Snopes.com Pontificates on The Post & Email's AP Story

PROVIDES NO REASONABLE BASIS TO DOUBT REPORT

News commentary by John Charlton

(Nov. 21, 2009) — Shortly before it was reported that The Post & Email and other sites received harassing blog comments from an IP number just a few miles from the registered address of the domain name, “Snopes.com,” Snopes.com published a critique of The Post & Email’s report on the AP 2004 Story which named Obama “Kenyan-born”.

Though Snopes.com decided to publish a commentary on The Post & Email’s report, it did not attribute the citation it contained of our story to The Post & Email, even after it was brought to their attention.  Perhaps, they chose not to give a link or citation to The Post & Email, lest their own readers be led to the original story.  The Post & Email does not fear facts, so you can read the Snopes.com commentary at their own site.

But since a good number of individuals have asked us to respond to the Snopes.com article, we will do so.

Snopes.com’s Critique founded on a childish flaw in their method of historical analysis

First of all, the Snopes.com article provides no documentation to prove their interpretation of the historical document: the East African Standard’s Sunday Edition Report, which cited the AP as its source. They simply open their puerile analysis with the word “False” in disproportionately large bold-faced letters, and they argue, that since the current version of the AP article available from the AP does not call Obama “Kenyan-born,” therefore, the AP original story never contained this adjective and that the African newspaper added it on their own authority, and that erroneously.

It should be obvious to highschool students that you cannot use the current version of an article at AP, which does not claim to be the original version or the unedited version, to argue that an article published by the East African Standard  from 2004 introduced “Kenyan-born” into the AP story on its own authority:  there is a disparity of historical consistency.  One must use documents which are known to have existed in June 2004 to argue or dispute facts claimed in other documents from that same month.  AP could have published different versions of their story, included keywords, or redacted the version after the 2008 election.  There is a lack of documentation in their critique of The Post & Email report, to prove what Snopes.com claims actually happened.  Their dismissal of the East African Standard’s report, therefore, is unfounded, unproven, uncertain, and gratuitous. Indeed, if one supposes that the African paper added a sentence to the AP story, then one can equally suppose that any other news agency, including the AP could subtract a sentence.

Facts can only be disputed with facts

What is known, is that a newspaper in Kenya in 2004 said Obama was Kenyan-born, in a report attributed to Associated Press International. At least 4 other African news outlets reported the same attributions for the next 4 years, and still make this claim.  Snopes.com has no answer for that, because according to the ancient adage, “Against a fact there is no argument!

The Post & Email speaks with Press Corps informant

The Post & Email asks how is it that the East African Standard knew of Obama’s senatorial race in 2004?

We asked a retired member of the national press corps, and he explained that syndicated news stories are sold with keywords or summaries; news agencies which subscribe to their services purchase rights to republish stories according to these keywords. If that practice prevailed in 2004, it would explain how a paper in Kenya heard of Obama, only if they had purchased notifications regarding the key word “Kenya” or “Kenyan”.  Otherwise, it does not seem reasonable to conclude that a Kenyan paper watches senatorial races in Illinois.  Nor, that they read through all the syndicated AP stories, to find one in which the word “Kenyan” or “Kenyan-born” never existed.

The facts allow a reasonable person to conlude that the AP reporters and/or editors may have put the “Kenyan-born” phrase in the original report, or in the text used to index it for syndication. Otherwise, how did that story get come to the attention of the Kenyan paper?

Other ways Kenyan paper could have heard of Obama

Another possibility is that the Kenyan newspaper was informed about the news of Obama’s candidacy, and chose to feature an AP story which they subsequently published.  We will never know the paper trail on why the Kenyan newspaper did this, or what they did, because the supporters of Obama’s cousin, Odinga, made a point to burn the Kenyan newspaper’s HQ down in 2006, destroying all records of their communications.

Did an overly zealous Kenyan in Chicago telephone or email back home and alert them to the story? Did the newspaper get a phone call from Odinga suggesting that they run this story? Did the Obama campaign get a phone call from the Newspaper prior to the publishing of the AP story in their paper, and convey to the East African Standard reporter that Obama was “Kenyan-born,” as a sort of fact to prove that their mulatto candidate had true African credentials?

Just how did the Kenyan newspaper hear of Obama?  Until that question is asked and answered, one cannot have recourse, as Snopes.com does, to the hypothesis that the Kenyan Standard added this attribution, “Kenyan-born”, to the story on its own authority. If one has no evidence that the newspaper heard of the claim of Obama being “Kenyan-born” from sources other than the AP story, the conclusion is that the AP itself in some manner, at one time, claimed Obama was “Kenyan-born.”

Even if Snopes.com were to prove that only the Kenyan paper named Obama “Kenyan-born” — being that the latter  is located in Kenya and can request verification of births or interview locals who knew Obama’s family — its use of the term “Kenyan-born” would be, nonetheless, authoritative.

To illustrate this, let us take the example of a famous individual, Adolf Hitler.  If American newspapers called him “German-born,” and one newspaper in Vienna, Austria, said he was “Austrian-born,” would it be sufficient to say that the Austrian paper was wrong, simply because the American newspapers all say differently? No; a reasonable and impartial observer would say, “If his family is Austrian, as his relatives claim, certainly the newspaper in Vienna would know who is Austrian and who is not, after all Vienna is the capital of Austria!”

For this reason Snopes.com’s attempt to disprove the story by claiming the African paper alone named Obama “Kenyan-born” is itself illogical. The contrary would be true, it would give weight to the truth of the statement.

In summary, Snope.com’s entire argument is merely a gratuitous assertion, posing as a substantive refutation.

The Post & Email remains vindicated

Snopes.com’s facile and puerile rejection of the facts shows that they are not a reliable site, either  for information or for reasoning.  The Post & Email’s story, which as of today has been read by more than 43,000 individuals at our site, was republished worldwide on the Internet without our urging, and has been read by millions of internet users.  As of today no member of the press corp has contacted us to dispute the report.  Nor have the original authors of the report denied the attribution of “Kenyan-born” in the East African Standard’s republication of the AP article.

According to the ancient dictum, “He who remains silent, consents,” it must be concluded that there was some basis to the story and some motive for it.  The Post & Email rightly attributed this to the Obama Campaign’s action or inaction:  because if the Obama Campaign did not contact these news outlets for 5 years, asking them to correct their reports, it is only because they wanted Obama to be seen as “Kenyan-born.” At no time did The Post & Email claim in its report, that Obama was born in Kenya:  it confined itself to the reports published by news agencies, which reports are now historical documents.

Only now, do some extremely far-left supporters of Obama, find it embarrassing that his Campaign has acted as it has done.  Is this because they recognize that the facts prove Obama ineligible to be President, or at least worthy of impeachment?  If the 2004 AP story did not frighten Obama’s supporters, Snopes.com would not be attempting to debunk it, even if they only manifested their lack of impartiality and right reason in their failure to debunk The Post & Email’s coverage of the story.  The facts remain, 5 African news organizations published stories from 2004-2008 in which the “Kenyan-born” attribution is given to Obama; and in each story, they cite the AP as their source.  For Snopes.com to attack The Post & Email’s reporting of this historical fact, only manifests their desperation. For them to dismiss it without evidence, shows that their reputation as an information source is very shaky.

However, one final slant of the Snopes.com lingers in the reader’s mind: namely, that while seeking to defend Obama, who self-admits to having a black father, they seem to implicitly hold that African newspapers, written by Blacks, are somehow less reliable than 1 American news agency, run by whites; even if 5 of the former disagree with none of the latter.

For the record, The Post & Email holds, that “all men are created equal,” as it says in the Declaration of Independence.

4 Responses to "Snopes.com Pontificates on The Post & Email's AP Story"

  1. cm   Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 8:41 AM

    According to Snopes,

    “Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will become an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama in the campaign for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.”

    Unless the AP had a crystal ball How could they know that Obama was already a senator? OOps!
    —————-
    Mr. Charlton replies: Obama was a Illinois State senator before he ran for the post of a U.S. Senator representing Illinois in Washington, D.C.. That’s how.

  2. aja   Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM

    Mr. Charlton, This is a little off topic but when Obama was
    running for State Senate in IL. There was a debate between Obama and Keys, this was televised on C-Span and they were debating this issue. Alan Keys said something like well you aren’t even an NBC and Obama said it dosen’t matter I’m running for the Senate. I think I saw it on Citizen Wells but maybe you can investiagte this and somehow get a copy of that tape. I could have it wrong but it’s worth looking into. You don’t have to post this. I read this some where and was hoping someone would take the ball and run with it.
    ——————
    Mr. Charlton replies: Search The Post & Email, and you will find that we took that ball and ran a long way to the goal zone with it.

  3. nobarack08   Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

    Snopes.com was featured in the April edition of Readers Digest. For most people that have heard of Snopes, this might be an eye opener as Snopes.com is a husband and wife team. Barbara and David Mikkelson.
    A husband and wife team that pawned the fraud that Obama was born in Hawaii, with NO documentation to back up their claim, and the public – bought it, hook, line, and sinker!

    Below is my post, posted here- again.

    The issue with snopes is that they are Urban Legend hunters. When it came to the Obama birth certificate, they presented facts that were NOT true.
    By them stating that Obama was born in Hawaii,they had no access to the “Vault” copy nor additional information. They lied, and they lied to the public big time.
    When Congressmen and Senators tell their constituiants they verified Obama eligibility by checking snopes, we have a MAJOR problem.
    Like I have stated before. Imagine John Kerry, standing in the Senate and stating “We know Saddam had WMD’s, cause we checked with Snopes” or Hillary verifying the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, because she checked with Snopes.

    Persoanlly, I feel that Barbara and David Mikkelson, need to be charged with defrauding the public.
    Make them in a court of law, prove how they determined where Obama was born or even that he was a natural born citizen.

    Regardless of where the Usurper was born, he is NOT qualified to hold the office.
    The current person in the White House is an illegal alien. Either he’s Barack Obama, admitted British citizen at birth or Barry Soetoro, who entered the US illegally and is NOT a US citizen. Fact, he’s spending over $1 million to keep his past hided.
    The fact remains, Obama has admitted that he was British at birth.
    British at birth is not, can not, nor ever be a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States.

    I mentioned this below and will repeat here again.

    Notice how they will use the Indonesian School registration as proof of born in Hawaii, but totally disregard the same for the Nationality, listed as Indonesian. Proof of Obama’s Real name Barry Soetoro Citizenship- Indonesian. Religion – Muslim. They will also use the FactCheck forgey as proof of an embossed Seal on the “second” COLB, and disregard the fact that the origional posted on Fight the Smears, does not have one. Therfore it could never have been released by the State of Hawaii.

    So who is the person in the White House.

    If he is Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    British at birth, is NOT “Natural Born” and disqualifies Obama.

    If the person in the White House is Barry Soetoro, then the Indonesian school registration is proof of Indonesian citizenship, and not American, again, disqualifing Obama. Not only that, but the COLB produced is for another individual Barack Obama. However Barach Obama has stated that he has NO other name, or gone by any other name. [see image below]

    If Obama did go by Barry Soetoro, then he is also guilty of re-entering the US and not going through the US Customs and Naturalization process. Thereby again becoming a “Naturalized” citizen, and again in no way can be “Natural Born”.

    Obama and his supporters can’t have it both ways. Either he is Barack Obama born in Hawaii with a foreign father and admitted British at birth, or he is Barry Soetoro who entered the US without going through the US Customs and Naturalization process and is an illegal alien.

  4. Harry H   Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

    Snopes and Factcheck are politically biased outfits deceptively posing as objective arbiters of truth. They bear a large share of responsibility for the Obama election fraud that has been perpetrated on the nation and for which they continue to cover up.

    Of course, the newspaper accounts of Obama’s Kenyan birth are supported by multiple other sources, and a Kenyan birth is consistent with Obama’s refusal to provide unequivocal proof of his birthplace.

    I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports the inference that Obama is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. Even if he proves to be a U.S. citizen, the fact is he was born a citizen/subject of the U.K. and may very well still owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.