TRSoL Exclusive: HI Elections Clerk: "I believe Obama is eligible to hold office"

I agree. But with a created persona like obama's, belief is fragile. Belief in obama's eligibility depends upon peer support/peer pressure, hence the power of the state run media.

If you have questions about obama's eligibility, you're obviously a kook and/or a racist. Eligibility stories are either ignored or if reported, the focus is on just how much of a kook/racist/right wing extremist the person challenging is.

As with every POTUS and candidate, obama's NBC status is a legitimate issue, made even more so due to his parent's citizenship and his refusal to release his documentation.

BUT...we are not to question it. His story is what he says it is and how dare you doubt Him. Nixon should have tried that with the press.

Some interesting comments at TRSOL

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/06/11/trsol-exclusive-hi-elections-clerk-i-believe-obama-is-eligible-to-hold-office/comment-page-2/

Like This One

Phil says:

June 12, 2010 at 10:56 pm

Yephora,

We have never been away from “I don’t know,” which is precisely what I posted in this posting.

The problem is that I’ve questioned WND, and lots of folks don’t like that, because they equate such questioning with the idea that somehow I think that the eligibility issue is no longer an issue. In my opinion, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

The truth is that the lack of evidence is not evidence for anything except … the lack of evidence! And we’ve had a lack of evidence for a very long time. There is nothing new there.

However, when WND insinuates that Mr. Adams’ confirmation that the lack of evidence (i.e.: no birth certificate) means that he was “possibly” (to use WND’s term) born in Kenya and that

— while Mr. Adams, as far as we know, had no direct, tangible access to Mr. Obama’s birth records but merely is passing on what he’s heard from other third parties (and who knows that they would confirm),

it is very, very difficult to say that one knows anything other than what we’ve already known for sure.

Hence, my questioning WND’s insinuation of their article.

And what a response that my questioning has produced!

I’ll tell you what I’m going to do.

I’m going to write back to Mr. Adams and ask some very pointed questions regarding his stint at HI elections and see if I can’t clarify lots of questions even further.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil

No... reporting by definition is the unbiased relaying of the facts. You have disqualified yourself several times just in this string alone by admitting that you are bias. That's right, I forgot: once any journalist leaves college, they are all 100% statistically unbiased. Mmmmkay.

You still don't get it do you Phil reporting by definition is the unbiased relaying of the facts;what, where, when, why and how.
Any first year journalist knows this. Your non sequitur was not an answer merely a display of your deep misunderstanding of what you are doing.
It is obvious to anyone who as had even a smidgen of formal journalistic training that what you are doing is not reporting.
What is not impressive Phil is your bias pointing out what you perceive as bias that's not impressive Phil but I sure you wouldn't understand that either. Regards, Al

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.