Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 21st, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Obama, Race and Media

Lines Overlooked by the Times

Christopher Donovan

June 10, 2008

This Sunday's Week in Review section fronts with a non-groundbreaking quote corral on the Times' favorite issue of late: Will whites vote for Barack Obama?

Not if he's too much of a black power fist-pumper, concludes black journalist Marcus Mabry, in what I would describe as a "revelation" fit to print only by the sliding standards of affirmative action. (Really? We couldn't figure this out?)

Mabry, whose own background suggests he's a sort of journalistic Obama himself, lazily phones around to the short list of race talkers: John McWhorter and Orlando Patterson (black conservative, black liberal, roughly), Jesse Jackson, Jr., academic Alan Wolfe and author Rick Perlstein. Also on the list is Pat Buchanan, who's allowed to mention that if blacks are going to support Obama by 90 percent, it's a little silly to cry racism when whites exhibit a pattern of voting for whites. My neighbors should be grateful that Buchanan, and not David Frum or Bill Kristol, was chosen to speak for the white point of view.

Here is Buchanan, by the way, schooling Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on this very issue. Do take a moment to watch Cohen squirm.

While not boring us with insights any third-rate blogger could have given us months ago, Mabry wrongly suggests it's a "prejudice" for whites to think blacks are less patriotic (a little hard not to think, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright damning America and Michelle Obama saying that only now that her husband is successful is she proud of America). Mabry also thinks its prejudicial to link blacks to crime (readers not familiar with the positions of white advocacy should consult Jared Taylor's "The Color of Crime" report to see that this is not, in fact, counter-factual).

He concludes with that media favorite: Economics, not race, tells the real story.

Mabry's central point—that whites won't vote for a too-black candidate—isn't necessarily wrong. But he stops short about why: Even in this age of near-maximum saturation of political correctness and egalitarian dogma, many whites simply balk at embracing blacks. To white advocates, of course, this is perfectly natural and easily explained: Blacks are a different race with markedly different behavior patterns, intelligence levels and value systems.

The premise that members of different races are fungible is completely mistaken. Only in the deepest reaches of their subconscious do whites still get this. And to my mind, their enthusiasm for Obama is only more evidence of this: It's the exaggerated gesticulation of a white person forcing themselves to be, or appear, "non-racist." TOO contributor Hereward Lindsay observes this superficial overfriendliness when a white person will grunt or merely nod to another white, but all of a sudden becomes animated and solicitous when speaking to a black.

In other words, the Obama ascension isn't a sign to me that races have changed, or even that the human capacity for dealing with racial difference has changed: we have simply moved the furniture around.

There's another point that the Times and much of the blogosphere has missed in the swoon over this "historic moment". Obama is a politician. He is not the first black politician. Blacks, in fact, are pretty well suited to politics: they are often gregarious, good speakers, able to command loyalty and work the room. They are typically elected where blacks are concentrated. And indeed, Marion Barry, Wilson Goode, David Dinkins, Cory Booker, Ray Nagin and many others fill a volume like this.

This is not, I repeat, not, a sign that blacks have achieved more than they would have absent intelligence and behavior levels on parity with that of whites. It's a sign that blacks are loyal to blacks, and have figured out (mostly) how to pull the lever at the local voting precinct (though apparently, requiring them to produce ID is "racist"). Clearly, Marion Barry's "stewardship" of Washington, D.C. did nothing to improve crime rates or education problems in that heavily-black city — and he personally actually made them worse.

Asians are good counter-example: they are quieter and far less adept at politics, as their anemic numbers in those ranks demonstrate. But they fare better because they're entrepreneurial, hard-working and math-smart.

So Obama's securing the Democratic nomination is not, in fact, a sign that blacks have "progressed" to actual equality with whites, only that our media and minders have hustled a black man to the front of the line for their own purposes. President Obama will not erase inherent racial differences. He will not make it so that whites in Cambridge will invite black gang members into their midst. He will not make it so that blacks outscore whites on the LSAT. He will not make the Bronx a friendlier environment for whites (and might even make it more dangerous, with that extra boost of confidence for the swaggering black male).

In fact, as others have noted, it might actually do some damage to the black cause, in so far as affirmative action starts to look still more ridiculous with a black man sitting in the White House (though I am confident that the anti-white network will manage this situation effectively, patiently explaining to credulous whites why they must accept this contradiction). One hopes for some white consciousness-raising, but every time I think to myself that some catastrophic event will "wake whites up," it never does. Whites, despite their revealed internal instincts, are determined to consciously believe that "race is just a skin color," and many will use the image of President Obama to sustain that illusion.

Our task as white advocates is to show that the reality on the ground is a far cry from black Camelot.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...bry.html#Mabry
 
Old July 23rd, 2008 #2
Charles Martel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The origins of jewish egalitarianism lies within the precepts of christianity itself.
Posts: 1,533
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Lines Overlooked by the Times

Christopher Donovan

June 10, 2008

This Sunday's Week in Review section fronts with a non-groundbreaking quote corral on the Times' favorite issue of late: Will whites vote for Barack Obama?

Not if he's too much of a black power fist-pumper, concludes black journalist Marcus Mabry, in what I would describe as a "revelation" fit to print only by the sliding standards of affirmative action. (Really? We couldn't figure this out?)

Mabry, whose own background suggests he's a sort of journalistic Obama himself, lazily phones around to the short list of race talkers: John McWhorter and Orlando Patterson (black conservative, black liberal, roughly), Jesse Jackson, Jr., academic Alan Wolfe and author Rick Perlstein. Also on the list is Pat Buchanan, who's allowed to mention that if blacks are going to support Obama by 90 percent, it's a little silly to cry racism when whites exhibit a pattern of voting for whites. My neighbors should be grateful that Buchanan, and not David Frum or Bill Kristol, was chosen to speak for the white point of view.

Here is Buchanan, by the way, schooling Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on this very issue. Do take a moment to watch Cohen squirm.

While not boring us with insights any third-rate blogger could have given us months ago, Mabry wrongly suggests it's a "prejudice" for whites to think blacks are less patriotic (a little hard not to think, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright damning America and Michelle Obama saying that only now that her husband is successful is she proud of America). Mabry also thinks its prejudicial to link blacks to crime (readers not familiar with the positions of white advocacy should consult Jared Taylor's "The Color of Crime" report to see that this is not, in fact, counter-factual).

He concludes with that media favorite: Economics, not race, tells the real story.

Mabry's central point—that whites won't vote for a too-black candidate—isn't necessarily wrong. But he stops short about why: Even in this age of near-maximum saturation of political correctness and egalitarian dogma, many whites simply balk at embracing blacks. To white advocates, of course, this is perfectly natural and easily explained: Blacks are a different race with markedly different behavior patterns, intelligence levels and value systems.

The premise that members of different races are fungible is completely mistaken. Only in the deepest reaches of their subconscious do whites still get this. And to my mind, their enthusiasm for Obama is only more evidence of this: It's the exaggerated gesticulation of a white person forcing themselves to be, or appear, "non-racist." TOO contributor Hereward Lindsay observes this superficial overfriendliness when a white person will grunt or merely nod to another white, but all of a sudden becomes animated and solicitous when speaking to a black.

In other words, the Obama ascension isn't a sign to me that races have changed, or even that the human capacity for dealing with racial difference has changed: we have simply moved the furniture around.

There's another point that the Times and much of the blogosphere has missed in the swoon over this "historic moment". Obama is a politician. He is not the first black politician. Blacks, in fact, are pretty well suited to politics: they are often gregarious, good speakers, able to command loyalty and work the room. They are typically elected where blacks are concentrated. And indeed, Marion Barry, Wilson Goode, David Dinkins, Cory Booker, Ray Nagin and many others fill a volume like this.

This is not, I repeat, not, a sign that blacks have achieved more than they would have absent intelligence and behavior levels on parity with that of whites. It's a sign that blacks are loyal to blacks, and have figured out (mostly) how to pull the lever at the local voting precinct (though apparently, requiring them to produce ID is "racist"). Clearly, Marion Barry's "stewardship" of Washington, D.C. did nothing to improve crime rates or education problems in that heavily-black city — and he personally actually made them worse.

Asians are good counter-example: they are quieter and far less adept at politics, as their anemic numbers in those ranks demonstrate. But they fare better because they're entrepreneurial, hard-working and math-smart.

So Obama's securing the Democratic nomination is not, in fact, a sign that blacks have "progressed" to actual equality with whites, only that our media and minders have hustled a black man to the front of the line for their own purposes. President Obama will not erase inherent racial differences. He will not make it so that whites in Cambridge will invite black gang members into their midst. He will not make it so that blacks outscore whites on the LSAT. He will not make the Bronx a friendlier environment for whites (and might even make it more dangerous, with that extra boost of confidence for the swaggering black male).

In fact, as others have noted, it might actually do some damage to the black cause, in so far as affirmative action starts to look still more ridiculous with a black man sitting in the White House (though I am confident that the anti-white network will manage this situation effectively, patiently explaining to credulous whites why they must accept this contradiction). One hopes for some white consciousness-raising, but every time I think to myself that some catastrophic event will "wake whites up," it never does. Whites, despite their revealed internal instincts, are determined to consciously believe that "race is just a skin color," and many will use the image of President Obama to sustain that illusion.

Our task as white advocates is to show that the reality on the ground is a far cry from black Camelot.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com...bry.html#Mabry
sigh......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #3
William Robert
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Cool It's doesn't matter who "whites" will vote for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Will whites vote for Barack Obama?
What matters in the Kwa is Jew Appointment.

The Jew has Appointed Obama,

Because he's a typical house nigger,

Good at Sucking Jew Cock.

Most of us know the "voting system" is rigged.

The above "Fart-icle" is full of Blah, Blah, Blah,

pretending as though our Vote really counted.

Vote-Fraud, Freedom-Fraud, and Equality-Fraud,

are all Jew-Frauds!

Will Purple monkeys fly out of my butt?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Read below for insight into the Obama Appointment

Would a Jew use a Nigger to kill White people?
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=76518

Last edited by William Robert; July 24th, 2008 at 12:33 AM.
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #4
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

This is a very unusual Presidential election and it's very hard to predict who'll win. The republicans nominated the worst candidate imagineable. I think McCain is campaining to be Obama's VP.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old August 21st, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Study: ABC, NBC, CBS strongly support Obama
'Coverage bordered on giddy celebration of political rock star'
Posted: August 20, 2008
8:49 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has "bordered on giddy celebration of a political 'rock star' rather than objective newsgathering."

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization's website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama's relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has "always received very positive press from the national media," and that was a "huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career."

That's contrary to the normal "default position" for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is "not the normal professional approach you see in journalists," he said.

Noyes said the results imply that the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week, where Obama is expected to be nominated and has scheduled an acceptance speech in the city's 75,000-seat football stadium, will generate much media praise for the candidate.

If Obama is described by the media repeatedly as the historic first black to carry a political party's nomination for president while presumptive GOP candidate Sen. John McCain is just a Republican, that would give Obama an advantage, he said.

The MRC said it located every story referencing Obama on ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News "from the time Obama emerged on the national stage."

"The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more than their cable news competitors," the MRC said.

A total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offered "at least some discussion" of Obama, and 40 percent focused exclusively on Obama.

NBC aired 490 stories, ABC 464 and CBS had 411.

Brent Bozell, president of the MRC, said in a news release accompanying the report the bottom line issue for journalism is that the Big Three networks, "had a horse in this year's Democratic primary race."

He also credited the three networks with providing Obama's "margin of victory" over fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"The press fixated their infatuated gazes on Sen. Obama, and afforded him the crucial coverage and support he needed to win," Bozell said.

The study noted Obama's victory over Clinton was by 41,622 votes out of 35 million, one-tenth of a percentage point.

But it said the networks provided Obama with 462 positive stories during the studied time frame, to just 70 that were critical, and Obama got "his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene.

All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in 2007, the study said.

As important as the positive spin the MRC found, "the networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama's relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama's longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama's March 18 speech on race relations."

Even when the networks were giving Obama his worst publicity, they still offered two positive stories about him for every critical report, the MRC said.

Tellingly, they referred to Obama as "rock star, "rising star," or "superstar" 29 times in four years, describing him as "liberal" only 14 times.

"Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party's nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value," the report said.

"The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier," the report said.

The report said the bias the MRC uncovered also has not been lost on Americans.

"The Pew Research Center surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May and reported that 'far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton,' even with 35 percent of Democrats seeing 'a pro-Obama bias,'" the report said.

A Rasmussen survey in July found nearly half of voters believe most reporters try to help Obama with their reporting.

The report cited instances such as when MSNBC's Chris Matthews said when he was listening to Obama, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

During the 2004 DNC, then-NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said of Obama: "His national debut is getting rave reviews … This blessed young father of two is the son of a Kenyan working-class man and a white Midwestern mother. Both his parents are gone, but the lessons of their love are not."

Conversely, Brokaw said the Republican keynoter that year, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, was "torching his party and its ticket."

"Obama in 2007 had the luxury of launching his presidential campaign having never once been the subject of a negative evening news story," the report said.

Significantly, when Obama claimed his parents "got together" because of "what happened in Selma," ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Obama was born in August 1961 and Selma's civil rights march happened three months later.

Later when a Clinton campaign surrogate suggested Obama's admissions of using cocaine could be exploited in a general election, the networks called out the Clinton campaign for its "dirty trick." That contrasted to eight years earlier, when candidate George W. Bush was pushed aggressively to reveal whether he might have used cocaine.

"If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made his road to the White House a whole lot smoother," the report concluded.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=72914
 
Old August 21st, 2008 #6
blueskies
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,392
Default

Nikita Khrushchev to Kwans 1959: "We spit in their faces, and they call it dew""We will bury you," and "your children will live under Communism"

Last edited by blueskies; August 21st, 2008 at 11:02 PM.
 
Old August 21st, 2008 #7
Jett Rink
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Squaresville
Posts: 7,502
Default

Communism is bullshit.

It is and was just a tool to achieve the goal of a new world wide system of corporate feudalism.

That has always been the goal since Communism was financed by a group of wealthy men in the mid 1800's.

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis
 
Old August 28th, 2008 #8
Charles Martel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The origins of jewish egalitarianism lies within the precepts of christianity itself.
Posts: 1,533
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jett Rink View Post
Communism is bullshit.

It is and was just a tool to achieve the goal of a new world wide system of corporate feudalism.

That has always been the goal since Communism was financed by a group of wealthy men in the mid 1800's.

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis
What, Mark Levin tell you that? Eh?
 
Old September 10th, 2008 #9
steve.diamond
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4
steve.diamond
Default Who "sent" Obama?

I can't completely agree with you here, however I believe it is the right time for the Media to look at Barack Obama's Black Nationlist background and his facist and extreme left wing tendencies and associates.

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008...ent-obama.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Robert View Post
What matters in the Kwa is Jew Appointment.

The Jew has Appointed Obama,

Because he's a typical house nigger,

Good at Sucking Jew Cock.

Most of us know the "voting system" is rigged.

The above "Fart-icle" is full of Blah, Blah, Blah,

pretending as though our Vote really counted.

Vote-Fraud, Freedom-Fraud, and Equality-Fraud,

are all Jew-Frauds!

Will Purple monkeys fly out of my butt?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Read below for insight into the Obama Appointment

Would a Jew use a Nigger to kill White people?
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=76518
 
Old October 5th, 2008 #10
White Winger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,234
White Winger
Default

Time for every modern day Lee Harvey Oswald, James Huberty, Bernhard Goetz to brake out their Manlicher-carcanos and take out every TV and print propagandist - er,"journalist" that sucks that devil's ass.
 
Old October 6th, 2008 #11
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Robert View Post
What matters in the Kwa is Jew Appointment.

The Jew has Appointed Obama,

Because he's a typical house nigger,

Good at Sucking Jew Cock.

Most of us know the "voting system" is rigged.

The above "Fart-icle" is full of Blah, Blah, Blah,

pretending as though our Vote really counted.

Vote-Fraud, Freedom-Fraud, and Equality-Fraud,

are all Jew-Frauds!

Will Purple monkeys fly out of my butt?


Enquiring minds want to know.

Read below for insight into the Obama Appointment

Would a Jew use a Nigger to kill White people?
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=76518
 
Old November 6th, 2008 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Obama press corps likely more diverse
by Politico.com
Thursday November 06, 2008, 1:48 PM

When then-President Bill Clinton attended an intimate dinner with a group of African-American White House correspondents in July 1999, about nine reporters joined him at the table.

"I don't think we could have that dinner today," said attendee Wendell Goler, veteran White House man for Fox News. April Ryan, who covers the White House for American Urban Radio Networks and who also attended, agreed that there's been a decline in the number of black White House reporters during the Bush years, with just four or five regularly in the briefing room.

But as news organizations put the finishing touches on their White House teams and black-oriented publications look to ramp up their coverage of the first black president, that dynamic is poised to reverse.

While The New York Times has yet to announce its White House team, sources tell Politico that it will include Liberian-born journalist Helene Cooper, previously a diplomatic correspondent. Cooper has something in common with the president-elect — her own highly acclaimed memoir delving into her familial ties in Africa, published earlier this year.

Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet said he's chosen a team but declined to comment until there's a formal announcement.

On Monday, Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli announced the paper's four-person White House team, which includes African-American Michael Fletcher, who covered the Bush administration for three years before shifting to the economics beat.

Fletcher said he "reject[s] the notion" that only a black reporter could cover a black politician, but said it can help to better understand the "racial context" of some issues and events, and that organizations assembling White House teams "would probably be more inclined to have a black reporter on the beat" as such.

"I would find it cynical to think that a news organization might feel that putting a black reporter over there might get them more access," said Goler, who's been at the White House since 1986.

While Washington bureaus have been shutting their doors as the newspaper business has flagged, black-oriented publications have been gearing up to cover Barack Obama.

Bryan Monroe, editorial director of Ebony and Jet magazines, said that although his publications have maintained a presence in D.C. for years, including a small bureau just a block from the White House, they will focus more on the 44th president than they have on past administrations. "There wasn't a lot of attention to African-Americans in the Bush administration," he said, "or working for the issues that matter to black folks."

Monroe said that Obama coverage will stretch across three platforms: the monthly Ebony, weekly Jet, and daily website, EbonyJet. An Ebony/Jet reporter was aboard the campaign's plane when Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe last July, and again for the final days of the election. At no point did they have a reporter with traveling with the McCain campaign.

Ryan, a regular in the briefing room since the Clinton administration, contends that black-oriented media should be covering elected leaders regardless of who's in the Oval Office. She added that President Bush even told her privately that there wasn't enough minority representation during his tenure.

But simply wanting to cover the White House isn't as easy as just showing up. Longtime correspondents tightly hold onto the best seats in the small work space in the basement. Coveted hard passes can take months to obtain through the Secret Service.

"I think people who haven't covered the White House will be surprised how rigid they are about rules," said Julie Mason, White House correspondent for the Washington Examiner, mentioning the assigned seating as a particular sticking point among veterans.

White House bureaucracy aside, Mason — a frequent guest on MSNBC — said there seemed to already be more diversity in past months.

"The number of African-American commentators on TV has gone through the roof," Mason said, "and I think that'd be reflected in how [news organizations] cover the White House."

http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/ind...kely_more.html
 
Old July 28th, 2009 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

CNN wrong once again – birth record not destroyed

Hawaii contradicts network boss' claim that Obama certificate no longer exists

Posted: July 27, 2009
8:36 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Directly contradicting CNN chief Jon Klein – who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing President Obama's birth certificate – the Hawaii Department of Health affirmed that no paper birth certificates were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping.

"I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department," Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. "When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don't destroy records."

Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.

"Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have."

Last Thursday, Klein, CNN's U.S. president, told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" the issue of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president is a "dead" story.

1st eligibility movie debuts on Obama's birthday! Order the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential mystery!

According to MediaBistro.com, Klein wrote in an e-mail that CNN researchers found Hawaiian records were discarded in 2001 when the state's records system went electronic. Therefore, Klein said, Obama's original long-form birth certificate no longer exists. A computer-generated abbreviated version that has been promoted on the Internet is the official record, he said.

"It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote. "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead – because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef."

Hawaii's Okubu refused to say whether the DOH has Obama's original long-form birth certificate, explaining state law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Okubu's refusal to comment on the status of Obama's long-form birth certificate seemed to contradict an Oct. 31, 2008, letter by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of health for the state of Hawaii. Fukino claimed she personally saw and could verify that Hawaii had Obama's original long-form birth certificate on file.

But both Okubu and Fukino are now on the record contradicting CNN's claim that Hawaii had destroyed Obama's long-form birth certificate when the health department went electronic in 2001.

Lou Dobbs

The White House has refused to acknowledge repeated requests from WND that Obama authorize the Hawaii DOH to release all his birth records, including his original long-form birth certificate.

WND also has reported Obama has not released his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois State senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

WND also has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

In addition, the question over Obama's eligibility is being raised on billboards nationwide.

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105233
 
Old August 3rd, 2009 #15
Derrick Beukeboom
Senior Member
 
Derrick Beukeboom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Goy Wonder
Posts: 1,325
Derrick Beukeboom
Default

Dumb white bitch....
Although she sums up what many nigger fellating, chicken shit, liberal loving whites think.

Again, another reason why we are in this mess to begin with.
 
Old October 14th, 2009 #16
McKinley
coast to coast WN
 
McKinley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
McKinley
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
CNN wrong once again – birth record not destroyed

Hawaii contradicts network boss' claim that Obama certificate no longer exists

Posted: July 27, 2009
8:36 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
This Corsi jew suck ass was just on Coast to Coast am for the whole show.

Every time this gutless worm was asked about Itzalie and Yids you could hear the golf ball sliding through the garden hose.

He was yammering on about how Iran needs to be stopped and Itzalie needs our protection and support. He doesn't think the magic Nigger has been doing enough to stop Iran.

He also said that he was discouraged that the protest against President Adeenajahd didn't work out like the Kikes planned after the Iranian election.

This Corsi is a real piece of crap. His whole motive for this Obongo birth certificate deal was for the Yids.
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven

Kentckyanna True News

"What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!"

Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears.
 
Old August 23rd, 2010 #17
Tom Stanley
Junior Member
 
Tom Stanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 30
Tom Stanley
Default

Kind of hard for me to admit, but I voted for Obama. His economic plan was just more sensible to me and my purposes, and his take on the War on Iraq made a lot more sense to me. I have close family members that have gone to Iraq and lost friends, collegues and fellow soldiers.

I'm not too happy with his Zionist son-of-abitch views, or the fact that he's celebrating kwanza in the white house, but sure beats having an incompetent btich like Palin in office.

I should just not vote
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.
Page generated in 0.17219 seconds.