(January 28, 2007) When Barack Hussein Obama was born he was given a Muslim name, identical to that of his father and grandfather. His mother married two (2) Muslims, Barry's father and a second Muslim who brought her and Barry to Indonesia. In Indonesia, Obama's parents identified him as a Muslim, and he studied Islam. All of these are facts on which no one disagrees and everyone agrees.
So why the media frenzy to cover-up Obama's Muslim heritage?
I broke the Obama/Muslim story 2-1/2 years ago. Obama had indeed casually mentioned his Muslim contacts, but he had carefully avoided any details. I was troubled and intrigued by the lack of specificity in his explanations. I launched an international investigation.
And, as I told a reporter for the New York Times who contacted me last week, we are still actively pursuing the "Obama's religion" story and will have more during "Obama Week," which we have planned for February 5th.
As someone who is known worldwide as a friend of Muslims, as well as Christians and Jews, and has been identified on conservative web sites as a Muslim supporter, I bore Mr. Obama no animus, and bear him none today.
Others picked up on my research. No doubt Hillary Clinton used my reporting as a starting point. My disclosures of Obama's fabricated past have been an outstanding piece of investigative journalism because all of the facts I reported 2 years ago have eventually either been confirmed or conceded.
So why the frenzied attacks on reports concerning factual information about Obama's religion?
The webzine Insight referred to Obama's Jakarta school as a "madrassa." What is known is that Obama's stepfather was a Muslim, and that he removed the child from a Catholic school and placed him in an institution where Islam was part of the curriculum. Insight's use of the word "madrassa" was probably overstated; I had never used that term in my writing (except in quotation marks) and I have been careful not to. Nevertheless, although I had no direct contact with Insight, the facts of their story were substantially true.
How can the Chicago Tribune then call the issue of Obama's Muslim background the "Anatomy of a False Story?" Jake Tapper of ABC referred to the Obama's story as a "fuss" over an "ordinary" school. Ordinary, perhaps, by Muslim/Indonesian school standards but not ordinary at all by ordinary main street education in the United States. Liberal lapdog Jonathan Alter at Newsweek called the "madrassa" story a "hoax." Monday, January 29th, the Times reporter who contacted me has a story calling Insight's Obama reporting "false." What's false?
The only "hoax" in all of this has been the way the "mainstream media" have been trying to tamp down any coverage of Obama's religion. They will not succeed.
The lowest blow was struck Sunday by the Washington Post of Watergate fame. Somewhere, Richard Nixon must be smiling.
The Post called reports on Obama's religion "juvenile," "scurrilous" and "contemptible." The Obama reporting was none of those. Maybe the real motivation for the Post's hysteria was that the paper was badly beaten on this story, as was the rest of the mucky muck media establishment.
I don’t find it at all suspicious that someone in Hillary Clinton's camp could have leaked the Obama story. Thanks, Hillary. Indeed, it was probably the imprimatur of legitimacy conferred by Clinton's negative research that finally ignited the hothouse reporting.
The Post was incorrect in stating, "Mr. Obama has never tried to hide his past or his family name." That’s a real hoax and a real media lie by the Post itself. Obama has done everything he can to craft a fictional reality for himself on national television. Never in recent American politics has there been such a spurious, self-invented "Music Man" candidate who literally conjured up most of his family history.
And Obama continues to dish lies at every opportunity (of which we will have more to say in later columns). Suffice it to say as early as 2004 I disclosed based on our original research in Kenya that Obama's presentation of his family history was somewhere between grossly disingenuous and a complete fiction. Obama came from Kenya's black colonial aristocracy and any livestock held by his family was a sign of wealth, not poverty. How's that for Barry flipping the truth, and the media sucking it up? Baaaaa.
Over and over again Obama has distorted and invented his family history. It is disgraceful. It prompted us to begin a CIA-style psychological profile of this deeply disturbed public figure that will be released during Obama Week.
In the meantime, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and lefties such as Mr. Alter love it and lap it up as Obama hides his past in plain sight. Once again the media are being lapdogs. The Post suggested Barry's "multicultural" background was a plus. On the contrary, Obama's complete and continuing confusion about his "culture" is what makes some people view him as a "Manchurian Candidate."
The Washington Post created the modern era of investigative journalism (although I was a skilled investigator long before Watergate). Now the Post says, imperiously, "If we say it's investigation its investigation, and if we say it's scurrilous its not investigation." But facts are facts.
And they wonder why people don't trust the mainstream media. The only contemptible aspect of this entire Obama controversy—-which is not going away--is the outrageous behavior of newspapers.
Way back in 1978 I broke a story on my then-Opponent Alex Seith, who was preening over his morality but was scheduled to be a character witness for a Chicago Crime Syndicate hoodlum. I still remember the surprise on the reporter's face. He said "How did you discover that; it's our job." I had used plain, old investigative journalism. (Full disclosure: I also hold a law degree from the University of Illinois and one thing good lawyers are taught to do is investigate, investigate, investigate. My primary training in investigation has come out of law and government, not working for a newspaper.)
For shame, Washington Post. You tarnish your own legacy of Watergate fame when you seek to "take down" people who are forcing Barry or Barack Obama to slowly and grudgingly tell the truth about his past.
Bottom line: Barry Obama is still living in a dream world and still lying about his family history and his religious history. And no one, not anyone, is likely to stop the people of this country from being given access to basic facts before they are called to vote on the suitability of this master con artist for national office.
If you wonder why the print media and particularly newspapers cry they have no future, look at the way they have tried to cover-up Obama's life and the way they have sought to excoriate anyone telling the truth. Who wants to pay to read a pack of lies?
President Nixon, at least they don’t have you to kick around any more.
