Since my article regarding the blow-by-blow account of the Georgia hearing on Obama’s eligibility to appear on that state’s ballot, one question has surfaced more than any other. This is a question which has been posed to me via social media, email and within the nearly 600 comments on that article.
The question is a simple one and a valid one.
Why has there been no media coverage of this?
Clearly, it’s a story.
A sitting President gets subpoenaed. Story.
A sitting President’s ability to be on a state’s ballot at risk. Story.
A sitting president’s attempt to dismiss the case denied. Story.
A sitting president ignores the subpoena. Story.
A sitting President’s attorney sends letter to Georgia Sec. of State saying he won’t participate. Story.
Sec. of State says don’t participate at your own risk. Story.
Hearing takes place, witnesses testify and evidence is presented with no refute from Sitting President’s attorney. Story.
NO MEDIA COVERAGE??? Story.
First, let’s have a look at the media.
The alphabet networks, also known as the mainstream or elite media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC etc. are all in the can for Obama or in his pocket. We all know that.
Why would they all of a sudden cover a story so potentially harmful to the guy who sends shivers up their collective legs?
This is the media arm of the Obama administration after all. These are the very people who refused to vet candidate Obama and anointed him their supreme leader. They went all in. They shielded Obama during the campaign, they have provided cover during his 3 years in office, they’ve been outwardly dismissive of any mention of his eligibility, they’ve labeled any who question it as nuts, mobs, terrorists, and worse.
At this point, when it actually gains a hearing before a judge and neither Obama nor his attorney show up even under subpoena, why would they now lend credibility to it?