Obama's Birthgate

WOW!! A new post over at American Thinker concerning The Morphing Obama Biography and the Skeptics has to be one of the best I've ever read about the controversy! Please visit the link to read the whole thing. LOTS of links to corroborate the excellent and truthful points that author Cindy Simpson makes within the article!  Here's the most intense portion:

Want to see Obama's college transcripts? That's a hint at affirmative action -- racist. Wonder whether he attended as a foreign student? That's birther. Want to know more about Obama's religious beliefs and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright? Racist. Note that experts assert that the posted birth certificate is a probable digital forgery, or wonder if the White House was playing games in presenting such a strange document? Birther. Ask whether Obama wrote his autobiography? That's racist and birther. Vote for the blank box instead of Obama in the Democratic primary? Racist. Note that Obama and his attorneys ignored a court-issued subpoena, an Obama attorney asserted in a courtroom that even Mickey Mouse didn't need to show a birth certificate to run for president, and that the media didn't cover any of it? How birther.

In the same segment that Rivera blasted "birthers" for being "racist," he interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton, who has openly acknowledged the birth certificate anomalies. In between snorts and laughter during Monckton's explanation, Rivera insinuated that Monckton and his forensic experts were "smoking crack." And another of Rivera's guests, NYU professor Charlton McIlwain, implied that any questions of Obama's history and credentials were motivated by racism.
Journalists who pursue "facts and data," even while insisting they aren't wearing birther spectacles, are discovering that the mainstream media still depicts them as bottom-feeding "spawn," "aiding and abetting birtherism."

When the media finally did cover the agency biography story, they asserted that it had been "discredited" and then used it to bash Romney. None dared touch the fact that the agency updated the original 1991 biography several times for changes in Obama's career over the 16 years, yet did not revise the "born in Kenya" part (or downgrade the job descriptions of his parents) until 2007, two months after Obama announced his candidacy.

The biography story is radioactive: it addresses the taboo subject of Obama's birth, his life narrative, and his character and credentials, and it illustrates the mainstream's utter lack of journalistic integrity.
And if the clicks on your mental Geiger-counter are tap-tapping rapidly in agreement after reading that, you've been exposed to non-reversible birtherism radiation.

Skeptics, like business owners reviewing the job application of a prospective employee, are not satisfied with the glossy media photo and indulgent autobiography. They're also looking for the missing link in Obama's evolution from a college radical, Jeremiah Wright church member, and community organizer into a pragmatic moderate.

Obama responded to the questions with taunts -- in speeches, comedy routines, and prayer breakfasts -- and his campaign profited by selling birth-certificate-emblazoned t-shirts and mugs.

Some might argue that a little biography padding is expected, but redrawing family trees with a Cherokee branch or moving the birthplace to a more exotic location seems to work only in certain elite circles.

And the same newspaper that is still hiding the Khalidi tape has now added another new term to the lexicon -- transcripters -- to describe people who want to investigate the "tomb-like silence around [Obama's] college years."

Obama's "blank screen" evolved along with his political career, and when inconvenient facts got in the way, out came the media edits and erasers. If anyone dares notice any missed spots or erasure smudges, he or she is racist, birther, or distracted from the economy. And no one is allowed to wonder if the chalkboard mess has anything to do with the economic mess.

"Four years in office is what I call vetting," columnist Eugene Robinson asserts. Others would call the four years a disaster.

Fretting over the media's ties of Romney to Trump (with his "discredited" birther claims) but not Obama's to Sharpton, Breitbart's John Nolte wrote:

These are the games the media intends to play throughout this campaign. This is all about getting Obama reelected with distractions, guilty-by-association, and nonsense narratives that suck all the oxygen away from any conversations surrounding Obama's failed policies.

The "birther" issue has not been "discredited" -- what has been discredited is the reliability and reputation of the mainstream media. And the oxygen that Nolte worried about getting sucked away has accumulated right next to the explosive truth of the flimsy, morphing, media-supported Obama narrative.

If Watergate taught us that the cover-up is worse than the crime, the current affair would be better-described by a word coined with the "-gate" suffix than by "-er." Involving more than a birth story, it reaches across the entire narrative. And this time, instead of the mainstream media doing the investigation and reporting, they're actually assisting in the construction and the cover-up.

So which is it: Birtherism or Narrative-gate? The answer depends on which "field guide" you follow -- one written by the "Democrat-Media Complex," or one that asks questions to lead to the truth.

Hat Tip: American Thinker