Posted on 08/31/2010 10:19:15 AM PDT by butterdezillion
I'll post the whole thing on the first response so the links will be clickable. This is an example of (probably criminal) journalistic malpractice by The Hutch News - an example of how the media behaves on almost every issue including the eligibility issue. I explain why I believe the media ignores our factual corrections at its own peril.
I believe this is what we need to be saying to the media whenever we find deliberate deception.
bttt
good read.
In regards to Obama “birth certificate,” Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaii Department of Health is on record saying, “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [FactCheck.org] represents.”
Very important, I need to know the source for this statement.
IMHO...a “fraud” suit actually has the best chance of producing a birth certificate or showing none exists. The law is designed to support business. A “fraud’ suit makes the issue “just business” as is more likely to be effective in this venue. No court in the land will carve new Constitutional territory that most “birthers” would hope for.
Thanks bitt. Seems like they failed in their due diligence when they made the endorsement — hence, it’s more likely that they planned to do it in this way.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-142967590/ KUHNER: President’s socialist takeover must be stopped
gee, that’s odd.. the piece is removed!... /s
Phew! Okay. Thanks.
I didn’t read it on the WaTimes, but the exceprt on TB2. Been out most of the day.
Butter ? if the Hawaii Secretary of State released Obama’s birth certificate as they claim they did, then ? it’s not a private matter anymore as far a Obama’s privacy is concerned, right ?.
So ? as they so have claimed that they released some kind of birth certificate in way, shape, or form, then, so is the long form version of Obama’s real birth certificate a public matter now.
They can’t have it both ways, where they claim it’s a private matter, and only Obama can have it released, or ? so as they claim, they have already released it.... it’s either/or, can’t be both.
” to protect the pondscum in the White Hut! “ ..... MUD HUT !
The politicians have indebted U.S. to the tune of 65 TRILLION to foreign sources of credit and future outlays. That is an amount which we can never repay. In effect, we are laready so far in debt that our fate is now out of our hands. Yes, we can rebel, but that won't remove our indebtedness. We are already n the position of having to shut up and take it ... and the progressive scum achieved it without firing a shot, just lying to the voters enough to get into power and make the final changes which ened our we the people Republic. Now, they will repalce the Republic with a sham federal oligarchy, until the crisis gets so bad that only a one world commerce can fix the indebtedness.
This law doesn’t apply to just anything. It only applies to a material fact which pertains to something of federal significance, and it’s a situation where the person KNOWS they are either lying or concealing critical information.
This isn’t just a person being mistaken, or spouting off an opinion. It is lying about a matter of fact. Like saying that the Hawaii Secretary of State released Obama’s genuine birth certificate. That’s a flat-out inaccuracy; he was called on it; he refused to correct it or allow me to correct it via a letter to the editor.
Judge Robertson wanted to slap punitive fees on a lawyer because exactly that kind of crapola Twittering and media lies supposedly legally decided the eligibility issue. Don’t tell me that these lies are inconsequential. Just like perjury and libel are possible in a country with free speech but are punishable by law anyway (because they leave innocent victims), so are deliberate lies and deception regarding facts of a serious federal nature.
The alternative is that people within the federal government can only make decisions on the basis of sworn statements - not on the basis of “news reports” of any kind. Is that what you prefer?
I understand what your saying, but, if the left and the MSM want to lean on what the news paper says,,, ( holding them to what they so called clam in their news papers or the media ) that the Hawaii Secretary of State released Obama’s birth certificate.
There are very valid reasons to say none of the images shown on the Internet is a valid CoLB. Not one of the three different versions—all touted as valid—has the word ‘amended’ on it, yet we have proof that Barry the bastard’s vital records have been amended prior to 2007, the date on the supposed ‘valid’ CoLB. And there is easily identifiable forensic evidence that the three images posted are not the same document in various resolutions.
So basically you’re acknowledging that the newspaper published a factually inaccurate story.
Thanks for the ping!
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.