There is a story going around that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to run for President due to either his birth, or his adoption by his stepfather. An attorney has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia to stop Obama’s candidacy. This attorney claims to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. He claims he’s doing this because if he doesn’t, the Republicans will do this after Obama is nominated next week.
The attorney is claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. His parents had gone their prior to his birth, but wasn’t allowed to travel back because she was so close to giving birth. He also claims that there is a birth certificate in Kenya and that the one in Hawaii was falsified. The most interesting part of his reasoning for filing the lawsuit as he states it is because he knows the Republicans will do it. How does he know this? Are we now capable of predicting what others will do and then laying the blame at the feet of the other person based on what the first person ‘thinks’ the other will do?
He’s also claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, because he was adopted by his step-father in India, that Obama is ineligible to run for President. So what we have is a Hillary Clinton supporter filing a lawsuit to stop Obama’s nomination one week following an interview of Bill Clinton where he said that Obama will be the nominee provided he’s constitutionally eligible. Does something sound fishy to you? Maybe a collusion between the supporter of Hillary and maybe the Hillary camp? I’m not sure if they are conspiracy theorists for doing this, or if I’m a conspiracy theorist for thinking that this may be a coordinated effort between the attorney and the Clinton camp.
I find it interesting to take it a step further, however. Let’s assume that the court finds that Obama is not eligible to run for President. Can we predict the next argument to come up in the Democrat Party? I’ll try. Will Joe Biden claim that he’s rightful heir to the nomination because he was named as the VP candidate? Will Hillary Clinton step and say she should be the nominee because she received votes at the convention (assuming that she does).
We already know that the DNC rules don’t matter after their debacle in Michigan and Florida. First they stripped the delegates. Then they cut the delegates in half and distributed them between Obama and Clinton regardless of the vote total. Now they are trying to get 100% of the delegates to be able to vote because the decision is made on how they’ll be doled out. All of this messing around with votes reminds me of Al Gore choosing only certain counties to count the votes in during the 2000 election. Perhaps the Democrats could make the bald guy with the large eyes and the glasses on his head holding the ballot up to the light to decide if it was a pregnant chad, hanging chad, or dimpled chad, for their poster boy.
Whatever the truth, and whatever the outcome of the lawsuit it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats consider these elections as being about the Democrats and not about the American people. I’m believing more and more that the next President will be the liberal John McCain and not the ultra liberal Barack Hussein Obama/Joe Biden/Hillary Clinton or whomever else they dust off to throw into place. I guess it could be weirder only if somehow John Edwards was to run and win. We’d be back to the Clinton years in a heartbeat with a first lady, first mistress and possibly more children.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Brett,
All good points, but why do you think that the media has not even covered this suit at all?
Even if this is a bologna lawsuit it should at least be reported by the so called unbaised news.
This was brought by a Democrat.
Jerry,
If the media had any credibility at all, they'd at least do some checking and report it as it is. Unfortunately, there is very little reporting these days. The majority of the media has an agenda. If the story doesn't fit their agenda, they don't follow up on it.
An example; At the beginning of Watergate, there were a couple of publications that did publish the story about the breakin. It was not front page stuff, but it was reported. If not for a reporter checking just a little bit further, it could all have very easily disappeared. Because of that one reporter, regardless of his reasons for following up on it, the other news outlets began to do their own reporting and we all know the rest.
I agree with you. The lawsuit has been filed and apparently it's against Barack Hussein Obama. That fact alone should make it worthy of being reported. With the filer being a Hillary supporter, that too makes it worthy to report.
It may not be headline stuff, but it is worthy of mention.
You would think that the media would learn after the Enquirer scooped them on the John Edwards Mistress story. Maybe if Barack Obama hides out in a mens room the story will get some attention.
Brett
If the suit had any credibility, then it would be covered, albeit with a right-winger point of view.
ka_dargo
Why do you say from a "right winger" point of view?
It was a Democrat who filed the lawsuit, a Clinton person, not a "right winger"
MSNBC, CNN, Headline News, ABC, CBS, NBC all of them lean extremely to the left so they would cover it with a "left wing" pont of view.
I said nothing about WHO filed suit. I said it will be covered from a right-wing point of view, which is what the media does best.
So Called Liberal Media my ass.
ka_dargo
You can say and believe what ever you want but study after study after study has shown that the media lean quite a bit to the left.
Stick you hand in the sand and say no but the facts are what the facts are.
ka_dargo
Read this:
A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report y the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has "bordered on giddy celebration of a political 'rock star' rather than objective newsgathering."
The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization's website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama's relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.
Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has "always received very positive press from the national media," and that was a "huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career."
That's contrary to the normal "default position" for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is "not the normal professional approach you see in journalists," he said.
Noyes said the results imply that the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week, where Obama is expected to be nominated and has scheduled an acceptance speech in the city's 75,000-seat football stadium, will generate much media praise for the candidate.
If Obama is described by the media repeatedly as the historic first black to carry a political party's nomination for president while presumptive GOP candidate Sen. John McCain is just a Republican, that would give Obama an advantage, he said.
The MRC said it located every story referencing Obama on ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News "from the time Obama emerged on the national stage."
"The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more than their cable news competitors," the MRC said.
A total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offered "at least some discussion" of Obama, and 40 percent focused exclusively on Obama.
NBC aired 490 stories, ABC 464 and CBS had 411.
Brent Bozell, president of the MRC, said in a news release accompanying the report the bottom line issue for journalism is that the Big Three networks, "had a horse in this year's Democratic primary race."
He also credited the three networks with providing Obama's "margin of victory" over fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.
"The press fixated their infatuated gazes on Sen. Obama, and afforded him the crucial coverage and support he needed to win," Bozell said.
The study noted Obama's victory over Clinton was by 41,622 votes out of 35 million, one-tenth of a percentage point.
But it said the networks provided Obama with 462 positive stories during the studied time frame, to just 70 that were critical, and Obama got "his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene.
All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in 2007, the study said.
As important as the positive spin the MRC found, "the networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama's relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama's longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama's March 18 speech on race relations."
Even when the networks were giving Obama his worst publicity, they still offered two positive stories about him for every critical report, the MRC said.
Tellingly, they referred to Obama as "rock star, "rising star," or "superstar" 29 times in four years, describing him as "liberal" only 14 times.
"Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party's nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value," the report said.
"The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier," the report said.
The report said the bias the MRC uncovered also has not been lost on Americans.
"The Pew Research Center surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May and reported that 'far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton,' even with 35 percent of Democrats seeing 'a pro-Obama bias,'" the report said.
A Rasmussen survey in July found nearly half of voters believe most reporters try to help Obama with their reporting.
The report cited instances such as when MSNBC's Chris Matthews said when he was listening to Obama, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."
During the 2004 DNC, then-NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said of Obama: "His national debut is getting rave reviews … This blessed young father of two is the son of a Kenyan working-class man and a white Midwestern mother. Both his parents are gone, but the lessons of their love are not."
Conversely, Brokaw said the Republican keynoter that year, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, was "torching his party and its ticket."
"Obama in 2007 had the luxury of launching his presidential campaign having never once been the subject of a negative evening news story," the report said.
Significantly, when Obama claimed his parents "got together" because of "what happened in Selma," ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Obama was born in August 1961 and Selma's civil rights march happened three months later.
Later when a Clinton campaign surrogate suggested Obama's admissions of using cocaine could be exploited in a general election, the networks called out the Clinton campaign for its "dirty trick." That contrasted to eight years earlier, when candidate George W. Bush was pushed aggressively to reveal whether he might have used cocaine.
"If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made his road to the White House a whole lot smoother," the report concluded.
ka_dargo
Read this:
A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report y the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has "bordered on giddy celebration of a political 'rock star' rather than objective newsgathering."
The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization's website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama's relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.
Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has "always received very positive press from the national media," and that was a "huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career."
That's contrary to the normal "default position" for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is "not the normal professional approach you see in journalists," he said.
Noyes said the results imply that the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week, where Obama is expected to be nominated and has scheduled an acceptance speech in the city's 75,000-seat football stadium, will generate much media praise for the candidate.
If Obama is described by the media repeatedly as the historic first black to carry a political party's nomination for president while presumptive GOP candidate Sen. John McCain is just a Republican, that would give Obama an advantage, he said.
The MRC said it located every story referencing Obama on ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News "from the time Obama emerged on the national stage."
"The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more than their cable news competitors," the MRC said.
A total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offered "at least some discussion" of Obama, and 40 percent focused exclusively on Obama.
NBC aired 490 stories, ABC 464 and CBS had 411.
Brent Bozell, president of the MRC, said in a news release accompanying the report the bottom line issue for journalism is that the Big Three networks, "had a horse in this year's Democratic primary race."
He also credited the three networks with providing Obama's "margin of victory" over fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.
"The press fixated their infatuated gazes on Sen. Obama, and afforded him the crucial coverage and support he needed to win," Bozell said.
The study noted Obama's victory over Clinton was by 41,622 votes out of 35 million, one-tenth of a percentage point.
But it said the networks provided Obama with 462 positive stories during the studied time frame, to just 70 that were critical, and Obama got "his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene.
All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in 2007, the study said.
As important as the positive spin the MRC found, "the networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama's relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama's longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama's March 18 speech on race relations."
Even when the networks were giving Obama his worst publicity, they still offered two positive stories about him for every critical report, the MRC said.
Tellingly, they referred to Obama as "rock star, "rising star," or "superstar" 29 times in four years, describing him as "liberal" only 14 times.
"Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party's nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value," the report said.
"The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier," the report said.
The report said the bias the MRC uncovered also has not been lost on Americans.
"The Pew Research Center surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May and reported that 'far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton,' even with 35 percent of Democrats seeing 'a pro-Obama bias,'" the report said.
A Rasmussen survey in July found nearly half of voters believe most reporters try to help Obama with their reporting.
The report cited instances such as when MSNBC's Chris Matthews said when he was listening to Obama, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."
During the 2004 DNC, then-NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said of Obama: "His national debut is getting rave reviews … This blessed young father of two is the son of a Kenyan working-class man and a white Midwestern mother. Both his parents are gone, but the lessons of their love are not."
Conversely, Brokaw said the Republican keynoter that year, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, was "torching his party and its ticket."
"Obama in 2007 had the luxury of launching his presidential campaign having never once been the subject of a negative evening news story," the report said.
Significantly, when Obama claimed his parents "got together" because of "what happened in Selma," ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Obama was born in August 1961 and Selma's civil rights march happened three months later.
Later when a Clinton campaign surrogate suggested Obama's admissions of using cocaine could be exploited in a general election, the networks called out the Clinton campaign for its "dirty trick." That contrasted to eight years earlier, when candidate George W. Bush was pushed aggressively to reveal whether he might have used cocaine.
"If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made his road to the White House a whole lot smoother," the report concluded.
Post a Comment