Posted on 12/22/2008 1:00:50 AM PST by unspun
Monday 12/22, 2:41am CT -- This entry was formerly entitled, "Elect Schwarzenegger President? Obama Says Yes We Can! Dear L.A. Times..." Now, the plot thickens -- the story of the story. As it turns out, this article was featured in Drudge Report as well as Free Republic and then... poof! The lead disappeared! Funny how that can happen.
Was it because of the implications this has, at such a sensitive time -- what with cases before the Supreme Court showing Obama to be a fictitious candidate, not a natural born Citizen at all? And with Congress yet to certify the vote? You can click the image to enlarge it and see the article before it was so drastically edited. Below is the initial I.O. article, an open letter to the L.A. Times and my first update, before reader, Ted noted that Drudge had linked to the story and the bigger picture came into focus.
See the article as it was first written, in...
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/dear-la-times-looks-like-schwarzenegger.html
...as well as seeing Investigating Obama’s email letter to the Los Angeles Times.
If I were the risk manager for the LA TIMES I would have pulled the article too. There is the chance that Obama is what he says he is (yeah, I know...) in which case the paper may be exposing itself to the risk of lawsuit with that particular article.
Risk of a lawsuit?
Obama is what he says he is?
Didn’t Obama admit that his father was a Kenyan and not an American citizen?
Where is the untruth?
1) The Advertiser birth announcement proves Obama was born in Hawaii;
2) Hillary would have used the birth certificate if the stories were true;
3) Obama doesn't have to produce the "vault" version because, more Gore words, there is no controlling legal authority; and
4) The courts have denied every case.
Number 4) first, I believe the rejections have all been procedural related; to wit, alleged no standing.
Number 1) - The Advertiser birth announcement column is headed "Health Bureau Statistics" and that's what is there, Health Bureau statistics; i.e., a listing of births recorded with the city/county/state. Period. Ever heard of "Delayed Registration of Birth?" Now if like other newspapers the Advertiser had listed the hospital . . . .
Number 2) Are people forgetting the Clintons' shenanigans? Do they not remember who the Clintons are? A comparable question is WHAT THE HELL DID OBAMA HAVE ON HILLARY THAT STOPPED HER FROM USING THE BC QUESTION?
Number 3) This is the biggest factor that tells me that something is wrong -- either with the birth certificate or with the man. Either the birth certificate has embarrassing information or the man is an arrogant, hard-headed, egomaniacal SOB who is telling the Constitution and a huge number of American people, F you.
> Where is the untruth?
It depends on what your definitition if “is” is.
It’s so funny they ran the article.
It is proof that the MSM understands and knows completely that their baby is bogus.
“the paper may be exposing itself to the risk of lawsuit with that particular article”
The paper is at NO risk if they just make an editorial call for bHo to just show the VALID birth certificate. The MSM makes calls for politicians and regular citizens to show documents to back up claims of all sorts every day.
> The paper is at NO risk if they just make an editorial call for bHo to just show the VALID birth certificate. The MSM makes calls for politicians and regular citizens to show documents to back up claims of all sorts every day.
I don’t think the paper has done that yet, have they?
1) The Advertiser birth announcement proves Obama was born in Hawaii;
2) Hillary would have used the birth certificate if the stories were true;
3) Obama doesn’t have to produce the “vault” version because, more Gore words, there is no controlling legal authority; and
4) The courts have denied every case.
Proof obama lovers are crazy 100%
I don’t think ANY paper has done that yet.
The MSM employees had no problem blaring complaints about McCain and calling in heavy weights to debate McCain's birth certificate.
That was said about the brouhaha over McCain's birth place.
BTW, the article said "Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the 'Child Born Abroad' records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain."
McCain handed over a paper copy to all which was carefully checked out by the MSM employees -- no jpg's allowed.
That is part of the psychological reason many will not ask for more info. Many are possibly afraid of some one who is this brazen and speaks so well. They are cowering at the thought of saying to him a simple statement... show us a valid Birth Certificate and eliminate any doubt anywhere.
They are more concerned with the thought of the group saying “how could you say the king has no cloths?” This king might just get away with this because no little boy like in the story says, “sir,you don't have any clothes on. Good end to the story is the kid is thanked by the king and the other citizens for bringing up a truth that was in front of everyone.”
Part one of the story is to teach kids not to just believe the crowd because the crowd is saying it is true. It might not be and others might have their own reason to go along with the story.
Part two is that once the simple fact is finally and forcefully stated that even the king can not get away with the story any longer. Then the people also begin to see.
Now the story never tells why someone as smart as a king was so blind to the truth. That part I believe is; 1)that the king never was ignorant but it was easier to have everyone think he was dressed nicely, 2)that a nicely dressed king is exactly what the citizens wanted anyway so that was easier for them to go along with the story, 3)many were too afraid of the opinion of others thinking the were stupid and uneducated to not see the nice clothes everyone else could see... so it was easier to go along with the crowd.
BHO does not strike me as someone who will or wants to accept he has no clothes. He will make it hard on everyone to admit he has now nice clothes on.
In fact I believe bHo is counting on some of the smartest folks in the world saying he has clothes on, at least until some child finally takes a picture and prints the image that he is very naked indeed.
I guess the question now is; who will that little kid be?
Barack Obama would NEVER sue the LA Times for defamation. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit and all of the concealed birth certificate documents would have to be produced in the pre-trial discovery process.
That is EXACTLY why the founders put such strong protections on the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The founders thought a loud vocal nongovernmental body help balance out the politicians with a voice the common man alone did not have.
So it IS their job to question everything LOUDLY. They are the only group of private citizens whose rights and independent jobs were in the forefront of the founders minds.
> Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit and all of the concealed birth certificate documents would have to be produced in the pre-trial discovery process.
So, let’s say he released them as a part of pre-trial discovery? And let’s say that they showed him to be a Natural Born American (and maybe showed his Dad to be someone other than who he claims, and all kinds of other interesting-but-irrelevant information).
If that happened, the LA Times would be Poked.
Maybe not. Making statements maliciously to defame a person TO HARM THEM is a reason to sue. Making a statement of a politician who is making a claim that the pol themselves did not provide documentation to prove, documents the PRESS is required to be able to make and accurate statement is not the same thing. I don't believe that would fall under the grounds to be a falsehood maliciously created to harm the person.
Particularly since it is within the politicians power to prevent false info from being reported.
bHo could end all this rightful doubt, on an issue WE are rightfully allowed by law to know, is not producing those simple documents. What the press is doing would NOT be malicious as it is a question that can easily answered by the person in question with a simple form.
He is making the problem by not stepping up with a simple form or two.
Excellent point. I was looking for a way of expressing Obama and Company's path to absolute control -- one step at a time. Each step more brazen and authoritative. Personally I do not like the comparison to Civil War president Lincoln.
Who will that little kid be [that speaks up]?
If the step to get the "fairness doctrine" (or "local community control") is near then that little kid will have to go door-to-door. There will be no modern talk radio and "alternate media."
Each step more brazen than the last . . . .
On this point, didn't you answer your own questions? 1. McCain did not sue because it is the right of the press, particularly in politics to ask those questions.
2. The press did not get sued for these questions. bHo should react similarly.
Case closed.
“the paper has done that yet, have they?”
Nope
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.