is the claim that the facts are already known. They are not. Anyone who says so is a liar.
Fox and MSNBC are two sides of the same coin. Their viewers may be diametrically opposed, ideologically, but they both need to make sure their proximity to the Obama administration remains legitimate in order for them to remain legitimate. Ironically, what drives the media's inability to objectively address the facts about Obama's documentation is the unknown risk the subject's revelations have on their access to government.
If Obama is found illegitimate or ineligible, all the debates about his policies can no longer be framed within the viability of legitimacy. If Fox and MSNBC are ever forced to embrace the reasons for Obama’s covert identity, they are afraid it will remove their capacity for sustainable ideologically oriented debate. If Obama is found to be a usurper, his politics no longer matter…and therefore, Fox and MSNBC no longer matter.
Recall, just eight years ago, as the Bush administration presented its original documentation, for its legal case for war against Saddam Hussein to the U.N., presenting slide shows, illustrations and testimony about the threat of Saddam’s weapons-of-mass-destruction, liberal network and cable media failed then to mete out the applicable facts of that drama. Many maintain, even today, that Bush's decision to depose Hussein was never based on legitimate evidence, even though it was an undeniable fact that Saddam Hussein had violated 17 U.N. security council resolutions regarding it's lack of disclosure about his possession, or not, of WMD's. The inconvenient fact that Saddam had actually used nerve gas against northern Kurds in Halabja in 1988 seemed to remain a hidden truth among biased media drones. Some liberal pundits actually said that since Saddam only used WMDs inside the borders of Iraq, he was not a threat to the world.
Of course, Bush had a legal right based on U.N. resolutions, but did he have the credibility of legitimate documentation to support his argument that Saddam was behind the attacks of 9-11? Likewise, of course, if you ask any lawyer,Obama has a legal standing based on Hawaiian municipal laws to release a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, but does he have the credibility to ensure that a lack of the original, legitimate documentation should be excused while he lays claims that he is a legitimate president?
Why did the media not report these facts supporting the legal reasons Bush cited for invading Hussein? For the same reason it refuses to report the facts about Obama's biographic information. Because it doesn't benefit the media milkers to butcher their cash cow.
Just as the medical industry understands there is no profit in curing a disease in lieu of extended treatment, the media understands there is no money in revealing the truth in lieu of exploiting a mystery. Voracity for controversy drives the media’s choice to avoid investigating the truth about Obama and, instead, justifies the daily dosage of avoidance as long as the deception can survive.
As long as the media is able to exploit vague information to make Obama look like a mere symptom of change rather than investigating evidence that he is the carrier of a disease destroying our sovereignty, it can continue to milk the Obama cow many times instead of butchering it all at once.
The dilema facing Obama, however, is that America is a severely lactose intolerant carnivore.
For example, the media has profited much from the narrative that the 2008 election of the first “black” president was a positive sign of a progressing society. The media adopted this liberal message without ever looking at the probable corruption and possible criminal activity in that President’s past. There is a lot of smoke, and fire, in that investigation.
Therefore, in defense of itself, American society was forced to fill the gaping orifice that used to be responsible journalism with unified national movements like the Tea Party, concerned with government spending and taxation, and the so-called “birthers”, concerned with the lack of standard records and Constitutional legitimacy of the Obama administration.
These unification movements are not irrational. In fact, they are the natural consequence when government threatens inalienable rights; particularly the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Without the media protecting the people, holding their government accountable, the people had to prepare itself for the possibility that the election of Obama was actually the usurpation of power by an illegitimate rogue, radical, communist, puppet-leader acting in coordination with an international and domestic leftist agenda to undermine the stronghold of longstanding, vintage American exceptionalism by redistributing white, judeo-christian wealth toward the ultimate goal of global economic justice.
There is no longer any doubt that Fox and MSNBC have hindered a resolution to the controversy over Obama’s undocumented identity. However, it was joyous to see them agree with the American public for once.
Let’s make something very clear. Those who denounce Obama’s credibility based on his lack of biographical transparency are not claiming, specifically, that he was not born in Hawaii. They are protesting the covert treatment of what are considered common documentation, which every other American must present for reasons far less significant than being the President, demonsrating that he was indeed born under the geographic, biographic and demographic circumstances he has claimed.
For monetary and political reasons, Obama’s natal biography has become a part of some weird media black-out. Reporters and pundits all look like scared little kids waiting for some guidance from Obamaland. In fact, the majority of people questioning Obama’s identity actually believe he was born in Hawaii. However, the media is not willing to accept the fact that his birth place is not what people are concerned about. The primary concerns about Obama exist because he was not thoroughly vetted, his records remain hidden and he has simply not been honest in his disclosure about is biographical information.
However, Kelly on Fox, and Matthews on MSNBC did get one fact right for the first time in the last four years of evasion. They both finally admitted that Obama has yet to produce a standard U.S. 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”, which is the only document available to natural-born citizens of the U.S.
At one point, Kelly said, “Abercrombie is going to try to do more to release an actual, tangible birth certificate…which has yet to be produced.”
Chris Matthews likewise nearly choked during his show in saying, “Why has the president himself not demanded that they put out the initial documents (an original 1961 birth certificate)?”
Miracle number three!!!
Finally! Good job, guys. Welcome to the party! It’s nice to see the two fringes of the big media spectrum come out their hypnosis for once.
Reality is a lot better than clucking like a chicken, huh? Let's hope Fox and MSNBC can remain lucid and unsusceptible to Obama's spellbinding suggestions.