Friday, May 18, 2012

Why Did the Breitbart Writer Who Broke Story on Obama Being Born in Kenya Discredit His Own Story?


Joel Pollak [pictured above] states in article that Obama’s biography in 1991 booklet “does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate”. What’s the purpose of the story then?

by Larry Simons
May 18, 2012

Yesterday, a breaking story by Breitbart.com hit the Internet that a 1991 promotional booklet put out by Obama’s then literary agency, Acton & Dystel, mentions in his biography that Obama was born in Kenya.

If true, this just may be the most damning evidence to date that Obama was not born in Hawaii and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States as the Constitution requires. And of course, as anyone knows, this fact would make him ineligible to be President and make a score of birthers correct.

Two questions immediately came to mind as being crucial after I learned of this booklet. These questions require answers immediately.

1. Who gave Acton and Dystel this information used in Obama’s biography? [What was used as the source?]

2. Why, when this booklet came out in 1991, didn't Obama or his mother [who was still alive in 1991] object to the information in the biography? Why didn’t anyone [Obama, his mother or any family member] demand the information be corrected?

As I was reading Joel Pollak’s breaking story last night, I discovered one sentence of it that made no sense whatsoever. Pollak states, “The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.” Huh? If the information in the 1991 booklet [that Obama was born in Kenya] does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, then what in the hell is the purpose of the story? Why is it breaking news?

Of course it contradicts Obama’s birth certificate! The birth certificate states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and the 1991 booklet states he was born in Kenya. The last time I checked, Hawaii and Kenya were two completely different places. One of them makes Obama eligible to be President and the other does not. How is this not a contradiction?

Why is Pollak discrediting his own story by making that statement? Also odd is that, not only does Pollak make that statement, but nowhere else in his article does he explain why it is not contradictory.

Pollak calls the story an “exclusive”. How exclusive is it if the information in the booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate? I need this explained to me.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good question. I wondered that myself. It almost seems like he was saying something weaselly in order to protect himself "legally" or something similar. I agree that it makes no sense. Perhaps he should have said that this document is not 100% proof that the BC is fraudulent, but it's certainly a smoking gun.

rob said...

he probably was harassed into this.