“FEEDING OFF OF BIAS,” OR QUESTIONING A FORGERY?
by Sharon Rondeau
The media has labeled such individuals “birthers.”
On April 27, 2011, an image representing Obama’s alleged original birth record was posted on the White House website in an apparent effort to convince the public, and in particular, Donald Trump, that Obama was born in Hawaii. A birth in the U.S. would presumably have qualified Obama for the presidency under the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
The image was immediately deemed a forgery by several graphics professionals, a claim the White House has never addressed, despite Fox News’s Bret Baier’s claim to the contrary on Monday night.
On December 15, 2016, following an investigation spanning more than five years, Arpaio and the lead investigator of his Cold Case Posse, Mike Zullo, gave a third and final press conference on the birth certificate revealing new evidence as to why the image can be nothing other than a “computer-generated forgery.”
Two previous pressers had taken place on March 1 and July 17, 2012, during which Arpaio and Zullo had first stated that probable cause existed to believe the birth certificate image was fraudulent, then that the standard of probable cause had been overcome. Arpaio called upon Congress to investigate, a request it ignored.
At the first press conference, Zullo also demonstrated how the posse had found that Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form is a forgery.
CNN, which has been particularly friendly to the Obama regime, having presented a two-part series aimed at convincing the viewer that Obama was undoubtedly born in Hawaii just before the release of the long-form image, quoted Obama on December 15 as having told CNN host Fareed Zakaria on “race:”
I think there’s a reason why attitudes about my presidency among whites in Northern states are very different from whites in Southern states. Are there folks whose primary concern about me has been that I seem foreign, the other? Are those who champion the ‘birther’ movement feeding off of bias? Absolutely.
Zakaria claims that “racism” was a factor in the 2016 election. His CNN show is titled “Global Public Square.”
The media coined the pejorative “birther” for Donald Trump, who questioned Obama’s origins and why he had not released his detailed birth certificate prior to 2011; the term has since included anyone questioning Obama’s claimed life narrative.
That narrative has changed over time.
Obama’s constitutional eligibility was questioned as early as 2007, after internet reports, both from overseas and domestic sources, surfaced stating that he was born in Kenya and Indonesia. While some in the U.S. media had stated the same at various times, they quickly changed their respective articles after Obama declared his intention to run for president in February 2007.
Obama’s own literary agent reported him as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii” from 1991 to April 2007. When the original brochure was discovered and published by Breitbart, literary agent Miriam Goderich attributed the change to a “fact checking error.”
Oddly, however, Chris Matthews of MSNBC continued to say that Obama was foreign-born on December 18, 2007 while discussing the upcoming Democrat primary race between Hillary Clinton and Obama. Matthews later excoriated anyone appearing to challenge Obama’s claimed birth in Hawaii.
Shortly before the 2008 election, Obama was described as “an immigrant” by former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. It is generally understood that an immigrant cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen.”
In November 2008, Peter Ogego, then-ambassador to the U.S. from Kenya, said that Obama’s “birthplace there is well-known,” meaning Kenya. Nearly 18 months later, members of the Kenyan Parliament stated on the record that Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States.
In contrast to that which has been reported by the media, Arpaio and Zullo did not focus their investigation, which took Zullo to Hawaii twice and across the country several times, on Obama’s birthplace. However, Zullo declared at an earlier press conference in July 2012 that investigators found no evidence that Obama was ever present in Hawaii “before the age of five.”
Rather than launching their own investigations, reporters have failed to acknowledge the evidence presented by Zullo and Arpaio, withone asking Arpaio why someone would have a motive to create a fraudulent government document.
“The motive would have been he doesn’t have a birth certificate,” Arpaio responded in a December 30 interview with Channel 10’s John Hook.
Most Americans understand the “natural born Citizen” clause to mean “born in the United States,” although the citizenship of the parents likely played a role in the Founders’ decision to include the requirement in the Constitution for the president only.
Later, the 12th Amendment was passed, requiring all vice-presidential candidates to meet the eligibility criteria for presidents.
Rather than summarizing the new information presented at last month’s press conference, the media has chosen to ignore the compelling evidence provided to Zullo by two forensic document examiners in different parts of the world. Some instead celebrated the “close” of the investigation and Arpaio’s impending last day in office, which was December 31.
Since the first birth certificate presser on March 1, 2012, Jacques Billeaud of the Associated Press has been attempting to convince his audience that questions about the “authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate” are “debunked.”
Arpaio never said that the investigation was “closed,” but rather, that the evidence the posse compiled over more than 60 months would be turned over to “federal authorities” and Congress.
On Thursday evening, Zullo will be appearing as a guest on the WOBC Radio show whose promo reports that “the investigation is not over.”
If Obama is at some point found to have misrepresented his life narrative and presumed presidential eligibility, as one writer stated, “It still matters.”