Who is AKA Obama? The no-questions, no-proof media

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId= 234281

The no-questions, no-proof media
Exclusive: Joseph Farah decimates editor's claim Obama is eligible for presidency
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The news media are still at it.

They are still suggesting we should take Barack Obama at his word about his background and personal history – even though virtually everything he has told the American people has proven false under scrutiny.

And it's not just the Big Media in New York and Washington that ridicule anyone who dares ask a tough question or suggests we actually should enforce the law of the land and demand proof of Obama's claims. It's the regional and local media that are often just as guilty.

Take for example a recent column by the editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News – John Kanelis.

He is attacking Texas legislator Leo Berman for introducing a bill that would do something highly commendable – ensure that future presidential candidates prove constitutional eligibility for office before getting on the state ballot. You might think this is a no-brainer. You might think such safeguards already exist. You might ask, "How can anyone argue with such a common-sense measure?"

Meet John Kanelis – watchdog not of the people's interests, but of Obama's self-interest.

Kanelis begins his commentary by asserting this "fact": "President Obama is a native-born American and is duly qualified to serve in the office to which he was elected in 2008 with a resounding Electoral College majority."

Notice Kanelis' claim that Obama is a "native-born American." Firstly, it is not fact in evidence. And, secondly, it might be irrelevant, because "native-born" is not the criteria the Constitution stipulates for holding the office of the presidency.

But it gets worse.

Get a FREE, comprehensive report answering the question: Does Barack Obama meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to occupy the hallowed Oval Office?

With head firmly ensconced in sand, he pretends there is no doubt in the minds of Americans about Obama's eligibility – even though an astonishing 58 percent of Americans express such grave doubts in the most recent polling done by CNN.

Kanelis' "proof" that Obama is a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires?

It's the same old legerdemain invoked by countless other pundits who try to build a case for eligibility:

Two Hawaiian newspaper published birth announcements for Obama in August 1961. To non-inquisitive journalists with no imagination or familiarity with how birth announcements get into their own newspapers, this proves he was born there. The only other explanation for them, to Kanelis, is that those around Obama registered his birth to ensure he would one day be eligible to be president. Ludicrous! Obama's putative dad was Kenyan citizen with at least one wife and other children in his native land. And people like Kanelis can't think of another reason his mother and grandparents might want to establish Obama's birthrights in America? Every single day in America illegal immigrants attempt to establish American birthrights for their children – not with the hope that they will someday become president of the United States, but because of the tremendous advantages it bestows upon them. That's why I have no doubts Obama's mother or grandparents registered his birth in Hawaii. But that does not suggest the birth took place there. Nor does it prove the information provided on the "certification of live birth" is accurate. That's why the long-form birth certificate is an invaluable document and newspaper announcements are not.


Kanelis wants us to take the word of the governor of Hawaii on the fact that Obama was born there. But Linda Lingle has herself acknowledged she has never seen the birth certificate.


Kanelis asserts that Hawaii officials "have produced a birth certificate that confirms Obama's birth – in Hawaii." That is just plain untrue – and reveals either a palpable disingenuousness or an equally inexcusable ignorance of the facts.
Meanwhile, a bold state legislator in Texas is being smeared by the local press. Berman is doing exactly the right thing – defending the Constitution, defending the law of the land, defending what's right, defending justice and truth and equal standards.

Kanelis and the local paper also invoke the race card against Berman.

"And it's fair to ask: Is this question solely a function of the fact that Barack Obama is the first black man to hold the office of president?" states Kanelis.

No, it's not fair to ask.

What would be fair to ask is why John McCain had to prove his eligibility when legitimate questions were raised, but Obama continues to get a free ride from the no-question, no-proof media.