Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

order now!

Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby deppie » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:29 pm

I searched the Forum for a good place to post this and this seemed to be the most appropriate place concerning this Topic.

Received from Human Events an article from The Western Center For Journalism by Floyd Brown. This article was of interest to me because I have inquired many times to various media sources about BHO's Court sealed College records. No response.

So when I read this article I was and am furious at the media for not pursuing the question of whether our now _resident
Obama is truly our legal _resident. (You notice I took the "P" and left him with just a residency)

I'm sure you have access to 'Human Events' . This information needs to be FORCEFULLY AIRED to get some answers.

Why would his Grandmother say she was at his birth in Kenya if he was born in Hawaii? We need answers and fast!

I'm wondering if this would be a matter for our Supreme Court to mull over? Would you help in ferreting out the truth about BHO's birthplace? Taking much care in doing so for your own safety?

Please read the article in Human Events. It came out today, 315/09
deppie
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:04 pm

Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby ARJ127 » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:10 pm

deppie wrote:I searched the Forum for a good place to post this and this seemed to be the most appropriate place concerning this Topic.


Why would his Grandmother say she was at his birth in Kenya if he was born in Hawaii? We need answers and fast!

I'm wondering if this would be a matter for our Supreme Court to mull over? Would you help in ferreting out the truth about BHO's birthplace? Taking much care in doing so for your own safety?



Please get a grip! If there was any evidence that President Obama was not born in America, the Republicans would have filed an injunction in the United States Supreme Court. Since George Bush stacked the Supreme Court with Republicans I'm sure that the Republican Party would get a sympathetic hearing. There obviously is no evidence whatsoever.

Obama's election was more legitimate than G.W. Bush's first election. More people voted for his opponent but George got elected by the Supreme Court. Now that's democracy for you!
ARJ127
Media pundit
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:04 pm

Please get a grip! If there was any evidence that President Obama was not born in America, the Republicans would have filed an injunction in the United States Supreme Court. Since George Bush stacked the Supreme Court with Republicans I'm sure that the Republican Party would get a sympathetic hearing. There obviously is no evidence whatsoever.


Actually, John McCain probably would not have raised this as an issue. If he would not make an issue out or Obama's racist, anti-American pastor or his long-term friendship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, why should anyone believe that he'd make an issue out of a possibly bogus birth certificate?

For the record, I do not think that Obama is not an American citizen. But he certainly could have put the issue to rest much earlier and much more definitively than he did. In fact, so far as I know he still has not asked that his original birth certificate be released by the state of Hawaii.

Obama's election was more legitimate than G.W. Bush's first election. More people voted for his opponent but George got elected by the Supreme Court. Now that's democracy for you!


Nice old and totally discredited liberal talking point you trotted out.

In case you were not aware, the Electoral College is legitimized by the United States Constitution. You know the Constitution, right? It's that document that the Supreme Court is required to uphold (as opposed to re-write, which is what Obama's judges will do if given the chance). The Florida supreme court- controlled by Democrats- was hell-bent on appointing Al Gore President. They were re-writing whatever inconvenient laws that stood in the way, violating many US Constitutional amendments in the process. SCOTUS had to step in to restore the law and rein in an activist court.

For the record here, I wish that SCOTUS had not been forced to insert itself into the electoral process by the illegalities that the Florida high court perpetrated, as it set a very dangerous precedent- one that Democrats in the 2006 Washington state governor's race siezed upon and that Republicans in the 2008 Minnesota senate race is very likely to cite as precedent. But when a court acts as illegally as Florida's did- and I'll be more than happy to go thru their manipulations if you'd like- then I understand why SCOTUS had to step in.

And how do we actually know for a fact that Obama got more votes than McCain did? Obama won by only something like 7 million votes. Hell, ACORN registered one guy to vote at least that many times.....
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby ARJ127 » Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:28 pm

WOMI

Interesting use of the double negative in the first part of your reply. It would have been easier to say that Barack Obama is an American.

Should Obama bother to respond to such a scurrilous charge by releasing his birth certificate? No. Why give those liars the dignity of a response?

With respect to the second part. It is a fact that more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush. However, thanks to the Electoral College, George became the elected president. Maybe it's time to do away with the Electoral College. Since the President is elected by all Americans, the votes of all Americans can best be served through a direct election. I'm sure that you, as someone who loves your democracy, would agree.
ARJ127
Media pundit
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:57 pm

ARJ127 wrote:WOMI

Interesting use of the double negative in the first part of your reply. It would have been easier to say that Barack Obama is an American.


There's more to being an American than merely being born here.

Should Obama bother to respond to such a scurrilous charge by releasing his birth certificate? No. Why give those liars the dignity of a response?


If you're Obama? Of course not. Your sycophants and the lapdogs in the MSM aren't going to press you on it so why bother?

If you're John McCain? Well maybe you do. The Left brought up the fact that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 and their innuendo was that maybe he wasn't eligible to run for President. As I recall, a GOP Congressman had to go on television and point out that there was a law on the books- had been for many decades- that established the fact that persons born abroad on US protectorates or military bases of American parents were indeed citizens.

And how about the Left advancing the claim that Sarah Palin's son Trig was actually Palin's daughter's child and not hers? Was that claim not even more ludicrous than that of Obama not being a citizen? Yet which one got coverage in the MSM and which one did not?

With respect to the second part. It is a fact that more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush. However, thanks to the Electoral College, George became the elected president. Maybe it's time to do away with the Electoral College. Since the President is elected by all Americans, the votes of all Americans can best be served through a direct election. I'm sure that you, as someone who loves your democracy, would agree.


Actually I do not.

If you do away with the Electoral College in favor of direct elections, you put the decision of who will be President in the hands of about 13 or 14 states because those 14 states have over half the population of the entire country.

Coincidentally, most of the typically vote Democrat, so it's little doubt that you support direct elections because it pretty much assures a Democrat President for the foreseeable future.

As it is now, small states have at least some voice in the process, albeit not much. With direct elections, small states would never see a Presidential candidate. They'd spend all their time in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina (can't remember the other three).

As far as having the vote of "all Americans" count, I'm not exactly thrilled with that either. There are far too many people voting who have absolutely no idea why they vote as they do, except maybe ACORN or their unions told them to vote a certain way. Left up to me, if you are on welfare, you are not allowed to vote. You aren't contributing to the country, so why should you get a say as far as how the country works?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby ARJ127 » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:47 am

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:If you do away with the Electoral College in favor of direct elections, you put the decision of who will be President in the hands of about 13 or 14 states because those 14 states have over half the population of the entire country.

Coincidentally, most of the typically vote Democrat, so it's little doubt that you support direct elections because it pretty much assures a Democrat President for the foreseeable future.

As it is now, small states have at least some voice in the process, albeit not much. With direct elections, small states would never see a Presidential candidate. They'd spend all their time in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina (can't remember the other three).

As far as having the vote of "all Americans" count, I'm not exactly thrilled with that either. There are far too many people voting who have absolutely no idea why they vote as they do, except maybe ACORN or their unions told them to vote a certain way. Left up to me, if you are on welfare, you are not allowed to vote. You aren't contributing to the country, so why should you get a say as far as how the country works?


OK Let's see if I understand your argument. The majority of American voters would vote for a Democrat so therefore, let's not have direct elections. In other words, you are all for democracy provided that they vote your way.

As for whether the American voter is truly well informed. I agree with you that many (maybe most) of them don't have enough information to make an intelligent choice. That applies to Republicans as well as Democrats. I will also agree with you that Democrats can be as conniving and dishonest as anyone else. The tactics used against McCain that you described were venal, too.


Regarding your concern about protecting the rights of smaller states such as Arkansas, Rhode Island, etc., you already have an institution in place - it's called the Senate. Where two senators are elected from each state - whether it be a small state like Alaska or a large one like California. The Presidency, on the other hand, is a national office and therefore shouldn't be subject to the potential distortion of the Electoral College.
ARJ127
Media pundit
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby buddinganarchist » Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:01 pm

The FBI vetted Obama. The Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case. Talk about getting a grip--also get a grip of them oars, your boat is really off.
buddinganarchist
Media observer
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:41 pm

Re: Media Bias Over BHO's Birth Certificate?

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm

OK Let's see if I understand your argument. The majority of American voters would vote for a Democrat so therefore, let's not have direct elections. In other words, you are all for democracy provided that they vote your way.


Now that we've established that you clearly do NOT understand by argument....

I support all states having some voice in the electoral process, not just 12-15.

If the GOP fields a halfway decent candidate, they stand a good chance of winning. That chance grows each and every day Obama tries to drag the country further and further to the Left.

As for whether the American voter is truly well informed. I agree with you that many (maybe most) of them don't have enough information to make an intelligent choice. That applies to Republicans as well as Democrats. I will also agree with you that Democrats can be as conniving and dishonest as anyone else. The tactics used against McCain that you described were venal, too.


Thank you for that admission.

One thing that has mystified me regarding people who vote Democrat (well several really but this one is at the top of that list).....

I can understand why people at the lower end of the educational and economic scale vote Democrat. Democrats are the party of welfare and that's pretty much all those voters want.

But I have never been able to understand why so many very well educated and high achievers vote Democrat. Don't they know they are voting for a party that villifies them at every turn? I suppose that perhaps education breeds a sort of naive idealism, incubated in the decidedly-liberal halls of higher education. "Does a fish know it's wet?" and all that. But the Democrat position regarding the wealthy is to confiscate as much money from them as possible. A liberal pundit once said that gays voting for the GOP would be like roached voting for RFaid. I could say the same thing about the rich voting for Democrats.

Regarding your concern about protecting the rights of smaller states such as Arkansas, Rhode Island, etc., you already have an institution in place - it's called the Senate. Where two senators are elected from each state - whether it be a small state like Alaska or a large one like California. The Presidency, on the other hand, is a national office and therefore shouldn't be subject to the potential distortion of the Electoral College.


Then let the Senate vote for President.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama


Return to A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron