Before It's News | People Powered News

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Lies on top of lies on top of lies
Posted: August 09, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I guess it's no wonder there's so much confusion about this issue of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for office.
There's been a series of lies told by public officials.
But they are more than lies. In many cases, they are lies on top of lies – lies that conflict with other lies.
Then my esteemed colleagues in the news media selectively cull from those lies as proof positive that anyone who questions where Obama was born, who his parents were and why we haven't seen his birth certificate or any evidence of his constitutional eligibility is stark raving bonkers.

Superficially, it is a story about a decorated Army colonel and physician who is facing a court martial for asserting his right to know whether the commander in chief is constitutionally eligible to order him deployed to Afghanistan.
It's the background of the story where the lies, half-truths, selective quotations and almost surreal distortions are specifically designed to portray Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin as some kind of flake.
Let's examine these argumentative assertions by CNN because they form the basis for most of the media's misrepresentation of this ongoing controversy.
CNN reports: "Two newspapers in Honolulu, Hawaii, published announcements of Obama's birth there in August, 1961."
I'm still shocked by the fact that so many press outlets, media pundits and otherwise certifiably skeptical news people accept newspaper birth announcements as the equivalent of a birth certificate. I would like any of them to try using newspaper birth announcements as a substitute for a birth certificate in any venue that requires the original document. I'll save you the trouble. It won't work. The newspaper birth announcements only provide some corroborating evidence that a certification of live birth was likely generated by the Hawaii health department. And even the certification of live birth is not a legitimate substitute for an original long-form birth certificate – nor should it be – to get a driver's license, a passport or to enroll in Little League sports. There are just too many ways to generate such a document without documented, eyewitness accounts of the actual birth.
CNN reports: "The Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, has recently certified Obama's birth certificate as legitimate."
For CNN to accept this alleged certification, some off-the-cuff comments on a radio program reported by only one news organization at the time – WND – the network would have to know that Lingle's words conflict both with her own previous statements and with demonstrable facts.
CNN then selectively quotes from Lingle's radio appearance: "I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health. The president was in fact born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact. It's been established he was born here. I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a natural-born American citizen ... but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now."
I can certainly appreciate that Lingle wants to move on. If I were her and had handled this matter so unprofessionally and unskillfully, I would want to move on, too.
Did Lingle say she saw the birth certificate? No.
(Column continues below)

Did Lingle assert that the certification of live birth released by Barack Obama's campaign is authentic and a copy released by the state of Hawaii? No.
Did CNN note how Lingle's statement on the radio conflicted with the news release from the Hawaii Department of Health? No.
Did CNN wonder how Lingle could assert as fact the hospital in which Obama was born when no Hawaii official, not even her health director, has ever hinted at such a suggestion? No.
And why did CNN selectively edit Lingle's comments on that radio show?
Here's what she actually said, with the italics reflecting words strategically removed from the statement by CNN: "This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
The demonstrable lie is that the state of Hawaii has never issued any news release stating that Obama was born in Kapi'olani Hospital. Even Kapi'olani refuses to confirm he was born there.
It seems to me the "horrible distraction for the country" is being caused by lying, deceiving public officials who trip themselves up with conflicting statements while actively concealing the very documents that should put this matter to rest – if they are not indeed misrepresenting them entirely. After all, if it's illegal for Lingle to release the birth certificate, is it not illegal for her to talk about it, excerpt what is supposedly on it while insisting it's none of our business? Has she seen it or hasn't she? How does she know he was born in Kapi'olani? Who told her?
I don't know about you, but I don't trust politicians and bureaucrats. Recent polls suggest I am not alone in this respect.
CNN even misrepresents those polls: "Despite the evidence, roughly a quarter of Americans remains skeptical, including Lakin and other so-called 'birthers.'"
A quarter?
Not even close to the truth.
Every public opinion survey taken recently on this subject shows significantly more than 50 percent of Americans are now skeptical of Obama's birth story. According to CNN's own poll released last week, only 42 percent believe Obama's story.
It's no wonder.
How could anyone with half a brain be expected to swallow the ever-changing lies of the public officials at the center of this controversy and their dutiful scribes in the media establishment?

No comments:

Post a Comment