In the last year or so respected publishers have released four biographies by mainstream authors that feature, as a central fact, the birth of President Barack Obama to his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Ann), in 1961.
Given that there has been a certain controversy about the birth, one might expect that each of the books would, if not settle the controversy, at least deal with it intelligently. None of them does.
These books include a 2010 biography of the president, “The Bridge,” by New Yorker editor David Remnick; a 2011 biography of Dunham, “A Singular Woman,” by New York Times reporter Janny Scott; a 2011 biography of Barack Obama Sr., “The Other Barack,” by Sally Jacobs of the Boston Globe; and a 2010 multi-generational biography of the Obama family, “The Obamas,” by BBC journalist Peter Firstbrook.
Clearly, if Dunham had not given birth to Obama, none of these four books would have been written. Yet the authors are shockingly mute on the subject of Dunham’s pregnancy and Obama’s birth.
University of Hawaii records show that Dunham left school at the end of January in 1961, and subsequent divorce records suggest a Maui wedding on Feb. 2. This is where the paper trial ends.
As to the Maui wedding, everyone writes with uncertainty. Jacobs says only, “The couple apparently had a quiet civil ceremony.” Scott writes that the wedding took place “reportedly on the island of Maui.” (Italics mine)
In Remnick’s account, Dunham tells no one about the wedding, but in Firstbrook’s imaginative account, the parents accompany the happy couple on the trip to Maui. As Obama has conceded, there are no wedding photos and no documents.
Jack Cashill’s literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama’s alleged life narrative. Order the book “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America’s First Post-Modern President”
After the wedding, Dunham disappears from the record. Not one of these authors provides the slightest hint of what she may have done or where she may have gone between Feb. 2 and Aug. 4 of 1961. Nada. Not a word.
All of these books were published with the eligibility controversy in full flower. The informed reader would expect the authors, especially Dunham’s biographer Scott, to at least comment on the absence of information. None does.
The reporting on Obama’s birth is, if anything, even more evasive. All four rely on the certification of live birth (COLB) first posted online in 2008 by the Daily Kos.
Since the COLB does not specify a hospital, the authors seem to have accepted Obama’s post-election claim to having been born at Kapiolani. Before the election, however, news reports routinely cited Honolulu’s Queen’s Medical Center as Obama’s birthplace.
Of the four authors, only Firstbrook acknowledges the dispute surrounding the COLB, and he does so with a proud indifference to the facts.
According to Firstbrook, the claim that the COLB is not a “proper birth certificate” was “debunked by media investigations, government officials in Hawaii, and judicial reviews.”
If nothing else, when Obama presented his “proper birth certificate,” one much more detailed than the COLB, he exposed the debunking for the agitprop it was. How authentic that birth certificate is, of course, remains to be seen.
As to the “media investigations,” no reporters have gone into more depth about this couple and their child than the four biographers in question. And yet all are silent on the details of Obama’s birth.
As to those “officials in Hawaii,” one of them was Tim Adams, who served as the senior elections clerk for the City and County of Honolulu in the run-up to the 2008 election.
In his recently posted masters thesis, Adams repeats what he told the media in 2010 before being gagged by his university and menaced by the Obots and their media allies.
“There is no hospital record of [Obama’s] birth in Honolulu and the Hawaii Department of Health told us in the Elections Office that there was no birth certificate.”
To a person, these biographers fail to provide the kind of supporting evidence that would refute Adams’ claim, either with photos or personal testimony.
There is no talk of Dunham’s morning sickness, her labor pains, the worried grandparents, the frantic drive to the hospital, the grueling birth, the crying baby, the contented mom, the dubious looks from the hospital staff – the kind of details one would expect in any biography.
Nor do these biographers show any pictures of a pregnant Dunham or a newborn Obama. One has to wonder whether they could find no evidence or simply chose not to share what they did find.
The reader has no reason to trust any of them. If Firstbrook deceives through carelessness, the other three consciously dissemble to protect the Obama narrative of a loving little multicultural family.
As I have documented in these pages earlier, Remnick, Jacobs and Scott all finesse the timeline to make it appear that Dunham and the baby lived with Obama Sr. for at least six months after the birth.
The verifiable paper trail, which picks up weeks after the Aug. 4 birth with Obama Sr.’s INS documents and Dunham’s University of Washington records, proves otherwise.
Along with the testimony of Dunham’s Seattle friends, these documents confirm that the future president, despite his claim to the contrary, never lived in a family with Ann Dunham and Obama Sr.
No matter. In the age of Obama, the media “debunkers” have turned their sights not on the powers that be but on those who would challenge those powers.
Anti-journalism at its finest!