Mark:
As a courtesy to a person whose intellect and “smarts” I respect and admire, I am copying you my humble “exposé” of this mediocre, unconditional spokesman for the Libturds.

davidcay:

You, sir, are not a serious or even a relatively
unbiased columnist (then again, I do know that most newspapers have eliminated the distinction between informing the news and editorializing them; that’s why they have lost their smart readership and are going bankrupt).

Your lack of professional integrity and intellectual honesty is evidenced by the fact that you claim in your posts here that
[Hillary] “…. has been more thoroughly vetted than anyone else running for president in the last several decades.” That could conceivably be accepted as a fact if we added the words “… and discredited”. But (BIG BUT) immediately after that, you proceed to seamlessly (and shamelessly), utilize your just stated premise to reach the following WHOPPER corollary:
“Obama has also been thoroughly vetted.”

Saying that Obama was, or is now (way belatedly) being “thoroughly vetted” constitutes an OBSCENE, shameless and indecent LIE that hides the FACT that Obama has way MORE TO EXPLAIN than what could conceivably be revealed in Trump’s answers to your 21 (obviously biased and with an
agenda) “questions”.

Mr. Johnston, your intellectual dishonesty and your crude attempts to reach false conclusions from “iffy” (at best)
premises can not even be attributed to ignorance. I know YOU know better.

Mr. Johnston, sir, your dishonesty stands bare for everybody to see.

Shame, shame on you.

davidcay:
Let me quote “Mike” (see below) to answer in a short way your long diatribe:
“HRC has been laughably vetted.. Obama was never vetted. Still has not been.”
You, sir, stand corrected.

davidcay:

You, sir, are not a serious or even a relatively unbiased columnist (then again, I do know that most newspapers have eliminated the distinction between informing the news and editorializing them; that’s why they have lost their smart readership and are going bankrupt).

Your lack of professional integrity and intellectual honesty is evidenced by the fact that you claim in your posts here that [Hillary] “…. has been more thoroughly vetted than anyone else running for president
in the last several decades.” That could conceivably be accepted as a fact if we added the words “… and discredited”. But (BIG BUT) immediately after that, you proceed to seamlessly (and shamelessly), utilize your just stated premise to reach the following WHOPPER corollary:
“Obama has also been thoroughly vetted.”

Saying that Obama was, or is now (way belatedly) being “thoroughly vetted” constitutes an OBSCENE, shameless and indecent LIE that hides the FACT that Obama has way MORE TO EXPLAIN than what could conceivably be revealed in Trump’s answers to your 21 (obviously biased and with an agenda) “questions”.

Mr. Johnston, your intellectual dishonesty and your crude attempts to reach false conclusions from “iffy” (at best) premises can not even be attributed to ignorance. I know YOU know better.

Mr. Johnston, sir, your dishonesty stands bare for everybody to see.

Shame, shame on you.

david:
Your lack of integrity shows more than ever:

1) I know, of course, what “vet” means. And yet, any “reported (actually aborted) column” “journalist” who claims that Obama has been vetted, without making even a passing reference to all of his shady and suspicious background and glaringly MISSING information, is, at best, a mediocre journalist, and, at worst, an intellectually, morally and professionally dishonest HACK.

2) In your fanaticism, you state that: “Your assertion that Mrs. Clinton has not been vetted has exactly zero basis, as I showed with facts.” This assertion is baseless. I did not say that. I said that about your “boss” Obama. You again try to “twist” the discussion so that your lack of integrity doesn’t appear so obvious.

3) Your intellectual and professional dishonesty is again manifested when you create the illusion of objectivity towards Obama by saying that “do you know who the first national journalist was to sharply criticize his administration in what turned out to be a spot-on dissection of a policy problem published just nine days after his inauguration? http://bit.ly/1bVnt9g“.

Contrary to other posters here, I did read your completely innocuous “article” in which you blandly criticize NOT OBAMA, but his White House Press Office during the beginning days of his administration.
David, how do you dare cite that little, harmless and innocuous piece of “offended journalism” as being “SHARPLY” critical of Obama’s Administration?
Shows your lack of respect towards your readers.

4) Do your “reporting technique and ethics” include claiming that Obama was properly vetted by informing us of his “…selection for the most prestigious law student position in America,” WITHOUT mentioning that his application to Harvard and his Harvard records were literally SEALED by him??

5) Do your “reporting technique and ethics” include (correctly) claiming that Obama taught “…. Constitutional law at one of our best law schools…” WITHOUT mentioning the inconvenient FACT that he has disrespected and blatantly IGNORED that very same Constitution he swore to defend??

David, again, your dishonesty stands bare for everybody to see. You are just another Obama un-conditional.

Shame, shame on you.

Columnist “Corrector” here,
Mr. Cay Johnston, do enjoy your life in the fantasy world you inhabit where whatever you assert, even with limited, partial, and contradictory “proof”, must be so and whoever disagrees with you must be wrong.

May you come to realize that the “power of the pen” comes with certain pre-ordained responsibilities.

May you come to realize that the “power of the mind” should be directed to seek and expose the truth, the WHOLE truth, wherever that leads you.

May you come to realize that life is not all white or black; that it is your duty to find in each and every instance the “shade” of gray where “the truth” is positioned, and that such “shade of gray” will not reveal itself to you until you explore, find, and expose the WHOLE TRUTH.

May you come to realize that an honest journalist, one “worth his salt”, bears a DOUBLE burden: to pursue/investigate/find/expose/divulge the WHOLE truth, AND to disseminate this truth to the masses, which, by definition of the word “masses”, do not possess the level of education, “smarts” and/or sophistication that has been conferred on him or her.

Finally, may you realize that the undersigned, though possessing a set of values diametrically opposed to yours, wishes you the best.

Columnist here…

Well, let’s look at this from your POV, Mark T.

So arguendo — that is, for the sake of the argument –let’s assume you are right and what you imagine as the “liberal” news media failed to vet Obama. That is provable nonsense, but for the sake of the argument…

So what of Murdoch’s vast, well-funded news operations — Fox, The Wall Street Journal, and the NYPost, as well as his Australian and British newspapers?

What of the Republican party? Or GOP funders? What of Donald Trump? Trump says he says he sent professional researchers — he said they were very expert — to Hawaii to investigate Obama’s birth.

For what you wrote to have ANY basis in fact you must be asserting that none of these organizations made a critical inquiry into Obama’s past. But they did (with the possible exception of Trump, a man who has admitted under oath he lacks fidelity to facts). So Obama was in fact vetted.

The facts show that a lot of claims have been made about Obama, but no one has produced any actual evidence of these claims, such as that he was born in Kenya or was a practicing Muslim or anything else. (Also, see our Constitution at Article VI.)

There are the comments by a grandmother who claims she witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya (a country Obama first saw as an adult). If you believe that is dispositive I guess you never heard of someone in a poor country (or even our country) making up a story to make themselves seem more important….Really are you that gullible?

It is neither logical, no rational, to assert that no one with resources checked him out. Have you read any of the critical books on Obama? Do you see any actual evidence showing he is anything but who and what he says he is? I see lots of assertions, but no verifiable facts.

Reporters have interviewed women he dated or just knew in college and law school, as well as classmates from his childhood. One book even includes reporting on his love letters to girlfriends in his 20s. His attendance at schools in Indonesia when he was very small and in Hawaii from age 10 (fifth grade) on are well documented. (Janny Scott’s book is rich with details about his grammar school days in Indonesia, a good example of vetting by some you might regard as a liberal reporter, though I consider her as straight and solid as they come.)

His birth was promptly reported by competing newspapers which got their information from routine reports released by the Honolulu hospital where he as born.

He taught Constitutional law for 12 years at one of the best law schools in the country and some of his students have been interviewed about his skill as a teacher.

He certainly met Bill Ayers and worked with him on school reform — through a well-known mainstream
private foundation that was no secret. But again, so what. I have spent long hours of my life with a crooked cops (and with honest cops whose careers I helped save), drug dealers, revolutionaries, and even a hit man. So what?

Like Louis Allen you confuse “vet” with your desire to have Obama discredited.

But if there were any actual discrediting material don’t you think Murdoch’s people would have reported it? Or do you think Murdoch, Fox and the WSJ are also part of some imagined refusal to investigate Obama?

What of Trump? If Trump actually had anything on Obama why would he not produce it? (Of course this assumes Trump actually sent investigators to Hawaii. On that, I have seen zero evidence.)

And then there are the people who detest Obama and have vast fortunes to finance inquiries into him — Sheldon Adelson, Foster Freiss, etc. If they had anything do you think they would hold back? Why? And if in fact all these opponents of Obama have stuff but are not putting it out there what does that tell you about their integrity?

If you actually have any facts (not innuendo) discrediting Obama then produce it. We should know about it – and by your own standard you should not hide any facts you may have.

So you got any verifiable facts?

Columnist here…(not reporter)

I’ll bet the quotes below from the president will really upset
you, especially describing the prophet Mohammed as a “sober inquirer after truth.”

— “There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”

— “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.”

— “The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in
effect, to hijack Islam itself.”

By the way, none of those come from Obama. The first is from President John Adams, the rest from President George W. Bush.

Some of the remarks you attribute to Obama are flat out untrue, others are taken wildly out of context and some are statements of fact with which any human being should agree (“Islam has always been a part of America”) because
they are mere statements of fact. As for that last quote, Muslims have served in the American military since the Battle
of Concord and the first nation to recognize the United States was Morocco, a Muslim country.

See snopes.com for a superb example for a quote you cite that is taken out of context. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslimfaith.asp

And then consider this. I got the email that attributed to Obama a quote you use above: “I will stand
with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly
direction.”

Now let’s see, in context, what he actually wrote. At Page 261 of Obama’s 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, he wrote about the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans,
including native-born Americans, during World War II (Italians and Germans were not rounded up) as follows:

* * * * * * * * * *

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and
belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons
from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
* * * * * * * * *

Obama was clearly indicating he would
oppose any effort to round people up as happened in WW2.
I hope that you would endorse that as well. Obama was expressing fundamental ideals of our Constitution and our nation – and, of course, our government has formally apologized and made partial recompense for its wrongdoing against Japanese-Americans.

Here is another quote, in this case taken out of context by you:

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world–including in my own country.”

I don’t have any problem with that quote and cannot fathom any rational reason you or anyone else would, either. It is a statement of fact. It is accurate.

But let’s look at the quote in context – in this case ensuring Turkey will continue to help us militarily at a time when popular opposition to American involvement
was rising in that country. The remarks were made during
Obama’s first overseas trip where he spoke in April 2009 to the Turkish parliament. He makes a passing reference to the roughly 33 months he lived in Indonesia between the ages of six and ten:

* * * * * * *
Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now we must achieve our goals together. I appreciate that you’ve offered to help us train and support Afghan security forces, and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know
that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.

So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is
not, and will never be, at war with Islam. (Applause.)

In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not
just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.

I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the
Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism.

We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground.

We will be respectful, even when we do not agree.

We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith,
which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them. (Applause.)

Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our
commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals.

Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.

There’s an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire
with flames.” America knows this. Turkey knows this.

There’s some who must be met by force — they will not
compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-turkish-parliament

* * * * * *

Nothing in those comments, in context, should trouble you and a great deal of it should comfort you to know that we have a President who wants to maintain strong ties with our allies, especially Turkey, a country that like the United States has a secular government.

Finally, my point was and is that in fact Obama, and Mrs., Clinton, have been thoroughly examined. But if you have actual facts – verifiable in context facts – that are not in the public record you should bring them forth. Your words indicate you do not have any, just your animus, which your own words show is based on false premises.

To conservatives, the verb “to vet” means “to disparage” or “trash.”

This is why they believe that no one ever vets Democrats.