It’s a foregone conclusion that the liberal press (mainstream media, establishment press) will never admit that our miserable excuse for a president even possesses normal human frailties, let alone gross character defects. Across the industry, I would say that this is largely rooted in a combination of ideological kinship, ignorance, fear, or top-down directives, depending on the case.

I’m also aware that some journalists and press outlets have been reticent to report negative information about Barack Obama over fears of being attacked for being racist, as inane a concept as this remains.

All of the above, of course, could apply in the practical sense to our elected officials as well, but we have grown to expect a certain level of duplicity on their part. This is not to justify their actions – particularly now, when some have bordered on treason – but the purpose of the press has always been in safeguarding our liberties through their function. This is largely why so many Americans have yet to come to the conclusion that the establishment press has become a subversive propaganda arm for the political left. People still trust them.

But what about the conservative press (the “new media” or “alternative press”)? Despite the power this body has been able to successfully wield, in the face of the grave and dangerous actions of the Obama administration and the deteriorating geopolitical landscape, too much of their coverage remains disappointingly superficial.

For example: I have noted that many conservative press outlets have gotten caught up in this theatrical bluster between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the situation in Ukraine. This is no different a tack than that taken by their liberal media counterparts. It occurs to me that the interests of global peace as well as our domestic situation (with this president) might be better addressed by examining the actions Obama has taken to precipitate that crisis.

Some of these organizations, whether they be broadcast, print, or Internet media, have occasionally been criticized for their compromising business and political associations, and some have even been accused of having been entirely co-opted or infiltrated by progressives. In the scope of this examination, such questions are moot, considering the shortness of time available to right our nation (assuming that this can be done) and the fact that there’s little that can be done about wayward press organizations in general.

Perhaps certain conservative press outlets are engaging in a conspiracy of silence to avoid the earthshaking fallout attendant to Obama’s more damning actions being revealed. Perhaps there are elements of a normalcy bias at work, wherein some news bureau chiefs are gambling on Obama leaving office in 2017, thus improving our lot. “Hoping against hope,” as it were.

Whether conspiracy, naïveté, or something other, the prospect of this president continuing to further his agenda unchecked is too big a risk to take, in my humble opinion, in justifying such inaction. Inasmuch as there are several newsworthy items that, widely known, would likely topple this criminal regime, I thought I might offer a few suggestions to the fainter of heart among the conservative press. Some are so damning, in fact, that there would probably not even be an opportunity for this demonstrably vindictive administration to retaliate.

A journalist might ask such questions as follow:

Mr. President, why has your administration seen fit to back an ultra-nationalist opposition government in Ukraine that actually embraces many aspects of Nazi philosophy?

As reported here earlier (and elsewhere), this is undeniably true. All it would take is one White House Press Corps reporter asking this of the president or his press secretary, and it could do untold damage to this administration. Some might even entertain the phrase “curtain time.”

Mr. President, what was your involvement in the rise of the brutal and murderous Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, and why have you been implicated by the Egyptian government in efforts to restore them to power?

Again, unequivocally true, and something that would give the average American news consumer a whole lot to think about.

Mr. President, how do you answer the allegations that forces of Mohamed Morsi, a political ally of yours, were involved in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans?

This we have been assured of by a journalist who is also an Egyptian national, and it has been reported in a limited way, of course. This individual viewed the videotapes made during the attack, and was quite sure that certain participants were Egyptian; further, that they articulated having been sent by Morsi himself.

Mr. President, why have you placed Muslim Brotherhood operatives in sensitive positions within our government, and why have you failed to address the existence of jihadi paramilitary camps strewn about the continental United States?

True and true. These questions wouldn’t necessarily have to be asked of the president or Jay Carney directly, either; their public examination would have more or less the same effect, albeit a less immediately dramatic one. Less fuming, twitching, blubbering and possibly keeling over from a fatal embolism …

I don’t have to detail the reactions average Americans of good conscience would have to even one of these questions, let alone all of them. And there are certainly more equally convicting ones. Presented with the real prospect of World War III or jihadis running rampant down Main Street, even those who lean toward the intellectual indolence of political correctness would cast aside all allegiance and illusions vis-à-vis our groundbreaking and historic “first black president” and pitch him under the bus with great alacrity, black and all.

See? That wasn’t hard, was it? And I didn’t even have to bring up the birth certificate.

Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact [email protected].

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.