Earlier this week I made an assertion that apparently shocked some people.
I revealed in my column Monday that, contrary to popular opinion and absolute insistence by the so-called “mainstream media,” Donald Trump wasn’t the first “birther.” He wasn’t the second “birther.” He wasn’t the third “birther.”
The first “birther,” as I proved with one document (I could have provided many more), was none other than Barack Obama, who, at least by 1991 (probably earlier) and as late as 2007, was himself claiming to be born in Kenya.
Isn’t that astonishing to learn?
He didn’t stop until the year he declared his intention to run for president. Yet, Trump’s critics (and my critics) suggest we were out of our minds even to investigate his own claims!
When it was to Obama’s advantage to have been foreign born, he used it. As soon as it became a disqualifier for running for president, he dropped it like a hot potato – even accusing those who questioned his U.S. birth and constitutional eligibility of racism for mentioning it.
Isn’t that just like the Obama we have all come to know for the last eight years?
Meanwhile, Trump, of course, pointed the finger at Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign for first raising doubts about Obama’s eligibility for president – with broad hints that he was not really an American.
As usual when Trump says something about which the media were not aware or perhaps were complicit in covering up, they generally react predictably – with scoffing and mocking and denials.
However, was Trump right? Did Hillary’s 2008 campaign indeed raise the issue?
The answer is a resounding yes.
While her top staff clearly tried to keep their fingerprints off their role in raising doubts about Obama’s American credentials, they were still found – and it’s a matter of record for all who want to see the breadcrumb trail.
It was Hillary Clinton’s chief political strategist Mark Penn who wrote in 2007: “His [Obama’s] roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”
Penn further suggested how the campaign might exploit this issue: “Every speech should contain the line that you [Hillary] were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.”
He continued: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”
That all leads to the question of why the media are so obsessed with “birtherism” now.
For years they didn’t want to look at, hear about it, talk about it. Now it’s an obsession. They can’t stop. They can’t help themselves.
Take a guess.
Have you noticed Hillary is not doing so well?
Don’t you think this new interest in the condemnation of Donald Trump – along with me and a few others who raised questions about Obama’s background based on his own assertions and the rumors and murmuring of Hillary’s campaign in 2008 – might have something to do with the fact that Mrs. Clinton is floundering?
Again, Trump’s half right about Hillary’s role in the “birther” conspiracy. But, nobody, it seems, even Donald Trump, have noticed that she didn’t start it. Obama did.
He started it. Hillary followed. And Trump exploited it.
For Trump it was a gutsy thing to do – and probably helped get him the Republican nomination.
It may play a significant role in getting him elected president.
And that’s the real reason for the media’s obsession now.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|
