If you have a young boy, you've probably watched Disney's 2 about a thousand times. For those who don't know, at the movie's end (an obligatory spoiler warning here), Sir Miles Axlerod is exposed as a fraud when he's forced to open his hood by Mater, the hayseed hick. Hold that thought.
Three possibilities follow the bombshell discovery that Barack Obama was promoted in 1991 through 2007 by his professional agency as an author "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." (1) Obama untruthfully presented himself as Kenya-born. (2) Obama untruthfully presents himself as Hawaii-born. (3) Obama had no knowledge that his bio contained the 16-year-old "error" which was corrected in April of 2007, when Obama was gearing up his campaign for the U.S. presidency.
Of the three possibilities, number three may be discarded on its face as absurd. Everyone in the publishing industry knows that authors write their own bios. At the very least, authors approve their own bios. I've written some law review articles, and in journal context, author bios are normally brief. Even so, in every instance, the respective publishers printed only what I approved.
Mr. Obama's Acton & Dystel bio is fairly lengthy and detailed. To believe that Obama had no knowledge of the born-in-Kenya "error" requires more than just believing he didn't sign off on it. We would also have to believe that Obama didn't care to read his bio in the 36-page promotional booklet after publication and distribution. That is also a huge stretch. Did Obama get a copy? Of course he did -- that's another publishing standard.
Roger Kimball wrote a little spoof on A&D's "fact-checking" error:
An agency spokesman who claims to have been responsible for the "born in Kenya" wheeze has publicly said that it was a mistake, a typographical error, a slip of the pen that just went "unchecked" for, um, sixteen-seventeen years. I can understand that. She meant to write "Hawaii" and wrote "Kenya" instead. Could happen to anyone. They look and sound enough alike, don't they, that no one noticed. You meant to write "there" and you wrote "their" instead. You meant to write "cup" and you wrote "floccinaucinihilipilification" instead. No one -- no one at the literary agency, not the author himself -- could be expected to notice. You understand that, right?
Beyond any reasonable doubt, the Kenya birth information was supplied by Obama himself (and the bio was most likely written by Obama).
At this point, we should pause to consider why this explosive story is being largely ignored by the "mainstream" news media: no matter how it's spun, when the dust settles, the story is a lose-lose for Obama. Either way, Obama has lied. And either way, the respective lie is no small matter.
Some have speculated that Obama presented himself as Kenya-born to fit his black liberation ideology in context of promoting his yet-to-be-written book, Journeys in Black and White. Mark Steyn writes:
[B]eing born in Hawaii doesn't really help. It's entirely irrelevant to the twin pillars of contemporary black grievance - American slavery and European imperialism. To 99.99 percent of people, Hawaii is a luxury-vacation destination and nothing else. Whereas Kenya puts you at the heart of what, in an otherwise notably orderly decolonization process by the British, was a bitter and violent struggle against the white man's rule. Cool! The composite chicks dig it, and the literary agents.
Others have noted that if Obama registered for college in the United States as a foreign student (either because he was adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia or because he actually was born in Kenya), he pretty much had to go with the bio of the down for the struggle foreign author.
And adding to the mystery, Obama's college, vital, passport and Selective Service records are guarded more securely than the gold at Fort Knox. If only we could just move on past those silly distractions.
At this point, let's hope that the establishment conservative press can finally get a handle on navigating the Obama secrecy issue skillfully and without fear. The entire issue has been wrongly framed. There is no burden on the people to prove anything.
It's not about "birther" conspiracy theories. It's not about avoiding the "birther" label at all costs. It's about the staunch secrecy of Barack Obama. It's fundamentally about one simple question: what the hell is Obama hiding?
There is absolutely no reason why citizens should have to "believe" that Obama is eligible for the presidency when relevant evidence is being withheld.
Full disclosure will immediately end the suspicions that citizens reasonably have. The twin drums to be pounded are (1) the burden is on Obama to end all controversy for the sake of the country, and (2) the posting of images on the internet doesn't meet the Pawn Stars standard for authentication of documents, let alone the legal standard that Obama should be held to.
Anyone may safely advocate those two points. It's really easy, and I encourage my conservative colleagues to try it.
Prior to the Breitbart bombshell, we had countless oddities and anomalies. There's the African folklore: African newspapers, officials, and paternal family members have indicated that Obama was born in Mombasa. There are no living witnesses to Obama's Hawaii birth. There's the island state with a documented history of registering foreign births as Hawaiian. There were the ambiguous and misleading words of its officials concerning what the Department of Health has in its archives relating to Obama. There was Obama's sideshow spectacle of uploading his "birth " to the internet in 2008 only to abruptly "release" the reportedly nonexistent birth certificate in 2011 (again online) after fighting its production in court after court for over three years.
But now in light of the Breitbart discovery, the production of Obama's college applications and records is as relevant as the need for Obama to comply with the legal standard for the production of his birth certificate -- which means producing certified paper copies for interested state election officials while making the original available for authentication in Hawaii.
Arizona's secretary of state, Ken Bennett, could have used the Breitbart discovery to support a demand for legal compliance and authentication of Obama's Hawaii records (what a great way to get this shocking news to the general public). But, sadly, it appears that Bennett has backed down from his halfhearted request that Hawaii's Department of Health send him a certified paper copy of the original birth certificate (the Department merely informed Bennett that the copy it produced for Obama matches the original, not that Obama's internet image matches the original).
The Breitbart discovery also connects the discovery by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team relating to the blatant forgery of Obama's Selective Service registration form. At this point, that document must be produced as well.
Something is not right with Obama. At the very least, he was willing to lie about his life story.
The American people have the right to know whether Obama lied in the past because of some disturbing personality disorder -- or, perish the thought, whether Obama committed criminal acts in furtherance of fraud being perpetrated on the American people.
Let's not move on.
There's only one way to get to the truth.
Let's lift open the hood, Sir Axlerod.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/will_the_1991_biography_discovery_force_obama_to_open_the_hood.html#ixzz1vxkgmGsO