Tweet
Smack: Like Mainstream Media; Conservative Media Guilty; Obama Legitimacy Is Real Question
Birther Report
12/19/2014
Excerpt:
Like the Mainstream Media, “Conservative” Commentators Are Guilty of Protecting Obama
FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS, AS THE REPUBLIC DIES BEFORE THEIR EYES
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 19, 2014) — In a December 10 Washington Times editorial, “conservative” writer, commentator and editor Monica Crowley decried the revelation by a 30-year newsroom producer indicating that major media has been advocating for, rather than reporting objectively on the activities of, Barack Hussein Obama since he ascended to the White House.
Since the founding of the Republic, a free press has been considered essential to holding elected officials accountable to the citizens who hired them to serve.
Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign proudly stated that it had “controlled the media” and its message following Obama’s installation in the White House in January 2009. Invoking the now-defunct “Fight the Smears” website which it constructed, former communications director Anita Dunn related that the campaign carefully controlled the information released to the media by avoiding live interviews, producing promotional videos and “making the media cover what Obama was actually saying.”
Dunn stressed that “leaks” to the press were forbidden to those working for the 2008 Obama campaign. “It was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” she said.
“There is no such thing as a closed-press meeting,” Dunn stated in answer to a question from a member of her audience.
Dunn is a self-admitted admirer of Chinese totalitarian leader and murderer Mao Tse Tung.
Since achieving the White House, however, Obama has held private meetings with selected members of the press and attempted to “control” those seen as detrimental to its public image such as former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson.
An editorial published at Politico in April 2008 stated that “Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.” Many “journalists” have worked for the Obama regime or have left the regime to work for major media.
In her piece, Crowley expressed dismay that the media has abandoned its duty to investigate government under Obama, including the provisions of the Affordable Care Act before it was passed, the Fast & Furious gunrunning operation, NSA spying on American citizens without cause, and other steps the regime has taken which have arguably concentrated unprecedented power in the executive branch and fostered systemic corruption.
Some media have reportedly allowed no dissent or objective reporting to overshadow Obama’s agenda.
Crowley revealed that the veteran news producer told her that self-imposed task of “one of the Big Three television networks” was articulated as “How do we protect Barack Obama today?” In response, Crowley wrote, “Cheerleading isn’t what the press is supposed to do. And they know it because they never cheerlead when Republicans are in power. Many in the media, however, no longer care about accountability, intellectual honesty or the truth — and without a free press animated by those things, a great republic cannot stand for long.”
However, Crowley and dozens of other “conservative” commentators, radio hosts and writers continue to “protect” Obama by avoiding the subject of his long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form concluded to be fraudulent nearly three years ago by a criminal investigation conducted by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.
Crowley has also been accused of plagiarizing a 1988 essay by Paul Johnson which was published at The Wall Street Journal under Crowley’s byline on August 9, 1999 titled, “The Day Nixon Said Goodbye.” WSJ subsequently published an editor’s note acknowledging the similarity in several passages between the Johnson and Crowley pieces which reportedly stated, “Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article.”
Other well-known “conservative” writers and news outlets have been accused of blatant plagiarism, which is defined as “an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.” In order to avoid plagiarizing, a writer must take information he has read and put it in his own words; quote directly using quotation marks and a link of attribution; or include a footnote with the name of the essay, date of publication, and pages cited, as was routinely done before the advent of the internet.
Crowley is a member of the left-leaning Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Prior to the investigation conducted by the Cold Case Posse which declared Obama’s documents fraudulent, millions of Americans had asked their congressmen, electors, governors, state legislators and others to verify that Obama met the constitutional eligibility requirements set forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution for the presidency. Instead of verifying Obama’s claimed birth in Hawaii and eligibility, however, members of Congress issued dismissive form letters stating that because of Obama’s alleged birth in the United States and specifically Hawaii, he met the requirements. Questions about his foreign-citizen father’s impact on whether or not he met the definition of “natural born Citizen” and the dearth of personal documentation made available to the public went unaddressed.
With Obama’s claimed father a British, then a Kenyan, citizen, many historians and constitutional scholars say that Obama is not removed from foreign influence and allegiance and therefore is not a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he was born.
Despite the determination that the birth certificate image posted on the White House website is “a 100% forgery,” Congress has refused to act and has now become arguably irrelevant by the increasing seizure of power by Obama and the executive branch, something this writer sees as similar to Hitler’s consolidation of power in 1933.
Those with a bully pulpit to include Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Tammy Bruce, and dozens of others have refused to discuss the matter or even ridiculed members of their audiences who have called to raise the question of Obama’s eligibility and, later, his fraudulently-created documents.
Television and radio host Sean Hannity wanted to present the Cold Case Posse’s findings shortly after they were made public but was impeded by his Fox News Channel producer, according to lead investigator Mike Zullo. When Fox News religion contributor Fr. Jonathan Morris stated on air that his understanding was that Obama was “born in Kenya,” anchor Alisyn Camerota quickly corrected him to say, “He was born here.”
Mark Levin has refused to consider that Barack Obama is not eligible and has thrown his support behind Sen. Ted Cruz for 2016. Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother, likely does not meet the Framers’ definition of “natural born Citizen.”
Of the top right-leaning radio show hosts, only Michael Savage, and recently, Neal Boortz, have delved into the birth certificate and citizenship questions surrounding Barack Obama. Like all members of Congress, most have argued against Obama’s policies while ignoring what Zullo says is the foundational crime: forgery of government documents, which is a federal felony.
It is presumed that Obama has claimed the forgeries as authentic because he does not possess genuine documents proving his identity and citizenship. A radio host close to the investigation, Carl Gallups, has suggested that there is no evidence that Obama is a U.S. citizen.
The breadth of media “cover-up” in regard to Obama includes those who refuse to expose the most significant crime of the Obama regime: the presentation of forgeries by the purported president and commander-in-chief, who has “fundamentally transformed the United States of America” through his artful use of deception at every turn.
It makes no sense to rail over Obama’s policies when his legitimacy is the real question. Why, then, do so many “conservative” commentators irrationally avoid discussing it? Where is their “intellectual honesty?”
Source link. © 2014, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/12...eam-media.html
Birther Report
12/19/2014
Excerpt:
Like the Mainstream Media, “Conservative” Commentators Are Guilty of Protecting Obama
FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS, AS THE REPUBLIC DIES BEFORE THEIR EYES
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 19, 2014) — In a December 10 Washington Times editorial, “conservative” writer, commentator and editor Monica Crowley decried the revelation by a 30-year newsroom producer indicating that major media has been advocating for, rather than reporting objectively on the activities of, Barack Hussein Obama since he ascended to the White House.
Since the founding of the Republic, a free press has been considered essential to holding elected officials accountable to the citizens who hired them to serve.
Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign proudly stated that it had “controlled the media” and its message following Obama’s installation in the White House in January 2009. Invoking the now-defunct “Fight the Smears” website which it constructed, former communications director Anita Dunn related that the campaign carefully controlled the information released to the media by avoiding live interviews, producing promotional videos and “making the media cover what Obama was actually saying.”
Dunn stressed that “leaks” to the press were forbidden to those working for the 2008 Obama campaign. “It was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” she said.
“There is no such thing as a closed-press meeting,” Dunn stated in answer to a question from a member of her audience.
Dunn is a self-admitted admirer of Chinese totalitarian leader and murderer Mao Tse Tung.
Since achieving the White House, however, Obama has held private meetings with selected members of the press and attempted to “control” those seen as detrimental to its public image such as former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson.
An editorial published at Politico in April 2008 stated that “Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.” Many “journalists” have worked for the Obama regime or have left the regime to work for major media.
In her piece, Crowley expressed dismay that the media has abandoned its duty to investigate government under Obama, including the provisions of the Affordable Care Act before it was passed, the Fast & Furious gunrunning operation, NSA spying on American citizens without cause, and other steps the regime has taken which have arguably concentrated unprecedented power in the executive branch and fostered systemic corruption.
Some media have reportedly allowed no dissent or objective reporting to overshadow Obama’s agenda.
Crowley revealed that the veteran news producer told her that self-imposed task of “one of the Big Three television networks” was articulated as “How do we protect Barack Obama today?” In response, Crowley wrote, “Cheerleading isn’t what the press is supposed to do. And they know it because they never cheerlead when Republicans are in power. Many in the media, however, no longer care about accountability, intellectual honesty or the truth — and without a free press animated by those things, a great republic cannot stand for long.”
However, Crowley and dozens of other “conservative” commentators, radio hosts and writers continue to “protect” Obama by avoiding the subject of his long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form concluded to be fraudulent nearly three years ago by a criminal investigation conducted by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.
Crowley has also been accused of plagiarizing a 1988 essay by Paul Johnson which was published at The Wall Street Journal under Crowley’s byline on August 9, 1999 titled, “The Day Nixon Said Goodbye.” WSJ subsequently published an editor’s note acknowledging the similarity in several passages between the Johnson and Crowley pieces which reportedly stated, “Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article.”
Other well-known “conservative” writers and news outlets have been accused of blatant plagiarism, which is defined as “an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.” In order to avoid plagiarizing, a writer must take information he has read and put it in his own words; quote directly using quotation marks and a link of attribution; or include a footnote with the name of the essay, date of publication, and pages cited, as was routinely done before the advent of the internet.
Crowley is a member of the left-leaning Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Prior to the investigation conducted by the Cold Case Posse which declared Obama’s documents fraudulent, millions of Americans had asked their congressmen, electors, governors, state legislators and others to verify that Obama met the constitutional eligibility requirements set forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution for the presidency. Instead of verifying Obama’s claimed birth in Hawaii and eligibility, however, members of Congress issued dismissive form letters stating that because of Obama’s alleged birth in the United States and specifically Hawaii, he met the requirements. Questions about his foreign-citizen father’s impact on whether or not he met the definition of “natural born Citizen” and the dearth of personal documentation made available to the public went unaddressed.
With Obama’s claimed father a British, then a Kenyan, citizen, many historians and constitutional scholars say that Obama is not removed from foreign influence and allegiance and therefore is not a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he was born.
Despite the determination that the birth certificate image posted on the White House website is “a 100% forgery,” Congress has refused to act and has now become arguably irrelevant by the increasing seizure of power by Obama and the executive branch, something this writer sees as similar to Hitler’s consolidation of power in 1933.
Those with a bully pulpit to include Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Tammy Bruce, and dozens of others have refused to discuss the matter or even ridiculed members of their audiences who have called to raise the question of Obama’s eligibility and, later, his fraudulently-created documents.
Television and radio host Sean Hannity wanted to present the Cold Case Posse’s findings shortly after they were made public but was impeded by his Fox News Channel producer, according to lead investigator Mike Zullo. When Fox News religion contributor Fr. Jonathan Morris stated on air that his understanding was that Obama was “born in Kenya,” anchor Alisyn Camerota quickly corrected him to say, “He was born here.”
Mark Levin has refused to consider that Barack Obama is not eligible and has thrown his support behind Sen. Ted Cruz for 2016. Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother, likely does not meet the Framers’ definition of “natural born Citizen.”
Of the top right-leaning radio show hosts, only Michael Savage, and recently, Neal Boortz, have delved into the birth certificate and citizenship questions surrounding Barack Obama. Like all members of Congress, most have argued against Obama’s policies while ignoring what Zullo says is the foundational crime: forgery of government documents, which is a federal felony.
It is presumed that Obama has claimed the forgeries as authentic because he does not possess genuine documents proving his identity and citizenship. A radio host close to the investigation, Carl Gallups, has suggested that there is no evidence that Obama is a U.S. citizen.
The breadth of media “cover-up” in regard to Obama includes those who refuse to expose the most significant crime of the Obama regime: the presentation of forgeries by the purported president and commander-in-chief, who has “fundamentally transformed the United States of America” through his artful use of deception at every turn.
It makes no sense to rail over Obama’s policies when his legitimacy is the real question. Why, then, do so many “conservative” commentators irrationally avoid discussing it? Where is their “intellectual honesty?”
Source link. © 2014, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/12...eam-media.html