Skip to comments."Born In Kenya": The Media Doth Protest Too Much, Pt. 2
Posted on 05/18/2012 10:09:28 AM PDT by kreitzer
"Born in Kenya": The Media Doth Protest Too Much, Pt. 2 May 18
Written by: Diana West Friday, May 18, 2012 8:05 AM
Again -- as in the case of yesterday's breaking news from Breitbart News that Obama's literary agency bio described him as "born in Kenya" -- the equally fascinating story is the media relationship with this new piece of evidence.
To be sure, the appearance of the "born in Kenya" bio raises more questions than it answers. Who provided the original information? Was it all a "simple mistake," as the agency's booklet editor Miriam Goderich now claims? Was it even a mistake?
We have no idea -- yet. With Breitbart following the story today, however, we now know from a fellow client of the agency, Steve Boman, that he was asked to provide his own bio; we also now know through Internet archives that this Obama "born in Kenya" bio stood in the agency website and client list for 16 years -- until two months after Obama declared himself a candidate for president in in 2007. Suddenly, "born in Kenya" changed to "born in Hawaii."
Again, these reports leave multiple questions unanswered -- questions the media have long proven themselves unwilling to ask or even entertain. Since Barack Obama himself has failed to be forthcoming in any way with bona fide paper documents attesting to his basic identity -- sorry, the manipulated computer imagery he has posted at the White House website is evidence only of fraud -- what is required is a Congressional committee with the necessary subpoena power to prove the President's origins and eligibility once and for all.
Brietbart News, meanwhile, needs to allow its better news judgment, which drove it to publish the report in the first place, to steady itself. Breitbart has released a report on a piece of evidence -- a report on a physical 1991 document which came into their hands -- that only bolsters the claims that this president's eligibility is in doubt. Breitbart is simply not responsible for protecting this president's eligibility; News organizations are responsible only to pursue the facts. This should be obvious; but our media, Left and Right, have for so long become captive to ideology that they no longer see their overriding professional responsibility.
Which is why Breitbart editors are still attaching disclaimers to their own news reports, rather than simply presenting the story only and simply so far as it is supported by the facts.
The real mystery is not where Obama was born--which has long been settled--but why Goddard failed to ask her agent a single relevant follow-up question about how the 'fact checking error' occurred in the first place.
Settled by what? Unelected websites? By whom? A selected reporter who tweeted that she ran her finger over the seal? Frankly, we still may not even know what the "real mystery" is. I think it's safe to say, however, there remains a "real mystery." It doesn't behoove any journalist to cling to the Narrative of Authority even as facts emerge which seem to undermine it.
Meanwhile, there seems to be some dire human need for a happy outcome, for a good alibi, for a perfectly rational explanation, otherwise we wouldn't see such exertions to make the few facts we know fit all best or at least better case scenarios. We seem to want more than anything else that this president be no more than a Barnum-esque exaggerator, an image manipulator, a liar, even -- but not, please-oh-Lord, ineligible. Across the pond at the Telegraph Blogs, the mindset is expressed by Tim Stanley, who is described as a "historian of the United States." Taking on the "born in Kenya" bio, Stanley writes:
Today, the President has satisfied all right-minded folk that he was in fact born in Hawaii.
For support, he actually links to the "right-minded folk" at CNN! He continues:
Breitbart.com itself has always rejected the absurd cult of birtherism.
Pat on head for Breitbart. Now, pivot:
In fact, this story is really the opposite of birtherism Breitbart infers that in the past Obama encouraged people to think that he was born abroad in order to establish an identity as an authentic, exotic voice in the debate on racial politics.
Given that the "born in Kenya" bio raises more questions than it answers, given that it substantiates the distress of those of us who are not satisfied by dodgy computer imagery to establish the i.d. of the POTUS (especially when it is so ridiculously easy for him to produce the physical documents for verification and be done with it) Breitbart isn't just "inferring" (and with Stanley's approval), Breitbart is choosing. It is choosing a narrative into which to plug this new fact. This isn't journalism. It's politics.
And what of "Birtherism"? It is a purposefully nasty-sounding term that functions, as "McCarthyism" does, to shut down not just debate but thought itself. I think we should open our eyes and realize "Birtherism" describes curiosity, undergirded by a genuine concern for rule of law, for the Constitution, for the republic itself. As a society, we have permitted such curiosity and concern to be caricatured and, in effect, taken from us by the use of a bad, bad word.
Not a good sign for liberty's future.
Michelle Obama: Kenya is Barack Obama’s homeland!
Breitbart is the “undocumented worker” of journalism: “Doing the job that lazy Americans just won’t do”.
I like Diana West a lot and her comment about the cowardly way the little Breitbart bitches cowered about ‘birthism’ was very astute also. I’ve noticed that Beitbart is not nearly as strong since Andrew passed. The current editors are weak sisters and the content has really gone downhill.
This gal continues to hit the nail on the head. She is right. Breitbart should stick to the facts and stop trying to protect themselves from the name calling that will come from the Left regardless.
It's time to go "all in". Get with it Breitbart.
I second your observation.
It’ll be the same thing when Rush passes on. EIB will cease to exist.
Exactly. Breitbart has been so cowed by polticial correctness that it must qualify what is just a straight forward, objective fact that can be touched and seen. The booklet exists. Why can’t we have an explanation of how it came to exist without the Breitbart caveats?
That doesn't hold water, because somehow he got the impression that Obama was born in Kenya, right? Maybe he didn't VERIFY that, but someone led him to believe Obama was Kenyan-born........right?
Just because Obama was born in Kenya doesn’t mean birthers aren’t crazy.
There are a lot of fact checking mistakes out there that Obama doesn’t want us to see. His presidency is a fact checking mistake.
Is there not a British Database in England somewhere of all people born in any of the British protectorates?
His OWN wife says so for pete’s sake...
The Breitbart people are scared. Like all the rest of the media. And there is good reason. The media has been threatened if they reported on this issue. The threats were serious enough that Mike Zullo, commander of Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, has said at least one informant on that threat has left the country in fear for her life and others have quit their jobs. It is reported that Glenn Beck left Fox because a Fox Board of Directors member has financial ties to George Soros (the person who made the threats to the media companies including Fox) and Fox was thus refusing to provide protection to lower-level staffers who were constantly receiving threats.
More on those threats can be seen (with links) at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2873887/posts?page=62
And Andrew Breitart fell to the ground dead in what - for all I can tell, and I’ve been trying to get input from medical people as much as possible - was a heart attack induced by arrhythmia not likely to have been caused by the 60% blockage the ME found but rather by something electrical. Which is precisely the way that a potassium chloride heart attack assassination dart works.
The only way we would know if it was induced by a poison dart is by an examination of the skin for a tiny red mark where the dart went in - and the autopsy gives no indication that his skin was ever examined for that. The 3 photos that were taken of the intact external body could not have adequately documented all the skin on the body, and the ME doesn’t mention even looking at or zooming in on those photos. His own examination of the skin was only looking for injuries and evidence of medical intervention, and the dart hole would look like a bug bite.
So basically we’ll never know whether that heart attack was naturally-induced or induced by a poison. But Breitbart fell to the ground dead less than 5 hours after telling Sheriff Joe that his evidence of fraud and forgery was good and that he was glad he was making that evidence publicly available. His death came on the same day as Arpaio’s presser and on the same day that Rush Limbaugh received a “gift” referencing 2 famous assassinations, which shook Rush up a bit and was treated as a bomb threat.
Keep in mind that Rush and Breitbart are large independent voices who could have gotten Arpaio’s evidence into the general public.
Although Rush is serviced by Clear Channel (which is most probably one of the companies that received the Soros threat), he is large enough to be able to make his own rules if he so desires. He could have reported on Arpaio’s findings and made a big deal of it. Most likely Clear Channel would have pulled him from the air if he had done so, but they would still be obliged to pay him according to their contract. So Rush was a potential way for Obama to be exposed. Seems like the bomb threat worked though, because Rush hasn’t really addressed it.
Breitbart stands on his own - had not been threatened by Soros previously - and would have been particularly credible at this point because he has poo-poohed the eligibility issue based on there not being enough evidence. But his indication to Arpaio within 5 hours of his death was that Arpaio’s evidence was convincing.
So.... on the same day as Arpaio’s presser, the 2 large independent voices who could have - and in Breitbart’s case most probably WOULD have - proclaimed Arpaio’s findings to the general public were either threatened or dead.
And now Breitbart is showing, from other clients of this company, that the protocol was to have the client write their own synopsis.
That matches what every person on FR who has any experience with this kind of publicity has also said.
IOW, if it was a “fact-checking mistake”, it was either done by Obama, or else the company actually altered what Obama sent them.
This company needs to be questioned. If they’re going to cover for Obama they should be required to fall on their swords. Enough of that, and Obama will find that somebody resists having to fall on their sword for him...
I wish Diana West would come out and say these things (C&P’ed from a post I made on the article about this which was linked to on Drudge):
Some things that should be known:
Sheriff Arpaios Cold Case Posse has found probable cause for forgery and fraud involving both Obamas long-form BC and his draft registration. Less than 5 hours after telling Arpaio that Arpaios evidence was good, Andrew Breitbart fell to the ground dead. The same day, Rush Limbaugh received a bomb threat. The MSM TO THIS DAY has not reported the EVIDENCE that Apraio presented that day.
Some interesting points from that press conference:
1. Obamas draft registration is the only one that came out of that post office at that time which lacked the first 2 digits of a 4-digit year stamp. (It has since been learned that the SSA has altered their definitions so that draft registrations can be destroyed - a move made within days of Arpaios decision to investigate Obamas BC and draft registration).
2. The layers present on the long-form BC indicate that the image never came from a single paper document. Of particular concern is the fact that the content on the BC is alterable, with changes showing in the same font as the document uses, as well as the fact that the certifying elements (the only things that are supposed to show the genuineness of a document) can actually be picked up and moved around - showing they were pasted in from a different source.
3. The newspaper birth announcements include foreign-born children and children who were 2 years old - with no way to distinguish them from genuine children born in HI on the dates given in the announcements.
4. The only 1961 records of people coming into the US from outside the country that are missing. from NARA... are those from the week Obama was supposedly born in Hawaii. NARA has no explanation for why those records are missing. (The earliest passport applications for Obamas mother are also missing - supposedly destroyed after a retention period was changed, but the required paper trail for the retention change and destruction also dont exist, and other records that should have supposedly been destroyed were not destroyed. In addition the Passport Office is required to have index cards showing all passports issued to Obamas mother, which are required to be disclosed to the public on request because she is deceased - but the Passport Office has refused to disclose those records for 2 years now).
Besides what was reported at the presser...
A. Posse commander, Mike Zullo, has confirmed that the media was threatened if they reported on the eligibility issue. This corroborates the claims of Doug Hagman, who was given a signed statement by a talk show host who said that the head of the media company told him that if he or any of his guests discussed the eligibility issue his career would be over and his life and his familys lives were questionable.
B. Since then, Bettina Viviano and another Hillary supporter in the 2008 primary have said they heard from Bill Clintons own mouth that he knows Obama is ineligible. According to high democratic sources, Clintons were planning on revealing Obamas ineligibility but were scared/threatened away when first Bill Gwatney (Bills good friend and chair of the Arkansas Democratic Party) was shot and then Stephanie Tubbs died of a supposed aneuyrism within 2 weeks of the DNC convention where each had promised to present a petition challenging the illegal shenanigans of the Obama people. The Ulsterman Report unwinds a web of crime and corruption surrounding the 2010 CA AG election which is suspected to have cleared the way for Kam Kuwatas suspicious death, not being found for 2 weeks, and an autopsy not being performed - after Kuwata had revealed to insiders STRANGE goings-on involving Barack Obama at the DNC Convention (where Obama was either drugged, hypnotized, part of a cultic ritual, or something strange). IOW, were dealing with a LOT of corruption and disposal of inconvenient players.
C. According to Mike Evans, HI Governor Neil Abercrombie said he had gone to the hospitals in HI with a search warrant and had been unable to find any record of Obamas birth there. He was looking for it there because there wasnt one at the HDOH.
D. The Hawaii Department of Health has altered their 1960-64 birth index to include legally non-valid records. That birth index listed both Virginia Sunahara and Barack Obama II. (Virginia was born at Wahiawa Hospital on Aug 4, 1961 and died at Kapiolani Hospital the next day). But when an HDOH worker queried the database for Virginia Sunahara in response to my request, the database had no record under Virginias name; that record was presumably under a different name at that point. Since then a computer-generated abstract for Virginia has been released to her brother (but the HDOH refuses to provide a copy or let the brother see the original birth certificate), with a BC# far out of sequence with others - as is the BC# of Stig Waidelich, according to the HDOHs own statements that BC#s were assigned on the date filed for Oahu births. IOW, the HDOH itself has been caught manipulating their birth index, their database, and the BC#s of at least 2 BCs released from their office.
E. HDOH and OIP responses by Paul Tsukiyama have indicated that Obamas BC was amended in 2006 and there are affidavits to support whatever is claimed on the BC, which would only be necessary for a late or amended birth certificate. Tsukiyamas response actually cited the statute that refers specifically to late and amended BCs. Late BCs have a different BC numbering system (they have an L in front of the BC#) and late and/or altered have to be stamped on BCs that are late or altered - which means that the HDOH would have immediately known that both the posted long-form AND the COLB that Obama posted are forgeries.
In addition, late and altered/amended BCs are not legally valid; they have no probative value, and HRS 338-13 says that their probative value must be determined when presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. IOW, the State of Hawaii doesnt vouch for the accuracy of anything on a late or amended BC; they CANNOT verify information from those BCs. (This explains why the HDOH had to alter their birth index to allow legally non-valid records, in order to get Obamas name on the list they show the public).
If the HDOH verifies anything for Obama, they are contradicting their own earlier revelations that Obamas birth record was amended and former OIP Director Tsukiyamas confirmation that Obamas birth claims are supported by affidavits. At that point, the Hawaii government would have given contradictory, mutually-exclusive stories about Obamas records.
The only way we will ever know what happened with Obamas documentation is by auditing all the alleged citizenship records for him. There are 4 records hes claimed to have, and ALL FOUR show signs of tampering: The long-form and COLB are both forgeries, the draft registration is forged, the SSN fails e-verify and was issued from CT even though Obama never lived there, and his passport file has been breached 3 times (with sources close to the investigation saying it was to alter the record). The inspector general for HHS has said that BCs are not sufficient as sole verification of eligibility, and that states should require an audit of all the vital records and citizenship records if there are any signs of tampering - especially if much is at stake.
There could not be a more clear example of signs of tampering, and there is no possible instance where more would be at stake than what is at stake here.
Drip, drip, drip.......(((ping)))
Bottom line is:
IS OBAMA LYING TO US NOW OR DID HE LIE TO US BEFORE 2007?
Either way he is a fraud and lyer.