Replies

At least Fox (which also involves WSJ, since they are owned by the same people)and 3 other major media companies were told by Obama’s lawyers once before the election and at least once after the election that they would be annihilated by FCC and/or anti-monopoly harassment if they reported on the eligibility issue.

You haven’t heard much about it because the threat the media heads passed on to the media personalities (something like “You or any of your guests discuss the eligibility issue, and your career is definitely over and your life, health, and family are in question”) was very quickly shown to be real.

As with other aspects of the “birther” issue, the part that troubles me is the amount of crime that has been committed, and the refusal of anybody in the media, law enforcement, government, and courts to do anything about it. Just like the other lawlessness we’ve seen out of this administration and its enablers, blatant crimes have been committed - and “conservatives” act like it doesn’t even matter.

The “conservatives” thought this was a side issue that makes no difference. I’ve been saying for a long time that if we accept the lawlessness that put Obama in office, we could expect to lose the rule of law altogether. And as we watch Obama operatives refuse subpoenas, refuse to enforce the law if Eric Holder’s “people” are the perpetrators, sue states to keep them from enforcing the borders and immigration law, refuse to defend DOMA, start combat operations in Libya without Congressional approval and batting the questions away as if the rule of law doesn’t even matter, take over the banks, take over General Motors, illegally fire inspectors general who noted the lawlessness and crimes being committed by Obama operatives, etc... tell me which understanding of the eligibility issue has been predictive of what we see today - the “conservative” pundits’, or mine.

As we see flash mobs and their violence increase drastically here in the US and as the lawlessness of the drug cartels spills over into our southern states, we should think long and hard about what it means if we say that the rule of law is a “distraction from more important things”.

Ann Coulter, as a Fox contributor, was told early on that if she reported on the eligibility issue her career would be over and her family could be killed. She knows this is about the rule of law; she has no excuse. She has chosen to be the mouthpiece for the very people who hold her hostage, as she mocks those who know this is more than a “game”. They all know it.

They are like hostages with a gun pointed at them, saying on camera not only that they are being treated well, but that there is actually no such thing as kidnappers and anybody who says otherwise is crazy. Every personality on Fox or the other media companies that were threatened. They all know and they are all marching in lock-step.

I kind of wondered about Sean Hannity, who for a while supported the things being said by Donald Trump - apparently with permission from Fox. Notice that shortly after that, George Soros (one of the active agents in the threats made to the media earlier) revealed through a Ben Smith interview with Media Matters CEO that Media Matters was seeking to annihilate Fox through regulators in Britain - the same threat as was made before, only this time very publicly right after Sean Hannity supported Trump.

I wondered why Fox allowed Hannity to do that, but now that Obama released the forged long-form and Trump has dropped the subject, and Hannity refuses to have Jerome Corsi on his show (Hannity/Fox claiming that the eligibility issue “isn’t in the news cycle any more” - IOW, they are dropping it, even as lots of forgery experts came out publicly to say that the posted BC is clearly a bad forgery).... I see why they allowed it. They set the stage for Obama’s grand forgery and then wouldn’t allow any analysis of it afterwards.

Fox played us like a fiddle. Or Fox’s master did.

I believe that Breitbart knows what has been done to the media and isn’t willing to fight the whole mafia machine that has the media in its grip. He’s chosen to fight other battles because he knows that if he tackles this he will have all the “conservative media” folks out for his blood (in order to save their own necks). There was a blow-up between Joseph Farah and Andrew Breitbart, and Breitbart’s point seemed to be that the eligibility issue is a losing battle even if Obama isn’t eligible. A reasonable response if Breitbart was aware that the “conservative” media is being held hostage.

Then why did Donald Trump get so much coverage?

Why doesn’t Weekly Standard and National Review look into it?

Do you really think, if say, Rush said and provided evidence that the document was a fake, and he “disappeared” the next day, that no one would notice?

There was a blow-up between Joseph Farah and Andrew Breitbart, and Breitbart’s point seemed to be that the eligibility issue is a losing battle even if Obama isn’t eligible. A reasonable response if Breitbart was aware that the “conservative” media is being held hostage.

IIRC that exchange took place at a Tea Party event, hmmm???

I remember Rush Limbo was off the air one day in 2009 and he never disclosed where he was or what business was discussed, but he would scold anyone sneaking by Snerdley and bring up the NBC issue!!!