A Question To My Gullible Colleagues by Joseph Farrah
I've been getting static from my journalistic colleagues for more than two years because I believe someone assuming the office of the presidency should have to prove he or she is constitutionally eligible – nothing more, nothing less.
What everyone from Bill O'Reilly to Anderson Cooper say is that I'm some kind of lunatic nutjob for pursuing said story.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, your opinion means a lot more if you are willing to stake your reputation on it.
And I actually think we are nearing a potential resolution to this debate in the not-too-distant future.
So, I'd like to offer a challenge to the following members of the media establishment – and any others who care to take me up on it. If you are so sure this obsessive paper chase of mine is nothing more than some kind of gimmick or fantasy with no basis in reality, I have one simple question for you all to answer on the record, publicly, on your show or in your columns. And I'm throwing down the gauntlet to O'Reilly, Cooper, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, Glenn Beck of Fox News, Keith Olbermann, now, apparently, of what I call "AlGorezeera," Brian Williams of NBC, Shepherd Smith of Fox News, David Gregory of NBC and Chris Matthews of MSNBC.
Newest WND bumper sticker gets to the heart of eligibility matter: "NO BC / NO DC"
Here's the key question I propose they answer – on the record: "If it is someday discovered that Barack Obama is not a 'natural born citizen,' or that he deceived the American public about the details of his birth or parentage and engaged in a deliberate cover-up of those facts, would you agree to resign your position, publicly apologize to those less gullible colleagues you smeared and look for a new line of work?"
Do you think any of them are so cocksure about their position that they would take up that challenge?
Yet, if they really believe the preponderance of evidence makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama has proven his eligibility, you have to ask yourself, "Why not?"
I think they're gambling on this issue never being resolved.
I think they are engaged in protecting their own reputations for missing what could be the biggest story of the decade. After all, if some pipsqueak news agency like WND were to scoop the entire media establishment, how would that look to the rest of the world?
I think they genuinely fear they've blown it already, but hope the story just goes away.
I think they are engaged in vilifying and ridiculing all those who take the Constitution seriously because they didn't.
I think they know they didn't just miss a big story, but were actively engaged in covering it up.
I think it scares the heck out of them that 58 percent of the American public doesn't believe them after all they've tried to do to discredit the questions about Obama's origins and his life story.
I think it scares them even more that 58 percent of the American people are with me on this.
Of course, I can issue the challenge from my podium – and I just have. But I want to encourage everyone reading this column to issue the challenges to your favorite media star.
How do you think they would respond?
Again, we're approaching judgment day.
When is that?
It will come in 2012, if not sooner, when Obama decides whether or not to seek re-election knowing certain states will require real proof of eligibility before he can get back on the ballot – even as a sitting president.
Until then, I'll bide my time without expectations that any of them will decide to stake his or her reputation on Obama's word alone.
And I'll continue to pursue the truth without too much concern over what they say about me or their unwillingness to discuss or probe seriously a matter of constitutional integrity.
Please point and laugh at this shit!