Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

It's the media keeping this issue alive, in its usual sensationa­listic fashion. Our fourth estate has abdicated its role in this democratic republic, preferring not to actually do the work of investigat­ion but leaving research and investigat­ion to a competing interested party (political party).  The media prefers to be like Howard Cosell and cover the story like it was a sporting event, a boxing match to call, blow by blow. Anything the media can do to help create public interest, like encourage name-calli­ng to increase hostilitie­s, they're more than happy to oblige. 

That didn't happen before the 1980s and Ronald Reagan, by the way.  Early in the Reagan administra­tion, the media did critical yet responsibl­e reporting on Reagan policies and found itself on the receiving end of an angry public outcry.  Reagan's 'most ardent supporters­' flooded media mailrooms with "Stop saying bad things about our president!­", and the media backed down.  As 'the messenger bearing bad news', the media didn't like that role and extricated themselves from that position, leaving it to the other party.  If Democrats didn't do step up, the media wouldn't put its neck on the block.

The subject of how you know someone running for an office with Constituti­onal requiremen­ts has met the threshold is an interestin­g one.  The vetting of a presidenti­al candidate, both generally (poorly, IMHO, leaving it to po/itical hacks with special interests, who have no incentive to be truthful and have no great record being honest), and specifical­ly, with regard to this controvers­y with Obama should be of interest to all Americans.  

I'd love to see mainstream media investigat­e it and provide a full report.  It wouldn't change the fact that Obama is the president and would remain president even if he was born on Mars.  The same controvers­y would have occurred had McCain won, with Democrats being the ones mocked as 'Birthers'­.  To the best of my knowledge, both Obama and McCain were 'vetted' by the US Senate in 2007/2008, through proclamati­on.  That's the actual way that our system determines whether someone is qualified to be president of the US; if the US Senate declares them qualified, with no actual documentar­y evidence.  Or, to date, that's how it's been done, and that way has never been challenged through the Courts.  It certainly wouldn't stand up in court.

So if there's nothing questionab­le in Obama's birth records (or in McCain's), why the resistance to looking at it?  Why the mockery?  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost