Rovingpatrol's Blog

Media Wouldn’t Cover For Anyone Else, Why Cover For Obama?

Posted in politics by roving on January 8, 2009

McCain is asked to show his birth certificate so he forks out the 12 bucks and produces it. Obama on the other hand forks out $800,000+ not to.

Radio talk shows refuse to discuss the issue. The news media pretends nothing unusual is going on even though there are 18+ lawsuits in the pipeline along with some at the supreme court.

If this was  McCain, the media would be all over it. If this was anyone else the media would be all over it. Reporters would be dogging them asking questions like why are you unwilling to produce the documents?

This has to be one of the biggest cover-ups in history. At least the biggest attempt at a a cover-up. The media refuses to cover anything that could be troublesome for Obama. Fox News included. I used to like Fox News. No longer.

If the supreme court does their job in upholding the constitution and kicks Obama out of the presidency, how will the media cover it when they are the ones partly to blame for keeping silent since early summer. They will look foolish. More foolish then they already look.

Worldnetdaily reports Fox, CNN, and all the others refuse permission for advertising time. Planned to air this video but its only able to be seen on the web. Dontcha just love our news media trying all their might to keep everyone in the dark? WHY??


2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. CRIS ERICSON said, on January 8, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    The Certification of Live Birth, the SHORT FORM that Obama’s campaign put out, shows that it was Revised (Rev. 11/01) and that may mean that he had an immigration naturalization hearing after SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 and requested changes because he may have been born inbetween Kenya and Hawaii when his mother went into Labor, HE MAY HAVE BEEN BORN IN SAUDI ARABIA OR IRAN in an airline flight stop-over.

    The Certification of Live Birth that Obama’s campaign put out, shows in the lower right hand corner [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19] and you can read Hawaii Revised Statutes and federal law
    HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, 338-17 and 338-18 and
    HRS 338-16 is a birth certificate issued one year or more after birth and/or altered, so Obama could have gotten his first Hawaii birth certificate in 2001.

    Furthermore, under 8 USCS Section 1103(a)(1) the Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and ALL OTHER LAWS (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE HAWAII HRS LAWS) relating to the immigration and naturalization of ALIENS.

    Under 8 USCS Section 1229(a) Obama could have had an Alien naturalization hearing AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 under HRS 338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when (1) a new birth certificate shall be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to Law (5) request of a Law enforcement agency (DOJ in charge of immigration and naturalization) certifying that a new birth certificate showing
    different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant.

    WHY WOULD OBAMA’S SAFETY BE IN QUESTION after September 11, 2001 any different than anyone else, UNLESS his mother actually gave birth to him inbetween Kenya and Hawaii as suggested by the Certification of Live Birth which states the Date of Birth August 4, 1961 and the Date the birth was filed with the Registrar Aug. 8, 1961 so that Obama may have been born when his mother went into labor after leaving Kenya and in a stop-over airport
    in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

    which is subject to the requirements of 338-16, 338-17 and 338-18. HRS 338-16 (a) birth certificate registered more than one year after birth AND/OR ALTERED!

  2. Ted said, on January 9, 2009 at 2:13 am

    Obama can’t be POTUS.

    Since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress, rendering moot both the Berg and Lightfoot cases, Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

    Checkmate! (WHERE IS THE NEWS MEDIA?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: