From the “A” section of the New York Times, Page 15, in less than 100 words, the psychosis of denial as it is hard-wired into American journalism:
Six years into his presidency, there seems to be almost nothing the nation does not know about Mr. Obama, ranging from his views on the use of drones to target terrorists to how his daughters have less interest in hanging out with him as they become teenagers.
But little is known about the state of his game and what he is like on the golf course,where he has spent roughly 1,000 hours playing 214 rounds since he was elected in 2008, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS correspondent who has kept track of the president’s schedule.
With this, the “paper of record” proceeds to “inform” readers about the never-before-revealed details of Barack Hussein Obama’s golf game.
Now we know everything?
Fat chance. For starters, there’s that unsolved mystery of why there is a piece of phony electronic artwork on the White House website purporting to be an image of a 1961 government document attesting to the details of Barack Obama’s birth. That this is evidence of what is likely the biggest case of identity fraud in history isn’t news to American media investigating more pressing matters (e.g., the presidential golf game). Nor, it seems, is other evidence of fraud or forgery from different investigations and numerous court proceedings. But it’s not just media (exception: WND.com) that turn their collective blind eye. Relevant federal, state and local authorities (exception: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio) have consistently ignored, derided or buried all such evidence rather than carry out their legal responsibilities.
Interestingly, the president himself hasn’t ignored it all. He can’t. When he must, Obama has paid untold sums to legal teams to defend himself in court against the multiple challenges to his eligibility to serve as president that crescendoed in 2012.
In a case questioning Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 presidential ballot in Georgia, evidence was introduced in an administrative law court to prove that the president is using a Connecticut Social Security number (he never lived in Connecticut), that Obama’s Social Security number was never really issued to him, and that his Social Security number does not pass the U.S. government’s own E-Verify test.
The Obama legal response? Obama lawyer Michael Jablonski tried to deflect the Social Security issue – which itself indicates an epic case of possible felony fraud – not by proving the allegations to be false and ridiculous, but rather by pointing out that “nothing in the Constitution makes … participating in Social Security a prerequisite to serving as president.”
Is that what a normal person, even a president, who has a regular old Social Security number would do?
The simplest line of defense is always going to be the truth – if, that is, one’s Social Security number is on the up-and-up. The Obama defense, however, was to bypass the fraud charges altogether and point out that having a Social Security number is not a prerequisite to serving as president!
Isn’t this rather curious legal strategy worth some media scrutiny – maybe even just one follow-up question? Nope. Gotta stake out that presidential putting green.
Walking away from allegedly dirty documents became the basis of the Obama defense. Obama lawyers took this same tack – not to defend allegedly false identity documents but rather show them to be irrelevant to presidential eligibility – in a 2012 New Jersey ballot challenge. (More unusually, so did the administrative law judge in the case, Jeff Masin, who actually seemed to help Obama lawyer Alexandra Hill stick to her own team’s defensive strategy.) In the New Jersey case, the Obama defense rested on the fact that because Obama did not present his birth certificate to state election officials (and, by law, was not required to do so), forgery or not, it was irrelevant to his eligibility to appear on the ballot.
As Judge Mazin put it: “So the question of whether the document that is produced turns out to be a forgery, it seems to me is irrelevant because he hasn’t produced it.” Obama lawyer Hill later replied: “You could have Mickey Mouse … and everyone could sign up and go with it.”
No further questions, said the media – in fact, no questions at all.
Meanwhile, the lawyer did raise a good point. Mickey Mouse would have been a definite improvement over Obama, and not just for the country.
The arrested-development media might actually have covered Mickey Mouse.