CBS and MSNBC Both Falsely Claim Obama First President to Have Citizenship Questioned
Both CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell incorrectly asserted that President Obama is the only president in U.S. history who has had his citizenship doubted. In reality, both CBSNews.com and MSNBC.com posted a 2009 Associated Press article that detailed 21st President Chester A. Arthur having to deal with a similar controversy in the 1880 presidential campaign.
On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, outgoing anchor Katie Couric began the broadcast by declaring: "It was an extraordinary moment, President Obama went on national television today and did what no other president has ever even been asked to do, prove he's a natural born U.S. citizen." On Thursday's Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell similarly proclaimed: "I mean, people who want to raise these conspiracy theorists – theories – and there is no other explanation other than, you know, sort of pure racism, because it's never been raised about a white president."
As the August 2009 Associated Press article explained: "Long before 'birthers' began questioning the citizenship of President Barack Obama, similar questions were raised about the early years of Arthur, an accidental president who ascended to the job after President James Garfield was assassinated."
The article goes on to note specific calls for Arthur prove his American birth: "According to historical accounts, Republican bosses wanted him to provide proof of his birthplace, but he never did. Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, claiming he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield [Vermont]."
It is bad enough that Couric and Mitchell didn't properly fact check their statements, but for the information to be available on their own respective websites make the errors even more stunning.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
And our next story
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:14pm.
"..is from Andrea Mitchell. What do you have for us, Andrea?"
Andrea: "Republicans blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, racists. They also blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, because he's an African American. President Obama blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, historic!"
So Andrea Mitchell....
Submitted by GregE on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:15pm.
isn't even corrected by her OWN "news" outlet, showing her a story that her OWN "news" outlet ran on Chester Arthur. Why do we even question why? We know why. It doesn't fit their narrative and their agenda, period. He's the first black president, so if you disagree with him in ANY way, you're racist, regardless of whether you disagree with the exact same things from a white person or white president. Their lack of logic astounds.
This is why they cannot, under any circumstances, let a black person be the Republican nominee (Herman Cain). It would literally throw them all for the biggest loop they've ever experienced, not having a clue how to deal with people who agreed with Cain and disagree with Obama, on the same issues. It would be so fun to watch. I'm sure they'd try, and look even more stupid than they do right now doing it. (if that's possible)
This is precisely why
Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:07pm.
Allen West must run for the GOP nomination. Liberals are terrified of a conservative black man.
The Mummy is a hypocrite.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:25pm.
It is common knowledge among Egyptologists that Andrea herself questioned the bloodline of Ramesses II in 1279 BC when she was a reporterette for Valley Of The Kings Gazette. She said he was a Canaanite, which was proven false.
Shame on you, Andrea.
Good-bye Katie
Submitted by Zepppo on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:26pm.
Another reason it is good that Katie is leaving. To bad they will probably replace her with someone equally willing to ignore facts.
I used to say ignorant but now it is apparent that they do know that what they are saying is wrong. They just don't think we know better and do not want us to know better.
Ah yes, Palin critics showing their "genius"
Submitted by merly1 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:30pm.
I'll take Sarah any day, ahead of these boneheads!
Stunning? Are you serious?
Submitted by Bourbeau on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:29pm.
We're talking about Katie Couric and Andrea Mitchell. These are two of the most shallow news persons on TV today. 'm aghast as to why anyone would view anything that they say, correctly or incorrectly as, stunning. How is it possible for pure stupidity to be less impactful then stunning?
Of course it can't; it was stupid pure and simple.
The very fact that liberal news media---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 5:50pm.
continue to spout BS is indeed stunning, as is the fact that seldom do they get called for distortion, twisting, or omissions from any direction other than here at NewsBusters.
MD
Was it racist when...
Submitted by Order270 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:23pm.
McCain had to prove he was a US citizen during the 08 primaries?
That was likely just politics, Order270---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:32pm.
whereas with Obama, all politics are examined through the lens of racism.
MD
No. It was real people talking about a real issue.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:44am.
Here is the thing. Real people look at this issue and they come to a conclusion. The term "natural born citizen" was mentioned in the Constitution but was never defined in the Constitution nor by any Congress since. And the issue has never been adjudicated before the Supreme Court. So there is still some interpretation open as to exactly what is a "natural born citizen". It is not settled. It will not be settled until either the Supreme Court rules on it or there is an Amendment to define the term.
This is the way real people look at it. Real honest people. John McCain had two American parents but he was born on foreign soil. Barack Obama had only one American parent but was born on American soil. Both ran for the Presidency. The issue was brought up. But was largely ignored. Why? Because the weight of the argument is "natural born citizen" is that you were born into citizenship. And you gained that born citizenship by way of one or more of your parents citizenship. The question was asked. People looked. Said, eh, not that big a deal and we had an election.
And yes. Real people. Honest people had a duty, a right, to look and deem it not a big deal. They look, and say, OK, not completely settled but it is not worth the big national debate to settle this once and for all during a campaign fight. No. It was not racist. But it was worth looking at both of these candidates. The question was brought up and the question was found wanting.
That leads to why, why these birther trolls come here, going on 28 months after the fact, and look honest people, real people in the face and act as though the matter of the definition of "natural born citizen" is settled law. Look at these people. Every single one. Every single act as though their definition of the term IS A FACT. And they will argue and argue and argue as though they have the 11th commandment in stone and the 11th commandment is their definition of "natural born citizen". It is enough to make a grown man cry. The stupidity. The crassness. The rudeness of acting as though this is settle law when in fact it is not.
What was the purpose...
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:36am.
of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause? What did the founding fathers hope for it to accomplish? I believe they were wanting to prevent a person from serving as president who was raised outside of the American experience. It was to prevent a person from serving who was raised with foreign, anti-american beliefs. It was to prevent Obama. It failed.
The congress needs to immediately define "Natural Born Citizen" in no uncertain terms. My personal belief is that a "Natural Born Citizen" should have at least one American parent and has been raised primarily in the United States. I don't care where they were physically born. I don't care about the other parent. I think this needs to be codified now for future candidates and elections. Since most of this was known about Obama before his election, any codes that would invalidate him now should be grandfathered in his case.
As for McCain being born in Panama... he was born in the Panama CANAL ZONE... which was considered a United States Territory... it even had its own postage stamps. He was born on American soil.
The purpose was to make whining idiots like you squrim.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:56am.
Snark sucks don't it? maybe you ought to reserve it for people that won't fire back.
Its a shame...
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:20am.
you can't make intelligent comments... just insults... but that is what you claimed you came here for in another post.
Being snarky and insulting only makes you look stupid.
What is the problem? Can't you rebut something you disagree with without being childish?
What did I say that you disagree with? What did I say that was whiney?
I am not here to argue for the sake of arguing.
You said in a previous post that you were out of here... so, please... leave.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:24am.
Never had issue one with you. You attack. Think I will sit and take it. Then whine even more when I don't. Again, I repeat, I never had issue one with you. Evah. You think it is funny to attack other users, fine, live with it. Don't sit there and think it is answer time from answerboy. Then issue orders.
Attack?
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:47am.
You accuse ME of attacking YOU? Wow.
You are a bit delusional.
You made some comments on the "Natural Born Citizen" discussion. I basically added my thoughts to that and what I thought needed to be done about it. I didn't criticize, much less attack, anything you said. Not hard to prove... its just a few inches above here.
You and/or some others in the thread mentioned McCain being born in Panama. I simply pointed out that where he was born was considered American territory at the time.
So... please quote me where I attacked you. If you can't, an apology would be appropriate.
And if you would like a good example of whining... I can quote somebody you know well complaining about the "birthers" right to express their opinions on NB and that they were out of here because they just wanted to butt heads with other people.
Thank you.
Let's see.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:55am.
Oh look. A fellow right winger is a little upset. Maybe a little torqued. Possibly slightly wigged out even. Hmmm. I have an idea. I will pick up this big ol' stick and just start poking him. Poke. Poke. Poke. Bye. Poke. Poke. Leave. Poke. Leave now. Poke. Poke. Poke. Poke. I iz gonna quote you iffin you don't shut up. Poke. Poke. Poke.
Wow. My bad. I really must have misunderstood your buttload of empathy and compassion. So very sorry should be me huh?
Pathetic...
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:03am.
Either you are a really bad liar... or you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground... or maybe it is both.
Please show us all where that quote came from... it was never uttered by me. Please admit to all that you just simply made it up... or show us where it is.
You really are pathetic.
Awwww.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:12am.
Someone just got a taste of The Vet and made a sour face.
If that is how...
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:20am.
you get your thrills... you really are pathetic and I have nothing but pity for you.
Better than you.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:00am.
At least I did not see a post by a fellow right winger that seemed a little ticked off and grab the nearest stick to commence to dah pokin', now did I? Then carry on like I had no idea what happened, now did I? Who picked a fight with who here? Oh wait, it was YOU.
Wha....? Wha...? What did I do? You liar! You big liar! I gonna quote you iffen you don't shut up your big liar mouth!
What are you...
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:29pm.
babbling about?
It's cool.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:39pm.
Feign stupidity as a last resort. Won't be the first time I have see it happen. Not to call you a troll, and really, I am not, but it is a valid tactic used by trolls.
Little advice from The Vet - Next time you see a fellow right winger get a little torqued at conspiracy idiots, let it go.
This really isn't difficult.
Submitted by beauxdog on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 2:57am.
I asked this a long time ago and you have done nothing but babble. If I have offended you... if I have attacked you, as you claim... why not just point it out. I ask you to quote me and you make up a paragraph long childish rant to attribute to me... which by the way is LYING and libel. I can never trust your word again. You lie to easily.
You want to talk about tactics? You have done nothing but insult me and lie about things I have said. Those are the tactics of the leftists. You have accused me of attacking you, but won't tell me what I have said that so offends you.
All I did was add my comments to yours on this thread. I didn't attack you or criticize your ideas at all... in fact my comments supported yours.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 5:02am.
It is called taunting. You could see I was torqued about the idiot birthers that are claiming the birth certificate is faked. And you started it with your Bye taunt. So knock it off with the constant whining and feigned confusion. Yeah, that was fast, that confusion suddenly disappeared, didn't it?
And piss off with your further whines claiming I was misquoting you. Did you see me attribute the quotes? It is called rhetorical sarcastic paraphrasing. I will tell you this once and once only, knock it off with calling me a liar, YOU ARE MAKING A PERMANENT ENEMY by constantly, blatantly, and repeatedly calling me a liar. GOT THAT?
You started this. YOU. STARTED. THIS. You can end it by getting off my back. Now.
#31 Bye.
Submitted by beauxdog on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:04am.
Bye.
That was a TAUNT when I said I was out of here because the place is crawling with fake birth certificate birthers.
Correct, beauxdog...it failed.
Submitted by wolfemanic on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:00am.
We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so with error. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution without effect.
The words “natural born citizen” don’t require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word “citizen”. The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were “Citizens”, but as to the office of President they required a “natural born citizen”. They never had the same meaning.
Incorrect, wolfematic...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:07pm.
You prop up a classic straw man and then deftly kick it over. But you have left the counter argument--and the most constitutionally viable one--unscathed. No one here is conflating birthright citizenship with citizenship by naturalization, or asserting that meeting any test or definition of citizenship for the purposes of the 14th Amendment automatically invests such citizen with all rights, and specifically the right of presidential eligibility, under Article 2.
As a practical example, this means a naturalized citizen can be a US Senator--but not President.
On the other hand, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that birthright citizenship [i.e. native birth...being born in the USA as was Obama] satisfies the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2.
If there is to be an additional requirement of citizenship by both parents, it must be done by amendment to the Constitution, or by a definitive ruling of the Supreme Court, or (possibly) by federal statute.
Jer
"If there is to be an
Submitted by wolfemanic on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:03pm.
"If there is to be an additional requirement of citizenship by both parents, it must be done by amendment to the Constitution, or by a definitive ruling of the Supreme Court, or (possibly) by federal statute"
From what I can determine SCOTUS is constitutionally estopped from issuing a writ of quo warranto regarding Obama’s qualifications to be President if the action is brought directly to them. Any attempt to do that would certainly be denied. Maybe on an appeal? I think they will avoid this with every device.
How to settle somewhat evades me, I agree federal statute is a reach.
What has been rendered from (the few) past justices (or persons in high office) in their concurring opinions regarding NBC, the majority state one must never have owed fealty to another nation, both parents etc. Be what it may I hold the same opinion.
Congressional amendment? I doubt it with these clowns, I recently read there has been five failed attempts by congress to define NBC since 2002. Now I can't find where I read it.
Ok I found it...
Submitted by wolfemanic on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 6:46pm.
I thought it was from 02, actually from 01 it shows five times Congress clearly attempted to designate a NBC as a child born to a single citizen parent, their last attempt was in Feb 2008.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31183819/FIVE-ATTEMPTS-TO-RE-DEFINE-NATURAL-BO...
Two months later after the last attempt they then introduced in April 2008 S.Res. 511 regarding McCain. Clearly in the language they dropped the single parent and only used a "born to" plural identity requiring both his parents being citizen(s) and American(s). I don't think they just made a mistake.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text
wolfemanic...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 12:47am.
Maybe a state legislature could pass a law specifying that "no candidate for the office of the presidency shall appear on the ballot issued by the state unless said candidate be the child of United State citizens whose citizenship obtained at the time of his or her birth; nor, shall any of the electors of this state be permitted to cast his or her electoral ballot for any such candidate who does not satisfy the preceding conditions."
Candidate Obama would certainly contest the constitutionality of the legislation and would clearly have standing to do so. The case could then be fast-tracked to the SC for a definitive ruling on the citizenship/presidential eligibility issue.
How does that sound?
Jer
I think the SC would have to
Submitted by wolfemanic on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 9:01am.
I think the SC would have to address it.
Gave me a bit of a deja wow back to 2000..... if happened the NB staffers would be working their tails off :)
Hey Jer...
Submitted by beauxdog on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 3:25am.
Regardless of the legalities of how to do it... my point was that a definitive "litmus" test must be devised for "Natural Born Citizen". As much as I dislike Obama, I think attempting to apply a new "litmus" test to him would be political and unfair, so he should be grandfathered.
"the majority state one must never have owed fealty to another nation, both parents etc."
Not really sure if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you. I don't think a child owes fealty to any nation... only his parents do. A child is too young to make such a decision for himself. I think the closest you can come is seeing that the child is raised in America and hoping he is raised with traditional American values. I realize that is wide open for interpretation. It is the same thing about "religion" on his birth certificate. A child isn't born Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. That is a decision he has to make for himself at the age of consent.
beauxdog...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 3:42am.
I agree that the time has come--indeed has been here for quite awhile--to resolve [to the greatest degree of finality possible] the ambiguities surrounding the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen" in every aspect of their constitutional implications [presidential eligibility, immigration, etc.]. So, to the extent it can be done without (re)embroiling the current president in the controversy--which your scenario would not--I am all for it.
Jer
Your premise is incorrect. McCain has never "proved" he
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:03am.
was Constitutionally eligible for the presidency. The issue--as it was raised by the unusual geographical circumstances of his birth--remains unresolved. The Democrats, to their credit, did not believe it was a matter worth pressing and thus sponsored a resolution in the Senate formally acknowledging his eligibility--but it wasn't determinative of the underlying Constitutional question.
Jer
Yes. It is unresolved.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:39am.
Real people. Honest people look at the Constitution and ask "why did they not just define the term". But when real people look, the term did not need defining then. A wife in those days was little more than property. She took the husbands citizenship by marriage. So both parents would have been the same citizenship in nearly all cases. And we did not have soldiers/sailors stationed in other countries. We were still starting up. Plus traveling in those days was still an arduous deal involving ships of sail. So there was not much births of foreigners in other countries.
Since the days of the Constitution, women have gained emancipation. And travel to a foreign country is swift and relatively safe even for a woman in advanced stages of pregnancy. Now, we have our citizens spread across the globe at bases and embassies and in businesses in hundreds of countries. And we have marriages where the husband and wife have different citizenships. We have orphans whose parentage is uknown. We births on ships and planes. Single mother births. Drunken single mothers who are unsure the nationality or even name of the father. It can get muddy and is it worth denying the Presidency to someone that spent his entire life in the United States a chance at the Presidency simply because his mother had a fling with a drunken Australian Uncle Jer on a blimp hovering over the Atlantic 50 years ago?
Uncle Jer is right again. It was not a matter worth pressing in the campaign in 2008. The weight of the entire argument is relatively negligible. It was brought up in regards to both candidates and found wanting. The election proceeded. So the Vattel birthers, the natural born birthers, the jus soli jus sanguinis birthers need to shut the hell up and leave us all alone. This will not unseat a seated President no matter how much you whine on a website whose editors and contributors DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH YOU.
I think we should compromise
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 8:39am.
And call them both ineligible. But I dont support deportation,,,,, maybe imprisonment though?
1999 and 2008
Submitted by sp23 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:30pm.
and it was looked into in 1999 as well.
No, more like
Submitted by djwolf12 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:33pm.
just to see if he was born in this land before this country was colonized.
Andrea's makeup
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:55pm.
I could be wrong but it appears that Andrea needs more makeup on her forehead. I do believe that the words "I love the Messiah" are evident on her forehead.
Not funny
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 7:50pm.
when you consider how many researchers CBS and NBC have or claim to have working in their respective news divisions.
If ideology is not the word of the day at the networks then why wouldn't it be quite the coup for a person to find a little known fact -- not too hard given the wonderful internet today -- about a subject that may have escaped the research of all others?
BTW--what does "natural born" actually mean per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution?
These "old ladies" are an Example to Young Journalists?
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:14pm.
No wonder journalism is going down the toilet. Specially, since their God "Obama" became president. In this day and age of technology you mean to tell me that none of their teenage interns can at least do some homework before the "old ladies" go on TV and present a piece of news? What the hell do they get paid to do?
They're libturds
Submitted by Ozconservative on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 8:41pm.
It's a little too much to expect of them to know something of history
Obviously it's not an error
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:17pm.
"It is bad enough that Couric and Mitchell didn't properly fact check their statements, but for the information to be available on their own respective websites make the errors even more stunning."
Obviously it's not an error.
Obviously Couric and Mitchell are doing there propaganda part to carry the water for Obama.
Obviously CBS, MSNBC, NBC are in the tank for Obama.
there was no TV in 1880!
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:23pm.
However expect this Obvious BS to be supported by MMFA. Here's a few possible MMFA explanations.
"President Obama went on national television today and did what no"
there was no TV in 1880! See!
And Obama is the 1st President named Obama asked to prove he's a natural born U.S. citizen.
And Obama is the 1st President elected after 2004 to be asked to prove he's a natural born U.S. citizen.
And Obama is the 1st left handed President elected in this century asked to prove he's a natural born U.S. citizen.
Maybe this explains their abysmal ratings
Submitted by WingletDriver on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:59pm.
Heck, they can't even watch themselves.
What would the left response be
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:07am.
If Obama were a republican whose background is shrouded in secrecy and whose father was not a citizen of the U.S.?
This is an extraordinary situation to say the least, the skin color is a red herring meant to distract from the Daddy issue.
The 14th amendment is being stomped on and the media doesn't care. Again, how would the left news outlets treat the situation if it were reversed?.
Only the 1st amendment matters to the left unless the tea party wants to demonstrate or if someone wants to excercise it criticizing the current president, in which case it's racist, not patriotic.
-- sigh --
The response by the "left" to McCain's more Constitutionally
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:26am.
suspect claim of eligibility was highlighted by liberal Constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe, joining Ted Olsen to support McCain's case, and by "lefty" Democratic senators introducing a resolution which unanimously endorsed his eligibility.
Jer
Not a good analogy
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:13pm.
The details of Mac's life was/are an open book.
Not so much with Obama.
If he doesn't unseal his transcripts and financial aid records it will hang over him like pig-pen's dirt cloud.
Will it sink the Obama 2012 boat? IMO - Only if it turns out he got fin aid under a program for foreign students, or if his name is registered as B. Soetero.
The question remains - What would the media do to a republican candidate with he same dubious history?
There is no perfect analogy...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:55pm.
But it was an instructive one nonetheless.
You pronounce Obama's history "dubious". In what way? As of now, the most prominent pillar of "doubt"--the Kenyan birth--has been ground to dust.
And "open book" [as you describe McCain's background] is a relative term in light of the tendency to conjure dark, sinister and suspicious details about the lives of our political leaders. There were hints from the fringes about McCain being a Manchurian candidate of sorts who had co-operated with and was co-opted by his North Vietnamese captors decades ago. Maybe some--not I--would suggest there should have been a full-scale investigative assault on that matter too.
So what if Obama's grades were mediocre? Or that his race may have contributed to his admittance to Columbia and/or Harvard? Too much is made of it. Some of our best generals came from the bottom half of their West Point classes. Churchill had been a very average student except for History. I think Einstein made "C's" in Physics while in high school.
What really is it that you are trying to prove about Obama?
Jer
Grades are not the issue
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 2:21pm.
The FACT that he has sealed them is. Why would he do that?
I maintain the assertion that the analogy, isn't. Otherwise the senate would have done the same thing for Obama that they did for McCain. Simply: the lives of the two men are in no way; parallel, nor was their treatment by the media.
I didn't mean to imply nefarius intent by calling his past "dubius" or saying he is not an open book. The word dubius applies to his history in that he has purposely hidden it from us ie: a closed book with a lock on it.
And Jer - Why are the sealed transcripts not an issue for you? Or for that matter, our media? I don't doubt he is a smart guy, in fact I'm certain of it. I also know I wouldn't pick him to be on survivor with me. Honestly, I don't know of any skills the man has that I would find useful outside of a courthouse. However, I'd like to play golf with him. (The way the weather's been here in Michigan, I would like to play golf with anyone...)
The original premise of my comment remains, what would the media's response be had Obama been a republican and refused to release his lfbc or had sealed ANY records?
To answer your question, the only thing I am trying to prove is the disparate reaction by the meda to a candidate based on the R or D after their name. For me, this is NOT about Obama, even though he is the crux of the argument, it is the fact the media has given him a pass simply because he is a democrat.
In the military, you are only as good as your last 3 evals.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 3:11pm.
It is why the whole Bush's TANG record was so silly in 2004. He had 4 years of President evaluations to look at. Not his actions as a 20 year old man.
This President has well over 2 years of horrible horrible horrible decisions. You want to look at what he did 25 years ago? Seriously, 25 years ago is what you want to judge him on now? 2 and a half years of the actions of the worst President in history and you are looking for what happened 25 years ago?
Sorry sir. This guy is going down in flames based on what he did now. Not based on what he did 25 years ago. The MSM did thier job well. They ran cover for him in the run-up to the election. It is too late. We can't make up for lost time now. Concentrate on the failures of his Presidency.
dreamsincolor...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 4:09pm.
School transcripts are confidential. Someone without authorization leaked partial records of Bush and Gore to the Washington Post which were published in 1999. Bush later released additional records, but not until 2004. Kerry's were released--not sure if it was voluntarily or involuntarily--in 2005. Neither McCain nor Obama released their academic records during the '08 campaign. The notion that all of the candidates in recent presidential elections--except Obama--have willingly and readily made all of their school records available to the public is a myth.
Jer
Oh the hell he din't.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 4:22pm.
John McCain released his full academic record at the Naval Academy on October 14th 2008 at 13:45. DIng Dong. Busted you again. You done been Vetbusted Uncle Jer. How does that feel? Huh? Ding Dong Billy Sing Song Hah! I am ridin' you Uncle Jer. Ridin' your tail and keepin' you in cha-eck!111@!~~!!!!!
Well, all I can say Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 4:46pm.
is, if that is the case, the article I read which said otherwise was either in error or else it was published prior to October 14, 2008.
Jer
You.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 4:55pm.
Did I get you or not? Mr. Poker Face.
Here's the article, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 5:05pm.
and it was published in early September of 2008. It's mainly about Obama, but there is a note about McCain near the bottom. Still trying to find source for the release of his transcript however.
Jer
Oh...yes, you did get me.
Ah. I don't think it is all that important.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 5:28pm.
What is important is the blood curdlin' scream emanating from teh Uncle Jer when he realized he dun been had. Still doin' teh Superior Dance!
Hey, isn't that Jonathan
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:08am.
Hey, isn't that Jonathan Martin in the screen shot with Andrea Mitchell? I wonder what had happened to him. He used to be all over the place with his furrowed brow, head tilted forward, as if listening intently, while biting his lower lip to signify deep thinking - right before adding not much insight.
As for Andrea Mitchell, I never recognize her much anymore - along with Leslie Stahl, she appears to have had a head transplant a few years ago...
Media is dropping all pretense to truth and facts
Submitted by DaMav on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:26am.
The waters are rising -- the economy is in chaos, Obama is dropping like a lead sinker in the polls, and the major liberal media has begun flailing in desperation. The meme since the elections last November has been the Obama Economic and Political Recovery. Both are stalling out so we are back to the race card and endless lectures about the horrors of the evil 'birthers'. Facts directly contradict the new meme, so we can anticipate a new phase of deliberate lies and distortion.
Keep up the good work Newsbusters -- truth is on our side. We will not sit down and shut up!
"It hasn't been raised about a 'white president'?"
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 2:24am.
Sure it has. Barry is 1/2 white, right?
I'm absolutely certain the question has been raised about every single president that had a foreign-born, non-citizen father whose mother was a hippie and who was only 18 years old and who refused to provide proof of his birth for 1000 days after it was requested by the only other serious candidate challenging his nomination.
Query: why isn't anyone demanding proof of US citizenship for Herman Cain or Allen West? Think they'd wait 1000 days to provide it? And if they did, what would the ShitStreamMedia be doing the entire time?
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Proof was provided prior to the 2008 election when the official
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 2:53am.
document issued by the State of Hawaii certifying the applicant's birth was posted on the internet by candidate Obama. Yet many of the same birthers who refused to accept that as proof are rejecting this latest documentation as well. Do you accept it?
Jer
It would appear only a few of us saw it.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:14am.
It was put on an obscure part of the internet where only a select few could see it. I was searching for "naked womens holding puppies and birth certificates porn" and accidentally ran across it. How did you run across it?
It has been raised about other Presidents and disregarded..
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:10am.
As well as candidates for the office.
A 1988 Note in the Yale Law Journal about the NBC clause states: "This constitutional uncertainty persists despite the fact that the issue has arisen frequently over the past twenty years in discussions over the potential candidacies of foreign-born politicians such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, Christian D. Herter, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona before it became a state; Weicker, in Paris of an American father and British mother; Romney, of American parents in Mexico; Herter, of Americans in France; Roosevelt, in Canada." Note, Jill A. Pryor, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty," 97 Yale Law Journal 881 (1988).
Investigative Reporting
Submitted by m1xram on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 5:43am.
The new oxymoron for the ex-MSM. LOL
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Hey!!
Submitted by Patriot II on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:29am.
Do these ignorant bastards ever read the news that comes across their desk? I suppose not one of them remember the bullshyt given to John McCain about being born in Panama to an Admiral and his wife no less......at least their were American Citizens "assigned" to a foreign country....dumb lying bastards!!!
Like-(and Left-)minded
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:29pm.
Two lofty, self-important minds, combining together (along with numerous editorial fact-checkers, et al, brows furrowed in deep, deep thought) trying to express a single profound thought --- and they totally blow it big-time.
Two brains (we think!), producing one feeble, road-killed idea. D.O.A.
How lovely. How poetic. How predictably pathetic and pathological.
Journalism 101: Perfect example in class session on how not to attempt to make some powerful point and be taken seriously. Students will compare with typical Elementary Schooler's ability to use Internet for b-a-s-i-c research.
To paraphrase the old-old quote: Two minds without a single thought!
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
There is only one story at the MSM anymore:
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:38pm.
Who Opposes Obama Is RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcist!!
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I seem to remember reading,
Submitted by irishguy on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:52pm.
I seem to remember reading, years ago, that there were questions of whether or not Andrew Jackson was born at sea and therefore would not have been eligible to be POTUS. If memory serves, it was a book by Allen W. Eckert, perhaps "the Frontiersman" .
And…
Submitted by mojavemark on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:23pm.
this surprises anyone? Katie did exactly what CBS wanted her to do. She obfuscated the truth just as Dan Rather did before her. What we need to do is to turn off CBS, NBC, and ABC and then we'll see how quickly their attitude changes. Example: was enjoying "Harry's Law" but they were taking cheap shots and conservative issues and philosophies. I wrote them and expressed my dis-pleasure. I must not have been the only one because before the season wrap they were taking diggs at more liberal ideologies.