rssThe Washington Times Asks Bill Ayers if He Wrote Obama’s First Book
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 10:36 am
- 2 Comments
Kerry Picket of The Washington Times trekked to Baltimore to hear former Weatherman Bill Ayers speak yesterday and sparked an exchange that the paper is teasing on its op-ed page with a lot of huffing about Ayers’s terrorist past (“His radicalism and chosen profession bring to mind Oscar Wilde’s quip that, ‘Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching.’”). Curiously, the paper doesn’t mention what Picket actually asked Ayers about — the conspiracy theory that he ghost-wrote President Obama’s first book, “Dreams From My Father.”
From the video, after Picket asks Ayers a few times about what the president thinks of his new book:
WASHINGTON TIMES: I’m just curious whether or not your publisher has sent a copy to President Obama.
AYERS: Have you gotten any feedback on your writings from the president? (Laughter)
WASHINGTON TIMES: Considering you may have had a collaboration with “Dreams of (sic) My Father.”
AYERS: I never had a collaboration. No.
WASHINGTON TIMES: No?
AYERS: That’s a myth.
The idea that Ayers wrote Obama’s first memoir was popularized by conservative author Jack Cashill on the conspiracy site WorldNetDaily, one of the hubs of the discredited theory that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Cashill’s investigation is a funny read, full of “proof” like Obama’s use of a nautical metaphor and asides such “in Obama, alas, Ayers may have found a much more lethal weapon to use against the ‘marauding monster’ called America than any pipe bomb he could have ever built.” The most traction this has gotten in the mainstream conservative press was an October blog post by National Review contributer Andy McCarthy, in which he credited Cashill for raising “significant questions about whether Obama is the rara avis he’s portrayed to be.”
For The Washington Times, these are still “significant questions.”
–
TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.
Follow David Weigel on Twitter
2 Comments
Comment posted June 1, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
In order for the a theory to be “discredited” there has to be some evidence to support the discreditation. To date Obama has only produced a photo-shopped version of a Certification of Live Birth to several pro-Obama websites. The actual birth certificate has never been produced for inspection. That hardly rises to the level of candidate vetting that the voting public assumes would normally go on. Interestingly the Democratic National Party has remained completely silent on this issue, only sending in teams of attorneys to fight production of any documents that would actually answer this question.
The problem with the Certification of Live Birth shown by Obama on the websites is that it leaves off any verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, doctors that made the delivery and any witnesses. Those are all verifiable facts that could be confirmed to validate the birth and Obama's eligibility.
Due to the wormy laws in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth verification of the birth is required to confirm that it did happen in Hawaii. The only way to do that is for someone to physically look at the original birth certificate, a certified birth certificate or the vault birth certificate that Hawaii has announced they are holding. This has not been done.
Here is a website for Hawaii land programs that shows they do not accept what Obama produced as sufficient evidence to proof eligibility for the Hawaii land program. The natural born standard is the highest in the Country and like this Hawaii land program the Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient on its own to prove or disprove if Obama is eligible. That is the issue and that is why this is not a “discredited”.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20A…
Comment posted June 1, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
In order for the a theory to be “discredited” there has to be some evidence to support the discreditation. To date Obama has only produced a photo-shopped version of a Certification of Live Birth to several pro-Obama websites. The actual birth certificate has never been produced for inspection. That hardly rises to the level of candidate vetting that the voting public assumes would normally go on. Interestingly the Democratic National Party has remained completely silent on this issue, only sending in teams of attorneys to fight production of any documents that would actually answer this question.
The problem with the Certification of Live Birth shown by Obama on the websites is that it leaves off any verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, doctors that made the delivery and any witnesses. Those are all verifiable facts that could be confirmed to validate the birth and Obama's eligibility.
Due to the wormy laws in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth verification of the birth is required to confirm that it did happen in Hawaii. The only way to do that is for someone to physically look at the original birth certificate, a certified birth certificate or the vault birth certificate that Hawaii has announced they are holding. This has not been done.
Here is a website for Hawaii land programs that shows they do not accept what Obama produced as sufficient evidence to proof eligibility for the Hawaii land program. The natural born standard is the highest in the Country and like this Hawaii land program the Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient on its own to prove or disprove if Obama is eligible. That is the issue and that is why this is not a “discredited”.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20A…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
