A reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent in this criticism:
Mr. March, You linked the video of Hillary Clinton having what has been referred to as an 'outburst' on your site, yet, you did not explain the context. You omitted the truth and presented the situation as another crazy Clinton moment. You not only misportrayed the situation, you lost an opportunity to share/address the plight of women who have no rights in their country. I have been a long time reader of your March Report and have shared the Report with many people. I wrote to you addressing the Clinton video and have seen no retraction or explanation. I won't be referring anyone to this page anymore. My belief and trust that you maintain objectivity and research all sides has been permanently altered recently. Consevative or not, you have always seemed to work at being fair and true to journalism. I now am seeing you differently.
Robert Jay March Responds:
This reader has mischaracterized the report. In fact, we went out of way to add clarity to the situation. The copy proved by WMAQ-TV, the televsion station which provide the report through one of our syndicators, said "A Congolese university student seems to presume that Bill Clinton's opinion is more important than the current Secretary of State's." In order to portray the situation accurately, we rewrote the copy to read as follows (emphasis added): "As a result of a translator's error, a Congolese university student appears to presume that Bill Clinton's opinion is more important than the current Secretary of State's. Hillary explodes, and hilarity ensues. Oh, those wacky, wacky Clintons." That was all the information that was available on August 11, 2009, when we ran the story. Witty retort aside, we went out of our way to clarify the report. Further details from the State Department and the White House did not become available until the following day.
Another reader, who wish to be referred to by the nom de plume "Needles," has an unusual take on the Certifi-Gate crisis:
The birthers need to step back and consider the consequences of their actions. If Mr. Obama were to be declared ineligible, there are several possible outcomes. They could remove him from office and install Joe Biden as President. The argument would be made that if Mr. Obama was not eligible to run for President, then the ticket is invalid as well and Joe Biden should not be Vice President. The next person in the order of succession would be Speaker of the House; Nancy Pelosi. Because no eligible candidate received a majority of electoral votes, the selection of the President could be thrown into the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would then be king-maker. The choices are Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or someone Nancy Pelosi picks. Maybe it is best to leave the birth certificate matter alone.
Robert Jay March Responds:
Mr. Obama being declared ineligible does not legally invalidate Biden's election, provided he is qualified. Even if it did, the Constitution is too important to ignore; it is all that separates us from tyranny. Regardless of the consequences, if in fact Mr. Obama is ineligible, he must be removed. That said, all we have thus far is the preponderance of evidence leading to a likely conclusion, not conclusive facts. That is why the revelation of the long-form birth certificate is so important.
Finally, a third reader who wish to be referred to by the nom de plume "unihawker," writes:
Dear Mr. March, I was watching TV the other night and they showed a clip of Obama in Kenya during his trip there during the campaign. I am not sure if it was just some Freudian slip or not, but he said as he was waiving to the people greeting him, "Thank you, it is great to be back home". My question was, If he was not born in that country why would he call it home?
Robert Jay March Responds:
Good question, for which I have no answer. If this report is correct, it is yet another contribution to the preponderance of evidence that implies Mr. Obama is ineligible. A copy of the long form birth certificate would cost Mr. Obama $12; thus far he has spent $1.3 Million to avoid producing it. As in any investigation, follow the money: in this case, what money is being spent on to conceal.
If you'd like to send a rant or a rave, please click here. You may also comment on stories we have run, using this method, or reply to the comments of others.
Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://marchreport.com/20090817.html#rant-rave
BACK ISSUE: This is the March Report issue for Thursday, January 14, 2010. To access today's issue, click HERE
Stories in Today's Issue
Graphic At The Start Of The Index Entry and Story Title.
MARCH REPORT PODCAST
Recorded Monday, January 11, 2010
