Sometimes it's possible to spot a camouflaged animal not by watching for motion but by doing just the opposite: watching for motionlessness. Skilled birdwatchers might notice for instance, that all but two reed stems seem to be blowing in the breeze and correctly guess that those "stems" actually are the legs of a heron that's trying to hide.
Journalists traditionally acted as pointers - highly skilled birddogs constantly watching candidates in a political campaign to let us know where they are. But those birddogs quietly stopped using their left paws and now expose only candidates to their right.
Members of the traditional liberal news media still moderate most presidential debates, control the wire services, publish most of the large city newspapers, and influence most television news reporting. They also send investigators to rummage through (conservative) candidates' garbage cans and sometimes even spy illegally on private citizens such as (conservative) plumbers. Especially in this campaign, they practice unethical selective reporting to cloak their chosen candidate in a camouflage shroud, letting him hide from voters whenever convenient.
So voters now must become clever birdwatchers, spotting the positions of the liberal candidate because the pointers no longer are reliable. And, as in bird watching, motionlessness sometimes can be a key giveaway.
Take, for example, the final presidential debate. What didn't we see there that we expected to see? The MSM moderator asked no questions about abortion, gun control, or property rights. From that, we can conclude correctly that Obama is especially weak on those issues because asking him to explain his positions on them would have cost him votes.
Or why did Obama remain motionless when his US citizenship was challenged in court? Obama did not respond with the documentation demanded by the suit, yet it should have been easy to produce if he has nothing to hide.
Why the mysterious silence? Once again, it's not what we saw, but what we didn't see that causes suspicion.
Another example: no records of his terms in the Illinois State Senate exist. “I don’t have archivists in the state senate," he said. Millions of small business owners wish they could use this same excuse when it comes to governmental agencies.
Then there's Obama's missing academic paper trail. His transcripts from Occidental College and Columbia University have not been released. And where is his professional opus? How could a past president of the Harvard Law Review and 11-year lecturer at the influential University of Chicago law school have not one single article, published talk, book review, or comment of any kind appear anywhere in the professional legal literature under his name? And for a magna cum laude law school graduate, Obama also seems to be missing even a basic understanding of law:
"[During my first hundred days in office] I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.
Do we beer-drinking (and allegedly racist) plumbers and other civilians have to remind the former president of the Harvard Law Review that only the Supreme Court can overturn a law? Could Obama be that inexplicably ignorant of constitutional law? Or is he already mentally presiding over his vision of a "post-constitutional" America?
We all misspeak from time to time, but Obama's apparent legal illiteracy goes on and on, as in this story: Does Obama Know What He's Talking About? Now, the Los Angeles Times still refuses to release an incriminating 2003 videotape of Obama praising an anti-Zionist while schmoozing with fellow radicals. Would those of you that still have the temerity to call yourselves journalists please strip away Obama's camouflage so we finally can see what we're voting for? What are you hiding?