Thursday, January 15, 2009

Any Real Journalists Left?

Any Real Journalists Left?
Posted by reasonmclucus
There once was a time when the refusal of a politician to release a document would provoke editorials demanding that the document be made public. Journalists were suspicious of politicians who kept secrets. Journalists were concerned that politicians who kept secrets might be covering up scandalous behavior.
So why no editorials about President-elect Barack Obama’s refusal to release a copy of his original birth certificate or at least allow a representative group of journalists examine it?
Would journalists be as trusting of a Republican politician? Have they forgotten William “I never had sexual relations with that woman” Clinton?
Obama is from Illinois, a state with bipartisan corruption. The current governor, a Democrat, seems destined to join his Republican predecessor in jail for selling favors.
Real journalists should be naturally suspicious of all politicians, because con artists can sometimes sound more convincing than those who are telling the truth.
Ordinary citizens have to provide copies of birth certificates to apply for Social Security or even renew drivers’ licenses they have had for decades. Why is it unreasonable to require someone wanting to be president to provide something more than a vague Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” to prove he is a citizen? No one is going to use the information to steal his identity.
Hawaiin officials will only confirm that he has a birth certificate on file, but not that it indicates he was born in Hawaii. Hawaii allows parents who are Hawaiian residents to register the births of children born elsewhere.
Real journalists would be asking what Obama is covering up instead of supporting his secrecy. Real journalists wouldn’t be surprised that many suspect Obama is covering up a major problem such as the possibility he wasn’t born in the U.S..
After all why else would he want to keep the document secret? He’s already been elected and any embarassing information contained in it cannot change the election results. Releasing the document won’t compromise national security — the reason often given for wanting to keep foreign policy related documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, secret.
I don’t know if Obama was born in the U.S. or not, but I know he could easily have eliminated doubts by allowing Hannity and Colmes or some other journalists to examine his original birth certificate.
By allowing Obama to keep his birth records secret, the media may cause Obama to think he can get away with refusing to release other documents that might contain damaging information.
Are those who call themselves journalists refusing to challenge Obama because they are afraid if they look behind the curtain that they will discover their “wonderful wizard of oz” isn’t a wonderful wizard after all.

http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/01/15/any-real-journalists-left/

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Howdy Sam,

I found this collection promising but haven't the time to take it all in. Hopefully, others will.

http://www.cuil.com/search?q=%22barry+soetoro%22

Ted said...

The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

Ted said...

CHALLENGE TO ANY LAWYER, INCLUDING ANY JUDGE, IN AMERICA (OR ANYONE IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER):

READ (CAREFULLY) THE ANDERSON AMICUS BRIEF — NOW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT — AND STATE A BASIS FOR BHO TO BE SWORN IN AS POTUS ON 1/20/09?

Link at:

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf

or at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145354/posts