The Boston Globe thinks 58 percent of Americans are “mindless” because they express grave doubts about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office.
In an editorial reflecting the official opinion of the newspaper Nov. 10, the Globe stated that the “conspiracy theory about Obama’s birth certificate” is an expression “of unthinking anger.”
“A mindless conspiracy theory representing an expression of unthinking anger”?
What is the “conspiracy theory” being put forward by American citizens who want to understand the countless contradictions between Obama’s official narrative of his life and reality?
- Obama tells us he was born in Hawaii, but refuses to release the one document that would positively affirm that claim – the long-form birth certificate, the same document Sen. John McCain released to U.S. Senate investigators to establish his own claims of eligibility to seek the presidency in 2008.
- Obama tells us he lived with his father, Barack Obama Sr., and mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii for the early years of his life. But the facts uncovered by WND’s Jerome Corsi reveal a different story – that Dunham and her son moved to Seattle days after his birth and that Obama Sr. and Dunham never lived together as husband and wife.
- No marriage certificate has ever been produced for Obama Sr. and Dunham, and a letter written by him to a friend in Kenya in 1962, a year after Obama Jr. was born, shows him concerned about the welfare of his wife in Kenya, not Dunham or her son.
- Two years into his term of office, no Hawaiian hospital has yet claimed the birth of the first black president of the United States.
I believe the American people show a healthy curiosity and skepticism about all this, not a susceptibility to swallowing “conspiracy theories.”
Does the Globe suggest Americans should simply believe on face value whatever their politicians tell them?
Did the Globe follow that prescription in the kerfuffle over George W. Bush’s National Guard records, which were irrelevant insofar as his constitutional eligibility to serve in office, but were simply a matter of curiosity?
What is “mindless” about pursuing the truth?
Where is the “unthinking anger”?
It would seem to me that written expressions by editorial writers indicting large swaths of the American populace are indeed the real “expressions of unthinking anger.”
Does the Globe have some facts to lay out that can clear up the misconceptions of the American people on this issue?
What the Globe and the American media establishment at large have done is to hurl invectives at those with whom they disagree – but, in this case, at people who have legitimate questions based on actual established facts.
The media continue to discount the notion that asking questions of national leaders and seeking documentation of their claims is a legitimate pursuit.
If it’s not a legitimate pursuit, what is the mission of the Globe? What is the mission of the free press in America? What is the point of elections if the majority of Americans are just “mindless” and “angry”?
It’s very insulting and very ill-informed when press establishments like the Globe take such positions – especially in an editorial lecturing the people about being “statesmanlike.”
This issue of Obama’s eligibility is not going away – no matter how much the press wishes it away.
They missed perhaps one of the biggest political stories of the century, thus they have a vested interest in seeing that it never amounts to anything.
But the eligibility issue is coming to a head.
At the very latest, we will know in two years. If Obama seeks re-election, he will be forced to prove his eligibility, because one or more states will require him to do so. If he does not seek re-election, his failure to be able to prove his eligibility will be the reason.