Interesting. While Politisite writers are not Birthers. A mistake from 1991 til 2007? We think Barack Obama rode the Foreigner title for personal gain. We further think those sealed college records would reveal the President used his fabricated Kenya birth to gain scholarships only given to foreign students. What other reason would he allow his biography to stand until 2007 when he could not ride on a foreign birth when Presidents must be natural born?
Presto, in 2007, he now gets the biography fixed and admits he is from Hawaii. No wonder “Birthers” are out there! Maybe all along Obama allowed the myth to prevail while it provided him benefits. If the press had any intestinal fortitude they would investigate this angle. We know Obama didn’t mind fabrications (e.g. his composite girlfriend) to promote his personal and political agenda.
While the internet buzzed with Breitbart News’ release of a booklet from President Obama’s literary agency circa 1991 describing him as being “born in Kenya,” the mainstream media still refuses to report the story, or plays defense for Obama.
Never mind that the agency used the “born in Kenya” biography until 2007. Never mind that authors who have worked with the agency state that the agency asks that authors pen their own biographies. Never mind that Obama has routinely padded his biographical details to appeal to particular audiences.
Nothing to see here.
Michael Shear, at the New York Times, was in full defense mode:
“Perhaps the darker side of politics is always close to the surface … the conservative Drudge Report Web site published a headline: “BORN IN KENYA,” based on a three-decade-old promotional booklet for a publisher that included an inaccurate biography of Mr. Obama. It stayed on the site for much of the afternoon. The headline linked to a report at Breitbart news, another conservative site, which suggests that the booklet represents a pattern in which Obama — or the people representing and supporting him — manipulate his public persona.’”
We presented a document. The Times calls that “the darker side of politics.” Absurd. And that was the Times’ only coverage of the story – dismissing Obama’s pattern of biographical manipulation without comment. All the news that’s not fit to print.
How about the Washington Post, the paper that assured us that Mitt Romney’s 50-year-old haircut incidents were news? It trotted out leftist stalwarts and Friends of Media Matters Greg Sargent and Erik Wemple to cover for Obama and his literary agency. Sargent scoffed, “rumor has it the whitey tape will break any minute now.” Wemple’s only comment: “Okay.”
Well, okay, then.
How about the Los Angeles Times, which still refuses to release tape of Obama speaking with Palestine Liberation Organization former spokesman Rashid Khalidi at an anti-Israel event? Not a word.
How about Obama’s hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune? Crickets. The Boston Globe? Nada. CBS? Nope. NBC? Nothing. ABC News’ website did mention the story, but only by syndicating a Yahoo! News report – and meanwhile, Jake Tapper was on Twitter, downplaying the story.
Huffington Post did cover the story – but not initially. Instead, they waited for Obama’s literary agency to fall on the sword, making the dubious claim that she had committed a simple “fact checking error” – a fact-checking error that lasted 16 years and two agencies, all the way until after Obama launched his presidential campaign in 2007.
What was Huffington Post’s headline? “Birthers Make Another Blunder.” Once you click in, the headline becomes, “Obama Birther Rumor Debunked As Literary Agent Clarifies Mistake.” The first line of the piece? “Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists have been foiled again.”