IF JOURNOLIST MEMBERS CONSPIRED TO HIDE JEREMIAH WRIGHT FROM THE PUBLIC, WHAT ELSE DID THEY HIDE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 24, 2010) — As progressives attempt to effect damage control over the Journolist scandal, a member of the Obama/Biden campaign has been found to have been a member of the online group which conspired to cover Obama’s failings and questionable associations as well as label those opposed to him “racists.”
Ironically, above the photo of Jared Bernstein, who was an Obama campaign adviser, is a rotating advertisement by Google which at times presents the question, “Where is Barack Obama’s real birth place?” However, when the reader attempts to “vote” for either “USA” or “Abroad,” he is taken to a completely different poll regarding Obama’s intentions on Iran and is never given the opportunity to weigh in on the birthplace question. Google has checked off the box next to “USA.”
Google is evidently aware of the controversy as to whether or not Obama is a “natural born Citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president but does not expound on the matter.
Bernstein described his position on Journolist as a “surrogate,” which appears to have violated the first rule set forth by Journolist founder Ezra Klein. Another report states that Peter Orszag, who recently departed the Obama regime, was also a member.
The Journolist organization has been described as a group of liberal journalists and others from the world of acadème who “appeared to veer towards collusion, from how to protect Barack Obama to how to tar conservative critics.” It appears that their “counterstrategy” was to label opponents “racists” when there is actually evidence that Obama himself is a racist. Eric Holder, faux attorney general under Obama, refused to prosecute the New Black Panther members who advocate “killing white babies.”
A Los Angeles Times headline openly admits that Google “employees supported Obama and four Googlers served on his transition team. Now the Internet giant hopes to win support for so-called network neutrality and expanding high-speed Internet access.”
Further, the article, dated January 24, 2009, begins with:
Another inauguration took place in Washington this week — Google Inc. officially became a political power player.
In October, Google was only hours from being sued by the Justice Department as a Web-search monopolist. Today, less than three years after it made its first Washington hire, the Internet giant is poised to capitalize on its backing of President Obama and pursue its agenda in the nation’s capital.
So that it could “gain greater access to China’s fast-growing market,” in 2006, Google had no problem filtering information in compliance with the Communist Chinese government, aka “the authorities.”
In October 2008, the Los Angeles Times refused to release video footage of a dinner held for Palestinian supporter Rashid al-Khalidi during which Obama allegedly had been “bashing Jews and Israel.” One well-known blogger states that al-Khalidi was “best friends with Bill Ayers.” In April 2008, The Los Angeles Times covered the al-Khalidi-Obama relationship here. However, two short paragraphs from the article are a mild indication of where Obama actually stood:
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
Several Journolists advocated “government power” being utilized to “take down Fox News,” which is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Several journalists condemned George Stephanopoulos of ABC News for asking Obama during a debate, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” According to The Daily Caller, journalists from Salon, The UK Guardian, The Politico, Time, and The Huffington Post all expressed outrage over “how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.”
An alleged partial list of participants in Journolist is here.
Rev. Wright was Obama’s pastor at Trinity United Church for 20 years and gained notoriety during the 2008 presidential campaign by his anti-American rhetoric. However, The New York Times failed to report Wright’s incendiary remarks in a piece apparently intended to convince the reader of Obama’s Christian faith, while ABC News presented more balanced coverage. even when he stated that his faith was “Muslim” to George Stephanopoulos in an interview shortly before the election.
Journalists have become so slipshod in their reporting that at times, their sentences make no sense and they are unable to spell. Perhaps they are too eager to destroy anyone working to uncover Obama’s birthplace and other related information which could determine his eligibility to be president. “Journalist” Martin Wisckol of The Orange County Register injected his contempt for Dr. Orly Taitz when he reported her alleged request to verify the signature of Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas when he made the statement that “an editor” commented to him, “She should ask for his birth certificate while she’s at it.”
Mr. Wisckol obviously did not contact Taitz regarding her motion. The Post & Email did, and Taitz told us that she not only questioned the signature of Justice Clarence Thomas but also appealed to Chief Justice John Roberts regarding the sanctions, something Taitz mentioned on her website but which the writer conveniently did not. Wisckol also apparently used the word “approval” instead of “denial,” which Taitz told us appeared on the Supreme Court docket eventually.
Taitz stated that if necessary, she would appeal to each Supreme Court justice in turn, “all nine of them if I have to.” Dr. Taitz also told us that last week, she had checked the Supreme Court website for a response from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas but found none as of Friday, July 16, but that on Saturday, she began to receive comments on her website that a denial had been posted, backdated to July 15. Taitz told The Post & Email that she thought it strange that a decision from anyone on the Supreme Court would be posted on a Saturday and questioned whether or not Thomas had actually reviewed her appeal.
Wikipedia is arguably more objective about Orly Taitz than is so-called “journalist” Martin Wisckol.
Regarding her case against Damon Dunn, Republican candidate for California Secretary of State, Taitz told us that she filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court on July 14, and later that same day, the court’s Chief Justice resigned and her appeal was denied. Because her filing was over 100 pages long, she doubted that the chief justice, who tendered his resignation the same day it was filed, would have had time to read it, yet a decision was still rendered.
Rather than find out the facts, the Orange County Register is too preoccupied with being sarcastic and producing stories such as “How to Predict an Earthquake with a Donut,” and “Five Things we’ll Miss the Most about Star Tours” while, Obama, Congress, the courts and government employees continue to dismantle our freedoms and way of life guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution by passing crippling banking restrictions with more government oversight and ability to interfere in private institutions, health care mandates and rationing, and government-funded abortion.
Breaking news today is that Anita MonCrief will file an FEC complaint against the Obama campaign for “illicit coordination” with ACORN. MonCrief is in possession of his campaign donor list and claims that The New York Times turned down publishing her story before the election, stating that it would be a “game-changer” for Obama if they did. MonCrief claims that ACORN conducted and admitted to a “massive push” for Obama in 2008 instead of fulfilling its purported role of a “non-partisan” organization.