In light of numbing revelations over the last several days concerning fraudulent statements on Barack Obama's resume, this piece of information curiously comes to light. The White House has instructed the 'mainstream media' not to report what they may discover.
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The White House directive was issued as part of a deal struck between the Office of the President and reporters of the mainstream media.
In exchange for being given unprecedented access to Barack Obama, reporters would promise not to report 'certain matters' they may discover while covering the President.
What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories -- or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.
What, exactly, is meant by 'things learned?' What information could a journalist uncover while having close access to the President that would be deemed so damaging, embarrassing, or even worse, that the White House is exhibiting a near-paranoia in making sure such information is not reported?
And more importantly, why would any true journalist who is worth his/her salt agree to such a scheme?
Clemons believes that part of the reason is that some reporters who cover the White House want to write books about Obama.
A 'sell-out' to the dreaded Capitalism on the part of liberals? Say it ain't so.
The agreement between the White House and reporters is mutually beneficial. The White House gets what it wants. Any information that it considers to be negative or damaging to Obama will not be reported. The reporters also get what they want--unprecedented access to the President of the United States, which will help their careers and eventually earn them millions in book royalties.
In the meantime, what are the citizens not being told about Barack Obama?
There is more, however.
Questions are swirling as to how Barack Obama was admitted to Harvard Law School and hired as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School. The charge is that they were forced into it by someone or something outside the schools themselves.
These allegations involve the CIA. And that raises even more troublesome questions concerning the background of Barack Obama.
Did the CIA use Barack Obama as an operative during the late 1970s and early 80s due to the fact that he knew the language of those in the middle of wars involving the USSR, as well as those engaged in terrorism against the United States, in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? Did he discover something during those years that he is now holding over the heads of certain persons in the U.S. government?
And was his admission to Harvard and his hiring as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School the pay-off for his having served the CIA overseas? Was it the CIA that forced Obama upon Harvard and Chicago?
Or is there yet another 'sinister force' behind all of these mysterious scenarios?
H/t to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.
For commentary on the issues of the day, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.