KANSAS CITY STAR – JUST LIKE MSNBC – GETS THE STORY WRONG, VERY WRONG.
Does the main stream media even know how to research a story any longer?Â Or are they reporting the story wrong on purpose?Â TheMSNBC fiasco by Pete WilliamsÂ was bad enough when the report made it seem as ifÂ Bergâ€™s law suitÂ had been distributed for conference on December 5 along with mine.Â It wasnâ€™t. Â Furthermore, people have reported back that their comments to that story which tried to correct the record were not allowed to be posted.Â I guess the MSNBC policy is to make up stories now.Â Just make it all up.Â Is this case exposing major media mavens as propaganda ponies.Â We report, you decide.
Now comesÂ the Kansas City Star and reporter Rick MontgomeryÂ with anotherÂ veryÂ misleading account of the case.Â I phoned Mr. Montgomery this morning and left a relaxed message giving him the benefit of the doubt and offering to speak with him to correct the story should he be so inclined.Â We will assume for now he was simply lazy and not assertive in his mistaken reporting.Â There are three blatant mistakes in his piece.
MISTAKE 1: the headline is completely misleading on two fronts
â€œAnti-Obama bloggers challenge birthplaceâ€
If Mr. Montogmery had done the slightest bit of research, he might have foundÂ my application now before the SCOTUS.Â That application firmly argues that John McCain was not eligible to be President along with Roger Calero and Barack Obama.Â Â Anyone following this story knows I have handled McCainâ€™s decision to run – and the Senateâ€™s faux resolution saying he could run – with very harsh treatment.Â McCain is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite popular belief (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual1116.1-4(c)) the military base there was NOT US soil. Calero was born in NIcaragua and also is not a natural born citizen like Obama who was a British citizen at birth.
Montgomeryâ€™s report fails to point any of this out opting for the more salacious headline.Â The headline is bunk, but hopeful not intentional bunk.Â We shall see.
MISTAKE 2:Â My lawsuit is not focused on challenging Obamaâ€™s place of birth.Â I have repeatedly, in interview after interview, asserted my belief that Obama was born in Hawaii and that I expect to see him eventually produce a solid birth certificate which puts these other law suits to rest.Â My law suit mentions the BC issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey Secretary of State, should have, at the very least requested to see Obamaâ€™s BC.Â That is not a core issue in my case.Â And I have publicly criticized those who brought law suits but failed to nail the main issue – that Obama canÂ neverÂ be a natural â€œbornâ€ citizen – even if he was born on the mall in DC with two million witnesses, since, at the time of his birth, he was â€œbornâ€ as a British citizen/subject.
As anybody with even the slightest hint of awareness knows, my law suit is challenging Obamaâ€™s eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen â€œat birthâ€.Â His own web site told me so.Â Andfactcheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britainâ€™s Nationality Act of 1948.Â Montgomery cites factcheck.org as a â€œnonpartisanâ€ source so he should have been aware that same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen â€œat birthâ€ trough his Father.Â My law suit correctly points out that the framers would never have sanctioned somebody born as a British subject/citizen for President of the United States.
Here is what Montgomery said:
â€œIn the outer cosmos of the blogosphere, the presidential election isnâ€™t over.
Barack Obama, now busily forming his administration, isnâ€™t just the wrong person to lead the nation, claim Web sites such as America Must Know and Right Side News.
He is, they contend, constitutionally ineligible to be president.
The argument is over his place of birth â€” Hawaiiâ€¦â€
Wow.Â It never mentions the main argument of my law suit.Â Nada.Â Zippo.Â Zilch.Â Nothing about it.
Montgomery fails to get the facts of the Distribution for Conference of Dec. 5 right.Â He fails to mention thatÂ the full CourtÂ distributed it for conferenceÂ AFTERÂ considering a refferal from Justice Thomas:
â€œOne litigantâ€™s U.S. Supreme Court filing is scheduled to be discussed in private by the justices later this week.
Justice Clarence Thomas distributed to his colleagues a request that the high court weigh in before the Electoral College makes Obamaâ€™s victory official later this month. The justices may decide in a Friday conference whether to hear or cast away a lawsuit dismissed in a lower court and appealed by a retired New Jersey lawyer named Leo C. Donofrio, who also has his own Web site.â€
All he had to do was call the Public Information Office at the SCOTUS and they would have explained to him what the entries onÂ my Docketmean.Â Â As was reported by Bob Vernon of Honest American News and Plains Radio Network two days ago, Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and thenÂ the full CourtÂ distributed it for conference of December 5, 2008 after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral.Â There has been multiple docket activity on my case this week.Â One would think reporters would actually use the resources SCOTUS makes available to them.
No mention of Cortâ€™s case by Montgomery and that it is now before Justice Scalia.
Montgomery mentions my site in his report, so I donâ€™t know why he didnâ€™t see all of this explained in my blogs below.Â Hopefully he will fix the record.Â Thereâ€™s a place to comment on his report for those so inclined.
WORLD NET DAILY LETTER CAMPAIGN MIS-STATES CORE ISSUE IN DONOFRIO SCOTUSÂ CASE
Posted inÂ UncategorizedÂ on December 3, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
World Net Daily has organized a letter writing campaign to Fed Ex the SCOTUS utilizing the following headline at its web site:
â€œFED EX THE SUPREMES ABOUT OBAMAâ€™S ELIGIBILITYâ€
I must draw attention to the fact that the article which solicits these letters has not educated the public to my case.Â The actual text of the letter they are sending is fine, but the article which solicits participation is incorrect.Â Here is what it says:
â€œBecause the Supreme Court justices do not accept faxes, e-mails or telephone calls, there is only one way to make your voice heard in time for Fridayâ€™s preliminary hearing â€“ overnight delivery of your letter.
Join more than 145,000 others in signing WNDâ€™s online petitioncalling for release of Barack Obamaâ€™s birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office.Â This offer ends Thursday at noon Eastern Time to ensure all letters are delivered by Friday morning to the Supreme Court.â€
I have REPEATEDLY stated that Obama can release a golden birth certificate signed by 100 gazzillion witnesses embossed in gold leaf that he was born on the mall in Washington DC and it still wouldnâ€™t make him a â€œNatural Born Citizenâ€ under the Constitution because he was, regardless of where he was born, a BRITISH citizen â€œat birth.â€Â Since he was â€œbornâ€ as a British citizen/subject, his United States citizenship was not â€œnaturalâ€.Â Â Â World Net Daily has done a prior article where they did get it right, but at this crucial moment, two days before the SCOTUS meets, they are getting it wrong.
They article goes on to say:
â€œFarah launched a petition drive on WND two weeks agoÂ that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for fullpublic disclosure of the facts of Obamaâ€™s birthplace and parentage. More than 125,000 people have signed on to the petition in that time.â€
There is no dispute about Obamaâ€™sÂ parentage.Â His Mother Father was a British Citizen, and his Mother was a United States citizen.Â Therefore, Obama was both a subject and citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen.Â Â His place of birth wonâ€™t change that no matter where he was born.Â Of course, the New Jersey Secretary of State, and the Secretaries of the several states should have asked to see his BC, and my law suit says that, but Obama is not eligible no matter where he was born.Â And the World Net Daily letter campaign solicitation fails to point that out and as such it is doing harm to public awarenesss.
Hereâ€™s why: if Obama produces a genuine vault kept birth certificate from Hawaii that satisfies every possible requirement, many people will be under theÂ mistakenÂ impression that he is a natural born citizen.Â World Net Daily needs to correct that solicitation and let its readers know that Obama is not eligible regardless of where he was born.
I must ask readers of this blog not to participate in that letter writing campaign unless and until World Net Daily corrects the solicitation.Â I donâ€™t believe this was an intentional error, but I must remain consistent.