IS SHE A REAL JOURNALIST, OR AN IMPOSTOR?
December 31, 2010
The following email was sent to Megyn Kelly of Fox News in response to her recent coverage of those questioning Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president:
From: David LaRocque
Sent: Thu 12/30/10 3:18 PM
I was looking forward to your coverage of the birther issue this morning in connection with Gov. Abercrombie’s recent call for the release of Obama’s original Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
I am sorry to say that I was extremely disappointed and even disgusted by your performance. You parroted the same old falsehoods concerning Obama’s nativity story, and referred to the outrageous forgery of the so-called “certification of live birth” posted on the Obama-controlled web sites as if this were a legally-admissible document. Surely you must have recognized by now that such a document, even if it were real and physically accessible (rather than a digitally-manipulated image) and not defective by virtue of the redaction of the document number, it would not be accepted for any official purpose (i.e., an application for a driver’s license or a passport, or entry into military service).
Moreover, the problems with the reliability of Hawaiian birth documents are by now legendary, as is the complete and total absence of any confirming evidence supporting Obama’s claim of Hawaiian birth (such as contemporary witnesses or hospital records) other than the virtually worthless Honolulu newspaper “birth announcements.”
With your background as an attorney, I expected much more from you. This was anything but a “fair and balanced” presentation. It looked and sounded more like the smug ridicule we have learned to expect from MSNBC and CNN.
Megyn, I have learned to respect you for your intelligence and your capacity for independent thought. You are clearly capable of covering this story properly, but this piece was not it.
I feel that the American people are owed a serious effort by someone on Fox News to cover this story seriously, in a fair and balanced way, and with integrity. All it would take would be a careful reading of one or more of the briefs filed in the Barnett case (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), or the Kerchner, Rhodes, and Hollister cases (U.S. Supreme Court), followed by a serious attempt to address the points raised in those cases. Such an analysis would almost certainly lead any unbiased reader to the unavoidable conclusion that there is a very high probability that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve in the office of President of the United States in accordance with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
There are so many disturbing facts and serious unanswered questions raised in these briefs that no amount of obfuscation and ridicule by your leftist guests can disguise their increasingly desperate fear of the truth.
Megan Kelly – it is way past time for this story to be covered properly in the media. The otherwise proud reputation of Fox News is stained by the memory of Bill O’Reilly bloviating to the effect that he had “seen Obama’s birth certificate.” We all know this was a lie because no birth certificate has ever been produced.
If I were you, I could not live with myself after participating in the intellectual dishonesty which characterized your performance in today’s piece. I think you owe your listeners something more, and very soon.
David F. LaRocque
Captain, TWA (ret)
CDR USNR (ret)
A second letter to Kelly is as follows: