One day Americans younger than 30 may learn the truth about President Barack Obama’s background, but it’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Breitbart turned up a booklet published by Obama’s literary agent citing the president’s birthplace as Kenya.
Americans who aren't starry-eyed college students know Camelot is falling again, just as it did with JFK.
Big media took a casual look at what Breitbart found and passed it off as a mistake on the part of the agent. That’s what the agent said it was—a copyediting mistake.
The 1991 bio said:
“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.”
The bio remained in place until 2007, according to Breitbart. Breitbart is careful to note that the place of the president’s birth has “long been settled.”
Actually, for many, it has not. For instance, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, now under political attack from the Obama administration, made an excellent case for irregularities in a number of Obama’s official documents, among them his Selective Service card.
Big media viciously assailed anyone who dared question Obama’s background. Even titans on the Right are afraid to tackle the real issue—our president’s country of origin.
There is a serious constitutional issue when it comes to who can serve as a U.S. president.
There is also a serious issue when it comes to truth telling. It is highly unusual for a literary agency to repeatedly err when citing an author’s birthplace. The booklet, as a matter of fact, would have gone through several proofing stages, not one, because it is a printed document.
Put bluntly, the literary agency has no credibility on this issue. You don't maintain a false bio for your author, especially when he is a U.S. senator with a bestselling book.
Breitbart said the Kenyan birthplace claim remained in place until 2007, even after Obama’s book became a bestseller.
Cover-ups are nothing new in politics when it comes to the presidency. Americans only learned about President John F. Kennedy’s private life 3 decades after his death, and many of his brother’s papers remain unavailable to the public today.
Is the genealogy book detailing JFK’s alleged first marriage to a woman not Jacqueline still on the shelves at the Library of Congress?
Even the circumstances of JFK’s assassination remain clouded in intrigue, as numerous books indicate. Among those books is Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot. Another is Peter Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic.
The Kennedy family’s associations with mob figures were another matter of interest to some investigative writers for obvious reasons. For instance, Sam Giancana, said Hersh “had been brutally murdered in his home on June 19, 1975, the night before he was to meet with a lawyer for the Church Committee…”
Whatever the truth is, there’s one that cannot be disputed. Intrigue about Obama’s actual birthplace is a reality that began with the Left. Big media likely won’t correct that misimpression either.
Hersh, who won a Pulitzer for international reporting, detailed massive cover-ups within the Kennedy administration, from the president’s lifelong battle with various illnesses to “mythmaking and media wooing.” Hersh interviewed former Secret Service agents who attested JFK was “obsessed with sex, and willing to take enormous risks to gratify that obsession.”
U.S. media still portray President Richard M. Nixon as corrupt. However, with ongoing releases of documents and interviews associated with JFK, it is obvious the Kennedy administration was corrupt to the core. Before the Kennedy cover-up, there was the affair with Franklin D. Roosevelt. I mean 'affair' literally--his mistress was with him when he died. Ah, the Democrats.
There’s a relevant passage on the U.S. Senate web page about the Church Committee:
“Historian Henry Steele Commager assessed the Committee’s legacy. Referring to executive branch officials who seemed to consider themselves above the law, he said, ‘It is this indifference to constitutional restraints that is perhaps the most threatening of all the evidence that emerges from the findings of the Church Committee.’”
“Indifference to constitutional restraints” is nothing new, but there’s something else that isn’t new. That indifference never leads to anything beneficial for the country.
One thing is obvious. Camelot fails the smell test once again.
Birther Left feeds frenzy on Obama controversy... (The US Report)
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/May 18, 2012)