I’m watching the coverage of the disruption of the House of Representatives during the reading of the Constitution today by a protester who questioned Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.
Here’s what USA Today said: “A protester who says President Obama wasn’t born in the USA was arrested this morning for disrupting the reading of the Constitution in the House chamber.”
Not true. That’s not what Theresa Cao said. Even though we have all had the opportunity to watch the video and hear her words, USA Today insists on putting words in the protester’s mouth.
What she said was: “Except Obama. Except Obama. Help us Jesus!” Her protest came at a point in the proceedings when Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., was reading Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution dealing with eligibility of the president.
No doubt she was questioning Obama’s eligibility, but she didn’t mention that he wasn’t born in the U.S. The point is, and I think I can speak for Ms. Cao and others frustrated with our national neglect of the Constitution to the point of civil disobedience, we don’t know where he was born, not without a long-form birth certificate. And, even based on Obama’s own story of where he was born and who his parents were, many of us don’t understand how he could be deemed eligible.
Why does the press have to twist the facts like this?
It’s not just USA Today.
Here’s the Los Angeles Times account: “As the reading of the amended version went on for several hours, there was at least one outburst from the gallery as a person interrupted to say Obama wasn’t born in the United States, hence was constitutionally barred from being president. No effort, including the release of his birth certificate, by President Obama has dispelled the false rumors of his birth that continue to have traction with the so-called birther movement.”
Do you see why some Americans are so frustrated that they feel compelled to disrupt a meeting of the House of Representatives to question Obama’s eligibility?
The press is incapable of reporting fairly and accurately on this issue. She didn’t say Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. She was obviously questioning his constitutional eligibility, which is not the same thing. How can the L.A. Times not know in 2011 that Obama has never released his birth certificate? That’s just the point of the so-called “birther” movement – that he has failed to prove his constitutional eligibility. He has steadfastly refused to release his birth certificate – the very starting point for establishing constitutional eligibility.
Here’s the New York Daily News, which, to its credit, accurately quoted Theresa Cao, but slipped up in a different way: “Birthers argue, despite evidence to the contrary, that President Obama was not really born in Hawaii and is not eligible to be commander in chief.”
If that’s the definition of a “birther,” I’m not one – and I’ve been called repeatedly “the king of the birthers.”
Birthers simply want proof of where he was born and who his parents were. Those are the two essentials for determining eligibility under the Constitution. It shouldn’t be a matter of faith or opinion where Obama was born. It should be documented fact.
You might expect more from Politico, whose sole job in the world seems to be reporting on what politicians in Washington say and do. But here’s how Politico handled it: “The only disruption of the reading was from a woman sitting in the gallery who doesn’t think President Barack Obama was born in the United States. She yelled out ‘Except Obama, except Obama’ when Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., read the clause that requires the president be born in the United States.”
Are reporters able to read minds? How does Politico know what the protester thinks? By the way, there is no clause in the Constitution that says “the president must be born in the United States.” It requires that he or she be a “natural born citizen,” a much higher standard, as anyone familiar with civics would understand.
Here’s AFP’s twisted report: “Some of Obama’s archconservative opponents have leveled the unsubstantiated charge that the president was not born in the United States, a claim flatly refuted by official documents and newspaper accounts of his birth in Hawaii.”
How about Reuters? “‘Except Obama,’ Theresa inserted as her own 28th Amendment to the Constitution and invoking Jesus. It may have been the most prominent performance so far by ‘birthers,’ who claim Barack Obama has no right to be in office because they believe he was born in Africa and not Hawaii.”
I could go on and on. Not one straight news report of this incident was generated by the so-called “mainstream press.” Could they all possibly be this ignorant? For heaven’s sake, even Chris Matthews has finally recognized the problem years after this controversy began – Obama has not released his birth certificate. It doesn’t matter where people think Obama was born. What matters is what has been established – or not established – as documentable fact.
